| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Bush Says He Will Veto Any Bill to Stop UAE Port Deal |
| 2006-02-21 |
| WASHINGTON — In a rare threat to use his veto power, President Bush said Tuesday he will veto any legislation that attempts to stop the purchase by a United Arab Emirates-owned firm of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs six major U.S. ports. Breaking a gaping silence from the administration in the debate about the purchase by Dubai Ports World of London-based P&O, Bush said the deal should go forward and won't jeopardize U.S. security. "I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush told reproters after an unusual decision to call media aboard Air Force One to the airplane's conference room. "I want to show that we treat everyone fairly," he said, adding that denying DP World the sale would send a mixed message. Bush also said he's not sure about the need for congressional briefings on a company whose record is well-established and who he called an "ally in the War on Terror." "There's a mandated process we go through. ... They ought to listen to what I have to say to this. I'll deal with it with a veto," the president said. 'Not a Question About Port Security' Officials from some of the Cabinet departments that participate in the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which approved the sale last Monday, are appearing in a briefing Tuesday afternoon to defend the process by which CFIUS reviewed and approved the deal. Officials from the Treasury and Homeland Security departments, as well as Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection — which are agencies of DHS — will participate. "This is not a question about port security. This is not a question about port ownership. This is a question about port operation,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said during a press conference on the indictment of three Ohio men accused of assisting terrorism on U.S. interests in Iraq. Justice officials also participate in CFIUS. “Obviously, as part of this process, we are very concerned about maintaining port security," Gonzales added. A large cast of congressional characters, both Republican and Democrat, has lined up to give their two cents on the potential purchase by DP World of P&O. Complaints run from the ability of foreign governments to control commercial operations at large U.S. entry sites to the secrecy with which the Bush administration conducted the 30-day review of the sale. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said Tuesday he will introduce legislation to delay approval of the pending deal. Frist's decision is a major break with the White House as he is the highest ranking Republican in Congress to oppose the deal and personally vow legislation to delay approval unless the president intervenes. "News that a Middle-East based firm is seeking to purchase the operating rights to several U.S. ports raise serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland. This decision should be put on hold while the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter. Congress must also be involved in this process. I am requesting briefings on this deal," Frist, a 2008 presidential hopeful, said in a statement while touring border security areas. "I'm not against foreign ownership," Frist told reporters in Long Beach, Calif., "But my main concern is national security." Frist's announcement came after word arose Monday evening that House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly-minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be "flexing muscle" against the Bush administration-approved transaction. On Tuesday, Boehner released a statement that national security requires congressional oversight of the approval process. "We will take immediate steps to work with the congressional committees of jurisdiction to ensure there is thorough oversight and procedural review of the pending transaction," he said. Democrats, too, have jumped on the national security bandwagon with this issue. "America's ports are often the gateway into and out of our country. The unilateral decision of the Bush administration to allow the sale of port operations to a foreign government raises serious national security concerns," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. But former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said most Americans would be surprised to learn that foreign operators have always run U.S. ports. "The fact of the matter is, you're going to find in many, many ports … are owned and operated by foreign companies or foreign contractors. It's a matter of the global maritime industry. It happens around the world. The bottom line at the end of the day is who's ultimately responsible for security. A lot of people have confidence in the Coast Guard and they should," he told FOX News. Ridge added that DP World would not provide security at any U.S. port. That job is conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection, both DHS agencies. The employees working at the ports will remain American longshoremen. "I admit that to the average citizen, the optics don’t appear very good, but frankly there's a huge difference between what they perceive and what really is," Ridge said, adding that the "transaction has been vetted" at the highest levels and was not a decision taken lightly. "The conclusion that you draw from some of these public statements is that no one in this administration cares enough about security or port security, they like to be very cavalier about this transaction. That couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. We all know better than that," said Ridge, who is also a former Pennsylvania governor. Under federal law, President Bush has until March 2 to overrule approval granted by CFIUS for DP World to purchase P&O, which has been running commercial operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami for years. The multi-agency task force headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Justice, Commerce, DHS and Homeland Security reviewed the transaction and said it posed no national security threat. At the Pentagon on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, praised the UAE for its cooperation in the War on Terror. "We all deal with the UAE on a regular basis," Rumsfeld said. "It's a country that's been involved in the global War on Terror...a country (with which) we have very close military relations." Pace said that the U.S.-UAE's "military cooperation is superb." On Tuesday, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., told FOX News that foreign ownership of U.S. port operations is not the reason for concern with the deal. "This is a financial transaction whereby DP World ... will have 50 percent of the financial interest of a small operation in the port of Miami," she said. "This gets people rolling because of the secrecy involved in this committee, CFIUS. There's not enough transparency. We don't know what questions have been asked." Ros-Lehtinen said Dubai is an ally, but because of its relationship to hijackers involved with the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, "we need a little sunshine on this." New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has also urged delay in approval of the deal. But King said he saw many reasons to cancel it altogether. "I'm strongly urging the president to intervene to stop this, to freeze it, to put it on hold," King said. "This contract should not be allowed to go forward until there is a full and complete investigation. And there has not been a full investigation of this company nor of its roots in the United Arab Emirates." King also charged that DP World won approval without thorough administration vetting. "There have been allegations of weapons parts going through that port to Iran," King said of that country's own territory. "There's been allegations of corruption about that port. None of these have ever been investigated by our government." King's comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republican Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned about the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security. On Tuesday, House Homeland Security Ranking Democrat Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote King to request hearings on how the CFIUS approves such deals. In particular, he said he wanted an examination of CFIUS' review of foreign ownership issues related to transportation security as well as critical infrastructure such as telecommunications, Internet, and technology companies. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a longtime advocate of cargo screening, said the Bush administration's decision to accept the deal is evidence of its disregard for port security. Markey argued that DP World would be responsible for performing "significant security functions," including placing security officers at the facility, providing for security training for facility personnel and determining access to the facility. "Almost none of the cargo that enters our ports is ever inspected. While the federal government is ultimately responsible for security at ports, much of the day-to-day security responsibilities, such as hiring security guards and ensuring adequate access controls and fencing are in place, are delegated to the companies that operate at the port," Markey said. "Cargo containers represent a cheap, deadly method for delivering (a) bomb on U.S. soil. We cannot afford to be lax in our oversight of the shipping and handling of these containers. This administration's scrutiny of this UAE deal is just like their treatment of tons of cargos at our door: insufficient, incomplete and incomprehensible, given the security threats we face," he added. On the state level, Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland have also voiced doubts about the sale. Standing at the Port of Baltimore, Ehrlich, a former Republican representative in the U.S. House, said he has exchanged calls with Hastert about the due diligence that is necessary to oversee these decisions. "My job as governor of the state is to make sure" people are safe, Ehrlich said, saying that he had discussed looking into the timing of the review and decisions by the government agencies. The state of Maryland is considering its options, up to and including voiding the contract for the Port of Baltimore, Ehrlich said. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," said Pataki, who is still in the hospital recovering from an appendectomy. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has defended the process that allowed approval of the $6.8 billion deal. McClellan said the process of review was followed, but he did not defend the decision to approve the transaction or rule out the president's future involvement. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #39 No matter what is going on behind the scenes, this is political stupidity. Old man Bush would never get in this position. This forces both parties to combine and pass legislation that will be veto proof. This will break Bush's back from here on out. Of course, Shooter -in- Chief didn't contribute any positive PR either. |
| Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-02-21 23:53 |
| #38 this gives some Donks the chance to preen their security feathers. Others just (understandably) don't like the smell. I think it should go fwd, let the UAE prove there are sane muzzies (there are). Whoever is in charge, the containers need to be better inspected, make them show how they would do it and call for better if needed. I don't see stevedores or ICE inspectors swayed by the foreign corp name on the bottom line of their paycheck...do you? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-21 23:18 |
| #37 Can we assume that some Muslims are with us and enjoy their 21st century lifestyle ? Then, is it also possible that the UAE have a large portion of such 'moderate' Muslims ? Then, would it be wise to allow them to join us in normal endeavors while we prepare to quench the hatred that drives their lunatic neighbors ? Remember, the small Persian Gulf countries like UAE survive in the shadow of the lunatics. If Bush has a deal with them, he can't possibility tell us all about it. Security is not involved here. Maybe a certain covert organization which despirately needs agents in the ME can trade favors with a small country with connections all over the ME...and so forth. This deal doesn't scare me as much as stevadors being democrats does. In this situation, most Americans are acting like cartoon protesters. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-02-21 22:51 |
| #36 I gotta go wit5h Dar - the UAE is the good guys, for as far as that goes, and pissing them off isn't a real great idea. It is EBB and FLOW, folks. And if CAIR can field a crew of Muslim stevadores that can pass the security checks, more power to 'em. Then all they need to do is worry about the bent-nose boys, who ain't gonna be happy to see them. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-02-21 22:12 |
| #35 I suspect something a LOT bigger is going on here. That is, check out who P&O does lots of business with: http://tinyurl.com/q9rw2 You'll note that they are very tight with the Chinese, among others. I suspect that Bush & Co. are as distrustful of P&O as they are of Hutchinson-Whampoa, the shipping company, wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese military. Remember also that Bush is an oilman, and knows the oil lords of Dubai like kinfolk. This is not conflict of interest so much as who do you trust. And while we might have a spat with the Arabs right now, the "big game" has been, and remains the Chinese. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-02-21 21:51 |
| #34 Comments #31 & 32 sum it up pretty well for me. We are at war. This is no time to reduce our control over seaport traffic. I'm surprised that Bush did not have the wisdom to defer this until after the midterm election. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-21 21:16 |
| #33 We're not going to win this war by alienating every Muslim on the planet. We need them as our allies--in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Kuwait, and in the UAE, among other places. This don't-trust-any-Muslim attitude is really short-sighted. To me, it would have been the same thing as treating the Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, etc. as the Japanese in WWII--treating them all like "Orientals" because we are too short-sighted to see the differences. It's the same thing with Muslims. If we treat them all as the enemy, eventually they WILL be. |
| Posted by: Dar 2006-02-21 21:14 |
| #32 We'd let the Japanese operate the ports; but not during WWII, We'd let the British operate the ports, but not during The Revolution, We'd even let the Mexicans drive through the country, but not after the Alamo; Get The Point...thankyou!!! |
| Posted by: smn 2006-02-21 20:59 |
| #31 Bullsh-t, some of you guys are out of your f-ing minds. I can't believe your willing to sell our port to an arab freaking company?!?!? If this was a democrat saying this you'd be up in arms and if you say no you're completely full of sh-t. It's sad to see that some of you are such ideologues about an important issue. Here's a hint for you... Jimmy Carter supports Bush on this issue... Bush is dead wrong and to further use veto power to make this happen against the vote of congress is absolutely insane... wtf!?! |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2006-02-21 20:41 |
| #30 And just how is having the contract to operate that port held by a UAE company going to make it any easier for the Iranians to ship the nuke out of Iran to a thrid party port where it can be loaded onto a containership coming to the US? Right, not at all. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 19:36 |
| #29 Heard an interview with the guys from Stategy Page - the fears of an Iranian nuke being turned over to terrorists are overblown. Iran will only have the capability of developing WWII style nukes - bulky and very heavy. Not suitcase nukes. The only way that terrorists could possibly deliver such a weapon is in a shipping container coming into one of our ports. Oops ... |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-02-21 19:14 |
| #28 from JihadWatch: Has Bush gone mad? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-02-21 19:06 |
| #27 Looks like we got us another troll. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-21 18:34 |
| #26 Sounds like it needs to go to Halliburton instead, if they don't want the UAE company to get the contract. Damn, Rove and Cheney are GOOD. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-21 18:28 |
| #25 I saw really good debate on the subject on tv yesterday. It went something like this" "bushisbadbushisgoodbushisbadbushisgood". It made me feel ever so much better about my future.
| |
| Posted by: kelly 2006-02-21 18:25 |
| #24 "I'm not against foreign ownership," said Frist, "but my main concern is national security." He was speaking to reporters in Long Beach, Calif., where Frist was doing a fact-finding tour on port security and immigration issues. Frist, R-Tenn., spoke as other lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said they would offer emergency legislation next week to block the deal ahead of a planned March 2 takeover. Frist's move comes a day after two Republican governors, New York's George Pataki and Maryland's Robert Ehrlich, voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia. Both governors indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the DP World takeover. "Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World," Pataki said in a statement. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them." Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he was "very troubled" that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved the Arab company's takeover of the operations at the six ports. "We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-02-21 18:19 |
| #23 Military.com: Frist Calls for Halt to U.S. Ports Deal |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-02-21 18:17 |
| #22 How fast can they do it now? Knowing the longshoremen's union, it might take a while .... ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-21 18:03 |
| #21 If they did, what difference would it make who operated the port? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 18:03 |
| #20 How fast do you suppose CAIR could field a team of longshoremen? Just aksin', is all. |
| Posted by: BH 2006-02-21 18:02 |
| #19 smn, what matter of national security are you talking about? Think about it. They aren't sending any Dubians over to unload our ships. They're too good for that. They'll pay the same stevedores to do it the same way they've been doing it for the Brits for the last umpteen years. They aren't going to have anything to do with port security. They're just going to make profits. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 17:52 |
| #18 No, .com. You're much funnier. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 17:50 |
| #17 This is just another step toward what I call "Inward Outsourcing", that's creeping into America,largely through Bush administration policy. Starting with the Mexicans, will allow foreigners to come into America and assume our jobs, on the same soil, at a much lower wage!This threat to America should override the President's veto in the Senate unless it becomes clear through the courts (corporate counter suits) that no acceptable american can be found to fill in those positions! 'Prevailing Logic' should dictate that matters of national security should not be handled by non americans! |
| Posted by: smn 2006-02-21 17:49 |
| #16 Lol, I'm sorry NS - I'm a minute or three behind you all over RB playing echo! I'll STFU, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-21 17:45 |
| #15 You're certainly right about the image crap, d66. This is yet another example of letting the other guys frame the debate - and he'll need either some sort of slam-dunk or explain it a number of times to reverse the damage. Wasted time and effort when there are real things that need to be front-burner, such as Iran. Sigh. Sometimes I think Rove has been MIA ever since the Fitzdickhead BS. The hypocrisy of the Dhimmidonks and the RINOs, when one takes a few steps back, is amazing. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-21 17:43 |
| #14 Anything and everything Bush does will be turned into a PR disaster by the MSM. That is why it is so irksome when idiots like Frist help Hillary. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 17:40 |
| #13 ok .com you know Middle East better than me, but still this makes Bush look bad, all the things he wants to fight over this should not be it. They are going to say "Look giving his rich Middle East friends contracts, he dosen't care about your security" and the democrats will use it for all it is worth. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-02-21 17:39 |
| #12 No matter how well intentioned in reality, this is a PR blunder. Pure politics, and the disingenuous Billary and Shoemer get a free shot in taking a chink out of the Bush national security armor. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-02-21 17:38 |
| #11 I agree with NS and .com. And frankly it's in our interests to see a middle eastern country develop competitive industries other than oil. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-21 17:38 |
| #10 I have not bought a Chrysler prodcut since the Germans took over and I used to buy them. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-02-21 17:37 |
| #9 Sometimes it's hard to tell with hem, and Snowe and Chaffee, and Collins, and Specter, and Graham, and a lot of them rinos. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 17:35 |
| #8 Agreed. The UAE has been a good ally in the WoT so far, and this change of ownership doesn't mean any turnover at the docks, anymore than then the merger of Daimler-Chrysler meant all Dodge salesmen would now be German. |
| Posted by: Dar 2006-02-21 17:34 |
| #7 since when is frist a donk? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-21 17:31 |
| #6 This is racial profiling by the donks, pure and simple. PWA, Porting while Arab. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 17:29 |
| #5 Lol. You don't think UAE people are actually going to come to the ports and WORK, do you? Think. The port will continue as before with the same US longshoremen and Brits as before. ANYONE the UAE company might want to send over - surely to do no more than pretend to supervise, can't come without a visa. Think. This is about money and they bought a successful company to make money. There won't be some sudden change in personnel at the port. The change is that the profits will go to a UAE company. There are times to get excited, certainly, but this isn't one of them. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-21 17:26 |
| #4 No body is giving port security to an ME country. The port security will continue to be our responsibility just as it would be if the ports were operated by an American company, like LORAL or a British company, such as Peninsular and Oriental. Do you really think a buch of Dubians will be moving over here to operate our ports? It will be the same Americans who are doing it for the British now. Do you really think they will compromise our security differently depending on whom their boss is? The company has every right to purchase the contracts. Let them. To refuse is to make a friend in the ME into an enemy. Do we really need more? And how much will we be welcomed in the ME when we say they re not good enough to work our ports? If we're going to pick a fight with folks let's do so over something worth fighting. But this isn't it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 17:25 |
| #3 Oh yea what reprecussions pray tell, I am sorry I am not pc enough to give port security to a ME country reprecussions or not. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-02-21 17:18 |
| #2 Perhaps what's wrong is that you haven't thought about all the repercussions as much as he has. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 17:16 |
| #1 Ok he would not use veto for the horrid Mccain bill, would not use the veto for the pork laden highway bill, but will use veto to help a ME country get port security, something is wrong with this picture. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-02-21 17:13 |