February 27, 2006
What You Missed On The Sunday Shows
A new, free Hotline feature:
Each Monday, Hotline TV editor Emily Goodin will pack five hours of Sunday show news and analysis into one digestible post.
That's all the news, sound bites, presidential questions, scoops and spin. We watch 'em all so you can watch Project Runway re-runs!
Expect it online by 9:00 am ET.
Port authority talk dominated the Sunday shows. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) were on "Meet the Press." King praised the forthcoming investigation into the deal: "It's the type of investigation that should have been conducted, quite frankly, when this process was under way. It shouldn't be an add-on. But now that it is, I think it will be very positive step." And he noted the investigation could result in "a real possibility at the end of this process to have U.S. officials monitoring it on a regular basis."
Warner was on more defensive of the deal: "We cannot treat this company as a second-class citizen. In the past, as the Congress mentioned, there were problems, but since 9/11 they've been a full partner in the war on terrorism. We as the United States are dependent on countries like the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, all of them there, to give us the support to fight this war on terrorism. We cannot mess this deal up." Although King countered: "We can't be comparing Tony Blair to the emir of Dubai" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 2/26).
NSA Stephen Hadley was on "Face the Nation" to discuss the issue. After he was on, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) were on to talk about it. Hadley said Pres. Bush would stand by his veto threat: "The companies are working with the Congress now to try and identify a mechanism to do that. We would support that, because we think we do need the time and the opportunity, so long as the president's red line is respected that we don't have a vote, preemptory vote blocking the transaction."
Graham remained critical of the admin.: "They were incredibly politically tone deaf. They paid a price. And let's get this right. I am not against the UAE. They may be the right company at the right time but this process has been flawed from the beginning and it needs to be fixed. And we need a 45-day investigation. I hope we don't have to vote to get it. But if we do, I will vote for it." Schumer noted "that whatever happens in this United Arab Emirates deal, if we get more focus on port security, which some of us have been trying to do in the Congress for years, some good will come out of this" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 2/26).
Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI) were on "This Week," where McCain continued his defense of the admin. Asked if he colleagues were "demagoguing" the issue, McCain: "No, I think they're very concerned. I don't want to accuse them of demagoguery. But I think that our priorities this week have been misplaced. ... Could I just remind you, 700 United States ships, warships have visited Dubai. They have an airfield there that we are using for missions into Afghanistan and to Iraq. ... I think are perhaps more important than whether a country that's freer than China is should have control of some of our terminals. ... Dubai since 9/11 has been a good ally. Before 9/11, they were not. We all know that."
McCain also hinted that Dubai does more to help than advertised post-9/11: "In fact, I've been told -- and I can't repeat it on this program because it's second- and third-hand -- that there's been other ways that they've also been very helpful." Asked about Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) plan to not allow any foreign management of ports: "Does that mean the British are not allowed? ... I think obviously that this has to be looked at a case-by-case basis. And I would emphasize again, they are in charge of terminals."
Levin was on after McCain and was not as supportive. Asked if he would be satisified with the 45-day review: "Only if the deal doesn't go through until that 45-day review is completed. And that's what's very squishy right now." As for talk of bias against Dubai, Levin: "This is not a matter of which country. It's a matter of whether any country wanting to take over an asset, which is as sensitive as our port facilities, has a solid record of fighting terrorism over a long period of time" ("This Week," ABC, 2/26).
WH Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend was on "Fox News Sunday," followed by Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA). As for the review process, Townsend noted: "We haven't received a request yet from the company. There are ongoing discussions. We'll have to see what that letter or what that request would include. But the answer is as we go up to Congress, as we talk to people about the facts of the deal, we believe more people will be comfortable with it as they learn the facts." More: "We, the government, have no mechanism, having completed our review, to reopen it. The only thing that could cause it to be reopened would be a request from the company itself. We can't generate that. That's really up to the company."
She also noted that Bush found out about the deal from WH CoS Andy Card: "The president found out on February 16th from Andy Card." FNC's Wallace asked: "That's not what Scott McClellan said. He said he learned about it from the media." Townsend: "Well, I can tell you, having spoken with Andy Card, that he informed the president on February 16th. ... These deals go through and are reviewed all the time. There have been 65 last year. Rarely do they make it to the president."
Biden was on after her and asked if there was a bias: "The fact of the matter is that there are some people -- I'm sure this is anti-Arab bashing. I'm sure that's true.But the fact, as I've said before, I've been dealing with the Foreign Military Sales Act for the last I don't know how many years of my career. You don't sell the same aircraft to Saudi Arabia, our great ally, that you do to England or to France or to a NATO country. So there's always been this distinction."
Hadley was also on "Late Edition," as were Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). Hadley said of port security: "Remember, port security doesn't start at our ports. It starts overseas with the cooperations of countries and companies operating ports overseas to make sure that cargo containers and other things heading our way are safe. The first line of defense is overseas, and this company and this country have been very good allies in that process."
Asked if he would let Pakistan operate ports in the U.S., Hadley: "I'm saying if Pakistan wanted to operate ports in the United States, we would do exactly what was done in this case. We would get the agencies together. We would look at the applicable intelligence. We would have each of the agencies take a look. If there were national security concerns that were raised, we would deal with them. That's the process that we need to do. ... The test is not whether the acquiring country is an Arab country or not. The test is whether the acquiring country -- company and the company through which they would exercise control raises national security concerns. That's the test. That was the test that was applied in this case, and that would be the test that should be applied in every other case. It's the test that this Congress specified in the statute."
Hutchison was neither too supportive nor too critical: "I think it is important that we have the delay so that we can find out what the safeguards are. But I would go to the major issue of port security in our country." Asked if she would vote for the deal: "I don't know enough yet about it. And I think we need to know more about it." Feinstein has lots of questions: "I would like to know if this was run by the secretary of defense, the secretary of homeland security. I'm told they did not know this. I think the process was a secondary process. I think this should have been brought to the president earlier. And I'm really coming to question some of these Treasury Department, kind of, hidden review processes which really involve large questions of public policy" ("Late Edition," CNN, 2/26).
He's Not The Terminator, He's The Gipper
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) was also on "Meet." He was asked about the port issue: "California is not affected by that, which is good." NBC's Russert asked him: "13 or 14 container terminal operators at the Los Angeles Long Beach Port are foreign-owned: China, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Denmark, as you said. Are you concerned that China operates a port? In terms of security?" Schwarzenegger replied: "Well, we have the ultimate control over security. I mean, they occupy space. They lease space. They don't own it."
As to his own re-election, asked if he was concerned he'd get swept in an anti-GOP tide, Schwarzenegger: "Yes, you know, that's always a concern. ... It's election year, it's up to the people to judge and say did this man really improve the state. Remember the old Ronald Reagan line, when you say that you're better off now than you were four years ago? Well, you know, Californians are much better off today than we were four years ago." Asked if he'll run as a Bush GOPer, Schwarzenegger: "I will run as an Arnold Republican." On the special election: "It was worth the fight. ... Now did I do it the right way? Did I not make mistakes? Of course, I made mistakes. I think that I rushed it too much, I was too much in a hurry. But I mean, as you know, this is my style. I set certain goals, and I say this has to be done at that time, and I think that when you're in public service and when you are doing things in the political arena, you have to maybe take more time in nurturing those things along, and so maybe I rushed it too much."
Asked about ex-CA Dem Party Chair Bob Mulholland's comment that he's gone from pit bull to french poodle: "You want me to respond to that? I don't respond to Bob Mulholland. Trust me." On his poll standing: "Let me tell you something, that some people pay a lot of attention to polls. And I think that we all like to be liked and loved. ... The numbers that I pay more attention to are the numbers that we see when we see, for instance, the unbelievable decrease in the budget infrastructure deficit to 75 percent; to see an increase of 500,000 people getting jobs in California; to see the increase in revenues that we have; to see the increase of businesses that are coming."
Asked if he's spending too much state money: "No, it's invest, invest, invest." More: "The fact is that we've cut down the spending and we are paying down debt, and we're putting money in the rainy day fund, and we are now economically strong enough to build and rebuild California."
On fundraising: "I said I would never take money from unions, that I would never take money from Indian gaming tribes. I take money because you need to take money. The important thing here is, is when you take money that they buy into your philosophy and into your program, that you don't buy into theirs." On criticism from Warren Beatty: "I never respond to Warren because I know Warren for too long and I think it would be wrong, you know, to respond to that. I do my job and he should do his job. If he wants to get involved in politics, jump into the race" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 2/26).
This Could Be An Issue In A Couple of Years
McCain was asked about a SD bill that would ban all abortions except in life of the mother. Asked if he were gov, would he sign that bill, he stumbled a bit on the answer: "I don't know, because I don't know the technical -- my position has been consistently pro-life but rape, incest and the health of the mother has been my position. If that's in keeping with that, yes. But I don't know whether..." ABC's Stephanopoulos interupted him to ask: "It actually goes farther than that. If it does go farther, you wouldn't sign it?" McCain: "Not if -- my position has been clear for 20-some years" ("This Week," ABC, 2/26).
Meet Mitt
Romney faced a tough interview on "Fox News Sunday." He was asked by FNC's Wallace: "For people who don't know much about you, where do you stand on the political spectrum?" Romney: "Well, I'm a conservative Republican. It's kind of unusual to be in Massachusetts, the bluest state in America, and be a conservative Republican, but that's something that I fought for in my campaign, and people supported me. We have good conservative Democrats in Massachusetts, and I was able to pull some of them over to my side of the aisle."
On how he differs from Bush on Iraq: "I don't think we did an adequate job explaining to the American people all the reasons for entering Iraq. ... And yet I supported the president at the time that he entered into Iraq and believed that he had the kind of information he needed to have to make that decision."
There was also a strong exchange on his abortion views. Asked about his differing abortion opinions, Romney: "We had a major issue in Massachusetts, and it surrounded stem cell research. I spent a lot of time talking with people scientific in background as well as religious and spent a lot of time understanding when it was that as a society we needed to respect human life and came to the conclusion that it's time to be very clear on that, that when conception occurs that human life has begun. I'm not talking about religious definitions, but scientific definitions and that to respect human life, we have to do so from conception. And therefore, I indicated I am pro-life and will respect the rights of human life."
Wallace: "But I don't understand, Governor. I mean, the stem cell question, which often deals with the question of harvesting of eggs or fetuses to be used for stem cell -- that isn't why most women get abortions. I mean, there's a division there, isn't there?"
Romney: "Well, there is a division there, and I'm happy to talk about stem cell research."
Wallace: "Well, no, but I'm asking about abortion. I mean, the vast majority of women aren't getting an abortion so that they can sell their fetus."
Romney: "No, this is about when respect for life begins and when we as a society -- and I believe fundamentally in a society there has to be respect for human life. And when I ran for governor, I said very clearly I do not support abortion, I do not favor abortion, but I will maintain a moratorium on any change in the laws of Massachusetts relating to abortion."
Wallace: "But you did say, as I said in the quote, women should have the right to make their own choice. I guess the question I have is are you saying that you only came to the conclusion about when life begins -- this has been an issue for 30 years, 40 years -- in the last three years?"
Romney: "What I'm saying is that my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before. And I said -- and the time of the change came as we were involved in the discussion of stem cell research, and I said at that point I am pro-life. I've never used either title, pro-life or pro-choice, in the past. I said I don't favor abortion. I wouldn't change the laws as governor because I believe each state should have the right to make their own choice. But I'm very firmly pro-life."
Asked if his faith will be an issue: "I think people in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their governor, as their senator, as their president. I don't think most people care what brand of faith they have. And I don't believe that that's been an issue for me in my race for governor. It wasn't an issue, I believe, serious, for John Kennedy when he ran for president."
Asked about details of his faith: "I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs and about particular doctrines of my church, and so forth. I'm very proud of my church. It was the church of my father, and his father, and his father before him. But what I can say is this. And I go back to a speech that Abraham Lincoln made when he was 28 years old, the Lyceum Address, when he said that America has a political religion and that people who are elected to office subscribe to this political religion, which is to place the oath of office, an oath to abide by a nation of laws and the Constitution, above all others. And there's no question that as I take the oath of office as governor, and have, that I make that my primary responsibility."
Asked about his low position in WH '08 polls: "I certainly don't intend to announce any plans at this point, so I don't have, you know, any willingness to respond to a hypothesis about my running. However, I can say that people who fall very low in the public opinion polls at this stage have emerged to be at the top of the pile."
Asked if he's running for VP: "Oh, I can't imagine anybody doing that. I've got a much better job. I love the job that I have. It's great being governor of Massachusetts. It's a great state. ... I'll keep the option open of running for national office, but I wouldn't get into something if I didn't plan on winning" ("Fox News Sunday," 2/26).
Other Topics
Iraq was also discussed on the Sunday circuit. Hadley seemed to downplay the situation: "It is a time of testing for Iraqis. There has been violence. Thankfully, the violence seems to be diminishing." More: "And our hope is ... that in this tragedy there actually is an opportunity where all the communities will decide that really it is in their mutual interest to avoid the violence, pull together and construct the kind of unity government that can move this country forward" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 2/26).
Warner and King also discussed the Iraq. Warner: "I do not think we should get involved in the civil war other than to give support to the Iraqi forces as they begin to put it down" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 2/26). McCain was also asked about Iraq: "Everything in this country we have learned over the last few years is two steps forward, one step back; two steps forward, one step back. We've got a long way to go. And any talk of troop withdrawals in my opinion would be foolish." But Levin argued: "We should not intervene in that kind of a civil war because we'll just make it worse, in my opinion" ("This Week," ABC, 2/26). Biden said of the situation in Iraq: "It's diminished my optimism" ("Fox News Sunday," 2/26). Hutchison: "I think that we have made great progress. This week was not a good week, very troubling. And we need to be as supportive as we can of the Iraqi politicians trying to set up that national unity government. It is slow, but we must be patient." Feinstein: "I think this is the most critical juncture we've had in Iraq. If this new government can't get itself together and if this sectarian violence continues, it's a step away from major civil war. ... The worst thing would be for the United States to get caught in the middle of a civil war" ("Late Edition," CNN, 2/26).
The "This Week" roundtable discussed the port issue but also noted its affects on the GOP. Washington Post's Dionne: "The really dangerous thing for the administration this week is Republicans running away like a herd of cattle and that the Republican party faces a very deep problem, it's a classic political problem. Individual Republicans now see that their interests may depend on separating from President Bush, but the more critical they are of him the bigger collective problem they have" (ABC, 2/26).
The "Fox News Sunday" roundtable also discussed the political fallout for the GOP. Washington Post's Connolly: "Tthese individuals have to run in November. And it's very clearly come down to their own political hides." Weekly Standard's Kristol: "The 45 days is to give cover to the idiots in Congress who jumped on this without knowing anything about it. It's not to give cover to the Bush administration. They're not going to change their mind" (2/26).
Posted at 09:58 AM
Comments
A matter of national security
Tariq A. Al-Maeena
Opposition by senators and congressmen in the United States to the proposed managing of some major ports in the USA by the DP World, a UAE company, is steadily growing. And not withstanding some of the naivety shown by these lawmakers in comprehending their Middle East geography and history well, cries of ‘national security’ and ‘9-11’ are being spun.
Senator Charles Shumer a democrat from New York went so far as to state that "Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen." Now Senator Shumer knows very well that the US Coast Guard and US Customs are responsible for security at US ports, and not the port operator.
Such phony outbursts by those entrusted with US legislature are viewed by many in this region as one of growing ‘Arabphobia’. The UAE has been a model country in the region, more a Vegas for banking on profiteering rather than bunkering down in politics. It has no record of terrorist activities on its soil, and many western businesses enjoy unrestricted freedom of trade.
The port company itself has recently emerged as victors of a bidding war in a $6.8 billion take-over deal that would grant them the right to operate 29 ports world-wide, six of which are in the US. The UAE back in 2004 was the first country in the region to sign a pact with the US in preventing the use of sea-bound containers for terrorism. It has provided logistic support for some military operations in the region.
Citing concerns that 2 of the 9-11 hijackers came from the UAE is in itself moronic. Were the aircraft that crashed into the WTC from the UAE? Didn’t they take off from US airports? Weren’t they tracked by US radar? Shouldn’t the US along the same line block the entry of all Arab airlines flying into the USA, for fear that they may be carrying weapons of mass destruction? Or deny all Arabs entry into the country because the hijackers represented some of the countries? Should all cargo-bound containers from the Middle East be banned? All in the interest of national security?
The resistance to the acquisition by DP World certainly seems to be a mix of anti-Arab bigotry, politicking and protectionism. It is a congressional election year, and vulnerable politicians would exploit their electorates fears to get re-elected. Arab bashing is in appeal, and as James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute stated, “The slogan is, if it’s Arab, it’s bad. Hammer away.”
If that were the case, then it would indeed open a new bag of worms. Businesses here would be forced to consider their association with their American partners. Some may even suggest a response of re-evaluating US fast food franchises here in the interest of national security, citing their cholesterol-laden menus. Or US produced road vehicles with their poor record in safety. Or allowing port facilities to be used by the coalition forces in the region? Just where would it stop?
President Bush has so far resisted all such calls for alarm from members of the legislature. To his credit, he has publicly stated his opposition to any attempts by US lawmakers to block the take-over deal, threatening to veto such an action if it were to pass. Changing owners in no way compromises the security of the United States, a spin steadily being broadcast over the American media.
He assuaged concerns by stating “if there was any chance this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward.” He added that such actions “sends a terrible signal to friend around the world.” And he is absolutely spot-on on this one.
The writer is a Saudi free-lance columnist and social critic whose works have appeared in a number of publications. He resides in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and can be reached at close_encounters@gawab.com
tariq al-maeena | 03.01.06 10:59 AM
 |
Does anyone have an audio clip of Mitt Romney from FNS talking about the oath? Hugh Hewitt played a clip on his Feb 27 show in the 3rd hour. Would like to have a copy. Please let me and let me know.
M. Palmer | 03.04.06 09:51 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
