On The Waterfront

Bush issues a veto threat on the UAE port deal?  I am in broad agreement with the opening of the NY Times editorial:

If President Bush follows through on his threat, he'll be making a strange choice for his first veto after more than five years in office. After giving a pass to a parade of misbegotten Congressional initiatives and irresponsible budget packages, he'd be choosing to take a stand over the right to hand control of operations at major American ports to a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and controlled by that government.

And Congress, which is making a bipartisan show of beating its collective chest, is being rather tardy in taking a stand, given the way it has looked on indifferently as the administration has ignored Congress's own rights of oversight and its constituents' right not to be targets of extralegal spying.

My theory of Craven Congressional Buck-passing can easily be extended to include the port debacle.  You may recall the theory - since we may, Heaven forbid, be attacked again, Congress is determined that no fingers can be pointed back at them in the aftermath.

Consequently, after a bit of voguing, Congress passed the Partiot Act; after a bit more voguing, they will endorse the NSA warrantless eavesdropping.  (Caveat - they *may* engineer a mechanism that puts the onus on the FISA Court to strangle this program; as long as they can avoid leaving their own fingerprints, it works for them).

So, with the ports?  This issue is easily demagogued, so don't look for Congressional leadership here - their goal is to give the appearance of being tough on national security; reality is for other people.  (That said, I have no idea what reality is on this issue, but it seems to me that a port operator ought to have some ability to smuggle contraband and do other evil things.  Wasn't this covered recently on "24"?)

This NY Times story points the way to a fig-leaf:

The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

There you go - the law may have required a 45-day review, so let's have it.

MORE:  OK, I'm agreeing with a NY Times editorial, but Jimmy Carter is backing President Bush:

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

OK, if Jimmy doesn't see a threat, I'm *really* nervous (and it's not just me).  Here is the transcript, and a longer soundbite (although this issue was an afterthought in the interview):

BLITZER: Are you concerned at one of our top stories today about this Dubai-based company taking control of security at six major ports here in the United States?

CARTER: Well, I've been to Dubai, and I've seen the remarkable port facilities they have there, perhaps the best in the world. I'm not knocking the ones in the United States, of course. My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports. I don't think there's any particular threat to our security.

Obviously, the Homeland Security would have to be involved directly with, and in a partnership with, the Dubai people as they clear folks to work in their ports, particularly in sensitive areas. So 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. 

SIDEBET:  Do you think Jimmy stands by this, or will he backpedal now that the direction of the wind is more clear?  This sentence - "My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports" - certainly leaves some wiggle room.

LOTS MORE: Lots at the InstaPundit (Yes, I know that you know, but I want this link in my archives.)

RIPPING AND SNORTING:  The WSJ editors drop the gloves (i.e., today falls between Monday and Friday):

As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well. At a news conference in front of New York harbor, Senator Chuck Schumer said allowing the Arab company to manage ports "is a homeland security accident waiting to happen." Hillary Clinton is also along for this political ride.

So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera.

OVERSIMPLIFIED:  One of my favorite sons of the Auld Sod reminds us to look for a bit of nuance and warns against a rush to judgement.  From Jack Kelly:

But, warns Spook 86, it's not that simple:

Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE, strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract, all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn't already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight--even with political allies.

It's a good point-counterpoint - read it all.

STILL MORE:  YARGB has a modest hope that someone will actually report on just what it is that a "port operator" does, and what the security issues might be.  He does like this CSM piece (but I think he needs to fix the link).

 

Comments

[Rick Ballard]

OWN HORN TOOT -

If you are interested in minor details - like facts - you may find this piece of interest. As well as the CSM article noted in the update.

Didn't Plato say something about "first, determine the nature of the thing"?

[Dwilkers]

OK, that's it TM. You're nothing but a LIBRUL!

[kim]

"good job with his subordinate" may mean that the 45 day review has been done, reported to Bush and decided upon by him.
=========================================

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

The nature of former President Carter is to be wrong and being in agreement with him has shaken me to my paleo-con bones.

[hrtshpdbox]

Quotes from Instapundit don't help when Instapundit happens to be wrong. The UAE is an ally, they know how to run ports, and Bush is absolutely spot-on when he asks why Brits are OK but not Arabs. It's typical, though endlessly ironic (considering the lambasting he regularly receives), that George Bush is the smartest guy on the bock.

[jerry]

This is just a false fight designed to restore an image of conscience and independence in the fawning Congressional Republicans, sort of like Roberts purported difference with Bush on FISA.

[Lew Clark]

I applied Occams razor and decided that the Dems/MSM are against it because Bush is for it. And an extension of that, UAE is bad because they are Bush's friends. Remember the Bush Family - House of Saud connection that was so much in vogue for awhile. It's sad that key Republicans have jumped on the bandwagon for purely political purposes.
Maybe Bush should push back and say, he's rescinding the deal with the UAE and giving the contract to a Hamas/Al Queda joint venture in order to get Democrat support.

[dsquared]

I think you guys should just outsource all your ports. We did that in the UK when the Liverpool dockers got a bit stroppy and it worked just fine. It's a bit inconvenient having to walk to Bangalore to pick the stuff up once it's been unloaded, but the labour cost savings are incredible.

(this joke comes from an actual remark made by a manager of Mersey Docks during the strike, when he claimed that Liverpool faced increasing competition from more modern and technically advanced ports like Hamburg).

[cathyf]

One very logical explanation for the president's actions is that the bipartisan squealers who are screaming about this are, hmmm, what's the phrase I am looking for, outting a covert agent. And the president just stood up and hissed, "Shut the f*** up, you morons!" Given that he has spent the last five years proving himself to be the world's cheapest tightwad when it comes to expending political capital, I've got to think that there is a very good reason that he is expending so much here.

cathy :-)

[cathyf]

Not to put too fine a point on it, dsquared, but we already outsourced our ports. And it's not altogether obvious whether British muslims or Dubai muslims are more dangerous when it comes to terrorism anyway...

cathy :-)

[Truzenzuzex]

Lileks has a typically humourous take on this (via Instapundit). When I first heard the bare bones of the story, my thoughts were very similar to Lileks' - unbelievable tone-deafness to the politics of it all. Of course, another part of me wondered if Bush had simply let this whole thing sneak up on him, and was unprepared to debate it.

However, in the intervening 12 hours I have read several persuasive arguments as to why the UAE port deal is not bad at all. Dafydd ab Hugh has an awesome post that casts aside the visceral reaction many people on both sides of the political spectrum had when this whole story broke, and examines reality and facts. I came away with a different perspective.

At this point, I think we need to look more closely at the deal before it is finalized. I don't want to hear about excuses for not doing it, this is a prima facia case for Congressional hearings and oversight. At the same time, I think passing a bill to scuttle the deal without first reviewing the case is premature, and I would support a veto.

The President has been folishly blindsided with this, but he does have a few things on his side as well and against him. This thing can be demagogued endlessly from a "racial profiling" as well as a national security standpoint. Last time these two issues came into conflict, "racial profiling" won out over national security. This time, I'm not so sure. A.J. Strata really hits the issues related to the "racial profiling" point hard in this post.

We are headed for some interesting times. This debate has just begun, and is going to grow exponentially from here.

[Rick Ballard]

"The President has been foolishly blindsided with this"

Bullshit.

The President can differentiate between a freight handling operation and port security.

One might consider that peddling against meme is not the function of the executive. The fact that those commenting in ignorance choose to raise immaterial issues is no reason for the President to respond to the ignorant.

Phrase argument as: "It's a damn shame that suckers are born at a one a minute rate and the media sure take advantage of it - why doesn't the President do something?" and you get to the crux of the "problem".

It ain't his job to enlighten the ignorant.

[BurbankErnie]

"It ain't his job to enlighten the ignorant"
No, but the Pres SHOULD HAVE been out in front of this issue from the start. Oh. Wait. He did not know about the deal. Ok.
This Admin has lost battles in the past for this very reason: THEY DO NOT GET OU IN FRONT of their actions and PREPARE us Dumb Shit Americans for the Tsunami after the announcement is made in the MSM (Drudge).
Sorry, but the Pres has to inform, not defend.

[Sue]

Well there goes my theory he was holding a card up his sleeve...he didn't even know he was playing poker.

[kim]

Rove was wearing his Jimmy Carter masque when he explained to Michael Moore at the Democratic Convention how kids fly kites at those UAB ports, and Gore got the message in Riyadh. That explains Moore's silence, now. Or maybe he's busy wondering why bin Laden is holding up progress on the pipeline over there in Allahforsakistan.
================================================

[Rick Ballard]

BE,

What battles have been "lost"?

You have stepped into the game without reconnoitering. Step back, look at the real chess board and ask "whose king is in danger?". This ain't checkers.

The MSM is not the measure - in fact they are a "null" value.

[Lew Clark]

I just saw a news clip on the Powerball winner. The guy is a furiner. Can't even speak good English. Came here in 1988.
Where was Bush on this? Does he know how many suicide bombers can be financed with that kind of money. Bush had better get up-front on this and keep that money away from him! Or just have Cheney shoot him.

[larwyn]

Zogby, the great Dem pollster is
very, very PO'd.

I will have to wait for PoliPundit
and Galen to look at the possiblities and to answer this question:

If the Arabs in Detroit and elsewhere in Michigan go against the Dems, will Michigan turn into
a RED STATE?

How many Black Muslims will also be
PO'd and maybe stay home?

Yes we want hearings! Possible that Kennedy's, Schummmy's and Biden's performances at the Alito
Hearing could be bested!

Loving it!

[Bill H]

Are they buying the Coast Guard? Are they buying Customs? Are they buying the Dept. of Homeland Security?

Listening to the hysteria you would think they are.

Who do you think should run the port operations?

[Truzenzuzex]

Rick Ballard said:

Bullshit.

The President can differentiate between a freight handling operation and port security.

Your comment reminds me of posters over at MyDD and Daily Kos, bemoaning the ignorance of the great unwashed electorate and asserting intellectual superiority; "We needn't inform these fools about our decisions in government". Unwise.

You might think it isn't the President's job to "enligten the ignorant", but a failure to do so in this case will likely result in providing the Democrats an issue that they will exploit to the detrement of this country. Your glib reply is a testament to your own apparent failure to grasp the politics of the UAE purchase. If Bush doesn't find a way to get out in front of this, the visceral opinions evident on both sides against the deal will harden and the unenlightened ignorant will deal him a major political setback.

And funny enough, Bush didn't know about the deal until a few days ago, according to the White House. But while the President talked about energy and what-not, he should have been coming up with a strategy to deal with this. When I first heard about it, I knew it was going to be a problem. Bush's political instincts aught to be a lot better than mine, but if he can't see an onrushing truck like this, I may have to revise my opinion of the man.

[danking70]

When do we stop receiving cargo from ports controlled by DP World?

[Rick Ballard]

Truz,

How many elections have you won?

I really do understand your viewpoint but it's not one that is focused on the battlefield. Who cares what the scribblers think? Perhaps they did marshal 15 points in 2004. Who won?

Bullshit has to be shovelled - it doesn't have to be sifted.

[kim]

Easy, T&R,l he misses these things because his heart is pure. He is actually a fairly poor politician, that's what Rove and Cheney are for, but as an executive, foreseeing, and functioning, he's not been excelled.
=====================================

[larwyn]

danking,

"When do we stop receiving cargo from ports controlled by DP World?"

Don't you think we should immediatly target shipments from the oil company controlled by Chavez.

He is big buddies with Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba and the really scary Cindy Sheehan and the "Day O"
man.

Extrapolate the Left's argument and we can freeze all those blue states to death in no time, as long as that darn global warming doesn't save them.

[Forbes]

The great unwashed in this "ports" story is the MSM who repeatedly report that a foreign company is going to operate our ports.

False.

DP World will not, nor will any other foreign company, be "operating" the port.

In this case--as regards New York--a foreign company (DP World) will own one-half (a joint venture interest) of a company operating one freight terminal. Several other companies, including foreign, operate the bulk of the freight terminals in the port.

These "ports" companies are in reality "freight-handlers," who load and off-load cargo from freighters. Their security interest regards theft, shrinkage, and other casualty losses.

The port is operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey--who has their own police department. Port security is provided by the Coast Guard and US Customs.

And as regards security, as in the airlines, the security is addressed prior to departure, and not upon arrival at the destination.

As for those making political hay out of this "story," if you knew what you're taking about, you wouldn't be making the sort of dumb ass statements you're making.

[kim]

Yeah it's his fault he didn't foresee the Democrats pulling the fear and the race card together in such a blatantly hypocritical fashion. Do I forgive him? Do I forgive his opponents? What's to forgive, it's in their nature.
=======================================

[larwyn]

"Democrats pulling the fear and the race card together in such a blatantly hypocritical fashion"

A week or so ago they were the
"we're not afraid" party and the
politically correct multiculturalists spouting all cultures are equal and only a few
are "freedom fighters"

Makes you wonder if any of the DEMS
have TIVOs?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

About the only thing that will change because of this is some names on checks. The same people will physically control the ports and terminals. Who pays the bills and collects the revenues will be different.

Big deal.

[topsecretk9]

he can't see an onrushing truck like this, I may have to revise my opinion of the man.

When will people begin to understand there are NO surprises when an R and a V reside in the same last name. Hint: ROVE loves ROPE

[clarice]

OT: Libby's response to the government's reply to his discovery requests and an affidavit are available here--they strongly attack the greymail implication and demand the right for the reporters' info; also make a good case for the presidential breifing materials--http://www.scooterlibby.com/news/Read.aspx?ID=75

[topsecretk9]

Clarice
As Matalin says....Deeeliccious this is

"...Such relatively less important events include alleged snippets of conversations about Valerie Plame Wilson's employment status...."

Could someone hand me a fly-swatter, in other words. You can almost feel the arrow penetrating Wilson's over inflated and enlarged heart.

[kim]

Hier cum da Judge.
===================

[cathyf]

While we are OT, clarice, here's the most fascinating story. Remember the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development? Remember how this is Fitz's case, and Judy Miller (yeah, that Judy Miller) massively screwed up the case by tipping them off by calling and "asking them for comment"? Remember how they started massively destroying evidence and Fitz had to move in and make arrests prematurely? Well it turns out that Fitz's staff goofed up and xeroxed a bunch of classified documents and handed them over to the defense.

You know, I can't think of any way that this is anything more than a really weird coincidence. But man, is it ever a weird coincidence.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

Yes, I saw that article but didn't realize it was Fitz' team that goofed.

[clarice]

I also recall reading that when the prosecution realized they'd made a mistake, there first move was to try to get into the locked defense counsel room in the courthouse and simply retireve them. They were stopped by court security and then and only then sought court relief for their error. PHEH

[topsecretk9]

"...Both government and defense lawyers are barred from discussing exactly what was turned over, but defense lawyers have indicated they believe the information would help their case..."

things that make you go "hmmmm"

[kim]

Jeez, wouldn't that want to make you act with the secrecy and isolation of the Inquisition.
================================================

[kim]

Let me amend that to 'act with the secrecy and isolation of the excesses of the Inquisition'.
=================================================

[kim]

And subject irritants to durance vile.
========================================

[clarice]

Interesting, Fitz doesn't even want to turn over to Libby his OWN notes..Hey, why not make the Star Chamber complete?

[larwyn]

Ed Lasky breaks this:
Democrat officials' firm helped Dubai purchase ports

Little noticed in the kerfuffle over the takeover of major US ports by Dubai Ports is the key role being played by former Democratic Party leaders. Lobbying firms associated with ex-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Madeleine Albright (Clinton’s Secretary of State) have been working (paid subscription only link) to secure approval of the purchase by Dubai.

Soooooo......this deal has been in works for more than months and the
Dems have been mentioning mentioning mentioning ports for months
and then this!

Sounds a lot like Rocky's memo on the planned attack on Bush via
Intelligence committee.

[kim]

Ah, the perfidy.
=================

[kim]

Rove knew, didn't he? But, how? Musta' just smelled it. "Ports? Ports? What's all this 'Ports' in the air?
===========================================

[kim]

Now there, C, is a scandal. Why didn't court security make a complaint of attempted burglary?
==============================================

[topsecretk9]

nteresting, Fitz doesn't even want to turn over to Libby his OWN notes..Hey, why not make the Star Chamber complete?

No, he's waited this long to have Libby read them to Fitz, he's just not gonna give them back now

"the government has expressly withheld the identity of the sources who disclosed Ms. Wilson's employment status to Mr. Woodward and Mr. Novak"

Armatage or Tenet?

[flenser]

The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security.

Thats great, really it is. But if we set aside who reviewed the deal, and look at who is behind the deal in the first place, you will find that it is the cities and states in question who drove this forward.

It's pretty funny to watch the NY and NJ senators complaining about the actions of what are, are the end of the day, their own states. Perhaps Chuckie could place a phone call to his buddies at the Port Authority?

[Dwilkers]

Huh. Thanks for the link Clarice. I'm about half way through it.

Interesting how things seem different when you start to read both sides of an argument isn't it?

[Gary Maxwell]

maybe is Libby gets lucky the hapless folks in Fitz's office will make a mistake and just give him back his own notes? I am certain Kafka had avision about this prosecution and then wrote about it.

[clarice]

I have installed something which allowed me to copy the brief as it is impossible to work with in pdf format. I'm trying to see if Rick wants to print it at YARGB. If he doesn't and TM wants it here in that form, whistle.

I think Libby was particularly outraged by the "greymail" defense whisper campaign and does a good job with explaining why CIPA was designed to and prevent that.

[Dwilkers]

Heh. I love this part:

In a case that essentially pits Mr. Libby's memory of certain conversations against the recollections of three reporters, in which knowledge by the reporters as well as by Mr. Libby is at issue, it is astounding for the government to assert that Mr. Libby should not have the opportunity to investigate the state of mind of any other witnesses."

And wow. Read the bottom 2 paragraphs on page 8 if you want to know where this is going.

"Mr. Libby is entitled to investigate whether the reporters who will testify at trial are mistaken, biased, or otherwise not credible."

OK. This is going to be really fun.