LATimes editorial attacking Barbara Boxer!

And it seems pretty nasty.
Boxer's rebellion
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ports26feb26,0,6772402.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

"No one can dispute that the UAE is a key ally, that the deal has been vetted by the Department of Homeland Security and that it would have no effect on government security operations at the six ports where Ports World would run terminals. The objections to the deal are more rooted in a general mistrust and lack of confidence in the Bush administration.
<snip>
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?"

Who saw that editorial coming?

I miss the old LA Times

Since the Chicago Fibune bought it, it acts more and more like the pre-Otis Chandler Times. It's gone back to being a right wing fascist rag that promotes "Industrial Freedom" (No Unions).

news organizations. They wormed into KnightRidder in 2000 and are now demanding it be sold off into small pieces to destroy its investigative bureau in DC.

maybe "management" thinks they can trash the paper, fire reporters (including thier Washington & people like Rober Sheer) spout of increasingly right wing garbage- and no one will notice.

Welp, people are. I know firsthand of several people who've dropped their subscriptions. Guess maybe they're banking on increased sales of their Orange County edition.

Beware Dems for speaking hypocrisy. Valid. Doesn't mean security isn't an issue, but get your facts straight instead of a bunch of political grandstanding.

here is that the masses hear ports and UAE in the same sentence. This causes a knee-jerk reaction. Ports+UAE=BAD. No security. We hammer on this all the way to the polls.
It's in our favor that handing over national security to a foreign government IS a bad idea.

"...vetted by Homeland Security...UAE is a key ally..." and the L.A. Times is a progressive rag with a massive socialist agenda...right.

vet its way out of a paper bag. I loved that "no one can dispute" crap.

1) Why were any of these port terminals allowed to be in foreign ownership?
2) Why aren't there any American businesses trying to make a counter-offer?

why is the carlyle group involved

why after six years, bush believes this is the only issue worthy of a veto

whose country does he represent?

THINGS DID CHANGE AFTER 9/11

it attracts the big money players sure, standard cronyism may be in play, but get more facts on the approval process, the issues examined before you start screaming conspiracy. You realize that these investment companies would have been involved regardless of the party in power. Its a business deal.

And real security issues need to be brought out with a transparent investigation, otherwise we sound shrill. Let the Repukes eat their own on the fear of terrorism. The fact is, it doesn't take a port run by the UAE to have a security problem.

can't be bothered to strengthen port security when those ports are run by a British company, what makes you think the eunuchs will take on the UAE?

we're not likely to get any transparency at all.
Any time I hear a Democrat talking about other Democrats being shrill I assume I'm talking to a DLCer. If statements by Bayh and Vilzac are any guide, the DLC wants to keep our powder dry on every issue until we lose again, at which time they will counsel the same thing again. Rinse, repeat. Particularly when a corporate deal is involved. I'm in NYC; it's not just a business deal to me.

to different people its a simple fact. I'm a democrat, nice to make your acquaintance.

1) shipping is an international business
2) US co's can't compete against scab labor

How is a shipping company the same as the port owners/managers?

Were two citizens of China linked to 9/11?

Did China recognize the Taliban? (Only the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan did)

Vetted by Homeland Security? The news reports state that Homeland Security put up a red flag when it first heard about the deal. That's a red flag.

So the Cosco deal was opposed by Republicans, are they going to be consistent and continue opposing the UAE deal?

Balanced information is not necessarily the point.

but it wasn't intended to imply that the piece was news. It's an attack piece so I assumed it was commentary. Still, it's important to point out the hypocrisy and inaccurate analogies in the argument.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

sad.

...that was nothing more than an editorial. I read the hard copy of the L.A. Times every day and find that it reports from both sides of the center, which all media outlets should do.

Anyone ever hear of "General Otis" the anti-union blowhard who's LAT headquarters got bombed in 1910? The LAT didn't become a "liberal" paper until long after his death, and it seems that it's moving back towards the direction of its start.