What don't we know? Plenty.

Some useful facts about that little piece of sand called the U.A.E.:

• Oil discovered in the '70s;
• Currently world's third largest producer of oil;
• Before oil, an impoverished region;
• Now one of the world's wealthiest states;
• At current production levels, oil supply runs out in 100 years;
• After oil, an impoverished region;
• Very fond of Tiger Woods;
• Enemy of Iran - hey, so are we;
• Home of 2 of the original 9/11 terrorists;
• A man may divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you" three times;
• Soon to be running our east coast ports - WTF?

The decision to award a U.A.E. controlled company the contract to run east coast ports may not be as risky as it sounds (the coast guard is actually responsible for port security), but it is so counter-intuitive, so questionable, and so head-scratchingly violative of Rovian principles it does lend credence to the rumor that Bush is back on the bottle.

I mean for one, it forecloses an entire line of attack from the right; if the Dems were in office, they'd put Arabs in charge of our national security. Oops! More importantly, given the actual vulnerability of ports to future terrorist attacks, what rational basis can there be for placing this contract in the hands of an Islamic State?

The apparent irrationality of this decision is where the real story lies. Facts that are available to the public don't cast this deal in a very good light, but it would be foolish to presume, in my opinion, that the facts don't favor us. The facts that justify our government even considering giving a contract like this to an Arab company have not been disclosed. Why the dearth of information? If I were the kind to speculate, which I am, I'd say it's because the facts aren't neat, or convenient, and because it would be shocking to a lot of Americans to learn that the black and white version of good and bad they've been sold has nothing to do with actual foreign policy; that foreign policy is - gasp! - informed by pragmatism, not idealism.

Republicans have gained a lot by positioning themselves as our best defense against Arab terrorism and by painting Democrats as appeasers and apologists, but behind the scenes, Republicans (and Democrats) know that for the world to go round everyone has to stick their pee-pee's into each other's hoo-haas. Where Dems and Republicans differ is in how many people can profit in the process; in this area, Republicans are clearly the more effective party.

No matter what the nuke 'em now crowd wishes, the US can't successfully function by bullying every nation we disagree with; by labelling every Arab nation an enemy. The U.A.E. is a strategic ally by virtue of it's location, oil production, and distrust of Iran. The U.A.E. may not be a good or ideal friend, but I don't doubt that they are a useful one.

The irony here is massive; to win public support for this deal - or at least allay public concern - the administration will have to employ the sort of nuanced and multi-faceted - ie, reality based - reasoning that when employed by Democrats is often cited by Republicans as evidence that Democrats don't have a clear cut vision to deal with terrorism. Over at Hateful Green Footballs they're sure Hillary Clinton had something to do with this.