Some may buy Sen. Hillary Clinton’s line that she opposed the deal because it would have endangered “our nation’s security.” Perhaps a few more may buy into Speaker Hastert’s line that his opposition was based on concern for the “safety of our children.” Others may believe that it’s all about politics. Hillary wants to be president-elect in 2008, while Hastert doesn’t want to wake up on November 8 to headlines of Speaker-elect Pelosi. So who is right? Well, in the coming weeks, here are some things to look for to separate the phony opponents from those genuinely concerned about national security. Each year millions of containers are off-loaded at US ports. But a port’s vulnerability doesn’t begin at docking. It’s just as vulnerable as soon as a ship enters its harbor. Hundreds of containers are on a ship, so a weaponized one buried deep inside isn’t likely to be detected before detonation. That’s why the Bush administration created the Container Security Initiative to monitor US-bound cargo as it’s loaded onto a ship at a foreign port. DP World’s takeover of the British firm, P & O, will add about two-dozen foreign ports to their current operations, which span the globe. Following the logic of Clinton & Hastert, DP World’s management of these ports will add security risk to U.S. ports. Shouldn’t opponents of the deal now raise hell in Congress for a separate security regime for all ships entering US ports that have docked at a DP World foreign port beforehand? And if congressional opponents are so concerned about port security, will they end their pork barrel spending that leads to ridiculous results, such as the one described in this 60 Minutes episode in July 2005?
Don’t count on it.
