Some may buy Sen. Hillary Clinton's line that she opposed the deal because it would have endangered "our nation's security." Perhaps a few more may buy into Speaker Hastert's line that his opposition was based on concern for the "safety of our children." Others may believe that it's all about politics. Hillary wants to be president-elect in 2008, while Hastert doesn't want to wake up on November 8 to headlines of Speaker-elect Pelosi. So who is right? Well, in the coming weeks, here are some things to look for to separate the phony opponents from those genuinely concerned about national security. Each year millions of containers are off-loaded at US ports. But a port's vulnerability doesn't begin at docking. It's just as vulnerable as soon as a ship enters its harbor. Hundreds of containers are on a ship, so a weaponized one buried deep inside isn't likely to be detected before detonation. That's why the Bush administration created the Container Security Initiative to monitor US-bound cargo as it's loaded onto a ship at a foreign port. DP World's takeover of the British firm, P & O, will add about two-dozen foreign ports to their current operations, which span the globe. Following the logic of Clinton & Hastert, DP World's management of these ports will add security risk to U.S. ports. Shouldn't opponents of the deal now raise hell in Congress for a separate security regime for all ships entering US ports that have docked at a DP World foreign port beforehand? And if congressional opponents are so concerned about port security, will they end their pork barrel spending that leads to ridiculous results, such as the one described in this 60 Minutes episode in July 2005?
KROFT: The 9/11 commission recommended that homeland security money be allocated to protect the most vulnerable strategic targets from attacks that would cause the most casualties or economic damage. But Congress, led by a group of powerful senators from smaller states, had a different plan. It decided to ignore the recommendations and distribute the money much the same way it hands out federal highway funds, with everyone getting a share. Rep. COX (R-CA): It's pork barrel. It's the kind of distribution of funds that Washington always makes when politics comes before substance. And here we find that the monies are being doled out not necessarily according to national security risks, but rather according to political formulas. Mr. TOM SCHATZ: Everybody wants a piece of this pie. And after September 11th, it's one of the biggest pies around. KROFT: (Voiceover) Tom Schatz, who runs a group called Citizens Against Government Waste, estimates that pork barrel spending on homeland security this year will reach $1.7 billion. Mr. SCHATZ: Members of Congress have figured out how to get their hands on homeland security pork. (Footage of barges) KROFT: (Voiceover) Why else, he asks, would the state of Oklahoma get federal funds designated for port security? I mean, Oklahoma's a landlocked state. I didn't know that they had any ports. Mr. SCHATZ: They have a river somewhere and that is included under this maritime security provision that was passed by Congress. And in this case, if you have a maritime facility of some kind in the United States, it may get money under this port security grant program.
Don't count on it.