Republicans Split With Bush on Ports

A Maryland Transportation Authority police boat patrols the waters along the Port of Baltimore Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2006 in Baltimore. The Bush administration said Friday it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates company to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports. The former head of the Sept. 11 commission said the deal 'never should have happened.' (AP Photo/Gail Burton)

Here's some more interesting details regarding Portgate. From The Washington Post:

Faced with an unprecedented Republican revolt over national security, the White House disclosed yesterday that President Bush was unaware of a Middle Eastern company's planned takeover of operations at six U.S. seaports until recent days and promised to brief members of Congress more fully on the pending deal.

One day after threatening to veto any attempt by Congress to scuttle the controversial $6.8 billion deal, Bush sounded a more conciliatory tone by saying lawmakers should have been given more details about a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates purchasing some terminal operations in Baltimore and five other U.S. cities.

So we know there's a rift between the Republicans in Congress, and the Bush White House. And President Bush promises to brief Congress with further details on this deal. Much of this is old news.

Now for some interesting details buried into this Post story:

With the president's ratings mired around 40 percent approval, some Republican lawmakers who face tough reelection bids in November have been looking for ways to distance themselves from Bush without appearing to be soft on terrorism. The president, who once enjoyed near unanimous support from GOP allies on Capitol Hill, has seen a steady rise in Republican criticism over Iraq, Iran, warrantless domestic spying and now the port deal.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said political pressure from constituents is driving the debate. Lawmakers, he said, are "responding to incredible local political pressure."

In other words, Congressional Republicans are hearing some strong words from the American public--and the American public doesn't like what they see regarding the sale of these ports to DP World. Also recall in my previous post regarding Bush's drop in the polls, "Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement." When you're a Republican congressman is faced with a national poll showing a majority of Americans opposed to such a deal, you better listen to your constituents.

Now here's another fun little detail:

Some of the big names on K Street have joined the Dubai Ports World fight on the side of the United Arab Emirates-owned company.

These include former Senate majority leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), and a Democratic power couple in Washington, former representative Tom Downey (D-N.Y) and Carol M. Browner, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Dole's law firm, Alston & Bird LLP, led the effort by Dubai Ports World to steer its proposed acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. through the U.S. government approval process.

Not much to comment here--just George Bush selling out to K Street lobbyists. Although I am surprised that former senator Bob Dole is now connected to this port deal. Dole used to be a moderate Republican--now he's pretty much selling his country out for the sake of a buck! Of course, Dole's law firm is involved. I wonder how many other K Street lobbyists have jumped on this bandwagon for the sake of a buck?

Another fun detail:

At the Treasury Department, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), which includes Cabinet officials and White House aides, examines sales with potential national security risks and usually attracts little attention.

Administration officials did not consider the sale of port terminal management to a Middle Eastern company dangerous or potentially controversial, White House aides said. Foreign-owned companies including a Chinese operation have controlled terminals at various U.S. ports for years -- and lawmakers have rarely complained. The White House said intelligence officials reviewed the sale and raised no concerns.

In a private briefing for House aides late yesterday, administration officials from the departments of State, Defense, Treasury and Homeland Security said the CFIUS met only once during a 23-day review of the sale and that the few objections raised were quickly addressed.

The CFIUS met only once during the 23-day review of the sale? There was no real debate and whatever objections were quickly addressed--or would that be ignored? There was no investigation into possible security concerns, or connections between the UAE and al Qaida terrorist network which could compromise the security of American ports? Incredible.

Now here's the real kicker of a detail:

Joseph King, who headed the customs agency's anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver's licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.

Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World's operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.

My question here is why didn't the CFIUS even look into this scenario? This is a big security concern that the committee should have debated on. This is not something you push through for a single day. Even I can see how al Qaida operatives could use lower-level UAE government employees to gain access to DP World's paperwork, or security information that would allow al Qaida to infiltrate American ports. Even more, what if some of those UAE government employees even sympathize with al Qaida's causes? It is absurd not to take these scenarios into account, when considering this sale.

Incredible.