Frist Proposes Face-saving Dubai Deal

Time Magazine online ^ | Feb. 25, 2006 | Timothy Burger, Mike Allen & Matthew Cooper

[jraven]

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.

Although the Dubai deal had already been approved by CFIUS, "the rationale for reopening it is, once DP carved out the American ports from the rest of the contract it changed the nature of the agreement so it had to be reviewed again," says King, who had been among the leading GOP voices opposing the deal as first approved without the extra 45-day review process or briefing of Congress. King says will await final details before formally backing any such deal. King added "if we are going to hold back on legislation, I think there has to be continuous congressional review throughout the new CFIUS review.”

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."

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.

[DoughtyOne]

The logic in that is that those GOP members of Congress are still not comfortable with your conclusions on this deal. While that should give you some cause for reflection, it doesn't in the slightest. So be it.

I remember a lot of people thinking those who objected to Meir's nomination were also clueless. That turned out rather well didn't it.

[Reagan Man]

There is going to be an additional 45-day evaluation period while the critical aspects of this deal are fully reviewed. Also DPWorld said they will create an American "buffer" company that will actually run the commercial operations until May, during this interim period. Over the last 4-5 days I've been wondering if it's possible to oppose any type of foreign control over vital American interests without having accusations being made that somehow if you're against this deal, your a racist and/or xenophobia.

[clawrence3]

Frist is coming around, so will the others. McCain was not "clueless" from the start. And, when Alito rules the right way every single time, then I will agree with you about Miers.

[Let's Roll]

nj26,

Like much of Congress - who should have been better informed - my initial "reaction" to the "Dubai Deal" was also negative.

This was before I learned that, that careless and incompetent organization known as the US Navy had been docking and resupplying in the UAE for years.

And that both the clueless Tommy Franks and Peter Pace were for the "Dubai Deal".

Oh, and I, for one, am far from being a member of the "open borders crowd."

[napscoordinator]

This seems to be the way the Senate has been on everything lately. Can't get the Patriot Act scheduled on time, judges on time, even Supreme Court Justices on time. Senators must just have time on their hands because with all the postponing they are doing that must not have too much to do with all those postponement dates.

[clawrence3]

Don't forget clueless (and some things are not permitted to be run by foreign companies - airports and nuclear power plants for instance - the vast majority of port terminal operations ARE alreadt foreign-owned. Live with it).

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I saw the report. I don't trust Arabs and I guess if this makes me racist, then I plead guilty, with extenuating (9/11) circumstances.
There are plenty of docks in the US that are owned by private American companies or in partnership with cities... Port of Stockton would be a good example. The Great Lakes have at least a thousand private docks without foreign ownership or operation. There are some exceptions, IE LaFarge operates in Superior, WI.
Is there nothing else that we can sell the Arabs that does not come with the strategic impact of a tide water port ?

[mtbopfuyn]

Perhaps Frist could explain why DPW's Bilkey says his father was a senator, yet there's never been a Senator Bilkey?

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/chronlist.pdf

[Siena Dreaming]

never recognized Israel's right to exist

Yet, Israel does business with DP World. If the Jews are not worried about DP World shunning Israel, why should we be?

[Marine Inspector]

I disagree but hey, you came to this conclusion after reviewing the information I did.

Have you ever worked at a seaport?

Have you even visited a seaport?

Do you work for CBP?

No offense, but, you did not review the same info I did or base your conclusions on the experience I have at ports.

This is why 80%+ of Americans are making bad conclusions. They are being feed bad info from the MSM and not bothering to do their own research or speak with the real experts, not the Washington security experts that have never set foot in any port of entry.

[Candor7]

"Frist needs to shut up......."

JUST DO THE DEAL NOW AND SCREW THE 'SAVE MY FACE' RINOS!

Frist: STFU !!!!

Chicken Little Hillary, We know what she needs on this issue, a good Beech Slap:

May the good lord protect us from isolationism. Remember what Dubyah said in his State of the Union Address:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html

"In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead. (Applause.) "

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Live with it

We all might have to live with this outrageous decision before long.

But I'm not clueless. I'm also not a racist or a xenophobic. This entire deal is a bureaucratic blunder of the highest order. Its starts with the Treasury Dept and their agency called CFIUS, before it moves on to the entire Bush administration. Don't get angry with me because I find something wrong with handing over commmercial operations control of US ports of entry to a Muslim nationstate that sponsored the 9-11 attacks, supported the Taliban/Al Qaeda, ran cover for Osama Bin Laden and gave refuge to terrorists for decades. I place American interests first, at all times. Especially those interests that are stationed here on the US homeland.

[Marine Inspector]

There are plenty of docks in the US that are owned by private American companies or in partnership with cities...

Too bad they don't handle international trade.

80% of our international trade terminals are run by foreign countries, including China and Kuwait.

[DoughtyOne]

Your arguement is not an unreasonable one. I agree that it isn't. You can think whatever you like of me, it's just not going to change my aversion to having people like China, Saudi Arabia and the UAE involved at any level managing aspects of our port operations.

If that makes me a simpleton, so be it. I'm not entirely pleased to hear that these same operators are handling port operations where our cargo originates from either.

Thanks for the comments. It would be nice if we could have agreed on this issue.

[nj26]

"Don't forget clueless (and some things are not permitted to be run by foreign companies - airports and nuclear power plants for instance - the vast majority of port terminal operations ARE alreadt foreign-owned. Live with it)."

For many Americans (including myself), there's a big difference between foreign-owned and Muslim-owned.

Too many Muslims hate our country and want to destroy it. I know the UAE is a supposedly an "ally", but it's too big a risk to hand our ports over to a Muslim government.

[Cold Heat]

If it does happen, it will be another step toward putting Hillary in the White House in 2008.

No, I'll tell you what will do it........

If these jack ass-ed republicans do not get back on board and stop reacting to media rib poking, the vast republican coalition, that is already under a huge strain, will stay home in 06 and in 08, and some will vote third party.

That is what is going to happen, and it is a 100% republican problem.

It all started with Schiavo, and then Miers, and now this.

From my perspective, this party is finished and it's time to rebuild.

I hope, I really hope I'm wrong.

[Cold Heat]

You can't encourage changes in the Islamic empire, and usher in a new era for them by disassociating.

We can't encourage moderates to come to the front without engagement.

You are wrong.

[nj26]

"I place American interests first, at all times. Especially those interests that are stationed here on the US homeland."

Couldn't agree more. The Republican party needs to get back to its roots, stand up for American security and sovereignty, and forget all this internationalist "one world" nonsense being propagated by the Beltway conservative elite.

America needs to put America first!

[nj26]

What you're suggesting is taking a huge risk (handing over our ports) with the hope that maybe we can appease the Muslims into not hating us.

I don't support appeasement.

By the way, has the UAE government publicly apologized for its role in laundering al-Qaeda money and harboring participants in the 9/11 attacks?

[claudiustg]

---a Muslim nationstate that sponsored the 9-11 attacks---

There you go again...