John Fund gets a “Security Briefing”
Why is John Fund
of the Wall Street Journal getting a “security briefing” on the
Dubai port deal? Honest to God, I haven't a clue. But here's what Mr. Fund had
to say tonight on “Scarborough Country.”
“One of the saddest things in this
whole debate has been the things we can't talk about. It is certainly true the
United Arab Emirates had a spotty record regarding terrorism before 9/11. Since
9/11, when George Bush said, “You're either with us or you are against
us, the United Arab Emirates has decided they are with us. There are things,
and I got a security briefing on this today, there are things
the United Arab Emirates has done to support the war on terrorism that are brave,
that have put that government at risk that we can't about and our government
can't talk about, because it would only be more terrorist attacks on the United
Arab Emirates. So, they (are silent). They can't speak for themselves. I'm not
pro-Arab. I'm not pro-Muslim. But I am pro-common sense. Let's have the 45-day
review and let's have this debate after the 45 days when we actually have all
the information and all the facts.”
- John Fund of the Wall Street
Journal on “Scarborough Country”
“Spotty record regarding terrorism before 9/11″?
George Tenet actually said in a hearing that we didn't hit bin
Laden when we had him in our sights because, “half the royal family would
have been wiped out as well,” according to a
2004 article. The royal family Tenet was talking about was from the United Arab Emirates.
I'll leave aside further details of UAE's spotty pre-9/11 terrorism record, because I have obliterated that talking point in
every post since portgate began. There's a much larger issue.
Murray Waas raised a question recently that John Fund brings
into focus.
Did the Bush administration “authorize”
the leak of classified information to Bob Woodward? And did those leaks damage
national security?
Murray
Waas
I certainly have no clue if John Fund got access to classified
information, but his boast on “Scarborough Country” was made with
the bravura of a man with access and a need to disseminate it. He didn't say
what he said for nothing. He said it to make a point, that he knew something
nobody else on the panel knew because he “got a security briefing
on this today.” That he could deliver proof by the very presence
of his political tease, was the point.
There is only one reason John Fund of the Wall Street Journal
got a “security briefing,” and that was to push the Bush Administration's
case of the DP World port deal. I know it was just on “Scarborough Country,”
where this Bush eunuch felt he could let 'er rip with the home town crowd that
wouldn't rat on one of their own, but really. Are things so bad with the Bush
propagandists they have to resort to squealing about their secret dealings with
the Deadeye crowd in order to restore the Republicans' national security cojones?
If they're looking to John Fund for help on that topic they really
are screwed.
That said, does anyone else find this odd, if not down right
wrong?
Comments are closed.