Abdullah is to Bush as Arafat is to Clinton

That's Jim Hoagland's interpretation to W's open door policy for Jordan's boy king (via Cori Dauber).

I stipulate the obvious: Bush is obliged by realpolitik to work with Abdullah and with Jordan. One of only two Arab states that have peace treaties with Israel, Jordan has long been an important link in the Middle East peace process as well as a platform for U.S. covert and military activities.

But a few senior U.S. officials, less impressed with Abdullah's Special Operations background and his deep connections to the CIA, fear that the president's lavish embrace is overdone. They point to the nasty public row between Iraq and Jordan over a suicide bombing and to the apparently protected presence in Jordan of key operatives in the Iraqi insurgency. These are troubling signs being ignored by Bush.

As Hoagland points out, Iraqis are not pleased by about the alliance. Haider Al-Zarkani

When President Bush – who adopted a war against terrorism - welcomed the Jordanian king in the White House without mentioning the Hilla crime he let down the Iraqi people. Iraqis consider the Jordanian king a racist agitator for warning against he what he calls the "Shi’ite Crescent." Iraqis also thin he supports Jordanian citizens who carry out terror attacks against Shi’ites in Iraq.

What's happening nowadays supports the Iranian conspiracy theory about how the US supposedly supports Arab fundamentalists; the King of Jordan used the term "resistance" to describe terrorism and he endorsed the members of Iraq’s former regime.

Why did you agree to meet with him, Mr. President, one day after the Iraqis protested and condemned Jordanian terrorism?