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.
I believe that they have a policy of religious toleration which is far more lenient than most Middle Eastern countries.
President Bush: They're sharing intelligence so we can hunt down the terrorists...They helped us shut down a world wide proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan.
Duncan Hunter in his above statement (and other statements) describes a UAE that doesn't cooperate with the cleanup of terrorist weapons components smuggling activity at Port Dubai.
It directly contradicts what the president -- the CIC in the WOT -- says.
Duncan should actually try to document his charges so he can demonstrate how he knows what he claims is true. Duncan Hunter doesn't document his charges.
Duncan should withdrawn his unsupported charges.
That's what I read. A fine distinction between having money given to support, and receiveing free land and free utilities, but certainly this proves that christians are free to have churches in UAE.
The president came out and defended his position at this press conference. That would be the antithesis of "sulking".
The WH didn't handle it and it wasn't a "deal". DPW bought the British company. Then there was an automatic process -- secret from the president -- that approved the deal. Going back on it is terrible diplomacy.
No. Feel free to not believe what I wrote. I simply don't have time to search for all the materials anymore, and I don't care if you believe me or not.
Just don't call me a liar unless you have proof that I am wrong. That's all I ask.
What I think and what will happen are 2 different things. The Aramco dealings have not received the high profile in the media as DP World dealings, however. At least recently.
Quit your anti-conservative hand-wringing and whining.
We told you this would happen, and tried to prevent the administration from hitting the wall. Red flag after red flag. And the name-calling disparagements and ad hominems against the conservatives who know national security as well or better than those currently in this administration is neither civil nor persuasive. We got expert at parsing the Xlintonisms, they shouldn't have tried doing the same weasel-word evasions at the Coast Guard.
The administration must stop sulking and learn the proper lesson here. The conservatives saved the bacon of this country...yet again. Sure as hell wasn't the "moderates." or "yes men."
The president can actually recover nicely from this debacle if he doesn't sit back and steam over this, but instead takes credit for the "fix." He needs to get in the living rooms of America (which means a night time television appearance) either making a White House Lawn presentation of thanks to the Conservatives (conspicuously leaving out the rats) or just hold a Press Conference. He should ask Congress to investigate reforming the CFIUS process to better ensure that security concerns are properly considered. This makes a positive turn out of a negative. He shows an appropriate deference to the function of the other branch, and a redeeming humility that will endear him to the American people.
W must not be passive. Neither must he appear to be bitter and negative or even disappointed. He needs to be optimistic, thankful, and acknowledge that he learned a lot from this. He should apologize for any "mistaken" implication or inferrences that some discerned that Americans were in fact xenophobic or bigoted. That was unfair. And he should hereby promise that those who spread that defamatory line whether in or out of the administration...would henceforth be rebuked from the top in the future.
Then he could crow how the UAE proved to be a true ally, willing to go the extra mile to ensure our security. They just want to do business with us and help us. This also makes a positive out of a negative, and furthermore, without recrimination, says he was right all along.
Life brings sorrows and joys alike. It is what a man does with them - not what they do to him - that is the true test of his mettle.
--Theodore Roosevelt
Just asked for something I thought you might have close at hand as a lot of freepers do. I told you I was unaware of your claim, so, I simply requested what I thought you might have available. I am not in the business of calling anyone a liar. You came across condescending, IMHO. That's all.
In part your are right, that is the equally unproductive "tantrum" phase of rejection. Even more unseemly than sulking!
The hardest lessons to learn are those that are the most obvious.
--Theodore Roosevelt
The same could have been said for Saddam Hussain who ran a territory recognised by the UN and had the support of other nations..
The president could have communicated the realities better and he didn't.
That said, it was the many individuals of this country who reacted without learning the facts. They are the ones ultimately responsible for their countries future.
It is they who are the ultimate failures.
Document the sudden burst of rage by the president.
I'll wait for your response.
BTW, I got me a cool tagline from the article :)
I have stayed out of this debate for the most part, but this kind of idiocy drives me crazy.
For the record: This deal did not hand "control" of any ports to anyone. It transferred the operations of some TERMINALS at some ports to a company from the UAE. Security was and is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and DHS.
People really should read the details of what was proposed before spouting foolishness. I wasn't overly concerned about the deal - foreign airlines, including middle eastern ones, have facilities at all major airports. I don't see how the risk is any greater with this deal than with the airports. Should we deny any Muslim country the right to have an airport terminal in the US?
I hope everytime Dems opens their mouths about port security Bush hits them in the head with a shovel.
Gee, let me ask the families of 3000 killed some years ago....
Yes.
I know families of the 3000 killed.
You don't speak for them.
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.