Posted on 02/25/2006 3:47:21 AM PST by Cornpone
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House welcomed on Friday the temporary delay in a deal allowing a state-owned Arab company to run U.S. port terminals, but senators called for a law to put the deal on hold pending a security review.
President George W. Bush backs the deal, but is under fierce pressure to cancel it from lawmakers and other critics who fear the Dubai-based port operator could be a Trojan horse for militants wanting to attack the United States.
The United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World said it would proceed with the $6.85 billion takeover of the global operations of the British P&O company -- making it the world's third largest port operator -- but not take over management of the U.S. assets in ports like New York while it discusses security concerns.
"There won't be any management influence coming into the United States from DP World until we've got everybody comfortable, until they understand who we are and they understand that we are a well-respected company," company Senior Vice President Michael Moore said in a phone interview.
Washington says the United Arab Emirates is a staunch ally in its war on terrorism and has worked to close the loopholes that allowed al Qaeda operatives to use the Gulf Arab state as a financial and logistical hub before the September 11 attacks.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush still wanted the deal to go forward, but added, "We believe it would be helpful to have some additional time to brief Congress on the facts." He said the White House had privately told company officials some extra time would be welcome.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the government's vetting process had shown the takeover posed no threat, adding that Dubai Ports World had provided written security guarantees.
"The assurances are unprecedented. It gives us complete visibility into their operations here," Chertoff said.
DP World's letter of assurances includes pledges to continue participation in key cargo inspection and security programs, to maintain the current U.S. management structure as much as possible, and to grant U.S. officials access to security information about its facilities.
CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN
But while U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican who has called for a moratorium on the deal, welcomed the delay, a group of Republican and Democratic senators said it was not enough. They vowed to introduce legislation on Monday to suspend the deal and order an additional 45-day review.
Bush has threatened to veto any legislation blocking the deal.
"Handing the keys to U.S. strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror," said Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican.
Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey called DP World's delay a smoke screen that "isn't worth the paper on which it's written" because the company could still assume control of the terminals. He said Congress must block the deal.
Adding to the furor, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop DP World taking over management of its terminal at Port Newark in New Jersey, a day after the state of New Jersey filed a similar suit.
In London, a U.S. company at the Port of Miami, Eller & Co. Inc., filed a petition in High Court opposing the takeover.
The issue blew up in Washington last week as many senior figures in Bush's Republican Party as well as Democrats vowed to stop the deal because it could threaten U.S. security and said they should have been informed about it in advance.
U.S. lawmakers opposed to the takeover have noted that two of the September 11 hijackers came from the UAE, that al Qaeda funding passed through UAE banks, and that a United Nations agency said disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan used Dubai as the headquarters for his nuclear black market.
Officials from the departments of Treasury, Homeland Security, Defense and State briefed staff for members of the House of Representatives on Friday.
White House officials said they recognized it would take some doing to convince skeptical members of Congress.
"There's still a lot of work to do," said one senior official. "We are in the early stages of briefing members."
AHHHH screw it im against it now! LOL hehe
Not that they wanted this, but the delay will work to their advantage. As each day goes by more and more people realize they've been had by the MSM and the dems on this, and are coming around.
This is one story where the White House will benefit if the story DOESN'T go away.
I still think they need a new press spokesman. Getting David Gregory into a hissy fit aside, Scott ain't cuttin' it.
We should start a rumor that Michael Moore is involved with the port deal. Wouldn't it be awesome to see his own lying techniques used against him?
Michael Moore is in bed with the people that were involved in 9/11 LOL /sarcasm
I blame the MSM for the outrageous headlines and no factual information for days.
Has everyone in the enemy Democrat Party (with the exception of the peanut Carter) gone on a John Effin Kerry trip?
They are against HomeLand Security , but for securing our ports?
Is it no longer a crime for me to be a racial profiler?
Were they for it before they were ...
Oh ... forget it.
That's what happens when you have no core values: You merely look at what your political opponent is FOR and you come out AGAINST it.
Even then, it's the individual person's fault for not reading the entire article, and allowing themselves to glean an entire story's worth of information from a mere headline, especially when they know that headlines are misleading.
After I read 2-3 stories about it, none with matching facts, I decided to ignore the whole thing. My gut said it was fine, but my brain said it "does look bad."
Then the FR poll last night made me look around some more, to see why this was still an issue and why so many still think the ports of the US are going to be "taken control of" by a bunch of Arabs. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
I know people who live in Abu Dhabi and are happy there (though they prefer coming home to TX, of course). I just don't see the problem here, with a business deal that pretty much makes things "business as usual" and I thought it would have blown over by now.
Yea but the whole story for the first few days were mostly inaccurate, along with outrageous headlines.
LOL!
Everybody switched sides on us. LOL
That's true, but there were still people here on FR telling the truth. Pukin Dog in particular did a great job, especially for a one-man campaign.
The embarrassing thing is that even now some people are still stuck on stupid...
I was against it for like 1 day, then knew it didn't pass the MSM smell test and knew they werent telling us something.
Nothing, because "we" aren't involved--it's a private sale.
The ports are under our control. It doesn't matter who says they're not, they are, and your plan will never happen because it's got nothing to do with sovereignty. Someone has to do this work, and the only other company that bid was, I believe, a Chinese firm.
I think too many people are seeing involvment in ports and allowing the MSM to let them think our ports are now somehow going to be owned by a foreign power, when that's just not the case.
How does leasing a terminal and managing it privately equate to "controlling" entire ports? One terminal, two terminals, whatever. If a port has 18 or 100 terminals, why does the management of one make such a big difference?
I'm not switching sides. I don't care how logical the deal may be its a point of logical absurdity as far as I'm concerned. It just smells bad and certainly makes it difficult to explain to a young person going off to war why we just approved a contract to operate our ports by a despotic, Arab, Islamic state when 19 young Islamic fanatics from despotic Arab states murdered over 3000 of our fellow citizens. Personally, I find the thought about as offensive and sacriligious as those who find cause to riot over some silly cartoons about Mohammed, but at least we are civilized enough to simply voice our opinion and agree to disagree. This is a political nightmare.
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.