Bush and the ports deal

President Bush, who hasn't vetoed any bill by Congress in his five-plus years in office, is threatening to do so now that he faces bipartisan opposition to a deal that would turn over port operations in the United States to a company partly owned by the United Arab Emirates.

If I made up the news for a living, my own imagination could not conjure a scenario as bizarre.

TRENDING: Voters blame Biden for border crisis, ready to punish Democrats, poll says

It's bizarre for several reasons:

• Bush has bent like a reed to the will of his political opposition throughout his presidency. Why would he put his feet in concrete on a stand as unpopular as this port deal is?

• The UAE is not just some moderate Arab regime as the White House portrays. The UAE was one of the countries al-Qaida used as a base of operations leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks. Following those attacks, the UAE refused to cooperate with the United States on tracing the financing of terrorists – much of which either starts in Dubai or ends there.

• On this issue, Bush is not just facing politically opportunistic opposition from the Democrats over this ports deal. There isn't a significant Republican in Congress who has rallied with the president behind his misguided decision.

• Bush's base of support from conservatives throughout the country, who like what he has done in fighting back against terrorism, are dead-set against the idea of turning over our sensitive ports to Arab control. It is as much symbolic as anything else.

• Even if Bush is certain that security of the ports would not be jeopardized by the deal, why reward a nation that has not been a strong ally in the war against the jihadists?

• Bush is handing over to the Democrats on a silver platter an opportunity to position themselves as serious warriors more concerned about defending the homeland than his own administration.

In other words, Bush is taking a wrong stand on an issue with no apparent benefit – even by appearing to be principled.

So what is this crazy decision all about? What is behind it? Why does this spineless administration suddenly have backbone when it comes to defending the interests of the oil sheikhs of the UAE? Is there more to this decision than meets the eye? Is somebody getting paid off big-time?

These questions are only natural given the circumstances.

Why would a president who has steadfastly refused to veto any bill whatsoever during his two terms in office suddenly discover the veto pen to take the wrong side on an issue knowing it will be an extremely unpopular move?

Here's my prediction: Bush will not veto a bill by Congress to overrule the administration on this deal.

He's blowing smoke.

We saw it once before with his nomination of Harriet Miers. Even when I told you it would be untenable for Bush to permit Miers to face Senate confirmation hearings, the president insisted he would not back down. Ultimately, of course, Miers did the backing down for him.

That's where I believe we are headed with this ports deal.

I don't know how the administration is going to wiggle its way out of this, but that's what I predict. Maybe the UAE company will decide it doesn't want this business in the face of enormous unpopularity. I don't know.

But I'm not telling anyone to turn down the pressure. If anything, I am telling you to turn it up. Bush needs to know real Americans still care about the security of their country. They still care about matters like who controls their ports. They're not crazy about the idea of any foreigners in sensitive national security positions – but certainly not regimes that have been hospitable to terrorists.