Posted on 02/22/2006 6:20:19 AM PST by Rennes Templar
President Bush yesterday vowed to use his first-ever veto to strike any law that Congress passes to block a deal allowing an Arab state-owned company to operate six major U.S. seaports, amid growing bipartisan efforts to thwart the plan for security reasons.
"If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," the president said in a brief but firm statement on the White House South Lawn.
Mr. Bush said questioning the deal because it involves United Arab Emirates company makes no sense, given that a British company now does the job.
"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly,'?" Mr. Bush earlier told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington from a Colorado event.
Republican congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert, among Mr. Bush's most reliable supporters, yesterday said giving operational control to a Middle Eastern country raises serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Do they treat us fairly?
I am no "bush-bot", but this decision of his doesn't bother me too much. I think there are a few of us here on FR.
He can veto........we can override the veto.
Doesn't bother me either, much ado about practically nothing.
Add me to the list.
He can veto........we can override the veto.
..............................................
business before politics..OPEN BORDERS benefit WHO?
Well, I've gotta hand it to Bush. He's really sticking his finger in Osama's eye, defying Osama's efforts to create a wedge between the US and its Arab allies. He's also painting a bullseye on these six ports, but then, I'm not sure that's necessarily bad. At least we'll know what Osama's likely target is, and can act accordingly.
This is really a continuation of Bush's "bring it on" policy.
And I'm not sure it's really dangerous in terms of a security risk. But if something does go wrong, and these ports are somehow involved, Bush and the UAE will definitely get the blame, even if it's not deserved.
I can think of very few things that concern me less. We have foreign parent companies do all sorts of work in the USA, without any problems. Much ado about nothing.
What I'm starting to understand is that the politicians of eastern and western nations do not want war, but it is the people of these nations that push it forward...... so the politicians are in a no win.
Jorge Akbar
It is my belief that NO FOREIGN Businesses should be managing our ports.
That is equal fair foreign policy...
Actually, I think it is really a huge deal!
Not the port business. That's probably fine.
Seeing Dems and libs walking arm-in-arm with RINOS and the really loony left (see DAILYKOS if you think I'm kidding), all suddenly concerned about national security and our exposure to middle easterners...
Why you might actually think that there was a war on terror!
Perhaps I'm just a conspiracy fantasist, but I think we're witnessing the finessing of one of the finest political bank shots ever played! And the result will be a unified U.S. front against islamofascism!
Schumer and Hillary agree. Can Kerry, Reid, Kennedy and Pelosi be far behind?
Play it, George! Eight ball in the side pocket!
That's absurd. "Keep your enemies close"? This isn't the Godfather. Even if it were, did you even see the movie? You don't keep your enemies close by putting them in charge of your people's security. What information do you think we'll later get out of UAE as a result of getting them "closer" here?
I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that the UAE company wants to do the job well, i.e. like any business intending to enter a market to make a profit. It would seem to me that they would want to perform the job better that the predecessor to prove to potential customers that they are a good value for port authority $s. If there is a security related event (call it a bomb), then their company is instantly ruined. Bad business. Assuming that the UAE is entering into the market for the sole purpose of getting one bomb through and thus destroying both their company, and government's credibility is rather far fetched. Not impossible, but remote.
Bush said he is continuing his commitment to seek out alternative fuels and lessening the dependence on foreign oil. However, that does not mean he's going to support offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
"I made a commitment that nothing is going to happen within 100 miles of this coastline, and I'm honoring that commitment," Bush said. "I don't care what people might be saying. It's a commitment that this government has. There's a lot of technologies that are coming on the market, and we're spending money. It's a good use of taxpayers' money it seems like to me in order to achieve some big objectives." (source)
George W. Bush is plundering the federal Treasury to prop-up our lame economy and sustain our oil consumption at elevated prices, His cronies then use their profits to acquire control of our transportation infrastructure.
'This is really a continuation of Bush's "bring it on" policy.'
That policy is supposed to happen OVERSEAS.
Most staffing the hatred threads are traditional Bush haters. A few are taken in by the volume, but time will settle out. Frist is simply maneuvering.
There is ONLY one question:
If you are a critic, precisely what process, and the focus is 100% on process here, would you have executed to select a winner from competitors to run the ports?
Now, if your answer is going to be "a process where the selectee is predecided before the process starts", then you are required to explain precisely and explicitly who that selectee was to be prior to any process and just how that was to avoid any lawsuits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.