President Bush says that protecting the nation’s ports is a “solemn duty.”
But yesterday on Hardball, Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission, explained how President Bush failed to do what’s necessary to protect America’s ports, long before the UAE entered the picture. Watch it:

Kean explained to Matthews the gaping security holes at the nation’s ports: “[Y]ou and I can walk today into the port of New York. I don’t think there’s any question about that and get in areas where people shouldn’t get.”

The problems that Kean describes are part of a consistent pattern of neglect. The 9/11 Commission recently concluded that Bush’s cargo-screening efforts are “so far a near-failure.” The Coast Guard estimated in 2002 that it would cost $5.4 billion over 10 years to implement critical security improvements to the nations’ ports as mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. Bush asked for $46 million for fiscal year 2005, which was below pre-9/11 levels.

Full transcript below: Read more

From this morning’s Jerusalem Post:

The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The Jerusalem Post notes that “US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.” Once upon a time, opposing such boycotts was important to the Bush Administration. From the BBC, 5/11/02:

“The US government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted at Israel,” said Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster.

“The Commerce Department is closely monitoring efforts that appear to be made to reinvigorate the Arab boycott of Israel and will use all of its resources to vigorously enforce US anti-boycott regulations.”

…The Department of Commerce has issued more than $26m in fines and turned down export licenses to those found violating the law.

The boycott against Israel is an important distinction between P&O, the British company that currently operates 21 U.S. ports, and Dubai Ports World.

Bush says pulling out of Iraq would undermine our troops’ morale:

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. “¦ We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. [12/18/05]

U.S. troops say they want out of Iraq within a year:

A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq “” and soon. The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, “How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?” Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush’s position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” [NYT, 2/28/06]

American Progress has a plan that will drawdown the U.S. troop presence in Iraq within one year. If the troops support it, why can’t their Commander-in-Chief?

UPDATE: Zogby poll results here.

Donald Rumsfeld has been leading an effort to “reform” the Defense Department’s personnel system. On June 4, 2003, he testified to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs that the new system would preserve bargaining rights for Pentagon employees:

[T]he National Security Personnel System we are proposing…will not end collective bargaining. … To the contrary, the right of defense employees to bargain collectively would be continued. What it would do is bring collective bargaining to the national level so that the Department could negotiate with national unions instead of dealing with more than 1,300 different union locals, a process that is inefficient.

Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, the Homeland Security Department had already tried this scheme and been rejected. The judge in that case batted down the argument that government agencies can strip away bargaining rights in the interest of “flexibility”:

Congress made protection of the right to bargain collectively an independent statutory requirement. It did not give the Agencies discretion to sacrifice collective bargaining in the interests of flexibility, any more than it authorized them to rely upon “flexibility” to waive merit system principles or other rights.

Today, U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan agreed with the reasoning in the Homeland Security Department case. He rejected the argument made by Rumsfeld in 2003, finding that the new Pentagon personnel system violates the law:

[A]s was the case in Chertoff I, this Court concludes that…the new rule fails to ensure even minimal collective bargaining rights.

It’s a big victory for the 700,000 Pentagon employees working to defend our country, who deserve better than to have their own Defense Secretary trying to strip away their rights.

At today’s White House press briefing, Scott McClellan sought to assure the American public that the UAE’s ties to terrorism had been addressed prior to the ports deal:

This was a transaction that was closely scrutinized by national security experts who are involved in these decisions and by our intelligence community. The intelligence community provided an assessment. The Department of Homeland Security also worked to make sure any national security concerns were addressed, by entering into an agreement with the company and requiring some additional security assurances before it moved forward. But this was a consensus of all the relevant departments and agencies — there are some 12 altogether — that are part of that Committee on Foreign Investment.

But Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) today released an unclassified version of a document showing that the U.S. Coast Guard — located in the Department of Homeland Security — “cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations.” From the document:

There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential merger. … The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities.

The Bush administration’s defense of the deal continues to unravel.

UPDATE: Here is the Coast Guard memo.

UPDATE: VIDEO Read more

The administration is desperate to “avert an impending political showdown” with Congress about the UAE port deal. Over the weekend, the White House worked out an arrangement with Dubai Ports World whereby the company would “voluntarily” submit the sale of port operations to an additional 45-day review.

The showdown has not been averted. The review, under current law, would be meaningless. The report would be secret. Only President Bush and the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) would get to review it. Both Bush and CFIUS have already decided the deal does not present any national security concerns.

Today, a bipartisan group of 10 members of Congress will introduce legislation that will give the review some teeth. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) talked about the legislation this morning on Good Morning America:

SCHUMER: Well, I’m not sure we have a truce. Our legislation, which is bipartisan, five Democrats, five Republicans — we’ll introduce it today on the floor of the Senate — says do the 45-day review that’s necessary, but it also says give Congress, not just the president, the findings and let Congress have an opportunity — 30 days — to disapprove the deal. That’s what’s needed, because the president has already decided. He said he’s for it. So he has the verdict already, and now he’s having the trial.

Any member of Congress who supports a meaningful review of the transaction should support this legislation.

UPDATE: More details on the bill from Sen. Robert Menedez (D-NJ).

Make no mistake about it, the “face-saving” deal on the Dubai port imbroglio was concocted by the White House. It’s being spun to the press as a “offer” by Dubai Ports World. But the AP reports that “senior U.S. officials and DP World executives have closely coordinated their efforts in recent weeks.”

The deal is political, not substantive. It’s designed take some heat off the White House, not protect the security of the United States.

1. The deal would not actually be delayed. Dubai Ports World has just offered to alter its management structure until the review is completed. “The company said that during the renewed scrutiny, or until May 1, a London-based executive who is a British citizen would have authority over DP World’s U.S. operations. It pledged that Dubai executives would not control or influence company business in the U.S., but said it was entitled to all profits during the period.”

2. If the outcome is different, Dubai Ports World said it may sue. “In the legal papers sent to the White House, DP World said it would abide by the outcome of the lengthier review but indicated it could sue if the results were any different.”

3. The administration has already made up their mind. Unless Congress has a role, it’s meaningless. “[Sen. Chuck] Schumer said Congress should have a chance after the review to approve or reject the administration’s decision. ‘If the report is completed and kept secret and only given to the president, who has already come out for the deal, it will not reassure Americans,’ Schumer said.”

Reasonable people can disagree about whether it makes sense to have the UAE run operations at U.S. ports. But the proposed ‘compromise’ is fundamentally dishonest.

There are reasonable arguments for and against the sale of U.S. port operations to the UAE. But there is a 45-day investigation for such transactions that is required by law. The administration should conduct the review because its legally mandatory and important for the security of the United States.

The scheme that is being concocted as a face-saving measure for the administration is absurd. The administration would conduct the 45-day review — but only because the UAE requested it. From Meet the Press:

SEN. WARNER: And this is a copy of the agreement which is now being delivered to the administration and to members of Congress. And it really spells out unequivocally the willingness of this country””excuse me, this company, to give every means of support to help work this thing out.

It says, “DP World and POPNA,” that’s the British, “jointly request,” now, they’re requesting, that’s a key thing, “that the CFIUS process on a nonprecedential basis to conduct an aview””review full and 45 days for the acquisition.” So there it all is. And I…

MR. RUSSERT: So the company is requesting a 45-day review investigation …

SEN. WARNER: That’s correct. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

This is too much even for right-wing pundit Charles Krauthammer, who supports the deal. From this morning on Fox News:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I love how the company is on its own asking for a new review. It sounds like a Soviet show trial in which the defendant says I would like to request that the court indict me again.

Obviously, this is a cover the administration is cooking up to allow it to save the face and say we didn’t ask for a second review.

The point here is simple: the United States government should determine what kind of review is required, not the UAE royal family.

This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) argued that concern over the Dubai port sale is misplaced since the UAE is freer than that beacon of liberty, China.

I think our priorities are misplaced. We’ve got a tremendous crisis in Iraq, that I’m happy to say the religious clerics have stood up against this violence. We’ve got the Iranian threat. We have got Nigerian oil at stake. We had an attack on a Saudi oil installation. We’ve got some very, very big issues that I think are perhaps more important than whether a country that’s freer than China should have control of some of our terminals.

According to the Freedom House’s 2006 Global Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties, China scores the worst rating (7) for political rights and a 6 for civil liberties. Overall, it receives a rating of “Not Free.” It’s actually a feat to be less free than China — only 7 countries of 192 do it.

The UAE is also rated “Not Free,” scoring a 6 for both political rights and civil liberties. Some other human rights bastions who are “freer than China”: Iran, the Congo, Cote d’Iviore, and Rwanda.

Bottom line: There are reasonable arguments for why the ports sale should go through. Freedom in the United Arab Emirates is not one of them.

Conservative columnist George Will this morning on ABC’s This Week:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What does civil war look like?

WILL: This. This is a civil war.

Later, Will even questioned whether Iraq can truly be said to have a government:

Now, does Iraq have a government? Let me just postulate the question. A government exists when it has a reasonable monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. As long as the militias are out there, the existence of an Iraqi government is questionable. Think of Los Angeles. If Los Angeles said the Bloods and the Crips are going to be tolerated, they’re going to be armed and police their areas and enforce the law in certain areas, what sense would Los Angeles have of government?

Full transcript below: Read more

Today is the birthday of our nation’s first President, George Washington.

Realizing that he was walking on “untrodden ground,” George Washington was careful to consider how his actions as President could define the office of the United States Presidency for generations to come.

For example, Washington rejected the title a Senate Committee proposed for him – “His Highness the President of the United States and Protector of the Rights of the Same” — in favor of the more familiar “Mr. President.”

An important distinction. And a helpful reminder to the current occupant of the White House that he, too, is President — and not King — George.

– Jennifer Palmieri

In contrast to many bloggers, I believe the bipartisan cry that our national security has been outsourced to the United Arab Emirates is misguided. The fact that the argument is gaining steam underscores the reality that politicians can still successfully politicize 9/11 by using the manipulative politics of fear.

This issue has little, if anything, to do with national security and far more to do with politics. Xenophobic conservatives have found allies with liberals on this issue because liberals are a) looking for any opening to criticize Bush on national security; and, b) think they can do that by outflanking Bush to the right on this issue and therefore sound “tougher” and “stronger.” The blogosphere, being somewhat insulated from political pressures, should have a more thorough discussion of this issue.

We have instead been largely engaged in a disingenuous debate. Following the lead of President Jimmy Carter, progressives can and should embrace the reality of globalization and accept that our more inter-connected world affords us an opportunity to build mutual respect and understanding. Some key points: Read more

Human Rights First just released a report concluding that since Aug. 2002, 98 detainees have died while in U.S. custody in the global war on terror. “According to the U.S. military’s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention.” The report also found that officials often failed to report the deaths and “effective punishment has been too little and too late.”

Yesterday on BBC Newsnight, Bush administration apologist David Rivkin defended the administration’s practice of torture. He argued that even if the report is true, torturing people to death is no big deal. Watch the exchange here.

BBC: If that [HRF report] is true, then this is a big scandal.

RIVKIN: No, with all due respect, it is not. … Let’s assume that 10 individuals were tortured to death. And again, I’m not conceding it to be the case. Let’s assume for the sake of a discussion that this is the case. The biggest problem of criticis like Deborah and most other criticis, is that terrible historical amnesia and a failure of perspective. Ten people were tortured to death out of over 100,000 detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. That, according to my math, is 1,000th of 1 percent, which is a better rate than the situation in either Vietnam, WWI, or WWII, or most civilian penal systems. So from a standpoint of sheer numbers, it’s not a scandal. Unfortunately, bad things happen in detention. Bad things happen in confinement.

When the President insists, “We do not torture,” reserves the right to bypass a ban on torture, and then fails to punish officials who do torture, there’s something like a scandal going on.

Dubai World Ports is controlled by the royal family of the United Arab Emirates. Atrios notes this morning that former CIA director Tenet told the 9/11 commission that the United States did not target Bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in February 1999 because he was meeting with the UAE royal family.

Here are some more details on the incident from the 9/11 commission. Here’s Tenet’s March 24, 2004 testimony:

MR. TENET:…The third complicating factor here is, you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I’m sure entered into everybody’s calculation in all this.

More details from the 9/11 Staff Report:

On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike. The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely…According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11…No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by.

Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke expressed concern about the UAE royal family’s relationship with Bin Laden:

On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin…The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem…

This information only underscores why the administration should have fully investigated the sale, as required by law, before approving it.

In ordinary cases of foreign direct investment the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) first conducts a 30-day “review” of the transaction. After the review, the committee makes a judgment as to whether a 45-day “investigation” is necessary to address national security concerns.

The law, however, was amended in 1993. That amendment makes the 45-day investigation mandatory in cases like the Dubai World Ports transfer. From the CFIUS website:

The Dubai World Ports purchase triggers the automatic investigation. First, the company is “controlled” by a foreign government. Second, it’s undeniable that port operations “could affect the national security of the United States.”

Yet, the investigation never happened. Bush administration officials “could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.”

In a press briefing today, Secretary Rumsfeld revealed that he was not consulted about the decision to transfer operations of six key U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates, a country with troubling ties to international terrorism.

QUESTION: Are you confident that any problems with security — from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company?

RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend.

Rumsfeld’s statement was particularly troubling because Dubai Ports World, owned and operated by the UAE government, will also take over a major contract managing the movement of military equipment for the U.S. Army. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, who was at the briefing, also said he found out about the deal over the weekend. The deal was approved on February 13.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed the Defense Department was part of “a rigorous review…for national security concerns.” If so, why were two of the Department’s top officials not even informed, much less consulted?

UPDATE: Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is a member of Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. As such, he was one of the people who, according to the Treasury Department, unanimously approved the sale on February 13. How could do that when he didn’t even find out about the sale until last weekend?

Today, President Bush visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado where this month 32 employees were laid off due to a $28 million budget cut. Given the political embarrassment that would result from Bush’s trip to the lab, the Secretary of Energy announced just a day before Bush’s visit that all the jobs would be restored.

The NREL employees were fired seven days after Bush’s State of the Union address in which he stated that we need to break our oil addiction through technology. NREL, according to the Department of Energy, is the “premier laboratory for renewable energy research and development and a leading laboratory for energy efficiency R&D.” Given his flip-floppish actions, many were anxious to hear what Bush would tell the staffers at NREL. From the AP:

President Bush on Tuesday acknowledged that Washington has sent “mixed signals” to one of the nation’s premiere labs studying renewable energies “” by first laying off, then reinstating, 32 workers just before his visit.

Mixed signals? That’s exactly what Bush promised he wouldn’t do if he were re-elected.

I understand the consequence of sending mixed signals. [10/26/04]

Mixed signals are the wrong signals for the American President to send. [10/30/04]

Mixed signals have become the hallmark of this administration’s energy policy. After stating that he would cut our addiction to oil in the State of the Union, Bush then sent a budget to Congress that included cuts for research in fuel efficiency. After saying that he would replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East, the administration then said the President’s words should not be taken literally.

There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.”

A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List:

[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.

According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.”

Thus, the sale would give a country that has been “a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia” direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment.

Today on CNN’s Late Edition, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff refused to explain why the administration has turned over control of operations at six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, a country with dubious ties to international terrorism:

The discussions are classified. I can’t get into the specifics here…As far as my agency is concerned, port security really rests principally with the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection.

In other words, don’t worry about it, the Coast Gaurd has it covered. Kim Petersen, president of the largest maritime security consulting company in the United States, SeaSecure, disagrees:

Port security is a big problem, Petersen said, because the Coast Guard does not have enough resources for the waters close to ports.

“It doesn’t have either the people or the necessary physical resources to provide the in-water patrols that are so desperately needed,” he said.

Sounds like Chertoff has the whole situation under control.

Today, on CBS’s Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer pressed Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) about his views on Bush’s illegal NSA surveillance program. Frist, who famously flaunts the fact that he holds a medical degree, didn’t hestitate to share his legal diagnosis:

FRIST: I believe the program — I know the program is constitutional — that it is legal –

SCHIEFFER: Alright, let me just stop you, and let me just get back to the question that I asked you. Since you know all about it, as you’re one of the 8 who knows more about it than the others, do you think that the whole situation needs to be brought under the control of the court? Do you think we either need new laws to do that or do you think it’s ok to just keep going as you’re going?

FRIST: Does it have to be thrown over to the courts, going back to the question you just asked? I don’t think so. I personally don’t think so.

SCHIEFFER: You don’t think that the court needs to issue a court order before they do that?

FRIST: No.

While Frist was busy parroting the White House view, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who served six-and-a-half years of service on active duty as an Air Force lawyer, suggested the program is illegal and needs to be brought before a court:

GRAHAM: I am adamant that the courts have some role when it comes to warrants. If you’re going to follow an American citizen around for an extended period of time, believing they’re collaborating with the enemy, at some point in time you need to get some judicial review because mistakes can be made.

If there is anyone who should understand that mistakes can be made, it’s Bill Frist.

UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has the video.