Port Of Contention

The President refuses to budge even an inch on the ports deal.

To all the conservatives mad at Bush on this, I say: Welcome to our world!

AP: Bush: Arab Co. Port Deal Should Proceed

President Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it...

...Bush called reporters to his conference room on the plane after returning from a speech in Colorado, addressing a controversy that is becoming a major headache for the White House. He said the seaports arrangement was "a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country."...

Gee, I wonder why so few are willing to trust Bush on this one.

Bottom line: I feel it is wrong in general for foreign governments to have control over our ports. Any government. But when it is a legitimately suspicious government like the UAE, then cause for concern is even greater. There surely must be U.S. companies capable of doing the job, and just as eager for the work. Or was this simply of question of who was the highest bidder?

How cheap do our ports come, by the way?

Jack Cafferty said this today on CNN:

Wolf, this may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back, this deal to sell control of six US ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. There are now actually Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors telling the White House "you're not gonna do this." And it's about time. No one has said "no" to this administration on anything that matters in a very long time. Well this matters. It matters a lot. If this deal is allowed to go through, we deserve whatever we get. A country with ties to terrorists will have a presence at six critical doorways to our country. And if anyone thinks that the terrorists, in time, won't figure out how to exploit that, then we're all done. Nothing's happened yet, mind you, but if our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office. We're at a crossroads - which way will we choose?

As usual, Cafferty hits the nail on the head in his straightforward style.

And ThinkProgress reports on what may be one of the more nonsensical aspects of this story... Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this today about the deal: "I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend." Yet, as ThinkProgress notes, the White House has said the Defense Department was part of "a rigorous review" of the program. And, in addition, Rumsfeld is a key member of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States- the group which unanimously approved the sale on February 13.

So was Mr. Rumsfeld lying today? Or is he as forgetful as the terrorists? You decide.

The Bush administration criticism of their critics is based partially on their notion that is simply anti-Arab prejudice. That is pure nonsense; this is not an issue of Arabs' civil rights like those the left have rightfully defended over the past few years. It is simply about a suspect foreign government controlling key ports inside the United States.

The President stated "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company". Ignore that the United Arab Emirates has had legitimate ties to terrorism. He also said "I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'" Sir, you long ago lost your credibility on foreign policy fairness. And how odd that George W. Bush is now suddenly so sensitive about race-based profiling.

Firedoglake has a take on this talking point: "How ironic is it that this Administration would whine about false racism when the facts so clearly point to their incompetence and lack of any real consideration of the risks involved in this back-door outsourcing deal, and their overriding need, again and again, to promote profit and cronyism and the quickie, secret deal for their pals over the safety of the American public?"

The crux of the story is, of course, President Bush's insistence that he would veto any law passed by Congress to stop this deal. This would, if done, be Bush's first ever veto in his 5+ years in office (he previously threatened a veto over the anti-torture bill before Congress overwhelmingly called his bluff). Think about that.

This President is planning to veto any legislative stops to this sale? The same President who fought tooth and nail to protect his right to torture people, even though it makes us war criminals in the eyes of the world? The same President who insisted we face such grave threats that we had to invade a sovereign nation with no ties to Al Qeada? The same President who has reneged on his pledge to rid his administration of the Plame leaker? The same President who thought Brownie did a heckuva job in New Orleans? The same President who believes our national security is so fragile that he can't even be bothered to get legally required warrants (even retroactively) to wiretap on Americans, even though it violates an essential bedrock of our democracy? The same President who wants to curtail the freedom of a press that exposes these wrongdoings? That same President?

Karl Rove wants a debate on national security priorities? Bring it on.

Why? Because read 'em and weep, Bush supporters- This President is happy to sell our ports to the highest bidder (terrorism connections be damned) and he doesn't care what you think. When his majesty has made up his mind, no cry of outrage from the commoners can dissuade him.