My impression is that a lot of the people making these arguments trust people who took a pay check from Ted Turner to say WHAT HE WANTED THEM TO SAY rather than someone who has stood up to the terrorists and actually killed them and driven them out of their hiding places.
If it comes down to it I will stand or fall with George W. Bush. I trust him. I trust Dick Cheney. I trust Don Rumsfeld. I trust Condoleeza Rice. Above all I trust God and truly believe that He has given us these people at this time as our best (and perhaps last) chance to avoid the total destruction of all life on this planet.
Please tell me who people who distrust George Bush trust and believe. H Ross? My parent knew him personally. My late mothers observation about him were "crazy as a bitsy bug."
Next?
Try trusting your own good judgement, and not deriving right and wrong from authority. Life is not so easy that you can say "I trust X", and that X will be infallible, never make mistakes, never have an impure motive, and never trust an evil counselor.
Appealing to trust is not a viable argument when the risk is extreme. People such as myself who have well-founded concerns (e.g., the UAE being a terrorist factory and the ports contract offering an excellent opportunity for an enemy megastrike) cannot simply put aside those concerns completely because someone we normally trust says it is good. In cases like this (as in the Miers case), the interests are too great to rely on trust alone. Another argument will have to be made, and as in the Miers case no good answer is forthcoming.
The UAE cannot assure us sufficiently that their personnel will not take advantage of their position to launch attacks. Whatever the position of their government, the position of the people that the government rules (and will therefore employ in positions of power) is jihadist in the extreme. It is thus suicidal to allow them any entree into our vital national security interests.