"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 [British] company"...
...[T]he president — backed by Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff —
insisted that the deal has been properly vetted and all
security concerns have been met.
DUBYA JEOPARDY
February 22, 2006 -- At last: A uniter, not a divider.
There stood President Bush yesterday, vowing to veto legislation that would prevent a company owned by the United Arab Emirates from taking operational control of six of the nation's ports — including New York and New Jersey.
Arrayed against him: Elected officials of both parties, including solid blocks in Congress, officials from states potentially put at risk by the deal — and Mayor Bloomberg.
On Bush's side: Jimmy Carter, all by his deservedly lonesome self. ("The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists" said the man who so famously failed to prevent the fall of Iran to Islamic fundamentalism.)
That alone should give Bush serious second thoughts, about:
* The indefensible deal entered into with the UAE company; and,
* The fundamentally foolish position the administration has taken in its wake.
What is the president thinking?
Does George W. Bush really mean to use his first veto, after more than five years in office, on a bill that has Republicans and Democrats marching in lock-step — on national-security grounds?
Especially since there's an excellent chance the veto would be overridden?
We confess that we're as perplexed as everyone else at Bush's determination to allow Dubai Ports World to take control of the nation's key seaports.
To Bush, this is all a matter of anti-Arab profiling: "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 [British] company," which last week was sold to the UAE firm.
With all due respect, Mr. President, here's why:
* The UAE — and, specifically, Dubai — has been a breeding ground for terrorism.
* Its banking system — considered the commercial center of the Arab world — provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers.
* It continues to stonewall the U.S. Treasury Department's efforts to track al Qaeda's bank accounts.
* Some of the operational planning for 9/11 took place inside the UAE.
* It exchanged ambassadors with the Taliban when the latter subjugated Afghanistan.
* And it trans-shipped weapons to Iran.
Nor does it matter, as Bush said yesterday, that port security still would be controlled by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Security at the ports is already lax enough; there's no need to bring in another compromising element to what has been America's most vulnerable point of entry, post-9/11.
Which is why protests yesterday reached a bipartisan tidal wave.
Indeed, this isn't just partisan posturing or Bush-bashing.
Not surprisingly, congressional Democrats are against the contract.
But so are the Republican governors of New York and Maryland, George Pataki and Bob Ehrlich.
And the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate, Bill Frist.
And the Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert.
And the GOP chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Susan Collins of Maine.
And the GOP chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Peter King of Long Island.
Meanwhile, taking Pataki's lead, New Jersey's Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine yesterday announced plans to move against the deal in both state and federal courts.
More power to him.
True, the president — backed by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — insisted that the deal has been properly vetted and all security concerns have been met.
But the details of that vetting remain classified.
Moreover, Chertoff has insisted that the UAE contract is part of a "balancing of security . . . with the need to maintain a real robust global trading environment" — hardly cause for reassurance.
President Bush insists that blocking this deal "sends the wrong message" to a country that is trying to help the U.S. fight terror.
But it sends an even worse message to Americans who wonder how safe they will be when their ports are controlled by a country that is — at best — a late convert to that cause.
Speaking of messages, Rep. King — as staunch a friend of the president as there is in the House — was asked by The Post's Deborah Orin whether there are enough votes in Congress to override a veto on the ports.
King, reports Orin, "took a deep breath and said: 'Yes.' "
That's a message Bush needs to hear.
nypost.com |
