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.
Follow the $$$.
Well, at least you've got the right analogy, though you've drawn the exact opposite inference. The point about McVeigh (and he's not the only homegrown terrorist, either) not being illustrative of all Americans is equally applicable to the UAE.
What's the UAE's record on port security? Well, the most active port for us overseas is in the U.A.E. Tons of ships loaded with gear going in and out. It's a perfect target if some terrorist wants to strike at U.S. interests.
So if the U.A.E. port folks were in bed with the terrorists, why hasn't there been a single attack against us there? It's been completely secure. How does that fit with your "you can't trust them" mindset? Because we have been trusting them for many years to run ports safely and securely, and that's exactly what they've done.
Domestically, its even more secure because we'll still be running all the security stuff, and because the vast majority of workers will continue to be regular Americans.
You lie so much you need to go and work for the DNC. The USA or Israel has no saying whatsoever who will be on the ballot box in the Palestinian elections, and those Palestinians have been holding elections since 1995 long before Bush became President.
All they had to do was manufacture a threat and a whole lot of people were quick to pick up the ball and run with it for them. This BS was debunked the day it came out...and some folks are still running with it.
No kidding. I can't believe how quickly some people are willing to jump to conclusions when they know they haven't yet heard the full story.
You are so nasty you should be posting at Daily Kos. :) I read that in the Jerusalem Post, and when I have time I'll find the article. If you don't think the US exerts pressure on Israel, you should be posting at the Disney forum.
I'm sober but I know alot of drunks who make more sense than you. But now you're becoming a bore. Hehe
Sheesh- I was all happy for you that you had found a new hobby- I thought you were good at it- and then you go and prove me wrong.
My bad... Live and learn I guess.
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.