Posted by Frank James at 1:53 pm CST
A quick observation after today's just-ended Senate Armed Services Committee briefing on the controversial Dubai Ports World transaction is that 9/11 didn't change everything, at least not how the Executive Branch reviewed the pending takeover of certain U.S. port operations by the United Arab Emirates-owned company.
Under questioning by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.), Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt, said Bush administration officials followed precedent set by prior administrations, Republican and Democratic, in how it interpreted the federal law that calls for the Executive Branch to review such transactions.
"My testimony, senator, is the way the process has run for 14 years through three administrations has been that an agency has to register a national-security concern before it can go into an investigation," Kimmitt told Clinton.
"And I would say for a state-owned case it is a lower threshold of concern than it would be for a non-state owned making an acquisition," Kimmitt added.
But none of the members on an Executive Branch panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. or CFIUS raised concerns to the level where those concerns triggered an investigation, Kimmitt said.
CFIUS (pronounced syph-fee-us) is composed of 12 federal agencies and White House offices, including the Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security Departments and the National Security Council.
A question the Bush administration will likely have to answer repeatedly in coming weeks from senators and journalists alike is why it has been following the same process that was in place prior to 9/11 in reviewing such transactions?
For instance, was there anyone in CFIUS who played the devil's advocate and spun out potential scenarios in which the Dubai Ports World transaction could undermine national security?
One of the results of 9/11 was supposed to be a greater use of the U.S. intelligence community's imagination in coming up with more of the possible ways terrorists might attack us, then trying to prevent those potential attacks.
But Kimmitt's answer to Clinton will likely be interpreted by many observers as decidedly pre-9/11.
Clinton suggested as much in a question-and-answer session held for reporters at the end of the briefing.
"We hear on a fairly regular basis that we live in a post-9/11 world," she said. "Sometimes that's used as a declarative statement and sometimes it's used as a political attack. But the fact is we do live in a post-9/11 world. I think it's important that whatever the interpretations of the statute was in the past, that there is now a necessity for heightened scrutiny."
Another question that went unanswered today: why would a transaction involving a state-owned company have a "lower-threshold of concern" especially when the state involved is one that gets mixed reviews from some terrorism experts?
As Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.) pointed out in today's hearing, the United Arab Emirates had friendly relations with the Taliban, Afghanistan's former rulers who harbored al Qaeda until the Taliban was toppled from power by U.S. and allied forces after 9/11.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"Followed Precedent"! imagine the mediocrity and non-chalance of that phrase as if there wasn't ever any 9/11 at all.
The more Bush and his deputies speak, the more foolish and disgraceful he looks. While our soldiers are roasting in Iraq defending us, Bush is busy selling off our Ports to his family friends in the arab world and ignoring his constitutional duty to protect our borders.
These past week hasn't just been a bad one for Bush, as i'm now forced to defend my previous support for this president that looks and sounds more aloof and out-of-touch everytime he opens his mouth.
Let's be honest with ourselves. I urge my fellow conservatives to say what they're now thinking but daren't say. Ask questions we know we should but daren't ask : Is Bush the worst president ever? the most incompetent? the most out-of-touch? the most aloof? disconnected? From Katrina to Portgate, Abu Ghraib to failure to protect our boders, gagantuan trade deficits with China to failed domestic policies? what's wrong?
He has the best advisors and cabinet members, but if he can't show leadership by excercising control, the whole hierarchy crumbles, and crumbling it is.
Recently I've been paying very close attention to Chuck Schummer, and each time he speaks, I like what I hear. But he's a democrat, and I'm republican.
This is why I'm begging all republicans to start flocking to media stations and register your strongest and most vehement condemnation of this Bush-induced party suicide aka Port-gate. The damage will be incalculable should Bush and UAE succeed with this deal. And just like the famous domino theory, with this public backlash goes Iraq, "war on terror", free trade, "tax Cuts", and anything and everything Bush has ever spoken about.
This is the 2006 issue that will drive the election. Are you with Bush, Carter, the sheiks, the mullahs and the emirs, or are you with America? Like the Bush doctrine, you're either with us or against us. For the sake of conservatism in America, I beg republicans to defy this monstrously confused president, and take a stand!
Posted by: TJ | February 23, 2006 4:22 PM
Anybody see the irony of Senator Clinton denouncing the Bush administration for following the policies of the Clinton administration? The irony is there for all to see, but reporter Frank James, and left-wing bloggers pretending to be Republicans (a standard tactic out of the leftist playbook), refuse to see it.
Terrorism against the U.S. didn't start on 9/11/2001. During the Clinton administration the U.S. was attacked many times by terrorists, yet Bill Clinton and "co-president" Hillary did nothing to change the procedures she now denounces. Reading Clinton's remarks, 9/11 certainly didn't change the way some politicians make cheap posturing gestures.
Posted by: Bruce | February 24, 2006 8:01 AM
Senator Clinton hopes that people have amnesia. Early in 2000, the Clinton administration (which she allegedly was "co-president" of) sold $8 billion worth of F-16 fighters, missiles and other advanced weapons to--the United Arab Emirates. The Clinton administration also allowed the transfer of operations at U.S. ports to--a company controlled by the Communist Chinese government.
Posted by: Bruce | February 24, 2006 8:15 AM
Hey, Bruce! Hope you're having a great morning -- seems so far like you are.
Interesting that you should bring up how we were attacked by terrorists under the Clinton administration and how Senator Clinton hopes everybody gets amnesia about that. I've been wondering for a while now about the amnesia that the Republicans seem to have about a certain freedom-fighter in Afghanistan whose feeble efforts against the Russians weren't going anywhere until President Ronald Reagan (praised be his name, apparently, as St. Ronnie) decided to fund him and his group and to provide them with training and weapons. That freedom fighter was Osama bin Laden and his group was Al Quaida -- the very people who attacked us under the Clinton administration.
Just curious.
Oh -- and by the way, too. I've been "of the left" for a while and never got my copy of the "playbook." Maybe they forgot to issue it to me back then. Do you have an extra you could pass along? So far, from what I can tell, it all seems to be just a matter of switching the names; the "plays" and the venom stay the same no matter which side you're on.
Posted by: John | February 24, 2006 9:40 AM
John, since you admitted ignorance to the leftist blogger tactic of posing as Republicans, I'll be happy to enlighten you. I could pick thousands of examples: here's one link you can visit: http://wizbangblog.com/archives/007187.php.
Posted by: Bruce | February 24, 2006 4:53 PM
John, wonder no longer. President Reagan didn't "fund him [bin Laden] and his group [Al Quaida] and provide them with training and weapons" to fight in Afghanistan. In fact, bin Laden himself has denied that he received money and weapons from the U.S., claiming that he got everything from the Saudis instead. In Afghanistan outside "freedom fighters" simply weren't needed--there were plenty of Afghanis willing to to the fighting. For more details see http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/20/20296/8049.
Posted by: Bruce | February 24, 2006 5:08 PM
Bruce, thanks for the links -- I've bookmarked them. Both look interesting, and I like finding a balance of conservative and liberal viewpoints.
It's good to get viewpoints from you, Bruce, even when I don't necessarily agree with them. I appreciate the way you research your information, how you lay the facts out logically, and how you always seem to have a passion for what you're saying. Most comments I've read from conservatives don't contain those qualities. Thanks again!
I believe I WAS wrong about the Al Quaeda funding. It appears Reagan funded the Taliban instead.
Posted by: John | February 25, 2006 9:01 AM
Hey John,
Carter was the first to fund the "rebels" against the Russians in Afghanistan. We also boycotted the Moscow olympics because of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan under the Carter admin. Those "rebels" were not what became the Taliban. If anything, they were mostly what became the Northern Allinace. The Taliban was a student movement that was born and supported from Pakistan in the 90's .... after we abandoned the Afghanistan.
There is a good book on the Soviet occupation written by a Russian journalist called the Silent War.
Don't rely on left wing spin to get your history.
Posted by: JD | February 26, 2006 9:17 PM