Also see below:     
New York Times | The President and the Ports    [

    Bush Threatens Veto against Bid to Stop Port Deal
    By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman
    The Washington Post

    Wednesday 22 February 2006

State-run Arab firm poses no threat, President says amid bipartisan criticism.

    President Bush yesterday strongly defended an Arab company's attempt to take over the operation of seaports in Baltimore and five other cities, threatening a veto if Congress tries to kill a deal his administration has blessed.

    Facing a sharp bipartisan backlash, Bush took the unusual step of summoning reporters to the front of Air Force One to condemn efforts to block a firm from the United Arab Emirates from purchasing the rights to manage ports that include those in New York and New Orleans.

    The Bush administration recently approved the sale of a London-based company that currently manages the ports to state-run Dubai Ports World. The deal has raised alarms on Capitol Hill and with the Republican governors of Maryland and New York, who note that the United Arab Emirates has been a home base for terrorists.

    The federal government has approval rights over business transactions with national security implications. In this case, Dubai Ports World would oversee shipping arrivals, departures and unloading at the docks, but the federal government would continue to handle port security.

    "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 [British] company," Bush told reporters.

    He said the transaction was thoroughly scrutinized by administration officials, who concluded that it poses no threat to national security. He praised the United Arab Emirates as a close ally against terrorism and warned of sending the wrong message to the world by condemning a business just because it is Arab-owned.

    But many Republicans and Democrats who represent the seaport regions remain deeply skeptical of a UAE-owned company playing such a central role at some of the most sensitive entry points in the country. They noted that some of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial hub.

    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called on Bush to delay the takeover and reevaluate the security risk. Frist threatened to introduce legislation to delay the takeover if Bush does not act quickly.

    Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) called Bush politically tone-deaf. "Of all the bills to veto, if he lays down this gauntlet, he'll probably have 350 members of the House ready to accept that challenge," Foley said.

    Bush welcomed the fight. "They ought to look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do," Bush said. "But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it, with a veto."

    In a 20-minute airborne news conference en route to the White House from Colorado, Bush also dared opponents to try to make a political issue of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit - Democrats call it a bureaucratic fiasco - and said the newly elected Hamas leadership of the Palestinian Authority can expect no U.S. financial support until it formally recognizes Israel's right to exist. Hamas is formally known as the Islamic Resistance Movement.

    But Bush's purpose in calling reporters to his front cabin was clearly to assuage the growing concerns raised by his Republican allies over the port issue.

    In recent days, Hastert and other GOP leaders had sent word to the White House that conservative lawmakers and voters are furious over the notion that a country with terrorism links - even if indirect ones - would be managing U.S. seaports. On C-SPAN, Fox News and conservative talk radio, Republicans from across the country are criticizing Bush with an intensity rarely seen by this White House.

    Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) went to Dundalk yesterday to discuss the deal with leaders of the labor union that represents port workers and to issue a warning. "Job one is public safety," Ehrlich said, calling it "paramount during a time of war, a terror war, a nontraditional war."

    Ehrlich stopped short of saying he would seek to have Maryland, which controls the Baltimore port, break its contracts to scuttle the deal. He said more review of the deal is needed.

    On Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats rushed throughout the day to endorse a plan to impose a 45-day review of the purchase. "If the president insists on using his first veto on this bill, Congress should give him the opportunity to do so," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who, along with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), has promised legislation to ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports.

    Republicans who had previously spoken out against the port deal appeared just as undeterred. "I'm not changing my mind," said Rep. Vito Fossella (N.Y.), who said a legislative showdown now appears inevitable. "The momentum is there. The genie is out of the bottle."

    GOP leaders are also fuming that they had not been consulted on an issue with such obvious political implications. "It's strange that the administration didn't consult Congress," a Republican leadership aide said. "They might not have had to, but it was going to be a big deal on Capitol Hill. To not know that is mystifying."

    Minutes after the president's veto threat came to the GOP leadership's attention, Hastert sent a letter to Bush calling for "an immediate moratorium" on the deal and a more thorough administration review.

    "Finally, this proposal may require additional Congressional action in order to ensure that we are fully protecting Americans at home," Hastert wrote.

    Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) said last night that he will convene his panel today for a public briefing to be led by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt and five other administration officials involved in the security review of the deal. Warner was briefed yesterday by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The senator pronounced himself satisfied that procedure was followed on the deal.

    But he said he would withhold judgment on the deal's national security implications until after today's briefing. The United Arab Emirates provides docking rights for more U.S. Navy ships than any other nation in the region, Warner noted. He added: "If they say they have not been treated fairly in this, we run the risk of them pulling back some of that support at a critical time of the war."

    The deal has already passed muster with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a secretive 12-member board that includes Cabinet members and White House officials. The panel operates behind closed doors, with little or no consultation with Congress.

 

---

    Go to Original

    The President and the Ports
    The New York Times | Editorial

    Wednesday 22 February 2006

    If President Bush follows through on his threat, he'll be making a strange choice for his first veto after more than five years in office. After giving a pass to a parade of misbegotten Congressional initiatives and irresponsible budget packages, he'd be choosing to take a stand over the right to hand control of operations at major American ports to a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and controlled by that government.

    And Congress, which is making a bipartisan show of beating its collective chest, is being rather tardy in taking a stand, given the way it has looked on indifferently as the administration has ignored Congress's own rights of oversight and its constituents' right not to be targets of extralegal spying.

    Nevertheless, Congress is right to resist the ports deal, in which the company, Dubai Ports World, would take over the British company now running these operations. The issue is not, as Mr. Bush is now claiming, a question of bias against a Middle Eastern company. The United Arab Emirates is an ally, but its record in the war on terror is mixed. It is not irrational for the United States to resist putting port operations, perhaps the most vulnerable part of the security infrastructure, under that country's control. And there is nothing in the Homeland Security Department's record to make doubters feel confident in its assurances that all proper precautions will be taken.

    The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest points of vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected.

    It is no secret that this administration has pursued an aggressive antiregulatory agenda, and it has elevated corporate leaders to its highest positions. Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department convened the panel that approved the ports deal, came to government after serving as the chief executive of the CSX Corporation, which was a major port operator when he worked there. (After he left, CSX sold its port operations to Dubai Ports World.)

    The administration's intransigence has inspired a rare show of bipartisanship. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, along with a slew of other Republican members of Congress, have joined leading Democrats in objecting to the move. Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, are introducing a bill that would put the decision on hold and require closer examination of the proposal. The bill would ultimately give Congress the final say.

    The Schumer-King bill takes the right approach, and members of Congress from both parties should rally around it. Rather than using his first veto on such a wrongheaded cause, President Bush should make the bill unnecessary by acting on his own to undo the ports deal.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.