A storm in the port

Although this issue was covered below, I must admit to a certain lifelong fascination with transportation. Clearly that alone makes me an expert, so I'll foolishly pontificate some more on this. Besides, things are getting serious when Bush starts threatening a veto.

Everyone cares about port security. My goal here, after babbling a bit, is to offer a solution. First, allow me to unload something. It's flat amazing people like Chuck Schumer are capable of such levels of xenophobia. After all, isn't the tired old refrain something like, "why attack Iraq, they had nothing to do with 9/11"? But, just as there's no direct evidence Saddam helped Osama, there's no direct evidence the UAE government did, either. The only thing they have in common are their shumaggs.

But there was indirect evidence. So if the solution is to mandate that no transportation business can be done with any countries even indirectly connected with attacks on America, why did we allow British-owned P&O Ports to move containers? Shoebomber Richard Reid was from England, and terror cells there were connected to AQ in Iraq.

Such a plan would also leave out any future port business with German companies, since the Hamburg Cell was instrumental in the 9/11 operation. And, since the originial "Planes" operation was dreamed up by KSM and Yousef while in the Phillipines, scratch them off the list, too.

Broadly speaking, don't forget Canada. Their GWoT cooperation has been spotty, and the Millenium bomber tried to enter America via Vancouver. Yet in 1999 Bill Clinton allowed a Canadian Transportation company, CN Rail, to acquire an American railroad, the Illinois Central. CN hauls the very containers everyone is worried about, coming off ships and moving by train through the heartland. We've been trusting those Canadians all along!

Here's a suggestion for resolving this. Why not have DP World just spin off the American ports operation to a new subsidiary based in America, staffed by Americans? Congress could help by drafting legislation to that end.

Fixed? Well maybe, as long as we can stop the new American company from hiring illegal aliens.

THE GRAY LADY SPEAKS

The New York Times put on their journalistic thinking caps and churned out an excellent un-biased story on the ports deal. They covered the obvious drawbacks, but actually managed to find some people in the shipping industry to quote:

The opposition to the deal brought expressions of befuddlement from shipping industry and port experts. The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago, and foreign-based firms already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals in the United States. They include APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore and operates terminals in Los Angeles; Oakland, Calif.; Dutch Harbor, Alaska; and Seattle. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign governments or foreign-based companies.

Regarding APL Limited--definitely a sign of the times. Their history dates to the 1800s as an American-borne steamship company known as Dollar Lines. So what does APL stand for? American President Lines. Ironic and kinda sad, I reckon.

HELP WANTED AT AP: FACT CHECKERS 2/22/06

Regardless of whether the port deal is the right thing to do, we need our media to present the facts correctly.

The AP’s latest update contains this passage:

The first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company is set to be completed in early March.

As the New York Times article from above illustrates, APL already runs ports in this country, and that company is a wholly owned subsidiary of NOL Group (Neptune Orient Lines) which is controlled by members of the government of Singapore.

MORE 2/22/06


This story has perhaps the strangest coalitions on each side than seen in recent memory. Jimmy Carter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly for, Hillary, Peter King, Hannity, and Schumer against. It's also separated some of us in the blogosphere, hopefully not leading to permanent hard feelings. One thing can be said conclusively--it certainly managed to bury the Cheney Quailgate story.

Here's perhaps another sign of the apocalyse:

If you smell something rotten, don't hold your nose quite yet – your country's life may depend on taking a closer sniff. It turns out that CFIUS is chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow – who joined the Treasury from CSX Corporation, which just happened to sell its foreign port assets to Dubai Ports World in 2004 – just before the old Snow-man took his government job. So I suppose that what's good for CSX is good for America, as they once said of General Motors?

This from World Net Daily, no less. Remind me to make sure my liberal friends see that, since they like to call it World NUT Daily.

But she's got a partial point. Snow and Sanborn should indeed be 'persons of interest' here. Both hail from CSX, along with Sanborn's additional resume entry for DP World. This 'insider angle' has provided me a boil-down point to this whole convoluted mess:

Specifically--did the presence of Snow on the CFIUS review team have any bearing on the deal's approval, and, what role did Sanborn play behind the scenes to get 'er done? Was his recent appointment at DOT a quid pro quo of some sort? Was the initial review thorough enough, or did they know the outcome before it began?

Businessmen are gonna do what they do. But if 'what they do' comes at the expense of American national security, we need to draw a hard line. The only public way to review this would be under Congressional hearings.

SPEAKING OF PORTS 2/23/06

Both Dubai and Singapore may soon be hosting other port operations. Check out this proposal for "Space Ports" in both countries.


DELAY OK 2/23/06

Karl Rove says a delay is ok:

When asked if Bush would accept a slight delay in implementing the takeover of P&O, Rove said: "Yes, look, there are some hurdles, regulatory hurdles, that this still needs to go through on the British side as well that are going to be concluded next week.

Funny we've not heard one hoot nor holler from Britain, Netherlands, Germany or all the other countries DP World will assume port operations from P&O Ports. There appear to be two possible reasons:

One, we represent the largest bullseye so they aren't concerned. Possible, but Europe also has a bullseye. It's smaller but much closer, therefore much easier to hit. If having the UAE controlling their ports does bother them, perhaps they are simply too gripped in fear to say anything after the Paris and cartoon riots.
Another possibility is they're quite used to foreign companies operating their ports, so the story amounts to much ado about nothing.

I think it's a combination of both, but mainly the latter.

MORE 2/24/06

Gotta admit, this post makes sense.

Saddam, al Qaeda, and the Egyptian Jihad

Ray Robison, former member of the Iraq Survey Group, lays out an interesting case for an AQ-Iraq connection in today's American Thinker using previously leaked ISG documents. He connects dots between Saddam, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mohammed Atta in a compelling fashion.

We know Saddam's relationship with Mubarak was adversarial, in part due to the Gulf War. In Bush versus the Beltway, Laurie Mylroie posits that Saddam might have been behind several 90s terrorist attacks involving Egypt, such as the Luxor bombing, the attempt on Mubarak's life, and the bombing of the their embassy in Islamabad. The released Saddam tapes also suggest some animosity, but as with everything involving the Middle East--just when it seems the dots connect they lead to another dot.

Speaking of Saddam, he might soon need help from some of those friends in low places. The Times Online reports that a hanging may come quicker than expected. Apparently Iraq's government passed a few laws pertaining to the death penalty while nobody was looking:

The prosecutor Ja’afar Moussawi said that under a law passed late last year all death sentences must be carried out within 30 days of an appeal failing, regardless of any other pending charges.

But that's not all. The court only needs a conviction and death sentence on Dujail to get a quick hook:

“Once one of the accused on the Dujail case, for example, has been sentenced to death, then he won’t be tried on other charges,”

This outcome is almost mandatory, since it's doubtful anyone wants to prosecute Halabja. Saddam's lawyers would likely subpeona messers Cheney and Rumsfeld to testify, and the presiding judge has a conflict since he hails from Halabja. And we know how hard it's been to keep a competent judge.

As things press to conclusion we'll see how much influence the Jihadists, led in part by former right-hand man Izzat al-Douri, have on the situation.

2/26/2006 AN ANNIVERSARY, OF SORTS

This is the anniversary of the first World Trade Center bombing, which occurred in 1993. The Counterterrorism Blog has a good summary. Keep in mind February 26 represents another anniversary day-- the day Saddam's forces were expelled from Kuwait.

Jimmy's world

Bless his bleeding heart. Jimmy Carter has always been a died-in-the-wool believer that one fine day the peoples of the would will join hands and sing in perfect harmony. In my view, even if the world somehow came to that agreement choosing the song would probably cause a war.

His morning op-ed at the WaPo is vintage Carter, urging Israel and the United States not to withhold funds to Palestinia:

...all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel.

True liberalism at its finest. The Palestinian people voted in Hamas in an election Mr. Carter witnessed and deemed legitimate. Therefore, why not compel them to take another vote--a referendum if you will: renounce violence and formally recognize Israel's right to exist. To most people that would be quite reasonable.

Then again, most of the world understands these people are not likely to change their mission statement, renounce Ahmadinejad, or stop burning embassies over cartoons anytime soon. Except Mr. Carter:

.. even if Hamas does not soon take the ultimately inevitable steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist.

Gee, wonder why he hasn't given the Bush adminstration the same benefit of the doubt as a group of terrorists? Oops, forgot. Bush and Cheney are the true terrorists.

It would be nice to believe Mr. Carter's high visibility on the issue comes from a genuine concern for the people. It might. However, can't help but thinking there might also be a tad of concern for his own Nobel prize-winning legacy.

MORE 2/20/06

Regarding the funds:

Under the Oslo accord, Israel is obliged to hand over the funds. However, it took similar action at the start of the first intifada and withheld funds by placing them in an escrow account.

In other words, the Israelis aren't likely to take the extra money and hit the casinos. I liken it to taking away a child's allowance when they act up--works almost every time.

German "hostage" returns to Iraq

Remember Susan Osthoff? She's going back to Iraq. If her story has slipped off the hard drive, she was the German archeologist living in Iraq who was kidnapped then later freed, apparently after the German government paid a ransom. They denied it, then part of the denied ransom showed up on Ms. Osthoff's person, which she intially denied knowing about:

Part of a ransom alleged to have been paid by the German government to win Osthoff's freedom was found on her after her release, German magazine Focus reported last month.

She explained that the terrorists, kindly folk they are, simply gave her back the money she had in her purse when they snatched her. And wow, the Germans bought it:

But German newspapers later reported that Osthoff was not suspected by the government of cooperating with her kidnappers, and rather had demanded and been given back part of the $2,668 (1500 pounds) she had been carrying when the gunmen first captured her.

Initially it was thought the Germans had orchestrated a swap, giving up TWA847 hijacker Mohammed Ali Hamadi in return for Osthoff. That seemed far-fetched due to the fact he was a Shi'ite terrorist and she was kidnapped in the Sunni triangle. Hamadi has now fallen off the radar despite strong worded comments by government officials about bringing him to justice in America, and despite a letter to president Bush from the family of Navy diver Robert Stethem, killed and thrown on the tarmac by Hamadi in the 847 hijacking.

This development does suggest Osthoff is not a spy, as some had suspected. If it turns out she is one, throw her up there with the mythical Bond for sheer nerve and guts. But somehow the words collaborator or fool come to mind first.

But save the biggest dunce cap for Germany. They paid, it backfired. Notice the difference in the way we're handling the Jill Carroll situation, with a second deadline approaching this Sunday. Paying ransom is never a long term solution, but apparently some politicians figure it's a worthwhile short-term solution, especially before a close election or while weathering political pecadillos and such.

Want fries with that?

McDonalds is not having a very good month. First their mascot was set on fire and beheaded over absolutely nothing, now they find themselves being sued again. However, unlike former high-profile cases such as the spilled hot coffee or the high fat content causing, well, fatness, these cases (yes, more than one) involve the previous non-disclosure of the secret ingredients of their delicious french fries. Some merit might exist.

For years the fry recipe was a trade secret. The company recently announced they actually contain wheat and dairy components, kinda sneaking it out on their website. It's hard to sneak anything past a lawyer, though.

Surely the outcome of these suits could become landmark for the food service industry, even if these cases are simply nothing-to-lose grabs into Ronald's deep pockets. They might succeed in front of a jury since food allergies are medically recognized.

Depending on the outcome it's not hard to imagine the age of "secret recipes" coming to an end, but if so, is that not a rights infringement? Somehow the suits need to address that issue, since it seems to allow for a scenario where a jealous restaraunt owner could clandestinely pay an individual to file a suit against a staunch competitor predicated on a food allergy (real or imagined), just to learn their secrets or put a dent in their profits.

Now excuse me, I just got sick eating some KFC original recipe, think I need to call my lawyer...

Nope, no state-sponsored terrorism round here..

I've moved this post to the top as details of the Intelligence Summit become available today. Further thoughts below. Feel free to add your own as well.

ABC News's exclusive "secret Saddam tapes" are hitting the airwaves tonight. Made by Saddam Hussein in the 90s and provided to ABC by ex UNSCOM inspector Bill Tierney, the tapes show the regime was continuing their efforts to hide weapons programs. Although Tierney probably turned them over to illustrate Saddam's devious fixation on WMDs, ABC's focus will instead be on this one dialog:

One of the most dramatic moments in the 12 hours of recordings comes when Saddam predicts — during a meeting in the mid 1990s — a terrorist attack on the United States. "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."

Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. "In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."

Well, he didn't really say "Iraq would never do that". He said it was coming, but not from Iraq. The dictator wasn't a dummy. He knew that Islamic radicals proved much more useful tools than Mukhabarat agents, who had already blown several attempts at terrorism against America.

But alas, the big story here will be how Saddam proved Bush wrong, and the dems will once again be asking for hearings. Note to Stephen Hayes, this should be a reality check as to why the other documents haven't been released. The media trumps any morsel that hurts Bush.

Here's an easy prediction--the unhinged set will unequivacally believe Saddam regards his statement of misdirection, while completely disbelieving Cheney's answers about the hunting accident.

REMEMBERING APRIL 2/16/06

April Glaspie was the US Ambassador to Iraq during the runup to Saddam's attack on Kuwait. Saddam called her for a meeting about a week before he attacked. The left likes to point to her relaying a message that the US had no dog in Arab to Arab squabbles, tatamount to giving him permission to attack. Not really.

But something else was said in that conversation:

If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.

Individual Arabs, eh. Sounds like those rootless, non-state actors we've heard so much about.

ht Hatfill Deception

MORE 2/16/06

Is Bill Tierney believable? Heard him interviewed on Hannity's show today. I was literally screaming at Sean to shut up and let him talk, since Tierney seemed on the verge of telling us something very important. He was strangely melodramatic, but perhaps that's justified if he's correct.

Correct about what, you say? Well, he buys into the premise that Saddam was actually behind or partially responsible for 9/11. Surely the "he's a nut" campaign will begin soon, although checking the lefty blogs it doesn't seem to be getting much play (they are still consumed with Cheney). For all I know he might be a tad flaky, but it doesn't take a nut to believe that if Saddam was himself still fighting "the mother of all battles" (whether we knew it or not) that he'd occasionally take a few shots.

At any rate, Tierney will be on the TV show tonight, so I may have to turn off the basketball and watch.

H&C 2/16/06

Tierney doesn't come across very well on TV, does he? Granted, Hannity and Colmes is hardly the forum for such a complex subject, but it's safe to assume the average viewer wasn't impressed.

Meanwhile, infighting has broken out at the group responsible for releasing the tapes. Board members John Deutch and James Woolsey, both former DCIs, have resigned their posts in the past few weeks, officially over something else. Woolsey is a very interesting character in that he presumably knows the real identity of WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef, which means he most definitely has an opinion on Tierney's "Saddam did it" premise. Funny, as the tapes come out he's now headed for the tall grass. That same cat also grabbed Deutch's tongue.

So what does it mean? Kay and Duelfer say there's really nothing new here, move along. Maybe. Or maybe there's another weird possibility. Perhaps Saddam didn't orchestrate or help with 9/11, but afterwards soon realized he was in the laser scoped crosshairs. With that he dispatched the anthrax letter writers to send a 'back off Iraq' message to Bush, who proceeded to call his bluff. Oops, no WMDs after all. And here we are.

Perhaps the tape release will clear all of this up. And perhaps pigs will fly.

CHASING BUTTERFLIES 2/18/06

It's early, but so far there's been very little fanfare surrounding the Intelligence Summit and their release of the Saddam tapes. Conversely, there's already evidence building that the story will garner much less attention than a Cheney misfire.

The Weekly Standard, long on the front lines of the effort to persuade Bush administration officials to release the post-invasion captured Iraqi documents, expressed their frustratation today in an article entitled "Need to Know", where they detailed a recent meeting between Congressman Hoekstra and a Negroponte staffer:

Late last week, a top DNI staffer met with Hoekstra. The meeting did not go well. "If there are 100 reasons not to make this information available, I got every one of them," Hoekstra told The Weekly Standard last week.

According to the article the plan is to dribble out partially redacted and restricted bits of information over time, similar to what we're seeing with the AQ transcripts coming out of Harmony (don't miss Austin Bay's post on this).

But, with the less than stellar performance by Tierney and the recent resignations at the Intelligence Summit it's certainly possible this story will get swept under the nearest throw rug. The telltale might be Hoekstra or any other curious Congressional friends of his. If they back off it's probably over, no matter what the Weekly Standard says or does. It'll be relegated to a homework assignment our grandkids complain about someday.

2/19/06

CNN decided to weigh in, and not surprisingly they ignored the obfuscation sections in favor of Uncle Saddam's WMD attack warning. Matter of fact, it seemed to suggest the Butcher was some kind of Arab Bill O'Reilly--"the spin stops here, cause Saddam's lookin out for you".

A quick scan of the other majors shows a big fat goose egg, but perhaps that's the correct call. If you study the Power Point slide show (available at Intelligence Summit site) there's no rock solid smoking gun material. In other words we didn't hear Saddam saying, "position the nuclear warheads under that sand dune over there", or "how did the meeting go with Atta in Prague?". So let's not get carried away.

Still, the tapes did seem to prove the regime was attempting to scam the inspectors and hide their bio program. Recall that inspections were the very backbone of the left's hindsight solution to avoid a war. Who could forget the mantra--"let the inspectors do their job". Surely Saddam and company were chanting it right along with them.

THE REAL WAR 2/19/06

The MSM is largely finished with the Intelligence Summit. The few that covered it took what they wanted--that Saddam was helping or warning the US--and will leave the rest to the conservative partisan sites and blogs. The latter is already in motion, case in point this fascinating narrative from former Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw.

Shaw was watching for Saddam's WMD stocks before and after the invasion. His conference presentation alleged the Russians, using Spetsnaz Special Ops teams, cleaned out all the WMD residue in the months before the war. This comports with a previous statement from the former Director of Defense Mapping, who claimed to have seen convoys heading into Syria. That sorta leaves Georges Sada twisting in the breeze, though.

Frankly it's hard to buy anything anymore. The only thing certainly believable is the size of the stovepipes looming over DIA, CIA, State, NSA, GIA, and DoD. Analysts from each of these agencies are highly competitive and each wants to be correct about Iraq. So there's ample room for fantasy and name-calling on all sides. The Iraq war, if nothing else, has given us a glimpse into that macho underworld like never before.

But there's just enough plausibility to consider this one. Russia would not have wanted US military units, with embedded media onboard, to come across proscribed weapons systems marked "made in Russia" when we rolled in, especially if any were date-stamped after 1991. And, if true this would also explain why Bush cannot corroborate the WMD whereabouts, since the game is still on.

Speaking of Russians, this theory brings to mind the incident back in 2003 where a car full of them fleeing Baghdad was riddled with bullets by our forces. Most probably just the fog of war, right?

ROLL TAPE 2/22/06

Just viewed the Pajamas Media interviews with Bill Tierney, Jack Kelly and Richard Perle done by Roger Simon. Regarding Tierney I'll say one thing--if he's now the public face behind theories that Saddam was involved in terrorism through the 90s, those believing likewise may want to keep it under wraps.

Kelly's assessment of the event sounded plausible, and makes me wonder if these Intelligence Summit guys were really that ignorant or perhaps cleverly set-up by someone trying to put them out of business.

Maybe Robertson was right

I don't always agree with Pat Robertson, but maybe he was right about Chavez..

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned on Friday that he could cut off oil exports to the United States if Washington continues trying to destabilize his left-leaning government.

I'm seriously considering scissoring my Citgo card and mailing it to him.

"You create your front Mr. Danger, we will create ours," Chavez said. "We are going to defeat the empire."

"Mr. Danger?", how old is he, 12? The problem is juvenile actors like him are gaining tremendous power in this world. What's a president to do when thugs like him have actual leverage over us?

CONDOLENCES 2/19/06

Guess the el Hugo doesn't think much of Condi after her forceful remarks. Not surprising. This isn't surprising, either:

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday he may seek to lift constitutionally mandated presidential term limits if opposition parties boycott the upcoming December presidential elections.

Lifting the term limits, eh? Perhaps we should ask Cindy Sheehan who she thinks has a better shot at becoming a dictator, Chavez or 'Mr. Danger'.