Is he fucking serious? I mean, even Bill Frist is giving Bush a thumbs-down on this one.

---
Bush Says Dubai Port Deal Should Proceed, Threatens Veto

Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said a Dubai company's bid to manage six major U.S. ports should go forward, threatening to veto legislation that blocks the transaction because of security concerns.

``After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,'' Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington from a speech in Golden, Colorado. ``We believe this is a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country and at the same time send out a signal that we're willing to treat people fairly.''

In response to a question, Bush said he would veto any legislation enacted to block the deal.

``I don't view it as a fight, I view it as the right policy,'' he said.

The administration's approval of the acquisition of London- based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by a firm controlled by the United Arab Emirates has ignited a storm of protests from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and from governors of the states where the ports are located.

This is not the smartest move Professor Bush has made. No.

I'm sure he's buddies with the guys on the board. It'll come back to bite him in the ass and it will go down in the list of hundreds of mistakes he has made during his administration.

Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich has stated publicly that there is a lot of room for maneuvering in the deal, and if the state has to, he will move to cancel the lease of the Port of Baltimore.

damn

So...this means the ports were already foreign-controlled, but by a British firm?

That's ridiculous, dumb and contrary to the whole "secure homeland" bit.


Nothing against England, but our ports shouldn't be controlled by anyone but us.

Duh.

Now he's concerned about treating people fairly?

What an idiot.

Bush sure is getting kinda pissy about this thing, which is usually a sure sign it's a bad idea, and perhaps illegal.

Why can't we give this job to a US company? I'm appalled it was run by a British firm before, even if they are "allies."

Okay, here's some more stuff I found. The first post is from Glenn Reynolds [Instapundit], who is probably conservative enough for most of you to label a crypto-Nazi.

SO NOW BUSH IS THREATENING TO VETO any legislation that would block the Dubai ports deal? Either this deal is somehow a lot more important than it seems (a quid pro quo for, well, something . . . ) or Bush is an idiot. Your call.

Don Surber, meanwhile, emails to castigate me for suggesting that Bush is a crook. But that's not what I meant by the quid pro quo remark. I was wondering if there wasn't some diplomatic importance to this deal. That seems somewhat more plausible now. There must be something important here to get Bush to threaten a veto -- had he done more vetoing, of course, that wouldn't be quite so obvious.

On the other hand, maybe the whole thing is just a clever ruse to get Chuck Schumer to endorse racial profiling.

Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg observes: "I agree entirely with the now-obvious consensus that the UAE deal is bad politics. I'm even somewhat convinced that it's bad policy. But I can't help but get the whiff of hysteria in all of this."

ANOTHER UPDATE: Robert Ferrigno, author of Prayers for the Assassin, emails: Bush is going to take some ugly political flak for a better cause. The USA needs to strengthen ties with Arab nations. Period. The UAE is not Switzerland, but it's not Afghanistan either, and yes they recognized the Taliban government. They're politicians too. If we can do business with Pakistan, and we must, the UAE is as good an Islamic business partner as we're going to get.

To take away the deal from the UAE now, for no other reason than their religion, would rightly insult all Muslims, and do irreparable damage to our long term interests. This would not even be an issue if the ports were secure. That should be the focus of conservative attention, not who gets the deal to run the port.

Several other readers also think that this wouldn't be such an issue if it werent' for the cartoon riots.

John McCain is also backing Bush here. So is Will Collier, who pretty much takes the Ferrigno line. But the Bush Administration set itself up for this, in part, with its response to the Cartoon Wars, as reader C.J. Burch emails:

When you combine the Dubai thing with the administration's very lame reaction to the Danish cartoons...well, I'm one dissatisfied customer. I think that's part of what's going on here. That limp response cost them credibility that they need now.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt:
Majority Leader Frist just told my audience that an override of a presidential veto of legislation blocking the port deal was possible. Looks like a showdown, and it isn't one the president can win.

What is the White House thinking? If this deal is that important, they should have been ahead of the story, not behind it.

Former Congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley, currently a consultant for Baltimore Port Authority, has also weighed in, though not against the sale.

Helen Delich Bentley "Letter to the Editor" 18 February, Baltimore Sun:

Port Administration runs region's port
The Sun's headline "UAE firm to run 6 U.S. ports" (Feb. 12) is misleading with regard to the purchase of a British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., commonly referred to as P&O Ports, which did become the property of Dubai Ports World (DPW) of the United Arab Emirates on Feb. 13.

The story states that P&O "runs Baltimore's public terminals." That's not true.

P&O Ports is a stevedoring company that has competitively bid contracts with the Maryland Port Commission to perform certain duties at its public terminals in the port of Baltimore.

A stevedore company is one that hires longshoremen to load and unload cargo from ships. Therefore, that corporate transaction means that UAE's Dubai Ports World will be the firm bidding competitively for contracts to handle the containers and other cargoes coming off or loading on to ships in the six ports where P&O Ports has contracts. Baltimore is one of these ports.

The Maryland Port Administration will continue to "run" the port of Baltimore's public terminals and be the spokesman for the port in general. The private terminal operators will continue to run their terminals.

Helen Delich Bentley, Lutherville

The writer is a former member of Congress and a consultant to the Port of Baltimore

This is an excerpt from another article from some Dudes in Portland, Oregon who seem to be less impressed by Baltimore Mayor and current gubernatorial candidate Martin O'Malley (D) than I am.

+---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---+

The critical point is that Dubai Ports World won't be running the port of Baltimore, or any other U.S. port for that matter. What it would be doing, as ex-Rep. Helen Delich Bentley (R-MD), a respected expert on Maritime matters, explained in a Feb. 18th letter, to the "Baltimore Sun," is hiring the longshoremen to load and unload the cargo from the vessels. The Maryland Port Authority, an agency of the state, she underscored, would continue to "run the port of Baltimore's public terminals and be the spokesman for the port in general." Bentley added that this transaction only means that the "UAE's Dubai Ports World will be the firm bidding competitively for contracts to handle cargo coming off or loading on to ships in the six ports where P&O Ports has contracts. Baltimore is one of those ports." (2)

It is also important to emphasize that the vast majority of the cargo handling in the six U.S. ports mentioned above is done by union labor, who are locally based workers. They are card carrying members of the International Longshorman's Association (AFL-CIO), which is headquartered in New York City. This is the same union, (Local 829 ILA), that this writer belonged to, in Baltimore, back in the late 1950s. The idea that the longshoremen will somehow not be able to do the same kind of highly professional stevedoring work for Dubai, which they did for the P&O company, and other stevedoring companies before them, just doesn't fly. For the ILA member, it will be just another day's work on the docks, irrespective of who's doing the hiring.

+---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---+

If this is a longshoreman/stevedore issue, it's quite clear that we need to enlist the services of one Frank Sabotka.

If this is the case, Bush needs to be a bit more clear that UAE will not actually be in charge of port operations. A lot more clear, actually.

I'm still not sold on this idea, but I thought it was a good idea to share those articles. It does seem strange to threaten the never used veto on this of all things.

I had no idea the British were taking care of it before, but that doesn't make it any easier to swallow. Why the hell can't the Feds just pass this over to state and local governments, especially since that's who's going to shoulder the blame when some bad shit goes down.

Yeah. You know elections are coming up.

Not to hijack the thread, but Fu did you catch the Donald Shaffer sexual harrassment thing caught on tape with that girl? Ehrlich's face was priceless.

I missed the tape, but I heard the story.

Holy crap man. If I can find the tape I'll send it to you. Ehrlich just has this nervous giggle face, and this look of holy shit, this is going to fire up.

I agree with Frank DeFillippo: Shaeffer does this shit to get attention, but this one backfired on him. It's unlikely he will lose, but he will likely lose some votes.

Where's Jack Bauer in all this?

Can I get a link, too, please? I, too, heard the story, but didn't actually see the video.

Yeah, will do.

i'm sort of ambivalent about the whole thing, although my knee-jerk reaction is pretty much the same as frosted's--domestic companies should be handling our port security.
but i'm not entirely convinced that this will end up being a negative for anybody but bush. it does give the republican congress a chance to stand up and look independent even as they cup his balls on fisa and the patriot act. his unpopularity won't be as big of a drag for the midterms if republican congressman aren't percieved as his lackeys. and a continued republican majority after 2006 is pretty much a precondition to passing the most controversial aspects of his agenda.
but maybe i'm just being paranoid, doing something that on face seems so politically idiotic makes me think something else is up. as incompetent as the administration is on everything else, they're mighty good at winning elections.

Bush just gave the Dems the chance to appear committed for national security over a common sense ideal. I don't get it. And worse, they are going full nelson against an obvious losing position with the 2006 election coming up. Bush is having a Harriet Mier moment but seems to think this fight is a winner against his party. Hell no. It shows how out of touch the white house is to think they are going to win this debate. Right and Left agree that this is bullshit.

I suspect it was a quid pro quo to get to this point actually. UAE is is a staging area for us... money buys access and that's where we have used it. The fix was in a long time ago. Otherwise there's no reason to go to the mats.

I agree, I was amazed that a foreign company ran it before, but I do agree with the outcry. It's racial profiling on a national scale. Fucking common sense.


So, you're a racist if you don't want an arab country running our ports..... Right fucking idiots?

If Ramones were still around they could do a "Dubya Goes To Dubai (Where The Hell My Brain At)" song

There new one sounds look cool

wtf?