Posted on 02/23/2006 7:10:10 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
The assistant to President Bush for homeland security and counterterrorism today said the United Arab Emirates "has changed" and is no longer the same nation that once gave aide to the Taliban.
Instead of presidential press secretary Scott McClellan, Frances Fragos Townsend took questions from reporters today, addressing the controversy surrounding an administration-approved deal that would put the operations of six major U.S. ports in the hands of a state-sponsored company from the United Arab Emirates.
WND asked Townsend about the UAE:
"On page 11 of the 9-11 commission's report that you're undoubtedly familiar with, it says, 'From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties and enforce sanctions. These efforts achieved little before 9-11.' And my question: Why should we now give this nation any control of our ports, which so refused to help in stopping a worse killing of Americans than at Pearl Harbor?"
Responded Townsend: "There is no question that their performance has changed since 2001 in the war on terror. They have been critical allies in Afghanistan. They have been critical allies in fighting the financial war against terror. They've been critical allies in terms of our military-to-military relationship, as General Pace has talked about.
"I don't take issue with the 9-11 commission's characterization prior to September 11, but I will tell you, prior to September 11, Pakistan also recognized the Taliban. They, too, are now a critical ally in the war on terror, without whose support we would not have enjoyed some of the successes we've enjoyed, in terms of capturing or killing some of al-Qaida's leaders. So I would caution you against judging forever one's performance prior to 9-11."
WND also asked if heads will roll in the administration due to the lack of knowledge about the deal among higher-ups, saying, "What will be done, if anything, to those responsible for this being done without the knowledge of the president or the secretaries of defense and treasury?"
Townsend talked about the transaction-approval process for such deals:
"I can't speak to what will be done to them. I will tell you that there are tens of these every year. They are handled and they only come up to the president and to the senior to the members of the Cabinet if there's an objection, if the concerns can't be addressed in some way and can't be resolved. This is how the process has worked, and so I can't speak to, having I wasn't personally involved in it, so I can't speak to what the process how it performed."
Moozies is moozies!
This is the same firm that has major operations in an Australian port. The same firm that England is preparing to sell some of their own leases to. The same firm that is the major port provider for the U.S. Navy outside of the United States.
When Bush visits Pakistan all hell is going to break loose. Three quarters of that country would give its life to kill George Bush. As perhaps would most Dubaians.
This is the same nation that our State Department issues travel advisories for. Beware of terrorism in the UAE, but darn it, they sure are great port operators.
I don't think the UAE leadership is bad, but it's possible. I do know that some of the UAE populace is very bad. That's the rub. We let our guard down for five years and just when we don't care if folks are leaning to take off but not land 'figurateively', kaboom!
Speaking of child molesters, do you think perhaps this deal is a quid pro quo to the UAE in exchange for them taking Michael Jackson off of our hands? Either that or it's a brilliant Rovian strategy....the President will make the claim that the reason he needs to exercise his executive authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps is to ensure security at these six ports and the Democrats and Arlen Specter will be forced to concede his Article 2 powers.
Missing that fact is deadly. When the leader of a nation misses it...it might be deadly for a nation...in this case, it might be deadly for the world!
There is a vacuum of leadership...its scream is deafening.
LOok, iF yoU're nOt goINg to poSt factS, thEn doN't pOst On thIs topIc...
LOL
You know what, simple reasoning tells anyone but those with simpler minds all they need to know about this.
We used to limit access to citizens of nations like the USSR, because we were adversaries. Now we just kiss up to them and help finance their military buildup. Now that's progress...
Thanks for the post.
UAE is changed all right. They are twice as rich as last year.
Are you really this simple minded? First of all, if you will recall the USSR didn't exactly allow its citizens to freely leave the Soviet Union whether we wanted them here or not. Second, the Soviet Union and its government had thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at our cities, its military was designed for our destruction, and it lead a pact of nations whose stated purpose was to crush our NATO alliance. Sounds a lot like the UAE...or maybe not. Get a grip.
Was about to give this a serious read when I saw the source. Farah has always been out to lunch. Idiots.
Yes it would be, if only it were addressing the ports excluslively. Saudi Arabia has announced they are upping their student contingent to the U.S. to 20,000. I disagree with the port plan, but this comment wasn't intended to address that alone.
The Saudis? You do know they already own a commercial port venture in the U.S. don't you?
There is a vacuum of leadership...its scream is deafening.
Oh don't be ridiculous !
The Arabs are sitting on top of the richest cash cow on this planet so we can hardly 'thwart them from taking part in the world economy'. If money would solve their problems they would have no problems.
You foolishly assume economic rationality as a motive of theirs. Religious fanatics don't give a damn about money. You can't buy them off.
No I didn't. Wonderful.
They been at it several years now.
Fair comment. But money was made to go around. What ARE they expected to invest in? In Australia the UAE own bloodstock and equestrian properties.
This argument is going to go around in circles. One side based on emotion (not surprisingly) the other more pragmatic. Let's not come top blows over it!
IMMIGRATION IS A FAR GREATER PROBLEM! (imo)
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.