BUSH PROMISES VETO OF UAE PORTS BILL
President Bush stated today that if the Senate created a bill to stop the sale to the UAE of operational control of six major U.S. ports he would veto the bill. Stating that we are sending a mixed message to the UAE because operational control currently belongs to a British company and therefore the UAE is being held to a different standard. Certain aspects of the details of the sale have called into question in my mind my original opposition to this sale. I am still opposed to the idea of a country that has in the past been involved with terrorists and recognized terrorist states as legitimate having any type of control to U.S. ports. The security risk that I had initially thought would pose a grave problem is not as bad as it first seems. Though the UAE company would handle the loading and unloading of containers in the six ports, the security would still be handled by The United States Coast Guard and employees would also remain the same. In essence the ownership of operations is all that will change. Additionally there are no ports within the United States and anywhere else for that matter that are operated by United States companies. The UAE company in question operates most of the container transfer in ports throughout the world. From a strictly financial standpoint it is sound business to allow the sale to go through as it will bring more than 6 billion dollars into U.S. coffers. The problem that arises is from a political stand point because it give the impression that the Bush administration is compromising on the War on Terror. Ronald Reagan used a stand point of military strength to bring down the Soviet Union but he also offered a , "carrot, " in the sense that he gave economic incentives which also assisted in bringing about a more capitalist economy in the Soviet block. Is this what the true intent of the Bush administration is ? To show how democracy works from an economic stand point in hopes that it will bring about a political return ? If so then the idea has its merits but the difference between Islamic radicals and the Soviets is that the fear of our military strength and what was known as the mutual destruction idea, gave the Soviets pause and caused them to compete with us in military build up which helped in their eventual down fall. Islamic states actually crave the idea of dying for Allah so they have no fear of military might therefore the incentive of economic change bringing about democracy may not apply here. Though I am still leaning to the opposition of the sale because of the afore mentioned reasons I do see the reasoning behind it but in a post 9/11 world the need for caution out weighs possible political gains in this instance.
Ken Taylor
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 6:42 PM
12 Comments:
Terrible politics. Possibly horrible policy. I am surprised at how quickly you caved in Ken. What magic words did Bush say that convinced you this was a good idea? UAE certainly does not have the best record of fighting terror.
You may be right about the dearth of American companies to run these ports but to be clear most American ports are operated by Americans. State and local port authorities own and operate ports such as the Port of Stockton, Houston, Seattle, etc.
Bush came out and said that he would veto any legislation that stops the deal from going forward. I am still laughing. He hasn't vetoed anything in his tenure and this is what he chooses? His threat is fairly empty - like his other veto threats - but what an idiot. At this point his veto would be slapped down easily in Congress.
Bush announced today that he did not even know about the ports deal before it was announced. Rumsfeld says he did not know. Congress did not know. Who knew? The incompetence is stunning.
You have the Republican governors of New York and Maryland, the House and Senate Majority Leaders, the Speaker of the House, and countless other Republicans saying this is stupid. Yet, unbelievably, Bush says he is going to veto any legislative attempt to stop the deal. Pathetic.
Rob, after looking at your blog I can see you are a left-wing Democrat. Me, I'm a Republican, but on this issue, I agree with you, Bush is just plain wrong here.
Look, there is no easy, nor legal way for me to explain in detail... This is not as much of an issue as it sounds on the surface. It is 2 weeks in a row of bad PR, that is for sure.
This is not the security risk it is being thought to be, and actually will only increase abilities in the war on terror in multiple aspects.
Rob this is not an issue of caving in or not caving in. My second article reflects additional information that I learned concerning HOW the ports are secured and what the UAE will actually do were they to have operational control. Before you point fingers get your facts straight about my point. After explanation I stated that from a business stand point it is a good deal but in a post 9/11 world bad politics and caution is better than the possible political gains that may be anticipated. My hypothosis about Reagan and the Soviets was pure speculation as to what may be taking place from a political stand point. I still think that the port deal is a bad idea and until I am convinced otherwise will remain that same. This does not mean that I cannot continue to research and think it through.
Ken
Ken, I apologize for misinterpreting your post. In an effort to further assist in your fact finding, UAE is one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. The FBI found that funding for the 9/11 attacks came primarily through the UAE banking system. The U.S. Treasury Department complained about the lack of cooperation by the UAE in tracking down bin Laden's accounts after 9/11. UAE has been a key transfer point for WMD technology that was part of A.Q. Khan's network. Read about it at:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdf
As far as vetting, Rumsfeld and Bush did not even know about the decision to turn over the ports until this past weekend. Congress did not know. Doesn't sound too extensive to me given the strategic points of entry into the country.
Contrary to MDConservative's cryptic assurance that everything is just fine, I'd rather not take the chance. It is pretty clear that the country feels the same way.
If you think winding up and slapping the UAE across the face is going to help anything you are obviously wrong. Much of what you say, the same case can be made of many countries.
The only thing I can say is that I do not know why this was on no ones radar, we have been doing the security checks and "paperwork" since last fall. I do not agree with those speaking against the deal, and that is my opinion.
There is much to be gained. Be it economic or intelligence. The people working here will be Americans, the same security procedures used now will continue.
Think about it. The UAE does not want a war with us. They will work even harder on security at the other end because they will know what will happen if they use this deal to cause damage in this country. Be it directly from them or another source. It is in their best interest to help us be safe.
If it is ok for them to run multiple ports around the world that our Navy uses, wouldn't you be willing to some degree to say "if it is good enough for the military?" Especially since you are talking about security concerns.
I realize that with vague points I am not going to be changing any minds; all I want to do is make sure you continue to consider that it is a valid and safe deal.
Say what you will but the deal has clearly not been properly vetted.
Putting UAE in charge MAY be fine, but it MAY not. I would rather not take the chance.
What are you putting them in charge of?
Operations.
Correct. That means moving the crane to pick up a crate and move it from point A to B. Now if someone can tell me how using a crane hurts national security...
It does not change the security currently involved. Nor does it change anything happening on the other end prior to the ship headed to the US.
95 percent of the cargo coming in is not checked. As Ken pointed out in one of his comments giving operational control to the UAE would expose them further to our security measures. Also, in the secret deal that was negotiated w/the UAE the Bush Administration told them they don't have to keep any paperwork on U.S. soil. This is extraordinary.
Post a Comment
<< Home