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.
"Every Muslim did not fly into the WTC. Rational thought has to take over at some point. Let me know when it has for you and we'll talk."
Not every Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor either nor did every German seek the elimination of the Jews. Sorting out the friends from the foes is often not an option in a time of war.
It was muslims who bombed us on 911. It is muslims today reaping chaos and havoc around the world. We can only pray they are not all bad...but we do know everywhere they are there is trouble. Until such time muslim terror ceases, we must as best we can protect our strategic ports from muslims. Dubai is a muslim nation. Let me know when you figure this out, and we'll talk.
As McGavin said, though........it's tough for people on the outside to know what's going on 'in the bowels of Washington.' It makes sense that some connection between Saddam and the left might be about to be uncovered. People with far greater political minds than my weak one will have to work on this one though.
This whole thing definitely doesn't pass the smell test. The left has done something deeply disturbing here, IMO.....
btw.....we know there are many DU trolls here on FR. With the comments that have been made on this deal by so many and the obvious attempt to whip up reactionary fury here of late, I've begun to wonder if people I thought were legitimate freepers aren't under cover for the left.
I want a well run, mob free American company to run the ports. I'll take Halliburton won't you? We can even buy stock in it and perhaps get a decent dividend out of it. But if state owned companies of a despotic regime run by a tribal oligarchy are your version of free market then who am I to challenge that, because you always have the race card Dane, (that particular province of deep thinking rational thinkers such as Calypso Louie)
Halliburton is not interested and I can't blame them. No American company wants to deal with the mob controlled unions.
and clearly the opposition to the deal was secretly led by the . . . THE ILLUMINATI !!!!
but when he gets the message out, it hurts him even more. he made some comparison between dubai and britain, which didn't really help him very much
Conversely you must mean that you would like a foreign owned company to run airports, well then by all means have this brought up and presented to the American public.
OWF, I own the book Hillary's Secret War. Jim Robinson wrote the foreward for that book and Free Republic is mentioned frequently in the book.
The book details how sites like FR started springing up in the 90's and what a threat they posed to Democrats. Because we, and sites like this one, do research and can easily debunk the lies by the left. Then we can turn around and use those articles and the research we've done and send e-mails far and wide.
Additionally, through cookies (or something like that), FR was able to trace where people were posting from. A large number of "freepers" were posting from the Clinton White House and the Washington Post, etc. They were clearly sleepers sent here to create dissent and make us fight among ourselves, which took time away from our activism and research.
Those sleepers are pretty obvious, imo, but rather than attacking them (which I am guilty of doing), our time would be far better spent debunking their lies, their agenda, and posting the truth and the facts.
Later today I will try and post an activism thread about this matter with suggestions on how we can best move forward. Maybe it won't work. But maybe it will.
If the truth comes out about either WMD or Saddam's relationship to Al Qaeda, the left can kiss November '06 goodbye.
Can you at least try to treat this as a discussion between adults?
You cannot accurately compare Pearl Harbor because it was an act of a hostile government and its military. It is entirely different, so our warring against all of Japan cannot be compared with your personal desire to wage war against all Muslims.
No one is questioning, nor trying to minimize the problems with Islam, but it is overly simplistic to cast a single net over every single Muslim. And in this case, it is dangerous to betray a commitment made to a peaceful, competant company. That's what the Congress has done. Our word no longer means anything because of the emotions of the moment. And I, for one, am embarrassed that my Republican representatives reneged on their word for political gain and buckled under the pressure of the left.
doesn't dubai still support hamas, and doesn't dubai call for a "one state solution in Palestine.
Is Hillary's Secret War still available for purchase? (I'll bet it's NOT at my local library! :)
but, aren't the chicoms our allies?
I've only read through post 17 and others may have made this point, but this thing was no big deal until certain political interests made it one.
The President didn't know about it, and he had no reason to know about it. Protocols were followed. By the time it made big news, he couldn't very well get out in front of it.
One of the problems is that Bush's viewpoints are dismissed by the media while Bush haters are promoted and praised. Most headlines regarding Bush proposals start out, "Bush touts..."
I'm glad he's speaking out and taking this tack about the situation. He's able to do so because it was his position all along. Now that it's over, a lot of people are crawling backwards about it. He doesn't have to.
He's our leader but not our baby sitter. He can't do everything.
Brava, altura!!
I tend to believe that it was a combination of the Dem spin/attack machine (already geared-up for the midterm election), the anti-Bush MSM (already geared-up for the midterm election), spineless Republicans afraid of the above (already geared-up for the midterm election), and (even including) a good number of folks, radio talk show hosts and FReepers who were either unwilling to allow themselves to be perceived as weak on national security, or opposed it for selfish reasons, or were merely duped. Don't discount the last category.
My library is very good at ordering books that I request. Or that anyone requests. You could try that.
Congress is the shakedown artists and the American public are the fools.
Most Muslims don't even know what their religion preaches and are just trying to live their lives regardless of who governs them or who preaches to them on their holy day. These are the innocents. They are basically children of their culture and know no other way.
---Didn't the UAE just sing a very large deal with Boeing to purchase planes? It was between Boeing and Air Bus and Boeing won out.
Wouldn't that give us a trade surplus with them?---
Yes! Yes, it does! They bought a big ole pile of F-16s too. If I were them, I'd be nervous about the American Congress, wouldn't you?
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.