A Couple Of Quickies From Both Of Us ...
First up is me, and I have new news regarding the UAE deal. The following report from the AP wires shows that even the Coast Guard warned the administration over this port deal.
Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard raised concerns weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.
The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to assume significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. It also clouded whether the Bush administration's agreement to conduct an unusual investigation into the pending takeover's security risks would allay lawmakers' concerns.
The administration said the Coast Guard's concerns were raised during its review of the deal, which it approved Jan. 17, and that all those questions were resolved. London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. now handles the port operations.
"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment" of the potential merger, an unclassified Coast Guard intelligence assessment said.
"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," said the half-page assessment. Officials said it was an unclassified excerpt from a larger document.
In a statement, the Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the excerpt ultimately were addressed and that other U.S. intelligence agencies answered the questions raised.
The Coast Guard assessment raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of people working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.
"We were never told about this and have no information about it," Michael Moore, DP World's senior vice president, said of the excerpt. However, he said it shows "serious and probing" questions were asked and that the initial approval of the deal indicates those questions were answered.
Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released the excerpt at a briefing Monday. The Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a 45-day investigation of the potential security risks related to the deal. The government did not do such an investigation before approving the deal, even though critics say the law required it.
"I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed," Collins, R-Maine, said after the classified portion of the briefing. "I can only conclude that there was a rush to judgment, that there wasn't the kind of painstaking, thorough analysis that needed to be done, despite serious questions being raised and despite the involvement of a wide variety of agencies."
We are not fans of Sen. Collins here at the Asylum, however this issue goes beyond partisan politics. I share Thomas' apprehensive stance on this deal. We have military people assuring us that the UAE are very good at running their ports, and have done an excellent job in handling the movement and support of the military's hardware over there. However, in this debate, the one thing being missed is the human factor.
Anyone standing against this deal because this is an "Arab" country is a know-nothing relying on their own bigotry. Anyone who claims that they are not nearly the ally that Great Britain is--the previous owner of this contract--have next to no idea what they are talking about. The UAE has been a solid ally in the War on Terror. Do they have their faults and problems. Yes, and that is one of the reasons why we are concerned about the deal. And interview with Claudia Rosett will be up soon on Generalissimo Duane's soon, hopefully. She shed more light on the port deal, and it does not look good. Simply put, the 45 day wait will help the president prove his point, but as more information comes out, like the report above, it looks more and more like this deal is a dead one. That is not a knock against the UAE, but right now, we need to be in control of our ports. Al Qaeda is in the UAE, and the human factor--the possibility that someone may have sympathies for al Qaeda and their jihad, or someone possibly forced into doing something because of kidnapped family members--is simply too great a risk.
Bunny ;)
And now onto me. I picked this up from Hugh's site this afternoon. What is chilling about this statement is that Joel Rosenberg has almost been proven prophetic again, as he envisioned a similar move by Iran in his latest book "The Ezekial Option."
Iran’s president said Monday that his country supports calls for making the Middle East a nuclear arms-free zone, but he also urged the United States and Russia to give up all their atomic weapons as a threat to the region’s stability.
“We believe that these weapons, possessed by the superpowers and the occupiers in our area, are a threat to stability,” Ahmadinejad said.
Flaps Blog has a full round-up of links regarding the steps in this brewing crisis at that link, in addition to the overhead photos of Iran's nuclear facilities. Please, by all means, go there, and read up on what this fool's been doing.
But to return to the scenario, in the book, it is Russia and Iran demanding that the US and Israel disarm. This comes on the heels of a coup in Russia. So, Mr. Rosenberg is only partially correct. At least, right now. He's been right before, which only creeps me out more about his uncanny knack for nailing the current situation in the world, and being able to prognosticate events unfolding.
But to Ahmadinejad, if he thinks that anyone is taking his "advice" seriously, he smoking too much of his hooka lately. The US will never remove it's last resort from our arsenal. We will stay armed with nukes if for nothing else than a deterent against nutters like this guy. Negotiations are done with Iran. It will stop it's weapons programs, or there will be serious consequences.
Publius II
First up is me, and I have new news regarding the UAE deal. The following report from the AP wires shows that even the Coast Guard warned the administration over this port deal.
Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard raised concerns weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.
The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to assume significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. It also clouded whether the Bush administration's agreement to conduct an unusual investigation into the pending takeover's security risks would allay lawmakers' concerns.
The administration said the Coast Guard's concerns were raised during its review of the deal, which it approved Jan. 17, and that all those questions were resolved. London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. now handles the port operations.
"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment" of the potential merger, an unclassified Coast Guard intelligence assessment said.
"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," said the half-page assessment. Officials said it was an unclassified excerpt from a larger document.
In a statement, the Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the excerpt ultimately were addressed and that other U.S. intelligence agencies answered the questions raised.
The Coast Guard assessment raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of people working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.
"We were never told about this and have no information about it," Michael Moore, DP World's senior vice president, said of the excerpt. However, he said it shows "serious and probing" questions were asked and that the initial approval of the deal indicates those questions were answered.
Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released the excerpt at a briefing Monday. The Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a 45-day investigation of the potential security risks related to the deal. The government did not do such an investigation before approving the deal, even though critics say the law required it.
"I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed," Collins, R-Maine, said after the classified portion of the briefing. "I can only conclude that there was a rush to judgment, that there wasn't the kind of painstaking, thorough analysis that needed to be done, despite serious questions being raised and despite the involvement of a wide variety of agencies."
We are not fans of Sen. Collins here at the Asylum, however this issue goes beyond partisan politics. I share Thomas' apprehensive stance on this deal. We have military people assuring us that the UAE are very good at running their ports, and have done an excellent job in handling the movement and support of the military's hardware over there. However, in this debate, the one thing being missed is the human factor.
Anyone standing against this deal because this is an "Arab" country is a know-nothing relying on their own bigotry. Anyone who claims that they are not nearly the ally that Great Britain is--the previous owner of this contract--have next to no idea what they are talking about. The UAE has been a solid ally in the War on Terror. Do they have their faults and problems. Yes, and that is one of the reasons why we are concerned about the deal. And interview with Claudia Rosett will be up soon on Generalissimo Duane's soon, hopefully. She shed more light on the port deal, and it does not look good. Simply put, the 45 day wait will help the president prove his point, but as more information comes out, like the report above, it looks more and more like this deal is a dead one. That is not a knock against the UAE, but right now, we need to be in control of our ports. Al Qaeda is in the UAE, and the human factor--the possibility that someone may have sympathies for al Qaeda and their jihad, or someone possibly forced into doing something because of kidnapped family members--is simply too great a risk.
Bunny ;)
And now onto me. I picked this up from Hugh's site this afternoon. What is chilling about this statement is that Joel Rosenberg has almost been proven prophetic again, as he envisioned a similar move by Iran in his latest book "The Ezekial Option."
Iran’s president said Monday that his country supports calls for making the Middle East a nuclear arms-free zone, but he also urged the United States and Russia to give up all their atomic weapons as a threat to the region’s stability.
“We believe that these weapons, possessed by the superpowers and the occupiers in our area, are a threat to stability,” Ahmadinejad said.
Flaps Blog
But to return to the scenario, in the book, it is Russia and Iran demanding that the US and Israel disarm. This comes on the heels of a coup in Russia. So, Mr. Rosenberg is only partially correct. At least, right now. He's been right before, which only creeps me out more about his uncanny knack for nailing the current situation in the world, and being able to prognosticate events unfolding.
But to Ahmadinejad, if he thinks that anyone is taking his "advice" seriously, he smoking too much of his hooka lately. The US will never remove it's last resort from our arsenal. We will stay armed with nukes if for nothing else than a deterent against nutters like this guy. Negotiations are done with Iran. It will stop it's weapons programs, or there will be serious consequences.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home