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.
LOL! That one does it. I can walk away from my computer happy now. That was good.
"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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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...
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.
Spot on - not to mention the loss of business from UAE.
So, how did my original post contradict any of that, and how have your replies contradicted my original post?
Thanks, kinda surprised I didn't get flamed for such blasphemy.
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!!!
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!!
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.
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.
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.