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.
"And there are many, many in Briton that hate Briton...clean your own house before lecturing others trying to keep their house clean..."
Interesting to make your aquaintance. Whoops. Sorry. Parden me, a foreigner, having an opinion. You've made your opinion on foreigners pretty clear - shame I aint an arab then you could really launch in.
"And there are many, many in Briton that hate Briton...clean your own house before lecturing others trying to keep their house clean..."
Interesting to make your aquaintance. Whoops. Sorry. Parden me, a foreigner, having an opinion. You've made your opinion on foreigners pretty clear - shame I aint an arab then you could really launch in.
Same as you.
Look, we're disagreeing. The UAE may not have sent men to 9/11, but they helped supply bank accounts. They still refuse to back away from the statement that every israeli, man woman and child, should be put to death. They have donated moneys to Hamas. Why should I believe they won't help sneak in a sleeper or two, or would not assist in a strike against us in some small fashion?
And Florida supplied the flight training.
I say we bar Floridians from the ports business.
They wouldn't. But they may well have helped get some of them on planes in their transit here to the US. Pehaps create some supporting documentation. Supply cash. Provide inside info in the weak points of ticketing etc.
Sorry, it was only a backfill in Kuwait. Nonetheless, how many other Arab counties even contributed this much. Hell, France and Germany didn't contribute this much. They were still part of the ops related to the invasion.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-27-us-troops_x.htm
In Abu Dhabi, Rumsfeld and Franks said they thanked the UAE leaders for their war help, which included sending troops to Kuwait and humanitarian aid to Iraq.
http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWDigests/GWD2003/GWD_2003_04_28.htm#NU2
UAE TROOPS IN KUWAIT TO RETURN IN MAY "The UAE troops deployed in Kuwait as part of Dir Al Jazeerah (Peninsula Shield Forces) to defend Kuwait from the fall out of a U.S. invasion to Iraq will return home in the first week of May…" ~~GulfWire Link~~
Some will never be satisfied no matter how much the UAE does and you're apparently one of them. Sounds like a lot of ex-wives I've heard about. It's idiots like you that want to fight all 1.2 billion Muslims at one time. We'll all be in uniform for that one. Remember the famous Latin quote- "divide et impera" translated DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Thank God the president has heard of it before. For all of you other morons out there- learn it, live it.
There is no "control" over U.S. ports, for the quadzillion time.
No, I made my opinion on the UAE clear. The UAE is a great place to party, bring money....been there myself. That said, I don't want them managing ports in the US.
Shame I aint an arab then you could really launch in.
Weak. If you want to really have a good time come to Oklahoma, I'll cook BBQ and we'll drink beer....all friends are invited, leave any America haters overseas....which precludes about 80% of the UAE.
I would be satisfied if the UAE establishes diplomatic relations with Israel and conducts multiparty elections.
PS. And I would dance a jig if they convert from Islam to Buddhism, but I won't hold my breath on that one! :)
"That said, I don't want them managing ports in the US."
This whole security thing is a red herring
This whole thing is a farce. If johnny islan-arab wants to smuggle a suitcase H-Bomb into the USA he doesn't have to go to the trouble of buying the right to invoice ships for docking.
He'd get in a car in mexixo and just drive over.
This is cheap politics. For the millions of sheep like masses in dubai who have to balance the messages that their immans bang into their heads every Friday, against the realisation of western lifestyle that they (really) enjoy - it is clear over the last 10 years that for Dubai the western image was winning. This kind of thing just pushes those on the line back toward the Immans....
"That said, I don't want them managing ports in the US."
This whole security thing is a red herring
This whole thing is a farce. If johnny islan-arab wants to smuggle a suitcase H-Bomb into the USA he doesn't have to go to the trouble of buying the right to invoice ships for docking.
He'd get in a car in mexixo and just drive over.
This is cheap politics. For the millions of sheep like masses in dubai who have to balance the messages that their immans bang into their heads every Friday, against the realisation of western lifestyle that they (really) enjoy - it is clear over the last 10 years that for Dubai the western image was winning. This kind of thing just pushes those on the line back toward the Immans....
You make very good points. But...Great Briton has tried this same strategy for decades.....and I have to ask, are you comfortable with the results...in your own country?
Fine. "...handing control of terminals to Middle-Eastern companies/countries." Happy now?
"You make very good points. But...Great Briton has tried this same strategy for decades.....and I have to ask, are you comfortable with the results...in your own country?"
I'm not quite sure what you're driving at there. Do I think our foreign policy is right? Broadly, yes.
Do I think our homeland security/immigration policy is sensible? Broadly, no.
Do I feel any more threatened now than I have most of my life? No. There's always a bogie man. For most of the last forty odd years until the early 90s Britons lived with the back of the mind fear of nuclaer wipe-out, and the front of the mind constant drip drip of IRA attrocities on our doorstep. But we still get up and go to work and live happy lives. We are no strangers to domestic terrorism and the idea that on a given day some lunatic will blow up the tube. The IRA have gone, the four minute warning to anhilation worry has gone - now it's radical islams turn to stop us sleeping.
I spend about a third of my year in the UK and a third outside (a good chunk on your side of the pond). For all my rants about things I would do different it tends to be about detail rather broad direction. I'm still happy to call this place home.
I listened to Limbaugh for the whole first hour and he never once mentioned it. He kept saying "a foreign company". Never a "foreign company partly owned by the govt. of Dubai".
Yours and others ridiculous vehemence about this deal makes glad it fell through. I was on the fence till all you globalists started whining about it.
Many on FR have seen the "cartoon riots" in Britain, specifically the signs saying "Britain will be muslim", among others.
That said, a very honest and well said post. If you ever make it out here into flyover country, you'll be amazed at the number of Union Jacks flying with the Stars and Bars....
Regards.
Now, there you go again....
Off the reservation, off topic and resorting to name calling, bullshit and silly predictions...
Whatever UAE may have done in Kuwait, doesn't alter the fact that your statement, "UAE was the only Muslim nation to send troop to Iraq"..was demonstrably FALSE.
The original QUESTION, was how does one define "Moderate Muslim?
For asking that question, which was important as to how we should view UAE and Dubai in particular --- you respond with still more irrational, false or off topic bitching and foreboding predictions....
Your "argument" doesn't convince, sway or impress...
It points out the weakness of those who wish us to regard certain nations as "allies", "friends" or "Moderate" -- without rational empirical justification..
It's become obvious you can't answer the question.
So admit it, or stop deflecting or insulting others to mask your own ignorance.
Don't worry, I haven't seen a rational answer from anyone, yet.
Semper Fi
Oh, and I just realized I screwed the pooch on Briton=Britain...damn spell checkers.....
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.