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've always been shocked at just how dumb these guys are. They get elected because they are charismatic and not because of their brains. They hire a staff (people who for the most part have spent their entire careers in DC) to keep them informed, but when asked questions, most of them don't even know what is in the bills they have sponsored.
Your post is full of wild assumptions and faulty logic. We could easily win a war against 1.2 billion Muslims if we really wanted to. Bush in his wildest dreams wouldn't even think of it. After all just last week he called Pakistan a "great Arab nation".
" We could easily win a war against 1.2 billion Muslims if we really wanted to. "
Just what does "win a war" mean in the context of terrorist attacks ?
Easy no more Muslims.
So your intention is to convert by the sword or put to death 20% of the population of the Earth ?
This whole thing, with some of the comments on yhis
subject, reminds me of the Civil Rights controversies
in the 60s's. The Blacks will never get off welfare...
the Blacks will never integrate with whites..etc...now
it's the middle east...Muslims,etc. What pctg. of them are actual siuiciders, killers,etc. What percentage of
our killers are part of an ethnic group? Do we banish
them from our society? I think Bush was/is on the right
path, but he has the same tendency to rush into these
situations without the proper explanations,,,,,, Jake
Wrong on all counts.
Our government was NOT created "to protect individual rights" - although that was ONE of the underlying principles of its organization. It was created to to ensure our mutual security.
"Free trade has made unwilling individuals sacrifice their livlihoods" is a socialist utterance If I ever heard one. Nobody at any time in the history of our nation has ever asserted that any individual had a "right" to any given livlihood. Such an assertion is absurd for two reasons.
First it is beyond the power of the government to ensure, except by robbing other unwilling citizens to pay for work they otherwise would not buy. Second, it is incompatible with the purposes of ensuring the GENERAL welfare, which requires that government consider foremost the aggregate effects of its policies.
So, far from being "utterly incongruent with the responsibilities of the federal government and violates the spirit of the US Constitution", free trade, such as it exists (and it most assuredly does not) is entirey consistent with, and in furtherance of, the express purposes and intentions of our Constitution.
And I'd rather drive a Bentley. So what?
What is it about the running of cargo terminals that makes you think that you ought to have a say in the ownership of the companies that own the operating rights?
This is a purely commercial deal that has nothing whatsoever to do with your thoughts, feelings or concerns unless you happen to be a stockholder.
Also, why are you coming to this party just now?
Where have you been for the paast fifty years? American cargo terminals have had a number of foreign owners, including companies from Norway, Britain, Holland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China and others for decades.
You are either a Democrat trying to make points on a manufactured crisis, or you are part of their stampede.
I'll stick with ignorant in either scenario.
Likewise, the mere fact that some hijackers hailed from the UAE, or that some bad money was moved through the UAE banking system, doesn't mean that the leaders of that country are evil.
Given your name, your position on this is quite the irony. Reagan named the Soviets the "Evil Empire", yet he worked with Gorbachev in Iceland to try to find common ground on security issues. And that was with the Soviet Union, a country overtly dedicated to our destruction. Not with a country like the UAE that has, for more than a decade, played welcoming host to the busiest non-domestic U.S. naval base in the world. Without a single security breach, terrorist incident, or assault on military personnel on liberty in the city. Not one.
I am staggered by your complete lack of understanding regarding our form of government and the thrust of the two trends of political thought today - socialism and free enterprise.
You have everything turned on its head. You are truly enmired in a socialist mindset, yet somehow you have got this confused with conservatism, individual liberty, and limited government. It's staggering that all these confused idea could co-exist in the same mind. It must be wonderful to be you.
Just one point. NO government, not our government, not ANY government, from the beginning of time, was ever established to protect individual liberty. That idea is rubbish, complete and utter trash. It is an idea unworthy of the human mind. I can't imagine where you ever got such a totally bizarre notion.
Governments are established to secure peace and security, and economic stability. Individual liberty is always, of necessity, placed at risk by the establishment of government. That's why perfect individual liberty is epitomized by the LACK of government, not by its establishment.
Ever hear of anarchy?
Our government is particularly characterized by limits placed upon it by the founders to protect individual liberty (enumerated powers, for example) from the powers of government. But this is surely qualitiatively different from the reasons for its founding. The two are different, most profoundly so.
You are confusing the reasons for the establishment of our government and the structure and constraints upon it established in the mechanisms of its establishment.
Your errors of thought just go on compounding from there, without restraint or constraint, leading you to horrible errors of logic, leading you to insupportable conclusions, and to the deluded beleif that you are espousing conservative values when nothing could be further from the truth.
Uh actually we voted him to office to make the decisions for us for 4 years because we believe in him.
He got my vote.. and he's got my backing. If democracy doesn't work for you maybe you need to go somewhere else.
The point to remember is that most American's don't have any clue what they are talking about. The uneducated make up about 70% of this country.
They go back their daily lives just making gut reactions to everything because they can't be bothered to read the facts.
I read the facts on the port deal and I'm not a simple minded fool who doesn't understand the foreign policy implications of this deal not going through.
Now, if you wish legislation tht would require US cargo terminal operators to be American companies, maybe that would be acceptable, providing that it could be done in a way that conforms to our treaty obligations.
BUT, it is a dramatic step away from the way our ports have been operated for half a century.
And, it leads to other conundrums. How do you define an "American company"? Can there be NO ownership of shares in such a company by any foreigner? What about shares in the stock of a company that itself owns some shares in the terminal operator?
How about the ships themselves? Do you want to let foreign ships into our ports? If so, why? Are you not concerned with our national security? You say you are?
If the shipping companies that operate the shipping lines can't be trusted to run their own terminal operations in US ports, how can they be allowed to bring their insecure ships into our ports at all?
Listen, your positions are nonsense. I know I'm not going to change any minds on this, because opposition to the "ports deal" is not based on reason. It is pure yahooism. It is harming our national interests. It is playing to both Democrats and terrortist who once again see a confluence of interests.
First off, comparing activities in the UAE banking system with activities in the US banking system, is like comparing apples and figs. It shows a fundamental flaw in your argument. The government of the UAE is deeply involved in all internal aspects of its national banking system.
Here is a partial list of organizations and individuals with Dubai/UAE ties that were designated after 9/11 by the Bush administration, to have their assets frozen, as part of the War on Terror.
· Al Baraka Exchange LLC, Dubai, U.A.E.
· Al-Barakaat, Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Al-Barakaat Group of Companies Somalia Ltd., Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Al-Barakaat Finance Group, Dubai, U.A.E.; Mogadishu, Somalia
· Al-Barakaat Financial Holding Company, Dubai, U.A.E.; Mogadishu, Somalia
· Al-Barakat Global Telecommunications, Hargeysa, Somalia; Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Al-Barakat International, Dubai, U.A.E.
· Al-Barakat Investments, Deira, Dubai, U.A.E.
· Baraka Trading Co., Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakaat Construction Co., Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakaat Group of Companies, Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakaat International Companies (BICO), Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakaat Telecommunications Co. Somalia, Ltd., Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakat Bank and Remittances, Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakat Global Telephone Co., Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakat Refreshment Co., Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E. · Parka Trading Co., Deira, Dubai, U.A.E.
· Red Sea Barakat Co. Ltd., Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Jim'ale, Ahmed Nur Ali, Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
The UAE has a long record of ongoing ties with terrorism and human rights violations within their own borders. Just because you condone a society and culture that has theocratic oil rich Sheiks operating wealthy, third world kingdoms, doesn't mean the rest of us hold the same set of beliefs.
Finally. Comparing the USSR with the UAE shows a serious lack of sound judgment on your part. There is no comparison between the two. That doesn't mean the US govt is required to give any foreign nation who has a record of strong ties to terrorism, open access to manage commercial terminal operations at US ports of entry.
Change "liberty" to "rights" and I stand on what I said.
Either way.
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.