Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  

Reaping What He Sows

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, February 23, 2006; 1:51 PM

It's not often that President Bush gets a taste of his own medicine. But it's happening now as Bush defends his administration's decision to turn over operations at six U.S. seaports to an Arab company.

He stands accused of being weak on national security, insufficiently fearful of terrorism, and out of touch with the American public. And he's operating in a political climate where nuance and details make a poor defense.

Marc Sandalow writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: "It should surprise no one familiar with the political landscape since Sept. 11, 2001, that the proposed management of six major U.S. ports by a state-owned Arab company would set off a tempest.

"What is unusual is to find President Bush offering a nuanced approach to balancing diplomacy with his war on terror -- and for that position to come under attack from Democrats and leaders of his own party.

"It was Bush, after all, who detained hundreds of Arab Americans, spied on thousands more and initiated a pre-emptive attack on Iraq under a maxim that nothing was more urgent to the nation -- or his presidency -- than the fight against terror.

"And it was Democrats who demanded that Bush offer a more measured policy, often accusing him of a heavy-handed approach that compromised American ideals of liberty and equality."

Mike Allen writes for Time: "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."

Alan Elsner writes for Reuters: "For almost five years President George W. Bush has warned Americans to fear terrorism, but now those words may come back to bite him."

The State of Play

Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman write in The Washington Post: "Faced with an unprecedented Republican revolt over national security, the White House disclosed yesterday that President Bush was unaware of a Middle Eastern company's planned takeover of operations at six U.S. seaports until recent days and promised to brief members of Congress more fully on the pending deal.

"One day after threatening to veto any attempt by Congress to scuttle the controversial $6.8 billion deal, Bush sounded a more conciliatory tone by saying lawmakers should have been given more details about a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates purchasing some terminal operations in Baltimore and five other U.S. cities."

VandeHei and Weisman describe one of the political dynamics at work: "With the president's ratings mired around 40 percent approval, some Republican lawmakers who face tough reelection bids in November have been looking for ways to distance themselves from Bush without appearing to be soft on terrorism. The president, who once enjoyed near unanimous support from GOP allies on Capitol Hill, has seen a steady rise in Republican criticism over Iraq, Iran, warrantless domestic spying and now the port deal."

David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times that the debate "is already turning to the question of whether the Bush administration cut some corners in speeding the review through the approval process to avoid the scrutiny that could touch off a political firestorm.


CONTINUED     1                 >


© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive