Would You Buy a Used Camel From This Man?

Dear Leader is pissed.

He'll veto anything an upstart Congress sends him about the Dubai Port deal.

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..."

Might it have something to do with the UAE government (who owns the company) laundering money for Al Qaeda? That and the fact that the British have shown unconditional support of our government since 1914? It's that pesky history thing. No wonder Dear Leader's trying to erase it.

Let's continue. The New York Pravda, is after all a Carlyle Group tool, so it shouldn't take it long to back into the corporatist mainline about all of this.

And it doesn't:

...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 [boo! hiss!] , who have seized on the issue [the opportunists!] to argue that Mr. Bush was ignoring a potential security threat.

The White House appeared stunned by the uprising [poor Dear Leader], over a transaction that they considered routine [Dear Leader kisses Saudi ass on a daily basis] — especially since China's biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies...

Now this isn't a number one great idea, but hey, even in Korea and Viet Nam, the Chinese never targeted American civilians. Nor have they ever financially supported anyone who did. Unlike Bandar Bush. Unlike the United Arab Emirates. And speaking of the UAE and shady business deals, does BCCI mean anything?

China never did anything like that...

But back to the Corporate Mainline from Pravda:

The ... firestorm of opposition to the deal drew a similarly intense expression of befuddlement by shipping industry and port experts.

The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals.

That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.

"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant..."

Assuming, of course, the company isn't a front for funneling religious fanatics into the country and being used by other companies who want some of that blank check for endless war.

Globalization's funny like that.

Mr. Bush's aides defended their decision, saying the company, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, would have no control over security issues.

Some administration officials, refusing to be quoted by name, suggested that there was a whiff of racism in the objections to an Arab owner taking over the terminals. [Oh that must be it- racism! That's the ticket! And they should know bigotry when they see it! The DINOcrat dogs will salivate to the bell for sure!] The current operator of the six American terminals, P&O Port, is owned by the British company that Dubai Ports World is acquiring. The ports include those in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, as well as New York...

In Blue cities, all. Of course. Why not Houston, too?

Finally, Darth Rumsfeld weighs in on it:

At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld praised the Arab country as an important strategic military partner.

"Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

"We all deal with the U.A.E. on a regular basis," he added. "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror..."

Yes indeed, and they're making money on both sides of it, just like you and Dear Leader.

Just to ensure the right arrangements get made, of course, it helps to have a man on the inside. They've got a couple at least:

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...

They're totally disinterested except for the stock options.

But isn't it an ownership society?