Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush: Port Deal Collapse Sends Bad Message
Associated Press ^ | March 10, 2006 | LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; 911sendsbadmessage; alwaysmadatsomething; appeasemuslims; boohoo; buffoonsincongress; callthewaaaambulance; chineseportcontrolok; congressionalidjits; crymeariver; dontcrydhimmis; donttrustislamists; dpw; dubai; dubaidubya; dupeddummies; fridaysillinessday; giveuprinos; goawayrinos; inbushwetrust; insultsdidntwork; justanotherday; muslims; muslimsaremadnoway; neverhappy; pcbushbots; port; ports; redstatearabstreet; rightwingracecard; sentbadmessageon910; sidewithtaiban; stopdubaitalk; stupiditysendsbadmsg; thankgodwesaidno; uae; unccarcrash; waahhwaahhwaahh; wemarchlikebush; wknowsbesthere; wotsetback
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341 next last
To: Stellar Dendrite
Thank you for, again, posting these facts. The pro- anything-Bush-wants crowd never want to address these issues.
As you can see from the posts on this thread, the usuals are still out in force with there name calling and projections on others the very vices they exude; emotionalism; lack of logic; ad hominem attacks; refusal to even concede that there is another side.
Keep up the good (factual) work.
141 posted on 03/10/2006 9:36:35 AM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: indcons
"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."

Does this mean that a review of the deal that X42 made to turn the Long Beach Naval Base over to the Chicoms in 1997 is in the works?

142 posted on 03/10/2006 9:37:21 AM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton; Stellar Dendrite
As you can see from the posts on this thread, the usuals are still out in force with there name calling and projections on others the very vices they exude; emotionalism; lack of logic; ad hominem attacks; refusal to even concede that there is another side. Keep up the good (factual) work.

I second that.

143 posted on 03/10/2006 9:38:19 AM PST by bigeasy_70118
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: bigeasy_70118
I really have no idea what you are talking about.

I believe you.

144 posted on 03/10/2006 9:38:57 AM PST by Coop (FR= a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Thanks for the post. Very intriguing!


145 posted on 03/10/2006 9:39:08 AM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: bigeasy_70118
If all those who were for the ports were BUSHbots what's that make those who opposed?

SCHUMMERgroupies?

146 posted on 03/10/2006 9:40:43 AM PST by Earthdweller ("West to Islam" Cake. Butter your liberals, slowly cook France, stir in Europe then watch it rise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: bigeasy_70118
I didn't know we cared about sending bad messages to countries that support and harbor terrorists.

I didn't know that killing terrorist, or giving the CIA their coordinates so they can be taken down with predator launched hellfire missiles, counted as "supporting" terrorists.

147 posted on 03/10/2006 9:41:35 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: imaketypos
Yes, details like that. Very good. Details such as those wouldn't concern any reasonable person when viewed in the context of proper vetting through the CFIUS (established by whom? Congress!!). But when viewed in the emotional context of "Arabs are running our ports!!" we end up with threads like this.
148 posted on 03/10/2006 9:41:40 AM PST by Coop (FR= a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: bigeasy_70118

I don't think you read the Presidents words, but then again gut instinct and visceral reaction is what MOVED this entire fiasco, not contemplative thought and investigation.


149 posted on 03/10/2006 9:41:53 AM PST by PISANO (We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

NOTE : The following post does not apply to
those FReepers who are
1) Active Duty
2) Those with disabilities
3) Care givers of those with disabilities
4) Those with financial hardships
5) Those who actually support our troops in other ways.



IF people REALLY cared, they would get away from the computer and actually do something,
in the real world, to actually assist Homeland Security.

I've done it each and every week,
often more than once a week,
since Oct 2001

I don't receive a dime and even pay for my own uniforms.

The choice is either "listen" to all the pros and cons
or actually be part of the solution.

http://nws.cgaux.org/visitors/ps_visitor/index.html

PS You'll have to leave your "politics"
at the door while you wear the uniform.


150 posted on 03/10/2006 9:42:19 AM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub (It's ALWAYS a great day to be a Conservative Independent Voter AND a Viet Nam Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop; CharlesWayneCT

I agree with you, Coop and love what Charles wrote:


To: Coop
Sanity did prevail, in the United Arab Emerites. They saw how important the war on terror was. They saw how important their relationship with the United States was. They valued that relationship, they want to defeat terroristm.

So they sanely decided that the best thing to do with the crazies in washington was to give in for the good of the countries.

Sad that the UAE, who the opponents are STILL calling supporters of terrorists right here in this very thread, acted in saner and better way than our own elected representatives.

I am proud today of John Warner, who was always on the right side of this deal, and George Allen, who was willing to hear all the facts before passing judgment. Both of my senators resisted the rush to judgment.



28 posted on 03/10/2006 10:40:00 AM CST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


151 posted on 03/10/2006 9:42:35 AM PST by onyx (IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
He made a mistake and GOP congress fixed it and now it's time to move on to other things.

ROTFL!!! Since you're continuing the lie, I'm continuing the "insults."

Carry on, Lemming!

152 posted on 03/10/2006 9:42:48 AM PST by Coop (FR= a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Sally'sConcerns

your tagline...lol


153 posted on 03/10/2006 9:43:45 AM PST by prairiebreeze (The Old Media: today's carnival barkers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
As you can see from the posts on this thread, the usuals are still out in force with there name calling and projections on others the very vices they exude; emotionalism; lack of logic; ad hominem attacks; refusal to even concede that there is another side.

What are you, drunk? There has been plenty of logic and facts provided by "my side" for the past many weeks. Your side may not have a monopoly on emotional rhetoric, but you darned sure cornered the market.

154 posted on 03/10/2006 9:44:37 AM PST by Coop (FR= a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Coop

The Friends of Dubai lost. Get over it.


155 posted on 03/10/2006 9:44:48 AM PST by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
The emir of Dubai has fully funded 24 christian churches, from what I've read on another thread. Since I have no source,....

You are right that there are Christian churches in the U.A.E., but wrong, in general about the funding. Except for the muslim establishments. There, the state funds subsidize 98% of the mosques therein. There is also some consideration for the non-Muslim churches, the 22 Christian ones are often permitted to operate "rent-free" on the land "given" to them by the Emirates...apparently they can't own them outright. They also get no charges from the state for utilities.

You should check the State Dept. for its Report on U.A.E. Human Rights record.

It states:

Non-Muslim religious groups do not receive funds from the Government. . However, those with land grants are not charged rental payments, and some of the churches constructed on land grants were donated by the local ruling families. Also, the Sharjah government waives payment of utilities for churches because they are religious buildings. Non-Muslim groups are permitted to raise money from among their congregants and to receive financial support from abroad. Christian churches are permitted to advertise in the press certain church functions, such as memorial services.

The conversion of Muslims to other religions is regarded with extreme antipathy; therefore, the Government prohibits non-Muslims from proselytizing or distributing religious literature under penalty of criminal prosecution and imprisonment. In March 2001, Dubai police arrested four visiting noncitizens for violating laws barring non-Muslims from proselytizing because they distributed Christian religious materials, including videos and CD-ROMS, on a public street. One of those arrested was detained for less than a week. Authorities held the passports of those arrested during the investigation. They were able to move freely about Dubai but not permitted to leave the city. The charges against the noncitizens were dropped on April 8, 2001, and they left the country on April 9.

The authorities have threatened to revoke the residence permits of persons suspected of missionary activities. In addition customs authorities have questioned the entry of large quantities of religious materials (such as Bibles and hymnals) that they deemed in excess of the normal requirements of existing congregations, although in most instances the items have been permitted entry. Customs authorities reportedly are less likely to question the importation of Christian religious items than non-Muslim, non-Christian religious items, although in virtually all instances importation of the material in question eventually has been permitted.

Immigration authorities routinely ask foreigners to declare their religious affiliation, however, the Government does not collect or analyze this information, and religious affiliation is not a factor in the issuance or renewal of visas or residence permits. In late 2001, Abu Dhabi inquired about religious affiliation in its first municipality-wide census.

Non-Muslims are tried for criminal offenses in Shari'a courts

156 posted on 03/10/2006 9:44:57 AM PST by Paul Ross (Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller
If all those who were for the ports were BUSHbots what's that make those who opposed? SCHUMMERgroupies?

Ummm, how about right? Just as the almighty George W. Bush can be wrong about something (Harriet Miers, the ports deal, Michael Brown doing a good job during Katrina); the evil Chuck Schumer is also allowed to be right about something once and awhile, even if his motives are suspect.

That's why it pays to think for yourself and not drink the Kool-Aid.

157 posted on 03/10/2006 9:45:10 AM PST by bigeasy_70118
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: indcons; ex-Texan; LibertarianInExile

I'll try this old trick I learned from Bush on CFR, the prescription drug entitlement, bloating Dept of Education, pandering to illegal aliens, passing budgets in the trillions, etc.:

This strategy employed by Congress will allow us to maintain a majority in the House and Senate. It's a necessary action to maintain control from the Dems. Afterall, do you want Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Chucky Shumer, and Nancy Pelosi in charge? The perception taken from this battle tells the country the GOP is still on the job securing America and are not Bush's rubber stamp on foreign policies. It also tells the world we haven't forgotten 9-11, or the memories of those that died that day and in the days ahead fighting the Taliban (who were supported by the UAE).

Our historic allies will remain. Our new allies will remain the same, with the same biases. And since the US is the single greatest market for goods and services, the UAE would be committing economic suicide by pushing their rant. Everything will subside in months and people will forget.

We may have averted a political collapse next November. But seeing that most of the Bushbots are saying on other threads that they will not vote...we may have averted a political collapse next November. Protest votes from a small minority of the base is like shooting rubber bands at battleships.

Let's move on. Make tax cuts permanent. Start planning for the next battle with the leftists. And if needs be, start mapping out the Dem's hypocrisy on national defense and letting the ChiComs control port terminals. Let's bring up Lorel in Hillary's campaign. Let's win in November to continue our promise in the Contract With America.



Now back to the FR Dubai Flame Wars.


158 posted on 03/10/2006 9:45:43 AM PST by sully777 (wWBBD: What would Brian Boitano do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
United Arab Emirates officials and private companies have regularly waived-through or turned a blind eye to the shipment of nuclear triggers to Pakistan and nerve gas precursors to Iran.

As I recall is was information about nuclear triggers that lead to the cracking of the A. Q. Khan network. And Bush just said the U.A.E. contributed to that. One has to wonder if that eye was really as blind as you and Duncan suggest. (In any case the network operated through as many as 25 ports all around the world.)

159 posted on 03/10/2006 9:45:51 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
The friends of Harry Reid won. America lost.

And it wasn't Dubya's fault. Get over it.

160 posted on 03/10/2006 9:46:08 AM PST by Coop (FR= a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson