LOL
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.
I wasn't aware that China supported Al Queda
But they read they're mail and listen to the constituents who elect them. Who said anything about impeachment? By the way, it's the first time I've heard 51/48 described as "overwhelming." I conjecture that if an election were held today it would be 60/40 -- and not the way we'd like.
I have to agree with you, YAYA.....I have seen Cressey on with Chrissy Matthews before...and he seemed to lean always away from Bush...(which is why Chrissy would have him on)...
I was really surprised to see this thread...good for him.
And the UAE does support Al Queda. How?
This whole problem is the result of Bill Clinton's "reinventing government". They took the port authority and unconstitutionally changed it so that foreign countries could operate them in a plan to "level the playing field" with the rest of the world. This plan went hand in hand with the OECD plan to shut down ship building in the US, and ridding the US of US flagged ships in the name of "leveling the playing field". The term "level the playing field" is a favorite of the "free traders" who are waging an economic war against the American people, and they are winning. Supporting foreign ownership of port facilties is tantamount to supporting Bill Clinton's attacks on our constitutional government and national sovereignty.
Buys Pepto by the case, poor fella.
Secondly - What do you think all this hoopla is about.. this is a stage for the impeachment buzz..set by the liberals, the left and the media.
The Congress is not voting on anything ( the time when they check *their mail*)- they are all yucking it up for the cameras.
and ....you say toe-ma-toe... I say to-mat-o.
Thanks SK. I'm assuming IMB is new to these threads, and hope he will find them of value.
By the way, don't think mere Pepto would get it done against the digestive tract onslaughts of the MSM. I'm a once-a-day Prilosec man!
Yes, you're correct about "their" and I noticed it too late. Excuse the error, but I've taken an extra glass of wine in order to face your irrational argumentation. Now that I'm fortified, it's very apparent that congess (held by the Republicans) will NOT impeach Bush. But the point is that they will most certainly override any veto (it's still hard to believe that he's so isolated from the nation)and that he's promised (whatever that's worth!) on the Dubai question to veto any such bill. But Bush is finished politically and it's a shame that he's giving ammo to the Dems for the mid-term election. Would you like to hear what the National Review magazine says about his "conservatism"?
Wow. I'll bet AstraZeneca sends you thank you notes and invitations to the company picnic!
"Hi. I'm governsleastgovernsbest. Thanks to Prilosec, I'm acid reflux-free despite watching the liberal media every day. Try it - for even your worst cases of MSM!"
LOL
Callers made some great points. (Chris Core thinks this is Harriet Meirs redux)
Caller said that if this was February 2002 this deal would never be considered and/or allowed...and NOTHING'S CHANGED SINCE THEN!
Also, another caller pointed out that Bob Dole has been hired as DPW's lobbyist, while Elizabeth, the senator...is totally against it.
Get that popcorn ready.
NO say it ain't so... Do you mean he wont be running for President then...(hehe)
I understand about the spelling error on your part, I make typos all of the time- at least I am brave enough to admit it..
AND...At least you are brave enough to admit you are drunk right now, so I give you that- no wonder I look at your posts on this topic as one long drunken ramble.... cheers. Bottoms up!
We will see who overrides a Presidential Veto when AND IF the time comes.
until then...
The rest of us will remain sober and let the president do the job he was elected to do. ;]
Speculation, although I'd tend to agree. But I disagree with the claim that nothing has changed since then. Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove were both on Hannity's show yesterday, both saying the UAE has taken steps to help us significantly in the war on terror (and yes, of course there are still problems over there).
No, not drunk - just mildly intoxicated enough to waste time responding to a featherweight.
Yes, and that led me to the thought yesterday I don't know what I'd do without Rush.
Mainly because he is one of the only conservative analysts in our movement with a large megaphone that doesn't jump into a crowd just because everyone else has. Whether one agrees with him always, isn't the point. He'll never be among the mass hysteria populas. He's a Godsend. Literally.
He didn't jump with Abu Grabib. Katrina. And this. While most everyone else lost their heads.
There are a lot of people up on that Hill that cannot say the same probably about ready to crawkl in a hole, looking for a face saving way out. It's a real shame a lot of them are Republicans that couldn't keep their wits about them.
Only people of your intellectual caliber believe in stereotypes. But you are so interested in name-calling you didn't answer my question. Did you forget it in your desire to level ad hominem attacks rather than to adduce a coherent argument ( which I know is most difficult for you) ?
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.