UPDATE 3-US Democrats plan bill to block Dubai port deal

This could be worse. The Democrats could be insisting on closing our open borders, kicking out the tens of millions of illegal aliens in the country, denying health/welfare/schooling/driving/citizen benefits to the same, telling Vincente Fox and his minions to shove it, and putting the military on the southern border to make sure it stays shut.

If that were the case, the GOP would be finished for a generation and the Dems would be riding high to easy victories in 2006, 2008 and beyond!

"Private companies aren't responsible for cargo inspection or release. U.S. Customs as a function of Homeland Security is responsible for cargo inspection and release."

"The threat of terrorism from container is neither increased of decreased by this deal. Hillary and Schumer give you misinformation."

You need a new line. I was against this deal before Clinton and Schumer came out against it. Richard Shelby and Peter King are also against this deal. You really don't know what you are talking about. A UAE company will be partially responsible for for security in major US ports. Your notion that this company could not enable terrorists to smuggle weapons into the country is absurd. You obviously know very little about security at US ports if you don't think private companies play major roles in keeping these ports safe.

Substanitve Post:

Non-substaitive Post: You need a new line. I was against this deal before Clinton and Schumer came out against it. Richard Shelby and Peter King are also against this deal. You really don't know what you are talking about. A UAE company will be partially responsible for for security in major US ports. Your notion that this company could not enable terrorists to smuggle weapons into the country is absurd. You obviously know very little about security at US ports if you don't think private companies play major roles in keeping these ports safe.

You've said nothing in your post. It's an empty post. You basically said that something is true because -- it is. Why don't you illustrate your weapons smuggling scenario and how this company will increase the risk. In your scenario, be sure to document exactly how U.S. Customs handles and approves all containers before the private company gets its hands on it.

BTW, using your technique of name dropping instead of actually thinking for yourself, I'll point out to you that Peter King in the House and Shelby in the Senate were the first Republicans to go on national TV back in '98 and '99 and say that they were against the impeachment of Bill (Chinese at the Port of Long Beach) Clinton.

Your name dropping as a substitute for thinking for yourself -- is dopey.

Unfortunately, Eller & Companys concerns are not being revealed in the press. It's possible their attorney, Michael Kreitzer, wasn't specific.

We don't know if their concerns are legitimate or not. However, most likely if their concerns were legitimate, their lawyer would have articulated their concerns and most likely if their lawyer had described these concerns, the Clinton-loving press would have published them.

I've heard him on other shows. he is right, this decision was made by some beauracrats at all these agencies.

and why would the UAE be fighting so hard for this? now they are calling lobbyists. who runs this country, the voters and their elected reps, or the lobbyists and their monied interests?

You do know that Satan and Saddam are lovers right? Of course that's in South Park.

You need a new line. I was against this deal before Clinton and Schumer came out against it. Richard Shelby and Peter King are also against this deal. You really don't know what you are talking about. A UAE company will be partially responsible for for security in major US ports. Your notion that this company could not enable terrorists to smuggle weapons into the country is absurd. You obviously know very little about security at US ports if you don't think private companies play major roles in keeping these ports safe.

You've said nothing in your post. It's an empty post. You basically said that something is true because -- it is. Why don't you illustrate your weapons smuggling scenario and how this company will increase the risk. In your scenario, be sure to document exactly how U.S. Customs handles and approves all containers before the private company gets its hands on it.

My post stated that private companies play major roles in keeping ports safe. I also stated that you know very little about the security of US ports. Both statements are true.

In your last post you stated that"U.S. Customs handles and approves all containers before the private company gets its hands on it."

Actually customs inspects about 5% of all containers coming into US ports. Customs relies on this company's word to determine what is in 95% of the containers they handle. Customs will be relying heavily on this company to tell them what is coming in to these ports. The UAE will have more capability to smuggle WMD into this country's major cities, than any other foreign entity on the planet. The UAE has known links to Al Qaeda, 9-11, and nuclear weapons proliferation. They have also been doing business with Iran.

BTW, using your technique of name dropping instead of actually thinking for yourself, I'll point out to you that Peter King in the House and Shelby in the Senate were the first Republicans to go on national TV back in '98 and '99 and say that they were against the impeachment of Bill (Chinese at the Port of Long Beach) Clinton.

Name dropping? You've mentioned Hilary and Schumer on every single post you've made on this thread. You base your entire argument on some assumption that these two people are giving me misinformation. I am not concerned with what any of these people think other than the fact that I am pleased that they are helping to bring media attention to this deal. I simply demonstrated that more than two people criticizing this deal. You are the one who bases your opinions on what Schumer and Clinton think. You feel like you have to be against every single thing they say. You also seem like one of those people who think they have to agree with the White House on everything. I support most of Bush'spolicies but this is a terrible idea. Bush will end up killing this deal, or it will cost Republicans seats in November.

My post stated that private companies play major roles in keeping ports safe. I also stated that you know very little about the security of US ports. Both statements are true.

No. Only Customs searches containers. Private companies don't.

In your last post you stated that"U.S. Customs handles and approves all containers before the private company gets its hands on it."

I never said inspects. I said "handles and approves". Do you understand the logical difference?

Actually customs inspects about 5% of all containers coming into US ports.

Customs inspects for radiation about 5% of all containers. It was like that before the sale and it will still be like that after the sale.

Customs relies on this company's word to determine what is in 95% of the containers they handle. Customs will be relying heavily on this company to tell them what is coming in to these ports.

BS! The private port company doesn't determine what is in any container. Customs relies on the container senders word for any container they themselves can't search.

Name dropping? You've mentioned Hilary and Schumer on every single post you've made on this thread. You base your entire argument on some assumption that these two people are giving me misinformation.

No, I back what I said with facts.

You also seem like one of those people who think they have to agree with the White House

I've been here 7 years, have made thousands of posts and have criticized Bush. For instance his PD Benifit sucks.

Sangrila seriously, why do you have to make things up to debate a point?

You make things up about my posts and most importantly you made up the following misinformation:

sangrila: