Bush: Port Deal Collapse Sends Bad Message

Associated Press ^ | March 10, 2006 | LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

[Earthdweller]

"I hope everytime Dems opens their mouths about port security Bush hits them in the head with a shovel."

LOL! That one does it. I can walk away from my computer happy now. That was good.

[MissouriConservative]

"The UAE's sponsorship of terrorists sends a bad message too."

Are those terrorists the US Army? Last I looked, the UAE has soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan fighting along side American soldiers.

Please get some facts before you spout.

[raybbr]

Why is it that those that are defending this deal never mention the DPW is partly owned by the govt. of Dubai. It is NOT just another foreign company.

If the deal had gone through could the state of Dubai have eventually claimed sovereignty at those terminals making them, in effect, part of the UAE? I don't want to take that chance.

[AntiGuv]

Here are some facts for you:

Welcoming Terror to U.S. Ports

On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support…that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation".

The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had… never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF… The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies." Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), HAMAS charitable societies,” are known as integral parts of the HAMAS infrastructure, and are outlawed by Israel and the U.S.

The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: "One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West, and was the first to use oil as a political weapon following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War he branded the United States “our number two enemy” after Israel.

The multi-billionaire Sheikh Zayed, was an early patron of the PLO, and from the 1970’s until his death in 2004, contributed millions of dollars to the terror agenda of the PLO, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.

Human Appeal International, a UAE government-operated “charitable” organization, whose board includes the UAE president, funds HAMAS as well as other Palestinian organizations, “martyrs,” Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI’s modus operandi is to transfer money to the Palestinian Red Crescent Organization whose West Bank and Gaza branches are operated by HAMAS. They, in turn, distribute the money to HAMAS “charities.”

For example, according to the Orient Research Center in Toronto, Canada, the UAE “compensation” plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000.

Also in 2001, in support of the martyr’s families in the Palestinian intifada, two telethons were organized in the UAE. “We Are All Palestinians” raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and “For Your Sake Palestine” raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.

According to a detailed report on March 25, 2005, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank “charitable” organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus and Tulkarem to distribute to the families of “martyrs,” orphans, imprisoned Palestinians and others.

The Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported on March 22, 2005, that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to HAMAS “charities” to be distributed to 3,158 terrorists’ orphans.

On February 15, 2005, the HAMAS website reported on funds transferred from HAI to two HAMAS front organizations in the West Bank, IQRA and Rifdah, which Israel had outlawed. And last July, Osama Zaki Muhammad Bashiti of Khan Younis in Gaza was arrested as he returned from the UAE, for often transferring funds of as much as $200,000 at a time to the Gaza HAMAS branch. The suicide bombing and attacks, including one mortar attack on Gush Katif, caused the death of 44 Israeli civilians and dozens of injuries.

The UAE support of HAMAS is in line with the agenda promoted by the late Sheikh Zayed. His Zayed Center for International Coordination and Followup, founded in 1999 as the official Arab League think-tank, was shuttered under international pressure in 2003. It championed Holocaust deniers like Thierry Meyssan and Roger Garaudy and provided a platform for anti-Western, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish extremists like Saudi economist Dr. Yussuf Abdallah Al Zamel, who blamed the war in Iraq on "radical Zionist and right-wing Christian" influence.

[Paul Ross]

Document the sudden burst of rage by the president.

It doesn't need to be a burst, nor need it be a vivid "rage".

It does need to be an emotional rejectionary reaction to be a tantrum.

The article indicates this with its very paragraph, noting his negative emotion-connotative response, and non-acceptance of having been directed to change policies:

"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.

Yup. Just some stormy weather from the sounds of it.

Remember how Robert Novak reported the unusual streak of political suicide the White House manifested right from the get-go?

Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt, an experienced Washington hand, managed the deal at Treasury without giving a heads-up to top Republicans in Congress. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist might have been less quick to attack the port arrangement if they'd had advance word. Hastert heard nothing from a former staffer now handling Treasury legislative affairs.

When the Democrats first opened fire, presidential counselor Dan Bartlett was alerted by congressional Republicans to stormy waters ahead and urged to do something about it. Bartlett replied in the imperial style of this presidency by suggesting he hoped Republicans could support the deal, but if they could not, it just would be too bad. That was followed by the president's rare session with reporters aboard Air Force One in which he threatened a veto.

And the rest is history, as they say. But we can still write that history if the President doesn't indulge recriminations...but instead makes a positive change and 'owns it.'

[CharlesWayneCT]

No. Next question?


Facts are your friend, find some.

The ports are owned by ports authorities, which are public entities set up to own the public assets like ports. The ports have terminals, many many terminals. Some terminals are set up by private companies to handle their own shipments, some by shipping companies, and some by management companies.

The ports authority wants to have terminals at the ports, so they can make money on taxes on shipments, and have employment. So they lease space at the ports to companies that will put terminals in and operate them. This makes the government money in the lease, and money from operations.

So no, there is no chance of anybody claiming "national sovereignty".

BTW, many many buildings and property in this country are owned by foreign governments, and they can't claim "national sovereignty" over those either, even though they own them. Any more than you can because you own your house.

The only place a government claims national sovereignty in a foreign country are the official consulate buildings and property.

I see nobody "leaving out" the ownership of DPW. Every company has owners. P&O was owned by a large number of stockholders, some of who were undoubtably leaders of muslim countries. Maher Terminals is owned by the Maher family. DP World is owned by a holding company controlled by some shieks who are also the rulers of some of the emerites in the UAE.

I don't support governments owning private business, but it is an unfortunate fact of life that throughout the world governments have taken over companies. Many countries have public control over oil companies. Most airlines are national airlines. We have the U.S. Postal Service, among other things like Amtrak. We do try to make a fiction that we don't directly own companies.

[RVN Airplane Driver]

Any businessman would also note that another change would occur. The PROFITS will go to a terrorist harboring country. PROFITS that would be reinvested back into AMERICA if an AMERICAN country were running the operation. Why is this important? If AMERICANS do not maintain their infrastructure, they cannot stay a superpower. So the ultimate goal of all this "free traitin'" thats going on, is to reduce the American domestic economy and its power, and reduce the strength of AMERICA, so that OTHER COUNTRIES can overtake her. It doesn't do, in a world of socialists, communists and dictators who make up the bulk of the "FREE TRADE SYSTEM", to have a FREE, INDEPENDENT and WEALTHY AMERICA.

and your point is....given that the profits previously went to a UK entity...as for the profits going to a terrorist harboring country...and where might you be getting your information about that tidbit...and your final rant makes absolutely no sense to any rational American that can view the future beyond the tip of their noses...We are in the 21st Century...isolationism didn't work in the 20th Century and it damn sure won't work in the 21st...

[redgolum]

If, over a port deal, the UAE tells us to leave the bases, then that says all we need to know.

There are good reasons to be for and against this deal. But claiming "We had better do it or they will be mean to us!" sounds wrong.

[MissouriConservative]

Facts are facts

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) Is A Longstanding Friend And Ally Of The United States. The United States and UAE have a longstanding alliance. The UAE is a key partner of the United States in the War on Terror, helping to advance Middle East peace efforts. The UAE is also a vibrant trading partner and has provided critical support in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The UAE Is A Key Partner In The War On Terror. The UAE provides U.S. and Coalition forces unprecedented access to its ports and territory, overflight clearances, and other critical and important logistical assistance. Today, the UAE is providing assistance to the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, combating terrorists by cutting off their financing, and enhancing America's homeland security by actively participating in initiatives to screen shipments and containers.

* UAE Ports Host More U.S. Navy Ships Than Any Port Outside The United States. The UAE provides outstanding support for the U.S. Navy at the ports of Jebel Ali - which is managed by DP World - and Fujairah and for the U.S. Air Force at al Dhafra Air Base (tankers and surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft). The UAE also hosts the UAE Air Warfare Center, the leading fighter training center in the Middle East.

* The UAE Is A Partner In Shutting Down Terror Finance Networks. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money laundering, including by freezing accounts, enacting aggressive anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws and regulations, and exchanging information on people and entities suspected of being involved in these activities.

* The UAE Is An Established Partner In Protecting America's Ports. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (CSI) - a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism. Under CSI, a team of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers is permanently stationed inside Dubai's ports, where they work closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the United States. Cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operations. Dubai was also the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative, a program aimed at stopping illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material.

* The UAE Is A Critical Partner In Afghanistan. The UAE extends vital military and political support to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and substantial financial and humanitarian support to Afghanistan and its people.

* The UAE Is Supporting The New Iraqi Government. The UAE has provided significant monetary and materiel support to the Iraqi government, including a pledge of $215 million in economic and reconstruction assistance.

The UAE Is Supporting Middle East Peace Efforts. The UAE is a moderate Arab state and a long-time supporter of all aspects of Middle East peace efforts. The U.S. and the UAE are also working together to create a stable economic, political and security environment in the Middle East.

The UAE Provided $100 Million To Help The Victims Of Hurricane Katrina. The UAE was one of the first nations to offer financial aid to the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. UAE's $100 million donation was one of the largest by any nation.

LINK

[DanTheAdmin]

Spot on - not to mention the loss of business from UAE.

[R.W.Ratikal]

President Bush is getting a bad rap on the port deal. Such deals are worked out by non-govermental groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, and other world supra-bodies.

Our foreign policies are much the same no matter which party is in power. remember when the Dems were in power we bombed Libya, the Balkans and otherwise carried on our foreign policy just as if the Republicans were in the White House.

Naturally, foreign countries want to invest in America where their investment is safe. I say take their money. But as for hiring an Arab country to "manage" anything, it surprises me that we would look to a culture that has not advanced very much in 2000 years to manage a high-tech operation like a modern seaport.

[R.W.Ratikal]

President Bush is getting a bad rap on the port deal. Such deals are worked out by non-govermental groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, and other world supra-bodies.

Our foreign policies are much the same no matter which party is in power. remember when the Dems were in power we bombed Libya, the Balkans and otherwise carried on our foreign policy just as if the Republicans were in the White House.

Naturally, foreign countries want to invest in America where their investment is safe. I say take their money. But as for hiring an Arab country to "manage" anything, it surprises me that we would look to a culture that has not advanced very much in 2000 years to manage a high-tech operation like a modern seaport.

[R.W.Ratikal]

President Bush is getting a bad rap on the port deal. Such deals are worked out by non-govermental groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, and other world supra-bodies.

Our foreign policies are much the same no matter which party is in power. remember when the Dems were in power we bombed Libya, the Balkans and otherwise carried on our foreign policy just as if the Republicans were in the White House.

Naturally, foreign countries want to invest in America where their investment is safe. I say take their money. But as for hiring an Arab country to "manage" anything, it surprises me that we would look to a culture that has not advanced very much in 2000 years to manage a high-tech operation like a modern seaport.

[R.W.Ratikal]

President Bush is getting a bad rap on the port deal. Such deals are worked out by non-govermental groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, and other world supra-bodies.

Our foreign policies are much the same no matter which party is in power. remember when the Dems were in power we bombed Libya, the Balkans and otherwise carried on our foreign policy just as if the Republicans were in the White House.

Naturally, foreign countries want to invest in America where their investment is safe. I say take their money. But as for hiring an Arab country to "manage" anything, it surprises me that we would look to a culture that has not advanced very much in 2000 years to manage a high-tech operation like a modern seaport.

[AntiGuv]

So, how did my original post contradict any of that, and how have your replies contradicted my original post?

[traderrob6]

Thanks, kinda surprised I didn't get flamed for such blasphemy.

[Coop]

Why is it that you supporters of the deal conveniently leave out the fact DPW is partly owned by the govt. of Dubai.

That's been discussed ad nauseam since Day One. What's your point? I hope all the "conservatives" up in arms about these "Arabs" running our ports are now getting rid of their Toyotas, Hyundais, Hondas, etc. Those dern fer'ners could infiltrate our dealerships INSIDE OUR BORDERS!!!

[RVN Airplane Driver]

Trying to present the truth on this thread is like masturbating with boxing gloves on....about the time you think you are making progress toward an ultimate goal...BAM...you lose interest and finally give up... I give up!!

[Wasanother]

I'm not seeing a problem here, Bush looks bad for a while, the Republican Congress looks like heroes and after all they are the ones going up for reelection on their own philosophy, not Bush's. Separate but Equal Branches.

[Paul Ross]

If, over a port deal, the UAE tells us to leave the bases, then that says all we need to know.

An overwhelmingly reasonable conclusion. The fact that no one on the other side ever broaches an answer to it just give it more heft. Which was already substantial.

Although I rejected the deal as structured, implicitly the proponents from the military side seemed to indicate (at least I gathered this reading between the lines from General Peter Pace) that we have an absolutely vital...but precarious alliance in the UAE either because of the mercurial nature of the Emirates, or because of the uncertainty as to their ability to hold power against an opposition while staying in our 'alliance.'

Thank God for C-SPAN.