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.
Your post to me, and your other posts on this thread, go a long way towards proving my point.
The other message that I received was that neither Bush The third message I received was that his brother neal The first message that was sent by this administration
was Bush does not give a hoot what the American people think.
He has a tin ear to politics; perhaps Karl Rove was on vacation.
nor his cabinet is not involved in managing the War on Terror.
Very poor management style to allow third level staffers
to make decisions without notifying upper management.
and other of bush's cronies had their hand in the pot
at the expense of national security. No Comment on this!
It speaks volumes by itself.
This is a forest/trees issue.
The President and our military leaders see the forest.
Those opposed purloined Dubya's chainsaw and whacked away at that forest sans any chainsaw adroitness.
That's what some people on the Talking Heads shows on cable were indicating (last night)"
Yeah, nine years after the fact.
Those "Talking Heads" are really on the ball, aren't they?
I do as well. And I speak for them as much as YOU do.
I disagree. The facts were carefully investigated from the first by Frank Gaffney, Congressman Peter King (Chmn, Homeland Security Committee), Duncan Hunter (Chmn, House Armed Services Committee) and those who have distinguished themselves in national security journalism such as Kenneth Timmerman.
And the White House didn't help itself by indirectly smearing them...and all concerned Americans... with the broad tar brush. And they also shot themselves in the foot in a number of other ways.
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA, Finance Committee Chmn) had explicitly directed to the members and staff of CFIUS that if another potential security-implicated deal arose after the abortive CNOOC China Oil/UNOCAL takeover bid...that he be notified immediately of the issues and the investigatory status. They said they would do so.
He wasn't. He only learned of it after the issue broke in the news. This is beyond inexcusable. This is political malfeasance par excellance' on the part of the administration. They are turning stalwarts into skeptics instead.
Things need fixing, and it isn't the 'conservatives' at fault here. The administration has to honestly look in the mirror.
You never have trouble if you are prepared for it.
--Theodore Roosevelt
So then you speak for the families of only the ones you know. The rest you don't speak for.
You should really say that instead of saying in poor taste what you said below:
Hogwash. They know that many operations at ports are already run by foreign governments.
I hear lots of complaints from Congress. I am interested to see what kind of legislation they write if they don't like things.
They need to stop BASHING the WH; CONGRESS writes the laws, for Pete's sake! Lindsay Graham...stop whining and write a law if you don't like the current status of things! Sheesh.
I disagree.
I can give you a long list of names of people who investigated the facts and came to the opposite conclusion of the people in your above mentioned list.
I looked at what both King and Gaffney said, and frankly I can find better, less propaganda filled messages elsewhere.
Gee, let me ask the families of 3000 killed some years ago....
Yes.
That's a foolish argument, and a non sequiter. All of the airplanes used in the 9/11 attacks were US carriers, leaving from US airports. So tell me how making all carriers from Muslim countries leave US airports would have stopped the events of 9/11?
You throw out lots of accusations, but no substance. Physician, heal thyself!
Actually those do have higher risk. Which is, arguably, being "managed." The U.S. Customs Office inspects all UAE air freight cargo to the U.S. and has the best gamma and neutron scanners to facilitate that. Operating in the UAE.
So it is not, and never was, the case that there were no risks, or no 'red flags.' Any statement to that effect, which regrettably far too many Cabinet officers claimed, where hyperbole.
Fortunately conservatives have developed a lot of expertise parsing weasel-word laden deceptions and exaggerations...and a consensus concluded reluctantly that increased risks were being run, and that they had simply been deemed necessary and presumably still-manageable...at an unstated higher-than deputy Cabinet post level.
This is not to say that the DPW ports security issues couldn't be "managed" also...but that if it was going to be, that was all pursuant to classifed procedures which where thereby non-transparent to the public. Thence, the administration whose credibility was hanging by a thread asked for yet more trust. The weasel words and the unwarranted, and clearly unfair, defamation of the opponents sealed the fate of the original deal. The thread snapped.
The conservatives are the ones who actually saved the relationship, by proposing, as did Congressman Peter King the idea of a wholly-owned U.S. based subsidiary.
More defamation.
I doubt you did look at either. Or you wouldn't say that. You don't even appear to recognize who they are.
Repetitive, and not credible.
"And you learned nothing from your economic classes, oh wait a minute those "classes" were in union halls between trips to the keg, nevermind."
Ya know, Dane, you spoil your logic when you resort to ad hominems like this one. As you've seen opinions on this issue vary here on Free Republic. Accusing someone of being a beer-swilling union guy isn't really the way to convince anyone of anything other than your inability to argue effectively.
"When, in between knee jerk union hall keggar "classes"."
Please, Dane, stop with the ad hominems. They're ugly, stupid, and not constructive.
The minority IS the devil.
Very possibly more on a per capita basis.
lol!
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.