WASHINGTON (AP) — Northrop Grumman and the maker of Airbus planes beat out Boeing Co. to win a $35 billion government contract to build military refueling planes, the Air Force said Friday. The selection of Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and its Paris-based partner, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., came as a surprise to Wall Street. It is a big blow to Chicago-based Boeing, which has been supplying refueling tankers to the Air Force for nearly 50 years and had been widely expected to win the deal. The contract positions EADS to break into the U.S. military market in a big way. And it opens up a huge new business opportunity for Northrop Grumman. In after-hours trading, shares of Northrop climbed $3.74 to $82.37, while Boeing's stock price fell $2.59 to $80.10. The Air Force has estimated the tanker contract will be worth between $30 billion and $40 billion over 10 to 15 years. It is the first of three deals that could eventually be worth as much as $100 billion over 30 years to replace the entire Air Force fleet of nearly 600 refueling tankers. As the winners of the first award, EADS and Northrop will be in a strong position to win the two follow-on deals, analysts believe. Military officials say the Air Force is long overdue to replace its air-to-air refueling tankers, which allow fighter jets and other aircraft to refuel without landing. The service currently flies 531 Eisenhower-era tankers and another 59 tankers built in the 1980s by McDonnell Douglas, now part of Boeing. But the new contract has emerged as a major test for the Air Force, which is trying to rebuild a tattered reputation after a procurement scandal in 2003 sent a top Air Force acquisition official to prison for conflict of interest and led to the collapse of an earlier tanker contract with Boeing. The tanker deal is also certain to become a flashpoint in a heated debate over the military's use of foreign contractors since Boeing painted the competition as a fight between an American company and its European rival. The Chicago-based company is expected to protest the decision. The EADS/Northrop Grumman team plans to perform its final assembly work in Mobile, Ala., although the underlying plane would mostly be built in Europe. And it would use General Electric engines built in North Carolina and Ohio. Northrop Grumman, which is based in Los Angeles, estimates a Northrop/EADS win would produce 2,000 new jobs in Mobile and support 25,000 jobs at suppliers nationwide. "I've never seen anything excite the people of Mobile like this competition," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said. "We're talking about billions of dollars over many years so this is just a huge announcement." ——— Associated Press Writer Ben Evans contributed to this report. 
Friday, February 29, 2008
Northrup-Grumman and Airbus win Air Force Tanker Contract
McCotter Comments on Possible New Huawei/Bain/3Com Merger
WASHINGTON DC – News circulated today Bain Capital and communist China's Huawei plan to resubmit an application seeking U.S. approval for a planned buyout of American 3Com Corporation within the next several weeks. Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) made the following comments on the possible new merger: "No business can sufficiently structure such deals to protect America from this stealth assault on America's national security. It is the solemn duty of the United States government to protect our liberty from all threats; and CFIUS must again do its job and reject this latest threat to our cyber-security." Last October Massachusetts based Bain Capital and communist China's Huawei tried to purchase 3Com Corp, an American company which provides the Pentagon with security technologies. The deal collapsed earlier this month when the three companies withdrew their applications to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CIFIUS), because they could not calm national-security concerns with the U.S. government panel. Specifically in question was 3Com's Tipping Point unit, which sells security software used by U.S. government agencies. McCotter, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, was the first member of Congress to bring this issue to public attention and oppose it. In early October 2007 Congressman McCotter circulated a letter signed by his colleagues and subsequently sent to CFIUS. McCotter also continued to oppose the deal, despite communist Chinese inspired personal attacks in the media. Bain Capital LLC is a Boston, Massachusetts-based private equity firm founded in 1984 by Mitt Romney, T. Coleman Andrews III and Eric Kriss; all partners in the consulting firm Bain & Company. Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. Bain Capital was originally conceived as a combined equity start-up and leveraged buyout fund, an innovative strategy at the time.
iPhone - a future Enterprise Device?
Apple: All signs point to a more business friendly iPhone by ZDNet's Larry Dignan -- Apple has dropped some serious hints that its iPhone strategy will at least be tweaked–mostly in ways that will court business users. First up, Apple has sent invitations for the launch of the iPhone SDK next week and as David Morgenstern notes the device will have “some exciting new enterprise features.” Meanwhile, Tim Cook presented at [...]
Thursday, February 28, 2008
NAFTA Nonsense Insults Our Allies
Election 2008: In Tuesday's debate, Democrats blasted the North American Free Trade Agreement. Sure, they're pandering for Rust Belt votes. But do they ever consider the impact of their statements on our allies? That's who is being hurt by the slew of anti-NAFTA statements that seem to be particularly aimed at Mexico, even if the problem actually comes from somewhere else. "In Youngstown, Ohio, I talked to workers who have seen their plants shipped overseas as a consequence of bad trade deals like NAFTA, literally seeing equipment unbolted from the floors of factories and shipped to China, resulting in devastating job losses and communities completely falling apart," Democratic front-runner Barack Obama said at a Texas debate last week, making sure that all the woes of China trade got wrapped in the word NAFTA. It got even more shrill Tuesday night in Ohio: "I would immediately have a trade timeout, and I would take that timeout to try to fix NAFTA by making it clear that we'll have core labor and environmental standards in the agreement," said Obama's rival, Hillary Clinton. Likewise, Obama spoke of using the "hammer" of withdrawal to enforce compliance. Both candidates threaten to leave NAFTA unless its "labor and environmental standards" are strictly "enforced." Enforcement? Hammer? What kind of criminals are these would-be G-men talking about? Evil ruffians out there committing . . . trade. This not only insults our allies and trading partners, it signals to everyone else that America's capricious, chest-thumping protectionist ally, Mexico, a third-world nation that is trying hard to transform itself into a first, bears the brunt of this coded jingoism. That's because trade pacts these days are about more than just trade — they represent long-term strategic partnerships. But after this talk, who'll want to sign a permanent trade deal knowing they'll be threatened by ambitious politicians every election season? Far from being an enemy, Mexico is a partner with whom we did $350 billion in two-way trade last year. In the process, we've gained millions of high-paid jobs in the U.S. The relationship has boosted U.S. incomes an average $2,000 per family since 1994. Besides buying 35% of our global exports, Mexico and Canada are also two of our biggest oil suppliers, selling us energy we'd be in huge trouble without. Casting NAFTA nations as villains sends a chilling message to the dozen other nations that have since signed NAFTA-like agreements — countries as friendly and diverse as Singapore, Jordan, El Salvador, Australia, Morocco and Chile. They must be wondering when their moment will come to be blamed for poisoned toys, sick pets, bad dumplings, factory shutdowns, outsourcing and all the broader problems of globalization that have nothing to do with their pacts. Worse still, the irresponsible talk could have a chilling effect on strategic allies waiting for free trade pacts they've already signed to be approved — Colombia, Panama and South Korea. We've left them hanging. What a fine way to win and keep allies. The demagoguery is particularly objectionable because it's dishonest. First, the NAFTA pact wasn't shoved through by fiat. It was negotiated over years by the Clinton administration, with major input from both Republican and Democratic Congresses. Everyone got his or her say at the time, and after many debates, the agreement passed both houses in late 1993. Unlike our trade with China, which is subject to tariffs but contains no major labor or environmental demands, NAFTA did include labor and environmental standards, with the trade-off for Mexico and Canada being the permanence of the treaty. Subsequent ones, such as 2007's Peru free trade agreement, and the nearly identical pending Colombia pact, required even tougher labor and environmental standards to ensure passage. Nations give up a lot to sign free trade pacts with the U.S. And some, such as Mexico, endure considerable internal opposition. But they do it not because selling cheap toys here is such a big deal, but because embracing the trade pact's legal infrastructure comforts investors and helps lure foreign investment. For these countries, those investments are their future. Threatening to renege on a permanent treaty — as Clinton and Obama are doing through their identical vows to "opt out" of the deal — signals loudly that America's word is no longer its bond. A permanent pact with the U.S., it turns out, isn't so permanent. An approach like that toward our treaty partners sends a chilling signal to our friends. It's Obama and Clinton who need to cool it.![[iCopyright]](http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.gif)
Copyright © Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. Displayed by permission. All rights reserved.
You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing http://license.icopyright.net/3.7543?icx_id=289008327998819into any web browser. Investor's Business Daily Inc. and Investor's Business Daily logos are registered trademarks of Investor's Business Daily Inc.. The iCopyright logo is a registered trademark of iCopyright, Inc.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Incredible Head-to-Head: M3 vs GT3 vs Skyline-GTR
It just looks fast. You've seen Porsche 911s running around, but it's doubtful you've seen this car. According to Porsche the GT3 is "visually and technically a highly integrated feat of engineering. Every line, every surface, every curve of the bodywork has been carefully fashioned to enhance the performance of
the automobile." Cost: $107,000.00
- The 2008 BMW M3
The BMW M3 is all new for 2008 and features a massive V-8 engine putting out over 400 horsepower. BMW simply puts it "racecars shouldn’t be confined to racetracks." Cost: $60,000.00
- The 2009 Nissan GT-R "Skyline"
The 2009 Nissan GT-R, it hails from legendary Japanese "boy-racer" cars, this one is frighteningly fast. According to Nissan "the Nissan GT-R, a new multi-dimensional performance machine that lives up to the
concept of “an ultimate supercar for anyone, anywhere, at anytime”. Cost: est. $80,000.00
My overall assessment of the test boils down to the question: "What is the BMW doing with this crowd? While the M3 is an oustanding car, it does not even approach the price nor performance of these two cars. However, Autocar's video reports will get your blood pumping - you've got to watch these:
Part 1
Companies Investing Millions in SOA - But Don't Know Why!
Survey: companies investing millions in SOA, but don’t exactly know why by ZDNet's Joe McKendrick -- AMR Research just released snippets of its latest survey on SOA spending trends, and finds big money is flowing — but many of the companies spending the money may not exactly know what they’re investing in. The typical company adopting SOA spent $1.4 million on software and services in 2007, AMR estimates. AMR also said [...]
How to Beat Obama??
Here's a posting from www.townhall.com that discusses how Barack Obama can be beat. The central message is Obama's message of change and hope is, in reality, a message of pessimism in that the "soul" of America needs changing. Let me know what you think:
By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Conventional wisdom says the GOP is in trouble. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. is the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party. Obama is young, black, tall and rhetorically polished; McCain is old, white, short and rhetorically mediocre. Obama is above the fray, a godlike figure spouting high ideals; McCain is quite human, a career politician talking business as usual. Obama thrills his base; McCain alienates much of his base.
There is no doubt that Obama has cultivated a messianic image. His base treats him like the Second Coming. Every time he speaks, his supporters faint in the aisles. Then he heals them with bottles of water.
McCain can't beat Obama by arguing experience. Obama's dramatic lack of credentials doesn't hurt him -- many Americans are so eager to elect an African-American president, they don't care whether the candidate is qualified. Obama's winning message is explicitly anti-experience; he's campaigning as an outsider. He's posing as something new and fresh, and being new and fresh automatically precludes being a seasoned veteran. Obama has run on his inexperience -- and he's crushed the Democrats' "experience" candidate, Hillary Clinton, like a bug.
How, then, can McCain tackle Obama? He can attack Obama's "change" message.
Master political strategist Karl Rove spoke to the American Jewish University this week. He stated that the key to attacking opponents isn't to attack their strengths -- it's to attack weaknesses they perceive as strengths. In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry staked his campaign on his perceived strength: his military experience. But, as Rove explained, that wasn't his strength -- he was vulnerable on foreign policy, a candidate with a record of attacking the military. By pointing out Kerry's weakness on the military, the Bush campaign was able to completely undercut Kerry.
Obama perceives his greatest strength to be his "change" message. He never shuts up about "change." His website touts his candidacy as "Change We Can Believe In." "We will change this country, and change the world," he states. His speeches are studded with the word "change." In his January 26 speech after the South Carolina primary, he used the word "change" 12 times. In his February 9 speech to Virginia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, he used it eight times. In his February 12 speech following the Potomac primaries, he used it 11 times. In his Wisconsin primary victory speech on February 19, he used it 33 times. For the love of God, somebody buy this man a thesaurus.
While Obama believes he can win the presidency simply by uttering the word "change" like a magical incantation, his "change" message has a soft underbelly. His focus on change means he despises this country the way it is. His wife, Michelle, is crystal clear on this. "Our souls are broken in this nation," she said this month at UCLA. "That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls." She went further in a February 18 speech in Wisconsin: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Despite all of its problems, America is not a deeply flawed place. It is the greatest nation in the history of mankind. It allows Barack Obama to run for president; it allows his wife to attend Princeton University and Harvard Law School. The Obamas' constant emphasis on change carries the disturbing undertone that the country is a disaster requiring radical reform. This isn't a message of optimism -- it's a message of profound pessimism.
McCain can defeat Obama simply by pointing out the obvious connotations of Obama's "change" message. He can powerfully cite the fact that he was tortured for the best country on the face of the earth -- he's always been proud of his country.
And, McCain should say, his country deserves the pride of its citizens. Sure, some policies need change -- some policies always need change. But the soul of the country is intact. It doesn't need a soul-fixer. It needs a leader.
Ben Shapiro is a regular guest on dozens of radio shows around the United States and Canada and author of Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House.
Be the first to read Ben Shapiro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Why Ford can't we this car here???
Arriving at a high-school prom, it's hard to miss the popular girls - stunning in their ruby dresses, hair twirled high enough to expose delectable silver hoops. Now, imagine bringing the other prom date - outfitted in the same jeans and Abercrombie tee she wore last Tuesday.But no worries, Jenny did throw on the latest shade from Maybelline. Like that embarrassing prom partner, the restyled North American Ford Focus (with Sync) is the date you reluctantly hold hands with, while across the dance floor, Ford Europe gets the goods - aFocus RS high-performance model and now an all-new Focus Coupe-Cabriolet. It just doesn't seem fair. Debuting at the 2008 Geneva Motor Show, the Focus Coupe-Cabriolet parades Pininfarina design, a new front end, and, of course, a retractable hardtop. Inside the Italian-flavored body, Ford says the Coupe-Cabriolet makes use of high quality finishes, hard-wearing materials, and a new "binocular"-style instrument cluster. Power for the Focus Coupe-Cabriolet will come from a choice of three engines: a base 100-hp, 1.6-liter Duratec engine; a peppy 2.0-liter with 145 hp; and a 2.0-liter TDCi diesel good for 136 hp. As with other European Focus models, the Coupe-Cabriolet can be ordered with options such as keyless start and entry, a navigation system, and a tire-pressure monitoring system. A "sport" pack offers buyers an upgraded suspension, special 17-inch alloy wheels, and tinted headlamp housings, while a "Titanium" option package gives buyers leather seats. Hopefully, European Focus buyers will tell their North American counterparts what a great prom experience is like. Please, no bragging. NEXT Car - the AWESOME European Ford Mondeo: What Ford is Doing Right in Europe, Lesson 12: The Mondeo Sedan, Hatchback, and Wagon. While Ford's big move--oh sorry, Bold Move--earlier this year in America was reverting back from the Five Hundred to the Taurus name for it's volume sedan, Ford of Europe is doing truly exciting things. We've all lusted over the Euro Focus for years, and have accepted that we may never get a compact car quite that nice. But now we don't want the Fusion, either. The Mondeo--which goes on sale this summer as a sedan, five-door hatchback, or wagon--is as gorgeous as it gets in the mid-size segment. Its interior is great, too, and features seven air bags, soft ambient lighting, keyless go, and a useful information screen centralized in the gauge cluster. Stability control and capless refueling are standard, and hill launch assist, adaptive cruise control, and eighteen-inch wheels are among the many appealing options. Engines for the new Mondeo range from a small, efficient 1.8-liter diesel to a five cylinder gas unit rated at 200 horsepower. All engines will be available with the choice of a six-speed manual or automatic transmission. The driving experience should be similar to that of the award-winning S-Max from which it borrows much of its architecture, but the Mondeo also benefits from a lower center of gravity. It's painful seeing such appealing products coming from Ford overseas, when the company is facing such strife here at home. There is hope though--the Mondeo is one of a number of products that Ford is considering for future U.S. sale. It seems to be working for Saturn, and from the looks of the Mondeo, it could work for Ford, too.2009 Ford Focus Coupe-Cabriolet
2008 Ford Mondeo
Monday, February 25, 2008
Michael Medved: "Hope is not a Political Program"
Senator Barack Obama inspires enthusiasm that borders on ecstasy for his growing legion of followers. Instead of focusing on specific policies, his rapturous supporters embrace the sacred word “hope.”
A Note of Thanks from @ashpeamama's Mother-In-Law
It was great meeting up with you and I wonder if you could let all the internet people know the effect all their support and warmth gave me, I didn't realise how loved Ashley was (not suprised though) and the knowledge of them out there helped me through what was/is the hardest thing I have had to deal with. The inability of a mother to make their children better is immeasurable.
I intend to attach a few photos and a copy of the thank you letter i wrote to the church congregation but is also relevant to all the many internet friends. Ashley was worried as Lucy didn't appear to like the chair some of the internet friends sent them for Lucy, but I can reassure you that Lucy now loves it and it is invaluable to Peter as she can be put into it and left safely and happily whilst he sorts out Toby.
Once again thank you for everything ya'll have done for the American Spencers.
Love,
Friday, February 22, 2008
USS New York
USS New York
It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center.
It is the fifth in a new class of warship - designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft.
Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite , LA to cast the ship's bow section. When it was poured into the molds on Sept. 9, 2003 , "those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence," recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. "It was a spiritual moment for everybody there."
Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the "hair on my neck stood up." "It had a big meaning to it for all of us," he said. "They knocked us down. They can't keep us down. We're going to be back."
The ship's motto? "Never Forget."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Obama and National Security by Community Organizing
Today heralded a stunning success at shooting down one of our own satellites to ensure it re-entered the atmosphere safely. General James Cartwright, USMC, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff put it this way "Our objective was to intercept the satellite, reduce the mass that might survive reentry, vector that mass as best we could into unpopulated areas, ideally the ocean, breach the hydrazine tank, so that we could vent the hydrazine off, the toxic fuel, and then have all of that done prior to impact."
General Cartwright went on to explain the key players in this mission: "The United States Strategic Command out in Omaha, Nebraska, ran the intercept, commanded the forces. We had a great team from Space and Missile Defense Command out at Colorado Springs that worked the terrestrial sensors, from the Joint Space Operation Center in Vandenberg, California, that worked that the space sensors, and the Missile Defense Agency that worked all the telemetry, worked the test cards that we used to prepare for this, did all the modifications of the system."
The key take-away is the maturity of the in-place missile defense system brought about by decades of research and testing starting back during the Reagan administration and continuing through today. "The elements of missile defense that were used here were the sensors, and the netting together of the sensors. That was the key piece that we would take from the missile defense system. But the assistance that the Missile Defense Agency brought, their technical expertise in this area, was invaluable in helping us put together all of the pieces that were necessary to make this intercept," explained General Cartwright.
So, years of research led to the ability to "net" together multiple sensors yielding a capability to safely destroy this satellite, ensuring it re-entered earth's atmosphere safely.
An additional bonus will be an assurance to foreign powers, who might doubt the capability of our missile defense system, that our missile defense system is effective. Moreover, it is clear, in a time of need, the US Air Force's Space Command can meet its mission "to deliver space and missile capabilities to America and its warfighting commands." In other words, ensure the United States maintains space superiority. If that means eliminating enemy space capability, than the United States clearly can do so with as little as 30 days preparation across the entire national security apparatus.
The likely Democratic nominee for President of the United States, Senator Barack H. Obama (D-IL) makes the following policy stance on his web site:
"Defend Against Nuclear Attack, the Smart Way: In a world with nuclear weapons, America must continue efforts to defend against the mass destruction of its citizens and our allies. But past efforts were both wasteful and ineffective, pursued with neither honesty nor realism about their costs and shortfalls. We must seek a nuclear missile defense and demand that those efforts use resources wisely to build systems that would actually be effective. Missile defense requires far more rigorous testing to ensure that it is cost-effective and, most importantly, will work. Barack Obama has been a leader to ensure that we are investing in sound defenses not merely against missiles, but also against the more likely scenarios of attack, via ‘loose nukes’ and the terrorist delivering a weapons of mass destruction to the United States. Finally, our deployment of missile defense systems should be done in a way that reinforces, rather than undercuts, our alliances, involving partnership and burdensharing with organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." (Source: http://obama.3cdn.net/303d3f8f5e85133bae_9ypmvyari.pdf)
Seems harmless. But if you parse it carefully, you will understand we would not have the capability to do what was done today. "But past efforts were both wasteful and ineffective, pursued with neither honesty nor realism about their costs and shortfalls. We must seek a nuclear missile defense and demand that those efforts use resources wisely to build systems that would actually be effective. Missile defense requires far more rigorous testing to ensure that it is cost-effective and, most importantly, will work." He seems to be saying "past efforts" from President Ronald Reagan through the present, have been for naught. Clearly, Senator Obama lacks vision, experience and ideals to understand what it takes to ensure our nation's security. The investment made in missile defense has been tremendous, but the benefits in one single day, today, paid off handsomely.
We now have a satellite broken into pieces no larger than a football, according to General Cartwright's initial assessment, and we've proven to the world that Anti-Satellite capability isn't a theory, it's a reality - our reality. China, according to the New York Times, "successfully carried out its first test of an antisatellite weapon last week, signaling its resolve to play a major role in military space activities and bringing expressions of concern from Washington and other capitals." (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/asia/19china.html)
Another statement by Obama is worth looking at: "Finally, our deployment of missile defense systems should be done in a way that reinforces, rather than undercuts, our alliances, involving partnership and burdensharing with organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." Senator Obama has a history of wanting to work with others, which seems like a great idea, but does he plan on putting the defense of our nation into the hands of others? The European Community has had significant difficulty in launching the largest airplane ever, the Airbus A-380. Yes, it is going into production and promises to be a great aircraft, but if they struggle to meet the technical challenges of producing a commercial airliner, should we trust them with technology that must work to ensure the defense of our nation?
Clearly, coalitions can be great at achieving strength, but at some point astute leaders understand where to act unilaterally in order to get the mission done and preserve our sovereignty.
A potential President Obama appears to be a president who would question technological progress and potentially entrust it to those outside our borders. Today's success would not have likely occurred under an Obama Administration. Can we afford to put our trust in a politician who's experience is based on being a community organizer, state senator, and freshman US Senator? I'm not willing to make that bet.
Please comment on this piece! Where am I right? Where am I wrong?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Rep. McCotter: America's Protected from Stealth Assault on National Security
WASHINGTON D.C. – Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), who was the first member of the U.S. Congress to oppose the proposed merger of communist China’s Huawei Technologies Co., Massachusetts based Bain Capital and 3Com - an American company which provides the Pentagon with security technologies - today responded to the failure to reach an agreement: “While some called such national security concerns over the deal everything but right, the truth remains: the collapse of the Huawei deal is a victory for America's cyber-security and national security. "But we must not be lulled to sleep by this lone victory in protecting America's cyber-security and national security. We must remain even more vigilant to ensure American national security is not for sale; and to stop communist Chinese stealth assaults on our national security.” McCotter was the first member of Congress to bring this issue to public attention and oppose it. In early October 2007 Congressman McCotter circulated a letter signed by his colleagues and subsequently sent to CFIUS. McCotter also continued to oppose the deal, despite communist Chinese inspired personal attacks in the media. Ironically, just last week the Financial Times quoted the chief marketing officer at Huawei Technologies, Xu Zhijun, who said McCotter's opposition to the deal on national security grounds were “bullshit”. The quote came out on the same day as several Chinese nationals were being held for spying charges for possibly selling military secrets to the communist Chinese government. Nevertheless, the three companies withdrew their applications to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CIFIUS), because Bain and Huawei, who were trying to buyout 3Com, could not calm national-security concerns with the U.S. government panel. Specifically in question was 3Com's TippingPoint unit, which sells security software used by U.S. government agencies. McCotter, the Republican House Policy Committee Chair who has been the leading opponent of unconditional engagement with communist China, added: "They are testing us every day to no good end. So we must be unwavering in our support of liberty and national security against communist China's perpetual pressure. And let them make no mistake: as it did against the Soviet Union, liberty will prevail."
