February 21, 2006
Bush's First Veto?
If anyone tries to tamper with the decision to allow that Dubai-based company to operate ports, Pres. Bush said he would veto legislation to delay the deal, according to a WH pool report filed by the Washington Post's Jim VandeHei.
Lawmakers, he said, must "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard."
This is the first time the president has stepped up to make the implicit argument that Middle Eastern countries are no more inherently dangerous than any other; and that those who claim they are -- without saying why -- are skirting the bounds of, well, dare we say -- prejudice.
Lawmakers are hammering away at Bush. Today, Sen. Maj. Leader Bill Frist strongly urged the WH to agree to a delay while the Senate reviews the security precautions. It's significant that Frist, who is privy (we assume) to the most sensitive national security info about the deal, is not satisfied. If the WH doesn't bow to a delay, Frist will promptly introduce legislation. Also today, Dems, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bob Menendez, urged Frist to introduce legislation right away to stop it.
The politics of this are jumbled. The WH will probably dispatch heavy hitters to the Hill to ward off Senate passage of a delay. Meanwhile, a statement today by Maj. Leader John Boehner suggests he's much less inclined for Congress to get involved legislatively. And Sen. Min leader Harry Reid may expand the ranks of Senators who call on Homeland Security Sec. Mike Chertoff to resign; Dems can blast the administration for allowing this because Dubai's record of cooperation on terror matters has been a bit spotty at best. Further, they can enlist their union allies to help make an "America First" argument. They'll be seen as tough on national security -- going beyond the WH on port security. (BTW: it's worth pointing out that Dems, especially Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), have long argued that the admin. neglected issues of ports and cargo in protecting the homeland -- even when no one was listening to them.)
Tom Frank has a ready-made sequel: What's the Matter with Fairfax? -- how the Bush Administration hoodwinked establishment conservatives by offering them a steady diet of liberty-loving gestures -- all the while consigning millions to an oil oligarchy that stifles the middle class in the Middle East.
Establishment Republicans finally have a way of arguing that Bush is too close to the Saudis and amoral foreign oil interests -- by slamming his willingness to prop up Dubai's economy over our own basic security.
And the legion of conservative Bush critics in Washington have yet another way to argue that the administration is, to paraphrase and embellish Sen. Lindsey Graham, simply, totally, unbelievably tone deaf.
Posted at 03:37 PM
Comments
Oy!
Ag | 02.21.06 04:32 PM
 |
Anti-Bush Theory: Obvious, he's making money off this, or being pressured by someone, or does not want to risk the diplomatic backlash of turning a deal away to an arab nation
Pro-Bush Theory: He hopes that, through is veto, he will be seen as a hero to Arabs, who will then trust him and stop seeing him as anti-Arab, and he fully expects to be defeated by Congress. Arabs won't be mad at Congress, because it's an entity, and they prefer to hate people. But they'll see Bush as someone who fights for what's right, instead of the "white devil."
Craig | 02.21.06 04:32 PM
|
What is the lagal standard for approval?
Is it too much to hope that he is simply following the law?
John Lederer | 02.21.06 04:39 PM
|
Re: Pro-Bush Theory: If you're right, and there's someone--ANYone--at the WH who believes, never mind pushes Bush to believe, this ridiculous notion, he (or she) should be fired immediately (or sent to a shrink to check for mental disease or disorder).
Arabs, Muslims, whatever, aren't going to see Bush or any other Westerner as an ally. The word "chump" comes to mind though.
Deb | 02.21.06 04:40 PM
|
Wasn't the 'almost same' squabble raised when the Chinese were brought into the Panama Canal?
Cabbie | 02.21.06 04:48 PM
|
The intensity that is showing up in this battle suggests to me that there are some very important issues here that are not being put on the table for open display. It's not hard to see the partisan advantage that the Democrats get from opposing the WH on this issue. They can claim that they are being "tough" on national security without having to actually do something that could bring political risk to themselves. Less clear to me is why GWB is taking such a strong, uncompromising stand on this. Perhaps Dubai is brokering some top secret deal with us and need/want this business deal to go through. I don't believe that Bush is dumb or that he is doing this to put oil money in his pocket. Dubai is the central bank through which most international Arabic funds eventually go. This is true for both legitimate and illegitimate monies. Perhaps they will open the books so we can trace the blood lines of all large terorist activities. That would be worth a huge amount.
Richard of Oregon | 02.21.06 04:49 PM
|
"It's significant that Frist, who is privy (we assume) to the most sensitive national security info about the deal, is not satisfied"
Frist is a knee jerk reactionary idiot, look at his positions on Terry Schiavo-open mouth insert foot-think later-he ponders like Feinstein-forever!
Drawing conclusions from dipshits like Frist who decide their positions with wet fingers in the wind is lame.
One only has to look at our pinhead homeland security head Chertoff to see the lameness of this plan-
"I can't talk about it because it's classified, but it's OK to sell to foreigners" -Chertoff
Anybody else see a problem with selling "classified stuff" to foreigners?
I think we should restrict monopoly infrastructure sales to taxable US entities only.
Smitty | 02.21.06 05:01 PM
|
Craig,
If that's the best pro-bush theory you can come up with, he really is in trouble.
I didn't dare to believe it until now.
Git | 02.21.06 05:12 PM
|
The business aspects of this deal, especially considering who are the world players in port management and the number of US companies (0) qualified to manage the business in question, are painfully simple and obviously beyond the grasp of most politicians and commentators.
Of course, there just might be future military operations as well involving UAE among contingency plans for dealing with any number of regional threats. Don't tell anyone--it might interrupt the political posturing.
martin | 02.21.06 05:13 PM
|
Follow the money people. The Dubai company has some ties in there with the WH. Bush never strays to from his home base.
"Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the
federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English
company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of
Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own
international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004,
the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
There is also this tie, "David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European
and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month
to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
copperpenny | 02.21.06 06:22 PM
|
�Fly the Fiendly Skies: Al Qaeda To Run U.S. Airport Security�
Security in U.S. airports will be managed by Al Qaeda, FEMA announced yesterday.
�As the organization that planned the 9-11 airline hijackings,� said Sammy Sieve, acting director of the Federal Emergency Mismanagement Agency, �no other group has a more intimate knowledge of airport security and its deficiencies � or how to better address those defects.�
The terrorist group will administer various airports: LA�s LAX, Logan in Boston, Edwards Air Force Base, the home of Air Force One � as well as an airport and flight training school in Florida.
Al Qaeda will replace the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), widely criticized for obese, sleepy-eyed baggage checkers seeking an easy gig and a guaranteed government check. �In contrast,� said Sieve, �Al Qaeda employees have lean and hungry looks.�
In Washington, the decision was finalized while the Homeland Security Director was testifying, the Defense Secretary was visiting Iraq, the Vice-President was out hunting � and the President was out to lunch. The only national security official at his desk was the CIA intern who signed off on the deal.
The decision was approved by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States (SISSY-US). SISSY-US is a Las Vegas-based Treasury Department agency, which makes its decisions according to rolls of the dice and spins of the roulette wheel.
Al Qaeda will perform the airport security job for far less money than American workers. In a tape played on the Arab network al Jazeera, Osama bin Laden stated: �Heck, we�d do it for free, God willing.�
Since 9-11, check-in lines at airports have plagued passengers, but bin Laden pledged improvement. �For the vast majority, there�ll be no screening at all,� he asserted. �Just walk right in!�
�However, and though I realize this is a sensitive topic,� said the mass murderer, �I will insist on racial profiling at airports.
�For Irish nuns, U.S. soldiers -- and Danish cartoonists.
�After all, why should the many have to suffer in line for the threat posed by a few?�
The Saudi sheik, brandishing an automatic rifle, praised the recent TSA decision to allow screwdrivers and scissors onto planes. �Our organization will let anything on board � box cutters, aerial bombs, air-to-air rockets. Sure, I�ve had my differences with Great Satan, but I�m actually a big fan of its Second Amendment.�
The tall terrorist downplayed notions that lax baggage rules would lead to more terror. �Take the big flap over shoe bombs. It was a myth. All my employees will wear sandals, and the lining of sandals is far too thin to contain explosives.�
Certainly, al Qaeda-run airports will cut down on security checkers� abuse of women. Many females have complained of being groped by TSA workers, and of having to undress during a �weapons search.� Al Qaeda, in contrast, will ask female passengers to clothe themselves from head to foot.
Al Qaeda ownership should also improve the movies shown on planes: action-packed terrorist training videos will be replace the dry current fare. The airlines� notoriously bad cuisine will get a lift from dietary prohibitions on alcohol or artery-clogging pork. (Passengers in First Class will be allowed to drink liquor and manhandle stewardesses before steering their flights into buildings.)
If the new airport security scheme works out, it�s expected that London�s mullahs will take over security for the New York City subway.
And the Mexican army will run security along the Rio Grande.
And Iran will manage security for America�s nuclear weapons plants.
Some in congress have questioned the Al Qaeda acquisition. However, noted Mr. Sieve, �Miracles happen. Look, this issue has made even a peacenik like Hillary Clinton seem tough on national security. So maybe Al Qaeda COULD manage our airport security!�
Copyright � February 2006 by Edward P. Moser
Mr. Moser is an Alexandria, Virginia-based writer. Author for Random House of The Politically Correct Guide to American History, he was a speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush, and was a writer for Jay Leno�s �The Tonight Show�.
P.S.
Boy, does Mr. Bush know how to abuse his core base of support. The Harriet Myers� nomination, record spending with no vetoes, an open border with Mexico. Now this.
Ed Moser | 02.21.06 08:25 PM
|
“Fly the Fiendly Skies: Al Qaeda To Run U.S. Airport Security”
Security in U.S. airports will be managed by Al Qaeda, FEMA announced yesterday.
“As the organization that planned the 9-11 airline hijackings,” said Sammy Sieve, acting director of the Federal Emergency Mismanagement Agency, “no other group has a more intimate knowledge of airport security and its deficiencies – or how to better address those defects.”
The terrorist group will administer various airports: LA’s LAX, Logan in Boston, Edwards Air Force Base, the home of Air Force One – as well as an airport and flight training school in Florida.
Al Qaeda will replace the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), widely criticized for obese, sleepy-eyed baggage checkers seeking an easy gig and a guaranteed government check. “In contrast,” said Sieve, “Al Qaeda employees have lean and hungry looks.”
In Washington, the decision was finalized while the Homeland Security Director was testifying, the Defense Secretary was visiting Iraq, the Vice-President was out hunting – and the President was out to lunch. The only national security official at his desk was the CIA intern who signed off on the deal.
The decision was approved by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States (SISSY-US). SISSY-US is a Las Vegas-based Treasury Department agency, which makes its decisions according to rolls of the dice and spins of the roulette wheel.
Al Qaeda will perform the airport security job for far less money than American workers. In a tape played on the Arab network al Jazeera, Osama bin Laden stated: “Heck, we’d do it for free, God willing.”
Since 9-11, check-in lines at airports have plagued passengers, but bin Laden pledged improvement. “For the vast majority, there’ll be no screening at all,” he asserted. “Just walk right in!”
“However, and though I realize this is a sensitive topic,” said the mass murderer, “I will insist on racial profiling at airports.
“For Irish nuns, U.S. soldiers -- and Danish cartoonists.
“After all, why should the many have to suffer in line for the threat posed by a few?”
The Saudi sheik, brandishing an automatic rifle, praised the recent TSA decision to allow screwdrivers and scissors onto planes. “Our organization will let anything on board – box cutters, aerial bombs, air-to-air rockets. Sure, I’ve had my differences with Great Satan, but I’m actually a big fan of its Second Amendment.”
The tall terrorist downplayed notions that lax baggage rules would lead to more terror. “Take the big flap over shoe bombs. It was a myth. All my employees will wear sandals, and the lining of sandals is far too thin to contain explosives.”
Certainly, al Qaeda-run airports will cut down on security checkers’ abuse of women. Many females have complained of being groped by TSA workers, and of having to undress during a “weapons search.” Al Qaeda, in contrast, will ask female passengers to clothe themselves from head to foot.
Al Qaeda ownership should also improve the movies shown on planes: action-packed terrorist training videos will be replace the dry current fare. The airlines’ notoriously bad cuisine will get a lift from dietary prohibitions on alcohol or artery-clogging pork. (Passengers in First Class will be allowed to drink liquor and manhandle stewardesses before steering their flights into buildings.)
If the new airport security scheme works out, it’s expected that London’s mullahs will take over security for the New York City subway.
And the Mexican army will run security along the Rio Grande.
And Iran will manage security for America’s nuclear weapons plants.
Some in congress have questioned the Al Qaeda acquisition. However, noted Mr. Sieve, “Miracles happen. Look, this issue has made even a peacenik like Hillary Clinton seem tough on national security. So maybe Al Qaeda COULD manage our airport security!”
Copyright © February 2006 by Edward P. Moser
Ed Moser | 02.21.06 08:28 PM
|
Lawmakers, [Bush] said, must "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard."
Then let's apply a single standard across the board. I oppose handing over control of U.S. ports to any foreigners, regardless of what country they hail from.
Pat | 02.21.06 11:16 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
