Republican lawmakers did not revolt against President George W. Bush because he used bad intelligence to win support for a war in Iraq.

They did not revolt after revelations that the National Security Agency was spying on Americans without court warrants.

Yet a full-blown mutiny was triggered by what seemed to be a relatively minor move: allowing the management of six US ports to be transferred to a Dubai company.

How could this happen? The answer may be found in lessons both political parties have learned from Bush after the September 11, 2001, attacks: A tough stance on terrorism wins elections.

Republicans, led by Bush, used national security issues in 2002 to win control of the Senate. Bush used them again in 2004 to defeat John Kerry. Since the attacks, Bush has been telling Americans at every opportunity that terrorists want to strike them again and he is doing everything he can to protect the nation.

The ports issue gave Democrats a rare opportunity to appear tougher than Bush on terrorism — and they took it.

With November congressional elections approaching, Republicans did not want Democrats to get the upper hand. In droves, they abandoned their increasingly unpopular president and joined Democrats in denouncing the deal.

"In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just 'no' but 'hell no!"' Republican congresswoman Sue Myrick said in a letter to Bush.

The strong bipartisan opposition prompted the Dubai company, DP World, to announce last week it would transfer the six port operations to a US entity. DP World was to have taken over the operations after buying Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British company that has run port operations through a US subsidiary.

The announcement appeared to prevent a showdown with Congress. Bush had threatened to veto any legislation that would block the deal, but lawmakers may have been able to override the veto with a two-thirds vote.

Opponents of the deal said it increased the risk of terrorists infiltrating US ports. They also said the administration did not conduct an adequate review of security risks.

The Bush administration argued that the United Arab Emirates has been a strong ally against terrorism. It said ports security would remain in the hands of US authorities. It warned of the bad signal rejecting the deal would send to Arab allies, hinting about an anti-Arab bias. It also talked of the US commitment to free trade.

But these arguments went nowhere. Opinion polls showed the American public overwhelmingly opposed the deal. Television and radio talk shows often had a tone of incredulity that Bush would even consider allowing Arabs to manage US ports.

After DP World agreed to transfer its US operations, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer said it "should never have gone forward to begin with". Schumer represents New York, site of one of the ports and of the World Trade Center attacks.

"We cannot let our guard down four years after 9/11," Schumer said.

Those words may have sounded familiar to Americans. When Bush was pushing for the renewal of the anti-terror Patriot Act last year, he said: "My message to the Congress is clear: This is no time to let our guard down."

Apparently, to Bush's chagrin, Congress got the message. — Associated Press