Bush and the machinery deemed that this was a net-positive deal or they wouldn't have ok'd it. Were you in favor of handing our Long Beach Ports over to the Communist Chinese?
I don't believe I followed that debate, and I had no position therefore about it.
I was nervous about a chinese company buying out all the broadband assets of Global Crossing. But I do see the chinese as a little more of a threat to us, and owning the bandwidth as more dangerous than making money operating ports.
I see no evidence that Bush evaluated the deal in the manner you suggest, and my reading of the applicable law wouldn't allow him to make a decision based on that type of analysis. The law is clear, and only allows the interference in a sale under strictly defined conditions which i've seen no evidence of having been met by this sale.
The best the opponents can offer is history and fear of a changed operation in the future. The law only allows rulings against a deal for clear and identifiable security threats attributable to the deal.
If our country owned the port, and Bush was proposing we sell them to the UAE, I would be vocally opposed to the deal. But that is not what is happening here. We already gave control of the ports to a foreign firm (although u.s. companies actually run them, just like some of our best weapons are built by U.S. branches of foreign companies). This is just changing who gets the money from operating the ports.
If the UAE ever does anything to try to use this deal for to damage our security, I see nothing to prevent the U.S. from terminating the leases at that point, and taking action against the UAE if necessary. I just don't see that as a problem -- DP World is run by people who want to make money, and ports blowing up doesn't make money.