If there is one thing most of us can agree on it is that terrorists are a patient lot. They took about eight years to complete the job at the World Trade Center and that was during a period of passive security. In light of this, someone out therepossibly a despondent Katrina survivor, maybe a young Iraqi man who has just lost his family to an errant American missile, possibly a disillusioned teen clawing a life in some urban slum, maybe a zealot Muslim enraged by the infidels populating western-friendly Dubaiis aligning with Al Qaeda or with some new loosely networked group that is hell bent on delivering a nuclear or biochemical punch to America. After all, delivering such a blow is the ultimate statement, the greatest strike, the instant celebrity any Bin Laden wannabe lives to accomplish. And they have nothing but time and rage on their side.

We also might agree that they are resilient by their numbers. For every hundred who meet dead ends, run out of funding, slip up or miraculously overcome their anger, a few survive to snake along towards the objective. They independently find training camps, develop connections, obtain funding, purposely seek out jobs that might position them two years, five years, or ten years out in roles and responsibilities where they are in place to be future agents to a grander plan. In a way they are like a virus that constantly mutates to survive the latest vaccine. If terror influenza cant break out this season, it will transform to break out the next season or the season following.

Now we find ourselves confronted with a dilemma. Once again the Bush inner circle secretly negotiated a business transaction, this time with Dubai, the second largest emirate among the federation of emirates comprising the United Arab Emirates, to own a limited number of piers within a limited number of ports. And when the deal was revealed by that pesky liberal press, as if a starting gun sounded, Washingtons finest made a mad rush to jump into their constituency fox holes, tongues drawn and flailing wildly into the dark public domain. Democrats were dizzy seizing an opportunity to look strong on security. Republicans were franticly separating from the drag the President has become. Talking points ran the gamut from racism to another Bush family pocket lining project. It was crazy; conservatives sounding like liberals and progressives sounding like neo-cons.

Personally, I found some of the positioning amusing, some boring and as usual, all of it based on few facts. Regardless, I was reminded of one golden rule of government: the distance of a politicians vision is directly proportional to the length of their term. And that plays a huge role in our continued weakness in national security which translates into a great advantage for our enemies. Our leadership and decision makers are constrained by their election campaigns; our enemies are constrained only by their imagination and persistence.

Anyway, given all the political and media noise, I kept coming back to one simple question: why would we knowingly set up a scenario in which there is an opportunity for exploitation by terrorists?

There are many steps in the importing process of loading, shipping and unloading foreign cargo at our ports. It seems to me this deal with Dubai clearly places the processs final steps at some very strategic ports under the potential control of someone who might have bad objectives in mind. It is as simple as that. With everything else we need to worry about in that process, why needlessly add another layer of concern that will certainly drain already limited resources? Plug the drain by eliminating the opportunity.

And Im sorry if Dubai doesnt like the second guessing at this late date. Unfortunately, it couldnt be helped. Theyll have to get over it, which reminds me of another little oddity I just have to comment on. You know, for a President who constantly reminded us during his last election that if elected President, Senator Kerry would seek the approval of France for foreign policy, I find it ironic that in President Bushs rush to support the deal he reasoned that we needed to consider how the Middle East would feel if we canceled this deal; that the only explanation for opposition to this deal must be racism.

Well I strongly oppose this deal. It should never have emerged from the clandestine meetings held in the White House backrooms by the administration faithful. It is a short-sighted economic promise that just might profit a far-sighted terrorist pledge. If that is racist, so be it. But I would argue it is merely common sense.