More Port Politics

The UAE-U.S. Port Management controversy (i.e. Portgate) has taken some interesting turns since the story exploded into the media last week. After (once again) proving that President Bush is an out of touch, lame duck, the administration seems to have reached a deal with Congressional Republicans (at least the leadership) to delay the deal for 45 days in order for a more 'thorough' review to occur. I don't need to say this, but I'm going to anyway: The President grossly misjudged the Congressional reaction to this deal and, more importantly, the reaction of the American public. This issue has disaster written all over it, unless the president gives in now and moves on (much like he did with Harriet Miers). He has virtually no political capital left (and hasn't since his reelection, by the way) and cannot waste it on a long, drawn out battle over this foolish deal. Another element to this is the fact that this is an election year--an election year that is going to be bad for the GOP anyway, in spite of this controversy. Democrats should not let up on this issue; they need to drive home the competence factor--and the administration's lack of said competence. The Bush administration is continuing to govern without regard for the interests of the American people; they feel no obligation to keep the public informed about its actions.

Also, from The AP:

Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard raised concerns weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.

The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to assume significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. It also clouded whether the Bush administration's agreement to conduct an unusual investigation into the pending takeover's security risks would allay lawmakers' concerns.

For the administration to pretend as if there are absolutely no security concerns is ludicrous. This deal was reviewed in secret with, once again, no Congressional oversight. Furthermore, for anyone (including Administration apologists) to 'play the race/ethnicity card' is laughable. The same people that have recently tried to justify torture as a viable policy option are apparently now very sensitive to the feelings of Arabs and Muslims across the globe. Wake UP. This is a national security issue. God forbid this deal happens and something awful happens at one of these ports...I don't want to think about.

More, from Thomas Friedman (who I have a great deal of respect for):

But while I have zero sympathy for the political mess in which the president now finds himself, I will not join this feeding frenzy. On the pure merits of this case, the president is right. The port deal should go ahead. Congress should focus on the NSA wiretapping. Not this.

As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic profiling, looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked for commies. If we do, if America, the world's beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road, we will take the rest of the world with us. ...

If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the critics. But the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist.

Wow. I'm not going to lie...I'm a little sad. I though Friedman would be a bit more pragmatic with this one. Friedman makes himself look like a fool. Here's a brief memo, Tom: Not everything can be explained away by globalization. Having the UAE royal family operate our ports isn't going to lead to a pro-America wave in the Middle East. NATIONAL SECURITY TRUMPS GLOBALIZATION AND ECONOMICS EVERY TIME. It's a fact that we all need to accept. The security concerns are not 'bogus,' Mr. Friedman. At the very least, they need to be examined further. At this point, nobody (no matter how big their ego, Tom) can honestly claim to have enough information to categorize these concerns as bogus. Again, Friedman makes himself look foolish with these statements. I'm not even going to tackle the "borderline racist" aspect of the column. I think you know how I feel.

Note: This isn't the first time Friedman has been off his game in recent months (see: http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2006/02/friedman-on-sotu-bush-makes-strides.html )

Finally, this from The Hill:

A bipartisan group of senators pressed ahead yesterday with a bill giving Congress power to block a Dubai-government-owned ports company from assuming control of several U.S. ports, despite the Bush administration’s agreement to initiate a second review of the deal.

The senators’ move, as well as several congressional hearings on the ports deal planned for this week, signals that the company’s consent to delay the takeover may not be enough to sate Congress’ growing appetite for oversight. While some lawmakers hailed the request from Dubai Ports (DP) World for a longer executive-branch investigation as a good first step, Democrats continued to question whether the administration panel that already cleared the deal would be able to reevaluate it independently.

...But Schumer’s bill, co-sponsored by GOP Sens. Rick Santorum (Pa.), Susan Collins (Maine), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine), would give Congress the authority to reject the ports deal after completion of the new 45-day review.

Santorum signed on to the bill late Friday, adding conservative heft to the unlikely partnership of ports-deal skeptics. Santorum did not hesitate in joining such Democratic co-sponsors as Schumer and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), said Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham.

Schumer?...Santorum? Co-sponsoring the same legislation? I think a pig just flew by my window...more later.