From the LI Business News:

Tin ear, hubris forces port misjudgment

By Alfonse D'Amato

Friday, March 3, 2006

It has been said before that in the second term of a presidential administration some staff members of the White House begin to lose their focus. Yet in an era when this nation faces unprecedented threats and strategic challenges, this White House does not have that luxury.

By the very nature of how sea borne goods and products arrive in bulk, our nation’s port security is porous as it is. Despite assurances that the state-run Dubai Ports World would undergo considerable scrutiny, why would this administration add a considerable new element of risk given that the United Arab Emirates has been a breeding ground for terrorists? This incredible misjudgment suggests a Washington Beltway strangling in its own hubris.

It remains incomprehensible to many Republicans that a Bush presidency so committed to a vigorous defense of our homeland would allow a firm run by the United Arab Emirates to manage ports that include those in New York and New Orleans. Wasn’t there anyone who looked at the paperwork and said, “Wait a minute – this idea is ludicrous?” More to the point, who was the staffer who decided this wasn’t important enough to alert the president? That individual should be updating his or her resume.

In a genuine test of leadership, Rep. Peter King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, told the nation Washington “cannot consider approving this contract until a much more thorough investigation takes place on this security matter.” His strategy has allowed the administration to take a deep breath, step back from its harsh confrontational rhetoric and conduct a top-down internal review of this debacle. The administration will need to proceed carefully because King has enormous credibility and, while a proud Republican, he will speak his mind and act boldly even if it causes this administration political pain. King is right to insist that Congress, and the American people, have a right to know.

That still leaves Republicans of all stripes wondering how the Bush White House could present itself as a remote, indifferent, even arrogant administration. At a time when this nation is at war, when the White House has correctly spoken time and again of taking the conflict to the terrorists’ lair, how could they green light a plan that, by its very nature, would have to create serious security questions in our harbors? Has this White House developed such a political tin ear that they can’t hear the strategic implications that literally scream from this proposal? And if they have, what else aren’t they hearing?

As a democratic society, we have the right to question and review the actions and policies of our government. This senator was part of a democratic process that debated everything from the strength of our nuclear arsenal at the height of the Cold War to how many mass transit dollars I could wrangle for New York. This current port management decision suggests that a deal was quietly cut behind closed doors in order to accommodate an oil rich Middle East nation whose princes currently hold power and wealth. If true, then this only serves to unravel the faith our citizens must have in their government.

Whether you love or despise George W. Bush, the events of 9/11 demonstrated the inner strength of a man who had to put American combat troops into harm’s way. Yet leadership in this era of terror attacks goes far beyond “staying the course.” It requires far more thoughtful and insightful leadership than we have recently seen if the White House is to provide the American public with the confidence it deserves in its chief executive.