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.
I think most of the guys on 'our side' were so quick to move because of fear.........fear of seeming weak, fear of being out maneuvered by the left, fear of losing in November........all that, and more.
The irony is, I think they have behaved more weakly in trying to puff up their chests, and have actually hurt their chances of reelection in November because of this hysteria driven debacle.
We obviously will have to wait and see how it pans out, but IMO, it has hurt far more than it has helped. Not to the point of losing the Senate or the House perhaps, but definitely to the point of losing seats, and more importantly the respect of their constituents.
We expect leaders, not emotional reactionaries.
We got lazy in thought. We got hijacked; with our pants down. Let's get back in shape here. People can die because of what happened last week. Think!!
You're a hoot. First you say, "cut the condescension, ok?"
Then you say, "Can you at least try to treat this as a discussion between adults?"
uhmmm What does that make you if you know? Ah forget about it...moving on.
"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."
I beg to differ. Islam is a govt that controls the nations and the peoples of islam. Terrorists are the armies of islam supported/financed and protected by the govts and the peoples of islam.
Islam is a religion, govt, political entity all in one package. In Dubai the state religion is islam. In Dubai, the govt is islam and the people are ruled under the laws of islam.
If we didn't need their oil, we wouldn't give a rat's arse about them nor we they give a rat's arse about us. In fact, without the oil, there would be no rich sheiks financing terror. They would still be wandering nomads in the desert sands.
Sure we must do business with them for their oil since it is a vital necessity to our economy. For that, they hold us hostage.
But that doesn't mean we have to or should now allow them to run terminals at our strategic ports at a time we are at war with some of their brethren. We just don't have the time nor the means to sort them all out.
---We obviously will have to wait and see how it pans out, but IMO, it has hurt far more than it has helped. Not to the point of losing the Senate or the House perhaps, but definitely to the point of losing seats, and more importantly the respect of their constituents.---
There has got to be a price for the sort of blundering idiocy displayed by Republican members of Congress. They largely failed to support our President and supported policy that hurt our country in order to APPEAR to be concerned about the country's security.
There has got to be a price for that and that price is my vote. I sent my Republican Congressman an email stating that while I would not vote for his opponents I would not vote for him either. Not for the 2006 election.
You have a problem with logic, do you? You are condescending, and I am asking you to understand that thinking adults can differ on this issue. Since I am, however, in your view, 'a hoot' I can see no sane reason for me to continue this discussion, other than reiterating that the government sponsored, military attack on the U.S. by the Japanese was notably different than the terrorist attack on the U.S. on 9/11.
You may argue that they are similar in some ways, but you cannot make the case that we should attack all Muslim nations because their governments attacked us. It is far more complex an issue and a war than you are making it out to be.
Thanks for the discussion though. I'm glad I amused you.
My Congressman is not running again, and I have had plenty of correspondence and phone-calling our two weak-kneed Senators.
Their weakness has put us in a serious predicament, in that, the only way to support the President and his policies is to forgive the idiocy of the Congress. They've made a big mess out of everything.
The American people own the place, the president is just our chauffeur. If he doesn't like following our instructions he can go work somewhere else.
And what percentage of Muslims are engaged in this kind savagery? 0.3%? There is a much higher percentage of inner city kids in our country involved in violence.
Have you ever been outside the U.S.? Ever served alongside Arabs who risked their lives for the same cause as you?
No, I suppose not.
Thanks for the link.
The so-called direct order from the President that you mention is not quoted in the article.
Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. "This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out." The president would reiterate this point before the meeting adjourned. And as the briefing ended, he approached Pence, poked a finger in the congressman's chest, and thanked him for raising the issue. When Pence began to restate his view that the documents should be released, Bush put his hand up, as if to say, "I hear you. It will be taken care of."
I understand where you're coming from here. It's the ideology we're fighting, not the people. We've cured some rotten ideologies in the past. The point is, they're going to have to abandon their culture. It preaches death.
Our other past successful wars have followed a general pattern:
1) Identify the enemy
2) Attack all infrastructure, supply-lines, and outside sources of support
3) Engage the enemy military
4) Demoralize non-combatants
5) Isolate the command structure
6) Obtain unconditional surrender
7) Help with the rebuilding process
There are some very real psychological reasons that these steps need to be executed in order. By engaging in the 'hearts-and-minds' campaign before the enemy is defeated, we're setting ourselves up for failure.
The tragic part of this is that the ideology that needs to be destroyed is wrapped-up in their faith. For a full surrender to be made, all of their Mullahs will have to denounce Mohammed's rants about killing infidels. Those verses will need to be stricken from the Quran, IMO. The actual shooting may temporarily subside, but until that's done, Islamists will carry on to the eventual aim that we're all either converts, slaves, or dead.
Yes I stand corrected (Earlier in the article similar words were not quoted).
One scenario is that Bush had his mind changed after the meeting by Negroponte. Negroponte is a Bush appointee who is one of the good-guys in Washington. His long record of being on our side has made him an enemy of the left.
Most likely Negroponte advised the President not to release the documents and the President said okay let's not.
I've always liked Negroponte too.
What I don't get is that at first he said there was no historical value. Now he says the tapes provide actionable intelligence. That's quite a turnaround.
And certainly there would be a way to translate the tapes and provide a few more releases like the 12 hours given to ABC. At the very least it would be good for the administration to talk about those 12 hours.
Did you hear the former UN official call into the Sean Hannity show a few weeks ago? He translated the 12 hours of tape for ABC and Congress.
When ABC reported that Saddam said that he warned the US there would be a WMD attack but it wouldn't be from Iraq, the translator from the UN said that he actually translated that Saddam said he threatened the US with a WMD attack and we wouldn't be able to trace it to Iraq because he'd use a proxy.
Now THAT would be something the administration should highlight.
XJarhead, I believe the poster you just responded to was being sarcastic, trying to make the same point that you just made.
Anyway, your above rhetorical question implies that either you or somebody you know has served alongside Arabs who have risked their lives for the same cause.
I think it would do the forum good if you could elaborate on that expericence.
Negroponte | Earlier: Analysts from the CIA and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that, while fascinating from a historical perspective, the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their postwar analysis of Iraq's weapons programs.
Negroponte | Later:These documents have provided, and continue to provide, actionable intelligence to ongoing operations. . . . It would be ill-advised to release these materials without careful screening because the material includes sensitive and potentially harmful information.
I do know that all along it has been a policy of this administration not to release similar documents because they claim it might embarrass our allies.
Maybe they're afraid of a ports-type inappropriate reaction.
That could be, FreeReign.
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.