Portgate Update

It was Nietzsche who said, "No one is such a liar as the indignant man." Substitute "recklessly naive" for "liar," and I'm not sure whether that applies more to the scoffing defenders of the Dubai Ports World deal or the President who knee-jerkedly defended it against reasonable and understandable criticism without knowing the first thing about it.

And, of course, politically deaf - a lot more so than DPW itself, which has shown in recent days just how badly it wants the deal to go through:

The Bush Administration said Sunday it will accept an extraordinary offer by a United Arab Emirates-based company to submit to a second — and broader — U.S. review of potential security risks in its deal to take over significant operations at six leading American ports. The plan averts an impending political showdown.

The Treasury Department said in a statement it will promptly begin the review once the company formally files a request for one. It said the same government panel that earlier investigated the deal but found no reason for national security concerns will reconsider it. ...

The announcement means the White House likely won't face a revolt by fellow Republicans when lawmakers return Monday from a weeklong break. A united Republican Party can assert that its leaders — both in Congress and at the White House — have taken additional steps to protect national security.

Why DPW wants this deal so bad beyond the multi-billions involved I'll leave to conjecture. Perhaps part of that is to put Bush in their debt by helping to dig him out of his self-burial, never a bad thing for a Muslim government to have over an infidel.

There are two other problems with the quote above, though. (1) CFIUSA didn't "find no reason for national security concerns" - they never sought a national security review of the deal at all; and (2) Dubaian obeisance didn't even slow down the revolt of GOP lawmakers against the White House:

Tensions between Republican lawmakers and the White House have reached an all-time high, say Republicans on Capitol Hill.

President Bush's sagging poll numbers, the Administration's handling of the Dubai port deal and lingering bad memories of Harriet Miers' failed Supreme Court nomination have left a broad spectrum of Republicans on Capitol Hill with little good will toward the White House.

"I was offended," Senator Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, said of Mr. Bush's threat last week to veto legislation aimed at stopping the transfer of port operations to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. He said Mr. Bush "threatened me before I even knew the details of what was involved or whether I was going to vote for the bill or not."

Mr. Lott said his immediate reaction was: "OK, big boy, I'll just vote to override your veto."

He called the White House, he said, to advise Administration officials that they'd run afoul of some of their strongest allies in Congress.

"Don't threaten me like that again," said the former majority leader, recounting the conversation with an official he declined to name. "It doesn't make a difference if you're a Republican or a Democrat. Don't put your fist in my face. Where I'm from, we're willing to fight back."

In both the House and Senate, Republicans say they've never seen relations with the Bush Administration more strained.

"This has been a tipping point for the relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill," said one House Republican staffer. "No longer will Republicans simply fall into line on major issues when they disagree with the President."

Context, as they say, is everything. Leadership is more than just issuing orders and making threats. You don't get ideas and policies over by autocratic imposition. They must be sold with recognition of the fact that the legislators to whom you're selling them will, ultimately, be in Washington, D.C. a lot longer than you will.

Sure, Trent Lott thinks he has an axe to grind with Bush over his own well-earned fall from leadership grace, but his point is still well taken. Dubya could get away with announcing policies without making the public case for them in his first term, when his approval numbers were still in the post-9/11 stratosphere. Those days are long gone, and while his polling isn't as low as Bushophobes like the ones at CBS ludicrously claim, getting so alacritously on the wrong side of this port security issue has undone all the progress the White House made since the Alito SCOTUS nomination and the much-balleyhooed "push back" campaign on the war:

Bottom line, this ports fiasco has been a political fiasco for the White House. The Cheney shooting accident was a trumped-up political story that inflicted no real damage on Bush; the Dubai deal is a completely different story. This seemingly obscure business deal and its impact could be the single biggest political story of 2006, and unlike Abramoff or Katrina or Scooter Libby, Dubai Ports World could be the catalyst the Democrats have been seeking for a big 2006.

And why is that, aside from lingering Pachyderm disgruntlement on Capitol Hill? Because the "security concerns" about the DPW deal aren't going away.

Here's a sampling:

Gaffney: Who Is Financing Ports Deal?

Among the key questions being asked by Frank Gaffney is where the billions of dollars needed to close the transaction for DP World will come from....

"DPW has got to raise between $6.5 billion and $6.8 billion on the capital markets to finance the deal. When investors put up that kind of money, there's bound to be some quid pro quo. Likely included, for instance, would be a demand to have more involvement in the affairs of the company. Where exactly is this money coming from – Iran, Saudi Arabia? When you factor this in, it compounds an already worrisome potential.

Expert: Jihadists Can Infiltrate Dubai Ports World

A terrorism expert has revealed a chilling scenario of just how Jihadists could deeply penetrate Dubai Ports World, the embattled United Arab Emirates company that is poised to take over operations at many key U.S. maritime terminals.

Dr. Walid Phares, terrorism and Mideast expert and senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, told MSNBC: "In the Dubai World ports agreement, the issue is about how successful can the Jihadists be in penetrating the company in the U.A.E. If they can infiltrate it - which is most likely - they will be able to infiltrate the U.S."...

"First, the enemy will penetrate from the U.A.E. end, aided by Salafi or even Khumeinist sympathizers. This first line of defense could be breached by hiring elements to form a network inside the company, or subcontracted ‘hostile' entities in the future.

"Second, while moving inside the layers of the management the ‘net' could then hire elements coming from the American side. If we project that Jihadists are operating inside the U.S., a U.A.E. company managing six main U.S. ports would be a first rate opportunity for them to ‘connect.'

"Hence, one can project that once a network installs itself inside the corporation, it would be able to recruit U.S. citizens and residents [who are] sympathizers with or part of the movement. A bridge would thus be established between the outside cells and the inside cells through a perfectly legitimate outlet."

As to the enemy's end-game in the expert's sobering scenario, Phares writes: "Action would come once the bridge is operational. It could develop into multiple directions. General intelligence and spying in the U.S. is only one possibility. Storing material in these sensitive areas is two. Learning about the security systems in these ports from the administrative end is three. Disrupting national security operations is four. The deeper the layers, the wider possibilities would open to the Jihadists. But the initial ‘hole' is what allows the chain to develop."

Coast Guard Alert

(Associated Press) - Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

"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," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

Interestingly, Mark Levin's Houston Chronicle link indicates this AP article was pulled from their website, and the Coast Guard was quick in issuing a press release denying any and all of the above, reasserting the Administration line that the DPW deal is really, honest, no-foolin' no national security threat at all.

Is it any wonder that this "deal" has such a stink to it that no amount of PR scrubbing can make go away? And that congressional Republicans are disembarking their trunks from their counterpart at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and are eager to shove this issue back down his throat with a veto override?

UPDATE 3/3: National Review editors must be reading HS....