Bush Leading With Port Deal

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — President Bush, trying to put down a rapidly escalating rebellion among leaders of his own party, said Tuesday that he would veto any legislation blocking a deal for a state-owned company in Dubai to take over the management of port terminals in New York, Miami, Baltimore and other major American cities.

Whether he wins or loses politically, I'm extremely pleased to see President Bush take a stand on the infamous port deal, which many notable pundits, politicians and blogs were quick to weigh in on before they had a clear idea what it meant. It's amazing how much this issue has accomplished.

It ripped the skin right off the festering sore of America's xenophobia and its, in some measure, understandable suspicion of Arab nations. We can learn a lot from this episode if we take the time to do it, regardless of how it plays out. But if it doesn't go through, make no mistake, it will not be a shining moment for American democracy, it'll be a loss and a throw back to a 1950's based isolationism based on racism.

To begin with, all the company will do is lease certain facilities and they will have no responsibility for security at all. Additionally, they have the type of capital to invest in advanced screening and security technology in which the British company, P & O did not want to invest.

Q: Whowill control security?

A: The Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, all part of the Homeland Security Department, would continue to control security at the six ports as they do now at all U.S. ports. Department policy chief Stewart Baker said the company would be required to participate in all government security programs, and the Coast Guard is now conducting baseline security inspections of all the operations Dubai Ports World would control.

Q: How many terminals will Dubai Ports World run?

A: The company bought the rights to operate up to 30% of the terminals at each of the six ports. In Baltimore, for example, the company would operate only two of 14 terminals.

How can any deal which makes Senator Schumer make a fool of himself by coming out against foreign ownership of our ports, when the reality is, no one but the US will own them and other foreign companies already enjoy similar arrangements.

Companies from several foreign countries, including Singapore and Denmark, run operations at U.S. ports. Officials from the Treasury and Homeland Security departments said Tuesday that they did not know whether the Dubai deal was the first with a Middle Eastern country.

Like it or not, Bush is continuing to be the leader he always has been. He believes, as do I, that the deal makes sense economically, security-wise, and politically, if only in the global sense. The mostly uninformed individuals lining up against this deal, from Frist, who is proving himself a hack by championing a cause because he thinks it will help him with the 2008 nomination, to Dems now forced to talk out of both sides of their mouth, are showing that they have no interest in leading, but simply following the thundering herd because it is politically expedient. Bush may be many things, politically expedient he is not.

I hope everyone can get past this first mostly misguided rush to judgment of the deal, Congress can come up with some face saving gesture, read oversight, and a compromise can be achieved to let the deal go through. Ultimately, it is good for America, and I sincerely believe that, and only that, is why Bush is championing it.

For some supporting material also see Strata-Sphere, Drezner and the CSM.

Comments

[splashtc]

How about taking care of your own first-Hamas is laughing-first american ports then the world.
It's a morale issue not a money /democracy issue.

[Phoenix]

Yay, Bush !! A veto? YES.

Forget letting Congress save face. They ALL deserved to be spanked. 'Bout time.

[ViVi]

Thank you Dan. Fact is, the UAE is exactly the kind of state that, as a whole, exemplifies moderate muslim practice. They are perhaps the only muslim state actively helping the US in the GWOT. They are an ally. To deny them the rights they purchased from the Brits would be out and out discrimination against ALL muslims--something the dems have tried to condemn the Bush administration for. As you said, the ports will be overseen by the US. If we restrict port operation to US companies, Halliburton is likely the only company capable of handling those operations. And what would be the reaction if the administration dubbed Halliburton? The same or worse from the Left.

[Bizarre]

It doesn't matter whether it makes sense, logical, economic or otherwise. What matters, in this world of high stakes PR is how it looks and to the average american it is akin to putting the wolf in charge of the hen house. This goes back to that old addage, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". The congresspersons and senators are doing the correct thing, looking out for the interests of the american people.
As a historical Bush supporter I think our elected officials are doing the right thing and I think the President is a big boy and if this is indeed the correct course of action he will have no problem convincing americans that it is the right path to pursue. In a democracy it is about time that we are seeing this kind of interaction. I know it has been a while since we have all seen it but, gosh, this is how our government used to function. It shouldn't be uncommon for us to see Schumer and King on the same podium.
This may have the effect of having the government go back to functioning the way it should be functioning. Maybe this was the shock to the heart of the american political system that we have been waiting for.

[A55HAT]

President Bush needs to explain why he will veto, the MSM is making it sound as though he is dictoral, his people around him need to make sure that a clear explantion is given to why. I agree with the President, but I see the other half that has no clue.

[Bizarre]

Posted by: A55HAT | Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 12:56 PM

"but I see the other half has no clue". With that phrse you are immediately setting the situation up to be either right or wrong, black or white....this situation is many, many shades of gray and that is what "the other half" is seeing...the shades of gray. The president's approach maybe hugo chavez look like a team player. And Don Bartlett, the smug, washington "attorney" is really adding to that picture. Maybe the president and the government followed the law on this one but they completely missed the PR aspect...after all, it doesn't matter what the truth actually is in this country what mattters is what the truth is perceived to be...perception is nine tenths of the law...

[caseyschenkofksy]

When I read news reports like this, it is impossible to ignore the glaring fact that certain individuals invoke ignorance as an explanation... To the degree that ignorance becomes a very dangerous and alarming politcal strategy.
"President George W. Bush did not know about a deal to hand over operations at major U.S. ports to an Arab company until after his administration approved it, the White House said on Wednesday."
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060222:MTFH00500_2006-02-22_17-48-05_N22386720:1

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president was not aware of the pending deal until it was approved and had become public but then checked with Cabinet secretaries to make sure they stood by their approval of the plan by state-controlled Dubai Ports World to manage six ports."
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-22T171417Z_01_N22386720_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS.xml

[A55HAT]

Posted by: Bizarre | Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 01:08 PM

They have no clue: they listen to only what is put out there, that is why the President should explain his decision rather than just put it out there to be interpetted by MSM

[Bizarre]

It seems that we are all very quick to define the ubiquitos "they". I would submit to you that "they" are slowly beginning to realize that the MSM and cable outlets may not be acting as "they" would expect journalists to act.
Of lat, I have noticed that more and more "journalists" and "MSM and cable guests are referring to the blogs. If "they" only belive what is put before them then why are the blogs suddenly so important?

[A55HAT]

Please, they meaning people who are unaware of the total picture and being told half truths.

MSM and cable visist blogs to get out of there own little boxes.

I see where this is going and I am not.

[Bizarre]

I am so glad you can read minds. I wasn't going in any particular direction. Rather, I have a loathe for thos who prefer rash generalizations of the populous. Basically, sir/madame I would prefer to not lump my fellow americans into a collective malaise. We are smarter than you think. Enjoy your "bushian? mentality. When you underestimate americans it may come back and bite you in the proverbial butt. Perhaps your hat size is indicative of your ego and not your intellect.

[A55HAT]

Posted by: Bizarre | Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 09:17 PM

Hope you were able to watch the news lat nite/today.

Bushy's admitted they should have debriefed congress. Get my point now?