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

[P.O.E.]

Still oppose it. Bureaucrats and paperwork will not deter terrorists. But it seems to me like this is going to cost the US taxpayer plenty in bureaucracy and paperwork. A drop in the bucket in that regard, but it's on those grounds I oppose it nonetheless.

[Canedawg]

Oppose.

No state run company should be operating our ports when that state refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. Did we lose sight of one of the biggest issues here?

and what if a Dem POTUS pushed this deal through and threatened to veto legislation against it? Would Freepers be so quick to support it?

[Elyse]

Someone you can pay to come on your show and say what you what him to say. Most shows maintain an extensive list of available "for hire experts"

I have a feeling that he is only an expert in his own mind. This has been the problem from the start of all of this - people are believing everything they read without even checking to see if the person who said it is really in a position to know the facts.

[rockabyebaby]

Still opposed to this transaction, especially after just learning there are TWENTY TWO ports involved and not the six which we were originally told.

[MrBambaLaMamba]

Oppose

[bwteim]

Changed from initial reaction of "it doesn't pass the smell test" to support.

[SAWTEX]

Now support, open to logical reasons to change.

Ft Hood makes most of their armored deployments from these three ports.

And we are to belive that this company or any company could stop the folks who reside at Ft Hood from boarding a ship?

[voteconstitutionparty]

CIA - The World Factbook -- United Arab Emiratesconsulate(s) general: Dubai. Flag description: ... the UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug ...
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html - 121k - Cached - Similar pages

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html

[PsyOp]

Philosophically, I oppose any foreign ownership of our ports. From a practical standpoint, I don't see UAE ownership of these ports any more of a problem than British ownership. So i guess I'd have to support it at this point.

It seems that the only real change will be the corporate logo.

With the UAE managing these ports, perhaps those in charge of security will be even more vigilant, which could be a net plus. I would institute a reward program for port officials and employees who can suggest ways of improving port security or for identifying vulnerabilities and violations of security.

The bigger question, however, is why the United States no longer has any shipping companies of note that could do this job. Perhaps Hillary needs to offer some major tax and regulatory incentives to get American companies back into this business if she is worried about this.

[rolling_stone]

I am opposed but not for many of the reasons given by others.

The Federal government is always withholding funding to states for things like highway funds if they don't have speed limits etc.(I disagree with the feds meddling)

I believe the USA should support real democracy and since we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for democracy, any deals made that profit foreign countries should be with countries that are true democracies. Of course USA companies should have first crack and sometimes there will be no democratic countries available, but nondemocratic countries should be the last resort to access to profits from the USA. Reward those who share our ideology and goals. I am tired of our country rewarding others (with my tax dollars) that stick it to us like Mexico.

[MEG33]

We inspect cargo before it is ever loaded on the ship by agreement with UAE.

[glock_fan]

At first I was opposed but when I heard the longshoreman's union was in a snit about it I changed my mind.

They have been a boat anchor to any technical and efficiency inprovements to our port system for years.

I am all for busting another obstructionist union who do nothing but drag down our economy.

[bjs1779]

Sea ports today, airports tomorrow - nay

[Paperdoll]

Cautiously optimistic, but curious as to why a full explanation hasn't come sooner from the President, in the face of all the public opposition to it. I guess you'd say I sort of support it now more than I definitely opposed it earlier.

QUESTION: Why are there no American companies equipped to handle the job?

[jimbo123]

Oppose.

Let's conduct the extended 45 day review as mandated by law and I'll reconsider based on those findings. There was no need to rush the deal and close it next week.

[Oklahoma]

Support

I have no problems with the ones that disagree but the manner some of the radio talk shows and bloggers went after Bush (and supporters of Bush) is very disappointing.

Mark Davis of WBAP radio in Dallas-Fort Worth may be the worst offender. He keeps calling Bush's statements about the approval "morally idiotic" and I can only interpret that to mean he thinks Bush is idiotic. It's giving aid and comfort to the enemy........the Liberal Democrats. Sean Hannity, Mike Gallagher, and Laura Ingraham of the ones I listen to are only marginally better than Davis, although Laura finally admitted she didn't know enough to really comment. Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved while opposing the approval at least have been thoughtful and useful to the debate.

[La Enchiladita]

Yesterday, I posted a quote from a Fox News article(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185994,00.html), which stated that the DP World website gives 21 ports. I tried looking at the DPW site and couldn't find the reference, although they appear to have taken down some info since the deal has been delayed.

Today's Fox headline story also references 21 ports: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,186044,00.html

[Wuli]

I know the total is really "21", but the initial news which should have set the political bells in the White House ringing, before the secret committee made its approval, was "Arab company to run six major US ports". The number is not as important as is the revelation of the deal to everyone and that the underlings in the Bush team took a "ho hum" attitude and never even tried to tell cabinet officials, much less Bush, that maybe they want to get out ahead of this.

[La Enchiladita]

It's also queer that a DPW executive, Dave Sanborn, was appointed to the position of U.S. Maritime Administrator just one month ago, and his position reports directly to a Cabinet member.