Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 02/21/2006 View Mon 02/20/2006 View Sun 02/19/2006 View Sat 02/18/2006 View Fri 02/17/2006 View Thu 02/16/2006 View Wed 02/15/2006
1
2006-02-21 Home Front: Politix
Bush Says He Will Veto Any Bill to Stop UAE Port Deal
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Sherry 2006-02-21 16:24|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:13|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:16|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:18|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:25|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:26|| Front Page Top

#6 This is racial profiling by the donks, pure and simple. PWA, Porting while Arab.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 17:29||   2006-02-21 17:29|| Front Page Top

#7 since when is frist a donk?
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-21 17:31||   2006-02-21 17:31|| Front Page Top

#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">Dar  2006-02-21 17:34||   2006-02-21 17:34|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:35|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:37|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:38|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:38|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:39|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:40|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:43|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:45|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:49|| Front Page Top

#18 No, .com. You're much funnier.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 17:50||   2006-02-21 17:50|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 17:52|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 18:02|| Front Page Top

#21 If they did, what difference would it make who operated the port?
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 18:03||   2006-02-21 18:03|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 18:03|| Front Page Top

#23 
Military.com: Frist Calls for Halt to U.S. Ports Deal
Posted by 3dc 2006-02-21 18:17||   2006-02-21 18:17|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 18:19|| Front Page Top

#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.
Please don't use long strings without spaces - they break the formatting of the page.
Thanks.

Posted by kelly 2006-02-21 18:25||   2006-02-21 18:25|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 18:28|| Front Page Top

#27 Looks like we got us another troll.
Posted by 6 2006-02-21 18:34||   2006-02-21 18:34|| Front Page Top

#28 from JihadWatch: Has Bush gone mad?
Posted by 3dc 2006-02-21 19:06||   2006-02-21 19:06|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 19:14|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 19:36|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 20:41|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 20:59|| Front Page Top

#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">Dar  2006-02-21 21:14||   2006-02-21 21:14|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 21:16|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 21:51|| Front Page Top

#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">mojo  2006-02-21 22:12||   2006-02-21 22:12|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 22:51|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G  2006-02-21 23:18||   2006-02-21 23:18|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-21 23:53|| Front Page Top

22:57 Phating Churong2430
16:08 Besoeker
16:01 Besoeker
15:59 Besoeker
10:35 bk
10:34 bk
10:31 bk
10:28 bk
13:55 ARMYGUY
11:07 Besoeker
09:05 Besoeker
09:08 wxjames
09:16 Bomb-a-rama
09:12 wxjames
23:53 SOP35/Rat
23:39 trailing wife
23:35 xbalanke
23:30 Frank G
23:30 trailing wife
23:25 mmurray821
23:25 Glaise Throting8568
23:24 mmurray821
23:19 Duh!
23:18 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com