This Is Nuts

UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

March 25, 2004 12:04 IST

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.

A host of Clinton and Bush administration officials have testified before the commission.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Amritage told the commission that it was impossible to send troops to Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda without Pakistan's cooperation and building a new relationship with India.

"US sanctions against Pakistan on the nuclear and other issues complicated the matter and these had to be dismantled," Armitage said.

He also suggested if the US Congress wanted to show displeasure with any country, it should think of other methods than imposing sanctions.

Former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke has charged that fighting terrorism was not the top priority with the Bush administration. The top priority, he suggested, was Iraq, not Al Qaeda, a claim refuted by the White House.

Clarke alleged that the White House delayed implementing the proposals he had made for eight months and adopted them only after 9/11.

Americans would still be in charge of the actual port security, the UAE would control the business of the ports, not the security. Of course, most port and airport security is total crap these days anyway.

jetsetlemming said:

Americans would still be in charge of the actual port security, the UAE would control the business of the ports, not the security. Of course, most port and airport security is total crap these days anyway.

Click to expand...

Why not give it to a company within the United States (not Halliburton) instead of giving it to a company that comes from a country that had ties to the alleged hijackers?

White House agrees to brief GOP leader Frist as it scrambles to save Dubai port deal

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/White_House_agrees_to_brief_GOP_0222.html

Published: February 22, 2006

White House officials were expected to brief national security advisers to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) today, hoping to squelch increased opposition on Capitol Hill to approval of a port management contract for a company based in the United Arab Emirates, a senior GOP aide told ROLL CALL Wednesday.

Excerpts:

The staff-level briefing comes as the White House continues a vigorous defense of its decision to permit Dubai Worldwide Ports to undertake a contract to manage a number of U.S. ports.

The controversy emerged because of high concerns that U.S. seaports, where not every shipment is thoroughly inspected, could be an entry point for terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. Although the Coast Guard is charged with securing American waters — and while customs officials control the importation of goods — companies that manage ports generally have significant security duties between the waterline and the facility’s fence line.

Late Tuesday, President Bush questioned the motivation of Congressional critics, hinting that complaints about the contract appear to be motivated out of fear of Arabs or Muslims.

Meanwhile, via AFP:

The White House scrambled to rescue a deal giving a state-run Arab firm control of operations at six major US ports and to limit the political fallout from the controversial arrangement.

President George W. Bush's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Bush had only learned about the deal "over the last several days," once it was completed, saying questions about it "didn't rise to the presidential level."

But "the counterterrorism experts looked at it. The intelligence community did an assessment to make sure that there was no national security threat," McClellan told reporters.

One Republican congressional aide, who requested anonymity, said the White House should have realized that the agreement raised uncomfortable questions about national security -- a key issue ahead of November legislative elections.

Gold9472 said:

Why not give it to a company within the United States (not Halliburton) instead of giving it to a company that comes from a country that had ties to the alleged hijackers?

Click to expand...

That could have been a good idea someone came up with before the UAE came around. Now it's a little more complicated. I'm thinking of what'll happen now if we deny the UAE after offering them the contract. Sort of a smack-in-the-face reaction, I'm thinking.

jetsetlemming said:

That could have been a good idea someone came up with before the UAE came around. Now it's a little more complicated. I'm thinking of what'll happen now if we deny the UAE after offering them the contract. Sort of a smack-in-the-face reaction, I'm thinking.

Click to expand...

It's not complicated at all. Give the contract to an American bidder.

Before: "Yeah, we like you, UAE, but, uh, we're gonna give the contract to someone else"
Now: "Uh, yeah, we like you UAE, so we'll give you the contract! ...Oh, hold on, the people realized we're fucking idiots. Sorry, better luck next time. Maybe we can sell you an airport or an oil rig or power plant instead."

jetsetlemming said:

Before: "Yeah, we like you, UAE, but, uh, we're gonna give the contract to someone else"
Now: "Uh, yeah, we like you UAE, so we'll give you the contract! ...Oh, hold on, the people realized we're fucking idiots. Sorry, better luck next time. Maybe we can sell you an airport or an oil rig or power plant instead."

Click to expand...

We block the sales of foreign companies all the time. Have you forgotten China's bid to purchase Unocal?

Yes. I have. Anyway, this isn't just blocked, it's offered, govermnet approved, then taken away. It's not like it takes much for the middle east to dislike us. I mean, we already shelled Micheal Jackson over to Dubai, so they probably are unhappy with us ulready.

I think I should mention, btw, that I am not defending the port sale, or saying we shouldn't deny it. I'm just bemoaning about what'll happen next.

jetsetlemming said:

Yes. I have. Anyway, this isn't just blocked, it's offered, govermnet approved, then taken away. It's not like it takes much for the middle east to dislike us. I mean, we already shelled Micheal Jackson over to Dubai, so they probably are unhappy with us ulready.

Click to expand...

If the sale of the port was more public before everything was said and done, it's very possible the deal would have never gone through.

Who wants to predict the resulting job approval drops? Can't go much lower.

Their line now is that this company would have nothing to do with security. And George Bush had absolutely no knowledge about this deal until it broke on the news.

You know, about Bush not knowing about it, I just might believe that. He doesn't seem very hard to cut out of the loop. It's not like he pays attention to anything happening in America anyway.

Last month, the White House appointed a senior DP World executive, David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

9/11 victims' families aghast at deal

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS/602220346

(Gold9472: DAMN IT KRISTEN)

BY MARGARET F. BONAFIDE
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/22/06

Why would a nation that urges citizens to be wary of anyone carrying a suspicious package on a train allow the sale of the company managing operations at six U.S. ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates?

Shore area residents, including some who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, just don't get it.

"We are spending billions on homeland security and invading nations, but when an Arab country wants to buy our ports" the priorities change, said John Pietrunti, whose brother, Nicholas, was killed in the World Trade Center attacks. "This administration believes we are stupid."

The Middletown resident said people don't know enough to feel safe about the sale.

Americans were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but none were found, he said. There should be full disclosure of all dealings with the U.A.E. so that the public and lawmakers can feel comfortable about the sale, Pietrunti said.

"It might be fear on my part," Pietrunti said. "I am the last person who feels like this is a black-and-white thing. But I find it odd. We can't handle our own things, with (Hurricane) Katrina and other problems and then we invite the trouble."

Also opposed to the sale is Kristen Breitweiser, 34, whose husband, Ron, died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Two of the hijackers were from U.A.E. and they flew the planes into my husband's building," said Breitweiser, formerly of Middletown.

"Terrorists don't send an RSVP," she said. "The ports are an obvious target."

Since her husband's death, she said, she has fought for full disclosure of everything the U.S. government knows about countries that funded the Sept. 11 attacks.

The committee that reassured the U.S. government about the safety of the sale said homeland security was "a factor that was taken into account," Breitweiser said. "It should be the priority, not a factor. When our nation approves of business deals like this, it sends a bad message to the people that . . . economic gain seems to supplant homeland security."

"I spent the last 4 1/2 years trying to show we need to increase security and decrease the dependency on foreign oil and we are going to give our port security to the country who funded 9/11," Breitweiser said.

Robert Hoebee of the Lanoka Harbor section of Lacey lost no relatives on Sept. 11 but opposes the sale just the same.

"Ownership equals control and it gives these people control over the operation," Hoebee said. "It's tragic."

"Maybe this company is not a problem, but we don't know because there is no information available," Hoebee said.

"How can you expect us to feel comfortable? Dubai laundered money for terrorists and we want to put our ports and our doorways in the hands of people like that?"

They are putting a fox in charge of the hen house, and another fox in charge of watching the first fox.

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_52

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The concessions — described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies — reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

"We're disappointed," Bikley told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.

Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.

In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."

Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.

McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.

"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."

Obscure US intelligence agency assessed ports deal

http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...yID=1097504&section=news&src=rss/uk/worldNews

By David Morgan
2/23/2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A deal that allows an Arab-owned company in Dubai to manage six major U.S. ports was scrutinized for security risks by an obscure intelligence agency that has existed for only four months, American officials said on Wednesday.

The Intelligence Community Acquisition Risk Centre, or CARC, overseen by the office of intelligence chief John Negroponte, was asked by the government committee that vets foreign investments in the United States to look into the ports deal soon after it came to its attention in early November.

U.S. officials approved the sale of British-based P&O to Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates on January 16, giving the Arab-owned firm a green light to take over port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami.

But the deal has since unleashed a political firestorm from both Republicans and Democrats, who see it as a potential risk to national security.

The White House sought to stem criticism on Wednesday by saying the port takeover had been reviewed by intelligence agencies, including counterterrorism experts.

"The intelligence community did assessments to make sure that there was no national security threat," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

But intelligence officials said CARC, which has little to do with counterterrorism activities, was formed just last October as the agency mandated to assess security risks posed by companies that do business with the intelligence community.

Only a small part of the center's resources are devoted to vetting commercial deals, officials said.

CARC's first director, William Dawson, was appointed in January, more than a month after the centre had been asked to begin work on the Dubai Ports World acquisition.

Dawson had been a senior information technology official for the intelligence community prior to his appointment.

A spokesman for Negroponte acknowledged the intelligence community provided an assessment but declined to discuss specifics.

Intelligence officials, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about CARC, said many of the center's functions were transferred to Negroponte's office from the CIA in 2005 as a result of congressionally mandated intelligence reforms.

Sept. 11 Report Ties Bin Laden to UAE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_ot/ports_bin_laden

By ELIZABETH WHITE, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The United States raised concerns with the United Arab Emirates seven years ago about possible ties between officials in that country and Osama bin Laden, according to a section of the Sept. 11 commission's report that details a possible missed opportunity to kill the al-Qaida leader.

Republicans and Democrats alike are raising concerns this week about the Bush administration's decision to let a UAE-operated company take over operations at six American ports, in part citing ties the Sept. 11 hijackers had to the Persian Gulf country.

President Bush has called the UAE a close partner on the war on terror since Sept. 11, and his aides have listed numerous examples of the country's help.

The Sept. 11 commission's report released last year also raised concerns UAE officials were directly associating with bin Laden as recently as 1999.

The report states U.S. intelligence believed that bin Laden was visiting an area in the Afghan desert in February 1999 near a hunting camp used by UAE officials, and that the U.S. military planned a missile strike.

Intelligence from local tribal sources indicated "bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis," the report said.

"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," the report said.

The missile attack was never launched, and bin Laden moved on, the report said.

A month later, top White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke "called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden," the report said.

CIA officials hope to continue staking out the Afghan camp in hopes bin Laden would return and a possible strike could be launched.

But "imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke's phone call, the camp was hurriedly dismantled and the site was deserted," the report said.

CIA officials were "irate" and "thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden, the report said.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), the ranking Democrat, asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9-11 commission's assertion that the United Arab Emirates represents "a persistent counterterrorism problem"for the United States.

Kimmitt replied that administration figures involved in the decision to approve the deal "looked very carefully" at information from the intelligence community.

"Any time a foreign-government controlled company comes in," Kimmitt said, "the intelligence assessment is of both the country and the company."

"Just raise your hand if anybody talked to the 9-11 commission," Levin told the administration representatives at the witness table. Nobody raised a hand.