Posted on 03/10/2006 8:16:05 PM PST by crushelits
President Bush said Friday the collapse of the Dubai ports deal could hurt U.S. efforts to recruit Mideast governments as partners in the worldwide war on terror.
Separately, in what may have been an aftershock to the failed transaction, a new round of trade talks between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates was postponed.
On Thursday, Dubai-based DP World backed away in the face of unrelenting criticism and announced it would transfer its management of port terminals in major U.S. cities to an American entity.
Bush struck a defiant tone Friday with the Republican-led Congress whose new willingness to buck him has taken its most dramatic form with the ports controversy.
The president said he was open to improving the government's method of reviewing such transactions, but he insisted his administration's approval of the deal had posed no security risk — and that the reversal could have the opposite effect.
"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," said Bush during an appearance before a conference of the National Newspaper Association. "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."
The United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part, is just such a country, Bush said.
Dubai services more U.S. military ships than any other country, shares useful intelligence about terrorists and helped shut down a global black-market nuclear network run by Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, the administration says. This week, though, the State Department's annual human rights report called the UAE's performance "problematic," citing floggings as punishment for adultery or drug abuse.
The president said he would now have to work to shore up the U.S. relationship with the UAE and explain to Congress and the public why it's a valuable one.
"UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror," he said.
En route Friday to a presidential inauguration in Chile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed Bush. The failed ports deal "means that we are going to have to work and double our efforts to send a strong message that we value our allies, our moderate allies, in the Middle East," she said.
Thursday's action spared Bush an embarrassing showdown, which he seemed likely to lose, over the veto he had threatened of any attempt by Congress to block the transaction.
After weeks of questions from lawmakers of both parties about whether giving a state-owned company from an Arab country control of significant port operations could increase terrorist dangers, the silence from Republicans on Friday was telling. The only statements came from Democrats who sought to keep the issue alive.
Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a chief critic of the Dubai deal, said lawmakers needed more detail on DP World's planned divestiture. It wasn't clear which American business might get the port operations, or how the U.S. entity would be related to the Dubai government.
"Make no mistake, we are going to scrutinize this deal with a fine tooth comb," Schumer said.
And the Democratic Party planned a mobile billboard in Memphis, Tenn., where GOP activists were gathering for a weekend conference, accusing Republicans of standing in the way of providing enough funding for port security. "Republicans owe the American people answers as to where they really stand," said party spokesman Luis Miranda.
Republicans, too, have said the deal's end does nothing to address the nation's continuing vulnerability at its ports, where the vast majority of shipping containers are not inspected. In fact, work continued on Capitol Hill on two fronts: reworking the process under which the government approves foreign investment and boosting port security.
Senate Homeland Security Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, promised a committee vote by the end of April on legislation to strengthen cargo inspections and port security. Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., was readying a nearly identical measure for the House. Both bills have Democratic co-sponsors.
There were some signs the president's worries about the impact abroad were warranted.
Analysts said the developments could make cash-rich investors in the Persian Gulf, where there is the widespread belief that the furor was rooted in anti-Arab bias, wary of high-profile investments in the United States.
And the latest round of negotiations on a new free-trade arrangement between the U.S. and the UAE, scheduled for Monday in the United Arab Emirates, was postponed.
Both sides hastened to dispel speculation that the delay was the result of the ports controversy.
Neena Moorjani, spokeswoman for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record), would not directly address that question, but said it's not unusual for delegations to need more time to prepare. A UAE official said there was no connection, and that working groups would continue discussions by phone.
Something else we need to think about. WHO is powerful enough to have scared the crap out of the congress critters. Their reaction just was NOT normal.
More smokey backroom!
People get a little touchy after they've been attacked all day
In that regard, I have the life of Riley. I'm rarely attacked. ;-)
bttt
Look, we've all been here long enough to have seen these "invasions" before; we know the drill.
But this is different; there are new (and old) people who are literally willing to say anything to "win" -- and they aren't on our side.
We all know when it started -- it's the same group EVERY SINGLE TIME.
God! What's your secret, I'll pay money for it! BIG money, probably as much as $20.00 or so :o)
That pretty much comes with the territory. We speak the truth here, it's only logical that they would try to flood the board with lies to cover it up. Our main problem is that most reasonable people flee the board when it happens (I guess that means that WE are not reasonable, but then I'm Scot/Irish and that means me "Let's get the h*ll out of here" button was deactivated at birth).
Precisely. I wish that wasn't so, but this "new group" is ruthless, IMO.
(I guess that means that WE are not reasonable
Why of course it does!
but then I'm Scot/Irish and that means me "Let's get the h*ll out of here" button was deactivated at birth).
Oh, mine, too. Are you Presbyterian?
Setting up our media is a simple task. Setting up the UAE is another matter...how are you suggesting they were set up?
Used to be.
My secret is "no secret." Read my posting history.
I'm just conflicted between the effort to get informed and the fun of blind speculation; and the tension between correcting posts and having a life.
I know, but you seem better equipped than I am at forming your arguements. I love reading your posts.
I still crave a good flame battle with nopardons, but she has called me vile names, such as paranoid, stupid, jerk. Oh, but it is good to have a dream.
I'm going to bed. It's warm inside and raining outside. I've been accused of snoring and letting my arms go where they feel they want to go:)
Happy Trails!
I guess, as always, the answer to why the big deal was made over a minor "deal", is to follow the money. More will end up in the dem coffers because the deal was cancelled. That's the big and small of it. The repubs who went along with it, well it's probably also follow the money.
You really should do something else.
I'm not much of an athlete.
I've got to turn it. Thanks for the sane conversation to end a hectic day.
Maybe George should put some ice on it and move on to his next tone-deaf blunder.
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.