A Face-saving Dubai Deal in the Works? (Frist Barf Alert)

Time ^ | 02/25/06 | TIMOTHY J. BURGER, MIKE ALLEN AND MATTHEW COOPER

[peyton randolph]

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.

-snip- 

[Bayou Dittohead]

People need to understand that there are two types of Middle Eastern countries. Economic ones and Military/Religious ones.

No doubt UAE, Saudi Arabia & possibly others were "friendly" to some bad elements in the past. But, they now realize these bad elements could easily turn on them. They want to protect their economic turf. It definitely creates some complications. The "bad guys" could hurt them today, but democratization might unseat them some years from now. Cashing in while they can.

[hedgetrimmer]

Frist The president is working feverishly to guarantee a Dem Senate come November.

[Mike Darancette]

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.

I think Frist is too stupid to be President if he believes that a British company runs any port in the US.

[johnny7]

He's been on goof-balls since January... 2005.

[Mike Darancette]

The Democrats started the ranting and raving and of course the Republicans jumped in.

But the Republicans will come around and most RATS will remain out on the limb. Many RATS are still at the "kill the deal" stage and having no leader to offer cover will have to do so.

[Mike Darancette]

For critters from both parties. 43's being merciful. Again. Sigh.

Actually no, to accept mercy you gotta recant and say "Bush administration done good".

[GOPJ]

They want to protect their economic turf. It definitely creates some complications. The "bad guys" could hurt them today, but democratization might unseat them some years from now. Cashing in while they can.

You're seeing the underlying reality. That's good. What will the future hold for these countries? What do you think? You're insightful, and I'm curious...

[atlaw]

This "deal" was out in the open and above board.

Which explains, of course, why the President didn't learn of its approval by CFIUS until week before last.

And oddly enough, DP World didn’t proffer the high bid for P&O Group until January 26 of this year, and the deal wasn’t approved by P&O shareholders until February 13 (that’s still this month, in case you hadn’t noticed).

Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Dubai agreed to pay 3.88 billion pounds ($6.9 billion) for Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., 68 percent more than the company was valued at in October, to top Singapore's bid for Britain's largest port operator.

``It's a generous offer,'' Sultan bin Sulayem, chairman of DP World, Dubai's port company, said in a phone interview yesterday after the agreement was announced. ``We want to finish this deal very quickly and don't want it to drag on.'' . . .

DP World, Dubai's port company, yesterday agreed to pay 520 pence a share for P&O, beating a bid of 470 pence made earlier in the day by PSA International PTE, Singapore's largest port company. P&O switched support to DP World from PSA in less than 12 hours. . . .

People that haven't a clue (I am addmittedly one) about ports, how they are operated and by whom, have become stampeeded into believing we are being sold down the proverbial river by President Bush.

Well, to be precise, it should be "sold down the proverbial river by mid-level bureaucrats who rubber-stamped the deal and only later told the President." To watch the usual suspects, here on Free Republic, wail and castigate, while expected, has become obscene.

The usual suspects? Why thank-you Captain Renault.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Post #9 you absolutely nailed it. Well said.

[G.Mason]

"This "deal" was out in the open and above board."

"Which explains, of course, why the President didn't learn of its approval by CFIUS until week before last."

Link? and don't make me count. I have poor math skills. What was the date?

" ... The announcement of DP World's bid for P&O was made in November 2005, and the news was widely reported in the press and international financial trade publications. "

I must have missed your wailing back then. I'm certain you brought it out, on FR, before Chuckie Schumer even thought about it.

Are changing parts of any contract unusual in the business world? Or are they only suspect when you dislike them.

[atlaw]

"Link? and don't make me count. I have poor math skills. What was the date?"

Sure. Take your pick.

http://news.google.com/news?q=%22He+became+aware+of+it+over+the+last+several+days,%22+said+the+White+House+spokesman,+Scott+McClellan.&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr

"I must have missed your wailing back then. I'm certain you brought it out, on FR, before Chuckie Schumer even thought about it."

Right. If I didn't express any concerns about the pending deal in November of 2005, then I can't express any concerns about the completed deal now. Excellent reasoning.

"Are changing parts of any contract unusual in the business world? Or are they only suspect when you dislike them."

Changing parts of the contract? Like the buyer, and the purchase price, and the seller's acceptance, and shareholder approval, little stuff like that?

DP World did not proffer the winning bid until January 26, 2006, and P&O shareholders did not approve the sale to DP World until February 13, 2006. What about that don't you understand?

[G.Mason]

"What about that don't you understand?"

Undoubtably the fact that you are portraying this DP World event much like the Dems and Rino's, when, in fact, you knew as much about the ports and their operations as they did.

"DP World did not proffer the winning bid until January 26, 2006, and P&O shareholders did not approve the sale to DP World until February 13, 2006."

And the President found out about it when? And why is that a problem?

[atlaw]

"And the President found out about it when?"

First you ask for a link, and then you don't bother following it. I'm detecting a pattern here.

"And why is that a problem?"

Because the CFIUS enabling legislation vests the President with the authority to suspend or prohibit foreign acquisitions of domestic assets, and one would presume that the President would be interested in what was being done with his authority. Fairly obvious.

"Undoubtably the fact that you are portraying this DP World event much like the Dems and Rino's, when, in fact, you knew as much about the ports and their operations as they did."

See post 710 in this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584086/posts?q=1&&page=701

[G.Mason]

"And the President found out about it when?"

"First you ask for a link, and then you don't bother following it. I'm detecting a pattern here."

I doubt you could "detect" your home without a map, so I'll skip what that meant.

"And why is that a problem?"

" Because the CFIUS enabling legislation vests the President with the authority to suspend or prohibit foreign acquisitions of domestic assets, and one would presume that the President would be interested in what was being done with his authority. Fairly obvious.

And the President has not made plain his support? Or did he do it too late for your approval?

I will leave you with this. Whatever you reply to this, my last post to you on this subject, I agree with and will forever be in your debt for clearing up the misconceptions I had about saving these United States from the UAE shipping conglomerate known as DP World.

[atlaw]

Doesn't bother you in the least, I see, that:

(1) a group of mid-level bureaucrats (without the participation of the CFIUS committee chair, Transportation Secretary Snow, and without the knowledge of the President) approved this deal on Jan. 17, 2006;

(2) that this approval on Jan. 17 was ostensibly after conducting a thirty day review;

(3) that this approval on Jan. 17 was before DP World actually proffered the winning bid, and at a time when PSA International was actually the high bidder for P&O;

(4) that a unilateral decision (without the knowledge of the President) was also made by these mid-level bureaucrats not to conduct the additional 45-day investigation of the deal;

(5) that the actual winning bid for P&O was proffered by DP World 9 days later on January 26, after P&O had already announced that it had accepted PSA International's bid;

(6) that it looks for all the world like DP World conditioned its subsequent winning bid on acquiring US approval, and most likely demanded that the 45-day investigation be waived so that it would not interfere with the bidding process and not permit PSA to walk away with the deal (which it almost did);

(7) that this smacks of utter disregard by the CFIUS for its assigned national security obligations; and,

(8) that further evidence of this disregard is acquiesence to DP World demands that it be free from otherwise routine obligations imposed on other foreign terminal operators in the US (you know, unimportant little things, like retaining transactional paperwork in the US).

See this thread:

"Timeline of events in proposed ports deal"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1585884/posts

Ask yourself about some salient events that seem to be missing from that timeline. (I'm curious why no one is asking a single question about this rather bizarre timeline, and its diregard of the actual date when DP World trumped PSA's high bid).

But don't worry. Be happy. And don't let the facts hit you in the backside on your way out.

[takenoprisoner]

bttt

[G.Mason]

"Doesn't bother you in the least, I see, that:

(1) a group of mid-level bureaucrats (without the participation of the CFIUS committee chair, Transportation Secretary Snow, and without the knowledge of the President) approved this deal on Jan. 17, 2006;”

Were the “ mid-level bureaucrats” not qualified for this job? Did these “ mid-level bureaucrats” in any was violate current law?

If, in fact, Transportation Secretary Snow did not participate in the decision to allow this buy out, was that a violation of current law?

If the President had no knowledge, before hand, of the pending “deal”, was that somehow illegal?

”(2) that this approval on Jan. 17 was ostensibly after conducting a thirty day review;”

Which means exactly what? That CFIUS laws have been violated? That the 45-day investigation period was not invoked because? That the administration brokered the deal for? ... (Insert nefarious reasons here)

”(3) that this approval on Jan. 17 was before DP World actually proffered the winning bid, and at a time when PSA International was actually the high bidder for P&O; ”

It would seem that the “approval” had little to do with the eventual winning bidder. One may get pre-approval to purchase many things. U.S.port contracts are excluded?

” DP World was the original suitor for P&O in November, offering 3.3 billion pounds ($5.8 billion) but it faced a challenge when PSA, a unit of Singapore's government-owned investment company Temasek Holdings Pte, entered the race last month with a 3.5 billion pound ($6.1 billion) offer.”

” The P&O board switched allegiances and DP World raised its offer. PSA said Friday (February 10) it was not in its best interests to continue the bidding war.

"PSA has decided not to increase its offer and will therefore no longer pursue the acquisition of P&O," it said in a statement.”

” (4) that a unilateral decision (without the knowledge of the President) was also made by these mid-level bureaucrats not to conduct the additional 45-day investigation of the deal;”

Your mantra about “mid-level bureaucrats” and “the President not knowing” may well indicate your displeasure at the way this was handled, but in no way indicates anything was done contrary to law and specifically CIFUS.

”(5) that the actual winning bid for P&O was proffered by DP World 9 days later on January 26, after P&O had already announced that it had accepted PSA International's bid;”

Again … “ DP World was the original suitor for P&O in November, offering 3.3 billion pounds ($5.8 billion) but it faced a challenge when PSA, a unit of Singapore's government-owned investment company Temasek Holdings Pte, entered the race last month with a 3.5 billion pound ($6.1 billion) offer.

The P&O board switched allegiances and DP World raised its offer. PSA said Friday (February 10) it was not in its best interests to continue the bidding war.”

” (6) that it looks for all the world like DP World conditioned its subsequent winning bid on acquiring US approval, and most likely demanded that the 45-day investigation be waived so that it would not interfere with the bidding process and not permit PSA to walk away with the deal (which it almost did);”

Not worthy of comment.

” (7) that this smacks of utter disregard by the CFIUS for its assigned national security obligations; and,”

Because of those “ mid-level bureaucrats” no doubt.

” (8) that further evidence of this disregard is acquiesence to DP World demands that it be free from otherwise routine obligations imposed on other foreign terminal operators in the US (you know, unimportant little things, like retaining transactional paperwork in the US).”

Again … was CIFUS law violated? Transactional paperwork? Is that what’s got you all worked up?

I was certain that it would be a nuke in a container, which of course would be impossible with transactional paperwork, say in Newark, N.J..

Stay safe and keep plugging. Sooner or later your perfect world will appear.

[takenoprisoner]

Allegedly we are at war with terrorists. We know full well that terrorists come from multiple countries including the uae. We know full well that we are at war with many members of the nation of islam. We know full well that islam is the state religion of the uae...(also non democratic state which is threatened by democracy.)

Now, if we are to bring the UAE (home to kings,princes, and serfs) to America with their own terminals to operate at our strategic ports of entry, then it is time to bring our troops home from Iraq. This nation is not serious about fighting a war on terror and our troops just may be dying so a nation that gave us terrorists of 911 can have access to our shores.

[atlaw]

Fine. All perfectly legal (although the decision to forgo the 45-day review period is open to question, given the statutory mandates). As another poster has suggested, decisions with national security ramifications such as this must be made in secret by an unelected group of bureaucrats because otherwise our elected representatives would just muck up the works, presumably meaning our elected officials cannot be trusted to know or deal with these issues. I presume you agree with this.

Your personal comfort with this secretive process, with the non-participation of both the President and the committee chair, and with the unelected composition of the decision-makers, does not provide much reassurance.

Can you actually offer a reason why otherwise routine legal requirements imposed on other foreign terminal operators were waived in the case of DP World? Or is it just sufficient to say that you trust implicitly the bureaucrats who made this decision?

I never thought I'd see the day when conservatives blithely became fans of governmental opacity and the vesting of power in unelected bureaucrats.

[G.Mason]

Yes, we are at war with terrorists.

And yes, we know they come from multiple countries, including the U.S.A..

I also believe Islam is, by it's very nature, a cult and a danger to the civilized world.

I do not, however, equate "bringing the troops home" with a disaproval of DPW receiving the contract to service our ports. The two, you conveniently link, do not appear that way to me.

Further, as we are (at this point in time at least) a representative republic, and not a democracy, it behooves us to elect those representatives we believe will do the right thing for this country.

Not that we cannot disagree, and in fact we do, quite often.

The fact is that most, including the Congress, had no idea what forces were in play and exactly what the legalities were with regards to our ports and contracts to service them.

Suffice it to say they (and we all) are getting a lesson, as we are now seeing by the latest statements of those politicians whom were so incensed, a mere two weeks ago.

I don't believe President Bush is an ignorant man. Nor do I believe he is for this for any other reason than that which he has stated.

In bed with the UAE? At the risk of destroying the United States? (I'm not attributing those accusations to you or any on this thread)

I don't think so. I do not see anything Clinton like in GWB.

For the record, I wish #26 (Teddy Roosevelt) was President, but alas ...

Perhaps, with all the light that is being shown on this, a better understanding of the workings of our government and Congress will evolve. Then all that will be left is for a strong wind to blow away the stench.