Posted on 03/10/2006 8:26:48 AM PST by indcons
President Bush said Friday he was troubled by the political storm that forced the reversal of a deal allowing a company in Dubai to take over take over operations of six American ports, saying it sent a bad message to U.S. allies in the Middle East.
Bush said the United States needs moderate allies in the Arab world, like the United Arab Emirates, to win the global war on terrorism.
The president said he had been satisfied that security would be sound at the ports if the Dubai deal had taken effect. "Nevertheless, Congress was still very much opposed to it," Bush said. He made his remarks to a conference of the National Newspaper Association, which represents owners, publishers and editors of community newspapers.
"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," the president said. "In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East."
"UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror," Bush added. "They are a key partner for our military in a critical region, and outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military, military ships, than any country in the world.
"They're sharing intelligence so we can hunt down the terrorists," Bush added. "They helped us shut down a world wide proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan" — the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, he said.
"UAE is a valued and strategic partner," he said. "I'm committed to strengthening our relationship with the UAE."
After a storm of protest in the Republican-controlled Congress, DP World announced Thursday that it would transfer six U.S. port operations to a U.S. entity. The moved spared Bush from a veto showdown with GOP lawmakers. 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 (news, bio, voting record), 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.
"I'm sure that the decision by DP World was a difficult decision to hand over port operations that they had purchased from another company," Bush said.
"There are gaping holes in cargo and port security that need to be plugged," Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., said.
The Bush administration also announced Friday that free trade talks with the United Arab Emirates were being postponed.
The talks, which were supposed to begin Monday, were postponed because both sides need more time to prepare, according to an announcement from the office of U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record). USTR spokeswoman Neena Moorjani refused to say whether the postponement was related to the controversy over the port operations.
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 Republican-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 (news, bio, voting record), 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.
Where I have I ever said, fighting global terrorism is a snap? If I didn't think it was hard work, I would have voted for Michael Badnarik.
When the President threatened a veto, he then owed us an explanation. He gave none and gave us Bob Dole and Jimmy Carter instead. It was a debacle and I hope the President learned from it.
And please stop with the insults.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581542/posts?page=701#701
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581542/posts?page=731#731
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593184/posts?page=538#538
I also wouldn't read much into the P&O / Maersk deal, wehre improvements were made to facilitate Maersk's business. Liabilities travel with the rights.
~~~~
The Bush Doctrine is pretty easy to enforce
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593896/posts?page=9#9
You should feel extremely fortunate that a test isn't required to post on this forum.
That's false. Please stop with the lies.
ping
Oh please. I voted for the guy four times. So I guess I am really out to get him.
I hear ya. I get tired of hearing that also. I mean I actually left my house and worked to help get Pres. Bush elected. I wrote letters to the editors, attended my precint meetings, put up signs, etc.....
Your orignial argument was that it was unconstitutional for the legislative branch to pass a law that dealt with something that was an executive branch function. I replied that it was not and your reply only supports my point.
The regulations that governed the review of the deal were drafted for the Cold War era. Thus, as any true conservative (or sixth grader knows), the legislative branch would be well within their rights to update the law to reflect the realities of the War on Terrorism. Thus, there would be no violation of the constitution.
Conservatism doesn't really seem to be your thing. Might I suggest Scientology?
I was not aware of that. Can you substantiate?
I suspect America will pay a steep price for Congress's rejection of this deal. It sent a message that for all the U.S. rhetoric about free trade and partnerships with allies, America is basically hostile to Arab investment.
Nobody is more surprised than me to see this out of the Washington Post. Spot on, nonetheless.
Nope. Again, thank God tests aren't required...
"The White House never addressed the concerns head on. Instead, they sent out paid lobbyists"
Did this revelation come from unnamed sources, real evidence or a vision after an out of body experience?
Dubai was used as a conduit of funds to finance the 9/11 attacks. Is that not harboring terorrists? Or are we making distintcions? If I wanted nuance, I would have voted for Kerry.
PresBush has been defiant on this ports issue since the beginning. Threatening to cast his first veto in favor of UAE business concerns, ahead of American interests, has gotten the President a big fat public smackdown. And rightfully so. Even after being proven wrong in the court of public opinion by both the American people and the GOP Congress, Bush has shown a level of arrogance that undermines support and shows poor leadership. This was a bureaucratic blunder from the get-go. Instead of demanding a full inquiry of events from the start, Bush chose to pick a fight with the American people. Obviously, Bush has lost that fight.
Actually, it's not. It would be aiding terrorists. But that also occurred prior to 9/11. Didn't you just try that "sixth-grade" argument about pre- and post-9/11??
And I noticed how you skipped over the rest of #105 - you know, the part where you came off as a buffoon for not even remembering your own post?
If you didn't mean that it was unconstitutional for the legislative branch to be "sticking its nose" into an executive function, than your post/premise is a waste of this forum's bandwith. You effectively had no point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.