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.
(Gilbert's parody of early feminazis) :-)
Tough lost George...but we the people have spoken.....
He (and DPW) didn't get a chance to defend the deal....the public investigation was squelched by Congress.
Leftists are happy that terrorists, our enemy, get their day in court, and Leftists are happy that Dubai, our ally, did not get its day in court.
Leftists are also happy that the Red Chinese government controls a terminal in the Port of Long Beach.
It's a win-win situation for the Lefties, especially the Clintons.
Great, great post. Glad you are here.
Yes indeed.
And if we were still playing chess, here's hoping we never go back to a beginning with the UAE where we would apply The Philidor Defense.
Sorry - not "the whole UAE", but only the company that wants to buy the ports. If the CIA owned them, then they would gain opportunities for security and human intelligence.
The only reason I speculate is because Bush wants it so much... perhaps he knows of a plan that he can't tell us about.
We can agree on that.
March Madness, baby!
McGavin, I'm getting caught up on posts from last night and I think you're on to something.
And I think what the left is afraid of can be found in this article.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594192/posts
It's about the Saddam tapes that have been ignored despite a direct order from the President of the United States.
Please read it and let me know what you think.
My belief is that if these tapes were released, support for the WOT, the military mission in Iraq, and Republicans in general would increase so much that we would have nothing to worry about come election time in November.
The Democrats would appear to be the malignant liars that they are. This is what they're afraid of, imo.
I would rather have an American owned and operated company to run the ports. I prefer Americans, is that ignorant?
Adults use reason to make decisions. Children use emotion and fear.
This decision was not based on the facts.........it was based on unfounded fear and whipped up hysteria........on YOUR side. (That would be you and the leftist media and the Rats, joining forces to stifle intelligent discussion of the issue).
The 'will of the people' was not involved because the people were never given the accurate information..........and those of us who bothered to find it out, did not oppose the deal.
(btw, 'spoiled brats' continue to call people names after they perceive themselves to be the winners of an argument. This is a Phyrric victory for you and your leftist cohorts, RM. There has been much more lost here, than won..........and you are gloating about it).
I'd rather have a company that has a worldwide reputation(Australia, Germany, South Korea) of being a clean and well run compnay leasing terminals at US ports, than the cronyistic American companies beholden to the mob run unions and DNC such as Eller & Co. that went to chuckie schumer to whip up hysteria which you bought.
The people haven't spoken the CHUMPS have.
"Why penalize the ones that are on our side? "
It's not a penalty and should not be viewed as such. What it is is a protective measure of risk reduction at our strategic ports...doing all we can at this time of war to prevent our ports from being infiltrated by terrorists pretending to be friendly.
If Dubai is our friend as some are convinced, then they will understand and forgive us later.
If Dubai were at war with some renegade Americans who had killed thousands of their citizens in a single strike,and who were constantly threatening to destroy them, I wouldn't blame Dubai if they decided not to allow our ships to port for their own safety.
George Soros, anti-American Bush hater, has a lot invested in the failure of Iraq and the entire democratic movement in the ME. There are many allied deeply with him in the RAT party.............and they are the ones who controlled this deal collapse.
But perhaps the deal breaker goes even deeper.........to the terrorists organizations themselves, who certainly don't want normalized relations between the U.S. and the moderate Arab states. Someone working in conjunction with leftists in this country?
(Is this tinfoil stuff? Out in left field?)
Regardless of who it was, there was some force behind this irrational congressional behavior other than the supposed will of the people.....
America would continue to own and run the ports, just like we ran and owned Boston and DC airports on 9/11.
I think given that a lot of the democrats openly supported Marxism in the past, it is not unlikely that they would openly support terrorists today.
There is something that the Democrats don't want to come out and they are driving the agenda hard with provably untrue and ridiculous accusations. I don't know what that something is but even if I'm that it's the Saddam tapes, the ultimate effort if we can get back to activism will be increased support for our troops and Republicans and the WOT.
Do you remember that Freepers were given a party by House Impeachment managers (it was shown on C-Span) for our activism? I'd like to see freepers get back to trying to drive the agenda instead of reacting to it.
Ok. Now what do the people have to say about improving port security? Or, have you deep thinkers concluded that stopping this deal has stopped all threats?
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.