Mar 02 2006
Port-Oh-Panic
People see what they want to see in issues I guess. I was reading Tom Blevan’s latest panic attack on RCP and it still strikes me how few people understand how the Federal Government works and how security issues work. Until I started blogging I had no idea how unique my knowledge was after being a contractor to the government for 20 years on both classified and unclassified programs (all programs these days have some security, BTW). Here is my email to Mr. Bevan on his posting – and I know my patience is running low on this matter:
Mr Bevan,
I noticed you are still wavering on the DPW deal, and tend to flow with the alarmist calls in the press. I think you should take leads from people who know the ports (all favor the deal or are not worried about it), the military, the Coast Guard, etc. People in opposition are grasping at straws.
You sighted three supposed issues today in your post. (1) was a CNN piece from Rep King about this:
‘He’s now alleging to CNN that a couple weeks back when this story first broke, he spoke to the officials at the Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security, who were involved in this CFIUS process, and he asked them did you check out whether or not DP World, the company involved, had ties to al Qaeda, and he is telling CNN hew was told, quote, Congressman, you don’t understand, we don’t conduct a thorough investigation.”
Well, duh. King is talking to treasury (not state, not DoJ, not DoD, not HSA, etc) and they are talking about the CFIUS process. Where do you think security background checks will be done in this process? It is not CFIUS or Treasury I would bet. An honest answer twisted to say more than it did. By King and CNN. For one, DPW is ALREADY part of the HAS security arrangement since it is one of the ports worldwide that performs security at the loading side of ships headed here. There are also security arrangements in place with the military which uses the Dubai ports. We have intelligence arrangements with The UAE and probably key industrial elements. Did you really think after all these joint efforts no checks and agreements exist? There are VOLUMES of checks and agreements in place for all these activities we do jointly in the region.
The evidence of this is in your next citation!
“It turns out the letter in question doesn’t even address the Coast Guard’s concerns. It contains bland reassurances and mentions of previously disclosed participation in U.S. government security programs. ”
Well, duh again. If you have agreements in place, you simply reference them as the controlling authority in place. This carries a LOT OF WEIGHT! The Coast Guard’s answers came from the intelligence community – they said so themselves. The answers were in these existing agreements. How hard is this to grasp? I can see you are not experienced in (a) dealing with the Federal government and (b) security processes and procedures and documentation. I never understood how unique my life experience was until I started blogging and seeing how little people know about the inner workings of our government. This subject is another case in point. All the experts say it is OK and all the drive-by experts are just showing their ignorance as they claim we are at risk.
Your last citation shows the problem of an ignorant population being misled by alarmists with and agenda, and the challenges faced by elected leaders to be honest with the people when mob mentality takes over. When will the blogosphere stop acting like the antique media and start listening again to people who know instead of people who shriek the loudest?
AJStrata
People who know the situation intimately are fine with the deal. No one deeply steeped in this topic is running to the press and pointing to an actual problem. The static from the rest of the people means nothing because they are not experts. Unfortunately the vast majority of the people in this country are not experts in this subject so they are following the non-experts down the path of misinformation.
It’s just amazing how this has been twisted. One has to wonder about some of the opponents these days. I don’t like the suspicion about these people, but I can no longer discard it.
I’ve never had to reference a Canadian news report before, but this story just doesn’t seem to be reported by our MSM.
Here’s a new twist to port security!!
Port Security, China
Sandy Berger & son of China President linked to Port Security International
By Judi McLeod
Monday, February 27, 2006
Forget Dubai-based DP World poised to run commercial operations in six leading American ports, it’s the players in the chess game called Port Security that Congress members should be losing the most sleep over.
While it’s true that port security falls under the jurisdiction of Coast Guard and U.S. customs officials, agents of both entities will need a program just to recognize all the players.
Port Security International (PSI) is an international partner’s network composed of an array of financial, strategic, technological and in-country port industry related companies.
PSI has an alliance with the China-based Nuctech, a company that “possesses the largest manufacture base of Linear Accelerator X-ray inspection machines to inspect containers at ports in the world.” (www.secureports.com/partner.htm).
Boasts PSI of partner Nuctech: “As a result of its valuable contribution in the security inspection application, Nuctech has earned its indisputable reputation within the cargo inspection industry.”
Chief Executive Officer of the 700-employee strong Nuctech is Hu Haifeng. That’s Hu Haifeng, the son of current China President Hu Jintao. It should surprise no one that Hu Haifeng is landing lucrative contracts in China.
At a 2005 meeting on port security in Dubai, Nuctech said that they hope to expand their foothold in the mid-east. (www.ameinfo.com/58032.html).
Airport, Port & Terminal Security 2006 will be held from April 3-4 at the Grand Hyatt Dubai.
“PSI has a strategic alliance with Stonebridge International LLC, a global business strategy firm based in Washington, DC that helps U.S. and multinational companies shape and execute strategies to solve problems and seize business opportunities worldwide.” (Security Ports International 2004).
Disgraced Sandy “The Burgler” Berger heads up Stonebridge International.
Congress members will better know Berger than Hu Haifeng.
Berger, who served as National Security Adviser to former President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001, was under criminal investigation for taking highly classified terrorism documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breur said that he knowingly removed handwritten notes by stuffing them in his jacket, pants and socks and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
FBI agents searched Berger’s home and office after the former Clinton adviser volunteered to return some sensitive documents to the National Archives.
When news of the investigation surfaced, Berger quit as an informal adviser to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign.
“Sandy Berger is my friend, and he has tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction,” Kerry said. “I respect his decision to step aside as an adviser to this campaign until this matter is resolved objectively and fairly.”
In April of 2005, Berger, who served no prison time, was sentenced to two years’ probation and fined $50,000.
In a later reincarnation, Berger signed on as an adviser to the hit ABC TV show, Commander in Chief, where he joined fellow Clintonistas Capricia Marshall and Steve Cohon, (NewMax.com, Oct. 2005).
Hu Jintao, President of the Communist Peoples’ Republic of China tramples human rights and rules a country in which dissenters caught posting anti-government criticisms on the Internet, are thrown into prison.
In the brewing storm, it’s been all but forgotten that the United Arab Emirates was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports.
Congressional concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to 9/11 hijackers isn’t waning even though DP only moved into headlines through its acquisition of the British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O).
For anyone still watching their players’ program, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off the $6.8-billion sale of the English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World, was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its international port operations to DP World for $1., 15-billion in 2004–one year after Snow joined the cabinet of President Bush.
The international port chess game to date includes a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers poised to take over the commercial operation of six leading American ports. That’s not to mention a conglomerate in the port security business like PSI with ties to Sandy Berger and the son of the president of the People’s Republic to China.
Shouldn’t someone on either side of the House be asking President George W. Bush, “Who’s on first?”
SBD
As long as they are airing out their differences and debating this issue on the HILL. I have no problems with this port deal going through. I have raised legitmate concerns about this deal and my postering is always whats best for my country and countrymen/women. Im concerned and will remain concerned over DP track record in Yemen the day of the USS Cole attack. Debate these issues and dont spend 6 months on it. Get er done and move on. However, politically speeking, i see the democrats screwing themselves once again on this issue of national security and that makes me a happy camper.
Adding to SBD’s comment – further Clintonistas links.
Bill suggested to one of the emirs of Dubai that they should have
DPW hire Joe Lockhart to see the deal thru here.
Report is conversation was several weeks ago, the fact is that the management of DPW didn’t accept and didn’t contract Lockhart.
Prior to this LSM reporting this as disagreement between Bill and
Hill – but not really. Bill stays aloof and Hill does dirty work of
showing what happens when one doesn’t hire a Clintonista!