USA Today

Statue of Liberty gets her view back

 0
CNN

Hillary Clinton ‘elbowed’ aside by Joe Biden?

 0
AP

Iranian cleric: British Embassy staff to be tried

0
Jen Rubin

Gibbs-erish

0
Fox News

Source: Powerful Sedative Propofol Found at Michael Jackson’s Mansion

 0
All Headlines »
 

Bush veto threat on bill that would stop port sale to UAE company

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on February 21, 2006 at 4:03 pm

Via Reuters:

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.”

Drudge:

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

In: Breaking News Stories, Middle East, President Bush, Scandals, UAE, UAE Port Deal | Email This Post | Print This

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with Now I know it's a bad idea...
  • Amy Proctor trackbacked with Nabbing Terrorists and Opening the Ports
  • The Bodie Specter trackbacked with Port Deals For Dummies
  • All Things Beautiful trackbacked with The Sum Of All Fears
  • Iowa Voice trackbacked with Further Thoughts On The Port Deal
  • Amber trackbacked with Some Background to the Port Controversy?

    • 54 Responses to “Bush veto threat on bill that would stop port sale to UAE company”

    Comments

    1. solitaire says:
      February 22, 2006 at 1:37 pm

      Last I looked, Frist is not a Democrat.
      What is all this “Democrat” stuff? Everyone I talk to, and most are Republican, don’t like this deal. I don’t think it’s going to go down the way Bush wants it to, and if the Democrats are credited with “the resistance”, that will only be the Republican PR mistake.

    2. Big Bang Hunter says:
      February 22, 2006 at 2:00 pm

      - Yes well lets see how it all comes out, once the political posturing, and partisan blather from both sides of the asile, along the leftwing press “get Bush” efforts, get swept away by the usual “facts” that always seem to leave the opposition standing with egg on its face. We’er already starting to hear that special non-partisan security committees had fully reviewed this transaction for several months before it was passed on. Now some of those same people are suddenly “against” it for purely political reasons. Where were all these voices then. Like I said, I think this will turn out differently than a lot of people think. We shall see. In the mean time I don’t hear any on the left explaining how and why they suddenly decided racial profiling has become not only acceptable, but “crucial”. The silence is deafening. *snort*

      - Bang **==

    3. solitaire says:
      February 22, 2006 at 2:08 pm

      If it is a UAE State run company, and the UAE Royal Family runs the state, and the UAE royal family has close ties to Bin Laden, why is it “racial profiling”? Interesting way to put it.
      But whatever.

    4. Big Bang Hunter says:
      February 22, 2006 at 2:21 pm

      - I, and others, have explained to “true” position of the Emirates in the WOT, both in terms of security, hands down the best in the world, and their help to America in tracking down and nailing many of the terrorists. I’m sorry if you missed the memo. Since they have/are helping us in the WOT, have agreed to, and met, all the same security requiremens we hold EVERY other country too when they want to do business with us, refusing them that opportunity simply because they’re a muslim/arab country is simple bald-faced racial profiling, which if I recall not too long ago, when the Right called for that at our own airports and ports of entry we were roundly chastised and accused of racisim. Which is it? I think Liberals want it both ways, more left hipocracy….

    5. Baklava says:
      February 22, 2006 at 2:48 pm

      After hearing a longshoreman union worker on the Rush show today and seeing Union politics in CA, I doubt the deal will make it.

      Neither UAE folks nor Bush folks I think understand the politics of these folks.

      I’m hoping that Bush is asking Dubai Ports World to pull out of this purchase deal as a favor and I’m hping DPW is willing to do so.

    6. Big Bang Hunter says:
      February 22, 2006 at 2:58 pm

      - Bak, unless something new turns up that takes this out of the political arena, it will probably be axed. Which is the right thing to do, simply because of the genral situation. But I don’t want to hear any more yammering from the left about profiling being racsist when we’re simply trying to protect Americans when they travel. Thats idiotic and partisan motivated. Only a complete chuckle head would be against defensive measures against our enemies, and suddenly it looks like the left has discovered that dirty little “truth”. Of course we’re coming up on election time, so in their feckless way, the left is suddenly “tough” on terrorism, thinking the electorate is going to immediately forget all the ways the Liberals have tried to stifle the Presidents WOT efforts. Yeh. That could happen.

      - Bang **==

    7. Baklava says:
      February 22, 2006 at 3:04 pm

      Bang said, “I don’t want to hear any more yammering from the left about profiling being racsist

      Oh. You’ll hear about it…. One thing the left is apt to do is call names and not engage in a civil debate.

    8. PCD says:
      February 22, 2006 at 3:07 pm

      Bang,

      The left may be posing as tough on terrorism, but they are soft on the troops rights to free speech. The Democrats do not want the truth broadcast and are trying to make an example in Minnesota by demanding that ads featuring soldiers and families of the fallen in Iraq not be shown. The Democrats claim they are lies. How low will Democrats go?

    9. tommy in nyc says:
      February 22, 2006 at 3:26 pm

      :-w While it’s always a good idea to have positive business relations with members of the Arab street to have them in charge of port security is a pretty dumb idea. This is Bi-partisan folks. I don’t got a problem with the wiretap B.S. so let’s cancel this deal:)>- and let’s just all move along…….I’m not a freaking moonbat.

    10. Big Bang Hunter says:
      February 22, 2006 at 3:29 pm

      - Well PCD, everytime you think you’ve seen them hit bottom they raise the bar of partisanship/intolorance another notch. Apparently theres no limit too the anti-Americanism with the “ends justifies the means” bunch.

      - As to the port issue, as I’ve mentioned before, if this whole kerfluffle gets the Administration off its butt, and really doing something about port security, then it will have had a positive effect overall.

      - Bang **==

    11. PCD says:
      February 22, 2006 at 3:38 pm

      Bang,

      Not just the ports, but airports and borders, too. But I already went through this rant over on the “If you could be any President” thread.

    12. Baklava says:
      February 22, 2006 at 3:40 pm

      Tommy wrote, “to have them in charge of port security is a pretty dumb idea.

      Where is your evidence Tommy (you get it wrong every time) that they will be in charge of port security?

      Tommy wrote, “I’m not a freaking moonbat.

      I’ve never said that about ya. But you do tend to get the facts wrong.

    13. Baklava says:
      February 22, 2006 at 3:48 pm

      CBS News Story

      It should help you Tommy.

    14. Baklava says:
      February 22, 2006 at 3:52 pm

      In it is the following:
      Thirty per cent of the countries port terminals are operated by companies that are, um, unAmerican.

      At the port of Los Angeles, 80 per cent of the terminals are operated by foreign companies. Chinese companies operate more than half the terminals.

    15. Big Bang Hunter says:
      February 22, 2006 at 4:14 pm

      - Bak. If you don’t stop countering all the obfuscation and mis-speaks, (yes I’m being kind by characterizing them in that manner), you’re going to be forever branded as a insensitive “facts” obssesive, lacking in the neccessary “nuanced” thinking of the Komrads… *chuckle*

      - Bang **==

    16. steve says:
      February 22, 2006 at 4:18 pm

      Let’s stay focused on The Carlyle Group and how the Bushies are picking our pockets. Peace

    17. Big Bang Hunter says:
      February 22, 2006 at 4:21 pm

      Steve. We’re discussing rejection of a company purely on racial bigotry. Try to keep up. BTW you never mentioned whether you’re down with Halliburton taking over the port management.

      - Bang **==

    18. Lorica says:
      February 22, 2006 at 11:37 pm

      LOL I find it so very funny that Steve is telling the rest of us to stay focused. How many times a day is Steve lacking in focus or clarity for that matter. That or this is an extreme MeMeMe post. You decide. – Lorica =))

    « Older Comments