Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Tour of D.P. World; New Moves Aimed at Keeping Ports Safe; Dubai's Economy is Booming; South Dakota Passes Strict Ban on Abortion; Adviser to Crown Prince of UAE Reacts to Ports Deal
Aired March 06, 2006 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Susan. And to our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where news pictures and information from around the world are arriving all the time. Happening now, our exclusive tour of port security in Dubai. It's 1:00 a.m. Tuesday here in the United Arab Emirates. I've been getting a behind-the-scenes look today at high-tech cargo inspections. Will security measures here ease port security fears back home?
On Capitol Hill this hour, new moves aimed at keeping America's harbors safe. It's 4:00 p.m. in Washington. We're following brand new fallout today from the Dubai port deal controversy.
And a dramatic new step in direct conflict with Roe versus Wade. It's 3:00 p.m. in the South Dakota capital where the governor has signed a sweeping abortion ban. Now the stage appears to be set for a Supreme Court showdown. I'm Wolf Blitzer, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
We're live near the port of Dubai. It's one of the fastest- growing ports in the world. It's also something of a crossroads in the port storm still raging seriously back in Washington. Many Americans are worried about a Dubai-based firm's deal to run six major U.S. ports in the United States. So we came here to get a first-hand and exclusive look at security operations. I'll take you behind-the- scenes in just a few moments.
First though, let's find out what's happening right now on Capitol Hill. Our congressional correspondent Ed Henry, standing by. Ed?
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, Republican Peter King, the powerful chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee tells CNN that the mood among Republicans up here is increasingly sour about this port deal, so he has crafted a compromise that he presented to the White House with a warning: if they do not sign on, this whole port contract may blow up.
He's basically proposing that the American portion of the contract be separated out so that the company, D.P. World, would have nothing to do with the actual operation of U.S. ports. Instead, that would be subcontracted out to various U.S. companies.
This would allow D.P. World to bring in some profit still from the operation of those U.S. ports, but not have access to security blueprints and other critical information. And secondly, King says, they would still -- the company would still have the rest of the contract, all around the world since the U.S. portion of the contract is just a minor part of it. And this would enable, in King's words, enable "Congress to not stick a finger into the eye of a nation," the United Arab Emirates, that has been considered a key ally in the war on terror.
Now King told CNN he warned the White House if this does not happen, he can see the contract going down. He said the White House, while the company has basically said they don't want to change the contract, the White House said they will get back to him. He has not heard back yet.
This is all happening because there's so much political pressure on Republicans from Democrats in this midterm election year. Just this past weekend, we saw Democrat Harold Ford Jr., who is from Tennessee, running for the Senate in Tennessee, go to the port of Baltimore in Maryland, nowhere near Tennessee, to film this campaign ad on the port deal. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAROLD FORD JR. (D), TENNESSEE: President Bush wants to sell this port and five others to the United Arab Emirates, a country that had diplomatic ties with the Taliban, the home of two 9/11 hijackers, whose banks wired money to the terrorists. I'm running for the Senate because we shouldn't outsource our national security to anyone. I will fight to protect America and keep your family safe and that's why I approve this message.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: And Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today on Capitol Hill signaled that this is going to be a major campaign issue and he expects other candidates to jump on the bandwagon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: It's resonating because people have come to the realization that the Bush administration is basically incompetent. And I mention some of those things in my presentation to you a few minutes ago. This port security issue is stunning.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Now this controversy has also given Democrats an opportunity to launch a broader assault on Republicans in this election year on the issue of port security. Senator Reid was appearing there with Democrat Joe Lieberman, who is proposing that another $1.7 billion be added to port security. He says the Bush administration is not doing enough and Democrats are getting political cover from key Republicans like Susan Collins, who this very hour is holding a briefing on Capitol Hill to reiterate her claim the administration is not doing enough on port security -- Wolf? BLITZER: Ed, so let me get this proposed change in the structure of control of these ports. Let me get a little perspective on that. What this compromise proposal would be, would be that D.P. World, Dubai Ports World, would subcontract out the operations at these six U.S. ports, but they would still be in overall ownership or control of the subsidiaries? Is that about right?
HENRY: That's right. It could either be subsidiaries or actually just straight subcontractors. But the bottom line is that D.P. World would still hold the overall contract, because as you know, this deal -- the U.S. portion is just a small part of the overall deal.
But D.P. World, according to Congressman King and this proposal, would not have any direct control over U.S. port operations. Congressman King, as a Republicans, thinks that could assuage some of the concerns he and others have about security. But it would basically still allow this United Arab Emirate run company the ability to take in the profits from U.S. ports, but not have access to security blueprints, other critical information. That would be handled and run by U.S. companies.
It's too early to tell. As you know better than anyone, the company doesn't want to change the contract. The White House, still waiting to hear back from them, but as you know as well, a couple of weeks back, the White House and the company did not want a 45-day review. They ended up going for that in the end, Wolf.
BLITZER: Yesterday when I interviewed Mohammed Sharaf, the CEO of Dubai Ports World, he said there already are Americans involved as contractors, together with P&O, the British company that they're purchasing. We'll see tomorrow when I speak with the chairman of the board, how they're reacting to this compromise proposal. Ed Henry, thanks very much for joining us.
Meanwhile the Pentagon says more U.S. warships are serviced here in Dubai than any other port outside of the United States. Local customs authorities say their security is extremely tight and technologically advanced. They took me behind the scenes today for an exclusive tour.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): It's state-of-the-art technology, designed to see through heavy metal containers. It can detect illegal drugs and contraband weapons and ammunition. It can also detect chemicals and biological agents and perhaps most important, it can detect nuclear equipment as well.
(on camera): So if there were, god forbid, a radiological bomb inside the container, they would be able to see that.
AHMED BUTTI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, DUBAI CUSTOMS: Absolutely, yes.
BLITZER: They would see them?
(voice-over): This hand-held piece of equipment can detect radiation levels.
BUTTI: We had, also the machine that will show you that.
BLITZER: Ahmed Butti is in charge of Dubai Customs. During an exclusive behind-the-scenes tour, he proudly showed off the technology, the hardware and the software that are already used in Dubai. And he spoke of the even more sophisticated equipment now on the way that could detect a dirty bomb.
BUTTI: We're in the process right now in working together with Department of Energy of establishing all our gates to -- radiation machine to detect that and we have a team from our inspectors, already they are on the stairs (ph) right now to be trained how to operate these machines.
BLITZER: This multi-million dollar mobile scanner can literally see inside the containers. Highly-trained operators can focus in on even the smallest details. The same can be done inside the structure. Here in Dubai, when it comes to security and checking what's inside containers, they say they are not worried about politically incorrect ethnic profiling.
(on camera): What percentage would you say, are actually physically inspected?
BUTTI: Some, from certain countries, 100 percent sometimes.
BLITZER: Oh, really?
BUTTI: Some countries, no, 30, some countries 20. It depends where it's coming from. It depends the companies.
BLITZER: How suspicious you are.
BUTTI: Absolutely.
BLITZER (voice-over): He won't say which countries have everything inspected, though presumably this Iranian ship loaded with Iranian cargo, which we drove by, would be a prime target for a thorough inspection.
BUTTI: Our country is based on the commercial, based on the trades, based on the tourism. So we are -- the vision of -- to develop the tourism and the commerce and the financial center. You cannot have these things if you don't have a proper security.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Some 1,600 people work for Dubai Customs. Ahmed Butti says every one of them undergoes a thorough background check.
In London today, Britain's Court of Appeals refused to bar the takeover of six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World. The court declined to hear a Miami company's objection to the sale of the British shipping company to the state-owned Arab firm. The Miami company argued unsuccessfully that the fallout over security could hurt its business.
Dubai Ports World has been a major contributor to Dubai's extraordinary transformation into one of the largest trade and commerce hubs in the world. For more on this region, let's turn to our Internet reporter Abbi Tatton. Abbi, what are you picking up?
ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: In Dubai, business is booming. This government site reports that in just four years between 2,000 and 2004, the economy of Dubai essential doubled.
Unlike it's neighbors, only a small amount of wealth is coming from this oil. Dubai has aggressively pursued foreign investment in free trade zones.
Some of the companies doing business there are very familiar to us: General Motors, Heinz, some of the companies there are over 100 countries investing in Dubai. Tourism incredibly important as well.
This video from the Department of Tourism shows all the development, construction, hotels, beach clubs along the coastline. Over five and a half million visitors to Dubai last year.
BLITZER: Abbi, you were just here in Dubai on vacation. Give us a little personal reflection on how you felt here. Were you scared? Were you happy? What were your impressions?
TATTON: I felt incredibly safe there. One thing I have to comment on is I visited twice to Dubai last year. Once in April and once in November. I have to say, the amount of construction and change was just overwhelming in those six short months. Wolf.
BLITZER: We will have much more on this part of the story coming up. I went over Dubai by helicopter earlier. We are going to bring you that. I am also going to bring you my exclusive interview with the director of international affairs for the crown price of United Arab Emirates. All that's coming up.
First, let's go to our Chief National Correspondent, John King, he is back in THE SITUATION ROOM in Washington with the day's other important news. Hi, John.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello to you, Wolf. Back to you in Dubai for more on your exclusive coverage in just a few minutes.
First we want to bring our viewers up to speed on a developing story here in the United States our of South Dakota. Governor Mike Rounds has thrown down the gauntlet in the legal battle over abortion.
The governor went ahead today and signed legislation banning nearly all abortions in the state. That law takes effect July 1st. It's expected to be tied up in the courts for years before a likely final showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court. That's just what supporters want, a direct challenge to the 1973 high court decision legalizing abortion.
For an explainer of this law, here's our Senior Political Correspondent, Candy Crowley.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The bill stops here and the anti-abortion governor of South Dakota understands the implications of signing it.
GOV. MIKE ROUNDS, (R) SOUTH DAKOTA: In doing so, it will be the broadest direct attack on Roe vs. Wade we've seen to date.
CROWLEY: The measure bans abortions except when the mother's life is at risk. It passed South Dakota's legislature by wide margins, a clarion call from the heartland.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My underlying premise here is that those unborn children have no advocate and South Dakota has become their advocate.
CROWLEY: South Dakota is a live and let live sort of place with wide open spaces and spots of quiet as far as the ear can hear. Not the sort of place that goes looking to stir up a national fuss. But that it has.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Been a bit of a wakeup call and we are finding that people are very outraged.
CROWLEY: The troops for and against abortion rights are on high alert around the country. E-mails are pouring into the state capital.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm just concerned that they're doing this in South Dakota where some are talking about a boycott of us in relationship to some of this.
CROWLEY: Though anti-abortion, Dunnifan (ph), the only female Republican in the South Dakota Senate, voted no on the ban because there are no exceptions for rape or incest. The state has a long history of anti-abortion legislation. It has not changed much over the year since Roe, but the Supreme Court has.
ROUNDS: It will be challenged and it will be struck down as unconstitutional at each and every appellate court level up to the point that the Supreme Court would be the only court left to consider hearing it.
CROWLEY (on camera): Though they agree with the ultimate goal, there are many within the anti-abortion community who believe this bill is too much and too soon. They argue there is no clear signal from this Supreme Court that there are enough votes to completely overturn Roe v. Wade. They believe a better approach would be to chip away at Roe with further restrictions. Candy Crowley, CNN Pierre, South Dakota.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: It is a remarkable story. We want to bring you a bit later, a bit more on how this challenge to Roe v. Wade will play out not only in the state of South Dakota but nationally in this election year. James Carville and J.C. Watts will be right here in our "Strategy Session" a bit later in THE SITUATION ROOM.
In Virginia today, a sentencing trial began for Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in the United States in connection with the 9/11 attacks. Attorneys chose the jury and alternates. They will decide if Moussaoui will be put to death or sentenced to life in prison.
Last year Moussaoui pleaded guilty to conspiring with al Qaeda to hijack planes, yet he denies any prior knowledge of the 9/11 plot.
In Austria, the International Atomic Energy Agency is trying to decide how best to act on Iran's nuclear ambitions. The agency is hoping to find a solution before it's board of governors votes to send the matter to the United Nation's Security Council. At issue, Iran's program of uranium enrichment. Iran says it only wants to use nuclear power to generate electricity, but the west, including the United States, alleges Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon.
In Iraq, charred earth and hollowed out cars after a car bomb explodes north of Baghdad in Baquba today. Officials say the bombing killed at least six people, including three children. This was just one series of car bombs rocking Baghdad and nearby cities today. All together, those bombings killed at least ten people.
The nation's colleges now have this choice, allow military recruiters to visit or risk money from the federal government. That's today's unanimous Supreme Court decision. The court said visits by military recruiters do not infringe on a college's First Amendment right.
Some schools are opposed to the military's don't ask, don't tell policy on gays. They argue that allowing military recruiters on their campuses might suggest they agree with that policy. More news here from the states a bit later in THE SITUATION ROOM, but let's go back to Wolf Blitzer in Dubai for more of his exclusive access on the ports controversy, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks very much, John. I want to bring in Jack Cafferty in New York. He's standing by with "The Cafferty File."
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Wolf. Opposition to the Dubai Ports World operations of six U.S. ports continues unabated here. Two Republican lawmakers, Representative Duncan Hunter and Senator Susan Collins are now saying the way these thins are done needs to be changed.
Congressman Hunter wants the Dubai ports deal scrapped. He also wants all foreign governments prohibited from owning any U.S. assets deemed critical to national security. Senator Collins wants the oversight of the Committee on Foreign Investment moved from the Treasury Department to the Department of Homeland Security. CFIUS approved this ports deal after only a cursory review and, in fact, CFIUS has reviewed some 1,500 deals involving foreign investment in the United States and has rejected exactly one. Here's the question, how should the review process be changed when it comes to things like the ports deal? E-mail us at caffertyfile@cnn.com or you can go to cnn.com/caffertyfile. Wolf.--
BLITZER: Thanks very much. Coming up, did the storm over the port security issue catch the you the United Arab Emirates by surprise? Stand by for my exclusive interview with a top government insider here in the director of international affairs over at the office of the crown prince.
Also ahead, President Bush trying to show he's serious about trimming federal spending. We will tell you what he's asking for and why.
Is the U.S. Supreme Court now poised to overturn Roe versus Wade? We will talk about the implications of the newly signed South Dakota abortion ban in our "Strategy Session." That will be back in Washington. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We're live here in Dubai bringing you the inside story of the Dubai Port security controversy, a story that we are going to show you only here on CNN.
Coming up my exclusive interview with the key international affairs adviser to the crown prince.
Right now though. Let's go back to John King. He's in THE SITUATION ROOM in Washington with other news -- John.
KING: And, Wolf, back to you in just a moment.
First though, some more news here in the United States. President Bush tried today to refocus on the bottom line, the economy, in an effort to tighten the federal government's purse strings. But can it help him reclaim some of the political capital he has lost.
Let's bring in our White House correspondent Dana Bash -- Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, one of the things that Republican incumbents are most concerned about in terms of keeping control of Congress this year is the fact that the rank and file who they really count on to vote, especially in off year elections like this, are simply furious, fed up with excess government spending.
What the president tried to do today is prove that he wants to crack down on what many called frivolous spending. And what he did was he formally introduced to Congress the concept of a line-item veto, something that he said he will use to strip out pork barrel or earmarked spending tucked away in the bills that he gets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: By passing this version of the line-item veto, the administration will work with the Congress to reduce wasteful spending, reduce the budget deficit and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Now those who focus on the Supreme Court probably are saying, wait a minute, the Supreme Court actually struck this concept down. It was a law, and it was struck down in 1998. Well, what the White House is saying today that they are going to rewrite it in a way that they do believe is constitutional.
But the bottom line politically is that the White House no matter what happens really wants to get credit here for at least trying. And talking to Republican strategists, they say that this is a good first step.
But the bottom line for many is that the president has been in office for five plus years. He hasn't vetoed any bills at all. And the big issue is the fact that not just spending is high, but the deficits are high.
And, John, gloomy news about deficits is another thing that really is hitting Republicans this year. It is the fact that the economy is booming and the fact that the president and Republicans are simply not getting credit for it at all -- John.
KING: Well, Dana, I saw a statement from the House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi saying, hey Mr. President, if you want to balance the budget, why don't you just submit balanced budget that would help control spending.
But give us more behind the scenes on why is it the White House is more worried about the skepticism and the criticism from Republicans, not the Democrats?
BASH: Because this is really -- when you look at the issues, terrorism is one, as we know, but spending is really a bottom line issue for many conservatives, as I said, they rely on to vote.
I talked to one strategist today who said that there were a lot of people who were really disappointed in his State of the Union, that they thought he perhaps only gave passing reference to the fact that spending is out of control.
One strategist I talked to said that he should use what he calls his ample capital he has left to address this issue -- John.
KING: Dana Bash at the White House.
Dana, thank you very much.
And coming up, back to one of our top stories. South Dakota's governor signs into law a bill that will ban nearly all abortions. How will that impact this fall's elections? I will ask James Carville and J.C. Watts in today's "Strategy Session." Plus, how is President Bush weathering the storm over the ports? We will go back live to Wolf for much more from Dubai on this emerging controversy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting tonight from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. It's almost 1:30 Tuesday morning here in Dubai.
We'll back in a few minutes with much more on our exclusive coverage of the Dubai Ports controversy.
First though, let's go back to John King in THE SITUATION ROOM in Washington -- John.
KING: And, Wolf, we're here for the "Strategy Session" today." Our subject is the race for control of congress, heating up as a controversial new bill in South Dakota could set up a challenge to Roe v. Wade. Which issues will define the midterm elections? What will the political fallout be of the state's attempt to outlaw nearly all abortions?
Joining us here in THE SITUATION ROOM, CNN political analyst Democrat James Carville, former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts.
Let's start gentlemen with this governor's decision today to sign this bill in South Dakota, which sets off the legal challenge likely to reach the Supreme Court but also turns up the volume on a political debate in the midterm election year.
Many Democrats during the Supreme Court nomination process and confirmation process said let's not talk too much about this, a lot of the big races are in the south. Should Democrats highlight this or back away from it?
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: This is a bill that would outlaw all abortions even those in the case of rape and incest, which I might add that Senator John McCain endorsed this law.
Look, there are a lot of Democratic strategists that say you know what, I wish the Supreme Court would take this thing and overturn Roe and the Republicans would pay an incredible political price. I don't know if I agree with them, but I am just telling you that is a point of view.
And I think that what happens on these social issues is the mover gets hurts. And so the fact that South Dakota passed this is going to go -- a lot of people who approach are going to say, oh my God, I forgot about that. You know, this is a real possibility that we could lose this right. And it is a very real possibility.
J.C. WATTS (R), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Well, John, the values voter -- there is a lot of talk in the last election about the values voter and, you know, how can we reach out to them? This is one of those issues. I think the people that has made up their mind, those who are pro-choice, they are still going to be pro-choice. Those who are pro-life are going to be pro-life.
I do think, you know, if the Democrats are concerned about those value voters, this is one of the issues that they should watch. If you believe life begins at conception, which is what the values voters most of them believe, this is a very important issue to them. So, again, I think both sides will be watching what they do on this.
KING: A lot of those value voters are Republicans, and they watch the president of the United States, as well as they watch individual issues. I want to show you some numbers that I found quite striking because of where we are in the political calendar.
This is the president's approval rating among Republicans. In March 2002 heading into the midterm elections, in which the Republicans defied history and picked up seats, the president stood at 96 percent approval among Republicans.
When he was running for reelection at this point in March 2004, he was at 91 percent among Republicans. Now in March 2006, a midterm election year, the president is at 82 percent among Republicans.
Now, not so bad, 82 percent, but down a bit from where he was. And you know the Democrats are against. The numbers among independents are not good. If you are a Republican, as you are J.C. Watts, that has to worry you about turnout come November if he can't turn that around.
WATTS: Well, but John turnout is not a concern. I think 82 percent is still a good number, and I think that the critical thing in terms of where those numbers are today compared to where they were six, eight months ago it's the spending issue.
You know, James and I were talking before we came on about the line-item veto. James said it was an old statue of liberty play that the president is pulling out. I think the president is going to have to make a commitment to prove that he is concerned about the spending issue.
Republicans, we got judges confirmed, tax bills passed. A lot of good things that this president has done, but over the last six or eight months, people have been concerned about spending. And I didn't think that's just a Republican issue, I think there's some Democrats that would be concerned about that as well.
CARVILLE: The problem -- they'll say they're concerned about spending. Remember, they cut student loans and deadbeat dad enforcement. You can't find six people in America that think we ought to cut student loans and enforcement of deadbeat dads. And the truth of the matter is, there are plenty of places they could cut spending, but they're not.
The point is about the 82 percent, they have to figure a way -- the difficulty is to get them back without losing any more of the independents that they already lost. That's a challenge. If they get a break on the war on terror or the economy, despite what certain reporters say -- it's a booming economy, the incomes have gone down in this economy-- until they can get that, it will be tough.
And I think, yes, they are looking over their shoulders at the 82 percent, but I think they're trying to figure out a way to get them back without losing anymore independents.
WATTS: But as I said, the 82 percent number is still a good number. I don't think, you know, the administration is going to lose sleep over an 82 percent number.
(CROSSTALK)
WATTS: But that's an individual senator's race. But I do think, in terms of spending, James, you hit the nail on the head. There's places that could have been cut, but they didn't do that. And I think that's why you've seen that number slip down to 82 percent.
KING: Let's move on to the politics of ports. We'll talk more about Congress another day. The politics of ports right now. This controversy affecting what was the presidents calling card, which was his standing on terrorism.
Which party will do a better job protecting the country from terrorism? Republicans, 45 percent, Democrats, 40 percent, in our latest poll. Republicans still have that five-point edge, but that is the best standing for the Democrats since 9/11 when you asked that question. Is it just because of the ports controversy? Is it because people are getting tired of the Iraq war? Why?
WATTS: Well, I don't think the administration handled the ports issue very well. And I think that's one more stumble I think that's added up. The war in Iraq, surely that will be an issue. I do think the administration should be concerned about that.
But you know, John, there's an old saying that my grandmother used to recite. She'd say, "What's in the well will come up in the bucket." I don't think the Democrats will gain a lot of credibility on this issue, just like, you know -- Republicans have a tough challenge trying to gain credibility in the black community because the black community keeps saying, "Yes, that's what they're saying, but."
So I think people are going to view the Democrats the same way on this issue of terror and the war. That's what they're saying, They will deal with it that way. That's what they're saying, but.
CARVILLE: I think it would be like the Democrats being ahead by five points on Medicare on healthcare. They're ahead. But I think it goes to the larger point -- I think people now view this administration as incompetent. So they say, "If they're incompetent on the economy, if they're incompetent on Iraq, if they're incompetent on Katrina, they're incompetent on prescription drugs, and therefore they must be incompetent on terror also."
They have to make a competence case during some point at this administration to get it back. So yes, of course, the Dubai thing weighs heavily over that. And I think also, the way the Dubai ports this is handled goes to the question of competence. And I think...
KING: Let me play a trick on you. I'm outnumbers on here, as Wolf usually is everyday. Two to one. But let's bring in Wolf Blitzer from Dubai for a question on the lingering ports controversy -- Wolf?
BLITZER: You know, James, I'm wondering if you think most Democrats are going to go into this 45-day review with an open mind. In other words, if this interagency review on national security issues concludes it doesn't pose any significant national security issues for the U.S., do you think there are Democrats who will come forward and say, "You know what? We support it"?
CARVILLE: You know, Wolf, the problem is that they can't seem to move public opinion on this. And if they don't move public opinion, they're not going to move Democratic or Republican senators. This thing has the stench of being kind of fact-proof right now.
If the public doesn't like it, they don't like the process that went -- and until the White House and the supporters of this deal can start moving some of the public, I don't think they're going to move Democrats on this, and I don't think they're going to move Republicans on this. I think this thing has the scent of a real political loser across the board.
WATTS: And Wolf, I believe that each member of Congress, they have about a half a million to 500,000 or 600,000 constituents they have to answer to. At the end of the day, that's where their loyalties are going to lie. I'm not sure that the president is going to move the numbers in these respective districts. So it remains to be seen. But there's some challenges out there on this ports issue.
CARVILLE: Yes. Well, Wolf, it seems like just being here -- not just looking at the polls, but talking to people who go back home and come back and hearing stories that Republican congressmen talking to Democratic congressmen, "I ain't touching this thing with a ten-foot pole," they have to move people before they move anybody.
KING: James Carville, J.C. Watts, thank you very much -- Wolf?
BLITZER: Thanks very much, guys. A good discussion.
Next, top officials here in the United Arab Emirates are trying to convince Americans that they can run a U.S. port and keep that port security. I conducted an exclusive interview earlier today with a top international adviser to the crown prince. That's coming up.
Also, coming up in our 5:00 p.m. Eastern hour, a heated debate over port security. It's the House Homeland Security chairman versus a strong supporter of the Dubai deal. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. We're here in Dubai getting an up-close look at port security and the fallout from the port deal that's making waves back in the United States. Government and corporate officials here in Dubai are scrambling to try to explain themselves to Americans and show they are committed to keeping them safe. I spoke with Yousef Al Otaiba, the international affairs adviser to the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Thanks very much for joining us. You've studied in the United States. You know the United States. There's deep anger now over this deal in the U.S. Were you surprised by this?
YOUSEF AL OTAIBA, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR FOR CROWN PRINCE: I believe we need to do a better job of reaching out to the American people and reaching out to congressional leaders to explain and convey the history and the role that the UAE has played in the international war on terror.
BLITZER: What is that role? Because most Americans have no idea what the UAE has done, is doing. They know that it was one of the countries that had relations with the Taliban before 9/11.
AL OTAIBA: Let me put some facts on the table. And I know there's been questions raised regarding the UAE's position on the war on terror, especially after 9/11. Now, the UAE has had a long, extensive history of cooperating with the U.S. on issues dealing with military intelligence cooperation, terrorism issues, and so on, since well before 9/11.
In 1991, the UAE contributed forces to Operation Desert Storm. And we allowed U.S. forces to base in the United Arab Emirates. In 1993, we contributed forces to operations in Somalia. In 1998, we sent as many as 9,000 troops to conduct peacekeeping operations under the NATO alliance. We operated in Kosovo for over three and a half years.
These are all facts that perhaps some people may or may not be aware of, but our cooperation and our history in dealing with the U.S., the U.N., and various other allies and friends have been steadfast and absolutely unambiguous.
BLITZER: But you know the other argument, that security is not necessarily all that tight. There had been, supposedly, according to 9/11 Commission, shipments going in from the UAE, trans-shipments to Iran, nuclear material, or Libya. You've heard those reports.
AL OTAIBA: I've heard those. And I think what you're asking me is, can the UAE be trusted with things like commercial and port operations in the United States?
BLITZER: That's the key question, because six ports in the United States -- if this deal goes through, the port options will be done by Dubai Ports World, a company that's owned by the UAE.
AL OTAIBA: Well, let me put some more facts on the table. The U.S. Navy sends ships up to 572 U.S. Naval vessels to port and ports in the UAE, whether it's (inaudible). We're reaching vessels up to the size of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. BLITZER: They come into this port here.
AL OTAIBA: They come into this port, and Fajera (ph) port. Now, the U.S. Navy feels that it trusts the UAE enough to put in vessels of that size and of that level of technology in our port. And throughout history, he we have had a flawless track record in the UAE, whether it comes to terrorism in general and supporting our allies and our friends in the region.
BLITZER: You studied at the Georgetown University in Washington, the National Defense University in Washington. Give us your assessment, what would be the ramifications if this deal collapses, if it doesn't go through? The geo-strategic -- you speak about this good relationship. What would be the ramifications if it doesn't go through?
AL OTAIBA: I'm confident enough that once enough light is shed on these subjects and enough people see -- get past some of the stereotypical images of the region and see the UAE for its actual track record, it's history, its support, and all the facts come up and people are aware of what the UAE has done to support everyone, including the United States in this global war on terror, I think there'll be no place for this deal to be except approved.
BLITZER: As an Arab, do you feel this is discrimination against Arabs?
AL OTAIBA: I feel that we have not done a good job of conveying to others what we have done, what we stand for, what the UAE policies and positions have been in many of these issues. We have a great relationship with the administration, but unfortunately we do not engage Congress or the American public often enough to create the image that everybody else considers.
BLITZER: One final question before I let you go, because it's come up. Many members of the Senate and the House have raised it. The UAE's economic boycott of Israel. How does that play into this whole debate? Why should a company owned by the UAE, which discriminates against Israel, a good ally of the United States, be allowed to take over port operations in New York, New Jersey, Miami, Baltimore, New Orleans?
AL OTAIBA: First, let me clarify that the ongoing free trade agreement negotiations with the United States addresses these issues. And we've already canceled the secondary and tertiary effects of the boycott of Israel. And when we conclude the FDA agreements, we will have a framework in place to deal with the boycott issue. Having said that, I don't think the boycott issue addresses or deals directly with port operations in the United States of America.
BLITZER: We're going to have to leave it there, unfortunately. Thanks very much for joining us. And I've got to tell you, this last few days I've been here in Dubai, it's very, very impressive.
AL OTAIBA: I really appreciate you coming here, and I hope you enjoy the country. (END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Yousef Al Otaiba, a national security adviser to the crown prince.
Coming up a little bit later here in THE SITUATION ROOM, I'll speak with the U.S. Navy commander who oversees port visits to Dubai, numerous port visits. We'll get his take on security arrangements in the port of Dubai.
And later, my exclusive interview with the chief executive officer of Dubai Ports World. Much more coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM. First, though, let's go back to John in Washington -- John?
KING: And, Wolf, 2:00 a.m., or something like that, in Dubai right now. I hope, amid all that, you can sneak in an espresso somewhere. We'll back to you just in a minute or two.
And coming up, a new challenge for Senator Hillary Clinton. We'll tell you what's happening now in her reelection campaign in New York.
And a powerful House Republican is throwing in the towel. We'll tell you who he is and why his retirement matters. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Welcome back. We'll go back to Wolf Blitzer live in Dubai momentarily. But first, a look at our political radar this Monday.
The influential chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee made it official, today. He's going to retire. California Congressman Bill Thomas says he won't seek a 15th term next November. Even if he ran, he'd be forced to give up the helm of the Ways and Means Committee because of Republican-imposed term limits on committee chairmen. Thomas has played a key role in pushing the president's tax cut agenda and writing legislation on Medicare, Social Security, and pensions.
In New York State, a Republican announced today she's running for Democrat Hillary Clinton's senate seat. Kathleen McFarland is a former Pentagon spokeswoman under President Reagan. She's seeking the GOP nomination for the Senate after two other contenders opted out. Polls show Senator Clinton so far is well ahead of her potential Republican challengers.
Also in New York, Governor George Pataki is back home nearly three weeks after having his appendix removed. Pataki was released from a Manhattan hospital today. He admits he's, quote, "not 100 percent" after suffering complications from that surgery. And his surgeon said it may take him six weeks or more to recover.
Small Internet donations played a major role in the 2004 president election. That's according to a new report released by George Washington University. Let's go again to our Internet reporter, Abbi Tatton. She has more -- Abbi?
TATTON: John, the reports online have just been released from the Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet. And what it's showing is that the Internet is leveling the playing field between small and large political donors.
Look to these small donors -- people giving, for example, under $100 -- showing how much more that they're using the Internet. And more Democrats -- over half of Democrats, almost twice of that as Republicans, giving online in this way. How are they doing it? Receiving e-mails, which are easily forwarded. We saw this all over the 2004 election. Blogs as well linking directly through to these sites where they can donate immediately.
The report said it's so easily, it's ready available to donate in this way that over 40 percent of people that did donate in small amounts did so without even being solicited, without even being pressured or receiving something to do so -- John?
KING: Abbi Tatton, we'll keep track of that as this campaign year plays out. Thank you, Abbi.
Now back to Wolf Blitzer in Dubai -- Wolf?
BLITZER: Thanks, John.
Coming up, the United States military's take on port security. What exactly does the Pentagon think about the United Arab Emirates, the controversial Dubai deal? I've been talking with a top U.S. Navy commander here in the Persian Gulf. That interview coming up.
And the company at the center of the storm, that would be D.P. World. My exclusive interview with the firm's CEO. Can he say anything to ease America's concerns? Find out that, coming up in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour of THE SITUATION ROOM. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: It'll cost AT&T $67 billion to buy Bell South. But it'll cost employees up to 10,000 jobs. The two companies say they're merge in a $67 billion deal. And AT&T officials say the employee layoffs will happen over a three-year period. Stockholders and regulators still have to approve that deal. Both companies are promising savings of about $2 billion a year.
And there's been a break in a levee in California. It broke this morning, but the water is receding now. The levee is built on private property near the Sonoma Creek. The break sent water rushing on to that property, flooded part of the state highway, and threatened about six nearby homes.
Still to come, Wolf will have much more live from Dubai, including the critical from many Americans and for officials here. Should the review process for selling U.S. ports be changed? Jack Cafferty will be back with your e-mails. And in our next hour, sentencing for the only person convicted in the United States in connection with the September 11th attacks. We'll have a live report on the penalty phase of Zacarias Moussaoui's trial.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. Let's go to New York. Jack Cafferty's standing by with "The Cafferty File" -- Jack?
CAFFERTY: Wolf, thanks. Susan Collins, the Republican senator from Maine, wants to introduce a bill that would move CFIUS's oversight from the Treasury Department to the Department of Homeland Security. It's all about this ports thing. The question we're asking is, how should the review process be changed when it comes to deals like the Dubai ports one? Here's some of what you've written us in the last hour or so.
Mark in Minnesota says, "Our elected United States congresspeople need to be able to vote on issues such as allowing port deals or anything else that has to do with our security as a nation. These issues should not be resolved behind the backs of our elected officials."
Bill in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania: "If we got rid of the current homeland security person, that would be Michael Chertoff, then I would say it should be under the department's leadership. He's done a horrible job with dealing with anything under his control."
Margaret in Locust Grove, Virginia: "Maybe they could make it an open process rather than doing the negotiations in secret, announcing it was a done deal, and then acting surprised when a controversy ensues."
Tony in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: "It should be in homeland security with congressional oversight. It should never be left to the discretion of a president. It's too easy for greed and dishonesty to leave us vulnerable, as this deal did."
Shirley in Atlanta writes, "The review (ph) process needs to be open and above board (ph). Congress should investigate it, hold open hearings when there's a request to buy any necessary infrastructure in this country. Then the entire Congress needs to vote on it. Then, if it passes, it should go the president to be signed" -- Wolf?
BLITZER: Jack, as you take a look at this overall situation involving the port deal, from the perspective -- and you've been watching it very closely now over the past several weeks -- have you seen any shift in the attitude of the American public?
CAFFERTY: Not really. But I mean, the stuff I read is very unscientific, and it's based mostly on the questions we ask. The overwhelming perception that I have is that not only do the people not want this to happen, but a whole lot of members of President Bush's party, including people like Susan Collins and Representative Peter King don't want it to happen. And I think the administration has an uphill fight.
I've been watching your coverage from Dubai, it's a very impressive place and they have great security there. I ain't worried about security in Dubai. I'm concerned about countries with ties to terrorism, like the United Arab Emirates, having oversight of security of port operations in this country. I don't care what they do over there, but I sure as hell care what they do if they have a chance to come here and have anything to say about six major ports in this country. Just one man's opinion.
BLITZER: Good opinion from Jack Cafferty, never shy about his opinion. Jack, stand by, we're going to get back to you very soon.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
