The Wall Street Journal criticizes the Democratic presidential candidates this morning for bullying U.S. allies on NAFTA to gain an advantage in the Ohio primary. 

Democrats claim the world hates America because President Bush has behaved like a global bully. But we don't recall him ever ordering an ally to rewrite an existing agreement on American terms -- or else.

Yet that's exactly what both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now promising to do to our closest neighbors, Mexico and Canada. At their Ohio debate on Tuesday, first Mrs. Clinton, followed ever so quickly by Mr. Obama, pledged to pull America out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if the two countries don't agree to rewrite it on Yankee terms. How's that for global "unilateralism"? ...

... As the Democratic contest continues, it is becoming a race to the bottom on protectionism. Perhaps the best trade demagogue will win, but someone should point out that the last President who tried to govern as a protectionist was Herbert Hoover. It didn't turn out so well.

At a time when the national economy is slowing, we need to allow room for more trade and economic growth, not less.  USA Today offers a possible explanation for this "race to the bottom" - the heavy presence of big labor organizations, which are staunch opponents of NAFTA agreements.

Unions and their concerns — topped by jobs, trade and health care — are highly visible in Ohio in advance of Tuesday's pivotal Democratic primary. ...

... Obama has picked up major union support since his Feb. 19 win in Wisconsin, a boon in a state where a 2004 exit poll found 44% of voters in the Democratic primary were union members or lived with one. Labor backers of both Democrats are mounting intense drives to turn out tens of thousands of active members and retirees.

Of course, we are sure big labor's campaign contributions have nothing to do with the anti-NAFTA drumbeat coming from liberal politicians.  Nothing at all.

Reps. Fossella and King wrote an op-ed for today's Washington Times, calling the expiration of FISA a Valentine's Day gift for al Qaeda. 

Let us be clear: This surveillance involves only suspected terrorists living overseas whose phone calls are routed through fiber-optic cables in the United States. Some complain about infringing on civil liberties, but whose liberties are they really talking about if the targets are outside the United States and the individuals are under federal surveillance for terrorist activities?

We treasure our civil liberties, but we also value the lives of the American people — and we recognize that stopping new attacks sometimes requires gathering intelligence quickly.

House Leadership, fresh off their vacation last week, should stop obstructing this vital legislation and pass the same bill that cleared a bipartisan majority of the Senate early this month.