The whole port fiasco has been grating on me all day to one extent or another, and it is getting to be rather disturbing to see the number of people on the right who so quickly dismiss the security implications of this. Once again, a lot of people seem to be suffering from a severe lack of imagination when it comes to the myriad number of ways that our enemies could strike us. Take this from Instapundit, for example:

As I noted earlier, we have a perfect storm brought about by the loss of confidence in the Administration's backbone after their inadequate Cartoon Wars response, continuing fears of terrorism (at least now the Democrats won't be able to say that it's a case of Bush fanning the flames of fear) and lousy White House PR management. As Rich Galen says: "This port deal is not a national security issue. It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don't come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light."

As I say, I don't think there's any real security issue here, but I think the Bush Administration needs to launch a full-bore effort to explain what's actually going on, something that they still haven't really mounted.

Glenn makes a good point in noting that the border security issue is one that has blown the Bush Administration's credentials sky high for many of us on the right. The problem with the Bush Administration in terms of the trust factor alone is that they have run our national security policy with a schitzophrenic back and forth between "we're at war" and business-as-usual tactics. We have wartime surveillance and detention powers, but a disturbing lack of interest in (and outright vocal opposition to) border security. The ports, especially the major ones, form a strategic part of our border security. It still seems like a no brainer to me and many others that letting a corporation based out of a country that has a terrorism problem, especially of the Islamic kind, is dangerous for our security.

There are a number of ways in which terrorists could exploit the DWI ownership of these port operations. Just having them in the work force alone would pose a security risk. A lone terrorist could get a job with them, come over on official business with a suitcase nuke and take out a chunk of New York City. You could have terrorist infiltration into the management of the company at positions that are high enough to be effective, but low enough to keep outside of the government's scrutiny. Then there is the possibility that they might just let a few weapons go through unchecked. The possibilities exist, and even if improbable, so is the successful hijacking of a few airplanes with box cutters and then using those same airplanes as missiles against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

I have to say that you know something is fishy when Michelle Malkin goes pitbull on Bush over one of his administration's actions. Supposedly, the whole background check of the business and transaction took between twenty and twenty five days. That's nowhere near long enough to do a thorough background check of the company. If the CIA had done a background check for six months to a year from top to bottom, I might have no problem with this, but this is too rushed for comfort. There is definitely at a minimum a disturbing lack of concern among the Bush Administration for the security implications here.

James Joyner of Outside the Beltway seems to echo the typical sentiment here for many of the Bush Administration's supporters:

My only point in any of this is that people like Rep. Sue Myrick seem to think that we have somehow sold our ports or even security control of our ports to the Arabs. That's not the case. Whether the government owned Dubai company in question can be trusted to carry out the functions previously assigned to a private U.K. firm is not something about which I have any particular insight. I merely note that the fact that there are Arabs involved is not does not constitute a prima facie case that we should deny the contract.

Now, James, would you feel the same way about a corporation owned and run by the Chinese government? This Middle Eastern company is said to be owned by their government, and it's a government in a country that is in a region which is known as a popular hotbed of terrorism against American interests. How would you feel if it were a front corporation for the People's Liberation Army instead of the UAE government?

Oh and this from Right-Thinking from the Left Coast is a perfect example of why we cannot trust the UAE. No national security issue, my ass!