NEWS: Bush to Veto Laws Blocking Arab Port Deal

President Bush has threatened to veto any law that comes up that would block the deal giving control of six US ports to an Arab company. The row has put the President and senior Republicans in a serious political standoff.



Bush remains firm in his resolve to see the deal go through. The article states that Mr Bush had called on opponents to explain why they opposed a Middle Eastern firm taking over when they did not oppose a British company being in control.

It goes on further stating that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "We all deal with the UAE on a regular basis. It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror."

This is hardly surprising news, what with the White House's other links with the Arab firm.

Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com
www.cnn.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NEWS: Arab Firm May Gain Control of Several U.S. Ports
White House wants to turn Control of 6 Major Ports to UAE

yeah right Bush knew nothing about it....sure he did. If He is resolved to see the deal go through it has got to make you wonder which of his true constinuncy (which isn't you or me) has money to make in this deal.

I just don't remember any brits being on the planes that took down the World Trade Centers do you? I do however remember the UAE being involved. It would seem to us citizens that you would sell your own soul for a dollar, oops, you already have.....

I came across this on truthout.org...the whole article is much larger but this is the gist of it.

How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.

The Inter Press Service highlights exactly what's at stake, quoting a conservative activists who admits that this is all about trade:

"The United States' trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, after Israel and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are engaged in bilateral free talks that would liberalise trade between the two countries and would, in theory at least, allow companies to own and operate businesses in both nations. 'There are legitimate security questions to be asked but it would be a mistake and really an insult to one of our leading trading partners in that region to reject this commercial transaction out of hand,' said Daniel T. Griswold, who directs the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank."

America is up for sale! First it was selling the entertainment industry to the Japanese. Now apparently it's selling our ports to the Saudis. Pretty soon
there won't be any Americans left that own anything in America. Not a problem
until they decide to kick us out. Who owns this chunk of land anyway?

My God, if he was up for re-election, this would be dumb enough. But as basically a lame duck, this doesn't do the republican party a lot of justice for 2008. I ride the fence, vote for who I like if I vote at all. In this day and age, to do this makes Clinton's b-job nothing, IMO. F#$k the best contractor, this is our country!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....First time in 15 years I have given a damn about the way this country is run.............Whew, sorry, just my opinion..............

Originally posted by grover

"The United States' trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, after Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Yes that is true and they have been very good at allowing our ships and soldiers stay in their ports in their way to the middle east, while Saudi Arabia are less happy about that.

The two nations are engaged in bilateral free talks that would liberalise trade between the two countries and would, in theory at least, allow companies to own and operate businesses in both nations. '

That is also true but is conflict of interest taking in consideration that the UAE are also partners in the Carlyle investment firm that share links with the Bush family.

There are legitimate security questions to be asked but it would be a mistake and really an insult to one of our leading trading partners in that region to reject this commercial transaction out of hand,'

You are right is a legitimate security reason, you know why? Because the Bush administration is fighting terror

Americans can not forget that we have been told that our security is the most important issue in the minds of the present administration.

Americans has not forgotten the nationality of the 9/11 attackers and neither the business deals than when trough the Dubai Banking system.

All this has been make into Political issue for obvious reasons.

Bush mistake was also to make it a Racist issue because he was upset of a set back.

This is not about racist and should not be about Politics it should be an issue of what laws were bypassed and broken and how the congress was left in the dark while a group of elite people makes deals with our security.

Bush-Rove is backing down. Must be getting mighty hot in that Carlyle kettle of rotting fish.

He can threaten to veto all he wants, but Congress will override his veto. The American Public is completely against this. Its also hard for me to believe that no American company would be willing to purchase the contracts to run these ports......also its not all American ports just 6 out of 360. Hasn't the mainstream news been telling us since 9/11 that our ports are unsecure??...

seems to me it will open the door for more terror attacks.

Occurs they will back off and do what was supposed to be done by the law.

If Bush persist on the Vito without giving a change for the congress to take in the issue the Republican party will divide and the next coming elections will have a nice littler hot issue added to the campaign of the opposition.

Hmm, let me see here, Marg....
Wire tapping international phone calls "Because the Bush administration is fighting terror" is a 'no-no,' but blocking this United Arab Emirates deal is 'okie-dokie'?

Btw, it was not Bush that made this a racial issue, it was the folks that you back and support. Ironic, huh?




seekerof

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Btw, it was not Bush that made this a racial issue, it was the folks that you back and support. Ironic, huh?

Bush was the one that make it into a racial issue while the opposition make it into a political issue.

If you can no see the true intention of the whole issue, then you have not been listening very well to your own political leaders.

The deal will probably stay but first the whole issue has to be review by congress something that should have been done to begin with.

But we all now that most business deals in our country are done behind close doors.

This time it back fire.

Originally posted by marg6043
Bush was the one that make it into a racial issue while the opposition make it into a political issue.

Source it then, m'kay?

If you can no see the true intention of the whole issue, then you have not been listening very well to your own political leaders.

Please reveal to all of us the true intentions of this whole issue, Marg.
I am interested to read your interpretation.






seekerof

Actually, I believe it was made into a national issue, that is, towards the nation of the United Arab Emirates. The only people I see referring to the company as "Arab" are the news outlets.

But, it's important to remember that this company will not handle security at the ports. I do agree though that it is always wise to investigate controversial matters further, whether it is a political supreme court nominee or a state-owned corporation that has its share of bad apples.

Why can't someone disagree with wiretapping and disagree with this port deal at the same time? Does everything have to be so black and white?

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Jamuhn]

I had a feeling Bush would flip-flop and find a way out of it. You can't veto a Republican controlled congress when elections are in November. Also, all the Republicans are setting themselves up in '08, so there is no reason to stay aboard a sinking ship, the USS Bush. Iraq, Katrina, the NSA, Harriet Miers, Valerie Plame, the deficit, etc. no one wants to bring that baggage into elections. The smart thing to do for Republicans would be to distance yourself from Bush as much as possible, and "Port Gate" seems like the perfect wedge issue.

EDIT: Oops, same link as Regenmacher

[edit on 23-2-2006 by curme]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Source it then, m'kay?

Since when I have to give sources to my own opinions on the administration?

Please reveal to all of us the true intentions of this whole issue, Marg.
I am interested to read your interpretation.

Really then you should be reading all the threads that are here in ATS covering this very interesting issue, they are plenty of good reasons as why Bush wants to keep the deal going.

And the political gain from all this.

I think the whole idea is just rediculous. Why in the world would we want to have airports established in the middle east.

Originally posted by whitelightwolf
I think the whole idea is just rediculous. Why in the world would we want to have airports established in the middle east.

Because is not to many Arab countries that will allowe US to use their countries for military action, the persian gulf is a very strategy area for the US.

I think the whole idea is just rediculous. Why in the world would we want to have airports established in the middle east.

Huh? What's this about airports? The issue is domestic shipping ports being managed by a state-owned company from Dubai.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Huh? What's this about airports? The issue is domestic shipping ports being managed by a state-owned company from Dubai.

Well the issue of how good Dubai has been to the US allowing planes and ships to their land and coast and as a staging area for the soldiers and equipment for operations in the area.