Posted on 02/24/2006 10:05:16 AM PST by bigsky
Before President Bush gets anywhere near casting his first veto to ensure that the government of the United Arab Emirates can manage elements of six U.S. ports, someone ought to put before him pages 137-139 of “The 9/11 Commission Report.”
If Bush doesn’t then cancel the UAE port deal, Congress must demand testimony from every person named in those pages and the footnotes. That includes former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet; former CIA Deputy Director for Operations James Pavitt; former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger; Gen. Hugh Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Maj. Gen. John Maher, Shelton’s vice director of operations; Gary Schroen, the CIA field officer tracking Bin Laden; “Mike,” the pseudonym the 9/11 Commission gave the U.S.’s Osama bin Laden unit chief; and, most importantly, Richard Clarke, Berger’s assistant for counter-terrorism.
Tipped Off
The story the commission tells is that Clarke made a call to a high-ranking UAE official that may have inadvertently saved bin Laden from a U.S. missile strike. The commission’s reporting strongly suggests someone in the UAE government tipped off someone in Afghanistan, protecting bin Laden.
In early 1999, the Clinton Administration wanted to fire missiles at bin Laden without risking civilian casualties. Bin Laden played into our hands. Intelligence reports from Afghan “tribals” indicated he was frequenting a small hunting camp adjacent to a larger camp outside Kandahar, Afghanistan. Here U.S. missiles could score a clean kill.
But then officials from the UAE got in the way. The commission said:
“On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike. The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Laden’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely. … According to reporting from the tribals, bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis. The tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11. Clarke wrote to Berger’s deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.
“No strike was launched. By February 12 bin Laden had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by. Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America’s best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf. The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable. The bin Laden unit chief, ‘Mike,’ agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill bin Laden before 9/11.
“Even after bin Laden’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up. The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity. On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former bin Laden unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. ‘Mike’ thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden.”
Clarke Visited UAE
Footnotes spell out more details. One names the “UAE official” Clarke called: “NSC memo, Clarke, secure teleconference between UAE Chief of Staff Muhammad bin Zayid and Clarke, Mar. 7, 1999.”
Another notes that Joint Chiefs deputy operations director Maher was incredulous the CIA would approve this call: “Maher told us he thinks it ‘almost impossible’ that the CIA cleared Clarke’s call.”
Another indicates Clarke had been in the UAE just before the contemplated strike at bin Laden and had been assured by both bin Zayid and Dubai’s leader, Sheikh Muhammad bin Rashid, that the UAE would help the U.S. against bin Laden. Bin Zayid even insisted UAE officials were not in Afghanistan, even though it turned out that the UAE chief of staff himself had gone hunting in Afghanistan at about the same time as the contemplated U.S. attacks. The commission said:
“Days before overhead imagery confirmed the location of the hunting camp, Clarke had returned from a visit to the UAE … His visit included one-on-one meetings with Army Chief of Staff bin Zayid, as well as talks with Sheikh Muhammad bin Rashid, the ruler of Dubai. Both agreed to try to work with the United States in their efforts against Bin Laden. … On February 10, as the United States considered striking the camp, Clarke reported that during his visit bin Zayid had vehemently denied rumors that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan. … Subsequent reporting, however, suggested that high-level UAE officials had indeed been at the desert camp. CIA memo, ‘Recent High Level UAE Visits to Afghanistan,’ Feb. 19, 1999. Gen. Shelton also told us that his UAE counterpart said he had been hunting at a desert camp in Afghanistan at about this time.”
Another footnote says that talking points prepared for DCI Tenet that March mention “the UAE being ‘tipped off’ to the CIA’s knowledge of the camp.”
Richard Clarke believed the UAE was a counter-terrorism ally then. Bush believes it now. Clarke apparently was fooled. But that, at least, was before 9/11.
Do you feel guilty? ;]
Actually this story seems to indicate that the blundering Clarke tipped off al Queda that we knew of this camp.
Since no one admitted awareness of any conjuction of UAE officials and Osama the death of the alleged former would not have raised any hackles. So what if someone was where they weren't supposed to be.
But it is a perfect example of the unrealistic view of military and foreign policy which controlled the Clinton administration. We certainly are not surprised by any of this incompetence.
Human Events has inadvertently revealed its own duplicity in trying to spin this as anti-port deal. That type of deception is why I no longer receive it as I did for about five years.
http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/2006/02/portgate-committee-has-only-refused.html
The advocates of the Portgate deal have argued that the deal cannot be a threat to National security because it was reviewed by an interagency committee called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), formed in 1988. But out of 1530 cases, CFIUS has only turned down only one application, which was from a company in Red China.
http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/2006/02/portgate-managers-must-know-manifest.html
The Bush Administration has said that Dubai Ports World, the company that would manage six U.S. ports under the Administration?s secret deal with the UAE, will not have control over security at our ports and nothing will change.
However, the management company arranges the transport for all items coming through the ports. It must know what is coming in, when it?s coming, and on what ship it is arriving. That means that they make the manifest. Should an Islamofascist or other militant get hold of that manifest, it could be altered to cover the shipment of materials that could kill massive numbers of Americans. That means that security information must be shared with the management company. How else could it do the job?
http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/2006/02/re-portgate.html
For once, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is right about something. I guess it just goes to show that even a blind bird catches a worm once in a while.
What Schumer is right about is his opposition to the deal that would allow Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to gain control of six major American ports through its purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which currently runs the ports: New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami.
The obvious question is, aren't there any American companies capable of running these ports? And the more important question is, Are we serious about the War on Terror? We have left our borders wide open for anyone (including terrorists) to come through and now we are turning control of six major ports over to a country that sponsors terrorism.
The deal has been approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, but Schumer, along with Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representatives Vito Fossella (R-NY), Christopher Shays (R-Ct.), and Mark Foley (R-Fla.), is trying to stop the transaction. Representative Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has urged the Bush Administration to reconsider.
New York City Council members of both parties have spoken out against the deal. "On its face, this looks like insanity to me," the Republican minority leader of the City Council, James Oddo, said. The chairman of the Council's Public Safety Committee, Democrat Peter Vallone, said that the deal "raises some legitimate concerns."
The Bush administration considers the UAE a key ally in the War on Terror, but the UAE has been a sponsor of terrorism. It was the home of Marwan al-Shehi, one of the 19 hijackers who killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Other hijackers travelled through the UAE. The UAE was an important financial base for the September 11 hijackers. The country is a transit point for Al Qaeda. It has been a financier of Al Qaeda. It continues to regard the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and is militantly anti-Israel. It refuses to recognize Israel. The CIA has identified the UAE as a major center for drug running and money laundering. It also has close ties to Iran and has served as a conduit for Iran's nuclear program. The UAE offered asylum to Saddam Hussein.
The UAE is a federation of seven Arab emirates on the Arabian peninsula.
As Rep. Foley has said, "If our ports are the most vulnerable targets for terrorism and if we are at war, as the president says, we should be overly critical of handing over the management of our ports to any foreign countries, post 9/11."
What happens if nuclear materials pass through one of these ports? How will the UAE direct its employees to deal with that? The threat to our national security is clear.
That is why these Senators and Representatives are right to speak out against the transfer of control of our ports to UAE control, just as Red Chinese control of the Panama Canal poses a threat to our national security.
Can we afford to turn control of key ports over to a company controlled by a terrorist-sponsoring government?
Maybe everything is fine but since this seems to be a concern for many people, a comprehensive review beyond their job description is reasonable. Congress needs to be briefed (perhaps in closed session) by the CIA and the NSA regarding this matter. Once this issue is settled they should move on to other assets that maybe held or managed on American soil by Foreign entities. I don't think this has ever been done, at least since 09/11/01. I think t should be. Hopefully everything would look fine. But unless we look we'll never know.
There are a few things I can do better than President Bush-leading the United States thru this war on terror is not one of them.
If the deal is good enough for the Commander and Chief~ it is good enough for me.
"You DO reallize the really damning fact is it MAY NOT be true. That is the problem with these sort of Tin Foil Hat smear jobs. They all rely on the reading ASSUMING things with no FACTS verify the Writer's assumption. I say this is complete BS made up by the Writer. Prove me wrong."
With all due respect, you are the one sounding desperate and shrill.
I think the existence of any 9/11 Commission must have been predicated on an underlying agreement among the Democrats and Republicans in Congress that neither the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration would get trashed.
Are you defending Richard Clark now?
The presence of UAE officials in Afghanistan at that time does raise questions as to how reliable these people are.
John Gibson had an interesting Arab on his show today who said he has very good intel that they did tip of Bin Laden.
It appears Hillary has been taking acting lessons so maybe you will get your wish.
We need to get a mike in front of Jamie Gorelick pronto!
hey mike show me where i said iraq wasnt connected to 9/11?
did you even read my post..i said they were.
I never did say you were claiming Saddam wasn't connected to Al Qaeda. I was merely adding to your post where you mentioned you did believe that.
As for 2 hijackers being from the UAE, this is a really weak argument against the port deal. The UK which controlled the port operations previously also has citizens who are terrorists, including of course the London subway bombers. As for the finances, US banks were also used as conduits for Al Qaeda and terrorist money. Many nation's banks have been or are used for that. None of this ads up to the UAE govt. being complicit in any of this any more than the British govt. or US govt. was complicit in terrorism because some of their citizens were or because some of their financial institutions were used to fund terrorism.
Since 9-11, UAE central-bank officials have strengthened antimoney-laundering and terror-financing laws and have increased oversight of the financial system. Recently, the UAE has moved to the forefront of Gulf states in cooperating with U.S. diplomatic initiatives against terrorism and nuclear proliferation. In little-publicized missions, State and Treasury Department officials have been shuttling to the Emirates over the past two years to work out cooperation.
Only last week, the State Department's nonproliferation chief, Steven Rademake, was in Abu Dhabi seeking to coordinate new security initiatives. Current and former U.S. officials say the UAE has provided significant assistance both in passing along terrorism tips and in helping apprehend suspects. In the lead up to Sept. 11, UAE officials passed along information that led to the arrest of several "major terrorism suspects," said Mr. Kattouf, the former ambassador.
"These were not small fries." U.S. officials say that UAE has continued to pass along significant intelligence. The country was also the first in the region to implement the U.S. cargo-security initiative to prescreen containers destined for the U.S.
As for the Hamas support you cite, that is the first I've heard of it, so I really can't comment. But if true it hardly means the UAE is going to jeopardize their continued existence or their financial well being by allowing terrorists to operate the port operations functions for them. They know any incident would be traced back to them and their country would be finished.
As for CAIR, that is even less of a deal killer. A lot of potentional port operators are going to be from nations who have connections and do things we don't like. The Brits were among many European nations friendly with the PLO.
This is as good a place as any to state my views, which probably approximate those of many others (at least I hope so). I don't "fiercely" support this deal. I don't win or lose anything whichever way it goes. I do trust the president would not intentionally endanger our national security. He could be wrong, however, or getting bad advice. The politics of this are not that good; on the other hand, I am not sure Pres. Bush cares that much about politics-- he just wants to get the job done. That may not be the best way to play it, but that is how he has done it to date.
My threshold question in this whole matter has never really been answered-- Assuming UAE are not worthy of trust, what information or security breaches could they exploit only by virtue of being given these leases? If there is substantial risk in trusting them because they could harm the US, that is an obvious concern. Is that the case or not? Someone should be able to provide a concrete scenario of this risk. If not, there is no need for further inquiry, because there is no risk of harm.
Now, if there IS a risk that can be expressed in concrete terms, we must look at the UAE as it is currently configured to see if they create a risk or not. We seem to have jumped over the first question in order to argue about the second one.
If Bush is wrong, call him on it. If not, some apologies are owed. One thing, though, is that I don't doubt his good faith.
"Not marching in lockstep support of the UAE port deal with all the other Bush/Rush blind sycophants?"
I'm not sure why Stellar's account was suspended. I doubt it had anything to do with what you say above. If so, half of FR would be suspended right about now! Anyway, I can't begin to pretend to know what his "offense" was. If it was simple disagreement then I completly disagree that he should have been suspended. But I doubt that was it. It usually takes a lot more to get your account busted.
As to what you say about being "sychophants" merely for agreeing with the port deal, let me assure you there is nothing uninformed or even blindly loyal in my support of the deal. I have taken a good amount of time to become educated on the matter and I simply do not see what the problem with the deal is. No one has been more hawkish than I have been on the WOT. So if I truly believed this was a threat to our security I would be the first to speak up. And I honestly do believe the president, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. who have been staunch warriors against jihadist terror would not allow this to happen if they had even the slightest reservation.
I have never been afraid to disagree with the president. I have been vocally in opposition to his big spending and lack of border control. And I most assuredly owe him nothing. As for Rush, will I am all too willing to stray from his oft-times knee jerk reactions on things. So there's nothing sychophantic about my opinion on this. I have studied it in depth and my conclusion is that A) This deal is not what the opponents of it are making it out to be, i.e. selling of the ports B) The UAE is not a terrorist threat, and indeed is just the opposite an important ally C) That the US will continue to run port security through Customs, the Coast Guard and DHS, D) US employees will continue to run the ports E) The UAE has nothing to gain by being the pawn of terrorists by using this to somehow help out terrorists, and EVERYTHING to lose F) If they did want to use international shipping to ship something lethal into the US they could have done so already since they run both pre-screening programs and port operations in many ports of origin abroad and finally G) We cannot afford to send the signal to the world and needed allies in the war on terror that the US is Muslimphobic, xenophobic and closed for business.
Anyway, I've given this a lot of thought and study, so don't be so quick to dismiss the opinion of people in favor of this thing as being a bunch of zombies. I could honestly say the same about some on the other side of the equation since their obvious ignorance about the port deal (I don't mean you by the way) betrays a sucumbing to the worst instincts in them in terms of broadbrushing all peoples of a region and religion as all being terrorist sympathizers. On the other hand I recognize there are honest disagreements and honest concerns help by people of an opposing view on this and I'm willing to respect that.
So let's not tear one another to shreds over this situation. Let's be calm, rational and think things through and not question the motives of those who oppose are view on this issue. It's just an honestly held difference, that's all. In the end, there is more that unites us than divides us as conservatives.
Thanks for your note.
As for
They don't seem to realize that this is not a winning issue with voters. And if this thing goes through and even so much as a pipe bomb goes off in one of these ports, Republicans, especially associated wit Bush are finished.
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.