Bush Says Ports Deal Not a Security Threat

"[Bu$h] pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement...."

Better check the ranch in Texas to see where the $$$$ bribe's buried!

Jer

All I can say is woa!!! This changes things quite a bit. Impeachment time yet? He is obviously lying to us.

The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports

Oh, that's just terrible.

This story is evolving almost by the hour. Someone's gonna follow the money here. Oooo, it don't look good, Tex. I'm sure some juicy tidbits are coming...

All i'm getting from this story is that Bush has no interest in our self-interests.

Oh what, what more does one expect. This is not going to get any better.

I really question why Bush would threaten a veto over any Congress decision against it if he didn't have a hidden agenda. Just my two cents.

Amazing how left-wing positions jump around. One day Bush is brainless and the next day he is a money-hungry Machiavelian genius. Could it not be possibe that his subordinates looked at all angles before approving it?

My take on this is that it is payback of some sort for assistance that the Company or UAE has provided (or will provide) in connection with the war on terror. The bribe angle is too simple of an explanation. I think there is something much deeper here than will ever be revealed. Otherwise, I cannot see the President threatening a veto when his own party is about to mutiny on him.

George Clooney's Syriana is one of the best films ever made.

I'm not a cultural expert, but I think the UAE is about as western & capitalism friendly as an Arab nation can be. If we cannot do business with them simply because they are Arabs it is a sad commentary on us, and doesn't make the future look so hot for us in the middle east. It seems they are one of our strongest allies at this time.

I guess I'm on the same side as Jimmy Carter on this one! Odd day for me ;)

Personally, I am more concerned about the UAE's security if this deal goes through. They will be even more in the cross-hairs of the Jihadists.

No surprise most of the comments are over the top and not nearly close enough to the truth.

Rather than reproduce what has already been written this thread gives more detail of what's behind this deal.

Short version? It ain't nearly what the headlines are leading many to believe.

sirmonkey writes:

I guess I'm on the same side as Jimmy Carter on this one! Odd day for me ;)

Personally, I am more concerned about the UAE's security if this deal goes through. They will be even more in the cross-hairs of the Jihadists.

I feel the same, but wouldn't admit under threat of torture to being on Carter's side on any issue.

I'm just dissapointed that it's NOW when this story makes news. I'm glad to see the government is trying to delay this takeover and not allow it to be approved that easily, unfortunately it was that easy. We'll see what happens and I extremely hope that people finally look at the national security perspective of this issue. I discussed this issue in a previous Newsvine post when the takeover was announced.

I don't know if anybody knew this, and I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, but the thing I find surprising is that it is a state owned company!

have a read there.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml

mike k. writes:

I don't know if anybody knew this, and I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, but the thing I find surprising is that it is a state owned company!

Well I doubt if many missed it, it related in most major stories on the issue. But what's your points?

APL is State owned (Singapore) and operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska and has it's own problems with al-Qaeda and their affiliate, Jemaah Islamiah?

"[Bu$h] pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement...."

Better check the ranch in Texas to see where the $$$$ bribe's buried!

Jer

All I can say is woa!!! This changes things quite a bit. Impeachment time yet? He is obviously lying to us.

This story is evolving almost by the hour. Someone's gonna follow the money here. Oooo, it don't look good, Tex. I'm sure some juicy tidbits are coming...

All i'm getting from this story is that Bush has no interest in our self-interests.

Oh what, what more does one expect. This is not going to get any better.

I'm gonna assume the people that made the above comments didn't read the story. Shame on the editor that chose the title for this story. It may be catchy, but it's very misleading.

I really question why Bush would threaten a veto over any Congress decision against it if he didn't have a hidden agenda. Just my two cents.

I'm not following your logic. Are you saying that all Presidential vetoes stem from "hidden agendas"? Is it possible that the administration investigated this thoroughly and arrived at the decision that this sale was safe for the country and now Bush is standing behind that decision?

Singapore is primarily a Buddhist country by the way. I think you are mixed up with Malaysia. They are extremely intolerant of terrorism and is in no way comparable to UAE, culturally speaking. It is extremely modern and is probably one the top 3 cities in Asia. The one thing they do share in common though is they both have lots of money. My comment about the company was surprising to me because I would think if it was a true multi-national corporation, then it would seem more reasonable to me for Bush to not mind so much. As it is, it is a state run company. Kind of like Amtrak.

Kris here's the logic they failed to see or refuse to believe due to possible partisan reasons:

Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE (US Navy Ships and critical for the worlds free flow of oil), strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract (F-16 fighter jets more capable than our own), all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn't already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight--even with political allies.

Not to mention the UAE has been the ONLY Arab country to allow NATO to train Iraqi police in country and it sits at the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz, and across from Iran by less the 15 miles.

mike k. writes:

Singapore is primarily a Buddhist country by the way. I think you are mixed up with Malaysia. They are extremely intolerant of terrorism and is in no way comparable to UAE, culturally speaking. It is extremely modern and is probably one the top 3 cities in Asia.

And the UAE is not "extremely modern?"

A little research might change that opinion.

A telling quote:

P&O is not commenting on the political uproar over the deal. But a source within the company worries that the media and politicians are misrepresenting the arrangements. Other who work within the port communities agree. They note that P&O will not be "managing" the ports, as many news organizations have reported. Instead, the company is one of many that leases terminals at the port.
"I've never quite seen a story so distorted so quickly," says Esther de Ipolyi, a public-relations executive who works with the port of Houston. "It's like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building."

I don't agree with many of the choices the Bush Administration makes, but I really don't see the fuss here. I felt the same as a lot of people -- Bush has hidden agendas, our security is being outsourced -- until, today I think it was, several media finally gave out the whole story.

Dubai will not be responsible for any level of security on shipments coming in and going out. They will manage the port, only 1/2 of it actually. I can't see any real reason to raise a fuss, unless it's the traditional outsourcing argument (Like, wouldn't it be better to employ an American business instead?). But I don't think our security is at risk here. And, given this recent piece of news (if you make it past the headline), this move might help increase our security by strengthening our diplomatic relationship with a Middle Eastern country.

Colin, there you go clouding the issue with facts again! Yeah, as usual, reality is way more boring than the headlines ;)

You inferred that. I know the UAE is very modern, it just happens to be in a place where there have been some questionable funds passing through that country to Al Qaeda, Read the article that oalmulla posted. If you read what I said, Singapore and UAE are different, culturally. I've been to Singapore, I know what it is like. It has inherited a rich maritime tradition, and has carried over many of it's English ways from when it used to be an English colony. As a matter of fact, they were both British protectorates at one time.

But back to the topic, this is from the article that I linked to from above.

Yes, Dubai has plenty of blood in its hands, especially as a source or courier for terror funds. To my knowledge its crimes were not government sponsored. It is not a rogue state. It has been among the closer and more cooperative Arab allies for the past two years (another conspiracy theory: Bush is paying them off at the expense of our safety).

All this is about is should we have cause for alarm? Why just blindly jump in and say, "OK, let's hurry up and let these guys take over"

the media isd blinding people with all the reports DP world will just and operator of terminals they wont have any control or sight over security.... i think the noise being made is just thats its an election year!!!!!