Bush: Ports Deal Collapse May Hurt U.S.

Well he would be the expert on sending bad messages.

I do think this will cause greater scrutiny of how our ports are handled in the future. Obviously our ports have been so run for a while and this is kind of a media frenzy.

terminals at many other ports, including Los Angeles, are managed by companies from other countries such as Singapore and China. Source

From my standpoint it is just funny to see W running around trying to put out fires in his own camp. I think all his loyalists on the Hill have realized they have to face the voters this year and in 2008 and W doesn't.

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world..."

Oh, so now he's concerned about our friends and allies.

More ketchup for my Freedom Fries, please.

Give criticism where criticism is due and credit where credit is due. In this case, president bush is absolutely right. I did not vote for him in either election, nor do I support his broader policies but this is one case where all of the critics got it wrong. Not allowing the deal to go through is bad for the foreign policy, bad for business and bad for Americans.

What about the message sent from the Bush administration to the US people? That the administration does not give a rat's ass about the will of the people, they are going to do whatever they see fit and they will spin their message to suit their needs. I'm glad the deal fell through because its what the majority of the US people wanted. This is supposed to be a representative democracy after all.

Sudonim got it right. It's not about Bush, despite what the dyspeptic believe. It's about common sense. And it makes no sense at all to say that port operations (not port ownership) can't be run by an experienced company. After all, the Longshoreman's union is run by the Mafia. It would be business as usual. Who's in a position to change that?

China has 51% ownership of several huge cargo terminals in Long Beach that serve their own COSCO shipping line and they plan to expand them. COSCO is the company that tried to smuggle 2,000 AK-47s into Oakland ten years ago. The sudden knee-jerk reaction by all of those "free trade" advocates is disgusting to watch. This country needs foreign investments that are made on our soil. Those investments tie the investors to our economy and strengthen our relationship with them. If they screw up, we can hurt them really, really badly in their pocket books.

The alternative is called isolationism.

Here's a flash for Mike Yoke: US foreign policy is the responsibility of the president through the Executive Branch, not by the Congress, and not by a poll of the people. This has always been a mystery to Congress because they think they run the country. They don't run the country; they can only make laws and approve budgets. They certainly don't dictate foreign policy. "Government by committee" has never been a good idea.

Hell freezes over. I AGREE with the President. We need to make friends in the Middle East. The Dubai Ports World fiasco in Congress sent a message of fear, paranoia, ignorance, and hate.

Thanks for the government lesson rockman. I don't advocate isolationism or "anything by committee" but in this particular case I stand by my comment.

Here's what I don't understand. We have laws on the books that keep any foreign entities from operating our airports; airports with more security than our ports have at the moment. So why does GW think that ports should be any different and run by ant foreign entity? It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Ports are for Importing Goods. Airports are for Importing People. Thats a BIG difference!

Here's what I don't understand. We have laws on the books that keep any foreign entities from operating our airports; airports with more security than our ports have at the moment. So why does GW think that ports should be any different and run by ant foreign entity? It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Foreign airlines operate terminals at airports all over the country. Sure, they don't run whole airports, and they certainly don't handle secuirty -- but neither was DPW going to run whole seaports or have anything to do with security.

It is rare that I agree with President Bush on a foreign policy matter, but this uproar over the DPW deal is just ridiculous. Pure jingoism.

What about the message sent from the Bush administration to the US people? That the administration does not give a rat's ass about the will of the people, they are going to do whatever they see fit and they will spin their message to suit their needs. I'm glad the deal fell through because its what the majority of the US people wanted. This is supposed to be a representative democracy after all.

Alright Mike, how's this for democracy. Your neighbors vote to tear down your house and put in a Wal Mart. How do you like that "will of the people" now, eh?

I have been to Dubai 3 times during my time in the military. It is a peaceful country where people go to escape the dangers of there own countries. This does look bad for America. Mike Yoke...95% of Americans have no idea who or even where Dubai is. All they know is its somewhere in the Middle east and in their clouded minds...that means B-A-D. I will be the first American to admit that Americans are..in general...stupid.

Opinion warning... In my opinion, not allowing this deal to go through shows just how, well, maybe not bigoted, but perhaps, opportunistic the politicians are when it comes to hotbutton issues. It just goes to show, it doesn't matter if it is wrong or right, you'll see the politicians true colors come through in the light of opposition. Perhaps this is why I like our current president. Agree with him 100%? Nope, but I do like him, he's got a measure of guts that is sorely lacking from so many politicians out there. I get the feeling that those who voted to oppose the deal went into that vote with an air of ignorance fueled by public polls in their respective districts. News flash! The general public doesn't always know what is good or right! I get the feeling this will come back to haunt those politicians who opposed the deal.

Entelechy, just because I don't agree with the will of the people doesn't mean I should ignore it. I guess you have to take the good with the bad. Even though the Executive Branch has the responsibility and power to make foreign policy doesn't mean that they should feel free to ignore the wishes of the country that granted them the power in the first place.

-=D#_V_US=-, I agree that most Americans know little or nothing about Dubai, myself included. My point is not so much about Dubai as it is about government ignoring its citizens. That being said, is it the responsibility of the American people to educate themselves about every foreign country or should Dubai, or any country that wants to invest in US assets be doing something to improve their image in the eyes of the average American so that this is not a problem in the future?

I'm an "Original Intent" believer in the Constitution, and I just can't understand where the Feds are given any power to regulate who owns what companies. I believe the interstate commerce clause was set up to prevent individual states from trampling on the freedom of their citizens to trade -- not for the government to actually regulate specific trade between people.

I love outsourcing -- even in my own market outsourcing has allowed me to capitalize on more efficient management and labor for my customers, who then have more money to pay their productive employees. I see no difference in the port issue, if the new company can better run the ports, we'll see added benefits in our already crunched import/export economics.

claco writes: Here's what I don't understand. We have laws on the books that keep any foreign entities from operating our airports; airports with more security than our ports have at the moment. So why does GW think that ports should be any different and run by ant foreign entity? It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Why do you think it's GW's "fault?" He vetted the deal through all executive departments and nobody saw a show stopper. There is no law against foreign operation of port terminals, in fact China operates some in California. The law about airports was passed by the Congress, but they never said a word about port operations. Is GW supposed to read their minds and presume they passed a law on ports? No sir, the screaming and yelling coming from Congress is a giant smoke screen to cover up their own failures. If they wanted no foreign operations in our ports, they have had years to make that clear. This whole fiasco is the fault of the very people who are blaming GW. In the process, they have insulted a very good friend, Dubai and the entire UAE, not to mention put many of our allies on notice that we aren't reliable.

Want to know what's wrong with America? Look no farther than the Congress of the United States.

Bush finally got something right - but then he gets blind-sided by exactly the same sort of narrow minded, fear exploiting tosh of which he has been a major purveyor? Sounds like poetic justice to me. Not to worry - I doubt it's possible for the Middle Eastern nations to hate the US any more than it already does, so this merely confirms their prejudices.

While the backlash over this may well be unwarranted, this just goes to show what happens when your political support relies on the abuse of short attention spans and international ignorance. I'm not really one for schadenfreude, but in a karmic sort of way, Bush is only getting what he deserves.

Whoops. Took too long to write my post, and ended up basically repeating what Staflea said.

I haven't been to Dubai, but I spent a while working in Abu Dhabi for ADNOC. Nice people. Well, the natives and guest workers are nice. The German manager of the Sheraton was an ass. Among the guest workers I met were a Palestinian and an Iraqi Kurd, both engineers. They both had families with them. It was an eye opener into the differences in customs and attitude among middle eastern countries. The Kurdish fellow was especially nice, inviting me to his home and including his wife and children in everything. She served manna (from heaven) for dessert - a first for me! - at least that's what she called it. No veils, no mystic customs, just hospitality. The whole family spoke English. I did see the Palestinian's wife with him in a restaurant one evening. She was covered from head to toe and I was not introduced.

In general, the UAE is very tolerant of non-Muslim people and allows them to freely practice their own customs while they are guests in the country. Women drive autos and work if they please. There were quite a few women working at ADNOC. About the only thing that reminded me I was in a Muslim country was the layout of the dollar store (not like the 99-cent US version, this one simply catered to foreigners who had dollars). If you wanted to buy a can of pork and beans, it was on the shelves behind the drape. I felt like I was looking for the XXX stock in a video store. :-)

Unlike Abu Dhabi, Dubai hasn't much oil, so they went for the businesses of finance, manufacturing, and trade. And they have done a bang-up job of it. When the oil runs out in the Middle East, Dubai is in a position to survive. They are definitely the good guys of the Middle East.

Some of us don't want a country with ties to terrorists running our nation's ports? Mr. Bush is "concerned" about what message it sends.

Invading and occupying a country on the pretense that they attacked us when they really had nothing to do with it? Mr. Bush thinks it's eminently reasonable.

Me, I think this may be way overblown. But it's ironic that Bush should be the one asking for calm and dispassionate evaluations, when for years he and his have been fear-mongering in order to get what they want politically. Apparently, when it suits them they can be quite sober and restrained.

let democracy takes its course...

or was it free trade...?

I agree with sudonim. I don't support Bush's policies and I'm sure that this port deal was something that was benfiting his buddies. But, setting aside everything, he's right on this issue. It is wrong not to allow UAE to go through with this deal. It's racism.