FormerRepublican
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 07:50 PM
Original message |
OK, on Hardball, Rear Adm. Thomas Gilmore says containers are... |
|
...inspected based on the manifests. So if the UAE has control over the manifests, and manipulates the manifests, then doesn't that affect port security?
Only 5% of containers are checked, and they're checked based on risk criteria from info in the manifests.
Boy, Matthews got his marching orders from Bush for tonight... His questions are all Bush talking points.
|
Joe Fields
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 08:05 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Either Matthews is schizo, or.... |
|
he says, "Okay, today I'm going to piss the Dems off, and tommorrow I'll make them happy.
|
annabanana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. aha! You're on to him... |
|
I stopped paying attention to him before the election for just that "whiplash" effect he gave me. He apparently doesn't actually HAVE any beliefs.
|
AlCzervik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 08:07 PM
Response to Original message |
2. oh excellent, glad to see our money at work. BTW am i the only one |
|
that snickers when hear the term--"Rear Admiral"? yes i know, i need to grow up.
|
oneighty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. Proctologist = Rear Admiral |
|
U.S. Navy slang for sure.
180
|
kevinmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 08:07 PM
Response to Original message |
3. GE owns Containers and leases them...... |
|
might have something to do with his stand
|
annabanana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-22-06 08:10 PM
Response to Original message |
5. YES! port operators have security responsibilities! |
|
Check out the fourth post down on DU's home page...They very definitely DO have an effect on security!! Coastie for Truth has an excellent post there...
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:49 PM
Response to Original message |