Wow, this sounds familiar
Hey, we can trust the UAE to protect us
Bush Threatens to Veto Any Bill to Stop Port Takeover
By DAVID E. SANGER
and ERIC LIPTON
Published: February 21, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — President Bush said this afternoon that he would veto any legislation seeking to block the administration's decision to allow a state-owned company from Dubai to assume control of port terminals in New York and other cities.
Mr. Bush's rare veto threat came as Republican leaders and many of their Democratic counterparts called up today for the port takeover to be put on hold. They demanded that the Bush administration conduct a further investigation of the Dubai company's acquisition of the British operator of the six American ports.
"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Mr. Bush told reporters who were traveling with him on Air Force One to Washington, according to news agencies. "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. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly." '
The confrontation between Mr. Bush and his own supporters escalated rapidly after the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, and the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, joined Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Gov. George E. Pataki and a host of other Republicans in insisting that the transaction must be extensively reviewed, if not killed. That put them on essentially the same side of the issue as a chorus of Democrats, who have seized on the issue to argue that Mr. Bush was ignoring a potential security threat.
Yep, crazed American xenophobia, right?
Unocal deal tests US stance toward China
Some lawmakers believe Chinese ownership of the oil firm would damage national security. Others see no harm.
By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Energy is a strategic commodity - and thus China's purchase of a US oil company would irreparably damage US national security.
That's the hard line taken by some key members of Congress as debate intensifies in Washington over a Chinese bid to buy California-based Unocal and its petroleum and pipeline assets.
Some deal opponents - such as former CIA chief R. James Woolsey - say it's "naive" to think that the proposed takeover is just a commercial matter, unrelated to a Beijing strategy for domination of energy markets and the Western Pacific.
Other experts retort that Congress is experiencing one of its periodic China scares, and that there is little danger in selling a relatively small oil firm to foreigners - even one with close ties to the Chinese government.
"The question you have to ask is whether there is risk to US security from this. I don't see that there is," says James Andrew Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Whatever its outcome, the $18.5 billion bid for Unocal by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC Ltd.) appears to have intensified feelings of ill-will that were already rising on both sides of the Pacific.
Last month the House, by a vote of 398 to 15, passed a resolution declaring that the deal would threaten national security. Last Wednesday Rep. Duncan Hunter (R), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he might introduce a bill that would prevent the purchase. Congress enjoys the support of the public, 74 percent of whom oppose the deal, according to a Wall Street Journal poll.
Beijing, on the other hand, has complained that US lawmakers should stop interfering with a matter of business.
In Washington, opponents see the move as directed, not by market concerns, but by the desires of the Chinese government. CNOOC has lined up cut-rate financing for the deal from state-owned banks, they point out. In addition, CNOOC chairman Fu Chengyu doubles as a high-ranking Communist party official.
How many Chinese have crashed planes into American buildings?
That's three less than the UAE can boast of
Yet, the Chinese was prevented from buying Unocal over national security issues.
So why would Bush shove this deal through?
W aides' biz ties to Arab firm
BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency 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.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.
Look, you don't have to a xenophobe to not want to sell industries to other governments on national security concerns. This deal stinks of the usual "our friends the Saudis" kind of push. Then we forget how many Saudis have attacked Americans to keep them happy.
Look, we may well hurt Dubai's feelings. So fucking what. If any of their managers are tied to AQ, well, you saw how Bush handled Katrina You want to move that to Red Hook, Brooklyn?
This is not random fear of Arabs, but a specific national security concern. New Jersey is already suing, and they won't be alone.
posted by Steve @ 7:59:00 PM