House GOP Leaders Line Up Against UAE Port Deal

[JohnnyBz00LS]

House GOP Leaders Line Up Against UAE Port Deal
Tuesday, February 21, 2006

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be "flexing muscle" against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

"We are very concerned about it and that it could threaten our national security," one senior House Republican leadership aide told FOX News late Monday. Another senior aide said: "Most indications point to leadership flexing muscle against this transaction."

On Monday, New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he was urging President Bush to delay approval of the deal. King also said he saw many reasons to cancel it altogether.

"I'm strongly urging the president to intervene to stop this, to freeze it, to put it on hold," King said. "This contract should not be allowed to go forward until there is a full and complete investigation. And there has not been a full investigation of this company nor of its roots in the United Arab Emirates."

King said UAE-owned Dubai Ports World won approval without thorough administration vetting.

"There have been allegations of weapons parts going through that port to Iran," King said of that country's own territory. "There's been allegations of corruption about that port. None of these have ever been investigated by our government."

King's comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republican Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned at the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security.

Late Monday, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called on the president to intervene immediately.

"We have 10 days to stop this transaction, a transaction that we think is not in the national security of the united states, and that needs to be stopped by the president," Menendez said.

Under federal law, the president has until March 2 to overrule approval granted by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for DP World to purchase the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, which has been running the commercial operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.

The multi-agency task force headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security reviewed the transaction and said it posed no national security threat.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told FOX News on Monday that congressional questions will persist until more is learned about the administration review process.

"It's very difficult without total transparency and I'm not saying I should necessarily have it but members of congress who have expressed concern should be given a look at the agreement to see who ultimately has operational responsibility and what kind of information is going to be shared with whom once the transaction is completed," Ridge said.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan defended the process that approved the $6.8 billion deal.

McClellan said the process of review was followed. He did not, however, defend the decision to approve the transaction or rule out the president's future involvement.

Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland have also voiced doubts about the sale.

"I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," said Pataki, who is still in the hospital recovering from an appendectomy.

"We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.

The state of Maryland is considering its options, up to and including voiding the contract for the Port of Baltimore, Ehrlich said, adding: "We have a lot of discretion in the contract."

How is handing over control of OUR ports to a foreign company in OUR best interest?? This seems like a ludacris idea. Figures BuSh would back it.

 

[barry2952]

You're just being racist. That's what the BuSh quagmire is stating.

 

[Dominus]

Not just handing over security to a foreign power, but but to a company owned by a nation whose loyalties are mysterious at best? Why?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

A little more info, Bill O'Reily made a pretty compelling argument for the UAE deal last night, emphasizing that they are our "Best Friends Forever" in the GWOT, and to not approve of the deal would be to "spit in their face" and we don't want to piss them off. After all, two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE. It was almost hypocritical the way Bill was sounding, advocating kissing up to the UAE so we don't piss them off and turn them into our enemys. Gee, where have we heard that argument before??

Anyway, if the BuSh admin. would just come out and lay out all those compelling facts that support their decision to approve this deal instead of taking the "don't think about it, just trust us" tactic, treating the American citizens like a bunch of dumb fools, they might just avoid all the hand wringing that is going on.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

GW is on top of things as usual............

White House: Bush Didn't Know About Port Deal
Wednesday, February 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush was unaware that a controversial deal to sell shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a United Arab Emirates-owned firm was in the works until it was approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

After Bush repeatedly defended the deal in recent days and threatened to use his veto power against any congressional legislation aimed at stalling it, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

"He became aware of it over the last several days," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Wednesday. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."

"The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process," the spokesman said. "He made sure to check with them — even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made."

"And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved," he said.

The Senate Armed Services Committee will get a briefing from Defense Department officials on Thursday afternoon about the decision by a 12-member government panel to approve the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs commercial operations at the six U.S. ports, to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

In announcing the briefing, Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said Wednesday he met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Gordon England, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace at the Department of Defense a day earlier to discuss DP World's acquisition of P&O.

Warner said that while it's important to ensure that any foreign acquisition doesn't threaten U.S. national security, "we must also recognize the importance of making fair and objective decisions in working with our allies, especially those which are actively supporting the coalition of nations engaged in fighting the global War on Terror."

Warner said the UAE "has played a key role" in support of the War on Terror by providing logistical assistance to the U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly through docking support for naval ships and providing airfields for the U.S. Air Force.

Warner's comments come after the White House has gone on the offensive in support of the pending sale, which will lead to DP World's owning the contract for operations in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.

On Tuesday, President Bush said objections to the deal are unfair, and DP World, the 7th largest international port operator in the world, deserves to be judged by the same rules as the British-owned P&O.

"I think 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 can't manage the port," Bush said.

Bush said he's not sure about the need for congressional briefings on a company whose record is well established and who he called an ally in the War on Terror.

"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. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue, and looked at it carefully," he said.

On Wednesday, presidential adviser Dan Bartlett said that security for the ports will remain with the United States.

"The physical security of the ports is at the charge of the Coast Guard. The actual cargo that comes in on the ships, is ... charged to the United States Customs Service. So it's critically important for America to understand that doesn't change — not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not six months from now. They are in charge of the security of our ports," Bartlett said.

"The country in question has been a strong partner in the War on Terror. They are helping us cut of financing. They are working side by side with military. They are sharing intelligence. If we are going to win this ... we have to be adding partners in the Middle East, not subtracting," he added.

Dennis Rochford, president of Maritime Exchange for Delaware River and Bay, told FOX News that DP World, like P&O, would function as terminal operators or stevedoring companies. They load or offload cargo. They are not responsible for port security. As a business or a vendor, they must operate by security rules already in place and must comply with port facility security plans submitted to, approved and enforced by the Coast Guard.

"If you have a problem with port security as it is, and think the regulations should be changed, then you should take it up with the entire maritime system. But using this company as a scapegoat is pushing the envelope," he said.

Rochford argued that DP World is "extremely well-respected" internationally for its operations, and if the United States relied on American ships and port companies to run the shipping industry, the ports would shut down.

"2,700 ships come up the Delaware River each year; 2,500 are flying foreign flags," he said, explaining that the United States dropped out of shipping operations by the 1970s as international consolidations increased.

Strength in Opposition

To assuage concerns, the administration has disclosed some assurances it 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 it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

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."

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by House and Senate leaders, both Democrat and Republican, that the $6.8 billion deal could raise the risk of terrorism at U.S. ports or allow terrorists to slip into the country unnoticed. He said he will object to any legislation that is offered to stop the deal.

"There's a mandated process we go through. ... They ought to listen to what I have to say to this. I'll deal with it with a veto," Bush told reporters after an unusual decision to call media aboard Air Force One to the airplane's conference room.

But the opponents of the sale say they can count enough votes in Congress to override a veto.

"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush — in his sixth year in office — has never done. "We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."

Menendez added that the UAE may be an ally now, but that doesn't mean their support is guaranteed.

"The administration says that the United Arab Emirates is an ally. Fine. But we also supported Saddam Hussein at one time and the reality is that it became one of our biggest nightmares," he told FOX News.

But Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the bipartisan opposition to the deal indicated "a lack of confidence in the administration" on both sides. "Sure, we have to link up with our Arab friends but ... we want to see and those in Congress want to know what ... safeguards are built in," Biden said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

In a break from most lawmakers, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the public and Congress should 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. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully," McCain said, adding that due diligence is necessary, but a conclusion about the sanctity of the deal shouldn't be reached before lawmakers have all the pertinent facts.

"Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion," McCain said.

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.

CFIUS approved the sale last Monday and Bush has until March 2 to decide whether to reject it. Without action, the deal will go into effect automatically. Lawmakers have asked him to delay approval until the multi-agency task force can take a closer look at the sale.

CFIUS is headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security reviewed the transaction and said it posed no national security threat.

On Wednesday, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote Snow asking him to disclose how CFIUS concluded that approval should be granted, suggesting that CFIUS "approved the sale as expeditiously as possible, without even using the additional 45 day investigation process that was clearly warranted under the circumstances."

Kerry also said that ties between the Bush administration and DP World raise suspicions about the basis for approval. For instance, CSX rail corporation, of which Snow served as chief executive officer, sold its port operations to DP World in 2004. Moreover, David Sanborn, the president's nominee to be head of the U.S. Maritime Administration headed DP World's operations for Latin America and Europe.

"In light of these connections, Congress needs to learn more about the relationship between CFIUS members and DP, and whether Administration officials could have unduly influenced CFIUS's approval process," Kerry wrote.

 

[TheDude]

To the repubs/conserves in here that always said the Left will be the ones responsible for another attack on US soil, guess what, if a bomb is going to make its way onto US soil, I bet ya it will be through one of those ports. Scary stuff.

Speak up though; I'm curious to hear your feelings (pro or con) towards this deal, especially from the more staunch Bush supporters in here (MonsterMark, Fossten, RB3, Bufordtpisser, Calabrio, Vitas etc.)

 

[Vitas]

Speak up though; I'm curious to hear your feelings (pro or con) towards this deal, especially from the more staunch Bush supporters in here (MonsterMark, Fossten, RB3, Bufordtpisser, Calabrio, Vitas etc.)

It is fairly clear that one side should not be impeded by anyone.

Hence, we all get to watch the left debating the left.

That is what you wanted all along, isn’t it?

(Thanks for the humor.)

 

[Calabrio]

This is a far more complicated issue than Hillary and the media are making it out to be. Knee-jerk responses aren't necessarily the right answer. There is a lot of disagreement regarding this issue, across the board. Especially within the Republican party. And that concern isn't simply based on the political opportunism so often associated with New York Senators.

I haven't come to a conclussion yet. The information that has been made available to the public really isn't adequate to provide a really informed decision. There are consequences associated with alienating the UAE as well. And there were apparently secret arrangments made by the gov't giving them a degree of oversight and information.

Again, this isn't an easy question to answer. Unfortunately, political opportunists, desperate to suddenly looks "strong on defense" and searching for any issue to misrepresent to hurt the administration, have politicized it now to the point that honest public debate will be near impossible.

Correction, Republicans will still give it thoughtful regard. That's why you'll continue to see a divide in the party on the issue. However, liberals will just ignorantly use the issue to assault the President. The Cheney story didn't have legs.

 

[Vitas]

Geez, Calabrio, you had to chirp up.

If the "administrators/moderators," made it an even playing field, we would see.

They don't want to let me, or you, play even. That is stated by Bryan.

It is funny seeing the left blindly leading the left.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

My gut feeling it that this deal will be OK. However, this:

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.

..... and the fact that GW was unaware of the deal until AFTER it was approved by his admin. sure doesn't give me a warm fuzzy about it. Now GW is backing the deal, either because he did thorough research on it himself, or he's blindly trusting the same people who made the decision to approve the deal. From the article above, it appears to be the latter. Either way, the deal is still deserving of the debate it is now getting. I still contend that if the BuSh administration would've been less secretive and more transparent about the deal in the first place, none of us would be having this discussion. So much for his claim to "want to work with those on the other side of the aisle". Is it any wonder that most people feel that he and his administration can't be trusted?

 

[barry2952]

Arab Company, White House Had Secret Deal


WASHINGTON (AP) - Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Dubai Ports agreed to give up records on demand about ``foreign operational direction'' of its business at the U.S. ports, according to the documents. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment. It also pledged to continue participating in programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

``They're not lax but they're not draconian,'' said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If White House officials negotiating the deal had predicted the firestorm of criticism over it, ``they might have made them sound harder.''

The conditions over the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked ``confidential.'' Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The Republican head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia, planned an oversight hearing Thursday. Warner has expressed support for the agreement, describing the UAE as an important ally against terrorism.

Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the conditions are evidence the Bush administration was concerned about security. ``There is a very serious question as to why the records are not going to be maintained on American soil subject to American jurisdiction,'' King said.

Another critic, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., added: ``These new revelations ask more questions than they answer.''

The disclosure of the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had been already approved by his administration.

Bush has pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; several Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

``We're disappointed,'' Bilkey told the AP in an interview. ``We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said.''

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers ``to the extent possible.'' The company promised to take ``all reasonable steps'' to assist the Homeland Security Department.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork ``in the normal course of business'' but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts said stricter provisions are routine in other industries.

Foreign communications companies with American customers are commonly required to store business records in the United States. A senior U.S. official said the Bush administration considers shipping manifests less sensitive. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the agreement.

Bush faces a potential rebellion over the sale from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

In Lebanon, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that the agreement was thoroughly vetted in a review process that took approximately three months. ``This is supposed to be a process that raises security concerns, if they are there, but does not presume that a country in the Middle East should not be capable of doing a deal like this.'' She described the United Arab Emirates as ``a very good ally'' and said ``if more details need to be made available then I'm sure they will be.''

The White House said President Bush did not know about the agreement until recently. The AP first reported U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

``I think somebody dropped the ball,'' said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. ``Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information.''

Associated Press Writer Anne Gearan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, contributed to this report.

 

[MonsterMark]

Geez, Calabrio, you had to chirp up.

If the "administrators/moderators," made it an even playing field, we would see.

They don't want to let me, or you, play even. That is stated by Bryan.

Now what?

All I asked is that the conservatives on this board take the lead and show restraint regarding the tone of their postings. That's all. Not tying one's hand behind their back or anything similar. Conservatives and people on the Right have always attempted to hold themselves to a higher standard in all of life's endeavors. We should be able to win the argument on the merits and not have to resort to 'gutter' tactics to win.

I don't really know what is so hard to understand. Let's have deep, probing discussions without the personal attacks. Pretty simple.

 

[TheDude]

It is fairly clear that one side should not be impeded by anyone.

Hence, we all get to watch the left debating the left.

That is what you wanted all along, isn’t it?

(Thanks for the humor.)

You're insane...............

 

[TheDude]

Now what?

All I asked is that the conservatives on this board take the lead and show restraint regarding the tone of their postings. That's all. Not tying one's hand behind their back or anything similar. Conservatives and people on the Right have always attempted to hold themselves to a higher standard in all of life's endeavors. We should be able to win the argument on the merits and not have to resort to 'gutter' tactics to win.

I don't really know what is so hard to understand. Let's have deep, probing discussions without the personal attacks. Pretty simple.

I always thought you were just a little extra lenient on the conserv posters in here and I was fine with that, they share your views. But this crying from certain people because you asked Fossten to show restraint on ONE post is ridiculous.

 

[MonsterMark]

I always thought you were just a little extra lenient on the conserv posters in here and I was fine with that, they share your views. But this crying from certain people because you asked Fossten to show restraint on ONE post is ridiculous.

See!!! The Left thinks I'm lenient on the Right and the Right thinks I am lenient on the Left. Sounds about perfect to me.

350 yards down the middle with a slight fade.

 

[TheDude]

This is a far more complicated issue than Hillary and the media are making it out to be. Knee-jerk responses aren't necessarily the right answer. There is a lot of disagreement regarding this issue, across the board. Especially within the Republican party. And that concern isn't simply based on the political opportunism so often associated with New York Senators.

I haven't come to a conclussion yet. The information that has been made available to the public really isn't adequate to provide a really informed decision. There are consequences associated with alienating the UAE as well. And there were apparently secret arrangments made by the gov't giving them a degree of oversight and information.

Again, this isn't an easy question to answer. Unfortunately, political opportunists, desperate to suddenly looks "strong on defense" and searching for any issue to misrepresent to hurt the administration, have politicized it now to the point that honest public debate will be near impossible.

Correction, Republicans will still give it thoughtful regard. That's why you'll continue to see a divide in the party on the issue. However, liberals will just ignorantly use the issue to assault the President. The Cheney story didn't have legs.

You're correct that the Left will use this to strengthen their image of 'Protecting America' and attack Bush simultaneously, if that’s right or wrong thing to do, I can't say. More information about the UAE Company and how this deal came to be needs to surface. But what is your gut instinct on this?

 

[Vitas]

You're insane...............

Thank you, thank you, thank you very much.

How about you?

 

[RRocket]

I listened to a "right wing" radio show, and the Rebubs sounded pretty pissed about the possibility that Bush might veto any attempt to block this citing security concerns. While I don't know every detail of the controversy, most people were concerned that IF any type of terrorist munition wanted to find a way in, this might make it EASIER. They didn't say they felt it would imminently cause a threat, but they felt that if there were even a few sympathetic people with ties to the port, something being smuggled in would be a little easier and more easily concealed. Is this the general consensus? I must say, this is the most I've seen the right and left in agreement for awhile. What do the righties here think about this situation? Is this a security threat, or is this nothing at all?

 

[barry2952]

I don't think the risk is in security. I think the risk continues to be the BuSh administration's penchant for doing things behind closed doors.

It came out today that there is a mandated 45 day study period for situations just like this that was completly ignored.

I'm not blaming BuSh directly for this situation. I just blame him for his poor choices to head these departments.

Even the Right will have to agree that cronyism is running rampant and wrecking our government.

 

[pbslmo]

I remember watching reports on HomeLand Security after 9/11, how only a small percentage of the cargo containers are screened in the ports. The risk is that while UAE may be upfront in their buyout, it is a BIG possiblity that some type of WMD may be smuggled into the ports and detinated.

BuSh: "people don't need to worry about security".

We should be always vigilant about our National Security!

 

[Calabrio]

This is an extremely complicated issue. There is no obvious "correct" response to the problem. Basically it's a matter of weighing the benefits and consequences associated with both decisions.

Ultimately, I think this deal will go through because it'll be cause the least harm.

What angers me is the way the Democrats seized the issue, without any understanding or concern about the broader implications. In an attempt to seem "strong on defense" they are undermining our security, once again.

By coming out like they did, they have polarized the issue without providing any information or argument. Denying the UAE authorization purely on the grounds they are Middle Eastern is knee-jerk and emotional. It's a natural response, but it's not a thoughtful one.

 

[mespock]

This is an extremely complicated issue. There is no obvious "correct" response to the problem. Basically it's a matter of weighing the benefits and consequences associated with both decisions.

Ultimately, I think this deal will go through because it'll be cause the least harm.

What angers me is the way the Democrats seized the issue, without any understanding or concern about the broader implications. In an attempt to seem "strong on defense" they are undermining our security, once again.

By coming out like they did, they have polarized the issue without providing any information or argument. Denying the UAE authorization purely on the grounds they are Middle Eastern is knee-jerk and emotional. It's a natural response, but it's not a thoughtful one.

I agree it is complicated but I thought it was a lot of the repbulicans who were coming out against this proposal not just all democrats.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

What angers me is the way the Democrats seized the issue, without any understanding or concern about the broader implications. In an attempt to seem "strong on defense" they are undermining our security, once again.

By coming out like they did, they have polarized the issue without providing any information or argument. Denying the UAE authorization purely on the grounds they are Middle Eastern is knee-jerk and emotional. It's a natural response, but it's not a thoughtful one.

I beg to differ with you. The Dems did NOT "seize" this issue. In fact, this point in the original article:

King's comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republican Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned at the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security.

...... leaves me with the impression that it was the Republicans who "seized" this issue in the anticipation of the Dems jumping all over it. Sounds like if anyone is politically motivated by making the UAE deal an "issue" it would be the republicans. ADDITIONALLY, Dems have NOT made this an issue "purely on the grounds they are Middle Eastern". The FACT is, some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. Doesn't that concern you at all about where this company's loyalties lie, or the abilities of the UAE to police themselves?

Like Barry said, what pisses people off the MOST is the BuSh administration's constant veil of secrecy on matters such as this one that should be debated publicly. Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans don't trust GW Bush?

 

[MonsterMark]

ADDITIONALLY, Dems have NOT made this an issue "purely on the grounds they are Middle Eastern". The FACT is, some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. Doesn't that concern you at all about where this company's loyalties lie, or the abilities of the UAE to police themselves?

Horse crap! I have great concerns about the UAE, especially pre-9/11. But to say just because a couple of guys used a bank account in the UAE makes the country culpable is garbage. The hijackers used US flight training schools! Were does that leave us? The fact is, liberals and the Democratic party ARE racists and are racially profiling this deal. The screaming and wailing came from the Left. Republicans have said, wait a second, let's make sure this is a safe deal. Democrats have come out screaming national security because every poll they have taken says they lose the next election unless they can convince the American people they are not the yellow-bellied sap-suckers everyone knows them to be.

Like Barry said, what pisses people off the MOST is the BuSh administration's constant veil of secrecy on matters such as this one that should be debated publicly. Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans don't trust GW Bush?

What should piss Barry off is the constant whining about how every American has a right to know everything. You know what? You don't need to know everything and anything that goes on. I have faith that our government, from Homeland Defense to the Defense Department and every intelligence agency in-between had an opportunity to have their say on this deal.

Bush called a Cabinet meeting and asked anyone to speak up if they had an issue with the deal. EVERYONE said they were comfortable with it.

I was not sure myself at first. I am happy the UAE agreed to let us look at it further before moving forward. I hope we include language in the contract that keeps all of the records on US soil so we can get our hands on them.

As far as strategic partner, they are the most strategic of all the countries over there and we rely heavily on both their air bases and sea bases for our military support structure. So unless you want to see Iran make good on their promise to shutdown the Strait of Hormuz and cut off 25% of the world's oil, making a deal with a W.O.T. partner is the lesser of two evils at this point.

BUSH was once again brilliant. By coming out in defense of the UAE deal so strongly, he demonstrated his willingness to be their partner. He has gained a bunch of loyalty from the UAE. Even if the deal falls apart, Bush stands to gain in the eyes of the UAE. He stood up for the deal. Another master stroke.

Just watch. In the next several weeks, all the bloviating and pontificating will subside and the deal will quitely pass with a few tweaks here and there.

Democrats will embarrass themselves again. Hillary has almost already signed on to the deal herself. She just wanted to score a few brownie points as a concerned legislator on national security issues. Ya right. Do I need to mention all the Clinton crap pulled by her husband concerning the UAE? You'll all whine if I do, that's for sure.

 

[barry2952]

Brilliant stroke? You are delusional.