Protecting Our Ports - Now With Credibility!

Thank you, Senator First.

As blogged by Dr. Frist himself on the Volunteer Political Action Committee (VOLPAC) website, on the topic of the planned acquisition by UAE's state run Dubai Ports World of a British firm that runs six major U.S. sea ports:

News that a Middle-East based firm is seeking to purchase the operating rights to several U.S. ports - from New York to New Orleans - raise serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

Post 9/11 prudence warrants - at the very least - a more extensive review of this matter. As Ronald Reagan used to say: 'trust, but verify.' And that's what we need to do. The simple fact is, there's no such thing as being 'too careful' in a post 9/11 world.

As of today, I'm requesting briefings on this deal. If the Administration does not put the deal on hold, I will introduce legislation doing so ... to ensure that this decision gets a more thorough review.

Common sense warrants it; our national security requires it.

I expect to be discussing this issue in greater detail this evening when I appear on Hannity & Colmes. I hope you will tune in. Much more to follow in the days ahead...

Thank you for addressing this issue in an aggressive, yet deliberate manner.  And thank you especially for giving us a more appropriate central figure around which to rally in this effort.  The hypocritical posturing lately displayed by Senators Clinton, Schumer, and others, in a transparent farce of an attempt to appear tough on security, now that they for the first time seemed to have an issue on which they could blast the Bush administration while so doing, was beginning to sicken me.

"But, Flip," you ask, "couldn't you support sensible pro-security initiatives, even if they were undertaken by Democrats?"

Sure, I support what Clinton, Schumer, and their safety-come-lately ilk were suggesting (namely that the sale of the majority stake of the company that controls these ports needs to be blocked, or at least further studied).  What sickens me is the idea that they want us to believe such suggestions were representative of their actual positions on national security.  The newfound zeal for protecting our homeland was borne of nothing more than political expedience.  Why else would these legislators so regularly vote against our security, in instances when the administration is more squarely on the pro-security side?  Make no mistake, their positions are driven almost exclusively by a directive of blind opposition, rather than any affirmative, principled agenda.

Consider their voting records and public statements in recent months.

• Both Hillary and Chuck voted (successfully) to filibuster reauthorization of the Patriot Act in December.
• Hillary has made clear that she feels the protections offered by the Patriot Act are too broad-based and fail to "strike a balance" between safety and freedom.
• Both Hillary and Chuck signed the "Declare a withdrawal timeline for Iraq" letter to the President in December.
• Both Hillary and Chuck voted to give terrorists extra legal protections in November.
• Both Hillary and Chuck voted (successfully) to filibuster a key defense spending bill in July.
• Chuck declared on behalf of two thirds of Americans that we were going in the wrong direction in Iraq that same month on CNN.

If that doesn't tell the tale, consider their support ratings with two of the major national security interest groups for 2003-2004:

• Schumer
  Center for Security Policy: 22%
  American Security Council: 10%
• Clinton
  Center for Security Policy: 28%
  American Security Council: 20%

And for comparison:

• Frist
  Center for Security Policy: 94%
  American Security Council: 100%

The control of our ports is an important security issue that does indeed need to be kept on a leash shorter than would likely be possible in the hands of a country with as worrisome historic connections as the UAE.  It's fully appropriate for the Senate leadership to lead this corrective initiative and I'm glad to see Senator Frist is doing so.  But in no small part am I further pleased that the badge of homeland protection falsely worn during this episode by purely opportunistic Senators like Clinton and Schumer may now be stripped.

Elsewhere:  La Shawn Barber, Macsmind, Michelle Malkin, Expose the Left, Pundit Guy, Sister Toldjah

---

Update: The President has now made his support for the deal amply clear, noting, "It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world."

Bush said he would veto any Congressional bill that would block the deal.

Fresh Bloggerreax: Blogs for Bush, Michelle Malkin, Publius Rendezvous, Junkyard Blog

---

Update II:  For more cold, quantitative evidence of Chuck and Hillary's indifference toward national security, see Scatterbrained.