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.
Isabella Stewart Garnder said, "Look at all this stuff I bought! Cool, huh?"
If what you say is true, then he has no chance, ever.
It's his job to make a compelling and cogent case for his side. He didn't. In fact, he didn't come close. That much should be clear.
Way past my bedtime, have to go, but the garden has to be hoed of weeds and those weeds are the MSM.
Many here want a benevolent dictator...as long as he does what they want done and want done yesterday. Just ask them. heck, just look at their posts!
This has nothing to do with American history; past or present. Most of them don't know much of it.
This isn't "MY" paranoia. Try actually reading what I post. :-)
You just put the "hoe" thing in there to taunt me into formulating a cheap come back...won't work.
The MSM is too convenient a target.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to think exactly that. I offer Robert Byrd, and a bunch of other fossils who've been in congress since reconstruction because they bring home the goods.
I think the public gets the government they want and deserve.
I don't always agree with Dubya, but I give him credit for having a core, unlike his predecessor, who had no soul.
Just there is the proof Bush has won, because he didn't give into the mindless bigotry displayed by that statement. There was a time when "American people" didn't trust blacks, and we regret those times now -- someday I hope we can look back at this with regret.
And sold is the operative term. The UAE thought it had greased the right people and therefore it would sail through. They were shocked by this democratic consent of the governed thing. They were disgusted at the weakness of a ruler who did not respond by filling bags with severed heads as they would have. That these low born American vermin should dare to talk back to the Emir has insulted them.
This is a paragraph with absolutely NO evidence. It's just a bunch of assertions meant to sound like an argument, except it is a fantasy that could only be believed by people who have no understanding of how the global economy and free markets operate.
The only "greasing" DP World did was to offer a fair price to stockholders for a company. In fact, they were originally outbid by PSA (I think that's the other firm). But they submitted a larger bid, and P&O accepted their offer. Just like if you were selling your house, a Muslim could buy it from you NOT by making you think they weren't a terrorist, but by offering you the best price (and in the case of some freepers, either keeping their Arab identity secret or making sure they have a good lawyer to remind you that there are laws against discrimination).
The fully understood our country, or thought they did. Our country is ruled by LAWS, not men, or so we profess. So they got their american lawyers (they have americans ALL OVER THE COMPANY) to explain the law and to fashion the deal with the law in mind. The deal expressly mentions the FSIUA process, and has all the possible timelines explicitly spelled out.
They knew what the law required, and followed the law exactly. They waited for the review, and the NON-PARTISAN mid-level people in 17 separate agencies came to a unanimous conclusion that, UNDER THE RULE OF LAW, there was no reason to block the deal.
So they were shocked in the same way you would be shocked if you drove 25 in a 24-mile zone, and got pulled over, and the police gave you a ticket for speeding because they didn't like what you looked like so you shouldn't be allowed to drive on that road.
Stupid Arabs I guess, they thought we followed our laws. But no, the american people turned into a mob, and the house and senate joined the lynch mob. Only the president kept his head, and using the power granted him by the constitution he said he would veto a stupid bill passed by stupid people in a fit of emotional rage and ignorance.
But far from acting disgusted, or threatening to sever heads, or whatever other racist stereotype you want to throw into the discussion to cloud the issue, they saw Bush as a friend fighting for them, and stood up for him by removing the problem, because they saw a friendship with our country as more valuable than standing up for their RIGHTS UNDER LAW.
Which is more than I would have done, if I had made a valid offer and was perfectly qualified but was rejected because some ignorant racists didn't like me, even though the law made no provision for such a rejection. I certainly wouldn't be happy if my "friends" treated me that way.
So apparently, Bush is so good at dealing with our foreign allies that they are willing to go the extra mile for him when he is attacked by his own party at home.
When the smoke clears, that strength, that power, that ability to command even the loyalty of people the ignorant masses called terrorists and evil, THAT is what will make Bush stronger.
Bush stood for principles, principles that in this case I believe in. So he gets two points from me, one for being principled, and one for being right. The congress gets NO points, because they acted wrongly, and acted contrary to the princples of conservatism. They sided with Michael Savage against the effective use of alliances in the global war on terror.
They ran on port security in 2004, but somehow didn't manage to mention foreign operation of the terminals ONCE in the entire election cycle (just kept repeating the lie that we only inspect 5% of the containers).
[Re-posted for your edification]:
Given the hysterical rantings from both the left and right concerning the current political viability (and legacy) of President George W Bush, I think it’s time for some historical PERSPECTIVE!
Since many at FR, and around the radio dial, like nothing more than to bash GWB with the record of President Ronald Reagan, I will use the former president as our historical benchmark:
RONALD REAGAN
[NOTE: All ratings are based on Gallup surveys unless otherwise noted.]
Average Job Approval Rating:
RR: 53% (first 5 years: 52%)
GW: 60%
Number of Years With an Average JA Rating in the 40s or Below:
RR: 3 (first 5 years: 2)
GW: 1
Lowest JA Rating:
RR: 35%
GW: 37%
[Keep in mind that GWB is the first war-time president since FDR to run for and win re-election! Truman, LBJ, and Bush 41 all had JA ratings in the 20s at the end of their tenure!]
Highest JA Rating:
RR: 68% (shortly after assassination attempt)
GW: 90% (shortly after 9/11)
During both 1982 and 1983, President Reagan posted an average JA rating of 44% . . . MANY Republicans wanted Reagan ‘to retire’ so that they could nominate a more POLITICALLY VIABLE candidate in 1984. Reagan declined. However, Republicans/conservatives continued to wring their hands about 'polls’ that predicted Reagan would lose the election to, among others, Gary Hart. The hand wringing didn’t abate until Hart self-destructed in the spring of 1984!
President Reagan won his re-election in a landslide and coasted to high JA ratings during 1985 and most of 1986 . . . and then he experienced a political tsunami -- the Election debacle of 1986 (he lost the Senate), the explosion of the Iran-Contra scandal, and the borking of Judge Bork.
The following article describes the fall-out:
Title: “The Reagan Presidency Fades Into Its Twilight”
“It was vintage Reagan: flinty-eyed, sure of his aces. The terse words evoked the “make my day” challenge he had once used to with Democratic talk of tax increases.
But this time it boomeranged. Bork’s nomination quickly plunged toward a resounding and stunning defeat, and much of the commentary that followed had the pall of a post-mortem on Reagan’s political career.
This was not just any lost cause. It had been Reagan’s self-proclaimed “No. 1 domestic priority.” And it had been a cause that most thought Reagan could have won – should have won.
The label of “lame duck,” which some had tried to paste on Reagan just days after his landslide re-election in 1984, seemed at long last to stick. Reaganism, the dominant political force in America for the better part of a decade, now clearly seems to be a spent force.
. . . It’s variable when lame-duckism begins,” notes Nelson W. Polsby, professor of political science at UC Berkeley, “With Reagan, you would have thought it would be later. But it began with Iran-contra.”
FOLLOWING REVELATIONS OF ARMS SALES TO IRAN (and the diversion of resulting profits to aid the contras), REAGAN’S GALLUP POLL RATINGS TOOK A 23-POINT NOSE DIVE. IT WAS SAID TO BE THE MOST PRECIPITOUS DECLINE IN A PRESIDENT’S APPROVAL RATING SINCE GALLUP BEGAN ASKING QUESTIONS.
. . . Iran-contra may have permanently broken Reagan’s unique grip on the American imagination . . . (however) the more structural setback to his power was his party’s net loss of eight seats in the Senate election of 1986 which turned the upper chamber Democratic.
The Senate elections took on a personal dimension because Reagan had stumped for GOP incumbents as few presidents before him. He all but pleaded with his traditional backers to “win one more for the Gipper” and, in so doing, preserve his beachhead on Capitol Hill.
. . . For some, THE MEAN SEASON BEGAN FOR REAGAN EVEN BEFORE THE SENATE DEBACLE. THEY POINT TO THE OCTOBER 1986 SUMMIT MEETING IN REYKJAVIK, ICELAND, WHERE REAGAN APPEARED UTTERLY UNPREPARED FOR THE CHALLENGE PRESENTED BY THE NEW SOVIET LEADER, MIKHAIL S. GORBACHEV. [Note: Conservatives, e.g., William Buckley et al, attacked Reagan relentlessly on this issue!]
. . . (Bottomline) the administration will muddle through 1988 in much the same mode as it has through the past year (1987). The constraining circumstances of Democratic strength in Congress, the diversion of attention to the choice of a new president and the sheer old-news nature of the Reagan presidency will conspire to devalue the White House coin.”
-- CQ Weekly October 17, 1987
INITIAL POST MORTEMS ON THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY:
GALLUP’S PRE-REPUBLICAN CONVENTION POLL
8/10-12/1992
Presidential Approval Ratings for Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter:
Reagan: 47.55% approve 49.21% (-1.66)
Carter.: 49.50% approve 43.06 disapprove (+6.44)
[Yep, one of the worst presidents in American history actually outpolled RR a mere 4 years after the end of RR's HISTORIC presidency and a mere 12 years after RR had defeated him in a landslide!]
SIX MONTHS LATER (February 1993):
Looking back, do you think the economic policies of Ronald Reagan were a success or a failure?
Success 28.72% Failure 61.24% (-32.48)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! The more things change the more they stay the same!
It took the American public almost 20 years to appreciate the legacy of Ronald Reagan (a man many, including conservatives, savaged during his historic presidency). The same will happen for George W Bush!
And you think Bush talks down to the american people? I've heard many criticisms of Bush in my day, but never that he speaks down to people. That is one of his globally accepted qualities, of being a plain-spoken person who speaks TO people, not down at them.
bttt
OK, just how many troops does the UAE contribute to the War on Terror? How many of their citizens have died fighting side by side with our troops?
This "closest allies" stuff is strange ... we do for them, they do for us -- and both sides prosper. If anyone can tell me any great sacrifice Dubai has made for the US, let me know... ( and yeah, we dock our ships, and they charge us for the privilege)
That's fine, but doesn't help him much right now.
He could be impeached, but they'll never get 2/3rds of the senate to go along with it.
And Bush will be able to claim that he was only impeached because the democrats wanted to get back at "republicans" for impeaching Clinton, so the impeachment will not be a big deal (note it wasn't that big a deal for Clinton either).
McCain Stands with the President
Posted by jveritas to new yorker 77
On News/Activism 02/21/2006 6:54:28 PM PST · 162 of 263
This is a great political loser for President Bush even if he may be right about the deal itself. In politics being right does not mean a political victory. As you said for 80% of the people including majority of Republicans UAE=Arabs=Terrorists, and even if Saint Gabriel will be running this company people will always view it a such no matter how many facts the President will show them to the opposite, it is very unfortunate but it is very true. I am really angry and very afraid not because of the deal but because of the very damaging political effect on President Bush and the Republican Party. The President should hold a press conference or issue another statement where he invites the Congress to scrutinize the deal for the next 30 or 45 days and if they see anything very wrong about it, the deal will be renegotiated or canceled. If the President will not do this in the next 48 hours, I am very concerned that his second term is FINISHED, and this is coming from me the most optimistic freeper on FR. Only the capture of Bin Laden, or Zawahiri, or Zarqawi can save President Bush if he insists on his current position.
At the present moment President Bush has put himself in a very damaging, if not fatal, political situation.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies
Nostradamus? That's funny.
Hey, he's STILL making adjustments in his predictions. :->
If your defense is that "things looked bad" when you made your prediction, you aren't really a predictor, you're just an interpreter of the current situation.
We wouldn't call someone a good stock predictor if all they could do was tell us where the market was at the end of the day.
"Well, the market went down today, so I predict in 3 months it will be down another thousand"
Well, it's been 3 months and it's up 1000. "Come on, it's not my fault, that day I predicted that it had dropped so it made sense that it would drop more. I was right before I was wrong."
Yes, this has been very depressing to watch. But a lynch mob is never pretty.
The democrats DO care. Remember, they believe we can make the world a better place if we, the U.S., deal with other countries from more of an "even" posture, where we need them more than they need us.
So if they destroy our reputation in the pursuit of regaining power, it's just a bonus for them, because with our reputation in tatters we will have to be more contrite when marching hat in hand to other countries for their forgiveness and understanding.
The democrats believe that a WEAK, "less threatening" america is good for the world. They seem to believe that there are no more Hitlers, so there is no more need for Superman.
KUDOS on a brilliantly written and cogently argued post at #225! [Principle over politics . . . the President did himself, and us, proud!!]
Gee, Charles, I'm sorry that those stupid American cattle had the insolence to interfere with an elite deal because they put their security ahead of free trade globalism. I'm sorry that those stupid American cattle put more confidence in their common sense and gut instinct than in greased globalist elites. And I'm sorry that those stupid American cattle smelled a greased rat when said globalist elites started talking like Al Sharpton about "racism" and "islamophobia" and "mindless bigotry".
A core problem in our relationship with Gulf Arabs is that they have never met an American they couldn't buy. They are used to whores and State Deparment Arabists looking forward to lucrative careers as Saudi lobbyists. So they tend to despise us. Like during Desert Storm I when a Saudi official was quoted in the WSJ saying, "Why should I send my sons to die for the Kuwaitis when I have my white slaves from America to do it for me ?" Well, for once they did. The American people fought back and stopped a corrupt elite to corrupt elite deal dead in its tracks.
The Emir plays both ends against the middle. He fronts for Iran and passes us the odd intelligence tidbit. He will continue to do so because it is in his interest to keep his options open. There is no 'alliance' in it.
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.