Cheat-Seeking Missles

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Dems Glom Onto Dubai Issue

What a softball the administration has lobbed at the Dems, who are definitely desperate for a hit. As WSJ/Opinion Journal put it in a column defending the deal:
As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well.
And that's exactly what they're doing:
“We should really test the resolve of the president [to use his veto power] on this one because what we’re really doing is securing the safety of our people.” Bob Menendez
There's a statement on Ted Kennedy's site that merits attention, since he knows a thing or two about large metalic objects in water:
"A veto isn't a solution, and I hope the President will reconsider and work with Congress to solve this problem. Four and a half years after 9/11, our ports are still extremely vulnerable. We can't risk contracting out our national security -- we need to get this right."
John Kerry must have read the same Mercury News article I read yesterday. Here's a part of his letter to Commerce Sec. Snow:
“As you know, the CSX rail corporation, where you previously served as chief executive officer, sold its port operations to DP in 2004. Moreover, the president’s nominee for administrator of the Maritime Administration, David Sanborn, was DP’s head of operations for Latin America while this transaction was being reviewed ...”
Hillary is co-sponoring the legislation to protect the ports, and with New York's ports on the table, that's a fine platform for her.

So, that leads us to this question, for which the administration is yet to provide an answer:

If the Commerce Dept. studied this matters from a financial point of view, and Homeland Security scrubbed the deal thoroughly to review security issues, then why, oh why, didn't someone with an ounce of political sense vette the deal?

hat-tips: memeorandum, Breitbart
Related Tags: , , , , , , , ,