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 have more fear of this Dutch business buckling some day to some stupid World Court order regarding the US than I have of Dubai Ports World.
They seem to have been the first news service to report that this was a case of a foreign government actually taking over MAJOR PORTS.
Since no one took over any ports at all ~ just a handful of cranes for loading container ships ~ Yahoo's credibility as a source should be thoroughly shot.
If you find yourself believing another Yahoo story see your doctor.
So he's saying, if this deal doesn't go through, the UAE will side with the terrorists?
What great friends.
The fact you didn't mention either party is suspicious and leads me to evaluate the probability that you are an agent of Chicom disinformation.
They all have leases and they've already been approved. It would cost the taxpayers billions to buy them out.
Brian Williams again described it the very same way tonight. Amazing.
>>Yeah, the media sure gives him LOTS of opportunities to explain things to us, when they're not asking about Abu Grabe or WMDs. Can't figure out why he can't get the "message out" especially with such a cooperative media.<<
Reagan managed just fine.
They shift their investments around from time to time. Every now and then the retirement fund is brought to public attention when one of the companies it owns gets in trouble.
Your problem is with the law, not the President. I suggest you write your Congress-critters.
Drat! Betrayed by my own overconfidence!
>>Partners, that shake down their friends like a criminal protection syndicate, are precisely the kind of partners that we don't need. <<
Exactly what I think. Any ally who will turn on you like this, is no ally at all. They are "for sale to the highest bidder."
Some ally. What a joke.
Just fine? Reagan was exceptional at getting his message out. You think what he accomplished was common somehow?
Nice piece of logic. "We won't sell to them because they are not an ally. See? Now they won't buy from us. Some ally."
Reagan, although he had a hostile press, didn't have NEAR the open hostility that President Bush has faced. At least there was a small attempt to appear to be respectful of the presidentcy, that is gone today.
BTW, when Reagan wanted to address the nation, the networks wouldn't have even DREAMED of saying no like they do today.
When I read your cr*p and a whole lot like it posted recently since the takeover of FR by the Juvenile Set, I get down on my knees and offer thanks to the almighty that we have an adult in the White House.
Too bad we don't have more in the Congress. To say nothing of on this board.
>>Just fine? Reagan was exceptional at getting his message out. You think what he accomplished was common somehow?<<
You missed my point entirely. The poster had implied that Bush couldn't get his message out because of a hostile press. I said that Reagan managed to get his message out just fine.
By "just fine" I did not mean "just fine and nothing more." I meant that he did a very effective job as a communicator. That he got his message out just fine, that he was not hampered, that his communication skills were there.
I did not realize that "just fine" was such an obscure term. Don't they ever use that term where you live?
Let me offer you a suggestion that may help you.
Why don't you take your two fingers and stick them in your ears.
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.