Rekjalhew

February 22, 2006

Bush Does Not Get It. But Congress Better!

by @ 12:03 am. Filed under Nuts on Parade, Terrorism and War

Republican President George W. Bush is threatening to use a veto to stop legislative attempts to block turning over management of 6 American ports to a company run by the United Arab Emirates. (Dubai Ports World is buying London based P&O.) You can see video of President Bush offering his defense at Expose the Left. President Bush is displaying a level of stupidity on this issue that is hard to fathom. Here is Mr. War on Terror himself, our Commander in Chief taking a stand that is totally against America’s best interests.

Let’s take a look at our so-called “friend” in the war on terror, the United Arab Emirates.

From Chapter 4 of the 9/11 Commission Report


Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates were the only countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

Early in 1999, the CIA received reporting that Bin Ladin was spending much of his time at one of several camps in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar. At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates.

Reporting from the CIA’s assets provided a detailed description of the hunting camp, including its size, location, resources, and security, as well as of Bin Ladin’s smaller, adjacent camp. Because this was not in an urban area, missiles launched against it would have less risk of causing collateral damage. 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 Ladin’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely. The CIA did its best to answer a host of questions about the larger camp and its residents and about Bin Ladin’s daily schedule and routines to support military contingency planning. According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin 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 Ladin 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 Ladin 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 Ladin unit chief, “Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11.

Even after Bin Ladin’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 Ladin. 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 Ladin 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 Ladin.

The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem. From 1999 through early 2001, the United States, and President Clinton personally, pressed the UAE, one of the Taliban’s only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to flights to and from Afghanistan. These efforts achieved little before 9/11.

In July 1999, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hamdan bin Zayid threatened to break relations with the Taliban over Bin Ladin. The Taliban did not take him seriously, however. Bin Zayid later told an American diplomat that the UAE valued its relations with the Taliban because the Afghan radicals offered a counterbalance to “Iranian dangers” in the region, but he also noted that the UAE did not want to upset the United States.

As you can see, US Intelligence officials knew Osama bin Laden was hanging out with UAE officials even during the Clinton Administration. And the best opportunity to kill him before 9/11 was passed up because of this so-called “ally”. An “ally” that had an official aircraft from their nation on site with bin Laden. And our officials knew if they were to strike, that some high ranking officials in the UAE might also be killed. Now, even after 9/11 we see our President calling the UAE an “ally”. And there are claims that the UAE has “changed”. Give me a break! UAE officials have long ties with bin Laden and for us to assume that 9/11 caused those ties to end is foolishness. While they may offer assistance at times in capturing some terrorist operatives, they are not a nation we can trust with management of our sea ports.

President Bush, given the connections we know UAE officials have had with Osama bin Laden and their recognition of groups like the Taliban as an official government. We cannot trust them to run our sea ports. So yes, we do discriminate against some nations, when there is a possible threat to national security and there is in this case. To claim there has been an extensive review that found nothing, is to deny the truth sitting in the pages of a public report produced by the US government.

It looks as if Bush is going to stand firm as the idiot on this one. Fine, he can maintain his stance, but members of Congress better vote to block this deal. Unlike President Bush, many of them are up for re-election in November and others will try and run again later. Those who do not vote to ensure a two-thirds majority to override any veto attempts by President Bush will have to answer to us!

I already know my two state Senators are pretty weak at standing against Bush when he’s wrong. I’ve detailed one of Senator Saxby Chambliss’ failings here and I’ve also mentioned one previously made by Senator Johnny Isakson. These men do everything but drink Bush’s bathwater. So I’m hoping for a miracle when I say I hope they stand up to President Bush. So far they both have been doing some major ducking when it comes to this issue. I can only hope my Congressman John Linder stands up to Bush on this issue. Especially since President Bush is no longer giving much support to his Fair Tax efforts.

I’ve been hearing people like former President Jimmy Carter back Bush on this matter. That is almost like a sign from God that this is a bad deal. Also I’ve heard Bill O’Reilly supporting the President on this. Bill is either being an idiot or just playing for ratings.

This is a serious issue and the American people are going to have to stand, because our President is taking a seat!

And be sure to check out this information from Michelle Malkin, about the financing behind this port deal.



5 Responses to “Bush Does Not Get It. But Congress Better!”

  1. Independent Conservative Says:

    Two Bush Administration Ties to UAE Company

    The deal only looks worse.

    W aides’ biz ties to Arab firm

    WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
    One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency…

  2. Dean's World Says:

    Bush Does Not Get It. But Congress Better!

    Asserts Independent Conservative, about President Bush’s veto threat to stop legislative attempts to block turning over management of 6 American ports t…

  3. Independent Conservative Says:

    The United Arab Emirates, Not Very Safe for US Citizens, But Supposedly Safe to Run Our Ports

    When you visit the US Department of State web site, you discover some interesting information about the UAE. If you were considering traveling to our “ally in the war on terror”, the US State Department has some advice for you.

    U.S….

  4. Independent Conservative Says:

    Why No Foreign Government Should Manage US Sea Ports

    Regarding management of America’s ports, we need to consider companies controlled by a foreign government differently from a private company. A government controlled company works at the pleasure of the foreign government. Not at the pleasure …

  5. Independent Conservative Says:

    The UAE Only Helps the USA Because Al Qaeda Wants the Rulers Dethroned

    As I mentioned previously, the United Arab Emirates does not work with the USA out of any loyalty to our nation. They only work with us because they see America as being more powerful than al Qaeda and they know al Qaeda wants to overtake them. Prio…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice

[powered by WordPress.]

44 queries. 0.591 seconds