With port pact, Democrats turn tables
Bush now accused of showing weakness on national security
WASHINGTON -- The proposal to allow a Dubai firm to manage six US ports has brought a striking reversal of roles in the politics of terrorism: Suddenly, Democrats are using insinuations and accusations to suggest that the Bush administration is being weak on security, while President Bush and allies are urging critics against assuming guilt by association.
Democrats reacted yesterday with glee to news of a Republican-led compromise that might allow the accord to go forward after a 45-day review.
They rushed to point out that the United Arab Emirates was home to two 9/11 hijackers; that Al Qaeda funds have been routed through Emirates institutions; and that the Emirates government had recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
''The security of our homeland is at stake," Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said yesterday. ''Here, a country that was one of the three to recognize the Taliban, that over and over again its banks laundered money -- some of the money that was used to kill our brave New York-New Jersey citizens in the Twin Towers -- this country . . . was going to be given the right to run our ports."
Democrats see the issue as a way to strike back at Republicans, who have been merciless in their characterizations of Democrats as permissive on national-security issues. ''Republicans Have Pre-9/11 World View," read a statement issued yesterday by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, echoing a charge recently leveled at Democrats by the top Bush political adviser, Karl Rove.
''Bush has been using national security as his political ace," said Bill Burton, a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman. ''Now it's clear that not only is his rhetoric wrong, but his policies are completely the opposite of where the American people are."
Democrats got some validation for their argument yesterday, with the revelation that the Coast Guard had spoken of ''intelligence gaps" in assessing the Emirates company, Dubai Port World.
Still, the Democrats' case against the arrangement appears to be thin, according to independent observers.
Many of the company's top officials are Americans, and its control over US ports would not extend to security. In addition, the United Arab Emirates government has been among the strongest US allies in the Middle East, providing access to ports and airspace and helping to cut off terrorist financing after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Democrats are taking a page from the White House's playbook, by stretching facts to make the takeover bid seem more outrageous, said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent analyst in Washington.
''The Democrats are giving the president a dose of his own medicine," Rothenberg said. ''It taps the same kinds of biases and concerns that Americans have that the Republicans have been tapping."
The deal initially drew a bipartisan backlash. Republicans such as the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, joined Democrats in questioning Bush's decision to allow Dubai Port World, a company controlled by the Emirates, to operate port terminals in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans.
Dubai Port World has taken over Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operated the terminals.
An agreement reached Sunday to conduct a fresh review of the transaction has assuaged concerns among many Republicans, including Hastert and Frist.
That compromise has slowed the push for congressional action to overrule the decision. But Democrats are keeping up the criticism. Several filed a bill yesterday to ban foreign ownership of US ports.
''It's nonsensical, absurd, to suggest that we're going to work with a country -- let them take over a large part of our port operation -- who consorts with our enemy," said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey.
Democrats have been frustrated by Republican charges that they are weak on national security. In 2002, when some Democrats were blocking the creation of the Department of Homeland Security because they were insisting that workers be permitted to unionize, Republicans called them unwilling to protect the nation.
Bush has returned to a similar theme in recent weeks, accusing lawmakers who wanted to add civil-liberties protections into the Patriot Act of not understanding that ''we're still at war."
Last month, Rove served notice that national security will be a major theme of Republican campaigns for Congress, delivering a speech in which he said ''many Democrats have a pre-9/11 world view." Democrats see an opening to rebut that view as they seek gains in Congress.
''In the post-9/11 world, we cannot afford to surrender our port operations to foreign governments," said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York.
The Bush administration and security specialists say that the criticism of the United Arab Emirates is unjustified, and that canceling the pact could reflect a bias against a key ally in the Arab world.
Control of US ports by foreign entities is common, and has no impact on security, said Noel Cunningham, former director of operations and chief of police at the Port of Los Angeles. If the arrangement goes through, American union members will still work at the ports, and the Coast Guard will still oversee security, he said.
But Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat, said the company -- and the Dubai government -- would learn details of operations, including the shipments targeted for inspection. He said the United Arab Emirates government has improved ties with the United States, but he added that ''too many questions" remained to trust Dubai with such data.
Markey noted that Democrats have long complained that Bush has not committed enough resources to homeland security, particularly at ports.
''It's becoming clearer the president does put commerce ahead of security," said Markey, a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee. 