Port security is so last week

March 17, 2006

After the United Arab Emirates’ Dubai Ports World was slated to own and operate six major U.S. ports, most of Congress, including nearly all Republicans, balked. It wasn’t about Arabs, they said, it was about a critical element about infrastructure that could be a weakness in the war on terror. Port security, they said, is one of those security issues with which we can take no chances.

Delighted that the GOP was finally taking the port issue seriously, after years of ignoring concerns, congressional Dems thought this would help turn the tide. Finally, Dems thought, everyone can agree on the need to boost security measures at our ports.

Everyone, that is, except congressional Republicans.

Rep. Martin Sabo (D-Minn.) unveiled a budget proposal yesterday that would have set aside $1.25 billion in funding for port security and disaster preparedness. Specifically, the amendment would have added:

* $300 million to enable U.S. customs agents to inspect high-risk containers at all 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States. Current funding only allows U.S. customs agents to operate at 43 of these ports.

* $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors.

* $300 million to provide backup emergency communications equipment for the Gulf Coast.

When the Sabo measure reached the floor, how many House Republicans voted for it? Zero.

Kevin noted that the vote comes at a time when conservatives are convinced that the Iranian nuclear threat — specifically, that “Iran (or a terrorist group working with Iran) will ship a completed nuke through an American port and then threaten to detonate it in a large city” — is so great, a military invasion remains a serious possibility.

With this in mind, $400 million for radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry should be a no-brainer. Worse, it should have been done a while ago. And yet, again, not a single Republican voted for the Sabo proposal.

The GOP has its priorities; are they yours?

What I’m interested in, is on what grounds the Republicans rejected this amendment. I’m sure they have a good reason for it (…), and I’m dying to hear it.

And why can’t I find this news anywhere in the major media? I know, I’m just a Dutch guy who tries to keep track of what happens in the US through the internet, but I’d like the NY Times or the WP to inform me on things like this.

  • Jeroen,

    We don’t know either, even those of us who’d like to know (which must be about three percent of us). As far as I know, someone in the Republican caucus had a vision from God commanding “no GOP votes on port security”. It can’t be budget concerns – they just raised the debt limit to to $9 trillion (the equivalent of 28 Eiffel Towers constructed of pure gold). Maybe it’s the “D” attached to Sabo’s name.

    Whatever the reason, the GOP doesn’t care about port security

  • Jeroen- I agree, more and more the cable news channels are happy fluff and popcorn when there are breaking important stories. I recall when the Saudi Oil refinery was attacked…. for minutes and minutes only the business cannel ( CNBC ) had a news alert and carried ongoing updates while the other news channels were just happy talk. It dawned on me that there is a news spigot that is controlled by more than events. A contractor I know who works in Iraq confirmed to me that when things dangerous happen, he calls his wife in code, because the t.v. news is delayed.

    All this to say that there is coordinated news management of what is not covered in MSM. Long live the internet.

  • Oh, Please, the Republicans are going to vote for a Democratic amendment to do something about port security. They have to do it themselves.

    If they ever bother to, of course.

  • The Dubai Ports World deal was never about port security for the Republicans. It was just another chance to exploit the public’s fear about terrorism and Islam. Bashing Muslims plays well with their ignorant rube voters. As a bonus, the fawning media noted their “independence” and “rebellion” in standing up to the White House. All of that makes a neat little 30-second TV re-election. Republicans got what they wanted and to hell with the rest of the country.

  • Kevin, also noted that Iran lacks the missiles needed to deliver a warhead to the US. In order to make the case that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a threat to the US, the administration uses the shipping container scenario. One is left with two alternatives to explain the lack of concern over shipping containers,

    1)Iran is not the threat the administration makes it out to be. The administration knows it and is simply engaging in dangerous warmongering.
    2)The administration is being dangerously irresponsible in not protecting our ports.

    What door to you take, one or two? BTW, I don’t think that these are mutually exclusive choices. Iran’s threat via shipping containers may be minimal, but other threats may be present.

    • Comments are closed.