News Categories



Capitol Hill Blue is a not-for-profit, non-commercial experiment in on-line journalism published as an information resource for our readers. All material is © 2006 Capitol Hill Blue. For more information, please check out our FAQ. We take your privacy seriously at Capitol Hill Blue.
CHB Home / Half-Shell Home/ Print This Page / Email this page

More problems for the 'wartime president'

March 10, 2006 07:20 AM / Bush Leagues .

By LIZ SIDOTI

President Bush still faces bipartisan rancor in Congress over terrorism vulnerabilities at American ports even though an election-year veto battle over a Dubai-owned company's U.S. port plans has been defused.

The announcement Thursday by DP World that it would transfer six U.S. port operations to a U.S. entity avoided a potential showdown with the Republican-controlled Congress. Yet the larger issue highlighted by the DP world controversy _ U.S. port security _ shows no signs of going away.

"The problem of the political moment has passed, but the problem of adequate port security still looms large," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said.

Republicans and Democrats alike welcomed DP World's decision to give up its aspirations to manage significant operations at the six ports, but they warned that the move doesn't negate the urgent need for broad legislation aimed at protecting America's ports.

"There are gaping holes in cargo and port security that need to be plugged," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said.

Legislation on the issue has piled up in both the House and the Senate in the weeks since the flap over DP World erupted and divided Bush from the GOP-led Congress.

Before the United Arab Emirates-based company's announcement, the House and Senate appeared all but certain to block DP World's U.S. plan despite Bush's veto threats _ a message that GOP congressional leaders delivered personally to the White House.

Facing a disapproving public in an election year, a House committee overwhelmingly voted against the plan Wednesday. And House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., warned the president in a private meeting Thursday that the Senate inevitably would follow suit.

Within hours, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., one of the few members of Congress to back the administration's position on the issue, went to the Senate floor to read a statement from the company.

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," H. Edward Bilkey, the company's top executive, said in the statement. It was unclear which American business might get the port operations.

The White House expressed satisfaction with the company's decision.

"It does provide a way forward and resolve the matter," said Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary "We have a strong relationship with the UAE and a good partnership in the global war on terrorism, and I think their decision reflects the importance of our broader relationship."

The company's decision gives the president an out. He now doesn't have to back down from his staunch support of the company or further divide his party on a terrorism-related issue with a veto.

It was unclear how the company would manage its planned divestiture, and Bilkey's statement said its announcement was "based on an understanding that DP World will not suffer economic loss."

"This should make the issue go away," Frist said.

Even critics of the deal expressed cautious optimism that DP World's move would quell the controversy surrounding that company's plan to take over some U.S. terminal leases held by the London-based company it was purchasing.

"The devil is in the details," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, echoing sentiments expressed by other lawmakers.

DP World on Thursday finalized its $6.8 billion purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British company that through a U.S. subsidiary runs important port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. It also plays a lesser role in dockside activities at 16 other American ports.

The plan was disclosed last month, setting off a political firestorm in the United States even though the company's U.S. operations were only a small part of the global transaction.

Republicans were furious that they learned of it from news reports instead of from the Bush administration. They cited concerns over a company run by a foreign government overseeing operations at U.S. ports already deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Democrats also pledged to halt the takeover and clamored for a vote in the Senate. They sought political advantage from the issue by trying to narrow a polling gap with the GOP on issues of national security.

Senate Republicans initially tried to fend off a vote, and the administration agreed to a 45-day review of the transaction. That strategy collapsed Wednesday with the 62-2 vote in the House Appropriations Committee to thwart the sale.

© 2006 The Associated Press

© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue

Comments

Could this "U.S. entity" be (drum roll....) KBR?
Now wouldn't that just be the icing on the impeachment cake. Heard this "rumored" on CNN this morning by that smarmy Mile O'Brian. So it must be true.... right? Riiiight. Oh, and BTW, thanks to that old codger Kent Steadman at Cyberspace Orbit for redirecting me to this great resource.

Prairie

Posted by Doug at March 10, 2006 10:38 AM

KBR;

Thr same corporation that's building the gulags for us, THE DISSENTERS. Wouldn't it be great if Bush beat us there?

Posted by lickspittle at March 10, 2006 03:30 PM

Well I can say that this doesn't make me feel any safer. Remember 911 and our leader continued to read about my pet goat till he went into hiding. And remember Katrina. The republicans only stood up to him because it's an election year.

Posted by rebecca bank at March 10, 2006 08:53 PM

Might it possibly be that this Administration is getting exactly what it planned on getting all along ? A diversionary tactic is their m.o. While we are looking one place, they are busy getting what they were after all along.( Sort of like a Signing Statement.)
Now how would it have looked if They had come right out and named a well known and notorious company to manage our ports...such as KBR, the 'subsidiary' of Halliburton ? Bush does not strike me as a person that acts alone in his major decisions. It is also not believable that he did not know about the Dubai deal until it 'hit the news.' He expected exactly the kind of firestorm it caused. Why was he so quick to threaten a Veto..something he has never used in the past..if he did not know all about it ? This is all just too pat, as presented, to be believable. There has to be more going on behind the scenes. A smokescreen was needed so that what he Really wanted could be accomplished. A company of his ( and Cheney's) choosing to operate the Ports, maybe ?
Those 'detention centers' are being built for all Bush dissenters which will be rounded up, but not by our own Military...as they are busy 'defending Democracy ' all around the Globe. Mercenaries from Third World Countries would be shipped in to take on that dirty job.(Via The Port of New Orleans in the dead of the night ?) All that is needed is another planned 9/11, and Bush will declare Martial Law. Then he will suspend all elections, " for the duration."
I pray that this is only a 'worst case scenario,'... just a bad omen I am feeling. But knowing that it is all possible..based on past actions of this President..it is best to be forewarned. It is not a good idea to close your mind to the possibility. This present cabal have lied and stolen to take over our government, and spied on all of us secretly...so it is more than plausible that what they have planned is not for our good at all.
Yes, Virginia, there are Conspiracies ! VJS

Posted by vjs at March 10, 2006 10:46 PM

The media keeps saying 6 ports when in reality it is 21. When DPW said they were transfering 6 ports, does that mean they will continue to operate the other 15.

I do not trust this administration or any of it's hand maidens.

Posted by redhead at March 11, 2006 01:04 PM

Your article "Follow the Money" makes me think we ought to follow the money on the Dubai ports deal. It would not surprize me to find a large brokerage fee for the Carlise Group, Daddy Bush, James Baker, et al. Why else would Bush take such a stand? Everthing he does is about money.

Posted by Tom Breeze at March 14, 2006 02:00 PM

Post a comment

(Comments are moderated and will not be posted if they contain insults, flaming of other posters, profanity or libelous comments. Comments that are off topic will be deleted. Thanks for waiting.)


Top of Page

RECENT STORIES

Sign up for our Daily Newsletter mailing list!