Monday, February 27, 2006

US Coast Guard Warns Bush Administration of "potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist". What's Really Going On Here?

The Associated Press is reporting that the US Coast Guard, sighting US Intelligence reports, can not determine the threat status posed by the deal to turn over up to 21 US shipping port operations. This undated document points out gaps in intelligence information and flies in the face of the Bush administrations assertion that they fully vetted the deal and found no national security issues.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps" the document sights, "also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," inferring that it could lay open more than just our ports to potential attack. Liz Sidoti from the AP states that, "The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security."

This is the same argument that many on both sides of the political divide have made in the past two week, and exactly what administration insiders have been trying to suppress with accusations of bigotry and fear mongering directed at the Presidents political opponents.

In the past few days, GOP officials have begun to cautiously back the deal under the political cover of the recent announcement by DPW that it will postpone the deal for 45 days to allow for a full background investigation. But, Democrats, and some Republicans still are not satisfied due to the secretive process in which this extended investigation will be conducted. Senator Chuck Schumer had called the postponement, “a significant step forward”, but when on to say that he would continue to push legislation that "will not only pass, but pass by a veto-proof margin".

With the revelation of this new Coast Guard threat assessment regarding the handover of US ports to a company wholly owned by a foreign government who's officials have been identified by the 9/11 Commission as hunting partners and possible financial backers of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, questions arise as to what the administration's true motives are in pushing this deal through. Is this simply the Bush administration repaying a political ally for their logistical support in the Iraq War and the so call "War on Terror"? If so, how could the President have not been aware of the deal until February 16th, five days after the deal was approved by CFIUS? How could CFIUS have approved the deal if it was only announced on February 11th? Where's the 30 days they claim? What is really going on here?

Much hay has been made by opponents of this deal that the UAE was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban regime. Until now, I have refrained from using this argument because I had long believed, as was verified by James Zogby on CNN Saturday February 25th, that the UAE recognized the Taliban at the request of the United States, a favor.

The reason for this has, to date, not been discussed in the media. The United Arab Emirates was requested to recognize the Taliban during the negotiations for the Unocal Pipeline deal. It was a method of backdoor diplomacy used by the oil industry (Halliburton, Chevron, and Unocal)while the Congress and the Clinton administration were assessing whether we could influence the Taliban to improve their human rights record so that the pipeline could be implemented. This was the doing of Cheney, Rice, Khalizad, and Kharzi, all Bush administration officials and political allies. But in a neo-classic example of geo-petrol-politics, when the Taliban turned down the deal, the UAE continued it's diplomatic ties with them, even after it was obvious that their "welcomed guests" orchestrated the attacks on 9/11.

In Bush's first State of the Union address after 9/11, he firmly warned countries that "you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists". But, as anybody following the "war on Terror" knows, A Q Khan used Dubai's ports as a shipping hub for his nuclear black market. Then there is the issue of the UAE's support of Hamas, the Palestinian Group designated as a "terrorist organization" by the Bush administration. In a July 2005 statement by Hamas, they wrote that "the sisterly UAE had… never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF… The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies."

Now the question of whether it's wrong or right for an Arab Country to fund the Palestinians through Hamas is not important to these questions posed in this article. What is important is how come this administration seems to be selective in the case of the UAE. More over, why does the administration continue to claim that the President did not know until after the deal was done when these two situations persisted well after the his 2002 State of the Union's assertion that "your either with us, or your with the terrorists"?

So what is really going on here? What exactly is the quid-pro-quo? I ask this because, as many Americans are increasingly finding out, the Bush Administration has, on many occasions, lied to the American people. And just as a reminder for those who don't think that the UAE could have anything on the Bush administration other than the fact that we have military bases in their country, it is alleged that in July of 2001, bin Laden went to an American hospital in Dubai with renal failure. During his stay, he was purportedly visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, and two CIA agents.

So, whose security was assessed by CFIUS for this Ports deal? Was it US national security, or was it the Bush administration's personal security that was being considered behind the closed doors of the White House?

Tags: Dubai, UAE, Ports, Bush, Terrorism, Politics, Middle East,
Security, Democracy, and Media.


Blogger The Blue State Bandit said...

Some one asked me what I really think is going on on another site. I thought I should share this view seporatly from the post.

Remember the reports that bin Laden was hunting with the Emiratie Princes of the UAE states? One of the Princes on that trip was identified as Sheikh Mohammad bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the head of the UAE armed forces and the current Crown Prince, by General Hugh Shelton in the 9/11 Commission Report.

It's seems to me that the UAE may be holding something over the heads of people in or close to the Bush administration. This would explain the sharp, nervous twich like reaction of Bush's veto threat. It is plain to see that the Bush administration doesn't do comprimise. They will only bend under political black-mail. But knowing full well that this [ports issue] would be political suicide, they keep pushing the issue.

So it turns out to be a simple math problem, what would be worth risking loosing Republican control of the House over?

Now from the other side, the UAE may have a lot o[f] stuff to hang over the heads of Bush's political and corpotate allies. Most obvious is our military presence, but that's not very feasibly. If we leave, even after a public fallout, they would be swallowed up in days by their neighbors. [It must be something much more damaging.]

So, what do they have, and why are they using it [to gain access to our ports]? This takes me back to Afghanistan and that hunting party. The reports from the CIA mention that the Emiratie hunting camp was next to bin Laden's camp and was the larger of the two. The were traveling in a C-130. And after the strike was called off, Richard Clarke confronted the UAE on what they were doing there. They denied at first, but the fact that the Americans knew about the hunting camp got back to bin Laden, who never returned to the camp.[These events according to the 9/11 Com. are under suspicion for ommissions regarding possiable UBL/UAE/CIA contacts before 9/11]

Their was a plane load of princes and their aides hunting with bin Laden and probably other members of al-Qaeda. The ruling families of the UAE own DPW. There's just too many interconnections here, and the argument that the Coast Guard has it under control and we should trust the judgment of the Bush administration just don't cut the mustard. Especialy when the Coast Guard don't trust the deal, and I don't trust the Bush administration.

12:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Image hosting by Photobucket