Fund cryptically suggested that he "got a security briefing" on UAE anti-terror efforts that he "can't talk about"
Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund stated that he "got a security briefing" on United Arab Emirates actions to assist U.S. anti-terror efforts but suggested he "can't talk about" what he learned, leaving viewers to wonder what the "security briefing" consisted of, whether he was privy to classified information, and, if so, why.
In support of his assertion that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is "with us" in the "war on terrorism," Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund stated -- on the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country -- that he "got a security briefing" on UAE actions to assist U.S. anti-terror efforts, but suggested he "can't talk about" what he learned. Fund, who was discussing the proposed takeover of port terminals in six U.S. cities by a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the UAE, left viewers to wonder what the "security briefing" consisted of, whether he was privy to classified information, and, if so, why.
From the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
FUND: 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 [President] George Bush said, "You're either for -- 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 talk about, and our government can't talk about, because it would only mean more terrorist attacks on the United Arab Emirates.
So, they are silent. They can't speak for themselves. I am not pro-Arab. I am 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.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
And this is just a guess, is that some low-level White House functionary told Fund that the UAE has done things "we can't talk about" to help in the War on Turr, and Fund went out and dutifully repeated this "news." Whatever the situation with Fund was, look for this new tidbit of spinformation to be repeated in the usual outlets.
That he can't talk about it, TALKING ABOUT IT?
Fund essentially said that the UAE have done things that, to a terrorist, would merit terrorist attacks. Terrorists who are not too hung up on knowing what the specifics are might hear Fund's statement as an incitement to attack the UAE.
Nice job, Fund.
So maybe Fund is more informed than Bush and Rumsfield...
Who isn't?
Selling us down the river for a few bucks. Thanks, WSJ -- have you no shame?
Is there any reason to listen to Fund??? I can't believe he said that with a straight face.
Reminds me of all the conservatives that assured me that the Administration knew more than it could reasonably tell us and after the invasion it would reveal that crucial knowledge.
Still waiting.
This is a new low.
"...let's have this debate after the 45 days, when we actually have all the information and all the facts."
But if we can't talk about it now (and we should have had the 45-day review before this - it's just the law that Congress does this) but we will be able to talk about it in 45 days?
That's the problem with all this secret stuff. Like the bombing of Cambodia - the folks in Viet Nam knew we were doing it, the people in Cambodia knew it was raining bombs - the only people in the dark were the poor saps here in the USA who were paying for it all and donating the lives of their husbands and brothers and sons...
Is this "Get Smart?" Did they lower the Cone of Silence over Washington, DC? It's too secret to discuss but somehow folks are supposed to make an informed decision...
What was the name of the woman he beat up to get the clearance?
"What was the name of the woman he beat up to get the clearance?"
BILL O'REILLY !
Every point coming out of John Fund's mouth reminded me of all the spin lies this administration uses when they want the American public to trust in their processes. After spending the first two minutes of this video feed supporting the government of Dubai and their right to the Port deal, Fund put on this objective hat and called for the American public to wait until after the 45 day review before making a supportive or non supportive opinion. Fund's very request is typical of every defense the Bush administration has used and why the American people don't have very much trust in the review being objective ; It's almost like saying find me innocent before we have the trial; it is just something the American people have heard too many times. The latest poll numbers, when asked if they thought the 45 day review would be any use to this issue, was in the 70/30 percent range in favor of their believe that the review will not have any clarified value. Even with all the opposition to this deal, the President will continue to drive, drive, drive, until they find some wage to make the deal anyway. That is the Bush way.
Yes I was in the secret briefing too but I can't tell you about it because it is a secret. Yes, John Fund was in that meeting, so was Cheney, Libby, my neighbor, my grandmother...; actually, the meeting was held in the Miami Orange Bowl, and the bowl was packed with people, but we all promised to keep secret...
Isn't Dubai one of the international banking centers known for recycling drug cash? Convenient. Just thinking out loud here. Why not control the points of entry - distribution dropoff sites in the US - as well as the flow of money? I don't trust these guys.
America is a government.
The UAE is a government.
Fund assures us that our government KNOWS things that it just can't tell us. It can tell FUND, but he can't share it with us. If he told us, he'd have to kill us.
Fund assures us the UAE is now "with us". How does he know this? They have TOLD us so, and some of their actions FOLLOWING 9/11 have been helpful, so says FUND.
But the UAE is a government, and the government knows things it can't ... or WON'T ... tell anyone. Governments keep secrets, and justify it by National Security reasons.
So, if the UAE were actively supporting terrorists, DO YOU THINK THEY'D TELL US? Of COURSE not, and Fund is fully aware that he cannot possibly know the TRUTH from the UAE. In fact, Fund knows that the United States cannot know what secret stuff goes on within the UAE. All they know is what they are told by a reassuring UAE, and whatever spotty intelligence we might have gathered about "behind the scenes" dealings there ... like Saddam and his WMDs.
Sorry, Fund. Your "I know a secret I can't tell" act only goes to make this Dubai deal seem WORSE. You underscore that the things we can know about a publicly held BUSINESS ... even one based in a foreign country ... is entirely different from the things we can know about a GOVERNMENT, which has national security interests and classifications.
FANTASTIC COMMENTS!CHENEY -BUSH NEED TO TALK WITH REAL SCIENTISTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND STEM CELL RESEARCH AND REAL EXPERTS ON CONDUCTING A WAR. THEY ARE FAILURES. POOR AFGHANISTAN. POOR IRAQ. POOR US.
Is Fund admitting that someone broke the law? What kind of security clearance does he have and what kind of classified info was revealed to him?
He can't tell you that he got the briefing from Jeff Guckert, 'cause you'll laugh at him.
Seriously, why would the Bush administration do anything to sway a shill that's already going to trumpet anything they do as perfect? What's the upside for them in sharing anything with him?
Just goes to show you that one can justify any position simply by stating that the reasons are "secret" for "national security".
(One can also play fast and loose with the label "Classified" on documents.)