2/17 Bush warned 52 times before 9/11 attacks:
http://csua.org/u/b3f
\_ we are constantly warned of an attack from Al Qaeeda,
it's going to happen, what are you doing about it?
\_ Heed the warnings and order up a full complement of armed air
marshals. Oh wait, we only did that after 9/11, right?
\_ You missed the point. There is no way to know which method
Al Qaeda will use to attack us. They might not use planes
at all. They have just threatened attack. So how do you
stop them?
\_ did you read the URL? yes, the whole thing.
\_ Did you read my post? Yes, the whole thing. I'm
Al Qaeda. I tell you I am going to "attack the USA".
What will you do about it? The point here is that
Bush would get the blame in that instance, but what
can he do about it, really? The instance in the
article is specific. I am talking about a general case.
\_ You increase security and alert law enforcement. You
take it as an actual problem and work to increase
human intelligence. You look at the outgoing
administration's thoughts on the matter and develop
a strategy. You don't go back to crawford to "clear
brush". If it had been a priority issue, maybe the
FAA would have said yes when NORAD asked them if they
wanted an intercept on the off-course flights.
\_ Yes, I read your post, the whole thing.
I got your point, a long time ago.
You missed my point.
Your point is obvious to everyone.
My point, the same one in the article, is not.
That's why I asked you if you read the whole URL.
Had we heeded the warnings and ordered up a full
complement of armed air marshalls prior to 9/11,
we might not have had a 9/11, or at least had
competently placed security to afford a chance.
And, you still haven't said whether or not you've
read the entire URL, which was my question.
-- If you really did, maybe you wouldn't have wasted
your words on me.
\_ You are talking about a general case that did
not exist.
\_ It exists at this very moment and as such is
more pertinent than what someone did or did
not do 5 years ago. |
http://csua.com/feed/