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

FR Poll ^

[Jim Robinson]

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

Support

Oppose

Undecided

[Flux Capacitor]

----True, but also remember... It is not the UAE Government, but an individual Company who is making the purchase.----

WRONG. DPW is owned by the state of Dubai. All those pro-transfer conservatives who are arguing on a pro-capitalist basis, because "there is no domestic U.S. company that does this work", are actually pushing for an Islamic Middle-Eastern government to oversee the operations of this nation's major ports. I would rather see the U.S. government federalize all port operations before allowing this to happen.

-Dan

[ohioWfan]

There is no one on earth more irrelevant than Jimmy Carter.

His opinion should sway no one, for or against.........unless one's brain is addled, as is Jimmy's. :)

[Flux Capacitor]

----It's a big loser for the President and Republicans nationally.----

It's most certainly a loser for the President, but that's his choice. The congressional Republicans now have an opportunity to reinforce the party's national security credentials AND do this country a gigantic favor by nuking this port deal via legislation. to step up W's first veto will be an overridden joke.

-Dan

[Wuli]

I voted against it in the poll.

It may, in the final analysis, from a security perspective alone, be a good deal. I do not know.

But, post 9/11, for a foreign-business takeover deal that results in "Arab country to run six major US seaports", to be a done deal with neither the President nor any of the top five cabinet officials personally vetting the deal, accomplished largely in secret, it suggests (1)the President's team is tone deaf in terms of an appropriate level of political sensitivity, and (2)we need a less secretive, more open process for deals like this when major political sensitivities are so obvious.

If this deal rightly should hold up, but it fails, I will blame not the public and media uproar, but the Bush team's failure to realize they needed to sheaperd this deal, with top cabinet level officials working with congressional committee chairmen - before some secret committee concluded it and sprung it on the public, with their (administration's) own admission they were unaware of it. I think they could have avoided the uproar and they had plent y of evidence to realize there would be an uproar if they did not get out ahead of it. Were they just hoping for it to be lost in a busy news cycle and forgotten? Ho hum?

[stockstrader]

I agree. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it WILL be overridden if it comes to that. Even most non-RINO Republicans realize that this is a big political loser.

[ilgipper]

Leading towards support. Still leary of giving additional access to a group that may have members still sympathetic to terrorists. The additional knowledge gained could be used against us. In the end. the facts seem to indicate that this is a politically driven story.

Additionally, when it comes to terrorism, I don't think President Bush would support this so strongly if he felt there was a danger associated with it. His record on terror is nearly perfect, and he would be held totally responsible.

[Eastbound]

"No sane American business is going to bid on running those ports when they have to deal with an asinine tax code that gives an advantage to foreign-owned corporations, an insane regulatory environment, AND being hostage to the whims of a bunch of cargo-stealing union thugs."

Then what you are saying is that our own government (tax assessors, regulatory agencies) are working in concert to guarantee outsourcing by making it unprofitable for domestic companies to do business in the U.S.? And if that isn't sufficient, there is the threat of cargo-stealing union thugs to make such a venture untenable?

If that is true, then this country went south a long time ago and the only thing left is the exhaust gas from those who have already hauled-ass.

Yes, I'm beginning to see the light. Where's my piece of the pie? ;>

Seriously, what's to prevent the overhaul of the tax structure and regulatory agencies when it's in the interest and survival of our own capitalistic ventures?

How to deal with the thugs? There must be 'something' somebody can do.

[free me]

I still support the sale.

[mombonn]

Initially, I was horrified. Then, I heard carterbilly supported it. That supported my initial reaction - if Jimmuh is in favor, I oppose it.

However, I've listened to Rush, and Dan Abrams, and much of the debate on Fox; and am slowly warming to the idea that it's ok.

Listening to chuckie and shrillary shriek is also convincing me that this is nothing more than high-stakes politics in an election year.

BTW, if the UAE, and not us, were to call off the deal, that would be the best of all solutions.

[TexanToTheCore]

Support.

The current hair-tearing and discussion is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Speaking as a Georgian, I could give a flyin' f for what peanut man thinks. It will be a cold day in hell before I invoke his name for anything.

[Flux Capacitor]

----Leading towards support. Still leary of giving additional access to a group that may have members still sympathetic to terrorists. The additional knowledge gained could be used against us. In the end. the facts seem to indicate that this is a politically driven story.----

Even if the management of DPW is entirely on the up-and-up and the government of the UAE is a genuine friend (and its cooperation in the WOT is duly noted), the potential of this deal to compromise port security, and therefore NATIONAL security, is far too great when you consider that the vast majority of the UAE population, a population that will be the pool of who knows how many port employees in New York, New Jersey, etc., does not consider the U.S. to be a friend.

----Additionally, when it comes to terrorism, I don't think President Bush would support this so strongly if he felt there was a danger associated with it. His record on terror is nearly perfect, and he would be held totally responsible.----

I don't think George W. Bush would ever knowingly take actions to damage this country's security. I'd be perfectly willing to believe this was all part of some Larger Strategic Plan, if the White House hadn't run out this week and disclaimed any knowledge of the deal. But I also think that Bush's judgment, both political (CFR) and personal (Harriet Miers), has been shown to be falliable -- even in what he believes to be in America's long-term best interests -- often enough that when something like this comes along, that our guts tell us is wrong -- and just look how many of the ports deal's current supporters on FR did have initial gut reactions to oppose it -- and, indeed, that seems so wrong on its face that a week's worth of intense arguments for it -- on economic, security, and strategic bases, from an administration that's spoken as though it isn't entirely onboard with this in its own mind and yet is willing to veto any attempt to stop it -- has only managed to persuade about 55% of a group made up largely of some of the President's loyalest supporters, it's not enough for us to simply cross our fingers as Bush says "Trust Me". Friend or not, strategic partner or not, the risks associated with allowing the UAE to come in are real and unacceptably high.

-Dan

[TheCrusader]

"Speaking as a Georgian, I could give a flyin' f for what peanut man thinks. It will be a cold day in hell before I invoke his name for anything."

hahahaha, I'm with you all the way. I only mentioned his name because another guy has said he's for the port deal because Dems are against it. So I wanted to know his response to the fact that peanut brain is for it.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"Then what you are saying is that our own government (tax assessors, regulatory agencies) are working in concert to guarantee outsourcing by making it unprofitable for domestic companies to do business in the U.S.?"

Working "in concert?" Only as part of the Law of Unintended Consequences. For example, U.S. corporations are taxed within the U.S. on their ENTIRE income from anywhere in the world, while foreign corporations are taxed only on their U.S. operations. The regulatory environment puts more of a U.S. corporation's assets at risk in the event of an adverse judgement.

"And if that isn't sufficient, there is the threat of cargo-stealing union thugs to make such a venture untenable?"

Not to mention the prospect of union violence against management if the union is sufficiently displeased. That's a real threat if your senior management lives in New York, and much less of a threat if they live in Dubai.

"Seriously, what's to prevent the overhaul of the tax structure and regulatory agencies when it's in the interest and survival of our own capitalistic ventures?"

A gazillion or so entrenched special interest groups that must be defeated in depth and detail.

We didn't get into this mess overnight. We won't get out of this mess overnight. And as long as certain people insist on being ignorant fools and fighting THIS non-fight and ignoring the real fight you just asked about, we aren't going to get out of this mess at all.

[RightWhale]

Support

Had to find out what is going on with this, which took a couple of days, but it seems clear enough this is strictly business, and very ordinary business. Many would be amazed if they knew how much foreign business is owned by Americans.

[stockstrader]

I agree. I voted against it also.

Even non-RINO Republicans realize that this issue is a big, BIG loser for the President and the Republican Party. Heck, even on FR which is predominently Republican, conservative and supportive of the President, ONLY 55% support it!! Amazing. That makes the other polls showing less than 20% support in the public as a whole seem pretty accurate.

Because the Democratic Party, and in particular, the MSM also realize that it's a big loser for the President--the MSM WILL NOT LET THIS STORY GO!

[BBT]

After learning more about it, from authorities who ought to know, for me...

Support

[Gator113]

Support

[F16Fighter]

Oppose this slop.

[Genyous]

Support
I watched the hearings...unlike many others on here it seems.
You should be able to view them on cspan for those that really want to be informed.
http://www.c-span.org/