Boortz on Rice's Testimony

[TheAnvil 0]

This was so much in agreement with my own opinions I thought I'd post it here. Link to the original is http://www.boortz.com/nuze

How about Rice/JC Watts in '08? Wouldn't that infuriate the leftists!

IT IS NOW TIME TO DESTROY THIS THREAT

I predicted that Americans would be very impressed with the testimony of Condoleezza Rice before the 9/11 Commission. Last night I made a speech to a group of Realtors. When I mentioned Condi Rice's name they cheered. Now ... another one of my generally worthless predictions. The Democrats weren't successful in their attempts to intimidate and discredit Condi Rice before the Commission yesterday. Now they're going to have to try a different tactic. My guess is that if you see any significant outpouring of admiration for Rice elements in the Democratic party will set out to destroy here. For the initial salvo, look for statements from some commentators and reporters that she was "arrogant" and "aloof" during her testimony before the commission. You'll hear that she tried to out-shout here interrogators, and that she was disrespectful. We'll see if I'm right.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT

The testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission yesterday by Bush National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice finally put to rest all of the nonsense that has been out there, peddled by Richard Clarke, that Al Qaeda simply wasn't a concern or a priority for the Bush administration. The three hours of testimony (carried on all the networks) was electric, and a political home run. There were a few heated exchanges between Condi and the liberals on the panel...and she wasn't going to have any of it. This woman is tough as nails. Like I said yesterday, she could run for president in '08. Wouldn't that be something...Condi vs. Hillary? Anyway, back to the testimony.

Dr. Rice told the commission what the Democrats and the conspiracy nuts didn't want to hear: there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the attacks of September 11, 2001. None. Despite the best efforts of the disrespectful Richard Ben-Veniste and partisan Democrats Timothy Roemer and Bob Kerrey (who blamed Bush for not reacting to the USS Cole bombing, which happened during the Clinton administration,) there is not one shred of evidence that said how, when and where the attacks were going to take place. So what if there is some memo that says airplanes may have been hijacked? What does that mean? At that point the logical assumption would have been that the airplanes would have been hijacked overseas and the passengers held pending the release of some terrorists from jails? How many thousands of flights are there a day in US and overseas airports? Do you think for one minute that people were in a mood to tolerate increased airport security based on vague intelligence? Of course not. It took what happened on 9/11 for people to quit worrying about worthless, unimportant issues and take the national security threat from Islamic terrorism seriously. As Rice said, the nation was not on a war footing.

She also correctly pointed out that terrorism was a "gathering threat" across several administrations, and that the United States historically did not respond to gathering threats until it was too late. You don't believe me? Here's an example: imagine if on September 10th, 2001, President George W. Bush, citing increased "chatter" about an attack on the United States decided to shut down all airports nationwide. Furthermore, in an address to the nation he announces that Osama Bin Laden is behind the threats and has decided to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. Can you imagine the response? The same people pinning responsibility for 9/11 on the Bush administration for not doing enough would be calling for his head. And then, when nothing happened as a result of all of these measures, people would be blaming Bush for overreacting. Anyone who believes otherwise needs their head examined. Remember the Air France planes we grounded not that long ago? The U.S. got blamed for being too aggressive. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And then the media is making a big deal about her not apologizing for the attacks. What for? The type of apologizing that Richard Clarke presented uring his now-discredited testimony is nothing but moral exhibitionism. The only people responsible for the attacks on 9/11 are the Islamic terrorists in Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Why should she apologize? People should have been offended by the condescending, phony theatrics of Richard Clarke's apology, but the media ate it up.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 could not have been prevented because there was not the political will to fight the war on terrorism at the time. Period. All that can be done is to not make the same mistake twice, which is what President Bush has been doing for 2 1/2 years.

WHAT WAS THAT BIG FUSS ABOUT PREEMPTION?

Let's expand on some of the thoughts made in the previous section and talk about preemption.

Do you remember the controversy that erupted before we attacked Iraq? Bush's plan to depose Saddam Hussein was described as a preemptive effort. Democrats and their media pals were quick to oppose the policy of preemption. It just wasn't right to strike first.

Now just what did you hear from these same Democrats on the panel yesterday? What have you been hearing from Democratic spokesmen for weeks? Why didn't George Bush launch a preemptive strike on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan before 9/11?

Typical ... damned if you do, dammed if you don't. You just can't please those guys.

BOB KERREY BUSTED!

You have probably seen or heard about that portion of the Rice testimony yesterday when former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey asked Dr. Rice why there had been no response to the attack on the USS Cole in that harbor in Yemen. This was in the context of Bush's "I'm tired of swatting at flies" comment.

Well .. we have two problems here with Bob Kerrey. The first problem would be that George Bush was not president at the time of the attack on the USS Cole, and Condoleezza Rice wasn't the National Security Advisor. That "why didn't we respond" question should have been directed at Clinton later yesterday afternoon, not Condi Rice. My guess is that Bob Kerrey abandoned that line of questioning as soon as Clinton showed up.

The second problem with Kerrey's line of questioning arises from his own words. On the floor of the U.S. Senate, on October 19, 2000, immediately following the attack on the Cole, Bob Kerrey said:

"In my opinion [the attack on the Cole] is part of a military strategy designed to defeat the United States as we attempt to accomplish a serious and vital mission. I hope we will direct the anger and desire for vengeance we feel away from Yemen and towards Saddam Hussein ... I can think of no more fitting tribute to the 17 sailors lost on-board the Cole than completing our mission and helping the Iraqi people achieve freedom and democracy."

Well, folks. Isn't that exactly what we're doing right now?

How many examples can we find of Democrats, and that would include the one about to receive his party's nomination to run for president, stridently demanding the ouster of Saddam Hussein before George Bush was elected president? The number of such statements is surely in the hundreds ... and you just heard another one from Bob Kerrey.

RICHARD CLARKE ON THE RUN

Everyone who bought Richard Clarke's book should want their money back right about now. In her brilliant testimony yesterday, Condi Rice shot down Clarke left and right...and did in such a masterful way. She used his own words against him. Even Clarke, when interviewed on ABC, could say nothing except compliment her for "a very good job." So what now?

For weeks, the Democrats and their buddies in the media have advanced the idea that the Bush administration did nothing about Al-Qaeda for 7 1/2 months, and somehow undid all of the Clinton administration's work in this area. But yesterday, Dr. Rice blew that nonsense out of the water when she detailed how at first, the Bush administration continued the Clinton policies while developing their own. She recounted several meetings that took place with other cabinet officials, as well as the President himself. Of course, the media, having propped up Dick Clarke as their Bush-hating poster boy for weeks, will give him a free pass. He won't be held to the same standard of truth they reserve for the Bush administration.

The bottom line: Richard Clarke is a liar...and he lied under oath. I wonder if they'll prosecute him for perjury? I wouldn't hold my breath.

sKERRY IS LOST ON THE SIDELINES

The Kerry campaign knows that Americans trust the president on national security, and that his response to 9/11 was widely admired. They can't make any political hay out of it...and their response yesterday was very telling. Not a peep about the commission, its hearings or the ongoing testimony. All sKerry could muster was this: he said it would be wrong to comment on Rice and the commission before all the testimony was completed. Not bad. Of course, he had to change the subject, so he immediately started talking about Iraq.

The Kerry campaign has a problem....they don't know what their message is. One minute, sKerry is droning on and on about the jobs lost during the Bush administration. Then positive jobs news comes out and shoots that down. Then he starts talking about the situation in Iraq...but that doesn't work either, because the American people support the troops. Then he complains about the price of gasoline ... but the people are informed of his support for a 50-cent a gallon tax on gas, and he can't score any points there, either. This is the basic problem of the Bush-haters: they don't stand for anything. All they can hope for is that the economy gets worse, we fail in Iraq, or some other situation befalls the president. They have no ideas --- they're just waiting for bad news.

Dick Morris could be right...this could be a blowout in the making. They're expecting people to vote for Kerry because he is not Bush...and that just isn't going to be enough. Then again, the election is 7 months away.

WHERE WAS THE APPLAUSE COMING FROM

There were 80 seats were reserved for family members of 9/11 victims at yesterday's hearing. The applause? Look at those 80 seats. Remember the September 11th Families for a Peaceful World? That is a group made up of a few wives and family members of 9/11 victims. This group is leftist in its political viewpoint, and is stridently anti-war and anti-Bush. Don't expect the media to identify these people as members of a left-wing anti-war group. To the media, they're just family members of 9/11 victims.

Beers to all,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[bodypilot90 0]

yep most people understand this is a hack job from the left. Glad to see the leaders of the dems are seen for what they are.

Quote

How about Rice/JC Watts in '08? Wouldn't that infuriate the leftists!

LOL I bet she could bet Hillary

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

How many examples can we find of Democrats, and that would include the one about to receive his party's nomination to run for president, stridently demanding the ouster of Saddam Hussein before George Bush was elected president? The number of such statements is surely in the hundreds ... and you just heard another one from Bob Kerrey.

Shhhhh - I don't think they know that they are hypocrites.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[TheAnvil 0]

Bob Kerrey sure showed his true colors! LMFAO!

Now the more I think about a Rice/JC Watts ticket in '08, the more I like the idea. I mean Je$$e Jack$on, Al $harpton, Kweise Mfune, Julian Bond, Donna Brazille, Maxine Waters, Cynthia Al-McKinney, et al would probably spontaneously combust! Can you imagine how much of a Republican landslide would occur were the 'republicans are all racist' lies rendered completely impotent?

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 2,467]

>So what if there is some memo that says airplanes may have been
>hijacked? What does that mean?

I love it! There's a memo that airplanes may have been hijacked. A briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." And not one administration member out there could, even today, use that information to think that Al Qaeda might perhaps hijack a plane and use it to attack a target in the US?

Man, we gotta get some people in there who can put two and two together! Even being able to put one and one together would be an improvement. I mean, what happens if, a month from now, someone gives a briefing entitled "Al Qaeda may attack US highways?" Will we claim after he destroys some overpasses and kills 200 people that we had no idea whatsoever that he was going to attack overpasses? After all, overpasses aren't highways, exactly. There was no silver bullet. No one could have known. It wasn't our fault!

It's time to admit that there were problems putting two and two together before 9/11 and fix the problems. The alternative is to keep blamestorming, not fix anything, and wait until the next 9/11 happens.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Can you imagine how much of a Republican landslide would occur were the 'republicans are all racist' lies rendered completely impotent?

it would be nice. History shows that republicans are not racist. Look at the civil rights act of 1964

http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html

Quote

House Debate and Passage

The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.

Quote

Final Votes

Under the Senate rules, after cloture is invoked each senator may speak for one hour on the bill or pending amendments. Although southerners called up many amendments between June 10 and June 17 to stall action further, the Senate leadership allowed only those it wanted to be adopted. Most of the amendments were defeated by large margins. On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage. In all, the the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

It's time to admit that there were problems putting two and two together before 9/11 and fix the problems. The alternative is to keep blamestorming, not fix anything, and wait until the next 9/11 happens.

I agree this "blame game" should now be dropped (go Condee!), but regardless, there have been a lot of changes since 9/11.

Implementation of a threat level system, a steady stream of warnings from the feds to the people based on gathered intelligence, beefed up security all around and, love it or love it, the Patriot Act.

So who isn't fixing anything? Any more suggestions? Here's an idea -- let's put the UN in charge of Homeland security!

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 2,467]

>Implementation of a threat level system, a steady stream of
> warnings from the feds to the people based on gathered
> intelligence, beefed up security all around and, love it or love it, the
> Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was a good idea; it hasn't worked well in practice, though, and Patriot II/Victory (or whatever they are calling it now) is an even worse idea. But I agree other changes have been made for the good. There are still more to be made; Rice referred several times to "structural problems" the intelligence/administration system has. I hope that the attitude she takes from this is that "we have problems and we have to fix them" not "there is nothing anyone could possibly have done differently."

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>So what if there is some memo that says airplanes may have been
>hijacked? What does that mean?

I love it! There's a memo that airplanes may have been hijacked. A briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." And not one administration member out there could, even today, use that information to think that Al Qaeda might perhaps hijack a plane and use it to attack a target in the US?

That's not necessarily a default deduction. The millennium plot had nothing to do with airplanes. Nor did the first World Trade Center bombing. Historically, hijacked planes were tools for "transportation" followed by leveraged hostage and/or prisonor exchanges. Knowing bin-Laden's background before 9/11, attacking the planes themselves with stinger missiles would've been a more logical conclusion at the time. Still, how many airports and flights are there in the US alone at the time?

Quote

Man, we gotta get some people in there who can put two and two together! Even being able to put one and one together would be an improvement. I mean, what happens if, a month from now, someone gives a briefing entitled "Al Qaeda may attack US highways?"

Briefings are not threat assessments. Let's say you overhear me at the dropzone and I say, "I think I'll go to Los Angeles." You don't know when, where, or how. If you were intent on stopping me from reaching LA, you'd be SOL.

Quote

The alternative is to keep blamestorming, not fix anything, and wait until the next 9/11 happens.

Yet, when I see who's pointing fingers in DC, they all seem to have a (D) or a donkey affiliated with them.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[livendive 8]

Quote

Yet, when I see who's pointing fingers in DC, they all seem to have a (D) or a donkey affiliated with them.

You must be kidding! Finger-pointing is one of those rare activities our politicians can claim is 100% bi-partisan, along with spin-doctoring, catering to special interests, and generally sucking ass.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Kennedy 0]

Check out the movie below
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/misled.html

Quote

Lately I've seen how unmotivated the democrats are for John F. Kerry. They're motivated for 'anybody but Bush', but it looks like John F. Kerry bores them silly. They have nothing to get excited about when it comes to supporting Kerry.

I hope to change that. As a start, I've put together the motivational poster below to start extolling the virtues of John F. Kerry. And since there are many virtues of John F. Kerry, I expect that more posters will pop up along the way.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,467]

>That's not necessarily a default deduction.

I agree; it was one of several deductions you could have made. Clearly they made the wrong one. If we got the same reports now, do you think we would act on them differently? If so, we've learned something, and that's a good thing - even if if means we didn't prevent something back then that is preventable now.

People make mistakes. The smart people admit them, learn from them and then don't make them again. It does not speak to intelligence to steadfastly deny any error.

>Briefings are not threat assessments. Let's say you overhear me at
> the dropzone and I say, "I think I'll go to Los Angeles." You don't
> know when, where, or how. If you were intent on stopping me from
> reaching LA, you'd be SOL.

Let's say I saw a heard from a reliable source "Gawain is determined to destroy a local otter." It would be silly for me to claim later that I had no idea you were planning to destroy a local otter. A reasonable deduction might be that you would, in fact, try to do that.

>Yet, when I see who's pointing fingers in DC, they all seem to have a
>(D) or a donkey affiliated with them.

Hmm. I didn't notice a (D) behind the names of any of the administration folks who were all over Clarke a few weeks back. Or the ones criticizing Kerry for his voting record on the Iraq war. In fact, I noticed more of an elephant motif going on there.

I know you're a staunch republican, but I think at some point you'll realize that both parties are pretty much the same in their tactics, morals and objectives. The differences between them are, well, whatever they think will get them elected.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

People make mistakes. The smart people admit them, learn from them and then don't make them again. It does not speak to intelligence to steadfastly deny any error.

For you and I, this is true. For anyone that resides within the beltway, that is not an option.

Quote

Let's say I saw a heard from a reliable source "Gawain is determined to destroy a local otter." It would be silly for me to claim later that I had no idea you were planning to destroy a local otter. A reasonable deduction might be that you would, in fact, try to do that.

The local Otter example is a much smaller target however. In comparison to the PDB about bin Laden, much easier to adapt to. Let's say you'd heard that I intended to attack a "jump plane" west of the rockies. That changes the scale a little. The PDB (which is in process of being declassified) said, "bin Laden intent on attacking the US" -- even if it was a threat assessment, there's no way to adequately prepare for that.

Quote

Hmm. I didn't notice a (D) behind the names of any of the administration folks who were all over Clarke a few weeks back. Or the ones criticizing Kerry for his voting record on the Iraq war. In fact, I noticed more of an elephant motif going on there.

I know you're a staunch republican, but I think at some point you'll realize that both parties are pretty much the same in their tactics, morals and objectives. The differences between them are, well, whatever they think will get them elected.

Point taken. I still hope you get your money back for Clarke's book though... *L*

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>So what if there is some memo that says airplanes may have been
>hijacked? What does that mean?

I love it! There's a memo that airplanes may have been hijacked. A briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." And not one administration member out there could, even today, use that information to think that Al Qaeda might perhaps hijack a plane and use it to attack a target in the US?

Man, we gotta get some people in there who can put two and two together! Even being able to put one and one together would be an improvement. I mean, what happens if, a month from now, someone gives a briefing entitled "Al Qaeda may attack US highways?" Will we claim after he destroys some overpasses and kills 200 people that we had no idea whatsoever that he was going to attack overpasses? After all, overpasses aren't highways, exactly. There was no silver bullet. No one could have known. It wasn't our fault!

It's time to admit that there were problems putting two and two together before 9/11 and fix the problems. The alternative is to keep blamestorming, not fix anything, and wait until the next 9/11 happens.

What do you think would have happened if the President had known that there were two planes hijacked and on their way to crash into the WTC buildings? Could he have had those planes shot down before they made it that far? If he did shoot them down there would be lots of people condemning him for shooting them down and saying that there was no solid proof that those planes were going to crash into any building and that they were probably just going to go to Libya or somewhere similar. If he didn't shoot them down then we would have what is going on now. People bitching about why didn't the president stop the planes?
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
If some one is truly determined to kill someone and was will to do what ever it took. there isn't much anyone can really do to stop that person with out knowing a lot of specific knowledge before hand. Knowing that a plane might be hijacked is not really enough for the american people to justify shutting down airports and elevating security to the level it is at now.

[benny 0]

Funny, an entire article about Condi Rice's testimony and not one direct quote from Condi in the whole thing. Was this really about Condi Rice or Boortz's constant lib bashing. He may as well have just said, "She has big ole brass balls, unlike that peace-loving pansie Kerry." I'm sure that would have pleased his audience.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[billvon 2,467]

>What do you think would have happened if the President had known
> that there were two planes hijacked and on their way to crash into
> the WTC buildings? Could he have had those planes shot down
> before they made it that far?

That question is like "once you let a fire consume your house, what's the best way to put it out?" Once they take over the planes it's too late.

We knew that Bin Laden wanted to try to strike the US. We knew that there were suspicious men taking flight training courses in the US. A 1999 report by the National Intelligence Council said that Bin Laden might try to hijack aircraft and fly them into the Capitol Building, the Pentagon or the White House. Perhaps they got the idea from the Tom Clancy book that described a terrorist who did just that.

>If some one is truly determined to kill someone and was will to do
>what ever it took. there isn't much anyone can really do to stop that
> person with out knowing a lot of specific knowledge before hand.

We had the knowledge beforehand; we just didn't put it together. We didn't "connect the dots" as Dr. Rice put it. Let's hope that we can admit our mistakes and figure out how to connect them before the next 9/11.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

>So what if there is some memo that says airplanes may have been
>hijacked? What does that mean?

I love it! There's a memo that airplanes may have been hijacked. A briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." And not one administration member out there could, even today, use that information to think that Al Qaeda might perhaps hijack a plane and use it to attack a target in the US?

Man, we gotta get some people in there who can put two and two together! Even being able to put one and one together would be an improvement. I mean, what happens if, a month from now, someone gives a briefing entitled "Al Qaeda may attack US highways?" Will we claim after he destroys some overpasses and kills 200 people that we had no idea whatsoever that he was going to attack overpasses? After all, overpasses aren't highways, exactly. There was no silver bullet. No one could have known. It wasn't our fault!

It's time to admit that there were problems putting two and two together before 9/11 and fix the problems. The alternative is to keep blamestorming, not fix anything, and wait until the next 9/11 happens.

Well, that is exactly what is behind the intention of homeland security, making sure that all agencies FBI, CIA et all are working together and sharing information. I think you can agree that that was a faulty issue inherited by the current administration isn't it?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Point taken. I still hope you get your money back for Clarke's book though... *L*

should be a class action law suit, move the book to the fiction side

[kallend 1,675]

Quote

Quote

Point taken. I still hope you get your money back for Clarke's book though... *L*

should be a class action law suit, move the book to the fiction side

Are you suggesting that a guy appointed by President Ronald Reagan and reappointed by President George HW Bush and reappointed again by GWB could be a liar? Why would Republican Presidents appoint liars to their administrations?

Maybe he coached Rumsfeld in how to say "We know where they are" with a straight face. I bet he gave GWB some pointers on "The deficit will be small and short term" too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>What do you think would have happened if the President had known
> that there were two planes hijacked and on their way to crash into
> the WTC buildings? Could he have had those planes shot down
> before they made it that far?

That question is like "once you let a fire consume your house, what's the best way to put it out?" Once they take over the planes it's too late.

We knew that Bin Laden wanted to try to strike the US. We knew that there were suspicious men taking flight training courses in the US. A 1999 report by the National Intelligence Council said that Bin Laden might try to hijack aircraft and fly them into the Capitol Building, the Pentagon or the White House. Perhaps they got the idea from the Tom Clancy book that described a terrorist who did just that.

>If some one is truly determined to kill someone and was will to do
>what ever it took. there isn't much anyone can really do to stop that
> person with out knowing a lot of specific knowledge before hand.

We had the knowledge beforehand; we just didn't put it together. We didn't "connect the dots" as Dr. Rice put it. Let's hope that we can admit our mistakes and figure out how to connect them before the next 9/11.

My point is that even if the dots were connected there would not have been a lot that could have been done to prevent 9/11. The American people would not have been very receptive to added security. Most people would have said that their freedoms were being restricted and would have complained endlessly causing politicians every where to resist any added security. There would not have been enough evidence to prove that Bin Laden was going to attack the US internally. Politics impedes any proactive security measures and only supports reactive measures.

[kallend 1,675]

Quote

My point is that even if the dots were connected there would not have been a lot that could have been done to prevent 9/11. The American people would not have been very receptive to added security. Most people would have said that their freedoms were being restricted and would have complained endlessly causing politicians every where to resist any added security. There would not have been enough evidence to prove that Bin Laden was going to attack the US internally. Politics impedes any proactive security measures and only supports reactive measures.

Don't agree at all. If ATC and the Air Force had been alerted to the likelihood of a hijacking I suspect the off-course planes would have produced a reaction in time for an interception. There was plenty of time, provided they were on alert.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

My point is that even if the dots were connected there would not have been a lot that could have been done to prevent 9/11. The American people would not have been very receptive to added security. Most people would have said that their freedoms were being restricted and would have complained endlessly causing politicians every where to resist any added security. There would not have been enough evidence to prove that Bin Laden was going to attack the US internally. Politics impedes any proactive security measures and only supports reactive measures.

Don't agree at all. If ATC and the Air Force had been alerted to the likelihood of a hijacking I suspect the off-course planes would have produced a reaction in time for an interception. There was plenty of time, provided they were on alert.

OK so if they did have time to intercept the planes then what? Do you really think that the American public would have accepted having 3 planes shot down by our military? Do you think that they would have accepted the explanation that the planes were going to be crashed into buildings? Most of the politicians are lawyers. These lawyers would have argued that there was no real evidence that those planes were going to crash into any buildings. GWB would most likely have been impeached. Shooting down those planes would have been a political nightmare for any politician.

[billvon 2,467]

>My point is that even if the dots were connected there would not have
> been a lot that could have been done to prevent 9/11.

?? We could have detained and questioned the Al-Qaeda operatives in flight schools at the very least.

>The American people would not have been very receptive to added
>security. Most people would have said that their freedoms were
> being restricted and would have complained endlessly causing
>politicians every where to resist any added security.

That's why leaders have to make the unpopular choices sometimes.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Don't agree at all. If ATC and the Air Force had been alerted to the likelihood of a hijacking I suspect the off-course planes would have produced a reaction in time for an interception. There was plenty of time, provided they were on alert.

Nope I work for N 90 and ZNY the two Facilities in control of that airspace. And trust me these guys went through some pretty tough debriefing. From the point at which the flight plan sufficiently deviated off course to suggest serious problems, there was about 15 mins before impact. Take into account the closest intercept was in Cape Cod MA with an ETA of 12 min plus 5 mins prep for launch... it wasn't happening.

But let's pretend they could have gotten there with 5 mins to go... Would they have shot down 2 planes over the most densly populated place in the Nation????

No.

The ironic thing is that N90 (ATC) talked with the second plane to hit the WTC once the first one went off course in CT/MA. They asked the second plane to get a visual on the first to see if anything had happened to it. I.5 minutes after asking them that flight too was hijacked. And there distance from NYC was about 90 miles. Let's see .... 90 miles off of route J6 traveling at about 475 - 575 mph = 9.5 - 11 minutes straight line approach ....

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>My point is that even if the dots were connected there would not have
> been a lot that could have been done to prevent 9/11.

?? We could have detained and questioned the Al-Qaeda operatives in flight schools at the very least.

>The American people would not have been very receptive to added
>security. Most people would have said that their freedoms were
> being restricted and would have complained endlessly causing
>politicians every where to resist any added security.

That's why leaders have to make the unpopular choices sometimes.

Yeah but before 9/11 there was not enough evidence to back those unpopular choices. The public would not have allowed the leaders at that time to make them. I am not sure of this but I think that the terrorists did nothing illegal till they actually hijacked the planes. I don't think they carried anything illegal on to the planes. At least they weren't illegal till after 9/11.

I doubt that questioning the Al-Qaeda operatives would have done anything to deter them from hijacking the planes. As long as they didn't do anything illegal they would be free to do what ever they wanted.

The more unpopular choices that a politician has to make the less likely he will stay in office. Americans want leaders that make them happy. So now we have leaders that mostly tell us what we want to hear and not what we need to hear. The hard decisions have to be made in secrecy so that the politician can stay in office. Every election campaign that I have every followed has been full of shit. The debates are all full of shit. They never really say anything concrete. It is mostly just each politican trying to say the most appealing things while making the opposition look bad.