Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

By Ellen Ratner
Few commentators have hit on the real reason why the public – and a rather impressive bipartisan political coalition – almost instantly congealed to protest President Bush's politically tone-deaf decision to allow the United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Port World to operate major American port facilities: It's less about trusting the UAE, and more about trusting Bush about trusting the UAE.

This isn't just semantics. Clearly, this administration has burned all its bridges and then some when it comes to convincing Americans that it is trustworthy. Where to begin? Almost half the public was initially convinced that Bush stole the 2000 election. But even putting this admittedly partisan issue aside, one can still point to the questionable rationale for invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein's vanished stockpiles of WMDs, the absolutely incompetent administration of the post-war aftermath, or the hopelessly muddled response to Hurricane Katrina (which continues to the present hour.)

So when Bush stood up on the ports issue and essentially said, "Trust me" – the UAE has been our reliable ally in the War on Terror, or that the UAE's government is different now than in the bad old days, or that we shouldn't worry because port security will remain in American hands – no one believes him. Many Americans couldn't find the UAE on a map, and so must rely on their president to exert leadership, backed by the full expertise of the federal government, to advise them and build support for potentially controversial decisions. That is the essence of presidential leadership.

But this president, like a shop-a-holic given a charge card, has blown through his credit limit and now that he might wish to use his card for some important purpose, discovers that it's being declined everywhere. In sum, his word is no good.

Maybe if a Reagan, an Eisenhower, a Kennedy or a Truman tried to make the case in wartime for dealing with a country that many Americans today associate with "the enemy," the people might've taken a chance, given the president the benefit of the doubt – in short, trusted him. But this president, who first threatened to veto any measures Congress might pass to cancel the deal, then admitted the very next day that he was as surprised as anybody else to discover the very existence of the deal, inspires no confidence.

Bush's squandering of the trust element is everything. Given his inept conviction about WMDs (and remember, even after none were found, he still gave the departing CIA director a Presidential Medal of Freedom!), and the tragic consequences still unfolding from this administration's myopic post-war planning in Iraq, why should any American trust him when he declares that the United Arab Emirates are in fact our staunch allies, good friends and committed to reform?
Admittedly, there are politics aplenty intersecting with this issue. Democrats, who have long sought a way to undermine the Republicanization of national security are now able to claim that it is little more than a dollar-driven fraud – as I wrote last week, many Americans now believe that the Republicans' real motto is, "Salute the flag, cash the check." Meanwhile, some Republicans, lusting for a way to put some distance between themselves and this very unpopular administration, are using the ports deal to do just that.

But the truth is that whatever the politicians' true motives may be, they wouldn't get to first base without massive, spontaneous public support. And the way it looks now, these politicians are rounding third base.

This lack of trust in Bush – and not racism or so-called Islamophobia – is what's really driving opposition to the deal. While there are surely some morons who oppose the ports deal because the buyers happen to be from a Muslim country, responsible Democrats or Republicans do not number among them. The Bush administration has spilled lots of ink frightening Americans. And not without some cause, Americans believed him. Like every other wartime president throughout our history, Bush was given leeway to define and characterize the enemy. And one of the contributing factors that he placed as a centerpiece of his characterization was the relationship between jihadism and the existence of undemocratic, corrupt regimes that repressed their people and indulged intolerant mutations of Islam. It was always understood by many Americans that among those regimes were several unnamed Persian Gulf kingdoms.

Now, Bush comes before the people and asks them to trust him – that Dubai is different than say, the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia, the Iranians, or the Syrians, or the host of jihadis from "friendly" countries Egypt, Jordan or Pakistan.

Trust President Bush? Sure thing.