FYI, yours truly will be on the radio next Tuesday (2-28) at 8:10 AM Eastern time with the cooler than cool Allman and Smash.
Hope ya’ll will tune in to listen!
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (Reuters) – President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage major U.S. ports should go forward and will not jeopardize U.S. security.
Bush told reporters traveling back to Washington with him from Colorado that he would veto legislation to stop the deal from going through.
“After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush said. He added that if the U.S. Congress passed a law to stop the deal, “I’ll deal with it with a veto.”
Bush called reports at about 2.30 aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal… MORE… He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending ‘mixed signals’ by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge… Lawmakers, he said, must ‘step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.’ Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement… ‘I don’t view it as a political fight,’ Bush said.
Looks like there might be a showdown on Capitol Hill.
Tuesday PM Update: John McIntyre at the Real Clear Politics bloghas up a must read post on this that touches on the issue of profiling:
The Financial Times has a well balanced and thoughtful editorial on the uproar over the deal on the U.S. ports and the UAE. I don’t agree with their conclusions, but if you want a more balanced understanding of this proposed transaction it is worth the two minutes to read it. This issue is more complicated than the cheap political demagoguery we have seen, especially from Democrats now preening about how tough they are on national security – and particularly from those who resist any profiling of young Arab men, but now somehow “know” this UAE company is a security threat. Isn’t this a degree of profiling?
I ask those politicians who want to “profile” this company why can’t we profile young Arab males. What’s the difference? It seems pretty common sense that if Arab companies should probably not be allowed to be contracted to run the operations at U.S. ports given the current environment, then young men from those same Arab countries should probably receive a higher level of scrutiny as well.
Hat tip to AJ Strata.
Other bloggers who are urging calm and/or are taking a second look at this deal: The Glittering Eye, Blogs For Bush, Homeland Security Watch, Junkyard Blog, Will Collier at Vodkapundit, Squiggler, California Conservative, Expose the Left, Lorie Byrd at Polipundit
(Originally posted 10:19 PM ET 2/20/06 – Bumped up for more comment and additional articles of reference – scroll down for updates)
There’s lots of rumbling going on in conservative AND liberal circles over the Bush-admin approved deal that would turn over control of port operations in six US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Story via FoxNews:
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be “flexing muscle” against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.
“We are very concerned about it and that it could threaten our national security,” one senior House Republican leadership aide told FOX News late Monday. Another senior aide said: “Most indications point to leadership flexing muscle against this transaction.”
On Monday, New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he was urging President Bush to delay approval of the deal. King also 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 said UAE-owned Dubai Ports 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 at 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.
Late Monday, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called on the president to intervene immediately.
“We have 10 days to stop this transaction, a transaction that we think is not in the national security of the united states, and that needs to be stopped by the president,” Menendez said.
Under federal law, the president has until March 2 to overrule approval granted by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for DP World to purchase the London-basedPeninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, which has been running the commercial operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.
The multi-agency task force headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security reviewed the transaction and said it posed no national security threat.
Here’s the NYT’s write-up on the UAE port deal.
I share many of the same concerns as others who are blogging about this. File this under “what in the he** was the administration thinking?” I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that this is a “good deal” that we shouldn’t have to worry about.
What do you think?
Tue PM Update: On the other side of the coin, there are some who are essentially saying ‘calm down’:
The claim that six U.S. port facilities are being “sold” to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates may be grist to the election-year mill for politicians from both parties, but the resulting furor may obscure the challenges of port security. The transaction in question is the $6.8 billion acquisition by Dubai Ports World of the British P&O shipping company, to become the world’s third largest port-operator. Among P&O’s numerous worldwide operations are contracts to operate port facilities in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The transaction was approved by the Bush administration after a routine evaluation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an inter-agency body that assesses the security implications of foreign acquisitions of major U.S. infrastructure assets. U.S. officials say that both P&O and Dubai Ports World have solid security records.
Still, the deal has been opposed by a Miami based port operator, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., which has gone to court to challenge the measure on security grounds. And politicians from both parties have amplified that complaint, despite the assurances by the Bush administration that the company’s record checks out, and that the UAE is an ally in good standing in the war on terror.
New York Republican Congressman Peter King has insisted the administration revisit its approval of the transfer of control of U.S. ports to “a company coming out of a country where al Qaeda has such a strong presence,” and which could be easily infiltrated by the terrorist network. Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey plan to hold hearings on the issue next week, and are seeking legislation banning companies controlled by foreign governments from buying U.S. port facilities. Menendez alleged that the UAE has a “serious and dubious historyâ€¦ as a transit point for terrorism.” And in response to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff’s insistence that the administration made a rigorous check — without disclosing details — of the security implications of the deal, California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said “It’s ridiculous to say you’re taking secret steps to make sure that it’s okay for a nation that has ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations.”
But to call the United Arab Emirates a country “tied to 9/11” by virtue of the fact that one of the hijackers was born there and others transited through it is akin to attaching the same label to Britain (where shoe-bomber Richard Reid was born) or Germany (where a number of the 9/11 conspirators were based for a time). Dubai’s port has a reputation for being one of the best run in the Middle East, says Stephen Flynn, a maritime security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. And Dubai Ports World, which is a relatively new venture launched by the government of Dubai in 1999, has a number of Americans well known in the shipping industry in its senior leadership. It operates port facilities from Australia through China, Korea and Malaysia to India, Germany and Venezuela. (The acquisition of P&O would give them control over container shipping ports in Vancouver, Buenos Aires and a number of locations in Britain, France and a number of Asian countries.) “It’s not exactly a shadow organization for al-Qaeda,” says Flynn. Dubai, in fact, was one of the first Middle Eastern countries to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, which places U.S. customs agents in overseas ports to begin the screening process from a U.S.-bound cargo’s point of departure.
Dubai Ports World has been taken by surprise over the furor, and is reportedly sending its Chief Operating Officer, the widely respected American shipping executive Edward “Ted” H. Bilkey to Washington for talks. Indeed, the Bush administration needn’t wait for Bilkey to arrive; it could get a good assessment of the workings of Dubai Ports World from its own current nominee for the post of U.S. Maritime Administrator — Dave Sanborn, previously a top executive at Dubai Ports World.
In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by State authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen’s Association regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not “own” the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O’s contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.
Joe Gandelman has a link roundup of blogger reax.
In their “Fox Fan Speakout” section, FoxNews has posted the following question:
If you could go back to any point in U.S. history and be president, what would you change?
Here are some of the responses:
“When the Civil War was about to break out, I would have saved the Union by negotiation. States’ rights were specifically granted by the Constitution and could not be taken away by the Federal goverenment. The level heads on both sides required a strong presidential leadership to overcome the influence of hotheads in their camps. The leadership failed and lead to a devastating conflict, which could have been prevented.” — Al (Houston, TX)
“I would have made sure that the Social Security Act of 1935 was only a temporary solution to assist the poor and elderly through the Great Depression.” — Ron (Birmingham, AL)
“I’d stay away from the Ford Theater!” — Norm (Brandon, FL)
“I think I would like to go back and change history by stopping the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Let’s hope that these weapons are never used again anywhere in the world.” — Dan (Laramie, WY)
“I would have been kinder and gentler to the Native Americans. This is one of the saddest pieces of American history. Also, I would have never taken us off of the gold standard. Now, we just print more money when we need it. Dangerous course. And, in general, I would have made it much more difficult to put our boys and girls in harm’s way. We, as a nation, send them off to war at the blink of an eye with very little regard for the consequences.” — Jim (New Canton, VA)
“I would want to be Jimmy Carter. I would have redoubled the military’s efforts and gotten the hostages out the way Teddy Roosevelt or JFK would have done it. That was an embarrassment and gave encouragement to the Middle Eastern countries to thumb their noses at us. They know all they have to do now is wait.” — Bill
I’d love to read your answers! So, who would you pick, and what decisions would you have made differently – if you could have?
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.
The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.
The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.
But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito’s nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.
Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O’Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
Let the fireworks begin.