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.
Interesting thread on our topic yesterday. Thought you'd be interested.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584021/posts
(Like all NBC and ABC analysts, Cressey has always put forth the worst case for Bush. I've commented on Cressey many times before.) This morning, Cressey had me in shock, I couldn't believe any NBC analyst was backing Bush, much less Cressey. Here's his bio:
__________________________________________________________
"Roger W. Cressey is president of Good Harbor Consulting, LLC "advising clients on homeland security, cyber security and counterterrorism issues. He is currently an on-air counterterrorism analyst for NBC News.
"Previously, Mr. Cressey served as Chief of Staff to the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board at the White House from November 2001 to September 2002. From November 1999 to November 2001, Mr. Cressey served as Director for Transnational Threats on the National Security Council staff, where he was responsible for coordination and implementation of US counterterrorism policy. During this period, he managed the U.S. Government's response to the Millennium terror alert, the USS COLE attack, and the September 11th attacks.
"Prior to his White House service, Mr. Cressey served in the Department of Defense, including as Deputy Director for War Plans. From 1991 - 1995, he served in the Department of State working on Middle East Security issues. He has also served overseas with the US Embassy in Israel and with United Nations peacekeeping missions in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. While in the former Yugoslavia, he was part of a United Nations team that planned the successful capture of the first individual indicted for war crimes in Croatia."
Our national security has been put in the hands of the lowest bidder. FACTS: Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE; the UAE has been PROVEN to have supported and laundered money for terrorists; the UAE has been the port conduit for nuclear technology en route to N.Korea and China; the UAE is on the U.S., British, and Australian adviseries warning against the threat of terrorist action against Western visitors. This is the first truly bi-partisan reaction to Bush's folly - with enough votes to override (two-thirds) a presidential veto. It's enough to make one laugh -- the president has not vetoed bills that had billions of wasted tax payer dollars in pork; he did not veto the education bill (written by Ted Kennedy) which eliminated school choice and accountability; he did not veto McCain-Feingold (which he earlier promised to) campaign finance reform. In fact, he hasn't vetoed a single bill -- now that he will be presented with a bill that protects our national security he suddenly becomes "courageous" and promises to veto it. Aside from the fact that Bush has betrayed every conservative principle, he now says he will be decisive on this issue. It makes one wonder if Kerry wasn't right in describing him as a f***ing idiot.
While we have debating this issue in the past few days, a group of American Arabs were busted for aiding and abetting the so-called insurgents in Iraq, a group of Muslims were arrested in France for the torture murder of a Jewish boy, and I could probably find a half a dozen other related events. Wake up and smell the coffee. By the way, I've been to the ME. Have you??
As long as you still agree extrapolating one or two actions by individual citizens to smear an entire country is a "specious argument", I'm fine with your posts pointing out the need to, you know, actually catch those who are terrorists.
My pleasure - glad you find it of value!
Singling out UAE for knee jerk exclusion will devastate our position in the Middle East financially and politically.
When this changes, I won't be as adamant in my views, re: this deal, and other related issues. I am not holding my breath.
Colmes repeated the outright lie that we liberated Iraq because we were told they were involved in 9/11. It really is pathetic when even the more reasonable liberals haved to keep inventing strawmen and knocking them down rather than dealing with facts. The facts are:
Despite these facts to the contrary critics constantly accuse the President of telling the American people Saddam was responsible for 9/11. They are pathetic, lying losers. I'm sick to death of Scott "Deer in the Headlights" McClellan and the rest of the President's communication team that think they're helping the country by not responding to lies like these. They believe civility means acquiescing to all but the most blatantly wrong attacks. Meanwhile their credibility and influence continue to wane as their enemies fire one unanswered volley after another.
No...but I've stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
Seriously...talk about specious arguments. You're an "authority" on this DPW deal because you've been to the Middle East?
In any event, my personal feelings on radical Islam are well known in here...so you're preaching to the choir. I would destroy Iran and take their oil...just for sh*ts and giggles.
The security of the ports and the people in charge of policing same are not..and will not be under the control of foreigners.
You won't be as "adamant" or "specious"? Your words, not mine.
I say let the President Lead- he has proven himself on National Security.
This issue has brought out more internal wrangling at FR than any other since the Harriet Miers nomination. Nothing wrong with debate of course, but I wish we could all keep it civil among ourselves.
No. NO! NO-O-O-O-O-O!!!!! Impeach the traitor now!! [pant, pant]
:-)
Well said, Betsy. Thanks.
I promise to work on it.
How about the ports owned by China?
This is what is commonly known as~ irrational hysteria.
Oh, and it is pure bunk too BTW.
You have been hanging out with the leftists a little too long bud.
Too bad most of the nation and congress don't share your splendid enlightenment!
I'm still not sold on this. It just seems like a very strange set of priorities to be whipping out the veto pen. You know, "methinks the President doth protest too much."
But given UAE's geographical position in the world, I have to assume that it's been determined the UAE is offering something important in return, and worth the initial fallout.
Ummm the Nation... well they voted in overwhelming numbers to elect this President to lead us thru this war.
If I were you I would not *count my chickens before they were hatched*.
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.