In a major departure from their usual opinion, the LA Times is excoriating Sen. Boxer for playing politics with free trade.

Here’s a glimpse:

Now there is a Republican in the White House, and of all the grandstanding surrounding the Dubai Ports World deal, none tops Boxer’s performance. She said last week that she would support legislation preventing any foreign firm, state-owned or not, from buying port operators. Memo to Boxer: 13 of the 14 container terminals at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the biggest port complex in the U.S., are run by foreign-owned companies. She later told The Times that she meant such deals should get greater scrutiny, not be banned. Still, this is the sort of proposal one would expect from a senator from a land-locked state like Vermont, not one where international trade plays a vital role in the economy. The Clinton-Menendez bill, which Boxer is backing, would do little more than disrupt port operations and attract international protest.

Boxer had a more enlightened view in 1998, when she supported the Cosco move. She now borrows a line from George W. Bush and says the world has changed since 9/11, but that still doesn’t explain why she supported terminal operations run by a foreign government-owned company eight years ago but now distrusts any foreign operator whether it comes from a country involved in terrorism or not.

One possible explanation is that the Cosco deal was heavily backed by a Democratic administration, while the Dubai Ports World deal is heavily backed by a Republican administration. But that would mean Boxer is working against the interests of her state in order to score cheap political points. She would never do such a thing. Would she?

I wasn’t expecting the LA Times to attack Sen. Boxer on anything but it’s a welcome sight. The LA Times obviously knows the importance of free trade on California’s economy. I suspect that they’ll cut Boxer alot of slack if the subject was anything else.

The truth is that Boxer is the ultimate anti. I won’t predict this but I wouldn’t be shocked to find Boxer arguing with the President if he said that the sun rose in the east. As I’ve said before, Sen. Boxer is all about being against everything that the President is for. That’s her right except that she frequently does it without any thought or logic.

The people of California deserve far better than Sen. Boxer. She’s defined the notion of loyal opposition down to simply opposition. The distinction is worth noting. When Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House from January, 2003- January, 2005, Republicans opposed alot of legislation but it wasn’t a knee-jerk reaction. It was based on substantive beliefs. You can’t say that about today’s Democrats.

Cross-post at LetFreedomRing

In yet another attempt to damage their chances of taking back the House or Senate, 18 House Democrats told President Bush that Alberto Gonzales should appoint a special counsel to investigate the legality of the Bush administration’s eavesdropping program.

“If the effort to prevent vigorous and appropriate investigation succeeds, we fear the inexorable conclusion will be that these executive branch agencies hold themselves above the law and accountable to no one,” wrote the lawmakers, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, (D-CA), a member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees.
———-
The Democrats see “ample precedent” for a special counsel, citing the Justice Department’s appointment of U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. After 22 months of investigation, Fitzgerald indicted the vice president’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for allegedly lying about his role in the disclosure. “Indeed, the allegation of a secret NSA spying program conducting warrantless domestic surveillance of U.S. persons is at least as serious” as the matter Fitzgerald investigated, the Democrats wrote.

A special investigation to determine the legality of the NSA intercept is a facade. The only way to make a final determination is by getting the Supreme Court to rule on the issue. All the ‘investigations’ in the world won’t resolve the issue.

Democrats have shown their hand by holding up Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation as what they prefer. Let’s remember that Fitzgerald didn’t find wrongdoing on the initial concern of his investigation. That should’ve stopped the investigation dead in its tracks. Instead, Fitzgerald didn’t follow the mandate given him by the Justice Department.

If Fitzgerald had wanted to investigate the White House on whether they violated the IIPA or the Espionage Act, he would’ve started by asking all of the reporters that said that Plame’s identity was common knowledge to national security writers.

Similarly, all that this ‘investigation’ is intended to do is to criminalize policy differences. Democrats don’t have to say anything when the word investigation is used, and rumors swirl about possible charges. All they have to do is sit back and talk about how worried they are at ‘possible improprieties’ that the current Administration might be involved in.

The truth is that the NSA intercept program is keeping us safer because we’re intercepting AQ’s international communications. That’s the dirty little secret that Democrats don’t want highlighted.

Cross-post at LetFreedomRing

Reader Matt M. writes to us this morning:

Hi guys,

I noticed you haven’t expressed an opinion on Governor Schwarzenegger’s effort to repair the levee system in the San Joaquin Delta. It appears he isn’t going to get a whole lot of opposition, which is a good thing.

In my opinion, this is the single most important thing Arnold or any other California governor has done for the state in a long time. My reasoning is the vulnerability of the Delta to earthquakes, which I have not yet seen reported in the news regarding this story. A powerful earthquake could cripple the levees and flood the Delta, which would have the immediate effect of wiping out the population and farmland there. A far more serious threat is brackish water from the estuary pushing past the flooded Delta to threaten much of Northern California’s fresh water supply.

I don’t know if Arnold had that specifically in mind, but he is doing the right thing to help reduce the risk of a disaster of Katrina-like proportions. This theory is put forth in the book “A Dangerous Place” by Marc Reisner, and while it may be controversial, anything the Governor can do to prevent even the possibility of such a catastrophe is money well spent. If the Delta is flooded, California’s current problems will pale in comparison. I’m not a geologist or a pundit — hell, I’m not even a Californian, but as a guy who lives in an earthquake-vulnerable area (Japan), I’m convinced Arnold is doing the right thing here and that he needs your support. Keep up the good work and God bless.

Best regards,
Matt

Thank you for those comments, Matt. You make some excellent points and we appreciate your input.

We agree with the assessment that California needs to be better prepared for a major disaster. And we think Gov. Schwarzenegger is doing the right thing by aggressively pursuing federal funding for critical upgrades to the state’s levee system.
(continue reading post »)

Reuters reports: “Iraqi Interior Ministry forces have captured a senior aide to al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi state television said on Monday.”

Iraqiya named the man as Abu Farouq and said he was captured with five others in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, west of the capital.

It said Abu Farouq al-Suri, previously unknown to the media, was captured by the Wolf Brigade, one of several counter-insurgency units operating within the Shi’ite-run Interior Ministry but accused by Sunnis of targeting civilians in their community.

The word Suri is Arabic for Syrian, indicating that the captured man may have come from Iraq’s western neighbor.

Read more.

European cartoonists have stirred up a controversy satirizing Mohammed, the Muslim prophet. One of the more creative panels shows Mohammed looking down from heaven at a long line of suicide bombers, pleading for them to stop down because “We have run out of virgins!”

What the Prophet really needs is a Howard Dean to implement liberal dogma:

– Redistribution of Wealth: Rewarding each suicide bomber with 72 virgins is “obscene,” especially since disadvantaged (non-Martyr) Muslims are forced to survive with far fewer. A progressive formula for equitable redistribution of wealth is required to level the playing field. In addition, a “Virgin windfall” tax may be needed.

– Affirmative Action: The virgin population in Islamic heaven is currently limited to beautiful, thin, middle-eastern Muslim women between 18-20. This bigoted discrimination prevents otherwise qualified virgins from gainful employment and is a root cause of the shortage crisis.

An affirmative action program is needed to assure diversity and equality. Heaven should be forced to hire plain, overweight women of black, white, Latino, and Asian ethnicity, between the ages of 21-75, as well as women from the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist religions. This would immediately eliminate shortfalls. (It might reduce the number of suicide bombers as well, but that can be solved elsewhere.)
(continue reading post »)

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) blasted the Bush Administration’s proposed port management deal with the United Arab Emirates as a move that would “turn over our sovereignty to another country.”

The New York Democrat says she’s still opposed to the deal and plans to introduce legislation that would block Dubai Ports World or any other company owned by a foreign government from operating US ports. As of today, we have almost 50 members of congress introducing bills to stop the UAE port deal. If only they would propose as much legislation to protect US borders.

Clinton said critical infrastructures like seaports must be operated by the United States, not foreign-owned companies. However, Hillary Clinton critics have pointed out that during her husband Bill Clinton’s administration, several ports — including a US naval base — were turned over to companies based in communist China, as well as other nations.

According to columnist Charles Krauthammer, in spite of objections voiced by the intelligence community, Clinton pushed for deals with communist China after he allegedly received campaign contributions from Chinese lobbyist Johnny Chung. Krauthammer says that today the intelligence community sees no problem with having the UAE deal go forward.

“While Hillary and other politicians are demagoguing the issue and calling for port management to be performed by US companies, they all know there are no companies in the US that perform such work except for perhaps Haliburton. Imagine the firestorm if Haliburton got the contract, ” said one intelligence officer. (continue reading post »)

As is always the case, the Sunday morning talk shows created more than a few notable quotes. The funniest soundbite of the morning shows came from Slow Joe 2.0 (as Hugh Hewitt likes calling Sen. Biden):

Biden said the Bush administration had caused “a diplomatic problem” by not briefing congressional leaders on the Dubai ports deal before criticism reached a fevered pitch. “The diplomatic problem has been brought on by this administration’s tone-deafness,” he told Fox. “What they should have done, knowing this [ports] application was being made, they should have brought in Republican leaders in the first place. They should have gone through this thoroughly and showed everybody what was going on.”

Biden thinks that it’s the Bush Administration’s fault for not leading loud-mouthed senators by the hand through the process? Biden makes it sound like the hyperbole could all have been avoided had the Bush Administration laid out all the facts that anyone on the, say, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee could’ve had a staffer find out?

The only reason why this got so blown out of proportion is because (a) loud-mouthed politicians wanted to sound important and (b) because the Agenda Media whipped the public into a frenzy by running one factless article after another on the subject.

In fact, it wasn’t until talk radio, starting with Rush, and the Right blogosphere got involved that we started learning pertinent information about the deal. In fact, at the risk of sounding self-important, this blog was one of the first to tackle this issue in a substantive, serious way. (I’d hate to think that senators can’t find out more about national security issues than bloggers find in 24-36 hrs.)

“The fact of the matter is that there are some people, I’m sure this is anti-Arab-bashing,” Biden told “Fox News Sunday,” adding, “I’m sure that’s true.” But in the next breath Biden said that Arab allies throughout the Mideast should be treated differently from European nations. “You don’t sell the same aircraft to Saudi Arabia, our great ally, that you do to England or to France or to a NATO country. So there’s always been a distinction.”

Sadly, Joe, I’m afraid you’re right. And it didn’t have to happen if only people weren’t pre-disposed to thinking ill of ALL Arabs.
(continue reading post »)

Everyone’s been yapping about the need to go through the full 45 day investigation for the Dubai Ports deal, which the Bush Administration has agreed to. I’m all for it, especially if the Administration uses the time to go on the offensive on this.

As I’ve said before, I expect the deal to get done so I don’t believe that’s what this delay is about. Instead, I’m hoping that the Administration targets the bigotted Democrats that we’ve heard from this week. My first target would be Gov. Jon Corzine, (D-NJ), who gave the Democratic radio response yesterday.

Here’s a taste of Corzine’s hate-filled speech:

“Dangerous men, tainted blood money and nuclear technology have moved across UAE borders,” said Corzine, who is suing to block the government-approved acquisition by Dubai Ports World, a state-run company. We were told that the president didn’t know about the sale until after it was approved. For many Americans, regardless of party, this lack of disciplined review is unacceptable,” Corzine said.

Gov. Corzine is right in noting that “blood money and nuclear technology have moved across UAE borders…” What he fails to note is that most of that activity happened during the Clinton Administration. The Clinton Administration didn’t push UAE to reform their banking laws so that terrorist money wouldn’t go washing through the UAE without restrictions.

The reason the Clinton Administration didn’t push the UAE at that time had alot to do with the fact that they didn’t take the terrorists’ threat seriously. It would’ve been nice to have seen them done so.

Let’s also remember how helpful the UAE has been post-9/11:

The UAE Is an Ally. Since 9/11, the UAE has provided unprecedented cooperation to the United States in the war on terrorism, including finding, arresting, and turning over high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives and participating in the U.S. Container Security Initiative to screen cargo bound for the U.S. That Dubai World Ports is owned by the UAE should reassure Americans.

This is part of the Heritage Foundation’s research on Dubai Ports. This isn’t insignificant.

I’d use this information and more to gore Democrats who have sounded awfully bigotted this past week. They haven’t made distinctions between troublespots in the Gulf Region and allies in the region. Generalizations are how bigotries get started and re-inforced.

We owe our closest allies far better than that type of rhetoric.

Cross-post at LetFreedomRing

UPDATE: (2/27)
Michelle Malkin: “Shredding The Race Card”
Offers counter-point

Let’s examine past experiences of Republicans jumping on board recent bandwagons: Ann Coulter calling extremist Muslims “ragheads” was met with swift Conservative excommunication. Denmark is being praised as a champion of free speech by Conservatives, despite the fact that what this type of free speech and do for you, it can do to you.

With these “don’t look before you leap” bandwagons overloaded with Conservatives, let’s do a review of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -owned company, Dubai Ports World, and the contract with the London company to manage U.S. ports. First, here is the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company who currently manages the ports. Here is the Dubai Port company.

MYTHS

Myth: President Bush contracted the UAE to manage US ports.
Fact: The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments has approved a pending contract with the state-controlled Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates to manage U.S. sea ports. The Committee on Foreign Investment includes representatives from 12 government agencies and departments, including Defense Department, Homeland Security and the White House National Security Council. It took 90 days to approve the deal. The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), currently manages the ports and is selling the management of the ports to Dubai Port. The White House is backing the contract.

Myth: The U.S. will be less safe with the UAE managing the ports instead of the British.
Fact: The private British company currently manages the ports in question. The ports are already managed by foreigners; in light of the Muslim presence in Britian and the vow from extremists to continue attacks like the ones in London, it could be suggested that US ports managed by the Brits is a riskier venture than to sell the work to Dubai.

Myth: The U.S. would be safer managing its own ports.
Fact: The U.S. has had more domestic terrorism than the United Arab Emirates. Consider these home grown American terrorists who carried out domestic attacks: (continue reading post »)

Publisher’s Note: Tonight, our Contributing Editor Gary Gross will be interviewed by Lores Rizkalla to discuss homeland security issues, notably the ongoing ports controversy.

Topic: Homeland Security or Racial Profiling?

Our readers know that we’ve covered this story quite actively. In fact, we were one of the first bloggers to come out swinging against the deal, but we have since changed our opinion. And that’s where we stand.

Gary has also written much on the subject and remained objective throughout the debate. Tonight you can hear his latest perspective.

He’ll be appearing on NewsTalk 870 KRLA and you can listen live here.