Posted on 03/09/2006 2:48:04 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
The decision by the United Arab Emirates on Thursday to order state-controlled Dubai Ports World to end its control over US port facilities marks the lowest point yet in the relationship between President George W. Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Mr Bush had warned repeatedly that blocking the deal would send a dangerously discriminatory message to the world. He threatened repeatedly to veto any congressional legislation.
But with his public approval ratings at record lows and his Republican party abandoning him, one of the US’s closest allies in the Arab world concluded that he was no longer in control in Washington.
The decision by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al- Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, is likely to avert the political backlash that hit Washington last month and may prevent any further damage to diplomatic and security relations between the countries. But it underscored that Mr Bush, who still has nearly three years to go in his second term, has become perilously weak.
Dennis Hastert, the Republican speaker of the House and one of Mr Bush’s most loyal backers in Congress, emerged from a White House meeting on Thursday morning and signalled that he could not hold back the opposition to the deal. “We want to protect the American people and we will continue to do that,” he said.
“There’s a Republican initiative right now that says, ‘Get us the hell out of here’,” said Frank Lautenberg, a Republican senator from the port state of New Jersey.
The acquisition of five US port terminals by an Arab company became an unlikely target for an outpouring of American anger and fear. While administration officials and port security experts insisted there were no security concerns raised by the transfer of port facilities from a British company to a Dubai company, members of Congress said they were flooded with calls and letters from ordinary Americans angered by the deal.
The White House promise to reopen a national security investigation into the deal, together with a concerted public relations effort by DP World, seemed only to deepen the anger.
More than four years after the September 11 attacks, it brought together a toxic combination of anxieties over America’s place in the world. Traditional protectionists, worried by foreign acquisitions of US assets and the outsourcing of jobs to distant and little-understood countries, lined up alongside security hawks who warned that even a close Arab ally such as the UAE was vulnerable to terrorist infiltration.
Strategic positioning of your armed forces?
Yeah, wait until they need GWB to raise money for their campaigns etc.
The American people are idiots and this is just another example.
That's a load of Perot populist garbage. All we have shown is that we are willing to eat our own.
He does have the power to pull the trigger.
And he may pull it again, this time on Iran late next year. - tom
The Rats are allready running on "port security".
Reagan didn't talk down to the American people. His stature and accomplishments keep getting bigger as time goes on.
I'm not sure what your position is on this but I do like your answer. Bush has been arrogant on this point from the start.
I cannot understand why he would ask us to trust a country that doesn't recognize Israel or will not submit to free elections.
If I hear him call that filthy religion of Islam a religion of peace one more time I'm going to puke.
Israel seems fine to me.
Gee, whew, if it wasn't for this very public statement by Hamas, who we all know have the best interest of the US at heart, that the UAE was supporting them, we might never have known.
See #41.
Besides, there's no comparison.
Nope, there isn't.
Think about it, if 9/11 hadn't happened, what would be W's legacy right now?
One term president.
What, a couple of justices, which I agree is huge, and a tax cut?
He does have a few good points. While he gave us tax cuts, GWB invented the ineffective Keynesian tax cut. He had to do it three times before he got it right, and that was due to congressman Bill Thomas.
Any two of Reagan's years puts that to shame!
Reagan was a providential president like George Washington. His philosophy of government was incredible and generally unheard of in Washington. He was an outsider, but still knew how to get along and get things done politically.
I'm so glad that you and the rest of you elitist Bush-bots are so enlightened. I have news for you Bush-bot...muslims are not going to allow you to lick their boots...they'll cut your throat.
No, he didn't change parties. He doesn't even change his Depends.
This is horrible for our foreign policy and trying to develop allies in the Arab world. It may become much more difficult to deal with Iran.
its going to he much harder to kill those "muslims" without their cooperation.
great post dagogo!!
huck YOU just dont GET it DO you? if YOU could JUST take ONE second and STOP your BUSH bashing, i MIGHT stop THROWING these CHILDISH temper TANTRUMS
lol
That's Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Idiot to you.
And oh yeah, we're the biggest and best idiots, and dont you forget it!
;-)
God Bless America
I was really glad to read you post....I was beginning to think I was alone out here with my real disgust at the Pres. being tone deaf on the matter of the invasion from the South, signing every high spending bill dished up by Congress(I'll NEVER understand why he didn't use the veto on some of them, then he threatens to veto a bill that would keep the UAE from taking over the running of the ports)
Try as I might, I cannot understand what he's all about.....and I voted for him twice. Not exactly what I thought I was voting for.
Are YOU an American?
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.