Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Face-saving Dubai Deal in the Works? (Time Mag)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
LiberalHeart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:57 PM
Original message
A Face-saving Dubai Deal in the Works? (Time Mag)
Moving toward a deal that could allow President Bush and congressional GOP leaders to save face and avert a prolonged confrontation, GOP officials said today that they were discussing the idea of having Dubai Ports World seek a new review of its acquisition of a British company's operation that runs several key U.S. ports.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, confirmed in a phone interview early Saturday afternoon to TIME that officials were close to a deal involving the Congressional leadership, the White House and the Dubai company. The agreement would call for a 45-day “CFIUS-plus investigation,” King said, referring to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a Treasury Department-run interagency panel that probes proposed acquisitions in the U.S.

More...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1167717,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FARAFIELD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. of course they are
Then when we (congressional dems) the repukes will say we are endangering national security even though the deal will be exactly the same, what the repukes need now is to blur the message and make it seem like its a dem vs repuke deal, then the press will go along
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NC_Nurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Of course they're gonna make a deal, it's the Repubbie way! :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. So, it stinks now, it will stink in 45 days. What's the problem?
Are they all being black mailed? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
central scrutinizer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. maybe a blond girl will go missing somewhere
so the MSM will run off to cover that critical story and the port deal will slip in unnoticed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
52. You're into that too...Hell, I'd drop everything for Rita Cosby...
She's getting to look so much like John McCain, it's scary. But :wtf:, maybe McCain will do the next tragedy;)

Ports! What Ports? We've got blondes to find!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sagan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. won't help much..


It would still allow a Democratic message of "The Republicans sold our ports to terrorists" in the elections. Easy money.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. my god- i agree with pat buchannon on this one...sorta-
on the mclaughlin group,he was saying that the uae port deal is dead- because "bubba" (i.e.- the average american stiff) isn't gonna buy it.

if the pukes go for it- the dems had better sieze on it BIG TIME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
secretmouse Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
53. Me too...am still recovering from the shock!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bush_Eats_Beef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. But the problem is that it's not a "deal" at all...
If approved by all parties, the new deal would allow Bush to avert a GOP-driven bill to overturn the Dubai deal with enough votes to override Bush's threat of his first veto. Republican sources tell TIME that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee proposed the basic terms of a deal designed to give the White House a graceful way out, while also allaying the concerns of the many lawmakers in both parties who have said the deal could be a threat to our security. Under the Frist plan, the deal could stand a good chance of ultimately going through after the extended review. Frist aides apparently proposed the terms to representatives of the company and the White House late Friday. Neither has formally responded but both seemed interested in the idea, according to a Senate Republican aide. "This avoids a direct clash," the aide said. "It solves everyone's problem. The President doesn't have to cancel the deal or veto anything."


I don't see a "deal" here. I see some fancy footwork and the Dubai deal going through exactly as planned.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. they will have to argue something significant to avert a sealed agree-
ment in the end.

....Under Frist's plan, the company would voluntarily separate U.S. ports from the rest of the deal for 45 days, allowing them to continue to operate as they do while the deal is re-vetted. That would allow a new review through the administration's Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS). Administration officials remain adamant that their first review was thorough and proper, so the face-saving element was crucial, according to one Capitol Hill negotiator. Frist is proposing that this time, CFIUS do the extra 45-day review that the law calls for in transactions where there are national security concerns. That provision was not triggered last time because administration officials had no remaining concerns at the end of the first review. This approach would eliminate the need for new legislation now, the Republican sources said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lanlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #6
38. appearances
That's ALL these f***ers care about, appearances! Not whether or not it's good for the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ldf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
49. frist, officially gets his pardon,
for when the time comes,

AND

the deal goes through, anyway.

win/win for them.

however, (almost) the best of gifts, to the democrats. we better well make use of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
50. Isn't Frist a criminal ?! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. LOL!!! I'm sure in 45 days it will make all the difference in the
world but the Republicans are still going to look like evildoers if they let Bush do it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. All this would do
is give * more time to twist the arms of the repukes in Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalHeart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. This also gives Marcy Kaptur time to get Snow investigated. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. the 45 day investigation is Required by law.. it isn't a concession and it
was required BEFORE this deal was even to be considered...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Thank you.

-- the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 expanded CFIUS’s mandate to include not only the investigation, but the suspension or prohibition of mergers or acquisitions that "threaten to impair" U.S. national security. The Exon-Florio process begins with a 30-day review period. A transaction that CFIUS approves during the 30-day review period is not subject to any further investigation by the committee. If CFIUS does not approve the transaction after its review, it will commence a 45-day investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, CFIUS must provide the President with a recommendation, and the President will then have 15 days to approve or prohibit the transaction. Parties to a transaction may withdraw their submission at any time before a final decision.

http://www.wrf.com/publication.cfm?publication_id=11330
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. From that, it sounds as if the law only requires the 45-day review if
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 12:14 AM by Wordie
the first one (30 days) has a negative result. So, apparently that 45-day review was not required.

Another bit of misinformation bites the dust...anyone else noticing a pattern here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. there was no 30 day investigation to begin with
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. It seemed to me I heard that there was. Here is more from CFIUS...
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS)


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT


EXON-FLORIO PROVISION

Introduction. The United States has traditionally welcomed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and provided foreign investors fair, equitable and nondiscriminatory treatment with few limited exceptions designed to protect national security. The Exon-Florio provision is implemented within the context of this open investment policy. The intent of Exon-Florio is not to discourage FDI generally, but to provide a mechanism to review and, if the President finds necessary, to restrict FDI that threatens the national security.

The Exon-Florio provision is implemented by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS"), an inter-agency committee chaired by the Secretary of Treasury. CFIUS seeks to serve U.S. investment policy through thorough reviews that protect national security while maintaining the credibility of our open investment policy and preserving the confidence of foreign investors here and of U.S. investors abroad that they will not be subject to retaliatory discrimination.

The Statute. Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to provide authority to the President to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States. The President can exercise this authority under section 721 (also known as the "Exon-Florio provision") to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation only if he finds:

(1) there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and

(2) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the national security.

To assist in making this determination, Exon-Florio provides for the President or his designee to receive written notice of an acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation by a foreign entity. Once CFIUS has received a complete notification, it begins a thorough review of the notified transaction. In some cases, it is necessary to undertake an extended review or "investigation." An investigation, if necessary, must begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. Any investigation is required to end within 45 days.

Information provided by companies contemplating a transaction subject to Exon-Florio is held confidential and is not made public, except in the case of an administrative or judicial action or proceeding. Nothing in section 721 shall be construed to prevent disclosure to either House of Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of the Congress.

Factors To Be Considered. The Exon-Florio provision lists the following factors that the President or his designee may consider in determining the effects of a foreign acquisition on national security. These factors are:

(1) domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements;

(2) the capability and capacity of domestic industries to meet national defense requirements, including the availability of human resources, products, technology, materials, and other supplies and services;

(3) the control of domestic industries and commercial activity by foreign citizens as it affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet the requirements of national security;

(4) the potential effects of the transaction on the sales of military goods, equipment, or technology to a country that supports terrorism or proliferates missile technology or chemical and biological weapons; and

(5) the potential effects of the transaction on U.S. technological leadership in areas affecting U.S. national security.

Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:

o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Legislative Cite. Section 721 of Pub. L. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1107, made permanent law by section 8 of Pub. L. 102-99, 105 Stat. 487 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) and amended by section 837 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat. 2315, 2463.

CFIUS

Executive Order. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS") was originally established by Executive Order 11858 in 1975 mainly to monitor and evaluate the impact of foreign investment in the United States. In 1988, the President, pursuant to Executive Order 12661, delegated to CFIUS his responsibilities under Section 721. Specifically, E.O. 12661 designated CFIUS to receive notices of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies, to determine whether a particular acquisition has national security issues sufficient to warrant an investigation and to undertake an investigation, if necessary, under the Exon-Florio provision. This order also provides for CFIUS to submit a report and recommendation to the President at the conclusion of an investigation.

In 1993, in response to a sense of Congress resolution, CFIUS membership was expanded by Executive Order 12860 to include the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. In February 2003, the Department of Homeland Security was added to CFIUS. This brought the membership of CFIUS to twelve under the chairmanship of the Secretary of Treasury. The other members are the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Commerce, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Regulations. The Exon-Florio provision requested that the President issue implementing regulations. These regulations were issued in 1991. They set up a voluntary system of notification with the possibility of CFIUS member-agency notice for non-notified transactions. The President retains full authority to protect the national security with respect to any acquisition covered by this statute, regardless of whether the parties file a notification.

The Exon-Florio regulations do not define national security. The preamble to the regulations provides guidance that products, services and technologies important to U.S. defense requirements would be significant to national security. Even though notification is voluntary, CFIUS would consider notification of these transactions appropriate.

Code of Federal Regulations Citation. Office of International Investment, Department of Treasury -- Regulations pertaining to mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers by foreign persons, 31 CFR Part 800.

Procedures. Treasury, acting at the staff level through the Director of the Office of International Investment in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of International Affairs, acts as the secretariat for CFIUS. It receives and circulates notices to CFIUS agencies and coordinates reviews. Reviews are conducted on a case-by-case basis.

The Exon-Florio statute established a 30-day review following receipt of a notification. For those transactions for which an extended 45-day review (or "investigation") is completed, a report must be provided to the President, who must by law announce the final decision within 15 days. In total, the process can not exceed 90 days. The statute requires the President to inform Congress of his determination of whether or not to take action under section 721.


http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. but -the 45 day review is ONLY triggered IF nat. security concerns--which
apparently there were.


......Under Frist's plan, the company would voluntarily separate U.S. ports from the rest of the deal for 45 days, allowing them to continue to operate as they do while the deal is re-vetted. That would allow a new review through the administration's Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS). Administration officials remain adamant that their first review was thorough and proper, so the face-saving element was crucial, according to one Capitol Hill negotiator. Frist is proposing that this time, CFIUS do the extra 45-day review that the law calls for in transactions where there are national security concerns. That provision was not triggered last time because administration officials had no remaining concerns at the end of the first review. This approach would eliminate the need for new legislation now, the Republican sources said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. I think the 45-day review wasn't required, because the *committee*
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 12:27 AM by Wordie
that reviewed the contract had no further security concerns, and approved the contract. This part of the law appears to be concerned only with the committee's review. So even though other people, not on the committee, may have developed concerns about it, the law referred only to the review process within the committee. (I think I've got that right.)

The Exon-Florio process begins with a 30-day review period. A transaction that CFIUS approves during the 30-day review period is not subject to any further investigation by the committee. If CFIUS does not approve the transaction after its review, it will commence a 45-day investigation.

Doesn't that sentence that I bolded seem to be saying what I said in the first paragraph of this post? And then the next sentence indicates when (and if) the 45-day review kicks in, which is only when the 30-day review doesn't result in an approval.

So, since the committee did approve the deal, according to the language in the law, the 45-day review never was required.

Fellow DUers, we've been spun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #23
37. parse,parse,parse...
End result's the same
Dubai operates all our base...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #37
44. There may be reasons to oppose the deal, but they ought to be accurate
ones, imho. And so far, many of the reasons that have been put forward don't hold up to closer scrutiny.

I don't like being fed a bunch of spin, it's not what I want to use to form my opinions. You seem to be saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
47. The Byrd Amendment makes the 45 day review MANDATORY
when the corporation is controlled by, or acting on behalf of, a foreign government.

DPW is wholly owned by the UAE.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sattahipdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #18
43. Was the State Department involved in discussions
The former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit joined in the
criticism.

"The fact that you are putting a company in place that could already be
infiltrated by al-Qaida is a silly thing to do," said Mike Scheuer, who
headed the CIA unit until 1999.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have denounced the Bush
administration for approving the deal through a secretive review
process designed to protect national security in big corporate mergers.

The Bush administration continued to defend the deal Friday even as it
admitted mishandling the decision-making process.

"If there was a failure, we failed to recognize there might be a public
reaction," Treasury Secretary John Snow told reporters in Richmond,
Va. "Over time, we may recommend improvements in the process so
Congress is better informed about transactions."

Tony Fratto, Treasury's top spokesman, said this would not necessarily
involve changing the current law, which prohibits the review committee
from briefing members of Congress before a decision is reached.

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/politics-7/114078417674530.xml&storylist=topstories

QUESTION: Was the State Department involved in discussions over the UAE taking over
management of six ports -- six U.S. ports?

MR. MCCORMACK: The State Department is part of an interagency process which is led
by the Department of Treasury. We did participate in it. This interagency process did a
thorough review of all aspects of this proposed sale. And the bottom line finding was that
there was no basis on -- no national security basis on which to block the sale going
forward.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=February&x=20060217172404xjsnommis0.3468439&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RDANGELO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
12. Well, the repubs are underestimating the people again.
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 09:27 PM by RDANGELO
I think this is another case where the Republicans are underestimating the intelligence of the American people and their ability to get information. This will give more time for the info about the UAE dealings in the past and human rights abuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
14. A "graceful way our" will consist of
a fistful of money for "additional port security" to the Coast Guard and the story will recede with the tide as we turn our sights to the Civil War we masterminded in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. bull sheet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. "Face-saving"----makes me sick to think of it!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
17. Looks like it is Frist to the rescue (once again).

...If approved by all parties, the new deal would allow Bush to avert a GOP-driven bill to overturn the Dubai deal with enough votes to override Bush's threat of his first veto. Republican sources tell TIME that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee proposed the basic terms of a deal designed to give the White House a graceful way out, while also allaying the concerns of the many lawmakers in both parties who have said the deal could be a threat to our security. Under the Frist plan, the deal could stand a good chance of ultimately going through after the extended review. Frist aides apparently proposed the terms to representatives of the company and the White House late Friday. Neither has formally responded but both seemed interested in the idea, according to a Senate Republican aide. "This avoids a direct clash," the aide said. "It solves everyone's problem. The President doesn't have to cancel the deal or veto anything."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #17
42. Bye-bye, Republican Congress!
This will be the end of them. Capitulating now, when just a few days ago, they swore to override a presidential veto, shows the whole country what they are. Even Republicans know that in 45 days, it will still be a case of giving control of our ports to the UAE. Now, IF Democrats can just stand firm on this one issue, it'll be sayonara wingnuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
19. This is the icing on the cake!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-25-06 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Regard;ess---the headline is great.. to me, it shows how much 'capitol' JR
has lost.




A Face-saving Dubai Deal in the Works?
GOP officials are apparently mulling over a deal that would allow for a new review of the Dubai Ports World contentious acquisition
By TIMOTHY J. BURGER, MIKE ALLEN AND MATTHEW COOPER/WASHINGTON
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. His political capital was only in his head anyway.
:grr:

I'm still angry everytime I remember him crowing about his "political capital" and "mandate."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhilipShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
27. Reuters: Republican leaders seek port compromise
Reuters
Republican leaders seek port compromise
Feb 25, 2006

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-02-26T045732Z_01_N23505272_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-SECURITY-PORTS-DC.XML

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans were in talks on Saturday about reopening the government review of an Arab state-owned company's purchase of terminals at key U.S. ports in a bid to fend off critics who say the deal could harm national security.

U.S. House and Senate Republican leaders were discussing asking the company, Dubai Ports World, to seek a 45-day review of security concerns from the White House, Republican congressional officials told Reuters.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had already advised the company to ask for the review and had suggested to the White House it should "look favorably on the request" to help "head off legislation that could scuttle the deal," one of the congressional officials said.

The New York Times reported that White House officials were in direct negotiations with DP World about reopening the security review late on Saturday. A White House spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. A Face-saving Dubai Deal in the Works? (Time Mag)
Headline in LBN
I like it better.


.A Face-saving Dubai Deal in the Works? (Time Mag)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. there is no Compromise..!! the 45 day investigation is Required by law..
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 12:25 AM by sam sarrha
this is just some really pathetic spin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhilipShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. I agree
I think this is all just another movie called: the FISA 2 congressional hearings, in which the Congress will back down, and give the UAE anything they want.

The media us just going thru the motions; so as to not let the sheeple know, that Congress has no power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #29
45. I think you've been spun; the 45-day review was NOT required.
(At least, that's what the material about the law says.) See post #23.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. How can you reopen a review that never happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anitar1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. George W. Dubai has already said " There will be NO review." I heard it on
heard it on TV news last evening. I do not believe anything will be stopped by public protest, and the Pugs will go along with it. The Dems, for the most part , will not protest. How many times to we have to see these things happen? That kernel of hope lives within me, but my brain does not believe anything will change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. They want a compromise on a deal with a terrorist state?
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 12:35 AM by onehandle
No wonder they are starting to lag behind Democrats on National Security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhilipShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. My thoughts exactly
Edited on Sun Feb-26-06 12:53 AM by PhilipShore
I am a pacifist, and I do research into aggressive persons and political systems, and the way pacifists deal with authoritarian types of governments -- like the UAE is to always oppose them by never dealing or compromising with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #27
35. yes, the DP World people are staying at the DC embassy says cnn.

....The New York Times reported that White House officials were in direct negotiations with DP World about reopening the security review late on Saturday. A White House spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
36. So when do we sell off our Airlines to Communist China? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
39. If the Republicans make a deal, it'll be the greatest gift ever
presented to the Democratic Party. They'd better not blow it by getting on the conga line to kiss Shrub's ring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tecelote Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. I agree.
This shows Americans that it's all about the money.

We are only squirrels on the treadmill to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
41. The CASH is slowly circulating throughout Washington DC
It won't take long. NSA is probably busy digging up the real nasty shit on anyone who might not take a bribe on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #41
51. hahaha....
so that's what the NSA is good for!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niallmac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
46. CFIUS has turned down ONE application of 1400 reveiwed..nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
48. This gives them 45 days
To give those republican politicians "a cut" in the deal being made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC