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.
YES....WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ISRAEL....SCREW THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST.
That's half our problem in Iraq today. For the first six months we were there, anybody and I mean anybody who popped their head up should have had it blown off.
Since when did some muslims qualify as all muslims in your view?
That's right, when we suggest you read before responding, it is for a reason.
Well, you see, he THOUGHT he had 45 days to make the case. Silly him, he banked on the word of congress and we all know what their word is worth, but President Bush figured, because they were mostly his OWN party that chances are they would honor their word this time. He really should have known they couldn't be trusted.
Oh I see, I am only feeling we were bombed on 911 but it really didnt happen and besides no muslims would do anything like that to us.
thanks for straightening me out
Well that's interesting too.
I was just speculating why a president would be so set on the port deal. Maybe the company involved represents an effort in human intelligence, something owned by our agencies.
That's my wild hunch, but maybe there's an economic motive like you suggest.
The article states:
"Of course, the speed of that announcement illustrates a critical point: that this investment always was a business decision, not the early stages of a covert attack on Baltimore."
---
In reality, the collapse of the deal proves no such thing. It proves only that they resigned themselves to the fact that the deal was not going to pass.
Those "free traders" are responsible for a LOT of American jobs. Whether you like it or not, the economy is humming right along. Some business die, some are born, but there is nothing to fear from competition, unless you're not up to it.
Thank you. :-)
Anyway, the Senate is broken and now responding to polls and e-mail when they were not supposed to.
This is a very dangerous change, and it has to be corrected or the consequences will be huge.
What fun the next three years will be. They have destroyed the leadership ability of the president and Frist can't hold the Senate together and is also running for president which changes his perspective..
We need to dump him, but I don't know how that can be done. Frankly I don't see anyone who wants the damn job anyway. Whatta mess........He needs to pull his name out of the hat and do his job.
Join us here, it's much more sensible.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594311/posts?page=70#70
Sorry, it seems I have misdirected my disgust. But you are right, I am appalled at the way Republicans were able to be totally stampeded by the likes of Chuckie Schumer.
Apalling. In fairness, though, I have to say that the White House could have seen this coming.
There is a lesson here, taught once again as if it were needed: NOTHING is too low, too putrid, too dishonest, or too damaging to national security, to be off limits in their overweening desire to reclaim power in the interest of their leftist idology.
>>Well, you see, he THOUGHT he had 45 days to make the case. Silly him, he banked on the word of congress and we all know what their word is worth, but President Bush figured, because they were mostly his OWN party that chances are they would honor their word this time. He really should have known they couldn't be trusted.
<<
I recall that he was threatening to veto ANY measure to stop the deal. But I didn't hear a whole lot after his chest-thumping bravado.
Doesn't exactly sound like he was in any mood to listen to reason, and couldn't be bothered to try and "sell" this to anyone.
If he really wanted this to go through, he blew it.
Sure. The Ferrari I drive is just fine. How about yours?
Specific ones, for sure. So was the introduction of the automobile and passenger aircraft.
But overall, jobs are added.
Intelligence and courage have never been strong points with Congress.
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.