Bush threatens veto over port deal

February 21, 2006

The controversy surrounding the Bush administration’s port deal with a United Arab Emirates company drew an interesting rebuke directly from the president today.

After mounting opposition by lawmakers, President Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.

“After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. “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.”‘

Bush called reporters to his conference room on the plane after returning from a speech in Colorado, addressing a controversy that is becoming a major headache for the White House. He said the seaports arrangement was “a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country.”

Bush is drawing a line in the sand here, but he’s also taking a big risk. Right now, the White House has very few allies on this; opposition to the deal is bi-partisan and common on the Hill and statehouses. Lawmakers, especially those who are more worried about their own re-election that helping Bush’s port deal, will see no upside to helping the White House out on this one.

For that matter, the president is threatening a veto today, but will he go through with it? Bush is the first president in nearly two centuries not to veto a single bill — and he’s going to start with a foreign-run port deal?

For that matter, it’s also worth noting that Bush’s veto threats don’t mean much anymore. The last several threats were treated as little more than speed-bumps for lawmakers who have their own agenda and careers to worry about.

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Sunday that the administration approval was “unbelievably tone deaf politically,” and at least one Senate oversight hearing was planned for later this month.

It sets up quite a little showdown between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, doesn’t it?

Cheney only shoots a lawyer but Bush shoots himself in the foot …big time.
I can’t wait to see the conservatives put a whoopin on George for this one.

  • Two comments on this. Apparently our security system is already known in Dubai etc. because we check incoming containers there, before they get to US soil. So cat is out of bag, horse from barn, etc. etc. Anyone else know something about this?

    But much more important — positively veto-type-important — is the Carlyle Group’s interest, which I suspect may play a part in all this. After all, a guy like Bush has expensive habits. A president’s pension is hardly big money compared with bennies from Carlyle. Or have I gone moonbatty?

  • Did he really ask why a Middle Eastern company should be treated differently than a British company? With a straight face? Like there was no difference between, say, Bagdad and Piccadilly Circus?

    By that logic, how long will it be before we invade England?

  • I don’t think our president is very smart. We are talking about one of the countries that spawned and nourished a culture that produced the 9-11 disaster. Perhaps the UAE should be put on probation for a few years until we can fully understand their intentions, before we turn the management of any port of entry into the USA over to them.

  • “Geat British”??

    Good english, George.

    And PW, you know, Carlysle just might have a hand in this deal.

    this is good–if the GOP congress does not stand up and fight this, they are then open for weak on national security as they could not stop the selling of our security to a country that is weak on terror. if the GOP stands up to it and it gets vetoed, Bush looks bad.

  • Did Asshole say, “Great British”? I think he did. I don’t think he meant that the British company was a great one either. What a dumbass.

  • Did Asshole say, “Great British”?

    You know, I missed this in the original piece. Damn funny, though.

  • watching fox as this story develops..
    They alternate between distracting with trivia and trying to spin it positive .

    The more Bush digs in, the more Fox is squirming.

  • Oh, c’mon. Stop with all of the hopefullness here. You know that this story will run until Friday afternoon, at which time it will be declared off-limits by BushCo.

    After that, the promised hearings will be ‘delayed’ in party-line votes, and the GOP will wait for the next scandal to make everyone forget about this…

    (Anyone remember that old story about Cheney shooting some guy? That was, like, Sooooooo last week…)

    Sad, but true…

  • And all this after Osama threatens a new attack inside America.

    If the company has been compromised you’d think that he’d know about the sale beforehand… just sayin’.

    What kind of unorganized insanity is this?

    And you know, if I was bush, I don’t think I’d roll THIS dice. If something does go bad, he won’t have anywhere to hide.

  • This sounds like discrimination to me. Granted, there could be some business(Carlyle Group) interest that would persuade Bush to push for this, but just because the word ‘Arab’ is in front of the word ‘Company’ doesn’t mean they are terrorists just like every muslim I meet isn’t a terrorist. To imply that this company wouldn’t follow American port regulations or would be more willing to hire Arabs(and therefore terrorists) as port workers ignores the efforts of laws which liberals seem to support normally. American companies that wouldn’t follow laws or regulations pose just as great a threat to security as Arab companies.

  • Chris – here’s why…

    – The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
    – The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
    – According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
    – After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

  • I don’t think this security should be privatized OR foriegn-owned, whether by UAE or “Great British.”

    Can anyone give me a good reason why it should be?

  • Chris, to pick up on PhilW, “more willing” has nothing to do with it. The issue is “more able.”

  • Breaking News:

    Both Rumsfeld and Gen. Pace said today that they weren’t informed about the deal until just this last weekend.

    So the entire BushCo line about unanimous approval after a thorough security review just explodes into microscopic pieces. ThinkProgress has the story.

  • This idea is scarey. Let’s all hope and pray that Bush backs down on his approval of this deal. It’s hard to spin this one becauses we are talking about the UAE, not “Great Brittish.” We are talking about a fool me once situation, but the second time could be devastating, Why would we take such a risk? Either our president is a Moron, or he is so greedy that he is blinded by his own greed. Perhaps the carlyle group is involved. That is one of the few explainations that makes sense.

  • Democrats have just been handed an unbelievable gift. American ports to be run by a foreign government that supports the Taliban.

    Bush’s priorities versus national security can’t get much clearer than that.

    It’s gonna take about 5 minutes for a smart terrorist to figure out where the next ‘Islamic Revolution’ is going to happen. – Dubai

  • I wonder if the democrats will act. If the whore,John Kerry speaks, I know we are screwed and Bush will get his way. Turn our country over to the Arabs? Sounds Bushspeak to me.
    Remember 9/11? Bush & Co. flew the Bil Laden family and the Saudi Royals out of the country while we couldn’t get off the ground.
    The only hope is that this information didn’t come out on Friday afternoon to be buried by Monday.
    Maybe people will wake up. Fear can even motivate the mindless.

  • Let’s all hope and pray that Bush backs down on his approval of this deal.
    -post by Gracious

    OR even better, let’s hope he digs in his heels and attempts that threatened tone deaf veto . Stress is taking it’s toll on the political decision making abilities of the white house. This ball got dropped when Rove was spinning Cheney.

    How many bad weeks in a row can this guy have and still stay at 40% approval?

  • I’ve missed all the fun (been away from my computer for four hours). So the Taliban-loving 9/11 bankers in the UAE are gonna be handed control of our major ports, and the Shrub (Cheney) is threatening to veto his own Congress if they vote to cut off this backroom deal which, no doubt, benefits the Bush Crime Family (Carlyle) while threatening the security of the USA?

    This deal of Bush’s follows in the footsteps of his paternal grandfather, Prescott Bush, also known as “Hitler’s Banker” (for good reason: he managed the Nazi investments in Wall Street during the 1930s and early ’40s).

    Excellent! What the Democrats have been too timid to do, the Republicans appear willing to do: become an OPPOSITION. Look & learn, congressional Dems … if you still have a remnant of a backbone left and you’re tired/embarrassed about licking up GOP spittle. Of course, if you want to leave all the opposing to them….

  • On PBS’s News Hour with Jim Lehrer tonight, Sen. Menendez of New Jersey closed by saying that these decisions should be based on a “post 9/11 viewpoint rather than a pre-9/11 viewpoint.” He turned Bush’s/Republican’s NSA warrant-less search argument on its head. Kudos to Sen Menendez.

  • Every time I tell myself that Bush can’t really be as worthless a moron as I think he is, he comes along and shows me I lack sufficient imagination to understand how Truly Moronic he really is.

    Now I understand what the Old Romans felt like when they had to deal with Caligula.

  • Dubai is an Islamic dictatorship, and the company is state owned.

    China was recently turned down trying to buy a US oil company, so how can Prince George say this is a different standard?

  • Prepare yourself for the “Opponents of the port deal are racists” talking point. Here’s the opening round:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060221/us_nm/ports_bias_dc

    Sound familiar? It should because the Bush gang trots it out everytime they face some opposition. A recap: If you oppose Bush’s judicial nominees you’re anti-Hispanic, anti-woman, or anti-Catholic. If you mention Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian or point out Jeff Gannon was a male prostitute posing as a White House reporter, you’re a gay-hating homophobe. If you vote against Alito, you’re anti-God.

    I guess it doesn’t matter if you’re opposed to the deal because the UAE have ties to Iran, or had proven links to 9/11, or are one of three countries that recognized the Taliban as a governing body. You’re racist if you point these inconvenient facts out. When does that schtick get old?

  • “Now I understand what the old Romans felt like when they had to deal with Caligula.”

    Maybe not that far. Caligula was insane, Bush is just stupid, though both seem to have the same respect for the legislature (Caligula did, after all, name his horse as his rep to the Roman Senate).

    Bush’s veto threat is empty here. There is no way he’ll pull such shit in front of such opposition from his own party. And that “you’re all racist if you oppose this” defense won’t wash. Sorry, but our port security is not supposed to be in the hands of a country that is a known Al Qaeda haven, or recognized the Taliban, or actually HAD citizens among the 9/11 highjackers. There’s a big difference between them and the “Great British.”

  • Bush needs to get his head checked out.

    Maybe someone should just send a memo to his office reading, “We’re talking about impeaching you for this one. We’ll be talking about it on the talkshows, too.”

  • The way this issue is heating up, it will soon be time to load up
    Ol’ Cheney again and send him out to bag another lawyer.
    The PR situation is unwinnable so they’ll do something to quickly to try to change the subject with a distracting crisis

    . I wondered about the timing of the announcement of the mysterious terrorists arrested in Ohio, and we’ll soon see what other decoys are in the Rovian bag of tricks.

    Once you’re on to it, the game is predictable.

  • While I’m outraged by this latest antic of the smirking chimp, I’m a little confused. I thought all ports were controlled/run by the city and/or state. Companies could lease piers (a company I worked for in Seattle leased Pier 91), but ultimate control was at the local or state level for tax purposes, with federal involvement in customs.

  • Bush saying he`s trying to conduct foreign policy is a real stretch. He couldn`t conduct himself out of a 55 gallon drum. God help us

  • The Chinese Red Fascists control the entrances of the Panama Canal, and that fact generated no outrage among the Democrats, who sneered at the America First Republicans who dared to object. I was never worried.

    Look upon the Dubai Arab investment in these United States as a Security Deposit which the U.S. Government will seize just as soon as we declare war on Dubai. They will thus have an incentive to behave well. If we expect P&O to maintain security in these ports, then America will deserve Dhimmitude. Let the Coast Guard handle security and let P&O move the freight. Where’s the problem with that? It’s the modern division of labor.

  • Hey, why doesn’t Bush go down to those ports and ask all those longshoremen what they think?

    What happened to all that post-9/11 “I hear you” stuff?

  • And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., urged his colleagues to “take a moment and not rush to judgment.”

    “The president’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short,” McCain said in a statement.

    McCain’s statue shrinks to microscopic.

  • Maverick, defined:

    When my party calls for unity and rallying behind the President and standard-bearer for the party, I refuse and instead show him up, and bring as many with me against him as I can (see, e.g., Torture Restriction Legislation).

    When even my own party thinks the President and standard-bearer for the party has gone totally freakin’ certifiable, I support the President who once trashed my character with lies and distortions (see, e.g., Dubai-based company management of ports).

    Tell me again how this is a recipe for electoral success, and the bigger mystery, how he continues to poll so strongly?

    Independent is one thing; contrarian for contrary’s sake is altogether different. And then flaky, flighty, semi-senile, and opportunistic different yet again.

  • Almost every angle has been covered in these posts already, but I’ll add a couple of points:

    – The reason the UAE can satisfy the appetites of BushCronyWorld, while also laundering terrorist money, is because the political and financial forces there are amoral. Money doesn’t talk with these people, it screams, and it doesn’t matter where it comes from or who’s getting it. You’re everybody’s friend but you’re nobody’s friend. It’s like the Swiss banks in World War II.

    – Bush’s threat of a veto is, indeed, an empty one. All he’s saying is that if Congress and the media don’t play his game by his rules, he’s going to take his ball and go home.

  • Wow, Bush is really going to town for Dubai like a street brawler, isn’t he?

    I wonder if this will advance that cause of freedom that I keep hearing so much about.

  • Honestly, after reading his thoughts on this port issues I have to wonder, for the millionth time – why is this man president and what reality does he live in? These are the two snips that caught my eye. Look at the bolding in the second paragraph.

    I do want to talk about this port issue. A foreign company manages some of our ports. They’ve entered into a transaction with another foreign company to manage our ports. This is a process that has been extensively reviewed, particularly from the point of view as to whether or not I can say to the American people, this project will not jeopardize our security. It’s been looked at by those who have been charged with the security of our country. And I believe the deal should go forward.

    And in response to a question this was his answer:

    Bush: They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They ought to look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they’re going to do. But if they pass a law, I’ll deal with it, with a veto.

    Anyone want to answer why this administration – the one that has messed up just about everything they have touched – should be trusted? Please. The only thing he needs to do now is wag his finger and pat us on the head.

    http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/13927309.htm

  • I’m with Castor up at #11.

    Here’s one angle that hasn’t been addressed: The security of the ports in question are irrelevent to Bush because they are not part of his America. They are in lock blue states. If something happens, his constituency won’t be hurt, but he can trumpet the event with the same 9/11 rhetoric that’s driven everything he’s done for five years.

  • For a group of people who are fundamentally opposed to our government being involved in running anything, why are we surprised that they feel a foreign government should be allowed to profit from the hard work (and dollars) of the American people.

    The main point I take away from this is just that. The Dubai Company is government owned (and from what I take away from the comments, a non-democratic government at that), therefore we are furthering the cause of non-democracy by allowing this company to plow profits from American ports into keeping democracy out of their country…Is this a good thing?

  • G2000, I bother because I would prefer to be governed by Official who have a connection with reality. The last two Democrat Presidents presumed to meddle in Foreign Nations and left disaster in their wake. President Reagan cleaned up the mess created by the sanctimoniuos ineptitude of President Carter. President Bush has inherited the policy debris bequeathed by President Clinton. Even the Wretched Nixon, scorned by patriots and disgraced by his own voice on those tape recordings, repaired most of the damage left behind by President Kennedy and President Johnson. Democrats advocate government solutions to all social problems. It is a naive and dangerous philosophy. It is also ruinously expensive. Democrats, since the awful President Wilson, have seen their Presidents wander the planet like armed busybodies, generating massive ill will while improving the characters of foreigners, and depart for the next destination, reeking of inept sanctimony. Republican Presidents have followed these boobs, like the man with the shovel follows the circus parade. But every transfer of Executive Power from Democrat to Republican leaves the U.S. Government more expensive and the liberties of the citizens less robust.

    There is a tacit agreement between the Democrats and Republicans: Democrats can squander the resources of the Nation on their schemes that never actually work, and the Republicans will be permitted to conduct Foreign Policy without too much interference. This agreement has got to end. The resources are dwindling and the ability of the Republican President to rectify the destruction is now being severely impaired by Democrat Wannabe Statesmen conspiring to prevent his setting things aright.

    I have seen up close the populace of a Great Power after a lost war. It iwas not comfortable to observe. I do not want my descendants to find themselves in such an awful plight. So I seek answers.

    • Comments are closed.