After a few days of fact finding and debate, do you now support or oppose the Dubai Ports deal?

FR Poll ^

[traderrob6]

Support

[chesley]

If the facts are as I've heard them explained, I support it, although I am decidedly uncomfortable with the idea. I trust GWB on national security far more than any of the Democrats. However, I can't say that I like being on the same side of an issue as Jimmy Carter.

Still and all, albeit very reluctantly, I will support the administration on this.

[Old Professer]

Oppose.

[dfwgator]

I'm not thrilled about it, but what's the realistic alternative?

[gumboyaya]

OK by me - if Hillary's against it - I'm for it.

[blogblogginaway]

How about you Jim? Where do you stand on the issue after a week of heated debate?

[angkor]

Even in Michelle's lengthiest compilation of "against" material, I couldn't find anything actually and firmly substantive, up to and including Frank Gaffney's concerns.

It's been largely an emotional reaction, not that there's anything wrong with that.

[slowhand520]

Supported it from the start. This is actually morphed into a larger debate. Free traders vs protectionists, Paleoconservatives vs. Neocons. Globalists vs. Isolationists. It was quit fascinating.

[Old Professer]

Exsanguination is a remarkably pleasant way die.

[76834]

On the fence, leaning to opposing.

From my understanding the main kickers in the administration didnt know about the deal until a few days ago.

Why did they come out vocal in support?
Something smells very fishy here.

If their handling of the border security issue is any indication of how port security will be handled am alarmed.

Would be a lot like turning over border security to Al Qaeda and air traffic control to Osama.

[the_Watchman]

Support. The real security for containers occurs when they are sealed in the foreign port.

If someone coordinates the delivery of nuclear devices in containers on multiple vessels arriving during the same day at several ports with the intention of detonation in the ports, it will not matter who is running the ports.

[Da Bilge Troll]

I'm about 50/50 or maybe 51/49 on the support side. UAE's actions pre-9/11 were pretty bad.

[ThinkDifferent]

Tentatively support. The administration has done a terrible job explaining the situation, but other sources have alleviated most of my concerns.

[CFC__VRWC]

Support. I was inclined toward support at first, but did need to find out more. The Administration did a miserable job getting the facts out on this, IMO. Their entire communications operation needs to be shaken up and revamped.

[Cinnamon]

changed my mind after all the dust settled. I support it

[armymarinemom]

Support. This is all about unions and politics not security.

[Dog Gone]

I also support making Michelle Malkin write "I will not engage in rhetorical hyperbole that is contrary to fact" 1,000,000 times on the blackboard after class.

LOL

[aShepard]

I vote undecided, however:

I now believe that hitlery now has a much better chance of winning in 2008,
as this administration, President on down,has so badly bungled this deal, and its publicity, major ongoing damage to this presidency is irrecoverable.

[antaresequity]

Indifferent...let the transaction proceed...but I don't care if it does or doesn't as long as the decisions are business based.

List of All P&O operations in America

[RebelBanker]

Support, although cautiously.

My initial reaction was very strong opposition, but I changed my mind once I learned the facts.

BTW, I was amused at Baltimore Mayor O'Malley invoking Ft. McHenry and the Star Spangled Banner while opposing allowing a foreign firm to run the Port. He obviously did not know that it has been run by a British firm for several years!