Posted on 03/08/2006 4:33:07 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
Several sources over the weekend reveal that the Bush White House has realized that the Ports Deal is killing them politically - and thus they need a new strategy. Accordingly, probably through the recently-retained lobbyist for Dubai Ports World, former Senator Bob Dole, the White House has told Dubai Ports World to ‘partner up’ with an American company to manage the port terminals. In other words, find a ‘front company’ to act as if they own and run these 21 crucial terminals.
First out of the box for this ‘front’ role is Halliburton, but the feeling is there is too much controversy there so that won’t do either.
So as the new week begins - and Bush’s ratings among Republicans and conservatives continues to fray - the White House is still trying to resuscitate this ports deal. And until and unless they cut the cord and realize it will never pass political muster, this White House is committing daily political suicide.
The longer it goes on - and we will hear new things this week now that the President is back from the sub-continent - the more it divides the GOP. Today there is genuine fear up on Capitol Hill that the House of Representatives could indeed change hands in November. Why? Because the crucial Republican base is so unhappy over this ports deal and illegal immigration that it may just not vote in heavy numbers in November. And is that base vote stays at home, a number of GOP congressmen - and senators, too - may lose.
The White House - slow to realize how perilous their situation is - is just now waking up to political - and legal - reality. Legal? Yes. If the Democrats win even one house of Congress back, they will have subpoena power and the power to run massive investigations into the Bush Administration.
You can be certain they will launch inquiries into every aspect of the Bush Presidency: Iraq, energy deals, spying, torture, money matters, cozy corporate deals and on and on.
Make no mistake about it: if they can, they will impeach President Bush. Why? A) Because they hate him; B) Because it will juice up their supporters; C) Payback for the Clinton impeachment.
All of this has just now dawned on an asleep-at-the-switch White House political operation. In fact, the Karl Rove-led political shop has been off its game since the 2004 re-election. Why? Perhaps the tick-tick-tick, drip-drip-drip of the ongoing Valerie Plame investigation is distracting and wearing. For those of you who may not follow this, the Patrick Fitzgerald grand jury has been meeting every Wednesday and Friday mornings at 9:30 AM - ostensibly to do ‘read-ins’ of prior grand jury testimony. The target? Karl Rove - for lying and perjury. Rove knows this and must be worried sick over it. And thus his job performance is suffering because of it.
No wonder the Cheney shooting problem was allowed to eat up an entire week; no wonder this Ports Deal was not vetted properly.
The Bush White House has lost touch with 60 % of the country.
And you can’t run a country this way.
We are entering a period in our political life when there is no center, where things are spiraling off into all areas in an uncontrolled way. There is no ‘strong’ figure in our political life. The President has quickly ruined his presidency and become even more than a lame duck; he is a crippled duck.
There is no telling how this vacuum will be filled. Will it be one of the candidates now running for president?
Or will it be by someone new to us all - a new and refreshing face - who rides in to clean the mess up?
The ones who can't see through this scheme will be some DumboCRATs and others who can't understand what is going on in the world anyway.
To the rescue rides Erectile Dysfunction Bob (no relation to Square Pants Bob._
Which is why he continues to pursue his amnesty program. After being slapped down over Harriet Miers and now, the ports deal maybe Bush will recognize his amnesty program is dead, too.
No cheers, unfortunately.
No. Apparently someone else doesn't want it to be seen.
Does anyone in the MSM know that Bush can't run for reelection? This whole issue is now the congressional (legislative) court and they need to choose wisely how they handle it.
LeBoutiller has predicted George Bush's political defeat more often than Osama has been killed or Cheney has resigned.
And his earlier take:
The Real Deal on the Ports Deal
Today’s New York Sun ran a story examining the continuing rift between conservative pundits on the Dubai ports deal. The paper ran a big spread on some of the leading conservative voices whose conflicting positions on the deal run the gamut. Yours truly was featured in support of the deal, along with the always insightful and knowledgeable commentators Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks, as well as former Congressman Jack Kemp who remains a sharp-as-a-tack pro-growth, free-market supply-sider. I count myself in good company.
After the hurricane of controversy these past couple weeks—all the editorializing, the talk show tempests and political sound bites—I still have yet to see any real evidence that the Dubai ports deal compromises U.S. national security. I just don’t see it. Objections raised by the Coast Guard have been solved, and the fact stubbornly remains that along with the U.S. Customs and Homeland Security, it is the Coast Guard, not Dubai Ports World, that will ultimately run the show when it comes to protecting port terminal operations.
If someone were able to show me a clear, insurmountable security problem, then I will gladly change my mind and hop aboard the anti-ports deal train. But so far, nothing has materialized. (And let me add that building in additional safeguards where there may be questionable practices is an eminently doable proposition.)
A word or two for the conspiracy-theorist crowd projecting nefarious, clandestine motives upon the UAE—the folks who subscribe to some misguided notion that the UAE is in cahoots with terrorists—let me encourage them to reconsider such position. The Dubai ports deal is costing these guys around $7 billion dollars. If they truly had some sick, ulterior motive to harm innocent Americans, don’t you think they could accomplish these imagined goals with far less money? The point here is that the UAE and Dubai Ports World has a huge vested economic interest in this deal.
One of the leading critics of the ports deal is my old friend Bill Bennett. He wants President Bush to “kill the deal.” Writing on National Review’s website, Mr. Bennett recently wrote, "To defend this deal is to defend a $7 billion arrangement with a country that has never had a democratic party in its entire existence…What kind of a signal are we sending by making a public ally of a country that refuses democracy and does not recognize the existence of its most democratic neighbor because it is considered to be inhabited by members of the wrong religion?"
Well, with all due respect to Mr. Bennett, if the primary determinant of whether or not America does business with foreign nations rests upon their singular commitment to democracy, then Uncle Sam would have to draw the curtains and turn out the lights on a huge number of existing relationships with non-Democratic nations. For starters, where may I ask would our bustling American economy gather the necessary fuel to fire its economic engine? After all, roughly forty percent of our nation’s oil supply is derived from OPEC countries, a group which includes countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where the torch of democracy is anything but burning bright at this point in history.
And as far as doing business with pure democracies, then I suppose Mr. Bennett and others would have us terminate all economic activity with communist China? Discontinue all further trade? Of course, I would argue that increased economic connectivity, supported by the free flow of trade investment and labor, makes for better political relations between the U.S. and other countries. Better yet, it also tends to open up and liberalize authoritarian political regimes in the direction of democratization.
When you scratch this debate among conservatives deep enough, what you are left with is a pretty clear demarcation between free-traders and protectionists. That’s really the cutting edge litmus test that divides the conservatives on this debate.
In my opinion, those conservatives who oppose the Dubai ports deal are lining up with the xenophobic protectionism of Pat Buchanan. The pessimistic Buchananites want to put a huge wall around America. They are isolationists. They have no global model of economic growth. On the other hand, conservatives in favor of the ports deal align themselves with the pro-growth, free-trade liberalizing tradition embodied by Jack Kemp. The Kemp adherents believe in breaking down global barriers in order to enhance prospects for prosperity and democratization everywhere. That’s what this thing is all about.
It’s the same dividing line litmus test on immigration. The Pat Buchanans, the Michelle Malkins and the Michael Savages of the world are all anti–immigration. Michelle Malkin recently wrote, “I must express bottomless disgust with those on the Right who have turned into mush-mouthed race card players to shift blame away from President Bush for his miserable mishandling of the situation.” Miss Malkin misses the mark. There is a race card here. Absolutely. Whether it’s anti-Arab xenophobia or anti-Mexican xenophobia, the fear-mongers in the conservative ranks are up to their old tricks. They do not really believe in economic opportunity. Nor do they believe in the Ronald Reagan “City on a Hill” vision of America to lead and transform the rest of the world toward the spirit and reality of free-market prosperity, political democratization and true equality of humankind.
At the end of the day, it’s really a question of competing visions. The Buchanan vision is one of pessimism, defeatism and fear. The Reagan-Bush vision brims with optimism, victory and success.
Yes, there is a rift in the conservative ranks; one that will hopefully mend itself sooner rather than later. But can there be any serious question that the resounding conservative Republican ascendancy and success of the past twenty-five years launched by Reagan and advanced by George W. Bush is built on optimism? I think not.
Well I can see that you have bought the untrue hype!!!!!!
Monday evening, Jay Leno ran a 'humor' montage about Bush policies. It was anything but funny; it was too real.
I wish I had taped it, because it was very revealing. That old adage - many a truth was said in jest.
All of this has just now dawned on an asleep-at-the-switch White House political operation. In fact, the Karl Rove-led political shop has been off its game since the 2004 re-election.
...but it's tough to argue with that.
There is a big financial "park" under construction in Dubai that will house some familiar names...but no mention of that on the nightly news...
I still have yet to see any real evidence that the Dubai ports deal compromises U.S. national security. I just don’t see it.
I'm anti, and I don't either. But that doesn't mean it isn't there, and such a take is extremely shortsighted and has completely ignored the seeming lack of due diligence on the matter. The entire pro argument was based on high-level views of the ports, life in the UAE, and the opinions of military people and others largely not directly involved with information and data that such "port operators" would have access to.
Yet, this, the "lack of any indications at present," appears to be a valid reason for a green light.
Anyway, not trying to rehash the topic, but just attempting to shed some light on the sanity/insanity of the arguments and why so many were/are anti. After further review and the vetting of the specifics of which information/data operators might come upon during the course of their "oversight/management," there may have been a swing or shift to the pros. But it was not nor will happen without that insight.
I am a Reagan Conservative.
I believe in a strong national defense, support the war in Iraq and Afghanstan, believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, believe in the Second Amendment, oppose Roe versus Wade, oppose the removal of Judae-Christian values from our public life, believe Islam is the greatest enemy facing the west today, oppose affirmation action, oppose bilingualism, and oppose illegal invaders crossing our borders.
I have voted straight Republican in local and national elections since Reagan ran in his first primary.
And I am very disappointed with Bush on the ports deal and his failure to protect our broders from Mexican invaders and oppose his guest worker program.
I don't think it's me who is out of step.
"Well I can see that you have bought the untrue hype!!!!!!"
What exactly is untrue?
Bush-Botism has infected your ability to analyze and discern.
I don't like Muslims. I don't trust Muslims. I don't want Muslims here in my Country - period. And I certainly don't want Muslims in any way involved with what enters my country.
I have relatives in the military and they concur with me.
I see you live in Tennessee. Just because some radical luantics manage to smuggle a nuclear bomb or its components into Port Newark, doesn't mean that it won't be assembled for use in Nashville, or Dallas, or Oregon or Salt Lake City. And permitting Muslims to operate our ports in any cpacity increases that risk. The thought that the Saudis have been doing this for years doesn't excuse the situation - it makes it that much worse and involves the Clinton and Bush I administrations in this insanity.
Bush is playing a dangerous game here with these people and I still believe he simply does not get it. Bush is an honest guy and feels if he is honest and fair with people they will reciprocate. He probably looks at the moral aspects of Islam and listens to pro-Islamic advisors who have convinced him that Muslims can be good solid partners and reliable allies.
Such may be the case in a few isolated instances with regards to the autocrats who control Islamic governments at the moment. It definitely doesn't apply to the mass of their subjects or, necessarily, the people who work for them. If they are Muslims, they may very well have their own agenda and its even more frightening than the Communist one of several decades ago. If most Pakistanis had their way, Mushareef would be history and a radical islamic regime would rule there as has recently won in Palestine.
The Muslims in Iraq, as a group, are not our friends. They may feel they need us now, but I doubt if they would ever reward us for our efforts in ridding them of Saddam.
We will see how much they appreciate us when we need them for a base for the inevitable attacks against Iran and Syria.
The very sad part of all this is Bush is the best we have. The very Dems who are critizing him on the port deal are even worse on the subject of domestic security and national defense.
If the Port Deal is such a major important deal, WHY did the Congresscritter Know Nothings in the Congress put their Anti-Capitalism "Port" legislation INSIDE an Appropriation bill? If this is so important why are the Congress Critters so gutless as to NOT put it up as stand alone legislation?
The Democrat Senate Leaderhsip has now put forward legislation to create a Department of Port Security. Wonder if the Know Nothing talking heads like Hannity, Savage, Malkin and the clowns at NRO etc feel guilty now for pushing the Democrats Propaganda line on the Ports?
Well done fools. Way to actively help your political enemies Election Year PR. Nice job "Real Conservatives". After spending the last couple of years squalling daily about Federal Spending, way to demagogue yourselves into a political position where you will now be responsible for expanding the reach, cost and scope of the Federal Govt! Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Actions have consequences you "Conservative Pundit" idiots.
Doesn't matter if the ports deal is hype or not.
If Bush can't sell it, it won't be bought.
And Bush couldn't sell ice water in Hell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.