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.
That line, deserves a response of its own..
In case you haven't noticed - we have already had war declared against us, ALL OF US -- by the Muslim "extremists"....
We should all, already think of ourselves in "uniform" for this one...
That is why it's critical we devise some rational set of criteria and DEMANDS to distinguish between "extremist" and "moderate" Muslim NATIONS.
Semper Fi
The myth you believe is that some moderate countries have not changed since 911 and our invasion of Iraq. And a Hillary and a schmuckie to you to, whatever the hell that means.
And indcons, I think that you bring great insight to the tangibles and nons, regarding this very complex and beliefs/principles-heightened, future-impacting, kind of (The) Tipping Point puzzle and complex balancing act, which lies before, and cumulatively effects, us all.
I've sifted through the tiresome, "witty," personal got-ya-lasts to find some very thoughtful posts/articles posted, from FReepers like you guys. Thanks for the edjeecation. :-)
Many FReepers have ignored the off-putting opprobrium in preference for the apropos.
More defamation. Your response is deformation. I doubt you did look at either. Or you wouldn't say that. You don't even appear to recognize who they are.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
Gaffney's initial written response to the UAE takeover of terminal leases was posted here on FreeRepublic several weeks ago. The title of his opinion piece was called Port of Entry.
In paragraph one of "Port of Entry", Gaffney compares the potential operation by the UAE of six seaport terminals to a hypothetical scenario of the U.S. government contracting out airport security to the UAE.
There is no comparison.
The UAE wouldn't do port security. The U.S. government would still do port security. Yet, Gaffney makes it sound like the USCG and USCBP would not. That is the perpetuation of misinformation (regardless of his intent).
In paragraph two Gaffney repeats misinformation when he says that "a secretive government committee has decided to turn over the management of six of the Nation's most important ports".
Management of six of the Nations's most important ports was not being turned over to the UAE. Instead 6 terminals (out of many terminals) in 6 ports were going to be leased and managed by the UAE.
Again the perpetuation of misinformation.
That's only the first two paragraphs. That's the perpetuation of misinformation. With all the good sources available on the net, why the h*ll would I even waste one second more on a source who perpetuates that kind of misinformation.
Repetitive, and not credible.
The conservative axiom of individual responsibility an nonreliance of government and you say "repetitive and not credible".
LOL!
(Your bold)
The president is troubled that we may lose our Navy docking privileges in the UAE. The president is troubled that we may loose our inside investiagory access at the Port of Dubai.
Those are legitimate concerns.
You identify the president being troubled over those legitimate concerns as being a tantrum -- I don't.
As if you ever went to college, or graduated elementary school, for that matter.
You stupid, stupid, fish-sniffing kniggit! I taunt you a second time!
(One good personal insult deserves another. Who cares about actually debating the merits of the argument.)
Neither do I.
A mess is made out of crass political and personal motivations, and now the President is left trying to clean up that mess before our security really is damaged by losing key ALLIES. Allies our Congress doesn't seem to comprehend have necessary value. This isn't a tantrum, it's reality. A precious real world so few are living in it seems.
However, since folks are SO convinced we're just been spared nuclear holocaust via a via our ports...
I expect they'll vote for our "saviors" this fall. Right?
Me, I'm having my doubts. So since many of these folks are the ones always going on about the two party cartell..saying we shouldn't vote Rep..go third party....and others have been laboriously raging our spending and what not...I certainly think they should reward the party (rep) that killed it. Seems only fair for saving us from a mushroom cloud from our enemies in the UAE.
"The same could have been said for Saddam Hussain who ran a territory recognised by the UN and had the support of other nations."
And many European nations gave aid to his government. Should we bar their companies from operating port terminals in the US?
One that's run out of bullets.
Here ya go. :-)
You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you. You are a bloody nardless newbie twit protohominid chromosomally aberrant caricature of a coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond scum and I wish you would go away.
Remember anytime you want to get flamed....I'm here for ya.
It occurs to me that you may have no idea what I mean by "divide and conquer" as difficult as that is for me to believe. Forgive me for assuming that everyone understands what I'm referring to when I say "divide and conquer." Although I am a rocket scientist, it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the heritage of this term and it's application in the current situation with regard to Muslims- moderate and radical.
The heritage of the "divide and conquer" phrase is somewhat in dispute, but it is most often attributed to Julius Caesar who used the strategy in his conquest of Gaul (now France) in the first century BC. The Celtic tribes of Gaul were loosely configured and Caesar enlisted one tribe against another and dug in his own Roman army while they savaged one another. Eventually, his Roman army fought the surviving tribes and gained the upper hand as Gaul became part of the Roman Empire.
In the present situation, the president has appealed to moderate Muslim nations such as Pakistan in a war against those nations controlled by radical Muslims such as Afghanistan and Iraq with some success. Is a nation such as Pakistan a perfect ally? Certainly not. There are many radicals within Pakistan, any of whom would gladly slit either of our throats without a second thought. However, it's leader, Mushareff has been paid well and has marshalled his resources to assist the US-lead coalition against Al Qaeda and other terrorists in the region.
Even though Caesar was able to enlist some Celtic tribes, he eventually ended up fighting those same tribes or others who had in turn defeated those tribes he had used previously. The point is that he was adeptly able to get his bidding done by others before expending his own energies and his own army.
To answer your question- it doesn't really matter what the definition of a moderate Muslim is. For purposes of my explanation, a moderate Muslim is any Muslim who will take up arms or who can command other Muslims to take up arms or provide material support for our bidding.
The president understands this. He is trying to preserve American lives, much as Caesar was preserving the lives of his soldiers prior to committing them to battle.
The UAE has provided material support for our military endeavors in the region and has thus acted as a moderate Muslim nation in my definition. Even Caesar paid those who fought for him whether they were part of his army or were merely mercenaries. The Bush administration was attempting to reward a moderate Muslim nation in the region for its efforts in decades long War on Islam.
In my estimation and that of many others much more knowledgeable than me, the security risk of having DWP operate a few piers in this country was manageable. The US Coast Guard and Customs Service are in control of security. This is a business deal. Why would anyone with terrorist motives spend $7B to carry out an attack when the combined efforts of the 9/11 terrorists were probably accomplished with much less than $1M? I've answered your question. Can you answer that question?
The administration used very poor judgment when it came to explaining its rationale for this deal to congressional leaders and the American people. Obviously, the president can't come out publicly and say we are at war with Islam, but he can privately explain it to congressional leaders, who can in turn sell in to citizens. Hopefully he's learned his lesson.
Finally, please forgive me if you feel I have been condescending or coarse with you in any way. I am very upset that this issue was used to divide conservatives and potentially conquer conservatives in the upcoming elections. The democrats have truly used the "divide and conquer" strategy on this issue.
Thank you for your service to our nation.
Semper Fi (my younger brothers are both Marines)
And many European nations gave aid to his government. Should we bar their companies from operating port terminals in the US?
Political Science
Randy Newman
No one likes us, I don't know why.
we may not be perfect, but heaven knows we tried
and all around, even our old friends put us down
lets drop the big one, and see what happens
We give them money, but are they grateful?
no they're spiteful, and they're hateful
they don't respect us, so lets surprise them
go drop the big one and we'll pulvarize them
Asia's crowed, europes too old
africa is far too hot, and canada's too cold
south america stole our name
let's drop the big one there'll be no one left to blame us
But we'll save australia,
we don't wanna hurt no kangaroos
then we'll build an all american amusement park there
they got surfin' too
Boom goes london, boom paris
more room for you, and more room for me.
every city the whole world round
will just be another american town
how peaceful it will be, we'll set everybody free
you'll wear a japanese komono, baby
and italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
so lets drop the big one now.
Naw. That'd be too much hope and optimism for most here to comprehend. Capitalism is their religion. They could care less about protecting puppies, kittens, or US citizens from harm.
I understand that you are kind of recent here. If you want to participate in another conservative battle, follow this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593744/posts?page=103#103
Your post (333):
The deal had to be nixed, but Bush couldn't (or wouldn't?) come out and say it himself.
I consider you insightful, well-read, and obviously a true American. Thank you for your reasoned, sane, and insightful post.
I believe the recent Cap Hill theater has helped heighten the nation's awareness to what the root cause of the war is. Hasn't hurt the true Republicans, or the war effort, a bit, IMHO. If anything, it has helped unite and galvanize those in both parties who realize that this is a war on Islam.
My theory is that Rome eventually fell because it became overrun with those whose true allengiances lay in other places. Should we be letting the hordes through the gates here?
At first I was really put off by the whole thing. Now I just think that politicians used it as a political tool, esp. my :choke: senators Rotten and Schmuckie. Also, I think the whole Arab muslim hating thing went too far and stunk of nationalism a little too much.
NOT possible, it's the way of every leftist. Blackbird.
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.