Home Delivery

Pols part over port security

Ellis Henican

February 26, 2006

Article tools

E-mail

Share
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
- Facebook
- Fark
- Google
- Newsvine
- Reddit
- Yahoo

Oh, this is getting fun. All my usual opponents are slashing each other now.

Guys like me can just sit back and watch 'em.

We have Republican congressmen like Staten Island's Vito Fossella and Long Island's Peter King slicing up their beloved George W. Bush on the hypersensitive issue of port security.

"It has to do with a country that has had unusually close ties to terrorism, and it is a risk we just cannot take," King said of the Bush administration's controversial plan to turn over operational control of six major ports to a company owned by the government of Dubai.

Ellis Henican Bio | E-mail | Recent columns

"I think somebody dropped the ball," Fossella added.

Never mind that Bush calls the UAE a valuable ally in the war on terror. Never mind that the shipping business is fundamentally international, no matter who's carrying the clipboards in port. Never mind that no American company comes close to matching the business acumen of Dubai Ports World, the Arab company standing ready to replace a British firm.

The politics are devastatingly hostile to the president. Once you say the words "Arab company running American ports," the intricate operational realities are pretty much beside the point.

Twelve American intelligence agencies approved? Who cares!

Is it possible for a president's approval rating to drop below zero? We may have a chance to find out.

Democratic and Republican politicians took a good four seconds to recognize the self-promoting opportunities here.

All of a sudden, Hillary Clinton was coming at Bush from the right. This was the moment she's been living for.

"We cannot cede sovereignty over critical infrastructure like our ports," Clinton told 600 cheering people at the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce. "This is a job that America has to do."

Yes, the woman knows the difference between cheers and boos.

All this broke into the open as Iran inched closer to nuclear weapons, as Hamas was taking power in Palestine, as Iraq seemed to be tumbling toward the point of no return.

"All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?" asked the screen tease on the Fox News Channel.

And it came as the president seems to have all but lost his legendary political touch at home.

Hurricane Katrina. Dick Cheney's hunting accident. The Harriet Miers nomination. On matters large and small, the president keeps fumbling. And that's before the legal fight over the National Security Agency's warrantless spying on Americans.

Where is the president's political muscle now? How can he threaten disloyal Republicans? That he won't campaign for them? Ha! After this, they won't even have him.

And it's even worse: After years of portraying Democrats as weak on terror, the proposed change in port management has allowed the opposition party to outflank him on national-security toughness.

The four big conservative radio hosts are split right down the middle on this, not sure whether to back the president they love or add their voices to his bellowing opponents.

Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are standing with Bush. Sean Hannity and Michael Savage are raising objections to the port switch.

As I write this, I have "The Savage Nation" radio show in my ear. I'm hearing the voice of Michael Savage, easily the most virulent of the national talk hosts. His guest is Chuck Schumer.

And the liberal Democratic senator from New York is having his behind ostentatiously smooched by the rawest host in all of talk radio.

Savage is saying he has so admired Schumer's attacks on Bush over the port deal, he'll now rewrite the Schumer chapter in his next book.

"Thank you, Michael," Schumer is saying. "Keep on fighting."

I hope somebody was running tape. It could be decades before a moment like this repeats itself.

And we'd better keep the "record" button down. Pretty soon, Savage will be praising Hillary Clinton.