Bush: Port Deal Collapse Sends Bad Message

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

[MissouriConservative]

Simple.

You seem to be basing your argument on hatred and emotional reactions.

Mine are made with logic, the mark of a good Conservative.

[Paul Ross]

What's the pont?

The deal was inherently contradictory of free enterprise, and hence was manifestly never about free trade.

This was a state-to-state deal. And a further crowding out of the private sector in our country.

[Paul Ross]

Anyone who looks at the deal with any real business sense quickly understands that the only thing that would change is that the longshoremen will be collecting a paycheck from a different entity..

False. The experts at the Coast Guard disagree with you.

And the sad arguments later made based on the statements by the brass hats over-riding the early (by a whole month) opinions do not constitute persuasive considerations.

Even those who were willing to check off on a ton of the deal justifications finally choked on that. Take a look at the even-handed analysis by Kenneth Timmerman in Homeland Transparency.

[indcons]

Reply to FReeper R.W.Ratikal's post (#254). Post addressed to most FReepers who addressed me on the original post. Some rambling thoughts:

"Naturally, foreign countries want to invest in America where their investment is safe. I say take their money."

I agree.....enhanced foreign investment is a sign of a booming economy and confidence in the American democratic system (and legal protections).

"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."

The bulk of the white and blue-collar force in the Middle East (be it Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or even Qatar) consists of Americans, Europeans, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, and other Asians). Americans, Europeans, and Indians make up a bulk of the executive ranks (in that order of preference). Asians and poorer Arabs like Egyptians make up almost 100% of the labor force. As a result, the barbarians are quite confident that they can manage high-tech operations (they do have the necessary manpower and that may include some/several Al-Queda sympathetic Arab suits).

Re: the port deal specifically, the UAE should have expected this backlash from the public. They should have also thought twice about recognizing the Taliban, financing AQ Khan's nuclear blackmarket, funding Hamas, and supporting every Wahabbi cause in he last 30 years. You reap what you sow; nations and people, and not just Arab ones, have long memories. The Arabs are paying the price (justified IMO) for their past sins.

There will be retaliation from the UAE; let us make no mistakes on that point. However, these retaliations will be in the form of canceling a few contracts (like the one with Boeing) rather than any demands that the US leave UAE ports or stop using their military facilities. The security relationship is symbiotic and I doubt that the UAE would be willing to harm diplomatic or trade relations in the long run.

That said, this issue was mishandled in its entirety by both the Executive and by Congress. The President's aides let him down in this case by not preparing an effective case for the American people. The WH paid the price for the lack of communication. That said, the president accomplished a LOT in February on the foreign policy front. It will up to him to placate the UAE and prepare for the coming crisis in Iran.

Congress screwed up this issue up too. Their knee jerk and highly politicized reactions do not speak well of their competence. The Democrats used the DPW deal to get to the right of the Republicans on security; they demagogued this issue from the very beginning and spread lies in order to mislead the public. The Republicans had no other option but follow the Democrats on an important political issue in an election year.

IMHO, this entire fiasco is an event in which there are no winners. Everybody lost to varying degrees and not a single side distinguished itself with its behavior.

What do y'all think?

[veronica]

I can't believe he's pushing this crappy deal.

[redgolum]

If you didn't like the way opponents of the port deal were labeled ignorant racists by the ruling class, just wait to hear what we'll be called when Bush's floats his amnesty scheme.

And that is my fear as well. There were to be made to support this deal, but the talking heads all started to scream "Racist bigots!". Someone is asleep at the switch in the PR department.

[Earthdweller]

"IMHO, this entire fiasco is an event in which there are no winners. Everybody lost to varying degrees and not a single side distinguished itself with its behavior."

Yes..this was a bad thing all around. Growing pains? (I'm trying to be optimistic...really I am)

[BigSkyFreeper]

I'm not averse to business with moderate Arabs, just security business.

Hillary! and Schmuckie thank you for continuing to propagate that myth...

[BigSkyFreeper]

the UAE supports Hamas

A weak argument born on hysteria. Lots of our allies support Hamas, many of them harbor terrorists, yet we continue to do foreign investments with them and vice versa.

[Siena Dreaming]

Re: the port deal specifically, the UAE should have expected this backlash from the public.

Why in the world do you think they should have expected a backlash? Similar deals are done every day.

The difference is...this time Chucky and Hillary took advantage and demogogued. And loads of Freepers bought into their rhetoric.

[Siena Dreaming]

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.

Sounds like you do not know Dubai. They are one of the most advanced, high-tech countries IN THE WORLD. Hard to believe for those who don't travel, but they rival NY or London in these areas.

[indcons]

Agreed. You may be interested in reading my post #264.

[river rat]

" Where may one go, to get a definition of "Moderate Muslim"?

Regarding UAE, let's see...

1. We park our Navy ships at their ports.
2. We use theri aior strip for our military aircraft.
3. They actually sent troops to Iraq. (the only Muslim nation to do so.
4. They wer the first Arab nation to insitute the requirements we put in place for shipping to the US.
5. They sent $100M for Katrina victims.

Let me know when you want me to stop?

1. Parking ships is a business deal between the U.S. and Dubai --- a welcomed deal, but not more.. Have you forgotten that we also made calls to ports in Yemen - until they attacked the USS Cole.

2. Same scenario -- we also used airstrips in Saudi Arabia and Turkey -- until they decided we should cease that activity...once we decided to invade Iraq.

Number 1 and 2 really simply point out that a "Muslim ally" is far less reliable over the long haul, simply because being a Muslim exerts a lot of pressure on ANY relationship with a non-Muslim -- particularly if conflict with another Muslim is involved.

3. Your statement appears to be FALSE.
This link shows NO UAE participation with troops in Iraq.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

I could not find any link that confirms your statement that UAE sent troops to fight WITH the coalition in Iraq against the enemy...
I do recall reading that Jihadists captured in Iraq fighting against the coalition were UAE citizens or carrying UAE passports.
I'm sure you also recall that the UAE had citizens play an active role with Saudi Arabians as terrorists that perpetrated the 9/11 action against America.

4. Again, no more than a business arrangement..
The cynical may even suggest that it was a necessary but temporary "accommodation" to secure a needed advantage.

5. They sent $100M for Katrina victims.
Again, a welcomed gesture, but not much more.

You haven't begun to answer the original question -- Where may one go, to get a definition of a "Moderate Muslim"??

Pakistan has shed far more blood as an "ally" in our WOT, would you consider Pakistan as a "Moderate Muslim" country?

Saudi Arabia has been defined as a valued and long time "ally" in the WOT, would you consider Saudi Arabia as a "Moderate Muslim" nation?

Question still stands.
There appears to be a inability to define the term "Moderate Muslim"....at least I haven't found one that passes rational scrutiny.

Semper Fi

[indcons]

Excellent post, river rat. Kudos.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Actually, I think parsing words, making self justifying rationalizations and defending the indefensible escalated this fiasco.

Actually buying into left-winged media lies escalated this fiasco.

[BigSkyFreeper]

...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.

This statement shows you know nothing about the UAE. Dubai City looks like Las Vegas with it's flashy neon lit gambling casinos and multibillion dollar resort hotels and night clubs.

Drinking, sex, gambling, and dancing. Four things the radical Muslims adamantly oppose.

Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, and IBM all do business there. Radical muslims hate anything to do with "The Great Satan".

[ScreamingFist]

percentage of UAE votes AGAINST america at the UN: 2004: 87.5% 2003: 100% 2002: 82.4% 2001: 100%

It's OK to PO France, those dirty leftist FROGS (with nukes). And it's OK to PO Russia, those filthy commies (with nukes). And it's OK to PO Germany, those back stabbing, money grabbing youths of Hitler (that house our nukes).

But don't PO the arabs in DUBAI!!!!!! WE'RE DOOMED!!!!!!

[indcons]

Thanks for your post. I would modify it to "post-9/11 growing pains." The US is the world's greatest capitalist country; this incident will pass and trade will resume. Positive results - it may even teach the ChiComs and Saudis a lesson or two.

[freema]

Made you feel better, too, eh? : )

[indcons]

"Why in the world do you think they should have expected a backlash? Similar deals are done every day."

True. I thought the rest of the paragraph explained why. Here's why:

"[...] They should have also thought twice about recognizing the Taliban, financing AQ Khan's nuclear blackmarket, funding Hamas, and supporting every Wahabbi cause in he last 30 years. You reap what you sow; nations and people, and not just Arab ones, have long memories. The Arabs are paying the price (justified IMO) for their past sins."