Because their true ideology of privatization, oligarchism, and laissez-fairism in this case gave them blinders that got in the way of their faux ideology of national security and protecting the homeland.

This is the gift that keeps on giving. A rational analysis of this deal, like a rational analysis of the deal that left the Chinese in control of the ports of the Panama Canal, would lead realists to say "Who cares". Money is money and port management is pretty much disconnected from cargo control.

But wingnuts tried to whip up hysteria over the China/Panama deal, they openly tolerate an astonishingly high level of Arab bashing by people like Ann Coulter "Kill their leaders, then convert them" (Thanks Ann, don't bother coming to the next Intra-Faith conference).

But Bush supporters chose to tolerate racist, anti-Arab jingoists when it served their interests. That they are baffled when people equate "Arab" to "Terrorist" is laughable. In a kind of grim, forced laugh way. You reap what you sow.

For Bush to simultaneously argue "Of course it is a good idea, fully reviewed by all appropriate levels of government" and that "Neither I nor Secretaries Snow or Rumsfield knew a thing about this until we read the newspapers" may make sense in Cloud Roveland but my early take is that this isn't resonating among the rank and file. Who exactly felt authorized to make this decision?

I held my nose and made a sweep by of Free Republic and found a fairly low layer of outrage. But then again I suspect Mr. Charles Johnson has been making liberal (boy he would hate that word) use of the delete key.

Let's remember, Sec of Def Rumsfeld and General Pace were also in the dark on this deal. And as to the issue of Islamophobia thrown into the mix by Bush apologists, this uproar has not been caused because a private company based in UAE purchased the ports, it is a government run company. A government with ties to terrorism. And as our great leader stated as US policy in 2001, the United States does not differentiate between the terrorists and countries which harbor terrorists. Guess the war of terror is over!

Jonathan: It is as if the Bush administration is just giving up on the issue of national security, ceding it to their opponents. Why the Bush administration would give away their only chit with the American people at this point in the game is truly beyond me.

weatherunderground: Because their true ideology of privatization, oligarchism, and laissez-fairism in this case gave them blinders that got in the way of their faux ideology of national security and protecting the homeland.

It certainly is true that Bu$hCo's corporatism blinds them to much of anything beyond that obsession, but I suspect a larger factor at work.  Bu$hCo just doesn't DO policy.  Recall the comment of John Dilulio in 2002 after leaving the Bush administration:

"What you got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis." and "There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis..."

Rovian manipulation of the facts and the fear-based rhetoric are counted upon to solve all Bu$hCo problems.  Except that on the ports deal, the facts are coming out and the Rovian fear-based propaganda are working against Bu$hCo this time.  

Add to that Bush's carefully tended garden of Commander in Chief blather - now unearthed for all to see as Bush, Snow and Rumsfeld deny they had their pruning shears and shovels in hand on the UAE deal, and (mixing metaphors) the perfect storm of corporatism gone wild and insider incompetence are exposed for all to see, like squigly earthworms and frantic beetles .

Couldn't happen to more worthy bad guys, really.