The New Protectionists

opinionjournal ^ | March 10, 2006 | WSJ

[groanup]

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The New Protectionists - How to create a real security crisis.

Friday, March 10, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Dubai Ports World finally threw in the kaffiyah on its American operations yesterday, agreeing to sell them "to a U.S. entity." We hope that entity turns out to be Halliburton, if only for the torment that would cause certain eminences on Capitol Hill.

Dubai Ports was susceptible to this political stampede because it was an Arab-owned company buying port operations, which Democrats have played up as uniquely vulnerable. But this is also the second such mugging of a foreign investor in recent months, following last year's demagoguery against a Chinese company's bid to buy Unocal, a middling American oil company. If Members of Congress want a real security crisis--a financial security crisis--they'll keep this up.

What's especially dangerous here is that we're seeing the re-emergence of the "national security" protectionists. They were last seen in the late 1980s, when Japan in particular was the target of a political foreign-investment panic. The Japanese were buying Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center, and so America was soon going to be a colony of Tokyo. A Japanese bid for Fairchild Semiconductor of Silicon Valley was seen as a threat to American defense. Those fears seem laughable now. But here we go again, with new targets of anxiety.

snip

[unseen]

But the world stage is nothing more than a poker game. And to play poker you have to believe that your opponent is honest. Sure, you bluff and upstage but you always have a sense that what you are dealing with isn't cheating.



History has shown that the world is far more than a poker game. It is a very dangerous place with many people and countries out to destroy each other. In a game of survival trust is an easy way to be killed. The history of Mankind has prov en that great nations rise up and fall. Be it Athens, Rome, the Ottoman Empire, Catholic Church, UK, Aztecs, Incas, Huns, etc. Each of these nations fell for one reason or another but mostly because there were forces in the world that wanted to see them die. The USA is not immune to the forces of history this is not a game.

[MissouriConservative]

As you say, if only 5 to 7 percent of the cargo is inspected, what prevented terrorists getting into the ports before now? If I remember correctly, the idiot shoe bomber was British, the same country that P&O is from. Home grown British terrorists destroyed a tube, what prevented British grown terrorists from using the containers unloaded by P&O? A communist Chinese company, hence it is state owned, runs terminals in the port of Los Angeles. What is to prevent them from doing a dirty deed should the temp heat up over Taiwan?

My point is, if security is a problem, it is the problem of the United States to fix through the Coast Guard and US Customs, not to run around like chickens with our heads cut off screaming the sky is falling.

"it was always a fear that the company could be infiltrated on the UAE side, perhaps setting up a conduit with jihadis in the US, setup as a subcontractor at one of the port facilities."

What is to prevent "jihadis" from infiltrating their armed forces and back stabbing us in Afghanistan? Or destroying our naval vessels when they are being serviced in UAE ports? If you live like this then the "jihadis" win because you're chasing shadows.

[jf55510]

The resolutions that Congress passed were enough. Congressmen are on record for both Afghanistan and Iraq, in fact Kerry's vote was used extensively against him during the previous Presidential campaign. Even if they had done what you suggest, do you think that there would really be a difference in what the Congressman say on TV and what the MSM says? No, there would be no difference at all. They will still go on TV and say, "that's not what we meant," and so forth.

Now on to secrecy. Wiretaps, there is no way, whatsoever, that program could have been in the open and been effective. The appropriate Congressional leaders knew. The Patriot Act was held up in Congress over stupid stuff that was a product of the Dems being able to control the message (GWB admin, PR IQ of 2). Over at NRO at the time the deal was passed the National Security experts said as much. Once again, if you have that information out in the open, they aren't secret. Gitmo, what about it? Nothing has been done wrong and nothing has been secret other than classified hearings to determine the status of the prisoners. They have invited the press down, the detainees could challenge status in federal courts, and other things. But I digress but the previous four things have not influenced Bush's poll numbers. Democrats cannot make a winning argument on any of those issues, as uninformed as American's are, they aren't that stupid and they recognize what was going on there.

Portgate was a problem is because the administration has an ineffective spokesperson (McClellan) and can't conduct a PR campaign worth anything. They should have been in front on this and the screwed the pooch. If the administration had effectively controlled the story and explained the situation then it wouldn't be a problem, but they didn't so it is a problem. The Katrina response was a clusterfuck of the highest order, but really, there was nothing they could do that much differently. There was so much miscommunication and confusion that stuff got screwed up. But for the federal response it would have been much worse. Imagine if those halfwits Nagin and Blanco had 100% of the responsibility? The city would still be underwater has tens of thousands would have died. Finally, the Libby scandal, I don't know what to say on this other than the administration could not do anything differently because they did nothing wrong.

Secrecy isn't the problem, it is ineffective communications coming out of the WH and the Republican morons in Congress getting run-over by the Democrats. Half of the Republican caucus is so concerned about being liked by the NYT editorial page that they won't do the right thing.

A strong President isn't a problem as long as Congress properly uses its check, which is has.

[jf55510]

It's not a yes/no answer. But if you must have a yes/no answer then I say yes those ships should be stopped and inspected more so that other ships entering the country. Or do you think old haired grandmothers should be stripped search in an airport while the 21 year old Middle easterner with a backpack behind her should be allowed thru with no inspection because he is wearing an I love NY t-shirt?

Extra inspection isn't enough because of the sheer magnitude of containers entering the US from those ports. Therefore, you support stopping all containers from entering US ports because not all of them can be searched. That is a stupid position to take and that's your position.

[MissouriConservative]

Thank you.

I am amazed myself of what I hear coming from supposed Conservatives on this issue. Normally Conservatives do not fall for knee jerk reactions but use logic and reasoning to reach a conclusion to an issue.

I do not care about what people say about me on this issue. I know that I am ashamed of what I have seen and heard on this issue.

[unseen]

Secrecy isn't the problem, it is ineffective communications coming out of the WH and the Republican morons in Congress getting run-over by the Democrats


But the secrecy IMO is what causes the ineffective communications. CIFUS (if you believe the press reports) didn't bother to tell the heads of the departments nor the President because it's very nature is to be behind the scenes. Secrecy has caused the trials of several terrorists to be held up because the government would not discuss its methods. If you are going to arrest people you must allow them their day in court or our system of justice is worthless. Secrecy has hampered the communication between the WH and the Press, between the WH and Congress, between the WH and the people.

I disagree on the declaration of war. If the declaration said We the members of Congress vote to declare war on Iraq. Yes/No. You can not weasel out of that.

I agree that a strong president isn't the problem as long as you have a strong congress and strong court too. What I'm saying is a strong president in the absence of a strong Congress is a problem and for 4 years that is what we had. That is why we had record budget shortfalls, record spending, and record secercy

[unseen]

Extra inspection isn't enough because of the sheer magnitude of containers entering the US from those ports.


That's a fake argument. We are the greatest technological advanced country on the face of the earth. Yet you say we can not figure out how to see what's inside a 10'by30' container made of sheet metal in a fast economical way? You position is we don't do it now so it can't be done. With that attitude we would not have won WW2 we would not have landed a man on the moon, we would not have created the Internet. Sure it will raise the cost but the cost is very small compared to what we would spend to rebuild one city. Look at NO.

[groanup]

I do not care about what people say about me on this issue. I know that I am ashamed of what I have seen and heard on this issue.

Believe me, I have been chewed up and spat out about this issue. I think I am right, so are you. I am amazed that so called conservatives on this board so conviently forget W's promise. And he has come through in spades.

I heard one of my most un-favorite commentators, Dick Morris, say to Sean Hannity: "Well I trust this president on terror." Well so do I. I have NO reason not to. He has been villified by the idiotic media that so wants him to crash and burn. But he is not only a patriot and a very smart politician, he is also not prone to be sent out of his focus by a few jabs in the ribs.

This isn't a wrestling match. W knows that. He isn't a legacy seeker like Clinton, he is truly trying to maintain the country for his children and mine, and yours.

[jf55510]

That's a fake argument. We are the greatest technological advanced country on the face of the earth. Yet you say we can not figure out how to see what's inside a 10'by30' container made of sheet metal in a fast economical way? You position is we don't do it now so it can't be done. With that attitude we would not have won WW2 we would not have landed a man on the moon, we would not have created the Internet. Sure it will raise the cost but the cost is very small compared to what we would spend to rebuild one city. Look at NO.

That isn't my argument. My argument is that DPW can work in the US ports. Further, my position the US could do more in inspecting containers, but as of now, the technology isn't there. But just because the technology isn't there, you don't stop doing business with friendly governments and wreck the economy with the protectionist measures which you and your buddies are advocating.

[Toddsterpatriot]

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle

Shouldn't Freepers who agree with and post articles by guys like this come out of the closet and admit they're Communists?

[groanup]

When one world leader faces another world leader they are playing a game of poker. You can put all the history you want to in the equation and make it sound all nice and historic, but that is essentially what is happening. Can't change it, can't re-define it. That is the way it is.

If you think it is different I would like to know why. And I would like to be sold.

[OKIEDOC]

OK, I'll come out of the closet when you get a sense of humor.

See my post to 1rudeboy:

Post:

Oh Heck! don't you guys know when your having your chain jerked a tad.

Dang I was merely having some fun before going to Saturday night church.

Heres something I got in an email just now, I believe it is a lot more enjoyable to read than the unadulterated crap I was throwing out:


THE CLINTONS PASS IN THE NIGHT E-mail this column to a friend!



By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

March 8, 2006 -- Bill and Hillary Clinton are the first couple to appear simultaneously and independently on the national political stage. They are using their special circumstances as a convenient shield for one another, fulfilling, at once, Hillary’s dream of no accountability and Bill’s of being able to take both sides of an issue.

Did Hillary know that Bill was pardoning the FALN terrorists to help her win Puerto Rican votes in New York? Oh, she was opposed to the pardon.

Did Hillary find out that Bill was granting pardons to felons and drug dealers who had hired her brothers for six-figure fees to lobby her husband for pardons right under her nose? No way. In fact she was “saddened” at her brothers’ involvement.

And we all know that Hillary was “gasping for breath” when she first learned the truth about Monica Lewinsky.

And the former first lady was “bewildered” that members of the White House staff would treat her demands that they fire the travel-office staff as an order.

Bill has been out there criticizing the war while Hillary plays to the center by voting for it.

And now, this heavy-footed pas de deux straddles the issue of whether a Dubai company should run six American ports.

Are we truly to believe Hillary’s insistence last week that she knew nothing about Bill’s counseling of his friend and benefactor the crown prince of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, on the ports deal? Do Bill and Hillary Clinton ever speak to each other, or do they just attend funerals, fundraisers and Billy Graham crusades together for photo-ops?

Bill is, after all, a regular in Dubai. The crown prince — that is, the government — contributed to his presidential library and pays him $300,000 per speech. Recently, Yucaipa, an American company that has Bill Clinton as a “senior adviser” and pays him a percentage of its profits, formed a partnership with the Dubai Investment Group to form DIGL Inc., a company dedicated to managing the sheik’s personal investments.

No doubt Bill Clinton was brought in to cement this lucrative deal from which he — and therefore Hillary — will likely make millions. Neither Bill nor Hillary will disclose how much he is paid, but her Senate financial disclosure says that he will make “more than” $1,000. They also won’t say how much Dubai royalty gave to the Clinton library.

So when Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) broke the story that the administration had approved the Dubai ports deal and Bill Clinton started to defend it in public, are we to believe that Hillary did not know that the sheik had called him to ask his advice, and are we to believe that Bill’s defense of the deal was unrelated to his myriad financial ties to Dubai?

Hillary stands to gain millions in income from her husband’s Dubai connection. She knows he flies there very, very frequently. And she must realize that Bill is close to the Dubai royal family.

So why did she dump on the port deal? Likely to cover herself. If she were anything less than front and center against the Dubai port deal, she would vulnerable to criticism over Bill’s involvement with the Dubai royal family. So she held marathon press conferences denouncing the deal and professed not to realize her husband was defending the deal at the sheik’s request.

What’s really going on here is that Bill Clinton is trying to please his Arab patrons and business partners at the same time that Hillary Clinton is trying to capitalize on American stereotypes about Arab terrorists.

More important, she’s desperately trying to distract attention from the Dubai dollars that flow into her family checking account from Bill’s political and business dealings with the Dubai crown prince. What better way than to attack them?

We should insist that:

• Bill Clinton register as an agent of a foreign principal.

• The Clintons say how much he makes from Dubai.

• The Clinton library tell us how much Dubai royalty gave to the library.

• And Bill disclose, in the future, whenever he is speaking as an ex-president or as a paid public-relations flack.

Eileen McGann co-authored this column

192 posted on 03/11/2006 5:35:55 PM PST by OKIEDOC (There's nothing like hearing someone say thank you for your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[MissouriConservative]

I could not agree more. My main question to those that I've talked to about this is simple.....Who do you trust more on national security.....George W. Bush or Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton?

The answer is easy....W is who I trust. I'm sorry to say that some of my fellow Conservatives and Republicans in congress do not agree with me.

By the way, glad to meet a real Conservative such as yourself.

[Gator113]

Great post sir...........I truly felt tears in my eyes and a need to go take another look at my USA flag.

May God bless our President, our brave Troops.......... and save our troubled Country.

[onyx]

Absoltely beautiful, groanup!

Y'all will love this!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594068/posts?page=228#228

[BigSkyFreeper]

Excellent post BTTT

[BigSkyFreeper]

Look at it this way, Reagan would have been doing the same thing, had he been in the same situation today.

Allowing for two-way investments is a way of gaining and strengthening trust, and spreading democracy and freedom, all without firing a single shot or occupying, liberating or taking over whole countries through the use of military force.

[onyx]

BTTT

[jonrick46]

Most Americans are not happy with the outsourcing of jobs. This is the right hand of protectionism. Many are comfortable with the right hand. It is ignorance of the basic economics of capitalism that causes so many by habit to accept this type of protectionism.

In-sourcing is another area of foreign activity that many Americans see as beneficial. It brings jobs. This is the left hand of protectionism that many Americans are not comfortable. To reject that hand means more jobs from foreign capitalists.

On the other "hand" it is the ignorance of the basic economics of capitalism that allowing a growing acceptance of this "hand" of protectionism. In-sourcing is rejected because of irrational nationalistic motivations. It is easy to motivate people through manipulative plays on irrational fears to drive this kind of protectionism. It is made even easier when so many have accepted the anti-capilistic thinking/training that has been spoon-fed by the left through the education system and the MSM.

Recently the left has discovered how to manipulate the sheeple through the age-old psychological tactic of generating irrational fears about "outsiders." All you have to do is assign some imaginary threat to the "outsiders," and you can cause enough panic to make people do anything to protect themselves from the boogieman. Such tactics have stirred communities to hang "witches" and burn Protestants for heresy as seen when Queen Mary Tudor ("Bloody Mary") in her five year reign of terror burned 274 poor souls. This is an old tactic. Isn't is ironic that this same tactic is being used by the Islamo Facists against those "outsiders" the infidels.

I will wait for the next episode of the left to ring that bell so the sheeple, like so many Pavlovian Dogs, will respond like the well trained dogs they are.

Ding ding!

[Cannoneer No. 4]

If not for taxes you would have no police no fire department, no roads, no bridges, no army, no regulated market place, no hospitals. Not all taxes are the same.

All those things can be provided by private enterprise, paid for by use fees. Ask a libertarian.