Bush Digs In His Boot Heels On $6.8 Billion Port Deal

I am occasionally disturbed and vexed by Bush Administration strategies and tactics; count this as one of those times.

The issue has ramped up even more because the Democrats have jumped into the issue with both feet as well. Being the consummate cynic: are they objecting to the actual nature of the deal or is this merely another potential opportunity for Republican and Bush denigration?

______________________________

Republican Congressman Peter King ratcheted up the discussion by making a public statement earlier Tuesday, pertinent because he chairs the Homeland Security Committee. King said, in reference to the company (Dubai Ports World) slated to take over the managerial control of six major United States ports (Miami, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans and Philadelphia): "By having a company right out of the heartland of al-Qaida managing those ports without being properly cleared or investigated, to me is madness."

Technically, the ports' managerial turnover from the British company (Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.) to DPW occurred last month when the Committee on Foreign Investment, headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow, approved the deal.

PILING ON?

Additionally, Republican Congressman Mark Foley said on Tuesday: "We're going to be asking specific questions about the transfer of management. We want to raise the level of awareness about what's happening to these six strategic ports. Remember, New Orleans is the second largest in the world."

Security concerns regarding the United Arab Emirates company include:

-- The UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks;
-- Two of the 19 original 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the UAE;
-- The UAE has been named as a conduit of al-Qaida money transfers.
-- Pakistani officials have admitted they had used the UAE to transit nuclear weapons equipment and technology to North Korea.

It was first thought that President Bush would reverse the deal himself; just this past Sunday Brit Hume from Fox News theorized: "I don't think the administration will be able to sustain this (the UAE ports deal)."

Further compounding the issue, Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist also said, on Tuesday: "The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter. If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

Also in the mix from Monday, Republican Governors Robert Ehrlich (Maryland) and George Pataki (New York) made statements of serious concern about the deal. Pataki issued a press release which said: "Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World. I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them."

Gov. Ehrlich said he was "very troubled" that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved the Arab company's takeover of the operations at the six ports. "We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert wrote to the President on Tuesday: "I believe there should be an immediate moratorium placed on this seaport deal in order to further examine its effects on our port security," Hastert said in the letter, a copy of which was released to the media.

THE PRESIDENT DIGS IN?

But now, from Air Force One on Tuesday afternoon, Bush said:

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.' "

Bush said on the radio, as I wrote this post, that the UAE had been cooperative with and an ally in the war on terror.

The bottom line? President Bush stated he would veto any congressional effort to stop the $6.8 billion sale. To counter that, Bill Frist said on the Hugh Hewitt show Tuesday that Bush's veto would be overridden. The gloves are off.

From the Hewitt interview, Bill Frist makes some interesting observations while reviewing the Port of Long Beach in Fornicalia:

It's interesting, Hugh. I've spent all morning at . . . I'm in Los Angeles right now, and spent all morning at the port in Long Beach and Los Angeles, which is the third largest port in the world (my emphasis -- BZ). And I spent all day actually flying over, walking through, looking how challenging these ports are in terms of guarding, protecting our national security. And it re-emphasized to me the importance of looking at border security, looking at other places of ingress, coming into this country, to make sure that we are protected. These are vast structures with thousands and thousands of people coming through. For example, just each day, about 13,000 containers are going to come through the ports that I visited today. We need to make sure that from a security standpoint, that there is absolute control, because it does affect our national security (emphasis by BZ).

Hugh Hewitt asked Frist point blank: "So before we move onto subject number 2, Senator Bill Frist, can you imagine a Republican Congress overriding a presidential veto on this subject? Is it possible?"

Frist replied: "Oh yes."

Even Jimmy Carter kicked in his 2-cents on CNN's Situation Room Monday, saying: ''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists. I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.'' Way to go, Jimmy. Spot on, once again.

_______________________________________


Just one question continues to cross my mind repeatedly: given the current global terrorism issue affecting this country -- why would the President even remotely want to take a chance with an issue as large and overarching as major American port management and security -- in the country he loves?

Points I should like to highlight:

-- Everything comes through United States ports.
-- We search a fraction of the materials shipped in containers, the primary form of transport
-- A management company would have choice over who works for management, who works for the company, who vets the internal hiring process and more importantly:
-- Who has access to what information about the things that routinely and uniquely come and go through various ports and when, where and how long they are stored on site, and
-- Who has access to these containers unquestioned.

Yes, the Coast Guard is responsible for the physical security of ports; gunboats and sailors on port waters isn't the issue. The above items are the issue.

Granted, port management has historically been privy to a select few companies, and it is not a task envied by the business world at large, primarily because port management companies have to deal with American unions from which the phrase "New York dock" means everything. It is not a pleasant experience. A two-day 1999 Port of Oakland (4th largest US port) Fornicalia strike by longshore workers, Local 10 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, for example, showed how much muscle the union has as the "meagre" stoppage clogged transportation for weeks, affected trucking, railroads, killed schedules and idled ships off Fornicalia.

THE FINAL ANALYSIS?

Politically, this is a poor time for Bush to exercise his first-ever veto -- a poor place for Bush to draw the "veto line." Which means one of two things: either this deal simply fell under Bush's radar, he didn't expect nor foresee the subsequent reaction and he's being stubborn or, perhaps, he cut a personal deal with the families of the UAE. And yes, this gives political opportunity for "certain persons and elements" to exercise the "look" of being "tough on security."

You do not turn over the management of ports to companies from risky parts of the world -- particularly those companies based in countries who, in my estimation, could wobble left or right at the drop of a Koran.

_______________________________________