The administration's approval of the deal has caused an uproar from Republicans and Democrats in Congress that it could open the country to terrorist dangers. Lawmakers criticized the deal anew Tuesday, despite Republican leaders' hopes that the furor had diminished.

Hoping to quell the bipartisan rebellion and prevent a potentially embarrassing clash over legislation, the Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a 45-day investigation of deal's potential security risks, a second review that was not done before the administration's Jan. 17 approval.

The investigation will result in a report submitted to the president, who will have 15 days to decide whether to approve it.

Bush suggested there was no reason to think the second investigation would produce any different outcome than the first.

"I look forward to a good, consistent review," he said as he and Berlusconi alternated in taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office.

He urged Congress to "please, look at the facts."

"What kind of signal does it send throughout the world if its OK for a British company to mange the ports but not a company that has been secured _ that has been cleared for security purposes from the Arab world?" he said. After his remarks on port security, Bush told the translator not to translate his answer into Italian, unlike his other responses.

On Capitol Hill, where lawmakers returned after a weeklong break, Republicans joined Democrats in criticizing the deal, claiming that the government's initial approval of it was flawed.

They offered as proof Monday's disclosure that the U.S. Coast Guard had raised concerns weeks ago that, because of U.S. intelligence gaps, it could not determine whether the UAE company, DP World, might support terrorist operations.

Bush administration officials say those concerns were addressed and resolved.

But House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., called the Coast Guard assessment "just another example of many unanswered questions."

Countering that at a Senate appropriations hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Cheroot called the Coast Guard documents "an early report" that ultimately concluded that DP World's acquisition of P&O "in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in U.S. ports."

Pressed by Sen. Barbara Mukluks, D-Md., Cheroot said he saw the Coast Guard memo "about a week ago," but disagreed that it represented a warning. "I don't see it as a flashing light," Cheroot said.

Elsewhere in Washington, former President Bill Clinton told reporters at a meeting of the nation's governors that the process by which a multi-agency panel approved the deal was "too secretive, too low-level."

"The second thing and the larger problem is that everybody in America knows we don't do enough on port security," Clinton said.

In an interview with The Associated Press, King said he was concerned by Bush administration comments that the 45-day delay would merely be an opportunity to educate Congress.

"It is for them to conduct an investigation that they never conducted in the first place," King said. "There's concerns among Republicans that I've spoken to that the administration has not taken the investigation seriously. They want to have a real investigation _ a very intense investigation."

King said he planned to introduce legislation Tuesday that could give Congress an opportunity to block the deal if lawmakers are dissatisfied with the results of an investigation but he suggested he's unlikely to push for an immediate vote. "It has to be a weapon held in reserve to assure there is a real investigation," King said.

A bipartisan group of senators have introduced the same measure in the Senate. Some Senate Republicans said the fresh investigation _ brokered by congressional GOP leaders to quell the political outcry _ wasn't sufficient.

Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said during that panel's hearing on threats to national security that he found "flaws" in the Bush administration's earlier consideration of the ports deal.

But Warner, R-Va., expressed optimism the government will approve the transaction after a lengthier investigation and he praised the "high degree of mutual trust" between the United Arab Emirates and United States.

On Monday, Sen. Susan Collins, the chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, disclosed the Coast Guard document during a hearing and said she was "more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed."

The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father.

The list of donors names Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan al Nahyan and the people of the United Arab Emirates as one donor in the $1 million or more category.

The amount of the gift grants them recognition on the engraved donor wall in the library entrance or on the paving bricks that line the library's walkways, according to library documents.

Roman Popaduik, chairman of the Bush Library Foundation that collects donations, said he could not discuss details of the gifts except to say the amount category and whether it was before or after 1997.

The chief executive of the Dubai company, Ahmed bin Sulayem, did not donate individually.

The hundreds of large donors include longtime Bush associates, including Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials as well as business titans - such as Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay - and big Republican donors.

Other Arab donors include the state of Kuwait, the Bandar bin Sultan family, the Sultanate of Oman, King Hassan II of Morocco and the amir of Qatar. The former Korean prime minister and China also gave tens of thousands of dollars to the library.

WASHINGTON, D.C.-To hear the administration and its supporters talk, you'd think the workers in New York ports are carefully vetted by the Waterfront Commission, the ports themselves protected by the ever watchful Coast Guard, and routinely surveilled by U.S. Customs.

In truth, one administration after another has slashed the operational capability of the Coast Guard. Reagan even contemplated its privatization by a major defense firm. As for the Customs Service, it inspects as little as 5 percent of the cargo going through the New York ports.

This is a dream setup for any arms or dope dealer, and that's exactly what the United Arab Emirates is all about. The ties between its top officials and royal family with the Taliban and Al Qaeda go back at least a decade.

The UAE is not only the center of financial dealings in the Persian Gulf, it is switching central for dope and arms dealing. The dope comes out of Afghanistan into the UAE where tax monies are collected and used to buy arms, which were sent back in for the Taliban. Some of this money is thought to have helped finance the 9-11 attacks. A money trail is set forth in the government's filings in the Moussaoui case.

Long at the center of this operation is the mysterious Russian arms dealer, Victor Bout. The U.N. has accused Bout of providing arms to brutal regimes in Sierra Leone, Angola and to Charles Taylor in Liberia. The Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C. research organization that operates a network of foreign correspondents, published a report on Bout in January 2002, citing Belgian intelligence documents from before the 9-11 attacks it had obtained. These documents reportedly show Bout earned $50 million in profits from selling weapons to the Taliban after they came to power in the late 1990s. The Center states, "Another European intelligence source independently verified the sales, and intelligence documents from an African country in which Bout operates-obtained by the Center-claim that Bout ran guns for the Taliban 'on behalf of the Pakistan government.' " Peter Hain, the British Foreign Office Minister for Europe who has led the international effort to expose criminal networks behind the conflict diamonds and small arms trade in Africa, told the Center's reporters, it was clear that Bout's supply of weapons to the Taliban "and to its ally, Osama bin Laden" posed a real danger.

Der Spiegel, the German magazine, said in early January 2002 that Vadim Rabinovich, an Israeli citizen of Ukrainian origin, along with the former director of the Ukrainian secret service and his son sold a consignment of 150 to 200 T-55 and T-62 tanks to the Taliban. Spiegel said the deal was conducted through the Pakistani secret service and uncovered by the Russian foreign intelligence service, SVR, in Kabul, the Afghan capital. A Western intelligence source told the Public Integrity Center that Rabinovich's weapons had been airlifted by one of Bout's airfreight companies from his base in the UAE.

Rabinovich denied all this, and Bout said "For the record, I am not, and never have been, associated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any of their officials, officers, or related organizations," Bout said, according to a copy of the statement released in the United States by one of his associates. "I am not, nor are any of my organizations, associated with arms traffickers and/or trafficking or the sale of arms of kind [sic] anywhere in the world. I am not, nor is any member of my family, associated with any military or intelligence organizations of any country."

No one is suggesting Bout has any great love for the radical Muslim fundamentalists of Taliban ilk. He sold guns to the Russians fighting the CIA-backed Afghan mujahideen in their war with the Soviet Union and to the warlords opposing the Taliban. His planes are registered to various companies all operating out of the United Arab Emirates.

In fact, the United Arab Emirates have been viewed as hub for trade going and coming to Afghanistan, with drugs coming from Afghanistan on their way to the West, and weapons from Bout, going back. While transportation was via Bout's different air cargo interests, it also involved the Afghan state airlines, called Ariana Airlines. The airline was controlled by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda agents masquerading as Ariana employees flew out of Afghanistan, through Sharjah, one of the emirates, and on to points west.

During the late 1990s Bout's center of operations was Ostend, Belgium, but when he came under pressure there, he left Belgium. The UAE office grew in importance.

Bout used various air cargo outfits. One of them was called Flying Dolphin, which in the early 2000s was owned by Sheikh Adbullah bin Zayed bin Saqr al Nayhan, a former UAE ambassador to the United States and member of the ruling family in Abu Dhabi. He was described by the United Nations as a "close business associate of Bout." According to the December 20, 2000, U.N. report, Zayed's company is registered in Liberia, but its operations office is in Dubai.

Like all apparently simple cases, this one is so complex that it just keeps giving the Bush Administration migraines. But what is it? At first glance, it is just a contract authorizing a specialized firm called Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirates, for the tidy sum of $6.85 billion, to take over from the British company Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. [P&O] the management of six major American ports: Miami, Philadelphia, New York, Newark (New Jersey), Baltimore and New Orleans. Beforehand, the concession had been endorsed by no less than twelve government agencies, including the CIA and the FBI, before being approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an organization which, as its name indicates, supervises all investments that could affect the country's national security.

Up to that point, it was just an honest transaction that had been objected to by no one. But here is the problem: it is a mid-term election year in the United States; the memory of 9/11 is still is very present in people's minds; and the mobilization against terrorism is still strong - Americans are reminded of Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi every time their interest in al-Qaeda seems to wane.

That is why, in this case, almost all Americans are dead-set against the deal, holding the Star-Spangled Banner and dribbling anti-Arab saliva. Just listen to Rick Santorum, a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania:

"Sure, the United Arab Emirates have been our allies for the past few years, but they must still have some connections with Islamic fascism. I'm not ready to take that risk."

Or lawyer Joe Muldoon, who will defend the interests of a rival firm:

"Today, the United Arab Emirates are our friends; but what about tomorrow? How can we be sure they won't be infiltrated by Iran , a country which used to be on our privileged partners' list?"

In all this, the press has not been silent. The tone is less virulent than in the Congress and the arguments are more qualified, when they aren't totally given over to derision. An editorialist from the venerable New York Times even gave a zany title to his article, "The Arabs are here!," surely referring to the movie "The Russians are coming," a biting 1966 comedy directed by Norman Jewison, Hollywood's enfant terrible [someone that stirs up mischief].

Let's be clear, the editorialist begins, all the noise surrounding this "deal" is about nothing more than the Arabs. The numbers behind the deal are far more eloquent at explaining the controversy than the explanations that have already been mentioned, which aren't worth repeating.

With the addition of the U.S. market, the "stable" of the Emirates giant reaches 51 ports ( America has a total of 360), which represent an operational capacity of 33.3 million containers per year. Add this to the fact that through these six major cities, the operator will also have ultimate control over 21 other American ports, from Portland, Maine to Corpus Christi, Texas.

The scandal might yet become a matter of State; yesterday, the White House and DP World began a strategic retreat, the first regretting its hasty decision, and the latter asking for a postponement of the March 2 agreement date, when it was supposed to take over.

George W. Bush and his staff will therefore have 45 days to examine the operations of the port concession as much as they like. They will then either put their final stamp of approval on the deal, or rescind its pervious authorization - a measure that has a precedent. In 1990 when … George H.W. Bush (the father) asked China to sell its shares in an aerospace supply factory that was considered of strategic interest.

The only fig leaf of satisfaction and self-esteem offered to the Arabs came from John Warner, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee: "We depend on the support of countries like the UAE, Qatar , Bahrain and Kuwait in our fight against evil all round the world."

But in just a week, the paranoia has reached such a fever pitch, that it will be hard (if not impossible?) to ignore the consequences. Can America avoid such a blunder, at such a crucial time for itself as well as its "friends" in the region?

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.

Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.

The political fallout over the deal only grows.

"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.