WTF...Time says Bush is taking "a principled stand" on the port issue?

Bush_Eats_Beef

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Feb-23-06 08:07 PM
Original message

WTF...Time says Bush is taking "a principled stand" on the port issue?

Edited on Thu Feb-23-06 08:07 PM by Bush_Eats_Beef

How Much the Ports Storm Is Costing Bush

The President may be making a principled stand, but will it last?

By MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON

:wtf:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1162001,00.html?cnn=yes

Posted Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2006
In a big-time role reversal, it�s now George W. Bush who wants to transcend 9/11 and Democrats who want to relive it. The President�s political machine has capitalized for years on emotional appeals to Americans' fear of terrorism. But in the dispute over allowing an Arab-owned company to manage crucial American ports, Bush is confronting the Republican leadership of Congress with a very different kind of argument: a subtle, intellectual and yes, principled, case for consistency in barrier-free trading and allied opposition to al Qaeda. "We cannot ask Arab countries in the Middle East to embrace democracy and join the global economy and then unfairly discriminate against them," said talking points circulated to White House allies late Wednesday morning, a day after Bush threatened to use his first presidential veto against any legislation to overturn the deal.

The United Arab Emirates, home of the state-controlled company that has made the deal to manage sensitive U.S. port operations, has been very helpful to American intelligence services and its ports have been important to the U.S. military. Some supporters of the deal call the opposition xenophobic and shortsighted, and even some Democrats find themselves in the unusual position of admitting that Congress is overreacting and that Bush is actually in the right. But it has given Democrats their most inviting platform in years to bang the security drum, and most Republicans are refusing to cede the ground in this election year.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan acknowledged Wednesday that Bush did not know about the sale of the six major port operations to a Dubai company until after Administration approval had been granted. "This didn't arise to the presidential level," McClellan said. "You have all the security departments that are involved in this � the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of State. You have the National Security Council that is part of this process, too. And there are representatives from each of those departments and agencies that participate in this process, some 12 departments and agencies that are involved." McClellan added, "If there have been concerns about national security threats, then there � I am sure that additional steps would have been taken."

Still, that is unlikely to quell the controversy. "It�s open season on the White House," said one Bush loyalist on Capitol Hill � speaking matter-of-factly, with neither glee nor regret. Republican congressional aides said they and their bosses were furious that the White House looked caught by surprise, with no press strategy and no immediate briefings for lawmakers who were being besieged by constituent calls. "They�re making it look like the Administration is asleep at the wheel on port security," said a top Republican leadership aide. "This is typical of their tin ear and unresponsiveness." On ABC�s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the Secretary for Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, looked as dumbstruck by the questions about the Dubai deal as he did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.