Bush will veto any bill to stop port deal

AP ALERT

[Brian Mosely]

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — President Bush says the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and he will veto any bill that would stop it.

[Alberta's Child]

I don't know if the P&O Ports acquisition by the UAE company is a "good deal" or not, but I'm on the President's side on this one.

These international mergers involving U.S. interests are subject to review for national security implications by the executive branch under Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. There is really no reason for Congress -- after having given this authority to the President -- to come back and suggest that maybe that law wasn't such a good idea after all . . . mainly because the legislative and judicial branches are far less competent in dealing with these matters than the executive branch. Isn't that exactly the point we've been making with regard to these so-called "warrantless wiretaps?"

UAE Port Operations -- Perspectives and Reality

[American Quilter]

If we don't know the answers to some of the above questions are we not sounding more like democrats reacting simply out of emotion before knowing facts!

I agree. There's too much we don't know yet. Maybe as I continue to read this thread, more facts will be provided. Thanks for your cool head.

[stainlessbanner]

Aside from security (which is the primary issue), why are we doing bidness with UAE anyway - they should be cut off for harboring terrorists/ties to terrorists.

[dfwgator]

But I will say this, President Bush had better be on his "A game" to explain this to the American people, and that has been his problem lately, he has not done a very good job of selling his ideas.

[JTHomes]

I wouldn’t really call myself a Bushbot, but I suppose one could argue that anyone who has a stake in something will tend to protect it. Seems like you could have this company lobbying UAE from the inside to help protect its interests, which are also our interests. Can’t count on Europe much as a partner these days, seems like we should take alliances when and where we can get them.

[defenderSD]

I agree that there's probably nothing to be concerned about with this deal. This is a change of ownership of a company that operates ports. It's not a land purchase and it's not a change in the personnel of the operating company. The same security procedures have to be followed for any foreign-owned company, whether it's owned by Britain, Singapore, Mexico, or the UAE.

Interestingly, the UAE and Oman are right on the south side of the strait of Hormuz, through which flows a sizeable percentage of the world's oil supplies. Iran sits on the north side of the strait. This is not the time to be annoying the UAE or Oman because we may need to fight Iran across the strait at some point in time. This acquisition might actually be an attempt by the UAE to strengthen their friendship with the US, but so far that isn't happening...to say the least.

[libstripper]

His firmness on this astounds me, especially in the face of nearly unanimous opposition from both sides of the aisle and the fact that he's never before vetoed any legislation, not even the abominable McCain-Finegold monstrosity. That leads me to think, like you, that there's something deeply serious and entirely confidential going on here. Could it have to do with some kind of surprise military action planned against Iran???

[DOGEY]

Cmon BushBots...

Lets hear you explain this away...


What's to explain away? If middle east countries banned US companies, how would you feel?

[Daytyn71]

Bush has to explain his reasoning on this. (In all fairness though, the UAE wouldn't be in charge of security, Homeland Security was, is and always will be - but in the wake of Sept. 11th why roll the dice!!).

[SlowBoat407]

The more I know about this the more comfortable I feel that there is nothing to be concerned about.

I'm not completely comfortable with it, but I'm starting to understand that we need to keep certain governments, like Dubai, engaged so we don't lose them altogether. I think they're the only government that we've had a security agreement with since the 1940s, and it'd be good if we can keep somebody over there at least nominally speaking to us.

Besides, it gives us something to seize in case the fewmet hits the windmill.

[chris1]

GWB is more Fredo than anything else. He is no Michael Corleone.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[finnman69]

Ol Rush and Hannity can try to help him on this one but Bush is showing his true colors - he is against America defending itself from foreign invaders.

Rush was defending the port deal, Hannity is opposed.

[oblomov]

You're right, it is.

[Element187]

Naw, the Dems will shut up once they realize that the only US company that could actually fulfill this contract is Halliburton.

actually charlie and hillary already are claiming they rather see haliburton take over than the UAE... maybe this is Karl Roves plan all along... let everyone think you want that muslims in control of the ports, so you can sneak up and put haliburton in its place and everyone will accept it!.... i dunno if Bush tries to veto the move to block this, i will lose all support for him and join the impeach bush bandwagon.

[Swordfished]

Everyone take a breath!

Stop the racism! All arabs are not our enemy!

Ever heard of the city of Dubai? Look it up.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

Why not Iraq? Was not that one of the reasons for the war?

If it was, and not to say it wasn't, then I am sure there was a better way of this to come out. Talk about a royal screw up.
Bush: "In recognition of their unwavering support on the GWOT, the U.S. welcomes our friends in the UAE in their bid to bring a partnership in port operations. Along with their bid, I have requested Congress so and so dollars to secure our ports and begin container inspections on all shipments. We need to bring in more middle eastern partners in the fight against terror, and to assist in global commerce. I have set up a bipartisan committee to review the bid and make recommendations. And now I will open it up for questions."

[dirtboy]

There is really no reason for Congress -- after having given this authority to the President -- to come back and suggest that maybe that law wasn't such a good idea after all

Unless a situation like this happens...

[Mo1]

The thing I can't figure out is what is the advantage in this deal for the US? What benefit is there?

Economically it benefits the USA

But I'm not willing to take a chance on my children's lives for money

[TexasCajun]

Are Democrats profiling now??

Now if we can only convince them to stop strip-searching my grandma and concentrate on swarthy middle-eastern men.