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.
or do you thinks we're lucky we have not been the victims of another attack?
Do you have better intel than the President? or the intel you receive comes in a magic bowl?
Oh nooo! Horror...I know now, Hitlary and her villains chuckie, reid, durbin, etc. know better?
I'm not sure why you replied to me, since I really don't have anything to say about the ports controversy. I think the whole thing is incredibly boring and most people are very badly informed about this issue -- so I have always avoided commenting on this matter.
What you don't know is that the UAE itself has been targeted by Osama's ragheads since 9/11. They have captured many terrorists. And they are never seen or heard from again. They don't have a Camp Gitmo. It's sort of like Spain under Franco. Scumbags are kicked out of the country and bad criminals just disappear.
On the other hand, it's a true pleasure to come across posts which are eye-opening and add to my view of the world.
I do know. So changing the subject, won't make it go away. Everyone is well aware that Osama/AlQaeda has targeted every Islamic nationstate in the ME, at one time or another. More importantly, the UAE remains a sponsor and supporter of terrorism themselves. The dichotomy is striking. The UAE openly funds Hamas and still has an active policy for the destruction of Israel. Here in the US, the UAE/Dubai gives funds to CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations. Many Americans consider CAIR a frontgroup for "jihadiism" in the US. On top of all that, the UAE/Dubai have an extremely poor human rights record. In the UAE there is no freedom of speech and no political dissent allowed. Women have no rights and child slave trade is tolerated. The UAE may offer the US military bases from which to operate our Navy and Air Force, but that doesn't mean the Feds have any right to grant sweetheart deals that allow the UAE/Dubai/DPW to manage commercial terminal operations at US ports of entry. Period.
So what? The question isn't whether people inside the bank are crooked. The question is whether crooked people can use an honest bank to move money. And the answer obvious to anyone who knows even a little about banking is "yes", as demonstrated by criminals in this country using honest banks to move money. People in this country used U.S. banks to move money to the IRA all the time, despite laws to the contrary.
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.
What makes you think I "condone" their society? Like 80% of the other nations of the world, there are things about their society I find to be repulsive.
What I care about is whether they cooperate with us in the particular matters for which we've requested cooperation. They provide us with very valuable intelligence in the WoT. They have been outstanding hosts to our fleet assets. And they've been more cooperative in terms of meeting U.S. standards for shipping security than any other country in the world.
Do you think the FAA and security officials at Logan airport were part of the terrorist conspiracy on 9/11? I don't. But that didn't matter. Terrorists exploits incompetence in our system. They don't need active cooperation. DPW is the most efficient and well-run company out there, and likely would have provided far fewer holes through which terrorist activities could slip than the U.S. companies that will now run those terminals. Rejection of this deal likely has made our ports less secure.
Comparing the USSR with the UAE shows a serious lack of sound judgment on your part. There is no comparison between the two.
Huh? Reagan's willingness to work with the USSR despite its avowed dedication to our destruction shows that you don't simply toss out all cooperation just because you may not like the other guy. And the UAE has been far more friendly to us than the USSR ever was. That doesn't necessarily mean that this deal was a good one for the U.S., but it does mean that we should not have rejected it out of hand just because it happened to be a deal that involved an Arab country. The House's action in rejecting the deal even before the investigation was disgraceful.
The outcome of this deal was actually good for America. It woke up the American people and gave them an insight into how poorly the federal government considers US sovereignty when making certain bureaucratic decisions. It informed many Americans like myself, how deeply entrenched foreign entities are in the managment and operations related to distribution and logistics activities at our ports of entry.
In the grand tradition of our Founding Fathers, the American people stood up and spoke out. They exercised their right to free speech and political dissent, and told the GOP led Congress, this decision by the Bush administrations CFIUS agency, was a bureaucratic blunder of the first order. We must always hold to account the actions of our elected officials and appointed public servants.
"So he's saying, if this deal doesn't go through, the UAE will side with the terrorists?" Uhhhhh....there is a long way to between helping us in the war on terror and siding with the terrorists. They could cancel contracts with us or refuse to let us use their base. I suspect you understand that, but, like many who exploited the issue don't really care. Diplomacy is obviously not something you care about.
Do you have the ability to forecast which ones will become terrorists?
One of the basic tenants of Islam is to exterminate all Infidels. We on the other hand we are in the Rodney King era. Consequently Islam will win this war, it may take another 100 years but they will win.
We wouldn't have hesitated to kill 200 million Soviets under the right circumstances. Islam is a bigger threat than the USSR ever was and we shudder at the numbers that need to be killed to win. After the first one it is just math. One of our Generals said this week we are making them faster than we are killing terrorists. His career is over. I said the same thing on FR four months ago, and even as long as a year ago.
"Everything is different, but the same... things are more moderner than before... bigger, and yet smaller... it's computers...uh...uh...San Dimas High School football rules!"
It might be too late now, but the Red Chinese should be made to compete like eveyone else.
More important than trading, they provide the US Military with more American port calls than any other overseas port. They allow our ships to tie up, even aircraft carriers and our planes to use their airfields. All this in a very strategic part of the world. I am sure that neither they nor President Bush wanted the rest of the middle east to have these facts made so widely known. They also trade with Israel, even though, officially, they boycott them.
Terrific post, RM, with some wonderful reminders. Apparently in our current state of affairs, some would have us believe that we are still subjects of the King and that we should not question taxation without representation. Just shut up and pay and follow the piper even if he's headed over a cliff.
Amazing.
You post references that directly and explicitly back up every single point I have made, then pronounce me wrong.
As I have said, it must be wonderful to possess a mind that can entertain 20 dinstinct and mutually exclusive ideas at once without pausing for so much as a breath.
So, let me ask you this: If our government was set up with the purpose of protecting individual rights (or liberty as your references suggest), then why was it necessary to add provisions to protect these very rights from the government itself?
Dwell on that for a while, my socialist friend.
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.