Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press!  Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary

THE MORNING MURMUR – Tuesday, February 28, 2006

1. Dubai ports firm enforces Israel boycott - The Jerusalem Post
The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the U.S. over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

2. Fact, Not Fear - Wall Street Journal Op-ed
Bipartisanship finally seems to have arrived in Washington. Unfortunately, it has arisen over the topic of port security and in the form of a firestorm fueled by fear and a good deal of misinformation.

3. U.S. Opposes U.N.'s Planned Rights Panel - Washington Post
The Bush administration will oppose a U.N.-backed resolution calling for the creation of a council to expose the world's worst human rights abusers. John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said that a draft charter presented Thursday by the U.N. was not tough enough to ensure that nations that abuse human rights would be barred from joining the council

4. Iraq As Vietnam - National Review Online
"I feel like we're winning the war over here and we're losing the war back home." These were the words of a Marine corporal at Camp Fallujah, Iraq, just a few weeks ago. Whether an accurate assessment or not, it does bring to mind a similar dichotomy during the Vietnam War.

5. Don't Kelo My House - Wall Street Journal
Two-thirds of Americans own their own homes, which is perhaps one reason few seem to share the view of the five Justices who ruled that New London, Connecticut, was justified in evicting homeowners so that private developers could put up a hotel and condominiums that would bring in more tax revenue. Some elites on the political left endorsed the ruling. But the overwhelming, immediate reaction on both the grassroots left and right was: How do I keep the government's hands off my house?

For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov


FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1. Dubai ports firm enforces Israel boycott - The Jerusalem Post

By Michael Freund
February 28, 2006

The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The firm, Dubai Ports World, is seeking control over six major US ports, including those in New York, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. It is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

"Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced," Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

"If a product contained even some components that were made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem," he said.

A-Din noted that while the head office for the anti-Israel boycott sits in Damascus, he and his fellow staff members are paid employees of the Dubai Customs Department, which is a division of the PCZC, the same Dubai government-owned entity that runs Dubai Ports World.

Moreover, the Post found that the website for Dubai's Jebel Ali Free Zone Area, which is also part of the PCZC, advises importers that they will need to comply with the terms of the boycott.

In a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions", the site lists six documents that are required in order to clear an item through the Dubai Customs Department. One of them, called a "Certificate of Origin," "is used by customs to confirm the country of origin and needs to be seen by the office which ensures any trade boycotts are enforced," according to the website.

A-Din of the Israel boycott office confirmed that his office examines certificates of origin as a means of verifying whether a product originated in the Jewish state.

On at least three separate occasions last year, the Post has learned, companies were fined by the US government's Office of Anti-boycott Compliance, an arm of the Commerce Department, on charges connected to boycott-related requests they had received from the Government of Dubai.

US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.

In one instance, according to a Commerce Department press release, a New York-based exporter agreed to pay a fine for having "failed to report in a timely manner its receipts of requests from Dubai" to provide certification that its products had not been made in Israel.

The proposed handover of US ports to DP World has provoked a political storm in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed hostility to the plan, citing national security concerns.

In an attempt to stave off opposition, DP World agreed over the weekend to a highly unusual 45-day second federal investigation of potential security risks.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395502196&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

2. Fact, Not Fear - Wall Street Journal Op-ed

By WILLIAM S. COHEN and JAMES M. LOY
February 28, 2006; Page A16

Bipartisanship finally seems to have arrived in Washington. Unfortunately, it has arisen over the topic of port security and in the form of a firestorm fueled by fear and a good deal of misinformation.

The response to the sale of British-based Peninsular & Oriental (P&O), which operates ports and port terminals around the world, including six in the U.S., to Dubai's DP World has been deeply troubling. Of course, Congress has both the right and the responsibility to review carefully any executive decisions that could imperil our nation's security. But it also has an obligation to separate fact from fiction and outright distortions. The inflamed rhetoric that has surfaced in recent days makes a meaningful examination of the facts more difficult, and the propriety of any final resolution more problematic, for the American people and the stakeholders in our commercial ports.

However, now that DP World has asked for a 45-day delay in the approval process to allow for further review of the security implications involved in its acquisition, we have been granted something of a reprieve, which may allow for a cooling of tempers.

Congress should take this opportunity to identify the substantial gaps that exist in our current port security system and commit the funding necessary to begin to modify and upgrade our capabilities. It should also, among other actions, consult with our major trading partners to determine whether their procedures are in need of modification or emulation; compare DP World's procedures with other world-class operators to determine what improvements should be made; and consider what management responsibilities should be imposed on DP World in addition to those required by the Department of Homeland Security. Finally, Congress should recognize that vulnerabilities will continue to exist, however stringent the security measures, and that an additional goal must be to manage the consequences of terrorist actions that go undetected or undefeated.

There are also several steps that might be taken by the parties involved to reduce the level of anxiety over the proposed action. DP World could voluntarily issue a White Paper addressing its worldwide system of running ports, with a focus on helping us understand its hiring practices and security procedures. The Treasury Secretary, who chairs the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S., could clarify just how thorough the review process actually is. Both of us were often part of that process during our public service and recall it to be essentially sound. Like most executive deliberations, it occurs behind closed doors for good reason, namely, that it deals with classified materials. It is a process designed to ensure that any such foreign investments will not place the U.S. at risk.

The administration could do more to properly characterize the role and relationship of the United Arab Emirates. Some critics have suggested that the UAE is a foe and not a friend. In fact, the UAE has been a staunch ally of the U.S., which has been confident enough in that country to send it sensitive military equipment and technology. U.S. naval forces traditionally make more port calls in the UAE than anywhere else in the world. When peacekeepers went into Kosovo, the UAE provided personnel and equipment of great value to NATO commanders. Those who have stated that the UAE advocates the elimination of Israel are in error. The UAE has said that it will not establish formal relations with Israel until a Palestinian state is established through a peace agreement with Israel, a common policy among Arab governments that, in fact, acknowledges Israel's right to exist.

Critics of this administration have noted that two of the 9/11 hijackers had lived in the UAE and had moved money through UAE banks. The same could be said of Great Britain and Germany -- and Florida, California and Arizona. No one, however, has suggested that any of them were deliberately aiding or abetting terrorism.

It is important to understand the interconnected nature of today's global economy. Other ports in the U.S., and around the world, are operated by British, Chinese, Singaporean and Danish firms. The expertise in operating ports is in fact dominated by foreign firms, some owned in whole or in part by governments. None of them can displace the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection in providing security to U.S. ports.

In July of last year, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff outlined several areas of emphasis that demanded his personal attention. One was the ongoing effort to design and build an integrated global cargo security system. Port operators, we would argue, are only one of many such pieces to be so integrated. When the fireworks are finally expended on the decision of whether to allow DP World to complete its transaction, the rest of this very complicated mosaic will still deserve our full attention. We have no vested interest in the outcome of congressional deliberations, and do not suggest that the Bush administration's actions be either ratified or rejected. We think, however, that it is of fundamental importance that the determination be based upon fact, not fear; and upon merit, not misunderstanding.

Mr. Cohen is a former secretary of defense and senator from Maine. Mr. Loy is a former deputy secretary of homeland security, transportation security administrator and commandant of the Coast Guard.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114109738425585024.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep

3. U.S. Opposes U.N.'s Planned Rights Panel - Washington Post
Exclusion of Abusive Nations Sought

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; A04

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 27 -- The Bush administration will oppose a U.N.-backed resolution calling for the creation of a council to expose the world's worst human rights abusers, John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Monday.

Bolton said that a draft charter presented Thursday by the U.N. General Assembly president, Jan Eliasson, was not tough enough to ensure that nations that abuse human rights would be barred from joining the council. He said he was under instructions from Washington to reopen negotiations on the text or postpone deliberations on a new rights body for several months.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other supporters of the compromise warned that there is no better deal to be struck and that the U.S. strategy could undermine their efforts to create an improved, though imperfect, human rights body. "I think we should not let the better be the enemy of the good," Annan told reporters Monday in Geneva.

The United States and the United Nations have been pressing for nearly a year to create a strengthened human rights council to replace the 53-member Human Rights Commission. The reputation of the Geneva-based panel, which helped draft the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has recently been tainted by the frequent election of members with dismal human rights records, such as Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Senior U.S. and U.N. officials had sought to prevent countries with poor rights records from joining the new organization by raising the membership standards and requiring a two-thirds vote of the 191-member General Assembly for any nation's admittance. But the proposal met stiff resistance, and the current draft resolution would require members to be elected by an absolute majority -- at least 96 countries.

"I say this really more in sorrow than in anger, but we're very disappointed with the draft that was produced last Thursday. We don't think it's acceptable," Bolton told reporters. "My understanding is that the president of the General Assembly intends to bring this matter to the General Assembly within a day or two for a vote. If he continues on that course, we will call for a vote and vote no."

Annan, U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour and two leading human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) say the compromise proposal is still worth supporting. They have been joined by former president Jimmy Carter and several other Nobel Prize winners, who issued a joint letter calling on the United States and other governments to back the deal.

Annan, who discussed the human rights council Sunday with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, appealed Monday for the United States to "join the vast majority of governments who seem ready to accept" Eliasson's proposal. He and other supporters said the proposal constituted a serious improvement on the existing Human Rights Commission.

They noted that provisions to subject all council members to scrutiny of their human rights record would discourage countries with poor records from joining. They also said that council members suspected of abusive behavior can be suspended by a vote of two-thirds of the U.N. membership present.

"We are a country that puts high value on human rights. We wouldn't vote in favor if we weren't sure it was going to be an improvement," said Chile's U.N. ambassador, Heraldo Muñoz, a former dissident who was jailed under former Chilean ruler Augusto Pinochet.

The new council would consist of 47 members selected by secret ballot on the basis of "geographical distribution" and committed to "uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights." Members would be elected for as many as two three-year terms at a time and would meet for at least 10 weeks throughout the year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701271.html

4. Iraq As Vietnam - National Review Online
Disappointments on the homefront.

By Dexter Lehtinen

"I feel like we're winning the war over here and we're losing the war back home." These were the words of a Marine corporal at Camp Fallujah, Iraq, just a few weeks ago. They were not constructed political rhetoric, the product of a leading question or an outright fabrication, tailored to the politically charged debate back home. Rather, they were a reflection of a common state of mind among troops in the war zones. Whether an accurate assessment or not, it does bring to mind a similar dichotomy during the Vietnam War.

About an hour before we spoke with this corporal, the Marine general in charge of logistics for the region gave a quick briefing before we left for Fallujah. We were waiting for gunship escorts at Base TQ (Al Taqqadum), leaving our C-130 cargo plane for helicopters. On the table in his office was an issue of Foreign Affairs with the prominent headline "Iraq and Vietnam." In an earlier article from the same journal, John Lewis Gaddis, a Yale professor and respected critic of the Cold War, had written, "Historians now acknowledge that American counter-insurgency operations in Vietnam were succeeding during the final years of that conflict; the problem was that support for the war had long since crumbled at home." In one sense, Iraq could become similar to Vietnam.

At Camp Fallujah, troops routinely called for "perseverance and patience." They argued that "timetables can't control the political process; the political process must control the timetable," and they voiced the belief that "back home they don't understand; you don't understand unless you see it." "What we see on TV is not what we see on the ground," a Marine complained. "The news is just a commercial industry. The news system benefits the terrorists." The dichotomy these troops lamented sounded like an Afghan saying we heard later in the trip from a village elder in Jalalabad: "What you see and what you hear arenever the same."

Neither in its military aspects, nor in the structure of the international political system which surrounds it, is the Iraq War like Vietnam. Because of a bipolar system of two superpowers, the North Vietnamese ended up with the military sponsorship of a powerful outside nation-state. Moreover, the communist North Vietnamese had a unified internal party discipline and a popular ideology of domestic reform and nationalism, both of which the fragmented enemies in Iraq lack. The insurgents are split between radical Islamists and minority Sunni restorationists. Most Iraqis want neither a return to Sunni domination nor a new Islamic radicalism. Both nationalism and domestic reform favor the new Iraqi government.

Nevertheless, the corporal's comment brings to mind the way in which the Iraq war (or any war, for that matter) can be made like the Vietnam War - not in the war zone itself, and not internationally, but in our domestic politics. If people in the United States come to believe, through misunderstanding or misinformation, spread inadvertently or deliberately, for political or partisan purposes, that the Iraq war is like the Vietnam War, then in domestic political terms the misunderstanding becomes the reality. This prophecy can be self-fulfilling.

In other words, even though the Iraq war in Iraq is nothing like the Vietnam War in Vietnam, the Iraq war in Washington is taking on some of the characteristics of the Vietnam War in Washington. There are many back home who want Iraq to become like Vietnam was back home, without regard to the reality of Iraq in the field. And they are trying hard to make it so.

The dominant precedent of the politics of the Vietnam War was the American choice to withdraw U.S. troops and then abandon our ally logistically and economically. This complete abandonment led to South Vietnam's defeat by an outside conventional military attack (a mobile armored force, not insurgents) more than two years later, while the U.S. watched. Just as this choice was entirely in Washington's hands during the Vietnam War, so too it is in Washington's hands now with respect to the Iraq war - regardless of the reality in Iraq. The abandonment of an ally, rather than the way the war itself was fought, signaled a political weakness in the home front, among Washington elites, the media, and parts of the public. Among our enemies, this perceived lack of willpower is the lasting impression of the Vietnam War even to this day. This lasting impression has significantly impaired American foreign policy.

Accordingly, the American homefront is once again the target of our enemies. Radical Islamists define the American homefront as the center of gravity of the war - that is, the point of greatest weakness, where an otherwise strong military power can be defeated. The North Vietnamese did the same: Their military failure in the Tet Offensive of 1968 convinced them that America could not be defeated in the field, but must be defeated politically at home. The American home front became the center of gravity in the North Vietnamese effort.

In Iraq, if Washington can be cajoled into withdrawing forces and aid prematurely, then outside forces with outside aid are free to concentrate larger military units in more effective conventional attacks. The great theorist of war Carl von Clausewitz emphasized the trinity of war - the military, the government, and the people - and the overriding role of willpower. The enemy may not have read Clausewitz (they have their own excellent theorists of the ultimate political nature of war), but they are certainly proving him right.

So the legacy of Vietnam in Washington, Vietnam "back home," hangs over a war with little similarity to Vietnam in the field. The Marine commander at Base TQ sees no similarity to Vietnam, yet on his entrance table sits a journal from back home comparing the two. Notwithstanding the actual situation, politicians and the media can turn Iraq (or any situation) into a "Vietnam" if they work at it long enough and hard enough. Then the fears and predictions of our troops in Iraq could come true - we could lose the war over here even while were winning it over there.

- Dexter Lehtinen was severely wounded as a reconnaissance platoon leader in Vietnam. He later graduated first in his class from Stanford Law School and served as a Florida state senator and United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. He recently returned from a congressional trip to Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan (he is married to Florida congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen).

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lehtinen200602270756.asp

5. Don't Kelo My House - Wall Street Journal

February 28, 2006; Page A16

Believe it or not, the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London may yet unite red and blue America in at least one common cause. The 5-4 ruling, handed down last June, gives government more or less unlimited power to seize private property.

The latest blowback comes from South Dakota, whose Governor this month signed a law prohibiting the state from using its power of "eminent domain" to take private property for private economic development. No exceptions. No loopholes. The bill passed by unanimous vote in the state senate and 67-1 in the house.

Two-thirds of Americans own their own homes, which is perhaps one reason few seem to share the view of the five Justices who ruled that New London, Connecticut, was justified in evicting homeowners so that private developers could put up a hotel and condominiums that would bring in more tax revenue. Some elites on the political left endorsed the ruling. But the overwhelming, immediate reaction on both the grassroots left and right was: How do I keep the government's hands off my house?

It didn't take long for the political response to get rolling. The sponsors of the South Dakota law said they started work the next day. At the time of the Kelo ruling at least nine states already had outlawed the use of eminent domain to evict homeowners for private development. Nearly every other state has since come up with some sort of anti-Kelo effort via legislation, a constitutional amendment or citizen initiative.

In Michigan, the legislature decided not to leave so important an issue to the vagaries of future legislatures and approved an amendment to the state constitution outlawing the taking of private property for private use. The vote was 106-0 in the house and 31-6 in the senate; it goes to the voters in November. Constitutional amendments are also moving forward in Georgia, New Hampshire, Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Alabama.

Initiatives are under way in Colorado, Missouri, California, Arizona, Nevada and Montana. In Washington, D.C., the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in November that would withhold economic development aid for two years from state or local governments that use private economic development as a rationale for eminent domain. The Senate will soon take up somewhat less sweeping legislation.

In his majority opinion in Kelo, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "Nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." It's good to see voters taking the Justice at his word and throwing the Supreme Court a brushback pitch.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114109678386185002.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
###