The last two pieces I've written for FoxNews.com have been pretty critical of President Bush, and as you might expect from a Fox audience, email responses were overwhelmingly negative, though not very convincing. Even the suppportive responses were along the lines of"I agree that spending is out of control, but Bush doesn't play politics with national security, and that's why I'm voting for him."

I'm not so sure that's the case. And The New Republic's Jonathan Chait reminds me why. In a recent policy forum televised by C-SPAN, Chait points out that not long after September 11, just after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf pledged his support for our anti-terrorism efforts, he asked President Bush for a small favor in return. Musharraf asked that Bush lift U.S. tariffs on textiles coming from Pakistan. This, Musharraf said, would give him something to take back to the people of Pakistan. He could argue that in exchange for Pakistani support, Pakistanis might enjoy a better standard of living through access to U.S. markets.

But Bush said no, mainly to placate House Republicans from North and South Carolina. Musharaff has faced nothing but turmoil -- including multiple attempts on his life -- in the time since.

It would be foolish to suggest that had Bush lifted the tariffs, all would be hunky-dorey in Pakistan. But things certainly wouldn't be worse. And there's really no other way to look at the decision to hold the tariffs than as a political one -- in this case, to preserve a few southern congressional districts at the expense of an extremely important ally, one who stuck his neck out for us.

Or, you might say, at the expense of national security. Remember, if Musharaff goes down, militant Islam in all likelihood gets hold of its first nuclear arsenal.

It gets all the more frustrating when you consider that as a self-described"free trade president," lifting tariffs is something that ought to be on Bush's to-do list, anyway.