United Arab Emirates to Control our Ports??

fleshwound

New member
Am I missing something or is this the worst idea that our Government has come up with? What is the benefit? Are there no high level security companies in the USA that we can trust to protect us? This just seems nuts! Am I missing something? :eek:
 
UAE are our allies and if we have things here to sell to them for 6.8 billion then why not? It's their money and now ours. If one of our non-middle eastern allies wanted to buy some ports, would anyone care then?
 
This issue very baldly shows how Gdub views the world. As if he is both king of the world and God himself.

Bush said that protesting lawmakers should understand his approval of the deal was final.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll 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."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_17

Several congressmen have threatened to introduce legislation to temporarily halt this "deal" including majority leader Frist. This has united both the Dems and the GOP against Gdub.

People are PISSED about this and Gdub doesn't care.
 
Why would GWB care about our ports? Just look at the sorry mess the Mex/US border has become. Well he has voiced concern though, that should fix er up.

UEA owns the shipping Co. as in state owned, thats not good right off the bat.

Lots of money at play too!

Hay! Ya think GWB would use some of the wealth to pay down the Half TRILLION $$$$$ debt. WE some how owe?
 
Same company as when Britian owned it. So let's see--it was OK then but now that an ALLY has bought the company, it's no longer any good? Pretty racist if you ask me. Remember people---this IS NOT Saudi Arabia.
Now to the more important issue-----where the crate originates. They would control our ports HERE. When 1 of these crates is sent from wherever---there is a metal seal placed on the crate--if it is tampered with then it never comes in. So bottom line, it doesn't matter who is in charge here, the more important issue is that a bomb is not put on there.
As an ally, it is in their best interest(financially and politically) to make sure that nothing happens under their watch. Figure the logic here people---Bush is a Pitbull when it comes to terrorism but he is soft on this(legit) company. The ONLY arguement I keep hearing is the that the company is owned by UEA. It's good for us in the eyes of the Arab world---this for those of you who say we have created more terrorists by not reaching out?!
Now for those of you who argue that our port security isn't where it should be---I agree---but that's not the issue with this particular company.
 
Back to Story - Help
Bush Shrugs Off Objections to Port Deal

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer 55 minutes ago

Brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

The president on Tuesday defended his administration's earlier approval of the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai Ports World, despite concerns in Congress it could increase the possibility of terrorism at American ports.

The sale — expected to be finalized in early March — would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it had negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said Tuesday it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said this was the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a state-owned government. "In that sense this is a new layer of controls," he said. Baker added that U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted "very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats."

Bush sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York's two senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer.

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore's port on Tuesday, called the deal an "overly secretive process at the federal level."

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

Bilkey traveled to Washington in an effort to defuse the growing controversy.

Bush said that protesting lawmakers should understand his approval of the deal was final.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll 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."

Bush, who has never vetoed a bill as president, said on the White House South Lawn: "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

They say a port operator complicit in smuggling or terrorism could manipulate manifests and other records to frustrate Homeland Security's already limited scrutiny of shipping containers and slip contraband past U.S. Customs inspectors.

Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., and Democrat Schumer said Tuesday they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal. King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said the government "cannot consider approving this contract until a much more thorough investigation takes place on this security matter."

Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said they would introduce a "joint resolution of disapproval" when they returned to Washington next week. Collins heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Harman is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Bush's veto threat didn't stop local efforts to block the deal. New Jersey's governor, Jon S. Corzine, said Tuesday the state will file lawsuits in federal and state courts opposing the agreement. Corzine, a Democrat, cited a "deep, deep feeling that this is the wrong direction for our nation to take."

A company at the Port of Miami, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., sued last week to block the deal in a Florida state court. It said that under the sale, it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

Frist said Congress should have veto authority over such foreign sales, which are reviewed by a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The panel includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld described the United Arab Emirates as a close ally. "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror with us," Rumsfeld said. He added that the United States and the UAE "have very close military-to-miltary relations, as well as political and economic relations."

Separately, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said port security would not be threatened. "This is not a question about port security," Gonzales said. "This is a question about port operation."

___

Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Will Lester, Terence Hunt, and Devlin Barrett in Washington, Matthew Verrinder in Newark, N.J., and Tom Stuckey in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Sounds like grounds for impeachment to me. (yes I voted for him, twice)
 
I don't see the display of racism at all. That term racism is used to loosly anyhow.

If Bush is such a pitbull on terror, why has he done nothing about our Mexico border problem?
Which is growing worse by the day.


As a conservative, I also ask why he has placed this country in a financially vulnerable situation?

He has been reckless with the PEOPLES MONEY!
 
MoW - well put.

I don't think any potential national security issues should be overseen by any foreign interest, European, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc., in this post 9-11 world, but as you stated, that's an issue that's independant of particular company ownership.
 
History won't be kind to this guy for many reasons.
Rarely does he show glimses of "senoir 41" Most of the time he clearly demonstrates he's a chip off mama's block. That's no compliment!
The entire inner circle from Rove to the "great white hider" (hunter) are out of touch with real Americans.
This guy's had it his way for 5 years. The Senate, House, Supreme Court and
Executive Branch..... all his way. What's this towel snapper done with it?
Created the greatest deficit known to mankind and cut some firewood "down ta ranch!" Being able to play all 7 minutes of "Layla" while watching him stair into space on 911 should have been a wake up call to all!
Fear generally produces these sad results....or as GWB has said so eloquently "The cows have come home to roost!":eek: :eek:

Rimrock
 
carbiner---UEA owns the shipping Co. as in state owned, thats not good right off the bat

Please enlighten us about that not being good right off the bat---what exactly are you basing this assumption on?
 
carbiner---I don't see the display of racism at all.





It is the definition of racism. Close your eyes---the company is OK for our ports(when the British own it) but not when THE SAME COMPANY is owned by UAE??????
That's like me saying the Home Depot is fine when owned by a white man but when a black man OWS THE SAME COMPANY---it somehow changes! Wake up. You must be erroneously assuming that the UAE is a terrorist country as opposed to being allies---otherwise you are basing these fears on false pretenses.
 
This is a man that raises his own salary, takes more time off than any other president in our history, while or troops are dying,("but, I'm a war president) is AWOL from the military and now wants to turn NYC and other port supervision over to an Arab country which happens to be one of the richest per capatia in the world. How about keeping some of those jobs here in the USA? He has stated to Bill Frist, the House majoruity leader, that he will veto any attemp to block this discrace. Is it president Bush or King Bush?
 
First, how did you come to the conclusion that race became the issue, when the issue is security.

If a company is owned by the state such as UE. You can bet that company will play by their ideology. Further more it's up to them to prove to American's NOT GWB, why we should allow an Arabic country with a Muslim base to start controlling American ports?

2 of the 911 killers came from the country of AE.

And by the way Saudi Arabia was our trusted trading partner, they supplied the rest of the 911 killers.

It looks like most of America wants some damn good reasons why we should jump into another GWB mess.

Bush and the Arabs are rolling in Oil and Money while we struggle to fill our gas tanks and heat our homes.

The majoriety of the congress want to stop this, and I hope they and the people shut Bush down on this one.
Until we all learn more about the switch over.
Last but not least, Jimmy Carter supports it.
 
amaverick---Is it president Bush or King Bush?


Yeah King Bush---let's see, IF he did veto, that would be his FIRST VETO since taking office 6 years ago. What what a mogul:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
"If a company is owned by the state such as UE. You can bet that company will play by their ideology. Further more it's up to them to prove to American's NOT GWB, why we should allow an Arabic country with a Muslim base to start controlling American ports?"

Eaxctly why is this up to UE to sell us on this? It is Bush who has said he already made this decision. He came up with this BS. He needs to retreat and act like an American President. I'm sick and tired of excuses for him, period.
 
carbiner---race became the issue WHEN you and others had no problem with this company when owned by Britian---now that it is owned by UAE it's suddenly no good???Racism by definition!

Prove to us what---allowing us to use their country, helping us track terrorists, sharing intelligence etc...oh they do that. THIS company has 0, nada, nothing to do with our security or lack of in our ports. As I said WE can do more but this company owned by UAE means NOTHING!
AGAIN, the problem will be where the crates ORIGINATE from, not what happens when they get here!
 
Sad to say--but the 1 and ONLY thing you have against this company is the country that owns it! That and the fact that GWB is the 1 who gave them the contract. If it was Clinton then this would be a non issue with you.:barf:
 
Well thats neat!

The AEU wants to control our major ports, and all of a sudden they have been terror spies for the USA all these years!

Why is Bush trying to sneak this past us?
 
Back
Top