What if Bush calls?
February 22, 2006
As I was sitting today, musing about the UAE/Ports mess, a thought occurred to me that brought me up short. What could Bush be thinking, I was musing. Where the hell was Karl Rove? And then it hit.
Before I spell it out, allow me to set the stage for a moment:
As we know, the left, which has never shown a single care about security before, is right in there with the right, screaming about the plan to turn over management of 6 of our largest ports to Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates. Now, it would certainly be nice to think that this were due to a genuine, if recently realized, concern for the security of our nation. We can safely assume that of the Republicans; after all, it is their own President they're attacking, and that shows genuine conviction. But what about the Dems? What about Hillary Clinton? Charles Schumer? Why are THEY screaming? Schumer went so far as to embrace Halliburton as a prospective port manager, so great was his fever to disagree as strenuously as he could with the Bush administration.
Well, simply put, they disagree because they have to. It's what they do. They have screamed about everything Bush has done or not done, throughout his entire tenure. It's reflex. That we think they are right this time doesn't mean that they are suddenly interested in security. It simply means that, in this particular instance, disagreeing with Bush happened to be the right position. It doesn't happen much, but here it is. Probably 90% of the country agrees.
So, finally, here's what occurred to me. What if Bush is bluffing? What if he's just trying to see how high the Dems will raise, blindly attacking from his right, before calling them on what they're saying? In few words, what will they have done to themselves if and when Bush reverses course?
It's not a minor matter, or a simple one, when you think about it. Here we have, essentially ALL the Democrats by now on record, telling Bush that the right move would be to scuttle the deal. (Jimmy Carter, of course, doesn't count; he deliberately is for anything that may harm our security.) They are saying things they've NEVER said. Hillary said that NO foreign country or agency should manage any port of ours. A Republican who actually THOUGHT that couldn't have said it any better. And as I mentioned, Schumer actually proposed that we consider Halliburton (Halliburton!), an American company after all, as a replacement for the UAE company. Climbing back from all that would NOT be pretty. But climb back they may end up having to do -- all Bush has to do is say is that, on reflection, he agrees. We SHOULD be wary, out of an abundance of caution, of Arab companies that would manage our infrastructure. We should take American bids, with specific consideration given to Halliburton, to manage our ports. Now for a pop quiz:
Who thinks that the NY senators would come out and say that Bush was now right?
OK, that may be going too far. How about this, then: Who thinks that Schumer and his liberal bretheren would accept a serious consideration of Halliburton? Who thinks Hillary would so much as shut up, now that she was getting what she asked for, after all? As I said, she went way out there with some statements that can be read as a call for profiling. Will she have the gumption to stick with that line against the angry left, without even the cover of it being the opposite of whatever Bush says? And what will Schumer tell his base when Bush calls in Halliburton, with Schumer's specific prior approval?
Hmm. Maybe Karl Rove isn't asleep in this matter.
topVisitors since Dec 1, 2005:
Copyright © 2005 by
batfink@orneryhorntoedvarmints.com
.
All rights reserved.
Revised: 05/19/08 08:07:08 -0400 .