The Bush administration's defense of the United Arab Emirates port deal has largely centered on its claim that "security" would still be handled by U.S. personnel, not the foreigners running the operations.

Let me say this as clearly and emphatically as I can: That is a ruse. That is a canard. That is just plain not true.

Here's why.

We all know that ultimately port security is the responsibility of the Coast Guard, right? This technically accurate point has been made over and over again by Bush administration spokesmen and the Kool-Aid drinking Bush policy defenders.

But here's the problem.

According to Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Carter, as quoted in the Washington Times last week, the port security provided relies on plans submitted by the facility operators – that being the UAE company Dubai Ports World.

So, we can say with accuracy in this case that the fox is guarding the henhouse. While the Coast Guard has technical responsibility for port security, it is reliant on the operations managers to provide it with plans. In other words, the Coast Guard will be executing security plans handed to it by the Arab port managers.

How do you like the idea of U.S. national security hinging on plans developed by a foreign tyranny that, to this day, is a participant in the boycott of our ally Israel, has supported terrorism throughout the world, was one of the few nations on earth to recognize the Taliban in Afghanistan – the regime that provided safe harbor to Osama bin Laden – and has been less than candid with investigators tracking terror money through its banking system?

Does this make sense? Does this pass the smell test?

Is it really true the U.S. Coast Guard would be in charge of security with Dubai Ports World running operations?

Imagine this scenario: Let's say you are a security company hired to guard a 7-Eleven store. But the only data you have to secure the store is based on what the operators of the store tell you. The operators devise the security plan, and it is your company's job to execute the plan.

Normally, the operators of a business would want that facility to be secure. But sometimes there are competing interests. For instance, sticking with the 7-Eleven hypothetical. Suppose the operators of this 7-Eleven have a large insurance policy that will provide them with a huge settlement if the store burns down as a result of arson. Is it not conceivable that the operators might withhold certain information in its security plan about the prevention of arson?

Is it really accurate to say that the operators have no role in security? No, it is not. In both cases – the 7-Eleven and the U.S. ports – the people responsible for security are dependent on data provided by the operators.

Operations and security cannot be separated like that. The Coast Guard is not telling the operator what the security plan will be, it is the operator telling the Coast Guard the parameters of its job.

I have been criticized repeatedly by nitpickers who say I am unfairly and inaccurately linking the UAE company with the security of our ports. But it is not me who is being unfair and inaccurate. It is the Bush administration.

There is no way we can expect the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs to protect the security interests of the U.S. at our ports when they are reliant on a security plan at least in part developed and approved by a company that is owned by a foreign tyranny with interests other than the security of the United States at heart.