Arab takeover of U.S. ports seen as security 'insanity'

World Net Daily ^ | Posted: February 15, 2006February 15, 2006 3:24 p.m. Eastern | WorldNetDaily

[billybudd]

I'm not saying we *should* allow the transfer to go through. I'm just saying the guy is right that the probability of such an attack is very low.

[Euro-American Scum]

. . . we're not serious about the War on Terror.

Open borders. Transfer of technology to third world and communist countries. Communist Chinese and now Islamic control of U.S. ports. You're beginning to get it.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

SWEET JESUS!...SAVE US NOW!!!!...What putifried NUMB NUT TRAITOR thought this up????!!!!!

[madconserv]

Michael Savage talked about it too. He even interviewed Mark Foley (R-Fla.). They both said they can't believe they agree with Schummer on something. To me this is like aunt Harriet all over again only 5 times worse. But we convinced Bush to change his mind before we can do it again. Call or write your Congressman now!

[madconserv]

Your friends, the Arabs, must have done some real sweet talking to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and then on up.

[sangrila]

"Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., also spoke out against the merger, which is scheduled to be finalized March 2."

"Should we be outsourcing our own security?" Schumer said on the Fox News Channel. "We have to have hands-on control of things. And to have United Arab Emirates – I mean, they are a country that's allied with the U.S., but at the same time a whole bunch of the (September 11) hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates."





Chuck Schumer is right. We are in trouble if Schumer is making this much since. Maybe Schumer should have Chertoff's job since it is difficult to imagine anyone being a less competent Homeland Security Chief.

[Ichneumon]

Chuck Schumer is right. We are in trouble if Schumer is making this much sense.

Yeah. I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Schumer on anything, but...

[King Prout]

good GOD

[sangrila]

Are you serious? We might never know that weapons came through one of these ports even after we are attacked. Once 5 nukes come in through Baltimore Harbor and get dispersed to NYC, Chicago, LA, Boston, and D.C. it probably won't matter much who did what. My support for this administration is dwindling. I really see no point in fighting wars overseas if we are going to have Dubai running our port security on the east coast, all the while our borders are wide open. I've supported this President as much as possible and still do, but if this deal goes through that support will be all but gone other than my inherit respect for the office itself.

[madconserv]

How in the frickin' world can Bush be so right on some things and soooo wrong on others? Whats up with this guy? I'm serious! This is whats wrong with compassionate conservatism.

[sangrila]

Who proposed this, and who were the biggest advocates of this deal?

[King Prout]

the UAE is still ARAB and muslim, and that's bad enough all by itself to make this a bad idea.

[The Duke]

A foolish nation and sanity are soon parted.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

My friends the ahabs???...put down your drink mate!

[sangrila]

The UAE was one of the few nations that ever recognized the Taliban.

Did War on Liberalism get taken out?

[madconserv]

Sarcasm, my friend, sarcasm.

[King Prout]

dunno - what causes you to ask?

[King Prout]

oh. deleted comments. I guess so, then, but I can't imagine why based on s/h/it's comments to me