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.
What sends a bad message is doing business with a company owned by a foreign govt who will not do business with Israel, one of our key allies. I understand we may have some sort of under the table deal for UAE to support us on the war on terror, but Bush didn't think this through before he said he would veto regardless.
If our government does what is best for the country, who cares how other governments interpret the message?
Bush's sentiments are too P.C. for me -- in this instance.
In almost all other issues, I support our President. But I won't support him blindly.
The Democratic Party got this country into real trouble, by giving in completely to Clinton and not calling him on his mistakes. Our country paid a big price.
I am proud of the Republican majority who is not giving President Bush a free hand. Our leaders don't need a constituency made up of "yes" men; our leaders need our constructive input (whether they want it or not).
Perhaps you're able to multi-task. I'm impressed!
Heck yes it sends a really bad message. The message is the government is really controlled by unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one, and 98% of them have a logical thought processing ability that would make an amoeba ashamed.
Note the wide raging use of "rulings" by various executive agencies. That's legislation without representation, something this country was founded AGAINST!
My knee jerk reaction to the port deal was to say "heck no" but I refrained from posting anything until I had done my homework and could come to a conclusion based on facts rather than emotion. Once I gathered the facts, I supported the port deal and began posting my reasons why.
In all of my fact gathering I didn't hear anything from the WH other than about the veto. I don't know whether the facts were presented and not reported on or whether the WH didn't make any statements except about the President using the veto.
Either way, there wasn't enough information coming from the WH to offset the naysayers. I see that as a failure on the part of the WH.
Everything changed after 9/11 - or didn't you get that memo?
And you learned nothing from your economic classes, oh wait a minute those "classes" were in union halls between trips to the keg, nevermind.
Well, thanks for not bringing it up on this thread.
You must not be connected to cable or the Internet: www.whitehouse.gov ?
The emir of Dubai has fully funded 24 christian churches, from what I've read on another thread.
Since I have no source, just take that as a refutation of your sourceless question, and go do the research if you actually care whether you could have a christian church in the UAE. I believe you will find that you CAN have such a church.
The UAE has a good enough relationship with Israel that Isreal supported the deal.
Well, thanks for not bringing it up on this thread.
-----
:-)
From another thread. An American company got beat out of the sell by P&O by DP World and because Eller couldn't win in the court of law, they simply lobbyied Warner who said he would look into it. That wasn't enough so he went to Schumer who made hay.
The bottom line is this was a business deal UNDERCUT by a competitor of DP World. This was purely a lobbyist play by Eller. If, in the end they get this deal, there should be a serious examination of the money trail from Eller to Schumer, Clinton, et al.
Well stated. The government of Jordan doesn't hate us either. That being said, the recent epiphany of the UAE with respect to Al Qaeda does not excuse their prior bad acts nor their continued support of Hamas.
Uh CFIUS was passed by the elceted representatives in Congress.
Message=We eat our own.
It's not about sending bad messages.
It's about doing the right thing, and if it might be unpopular, communicating about it.
You think a recovering alcoholic would know a little about personal responsibility,accountability -- and looking at their part in any situation -- by now. Sheesh.
Bingo.
The White House mishandled the politics. They probably were naive to expect republicans in congress to act like republicans, rather than going off half-cocked without any facts and jumping on the hysteria bandwagon.
The white house overestimated the congressional republicans, and we have paid dearly for that.
That is no excuse for congress. WHen things go bad, there are usually many different ways they could have been made to come out better, all of which are culpable.
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.