White House accepts delay

February 24, 2006

Earlier this week, the president was unyielding in the face of congressional complaints about the Dubai Ports World deal. “They ought to listen to what I have to say about this,” Bush said. “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.”

Yesterday afternoon, the line in the sand was on the move. White House spokesperson Dana Perino hinted that Bush meant he’d veto bills that scuttled the bill, not delay it. A few hours later, Karl Rove said the White House was backing down from the firm stance the president had taken just a few days prior.

Apparently bowing to congressional pressure, a top White House aide said Thursday that President Bush would accept a delay in the deal for a United Arab Emirates-owned company to manage terminals at six major U.S. ports in order to give skeptical lawmakers more time to study it.

Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove’s comments in a radio interview signaled Bush’s new willingness to soothe angry Republican and Democratic lawmakers who oppose the deal because they feel it would jeopardize national security, something the Bush administration stoutly denies.

Bush had vowed Tuesday to veto any congressional measure that would stop the deal, which is set to close on March 2, next Thursday. But on Thursday, when asked if Bush would now accept “a slight delay”, Rove replied “yes.”

Last night, Rove told Fox News, “What is important is that members of Congress have time to get fully briefed on this.” And this morning, both the WaPo and the NYT report that the UAE company still planned to close the deal next week on schedule, but would “not exercise control” over the ports while the Bush administration tried to calm opposition in Congress.

All of this came after a thoroughly entertaining hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Yesterday’s meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee felt like some weird role-reversal dream.

There was Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), attacking Bush administration officials for being soft on terrorism and “outsourcing our national security.”

There was Gordon England, President Bush’s deputy defense secretary, pleading with Democrats that “it is very important that we strengthen the bonds of friendship and security with our friends and allies around the world.”

And there in the front row was the congressional press corps, asking questions of the witnesses and the senators, who sat side by side on the dais. Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), sounding much like the coordinator of a carnival dunking booth, encouraged reporters to “propound a question.” One by one, CBS, Fox, Reuters, even the New Haven Register and Pacifica Radio, demanded answers from the senators and the 10 squirming administration men in suits.

It was, Warner admitted, an “unusual” way to run the committee. But these are unusual times. […]

“The fact is, we do live in a post-9/11 world,” [Hillary] Clinton said, using her response to one of the reporters’ questions to announce legislation banning foreign state-owned companies from U.S. ports. “As a matter of national security in the post-9/11 world, I think we have to take a hard look at this.”

Yesterday agreed-upon delay will help the drama play out even longer. The White House is counting on the idea that a postponement will give the Bush gang time to persuade lawmakers and soothe the concerns of conservative activists. Congressional Republicans believe the delay will give them time to kill the deal. Congressional Dems believe the lull will give them more time to hammer the president and take advantage of the political opportunity.

Pass the popcorn.

The problem with delays….
Daily bad news from Iraq, and delays in scooter’s trial, and others in flame-gate, Legal delays with Abramhoff, Delay, Cunningham, Frist.. the senate Katrina report yet to come out..NSA revelations…The negative cloud does not go away, but joins the accumulation of dark political news for Bush that must eventually be reckoned with is overwhelming..

Now it’s reported that 21 ports were actually involved in the Dubai purchase! Delay will only bring out more embarassing details, in drip drip chinese water torture style.
Add this to all the other delays in the hopper with similar deferred problem payment plans (soon to be greater embarrassments)_ come due to the repubs just before the elections.

Rove is good a managing one crisis, or two by pushing them to the back burner and counter-attacking, but he is not accustomed to such massive crisis overload… it gets harder to shove aside each new crisis and all the arrows are shot from his quiver and his tricks are no longer undercover…….and all the back burner problems keep bubbling up… and the centerpiece of this security administration…Iraq .. is imploding.

  • What is interesting about the Dubai Ports World deal to buy the British company is that the six U.S. port operations are only are part of the holdings controlled by the British company.

    Couldn’t we insist that the British company or Dubai Ports World sell off the U.S. port operation contracts to an American firm?

    On another point. Bush keeps making a point that the Customs and Coast Guard will be in charge of security, so there is no danger here.

    Well, the 9/11 highjackers weren’t working security at Logan or the other airports. They just used their ability to observe airport operations to figure out a plan to highjack planes and attack buildings in the United States.

    Now Bush wants to let a country known to have associations to Al Quiada to be in a position to closely observe port security in America??????

    Talk about a lack of imagination.

  • I won’t be surprised later to find out there’s a PDB titled “Bin Laden determined to purchase US ports”.

  • Karl Rove said the White House was backing down from the firm stance the president had taken just a few days prior.

    Good. They should back down. They should defer to congress when congress is so concerned.

    Here’s to the first of many.

  • Couldn’t we insist that the British company or Dubai Ports World sell off the U.S. port operation contracts to an American firm?

    I think Lance is onto something here. I’ve been wondering since this whole ports controversy started if it wasn’t tapping into a deeper rage over American jobs being outsourced to foreign countries.

  • Couldn’t we insist that the British company or Dubai Ports World sell off the U.S. port operation contracts to an American firm?

    I think Lance is onto something here. I’ve been wondering since this whole ports controversy started if it wasn’t tapping into a deeper rage over American jobs being outsourced to foreign countries.

    Name the firm (Haliburton), If you guys bothered to do even a minor bit of research you would know there are no major USA companies in this very specialized business.

  • “If you guys bothered to do even a minor bit of research you would know there are no major USA companies in this very specialized business. ” — Bogie,

    Funny, watching the News Hour last night, they had a port authority official from the port of Cincinati who said his operations were shared by:
    a chinese firm
    a singapore firm
    and a United States firm.

    So apparently, they do exist.

  • Just to clarify my above statement, I have been theorizing about whether the ports issue was tapping into an underlying fear over job outsourcing. My thoughts being that the job outsourcing was AN underlying issue, not THE underlying issue. It doesn’t take very much research to know that Americans are very insecure about their job status. People read about job cuts almost every day in the news, so this is very real to most people.

    The point about lack of American countries that have the capability to manage port security is irrelevant when examing the issue from this angle. Some people may be thinking that this adding insult to injury, by giving American jobs away, and giving them

    BTW — bogie, did you take the time to watch that Abu Ghraib video?

  • If you guys bothered to do even a minor bit of research you would know there are no major USA companies in this very specialized business

    But the invisible hand of the market would ensure that such companies would rapidly come into existence. Riiiight?

    cue crickets….

  • “But the invisible hand of the market would ensure that such companies would rapidly come into existence. Riiiight?” — Edo

    Apparantly the senior management of Dubai Ports World is a bunch of Americans and one Australian.

    You’d think with the right tax breaks…

  • My first thought was , why not an American company? According to this NYT piece America has given up the port management business to middle-east and Asian companies: A Ship Already Sailed
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/business/24terminal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    “God knows how you’d reverse it,” said one London-based executive involved in the sale, who did not want to be identified because of client confidentiality agreements. British regulators have approved the deal, and shareholders have already voted for it, he said.

    “The Arabs own it, what are you going to do? Force them to sell it? Revoke their licenses for United States ports?” he asked.

    Either of those measures might spark some sort of retaliation from Dubai in the form of legal action, he said, or even something as extreme as some sort of a restrictions on American-bound shipments passing through the port of Dubai.

  • When a government inhibits entry into an economic domain, the firms already doing business in that domain are more profitable than they would be if such a prohibition did not exist. That incremental profit is called an economic “rent.” The firms are called “rentiers.” The system is NOT called capitalism. Fascism or mercantilism or autocracy would be preferable terms. Whatever form it takes, the proper name for the underlying transactions is THEFT. In these United States, such economic behavior can be observed in your local post office or public school. Behold the thieves, entrenched behind ramparts of invidious law, serving themselves by mulcting their customers and the children.

  • Do your parents know that you’re on the computer after they’ve gone to bed?

    • Comments are closed.