When the Trust Is Gone

With President Bush's credibility damaged and his political clout eroded, maybe it was just a matter of time before "trust me" didn't hack it anymore -- even with his most loyal supporters in Congress.

Today, Bush faces a significant political test ever over a sleeper issue

-- the long-proposed turning over of operations at several U.S. ports to a company owned by an Arab country.

Suddenly, it's Bush who is on the receiving end of scathing critiques that he is weak on terror and oblivious to post-9/11 realities.

The issue also revisits the touchy matter of his administration's competence. It echoes the ongoing sensitivity about the separation of powers and lack of congressional oversight. And when it comes to gut-level politics, Bush finds himself caught in the pincers between Republican prejudice and Democratic opportunism.

Given the astonishingly bipartisan nature of the Congressional revolt, it's hard to imagine legislators backing down on this one. The traditional White House approach to rebellion within the GOP -- private arm-twisting -- may not work this time.

So look for White House Plan B, which is to remain steadfast in public while crafting a private retreat that is ultimately spun as a Bush victory.

Not once in Bush's five years as president has he gone to Plan C -- a veto. And while Bush threatened one yesterday, using his very first veto in the face of so much public flak would be a dramatic political defeat. Having that veto overridden would be a debacle.

One question that kept coming up yesterday: Why is this so important to Bush? There's a lot of speculation below. Bush himself says it's about fair play. Some critics suggest he puts free-market corporate values ahead of literally everything else. Or could it be that the White House is concerned that any sign of backing down to Congress on anything right now would be seen as the official start of its slide into lame-duck status?

The Veto Threat

---

David E. Sanger and Eric Lipton write in the New York Times: "Mr. Bush issued the threat after the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, publicly criticized the deal and said a thorough review was necessary to ensure that terrorists could not exploit the arrangement to slip weapons into American ports. . . .

"Mr. Frist gave the White House only an hour's notice before breaking ranks and saying that 'the decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold.' He said that if a delay did not occur, he would 'plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review.' "

Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman write in The Washington Post: "Facing a sharp bipartisan backlash, Bush took the unusual step of summoning reporters to the front of Air Force One to condemn efforts to block a firm from the United Arab Emirates from purchasing the rights to manage ports that include those in New York and New Orleans. . . .