Portgate: The hubris, incompetence, and cronyism of the Bush presidency

As many of you must know by now, "President Bush [has] endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates". And as if that isn't bad enough, "[h]e [has] pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement" -- see the AP story here.

This is the president who claims to be tough on national security, who seeks to fight the war on terror virtually without checks and/or balances, who won re-election over an eminently more qualified candidate by running a campaign of fear, who used that stupid colour-coded threat-alert system for partisan political purposes, who still claims that his leadership has kept America safe even as he wages a war in a foreign country that had nothing to do with 9/11, even as Osama remains on the loose and more serious threats like Iran and North Korea spiral out of control.

And now he wants to hand over America's ports -- one of the gaping holes in the swiss cheese of national security -- to a foreign government, to the UAE? And, as always, he'll stand stubbornly determined even as both sides of the aisle demand that he reconsider, as Congress seeks to check and balance his outrageously imperial presidency?

How is it that his approval ratings even hit the upper-30s? How is it that anyone still supports him at all?

Some conservatives, apologists for all things Bush, continue to set aside principle and the national interest for mindless partisanship. But even Glenn Reynolds and the usually apologetic Michelle Malkin aren't happy with this deal.

Honestly, who out there is not yet convinced of the harm that Bush is doing to America both at home and abroad?

**********

This is a huge story in the blogosphere. See Memeorandum here. In particular:

RenaRF at Kos (with updates): "Why the HELL is the President so dogmatically sticking to this deal??

The Carpetbagger Report: "Bush is drawing a line in the sand here, but he's also taking a big risk. Right now, the White House has very few allies on this; opposition to the deal is bi-partisan and common on the Hill and statehouses. Lawmakers, especially those who are more worried about their own re-election that helping Bush's port deal, will see no upside to helping the White House out on this one." See also here.

Kevin Drum: "What it shows is that Bush still doesn't understand how much influence he's recently lost with his conservative base. In the brave new post-Harriet, post-Katrina world, outrage over the port deal has been driven equally by both liberal critics and conservatives like Michelle Malkin and administration uber-stalwart Hugh Hewitt, who are no longer willing to simply take Bush's word for it that they should trust him on this issue."

Digby: "If there are three hallmarks of this failed Bush administration, it is hubris, incompetence and cronyism. This port deal features all three." Hence the title of this post.

And this is important: Democrats can run -- and win -- on Bush's hubris, incompetence, and cronyism. Whether it's Iraq or Katrina or the NSA scandal or the Abramoff-DeLay corruption or now this. Yes, we need to focus on what we would do in power. Yes, we need to focus on health care and education and other key domestic issues. Yes, we need to present a viable alternative on Iraq, Iran, and homeland security. But -- YES! -- we need to hit this hard:

THE HUBRIS, INCOMPETENCE, AND CRONYISM OF GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

Am I saying this loudly, forcefully, convincingly enough? Come on already!

Joe at AMERICAblog: "Just imagine if a Democratic President cut this deal -- and defended it the way Bush has. Karl Rove would have a field day. This is a major political issue. Remember, Rove's the one who wants to make national security a political issue this year." Pam Spaulding makes a similar point.

Exactly. The politics of fear won't work this time. Hollow rhetoric won't work. Surely Americans now know better than to put their trust and safety in the hands of the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress?

See also Shakespeare's Sister and Seeing the Forest and Taylor Marsh and Firedoglake. And this scary thought from Think Progress: "Thus, the sale would give a country that has been 'a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia' direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment."

Again: This is the wartime president? The national security president? This is the man who would keep America safe?

Bloggledygook offers a thoughtful reply to both sides (left and right in agreement), arguing that "this deal has exposed a nasty strain of racism that is running through both parties and partisans of every stripe" and that the deal is a great way "to engage 'moderate Muslims'".

But this isn't about engagement. And it's certainly not about racism.

It's about national security. It's about protecting the homeland. Isn't that what Bush always talks about? Isn't that what he always falls back on when things in the real world aren't going well, when he needs to scare up some support?

Just as the Cheney shooting revealed so much in metaphor about the Bush Administration, from Cheney's arrogance to Bush's ignorance, so does this story reveal so much about just what makes the Bush presidency tick.

Yes, it's about hubris and incompetence and cronyism. And ignorance and stubbornness and hypocrisy. It's about the nature of America's leadership.

Are you all paying attention?

Democrats?