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.
The executive was in far firmer, nearly exclusive, control of foreign policy for the vast majority of American history (really up until the "reforms" of the hard leftists who flooded into congress in the aftermath of Watergate and Vietnam).
If your paranoia was justified we would have had a Kingdom in America for hundreds of years.
Actually I believe you are talking about Congress.
A bunch of no nothing's do nothings.
My cat has more intellgence than these clowns.
Then whose fault is it for perpetuating that lie. The President or people like you who perpetuated it and you did because on another thread you said charlie schumer(who also perpetuated the lie) was right.
You're describing Hannity 95% of the time. Limbaugh opposes most of Bush's domestic policy.
BARBRA STRIESAND.
It's Bush's fault for not being persuasvie and compelling enough to convince the people that the plan was a good one.
He expects to get the benefit of the doubt but it is very clear that the public feels he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore.
70% of Americans were against the deal, rightly or wrongly. That's a collosal failure of persuasion on the part of Dubya.
So Schumer is on the side of most americans on this issue. He is the winner, and Dubya is the loser.
So Schumer is on the side of most americans on this issue. He is the winner, and Dubya is the loser.
Now you went and did it......
Well reasoned and well supported by the current data.
Remember the 2004 election campaign and how many times we had seen such cycles where it appeared to many (but never to me and many other freepers) that it is all over for President Bush and the Republicans. In fact in this time of 2004 many polls showed President Bush way down for someone seeking re-election and Kerry had like 5 to 10 points advantage over him. The liberal media was as bad as now in 2004 and liberals were going crazy and full of hate against the President during the whole campaign. Remember that almost every week there was some new story to launch savage attacks on the President and spew lies and distortions. Remember the 2004 stories where the liberals and their media whores thought they finally got President Bush and assured his defeat him and the Republican Party in the November elections. The stories of Richard Clark, the 9-11 commission, the WMD, the body armor, Valerie Plame, the Jersey Girls, Abu Ghraib, The Texas Air National Guard, the Al Qaaqa weapon depot in Iraq, and of course the thousands of negative stories and lies about Iraq.
I learned a lot from the 2004 campaign and the most important lesson is not to underestimate President Bush and some of his top advisors on how to turn things around and beat their opponents despite the huge odds against him. I also learned that the media cannot win elections for the democrats, they can help them but they can never give them the majority of voters and that is all what matter at the end.
I don't want my representative reacting to the "will of the people" unless it can be demonstrated that the people have a clue about the issue, which in this case they don't, and if those people's will is based on logic and sound policy rather than a visceral emotional reaction.
Mob rule is a bad thing. Representative government is meant to curtail mob rule.
And of course, the Senate is supposed to be the saucer that cools emotion -- and even thought we've heard that speech many times from democrats, today Reid was up there after the DP World announcement, screaming that we still needed a vote, and we needed to take the vote RIGHT NOW.
Apparently he's afraid the Senate saucer will cool the emotions and people will realise what fools the democrats have been.
Hmm you knew something was a lie and said nothing about it, thus in esscense perpetuating the lie.
A plant is only strong as it's roots and if the root goes with a poisonous lie, the plant rots.
I don't disagree with anything you said. However, Dubya has been in the dumps in the polls since last summer. I don't think he ever had that kind of protracted and extended deficiency in his popularity in his first term.
People are getting used to the idea that Dubya sucks. I don't think he had an 8 or 9 month clip of such consistently low approval (and high disaporval) polls ever before.
The past is a guide, but you have to concede that this is unchasrted territory for Dubya. In fact, i can't think of a sucessful president who had that long (and that deep) a deficiency in their popularity and came up smelling like a rose. Not Clinton, not Reagan. Nobody.
Gardening tips aside, it's still Bush's fault for letting the port deal get out of control and beating him. Chuck Schumer looks stronger on national security than Dubya. Astonishing!
In fact, i can't think of a sucessful president who had that long (and that deep) a deficiency in their popularity and came up smelling like a rose. Not Clinton, not Reagan. Nobody.
William Henry Harrison whom I portrayed (brilliantly) in a Fourth Grade play.
Well, I for one, will call you RIGHT!
Uh Reagan went through a ratings slump(86-87) and he is remembered as one of the best presidents of the 20th century.
Clinton had "polls' on his side and still his personal ratings are in the toilet and his wife who should be in his afterglow(your "perception") is not very popular either.
So it seems you are blowing smoke.
And they're still talking about it on the Great White Way!
I'm not aware that Reagan had polls in the mid 30s to low 40s for 8 or 9 months. I am willing to believe it, but source it please.
Actually the gardening paralell is quite apt. Please tell me of a successful plant without strong roots and even you admit the "food" fed to those roots was a poisonous lie.
And yet for YEARS they wouldn't let an UP or DOWN vote occur on (How many?) Federal judges?
Cooling saucer? Pbbbbbt. This Congress has proved that it whips up the masses at its whim.
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.