Podhoretz: Bush Was Saved By The Revolt

EDITORIAL WINNER OF THE DAY, John Podhoretz of the New York Post:
The followin editorial in todays New York Post has been our position on the ports issue from the begining and John Podhoretz of the New York Post articulates the matter clearly:

"GEORGE Bush's enemies are excited. The Dubai ports deal is dead. The president had said he would veto any attempt by Congress to block it - but a House committee vote Wednesday with the insanely lopsided margin of 62-2 hollowed out his threat and left its husk to rot.
(The Dubai company sure doesn't see much hope: It announced yesterday that it will sell off its U.S. port work.)

Surely, his enemies say, this is curtains for Bush. Republicans are fleeing from him, he can't keep his troops in line - and he can't work his will. He's become a lame duck, they say.

Wrong. Just as with his last serious political miscalculation, Bush has actually been saved by the very forces in his own governing coalition that are opposing him.

When the president foolishly nominated the clearly unqualified Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, conservative intellectuals and pundits were so relentlessly negative that they forced him to withdraw Miers' name and appoint Samuel Alito in her place. That move simultaneously helped reenergize and calm a key part of the Bush coalition.

Republicans in Congress did Bush an even bigger favor. The president may have been right on the economic and foreign-policy merits of allowing the government-owned Dubai Ports World to manage stevedore operations inside the United States. But he was clearly wrong when it came not only to the politics of the deal, but also to its symbolic significance in the midst of the War on Terror.


The politics part is simple: No Republican running for re-election in 2006 was going to hand a challenger a stick the size of the Space Needle to bash him over the head with. And there could have been no easier or juicier Space Needle than "My esteemed opponent voted to give an Arab country that has supported terrorism control of our ports."

Now, Republicans on Capitol Hill owe Bush a lot. Without him, they would almost certainly not control the Senate and might not be the majority party in the House. But that doesn't mean the president had the right to demand they commit hara-kiri.


Not since the elder George Bush asked Republicans on the Hill to support his tax hike just before the 1990 midterm elections has such a fratricidal demand been made. The president was simply too high-handed, and he's gotten his hat handed to him.

But in handing the president his hat, his party did him a service. Republicans have made certain that a few months from now most Americans will barely remember the whole business, which really did threaten the continued viability of his presidency.

More important, the public reaction to the ports deal indicates that the American people are still very much committed to the War on Terror. They understand that Arab nations of the Persian Gulf cannot be and should not be deemed reliable colleagues in our struggle against militant, extremist Islam.

I have no doubt that Dubai has given us some assistance in pursuing al Qaeda. But it is still a cowardly emirate that will not do or say anything publicly to advance the fight against bin Ladenism, and while it may not be an enemy, it is neither a friend nor an ally.

It is wrong to ascribe popular feeling against the deal to isolationism. The American people can't make sense out of which side Dubai is on, and they don't think it should be that hard a call. They believe in the fight, and their continued support for it is the best news the embattled Bush presidency could have."