Stories Within the Story
One issue with the port deal is what it says about how the federal government views border security. The President has said that the issue of security was taken into account, even though he only knew about the deal after it was finalized. And he's threatening to veto any legislation aimed at undercutting the deal.
Well, three points:
The outrage is all his fault. Bush has gone five years filling Americans with fear of all thing Middle Eastern. "Don't trust Iran, don't trust Iraq, don't trust Afghanistan (at least until we can invade them). Anyone who helps or aids terrorists in any way is the enemy." That's been his mantra all along. Why in the world is he surprised by the public reaction?
Port security and job security are the real issues here. This story by ABC news proves that port security is a joke. And a friend of mine heard this radio show where a dock worker said that the angle everyone is missing is that this deal is going to help screw the union workers. First dock workers, than a deal to hurt the autoworkers, then the airlines...and so on.
Lastly, let Bush try and veto. I think he's bluffing. His political capital is all but spent. Republicans are coming out of the woodwork to disagree with him. His closest aide and allies have no credibility (as far as the "trust me" angle goes). If Bush vetoes a anti-port bill, I bet Congress overrides it and that would automatically make Bush a lame duck. If he doesn't veto, he'll be labeled a (*gasp*) flip-flopper. And if for some reason Congress didn't override the veto, Bush still stands alone as "the guy who sold our ports to a terrorist-affiliated country." Between that moniker and the debacle known as Iraqi reconstruction, Bush's image as a national security guru will be shattered.
So as Karl Rove and Scooter Libby work on their legal defenses, as people begin to analyze the self-congratulatory Katrina report the White House issued out (which will only make people connected to those areas more upset), and as Congress finally begins to ask "why did we go to Iraq," I'll be waiting for the true stories to reveal themselves. Because with this crowd, there's always a story within a story.
Well, three points:
The outrage is all his fault. Bush has gone five years filling Americans with fear of all thing Middle Eastern. "Don't trust Iran, don't trust Iraq, don't trust Afghanistan (at least until we can invade them). Anyone who helps or aids terrorists in any way is the enemy." That's been his mantra all along. Why in the world is he surprised by the public reaction?
Port security and job security are the real issues here. This story by ABC news proves that port security is a joke. And a friend of mine heard this radio show where a dock worker said that the angle everyone is missing is that this deal is going to help screw the union workers. First dock workers, than a deal to hurt the autoworkers, then the airlines...and so on.
Lastly, let Bush try and veto. I think he's bluffing. His political capital is all but spent. Republicans are coming out of the woodwork to disagree with him. His closest aide and allies have no credibility (as far as the "trust me" angle goes). If Bush vetoes a anti-port bill, I bet Congress overrides it and that would automatically make Bush a lame duck. If he doesn't veto, he'll be labeled a (*gasp*) flip-flopper. And if for some reason Congress didn't override the veto, Bush still stands alone as "the guy who sold our ports to a terrorist-affiliated country." Between that moniker and the debacle known as Iraqi reconstruction, Bush's image as a national security guru will be shattered.
So as Karl Rove and Scooter Libby work on their legal defenses, as people begin to analyze the self-congratulatory Katrina report the White House issued out (which will only make people connected to those areas more upset), and as Congress finally begins to ask "why did we go to Iraq," I'll be waiting for the true stories to reveal themselves. Because with this crowd, there's always a story within a story.
Comments