Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Today' Expert Cressey Backs Bush Port Plan: "Everyone's Hyperventilating"
Today Show/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

Posted on 02/23/2006 5:01:31 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest

by Mark Finkelstein

February 23, 2006

You know the old line: "find me a one-handed expert. The kind that doesn't say 'on the one hand, but on the other hand.'" The Today show found one. Interviewed this morning by Matt Lauer, terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey was single-handedly unequivocal in his support of the UAE port deal.

Lauer: "Take the politics out of it. Will this really damage national security especially at these ports?"

Cressey: "The simple answer is that it won't. We've had foreign ownership of the ports . . . for a number of years now. The American security apparatus is still going to have responsibility for how security is dealt with. So it won't."

Lauer seemed to second the notion: "So there is nothing in this deal, this operations deal with this Arab-owned company, that gives them any control of security: it's still going to be Treasury, Homeland Security, Defense Department, Customs dealing with security at those ports?"

Cressey: "That's exactly right. You have the Coast Guard worrying about what's going on on the seas, you have Customs and border protection dealing with it as it comes into the actual ports, we have other steps in place, a layered security approach so that even in the [foreign] ports themselves where the containers are being put on ships they're being looked at."

Cressey then deflected Lauer's suggestion that the US be given absolute veto power over any employee of the UAE company. Cressey:

"The concern everyone has is one of an insider threat. That somehow a Dubai-owned company would be able to put a terrorist or other insider into the process who could somehow do something to us. And the answer is, no, not in and of itself."

Lauer: "What about for valuable informtation, security-type information to be transferred from ranking individuals of this company on the ground at the ports to people at home that we don't want to have that information?"

Cressey saw no unusual concern: "data security is always an issue regardless of what country that owns the company. This is an issue for Western European countries and Asian countries as well. Data security, data integrity is always important."

Lauer: "So you don't have a fear that this company based in the UAE could serve as a scouting tool for some terrorist organization?"

Cressey: "Let's keep in mind Richard Green [the shoe bomber] was from Great Britain, we've had several attacks inside Great Britain by home-grown terrorists. Great Britain has a terrorist threat, a problem. Are we worried about that, because they were controlling US ports before this? No we weren't. Everyone's hyperventilating a little bit back home."

Lauer gave it one last shot: "But just to restate: you don't think if this sale goes through that the ports will be less safe and that as a result the rest of our country will be less safe?"

Cressey was emphatic: "This sale will have no discernible effect on the security of the United States. We still have a responsibility at home to secure the ports. That doesn't change anything with this sale."

Perhaps the Bush administration should bring Cressey back into the NSC. They certainly couldn't have had a more adamant advocate this morning. Don't look for Roger to be sipping Sonoma Chardonnay anytime soon with Barbara Boxer or Hillary Clinton.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: boxer; clinton; cressey; lauer; ports; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

1 posted on 02/23/2006 5:01:32 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines; Miss Marple; an amused spectator; netmilsmom; Diogenesis; YaYa123; MEG33; ...

Today show/NewsBusters ping.


2 posted on 02/23/2006 5:02:07 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show Since 2002 So You Don't Have To.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I admittedly don't know much about Mr. Cressey, but I'm in full agreement with him on the hyperventilating.


3 posted on 02/23/2006 5:04:11 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
We've had foreign ownership of the ports . . . for a number of years now

Britain is NOT the UAE.

4 posted on 02/23/2006 5:06:26 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Would be nice to have balance on the security aspects. But it makes no sense to have an on-air feud over the politics of the decision, there's been more than enough grandstanding and blather already.


5 posted on 02/23/2006 5:07:17 AM PST by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: palmer

I believe that when all the dust settles on this thing, there will be alot of egg on alot of faces both Republican and Democrat. Polical expediency generally comes back to bite the person(s)involved.


6 posted on 02/23/2006 5:10:27 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Bless your heart for this one!!! I was watching, and so shocked I forgot to take notes. I don't think I've ever seen Cressey so unequivical in his support of Bush. Hellsbells, I don't think I've ever heard him be supportive of Bush!!!!! (As an NBC analyst, I figured his job was to criticize the administration, cause that's what he's always done.

Lauer tried his hardest to evoke Bush criticism from Cressey, but it didn't happen.


7 posted on 02/23/2006 5:11:47 AM PST by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

Some parts are.


8 posted on 02/23/2006 5:13:52 AM PST by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
It would shock me if Matt Lauer would pose the same adversarial questions to democrats instead of saying 'Amen'.
9 posted on 02/23/2006 5:16:53 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I have a feeling that with the Today show bringing him on is a signal to the Dems that this topic is another one that won't bring down Bush, or show that they are tougher on national security than Republicans.

I am disappointed with Republicans who jumped on the hysteria before the facts prove or disprove the legitimacy of the deal. I am open to both arguments, but at this point it doesn't look like there are any new security concerns at the ports that aren't already there.


10 posted on 02/23/2006 5:17:26 AM PST by soloNYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

The UAE is not Syria or Iran.

LLS


11 posted on 02/23/2006 5:17:27 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

McCain will come out looking the best, since he wasn't involved in the outrage. I'm no McLame supporter but he got this one right.


12 posted on 02/23/2006 5:17:32 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Cressey: "Let's keep in mind Richard Green [the shoe bomber] was from Great Britain, we've had several attacks inside Great Britain by home-grown terrorists. Great Britain has a terrorist threat, a problem. Are we worried about that, because they were controlling US ports before this?

This is another specious argument. It's like saying Tim McVeigh was an American, so Americans should not work at the ports. You can't extrapolate from an isolated event. The Bush administation apparently lives in a dream world when it comes to the Arabs. It's really disappointing.

13 posted on 02/23/2006 5:18:28 AM PST by veronica ("A person needs a sense of mission like the air he breathes...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Who is watching and who cares!??


14 posted on 02/23/2006 5:19:49 AM PST by IronManBike (Lodestar in the LoneStar--multitask)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

As most folks here know, Rush has refrained from rushing to judgment on the issue. I'm predicting Rush will mention Cressey's interview today.


15 posted on 02/23/2006 5:20:00 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show Since 2002 So You Don't Have To.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Absolutely Bin Laden's family represents a large Muslim owned construction company...having successfully completed projects around the world..

These projects have not mysteriously fallen down or blown themselves up killing thousands...

Muslims wont be getting into the country any easier than they already are...nor will they be able to sneak WMD with any more difficulty than they already are able to..

Let them run the ports...whats the big deal...in fact let them cater all of Washington DC's meals from now on...

imo

16 posted on 02/23/2006 5:20:34 AM PST by joesnuffy (A camel once bit our sister..but we knew just what to do...we gathered rocks and squashed her!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronManBike
Who is watching and who cares!??

Over 5.4 million people daily. Today remains an important shaper of news and views for many Americans.

17 posted on 02/23/2006 5:21:05 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show Since 2002 So You Don't Have To.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

That's right - since 9/11, no UAE citizens have been involved in terrorists attacks against the U.S.


18 posted on 02/23/2006 5:21:18 AM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Once again, rational thought by people who know better will always come out ahead. This entire issue was manufactured by the left to play on people's fears and mistrust of the "evil a-rabs" so they appear strong on national defense. They wanted to appeal to middle america so they decided to skillfully play the "fear card" like they so frequently accuse the republicans of doing.

This entire episode was a smokescreen blown out there by democrats until the next "scandal dujour" comes up. I'm not surprised by that, what has me pissed is the willingness of the republicans to be manipulated and go along with this manufactured issue without getting all the facts. We have now probably alienated a valuable ally in the GWOT and most importantly have placed our military bases in the UAE (the facilities that will most likely be used in any attack against Iran) in jeopardy.

Once again, the republicans prove why they don't deserve majorities because they don't know how to lead.
19 posted on 02/23/2006 5:21:32 AM PST by newnhdad (All your government branches are belong to us!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Neither are the ChiComms.

L

20 posted on 02/23/2006 5:21:52 AM PST by Lurker (In God I trust. Everybody else shows me their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson