Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The political furor over President George W. Bush's decision to let an Arab company manage facilities at six American ports strikes at the heart of his greatest strength: his argument that he can do a better job protecting the nation than the Democrats.

Bush first raised the theme in the congressional elections of 2002 and reprised it in his 2004 re-election campaign. His chief strategist, Karl Rove, last month made it clear the strategy would continue in this year's elections.

Even as Bush's approval ratings have plunged, he has maintained a decisive lead over Democrats on the question of who could better fight terrorism -- 45 percent to 32 percent in a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll last month.

The decision to turn over the port facilities to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, a country that was home to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, ``is clearly an issue where Democrats see an opportunity to take advantage of a weakness in what has been a Bush strength: keeping us safe and being tough on terrorism,'' said Anita Dunn, a strategist for Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who is exploring a presidential run in 2008.

With Bush's sagging popularity, the decision also ``gives Republican members of Congress and some Republican governors an issue where they can show their independence from the Bush administration,'' Dunn said.

In an effort to quell the intense controversy that has developed over the deal, DP World announced late last night that it would delay its takeover of the six U.S. port facilities ``pending the outcome of'' new talks with the Bush administration, congressional leadership and port authorities about security arrangements.

Republicans Against

Republicans who have announced opposition to the port deal include House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, Representative Peter King of New York and Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich.

Criticism of the deal has grown to such proportions that Rove signaled yesterday on Fox Radio that the administration might welcome a delay in implementing the plan.

``What is important is that members of Congress have the time to get fully briefed on this,'' Rove said. ``We intend to work closely with them in order to give them a comfort level on this.''

Bush is standing by his threat to veto any attempt by Congress to overturn the transaction, White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace said yesterday.

The president ``is still going to veto any legislation that seeks to reverse, unravel or block the deal,'' Wallace said in Ohio, where she was traveling with him. If the closing of the transaction ``takes a little longer, we're fine with that,'' she said.

At the Core

The ports plan goes to both the political and policy core of the Bush presidency. After U.S. forces failed to find evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, the fighting of terrorism abroad to protect the homeland became the chief justification for the Iraq war.

``We will strike the terrorists abroad, so we do not have to face them here at home,'' Bush said in a 2004 campaign speech in Mason City, Iowa.

Now, some critics are using the ports issue to refute that approach. ``The issue is not politics; it is the safety of our country and the fact that the Bush administration currently only inspects 5 to 6 percent of the cargoes coming into our ports,'' said Brendan Daley, a spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. ``The Bush administration is not doing everything it can do to protect America.''

The issue also feeds the Democratic attack on the Bush administration's competence, which was previously focused on the war in Iraq and the response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes. Scott McClellan, the presidential spokesman, said that Bush learned of the port deal from the media.

Snow's Committee

Treasury Secretary John Snow said he learned of it only after a committee headed by his department had approved the deal, which calls for Dubai-based DP World to pay $6.8 billion to acquire London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the operator of the port facilities.

Banks in the United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai, were used by the Sept. 11 plotters to help funnel money to the operation. The nation also maintained relations with the Taliban government of Afghanistan, which harbored terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, though it broke ties after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Some critics say Bush was unnecessarily pugnacious in threatening a veto of legislation overturning the deal, especially considering that he has never vetoed a bill since becoming president.

``This is going to be his first veto?'' Dunn asked. ``It is a bad issue, and the veto is probably unsustainable. This is peculiarly tone-deaf for an administration that has been very sensitive to the politics of terrorism and very sensitive to subtle tonal changes in the country.''

Right Thing?

Some see the bobble of a sensitive political issue as a result of a White House distracted by ethics investigations and concerns over its inability to get big-ticket items like overhauling Social Security through Congress.

A White House tone-deaf to politics isn't always a bad thing, said John Weaver, political adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona. ``Perhaps it is good the White House didn't consider the politics if the ports policy is the right thing to do,'' Weaver said. ``What we are seeing now is a rush to judgment based on people's political calculus, even within our own party.''

McCain, who is considering a run for the presidency in 2008, didn't join the chorus of critics. ``I think we ought to trust the president, at least to the degree that we should have hearings and oversight and examine this issue, before we make a judgment,'' he said on CNN.

`Sends Shockwaves'

Greg Mueller, a Republican strategist who has worked in the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes, said the White House is in a ``tough spot'' over the ports issue. ``On the one hand they are fighting the war on terrorism, and on the other hand they are trying to send a message to our allies in the Arab world'' that the U.S. wants their support, Mueller said.

He said the way the ports policy was announced added to the perception that the White House had mishandled the matter.

``Here you have a party trying to get its arms around the immigration issue, which is a border security issue, and then we hear we are giving over port security to a foreign country, and it sends shockwaves,'' Mueller said. ``What the White House is doing now, sending messages to the conservative media and other media about why the deal is sound, is doing some good. Ideally, this should have been done beforehand.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Roger Simon in Washington at rogersimon@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 24, 2006 00:10 EST