A Harriet Miers moment (Gaffney on UAE Port Deal)

The federal bureaucracy has made a strategic mistake that threatens to cost the President dearly. The question is not whether the ill-advised decision taken last week by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (known by its acronym, CFIUS, pronounced syphius) will be undone. Rather, the question is: By whom -- and at what political cost to Mr. Bush?

In the latest of a series of approvals of questionable foreign takeovers of American interests, CFIUS has given the green light to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to acquire contracts to manage port facilities in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The company, Dubai Ports World, would do so by purchasing a British concern, Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (“P and O”).

Experts have long identified America’s sea ports as weak links in the chain of our homeland security. With their proximity to major U.S. population centers, expensive infrastructure vital to the regional and, in many cases, national economy and their throughput of large quantities of poorly monitored cargo, they are prime targets for terror.

As a result, a case can be made that it is a mistake to have foreign entities responsible for any aspect of such ports, including the management of their docks, stevedore operations and terminals. After all, that duty affords abundant opportunities to insinuate personnel and/or shipping containers that can pose a threat to this country. Even though the company in question may not be directly responsible for port security, at least some of their employees have to be read in on the relevant plans, potentially compromising the latter irreparably.

At least the previous foreign contractors were from Britain, a country that was on our side before September 11, 2001. The same cannot be said of the United Arab Emirates, whose territory was used for most of the planning and financing of the 9/11 attacks. While the UAE’s government is currently depicted as a friend and ally in the so-called war on terror, its country remains awash with Islamofascist recruiters and adherents – people all too willing to exploit any new opportunity to do us harm.

Since a column raising an alarm about CFIUS’ decision appeared in this space last week, three new factors have come to light that compound the strategic folly of the UAE deal:

O First, in addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World – on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. How much would our enemies like to be able to sabotage such shipments?

O Second, while advocates of the stealthy CFIUS decision-making process point to the involvement of the Defense Department in its DP World decision, it is unclear at what level this bizarre proposition was reviewed in the Pentagon. Many top jobs remain unfilled by presidential appointees. Past experience suggests the job may have fallen to lower-level career bureaucrats who give priority to maintaining good relations with their foreign “clients,” like the UAE.

O Then, there is the matter of financing the DP World takeover of Peninsula and Oriental. The UAE evidently intends to raise nearly all of the $6.8 billion price for P and O on international capital markets. It must be asked: Who will the foreign investors be, and might they have malign intentions towards the U.S.? If American sources of capital are being sought, will the possible danger this transaction may create for this country be properly disclosed? For that matter, will the underwriters, Barclays and Deutchebank, reveal to prospective funders the real risk that the deal will ultimately fall through?

In fact, that seems virtually certain now that talk radio, the blogosphere and the public have become aware of – and white hot about – this transaction. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and of Capitol Hill have made known their determination to prevent the transfer of control of U.S. ports to the UAE. In particular, Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have been quick to seize on this issue as an opportunity to burnish their national security credentials at the expense of President Bush and his party.

So, the question recurs: How long will it take before Mr. Bush cuts his losses? This could be accomplished in one of three ways: He could reverse the decision himself (perhaps by directing CFIUS to reconsider its initial recommendation). He could encourage and sign into law legislation barring foreign ownership or management of U.S. port facilities (akin to the rules governing other critical infrastructure). Or he could quietly encourage the UAE to do as Communist China did last year with respect to the Unocal purchase – withdraw the offer itself, sparing the country in question (and its friends here) the embarrassment of having its behavior carefully scrutinized and its offer spurned in a high-profile way.

Call it a Harriet Meirs moment. Politics being the art of the possible, it is time to recognize that the Dubai Ports World deal is neither strategically sensible nor politically doable. It is time to pull the plug, and to reform the secretive interagency CFIUS process that allowed this fiasco in the first place.

"The Republicans still can't lead, even with majority control of the House, Senate and White House. How big of a majority does it take for the Republicans? That goalpost always seems to keep moving after each election. For example, 50 Senators plus the VP wasn't enough in 00, 55 weren't enough in 04. Dems never seemed to have a problem when they had a majority of 1. Heck, they can stymy the Senate with a minority of 40."

And THAT falls on the Preseident to "LEAD."

What's particularly annoying is despite controlling both Houses and the Oval Office, the GOP actually retreats ideologically, instead of taking the bull by the horns and becoming more conservative.

Aaah, but that only proves they are LESS interested in promoting conservatism and MORE interested in power and globalism.

Coast Guard and customs under homeland secuity with local law enforcement have total control over security.

The cargo comes in and the coast guard and customs at the ports inspect all the cargo. Then if there are any furhter red flags they further inspect. That is where you get that 5 percent number from.

This dubai company will have no control over port security.

They are in an administrative role after the inspections.

They operate the terminal not the port. Local law enforcment and homeland security also have security over the terminal.

Homeland Security does the background check for anyone that the company hires.

This company after the inspections administravely looks after some leased containers at the terminal with security by local law enforcement and the feds.

In reality this company will have nothing to do with security or the inspections.

Instead of wanting to wiretap our real enemies politicians are grandstanding a non issue.

Now I don't like it because these facts will never get out and it will hurt Bush but the reality is it is a non issue.

This company has had the same arragenements at the terminals in the ports at the uk for years.

Also this company is what the middle east should be like. Much more moderate and the grandstanding will only play into the radicals argument of going after all arabs.

This isn't a security issue because the security will be done by the feds and local law enforcment. Lou Dobbs hates any free trade.

Also the law congress wrote says there has to be a flagrant violation to kill the deal.

Out of 15,000 deals only one has been rejected.

And unlike the china company who pulled out of their deal this would be a huge deal for this company and they are very greedy about money in dubai.

Bush is trashing any chances Republicans have of retaining control of the House and Senate. He's also jeopardizing Republican chances of winning in 2008. In my state, Rick Santorum is being undermined largely because of his close association with Bush and the Republican power structure.

I hope Bush doesn't turn out to be a Nixon redux in terms of his damage to the party. True Conservatives should oppose his nutty ideas for the good of the country. Get a leash on him ASAP.

The article cited below is basically "for" the sale to the UAE company and it makes some very good points. One of which is that Bush may not have the power under currently existing law to stop this sale. However, it also mentions that many (or maybe all) of the port operations consist of long-term leases of the port facilities by the States in question (NY, NJ, MD, etc) to the company providing the port operation services. Most long-term leases I am familiar with have a "consent to assignment" clause. If these do, the States may be able to refuse consent to the transfer of the lessee's interest from the British company to the UAE company.

http://sea2sea.blogspot.com/2006/02/uae-port-operations-perspective-and.html

'CNN leading with this story tonight. and listening to the radio news across the dial tonight - we are getting killed on this story. killed."

The same media that refuses to show the Towers burning on each anniversary of 9/11 is dusting off the videos and showing them non stop, tonight.
Plus photos of the hijackers and their connection to the UAE.
This is a PR disaster for the White House , it cannot be spun otherwise.

You don't have any control over congress without 60 votes in the senate. And you better have a bigger margin in the house than having the balance of power being chris shays northeastern rinos.

When the dems can filibuster anwr, miguel estrada, estate tax, medical liability reform you have no control.

There is no such thing as a majority without 60 votes in the senate.

Dems filibustered social security by sending a letter to bush with 42 dems saying no to a deal.

Republicans are in the worst position. They need Harry Reid's approval on any bill and yet the public has the perception of them having power.

If you can't have 60 votes in the senate with a big enough margin in the house to take away the chris shays affect then you are better giving up the fake power.

If you don't have 60 votes in the senate the congress is in nuetral mode. There is no majority when the dems can block any judge or legislation with only 41`votes.

I certainly don't think they should and I hope that this is just a false rumor. But, Kuwait is a Middle Eastern country and therefore, in my mind, unpredictable. And, if the rumor that the talk show host spoke about were true, it could be that there is collaboration among Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar. All just speculation though.

I have been a supporter of the President for a long time and I still am. I must say however his attempt to place Ms. Miers on the SC was a terrible blunder.

Now this UAE contract defies logic. For the sake of our national security, and for the sake of retaining political support for the war on terror, he has to stop the UAE contract from going forward.

Now this UAE contract defies logic. For the sake of our national security, and for the sake of retaining political support for the war on terror, he has to stop the UAE contract from going forward.

You should actually read up before posting. DPWorld legitmately bought out P&O(that now runs container operations at some US ports) and the P&O shareholders approved the deal. Bush had nothing to do with the deal and is now in a sticky situation becuase DPWorld(that employs many Americans in it's management and Board of Directors) has legitmately bought P&O and this is being ginned up by the press which isn't telling you the whole story.

the press which isn't telling you the whole story.

With all due respect, Sir, I don't give a damn about that. The award of this contract to UAE is politically suicidal. It's Nixonian. Aside from that it's severely damaging to our national security, if even in a perceptual sense. It cannot be allowed to stand.

Then what is your solution, paying billions to DPWorld to take over their assets, or shut down their ports and put a dent in the economy.

Good as long as it is shot down

Good as long as it's shot down?

These containers are loaded in all parts of the world. These containers are then transported by land in all parts of the world to some foreign port. The foreign port(terminal) operator then loads these containers on to some foreign owned steamship. This foreign owned steamship after possibly making stops in other foreign ports finally arrives at one of the American ports in question and pulls into the terminal.

All is "good" so far right?

But hold on now. We've got this UAE terminal company who is going to move these container a total distance of a few hundred feet from the ship to the truck under the control of the US CBP and all hell breaks loose.

Never mind that these containers were loaded by a bunch of foreigners. Never mind that these containers were trucked by foreigners. Never mind that these containers passed through some foreign export terminal, traveled on some foreign steamship and sit -- *boom* -- right at the shoreline of Newark, Baltimore, New Orleans and all the other ports.

It's the moving of these containers a few hundred feet under the domain of U.S. CBP agents from ship to truck by a company that is UAE owned that's the problem and gosh darn-it Schmucky, Hillary and Peter (Superbowl-buds-with-Bubba) King is gonna fix it all.

"DPWorld legitmately bought out P&O(that now runs container operations at some US ports) and the P&O shareholders approved the deal."

You should be saying that DPWorld has made a contractual offer to purchase, which has been voted upon by shareholders and approved, but not yet approved by the British courts; nor has the proposed acquisition been approved by parties to the assignation of any pertinent lease(s) in the United States, which is subject to review at the state and national level, and has not yet been approved by any of the affected parties.

So, the sale itself is not yet approved, and the assignation / retention of leases in the six US port operations in question has not yet been approved, so you're getting way, way ahead of yourself here.

"Republicans are in the worst position. They need Harry Reid's approval on any bill and yet the public has the perception of them having power."

Majorities in BOTH Houses and the Presidency and that's "perception" of "power"?? And it's Reid who pulls the strings?

Your answer evokes a simple question:

Then what the h#ll is the point?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.