Please help stop a Communist Chinese firm from getting a piece of 3Com

Just below this post is my open letter to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) on Huawei Technologies’ attempt to partially buy out 3Com. To say this is a danger is a tremendous understatement. Irwin Stelzer (Weekly Standard) has all the details; for anyone wondering how troubling this is, keep in mind that Stelzer is an economist, and an avid free-trader to boot. Yet not only does he recognie the national security issues, he wisely has it trump everything else:

One can only hope that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson reads up on his Adam Smith, no protectionist he. Smith warned that when national security is at stake, free trade takes a distant second place as a national priority. The great Scot is, as usual, as relevant to our day as he was when he wrote The Wealth of Nations 230 years ago.

Sadly, the great Scot is no longer with us, but we had a similar issue come up in 2003, when Li Ka-shing tried to buy out Global Crossing. We made our voices heard to the CFIUS, and within days, Li backed off. Whether or not the two were related is not known, but I figured it was worth a shot.

So, for those of you who are reading this from America, please join me in letting the CFIUS know how we feel. Feel free to copy the letter I sent, or tweak as you like, and send it to CFIUS Chief of Staff Gay Hartwell Sills. Just remember to be civil (or it won’t be read), and stick to the facts, which are harrowing enough.

For those of you reading this from outside the United States, if you could, please ask your government to advise the U.S. against approving this deal. They don’t need to make their concerns public (in fact, there’s reason to believe tha would be counterproductive), but it is well known that the President listens to world leaders he considers his friends, which for now include, among others, Stephen Harper (Canada), Angela Merkel (Germany), and Nic Sarkozy (France).

To be honest, I didn’t really expect to throw myself into an activist move like this, but this is too important for me – for us – to stay on the sidelines. This deal must be stopped.

Cross-posted to the China e-Lobby

Open letter to the CFIUS on Huawei Technologies’ attempt to partially buy out 3Com

I sent the following letter to Ms. Gay Hartwell Sills, Staff Chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, asking the Committee to reject the Huawei Technologies-Bain Capital deal to buy out 3Com. This letter has been cross-posted to the China e-Lobby.

D.J. McGuire
China e-Lobby
china_e_lobby@yahoo.com

Ms. Gay Hartwell Sills
Staff Chair
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”)
Office of International Investment
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4201 NY
Washington, DC 20220
gay.sills@do.treas.gov

Dear Ms. Sills,

As I’m sure you are aware, Huawei Technologies has just entered into an agreement with Bain Capital to acquire 3Com, a leading information technology firm that, among other things, helps the Department of Defense ward off cyber-attacks from hostile forces and nations. While Huawei will only acquire a minority stake, to have partial ownership of 3Com by a Communist-controlled corporation is dangerous, and Huawei, in particular, especially dangerous. I humbly ask that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reject any acquisition of 3Com that involves Huawei.

Huawei Technologies is a danger to the United States not only because it is a company from Communist China – and thus under the control of the Party even if its ownership is ostensibly “private” – but also because it has been one of the leading enablers of terrorism on the planet. In 2001, Huawei was exposed as one of the Communist Chinese firms building an Iraqi fiber-optic network that would have enabled Saddam Hussein to integrate his air-defense system. The firm was also involved in building a telephone network for the Taliban in Afghanistan, while the terrorist group was sheltering and aiding Osama bin Laden.

Communist China itself has an ever more detailed history of aiding our enemies in the Global War on Terror – including Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and al Qaeda – so Huawei’s recent actions suggest not a deviation from Communist Party policy, but its fulfillment.

I’m sure Huawei will offer to accept constraints on what it can and cannot access from 3Com. However, the Communist regime and its corporations have a history of violating agreements and pledges, so any deal to which Huawei agrees is questionable, at best.

The reality is, Huawei’s history disqualifies it from any role with a firm as sensitive as 3Com. For this reason, I do not believe any deal involving Huawei should be approved. Please reject any deal that involves Huawei.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

Yours Truly,

D.J. McGuire
Co-founder and President: China e-Lobby

Now THAT’S what I’m talkin’ about

Delmarva Dealings takes Mark Warner to task:

The Dems love to crow that Mark Warner was soooo popular when he left office. Of course I wonder how popular he’ll be when Virginians are reminded of all the taxes they now have to pay thanks to Mark?

Exactly.

Ward, Riley, what the f**k are you doing?

Well, I’ve seen the Warner You Tube montage being sent around; Ward links to Riley at Virginia Virtucon, who called it “A hint of what’s to come for Mark Warner.”

Let me be blunt: if the campaign is headed down that road, then “what’s to come for Mark Warner” will include a January 3, 2009 inauguration on Capitol Hill.

Didn’t we learn this lesson last year? Didn’t we see what happens when we go with questionable innuendo instead of issues? Didn’t we all watch the same campaign go down in flames because George Allen thought Jim Webb’s comments on women in the military from 1980 were more important than his dangerously bone-headed comments on Syria in the middle of the campaign (see Ignorant Comment of the Day)?

Or, to put it another way, has absolutely everyone in the Virginia rightosphere forgotten Mark Warner’s actual, abysmal record?!

If we’re supposed to salivate over suspected yet secret scandals, than the answer to the last question is an unequivocal, tragic, and painful, “YES.”

So, allow me to remind everyone the real reason we must defeat Mark Warner: his record as Governor.

When Mark Warner began his gubernatorial term in 2002, the biennial budget stood at $47 million. Warner then began a well-publicized parade of “cuts” to the state budget, “cuts” he said were desperately needed to keep the state solvent.

So how much lower was the 2002-2004 budget than its predecessor? Wrong question. In fact, Warner’s “painful” budget of “cuts” was $4.5 billion higher than Gilmore’s last budget.

During the next budget cycle, Warner was at it again; this time insisting on a $1.4 billion tax increase. He said it was imperative to balance the budget – leaving out the fact that the 2004-06 budget had an increase of nearly $10 billion, or roughly seven times the tax increase he insisted was essential.

By the time the “fiscal conservative” Warner left office in 2006, state spending was nearly 30% higher than it was when he came in. He added $14 billion in new spending without batting an eyelash.

With all of this, we’re supposed to ask why Mark Warner didn’t run for President?

To borrow a suddenly popular phrase: Give me a f**kin’ break!

Forget asking Warner why he didn’t run for President. I have a far more important question: Where did the $14 billion go?

Jim Webb’s Foot-in-Mouth Disease: Exhibit Sixteen

I’m back less than a week, and Jim Webb is at it again!

Just this afternoon, Webb took to the Senate floor to castigate the Lieberman-Kyl resolution, which would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Webb was at least smart enough not to actually claim the IRGC wasn’t a terrorist group, but instead he went back into his dark fantasy about a White House plan to invade Iran (via Think Progress):

At worst, (Lieberman-Kyl) could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate . . . We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military.

Webb has been banging on for a while now about a supposed secret White House plan to invade Iran – and I have the same reaction every time – I wish. Sadly, all Webb does is reveal his complete ignorance.

For starters, the notion that Lieberman-Kyl would give the Administration a green light to invade Iran is preposterous. First of all, Lieberman-Kyl is non-binding (Fox News). Secondly, even if the Administration were to follow through and name the IRGC a terrorist group, it would be number forty-three on this State Department list. Are we at war with the other forty-two? Hardly. Moreover, the Iranian regime itself is already listed as a state sponsor of terrorism (State again), along with Cuba, Syria, North Korea, and the Sudan. At present, we aren’t at war with any of them. More to the point, to follow Webb’s assertion to its logical conclusion, the Administration could use the Iranian regime’s place on the state-sponsor list as justification for military action regardless of whether or not the label is placed in the IRGC.

Finally, as I’ve mentioned before, the Bush Administration doesn’t need this – or any other terrorist label on any part of the Iranian mullahcracy – to liberate Iran. That authorization was implicit as part of the post-9/11 authorization passed by Congress, which states:

(T)he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

By this criteria, and based on the evidence gathered by the 9/11 Commission (see here) Iran certainly “aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” In other words, the President has had the authority to liberate Iran by force for years. The President has chosen not to do so, for whatever reason, and no one in their right mind would assume a non-binding Senate resolution would change this.

No one, that is, except Senator Webb, who seems keen to remind us all just how much of a mistake it was to elect him in the first place.

Hillary Clinton made an open-ended commitment to defeat

Senator Hillary Clinton was all over the television Sunday morning, trying to minimize her vote to defund the troops after next June. In fact, when asked point-blank whether or not she would have all American troops out of Iraq by 2013 (assuming she is elected next year), she refused to answer (Washington Post via Worldwide Standard, emphasis added):

Asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos whether she would withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq during a first term as president, Clinton (D-N.Y.) gave a simple answer: She did not know.But she used more than 225 words to say so. “You know, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals and make pledges, because I don’t know what I’m going to inherit, George. I don’t know and neither do any of us know what will be the situation in the region. How much more aggressive will Iran have become?” Clinton said. “What will be happening in the Middle East? How much more of an influence will the chaos in Iraq have in terms of what’s going on in the greater region? Will we have pushed al-Qaeda in Iraq out of their strongholds with our new partnership with some of the tribal sheiks or will they have regrouped and retrenched?”

She continued: “I don’t know, and I think it’s not appropriate to be speculating. I can tell you my general principles and my goal. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to do so carefully, responsibly, with the withdrawal of our troops, also, with the withdrawal of a lot of our civilian employees, the contractors who are there, and the Iraqis who have sided with us.

Now, the first paragraph is quite reasonable (for a Democrat) and quite close to the President’s viewpoint. In fact Brian Faughan – the author of the Worldwide Standard post, even went so far as to ask: “How exactly is this position different from that of President Bush?” At first glance, it doesn’t look different at all. In reality, however, Hillary’s stance is very different from the President’s, and far, far worse.

Yes, Hillary would base her withdrawal decision on the behavior of Iran and al-Qaeda. However, she tips her hand with her list of folks who would be part of the withdrawal (emphasis added): “the withdrawal of our troops, also, with the withdrawal of a lot of our civilian employees, the contractors who are there, and the Iraqis who have sided with us.”

The fact is, if Operation Iraqi Freedom succeeds, we won’t need to bring our Iraqi friends back with us, we will leave them behind as part of the new, democratic Iraq – in fact, that’s the whole point. By including our Iraqi allies in the list of folks pulling out, Senator Clinton is assuming our mission in Iraq will fail, not succeed.

In other words, while the President has made an open-ended commitment to victory in Iraq, Senator Clinton has made an open-ended commitment to an embarrassing and damaging defeat – but one that will take four years and who knows how many American lives in the process.

The message Hillary sent to our men and women in uniform is clouded, but unmistakable. From Day 1 of the Hillary Clinton Administration onward, every single American who dies in Iraq will die in vain. The President has sent no such message; no President should send such a cold and callous message; and no one who would send such a message should ever become President.

Why I gave the Republicans a blanket endorsement

Before the go-dark date (June 7), I wasn’t exactly generous with my endorsements of candidates. It was a very few, excellent anti-tax politicians who won a place in the hallowed right-hand column – and no one else. I can remember particularly well a conversation with a fellow blogger in which I explained that Ken Cuccinelli’s vote for the transportation tax hike would make it much harder for him to make my endorsee list.

I even called Cuccinelli a “squish” – and perhaps more surprisingly for some, I hold that view to this day.

Thus, those who remember my prior stinginess with endorsements may be surprised to see me handing it over to every Republican running for office in Virginia. At the very least, that blogger would probably like an explanation. I could go into detail about the nature of primary elections versus general elections, or the nature of party loyalty, or various other things, but for me, as always, it’s about trying to ensure as much as possible that taxes are low and government is limited in domestic affairs. That requires as many Virginia Republican victories as possible in 2007.

Given that the Republican leadership in Richmond was the impetus for the tax hike that eventually became law, what I just wrote might sound a little strange (in fact, it is a little strange). However, the reality is, Governor Kaine and his fellow Democrats were looking to raise taxes far higher than the Republican leadership was (mistakenly) willing to go. In fact, had the Democratic caucus been larger in the state Senate, Kaine may very well have pulled off a repeat performance of Mark Warner’s 2004 tax hike.

Therefore, while it makes little or no sense to folks like us in the blogosphere who actually pay attention to these things, the Republicans are still perceived as the party of lower (if not necessarily low) taxes in Virginia – and in politics, perception is reality.

Furthermore, we can be all but certain that Governor Kaine is itching for a tax hike in 2008, and the elections, if they go well enough for the Democrats, can give him an excuse to push for one. The surprising Democrats’ strength in the 2003 elections gave Governor Warner the momentum he needed to make his tax-hike push the next year. Kaine is hoping for the same thing – and the only thing that can stop him is Republican strength in November 2007.

If the GOP can keep its current numbers (or, if possible, even increase their majorities) Kaine’s political momentum would be zero, as would any chance of a tax increase. By contrast, if the Democrats can gain seats (as they did in the House of Delegates in 2003), Kaine can (and local MSM will) spin it as support for a tax hike.

We can look to the very recent past for an example of this. Before November 2006, the national Democratic leadership hid their actual plans for Iraq under a bushel. The election was all about Mark Foley (remember him?), No Child Left Behind, and Hurricane Katrina. Only when the Democrats’ Congressional majorities were safely in hand did Pelosi and Reid demand troop withdrawals in less than a year, while MSM insisted the “people had spoken” about Iraq.

Should the Democrats gain seats in the legislature (or, heaven forfend, actually win control of the Senate), we’ll hear all about how the “people have spoken” for a tax hike – which as you may have noticed has been advocated by almost no one on the campaign trail. Republican victories this November is the only chance that this “mandate” for a tax hike will not happen.

Thus, while I certainly will root harder for some Republicans than others (and the right-hand column still has them listed in the “especially supports” list), the fact is, we need as many Republicans elected as possible. The more Republicans win, the lower the chance for a tax increase and spending binge.

That’s why I gave the blanket endorsement to the GOP this fall.

A bleg for recent Webb Foot-in-Mouth incidents

Before I began my hiatus, I had a running feature on this blog regarding Virginia’s junior Senator, Jim Webb. I called it Webb’s‘ Foot-in-Mouth Disease, and had fifteen exhibits prior to June 7 (my go-dark date). Due to the situations I was handling during the last three months, I haven’t been able to keep track of Senator Webb as much as I’d like. So I’m throwing this open to the rest of the blogosphere. Feel free to nominate in the comments to this post any Webb moment that you consider an exhibit of Foot-in-Mouth. I’ll take whichever ones I think worthy (no minimum or maximum) and add them in.

There are a couple of ground rules, however. First of all, no meltdown moments just for the sake of meltdown moments. That’s not quite what I track, and besides, it’s poaching on The Ward View’s territory. Also, do not include per se his introduction of the amendment on troop deployments that was just recently defeated - that amendment was Exhibit Fifteen. However, any thing he said during subsequent debates on the amendment between then and now are fair game.

Those whose nominated incidents become exhibits will have my eternal gratitude, and proper crediting on said exhibit posts. Thank you all in advance.

Hillary and Obama voted to defund the troops, and I’m the only one who noticed?

Well, I have to admit, you folks practically held the door open and begged me to come back by virtually ignoring the vote of the Feingold Amendment last Thursday.

Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say I was looking for an excuse and the rest of the local rightosphere let one fall into my lap.

Either way, after spending the better part of two months having to look for a new job, and more than a month adjusting to the added responsibilities of the job I now have – while navigating a number of personal and familial issues – I have a better idea of what my role in the blogosphere should be: reduced, but not eliminated.

So I am back – and I have a bone to pick with Senators Clinton and Obama.

Apparently missed in the MoveOn.org brouhaha, the Senate voted on an amendment presented by Russ Feingold that would cut off funding for American troops in June of next year.

Don’t take my word for it – this is the exact text from the amendment (second column, assuming this Library of Congress link still works):

No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after June 30, 2008.

Now, Feingold does include the usual and useless “exceptions,” such as: “targeted operations, limited
in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations” (the very “limited” operations that put us in so much trouble in the first place), and “training to members of the
Iraqi Security Forces who have not been involved in sectarian violence or in attacks upon the United States Armed Forces.” While that sounds nice, it should be remembered that much of our recent success comes from helping Sunnis who switched sides after (1) being forced to witness the horrors of al Qaeda first hand and (2) recognizing we’re just as worried about Iran as they are. Under Feingold’s plan, that’s all out the window.

In effect, this amendment does just what it initially says: defund our military operations in Iraq. After years of claiming to “support the troops,” the 28 Senators who voted for this made it abundantly clear they have no real concern for them.

Who was among these 28? None other than the leading two Democratic candidates for President: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (roll call vote).

So the next time Hillary and Barack talk about “supporting the troops,” remember this vote, always – and not just because it was the catalyst that brought me back.