Skip to main content
In the news:



Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers (washingtonpost.com)



Until now, the growing congressional scrutiny of possible warning signs before Sept. 11 has focused on the FBI's actions, including the bureau's handling of a memo written in July 2001 by an agent in Phoenix. A senior U.S. official who has reviewed the classified memo said yesterday that the FBI agent had made a "strong connection" between a group of Middle Eastern aviation students he was investigating and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. The link was included in the five-page memorandum sent to FBI headquarters two months before the attacks.
The story goes on to note that none of the students the agent refers to were involved in the 9/11 hijackings.



Political sharks smell blood in the water, and I hear the cries of "bring me the head of George W. Bush!" I wonder....



I wonder how many know how much information US law enforcement agencies collect every day. Beyond that, how many realize that the exchange of information is often less than zero. INS may have one bit of info, but that doesn't mean the FBI knows about it, and vice versa. They talk about correcting this, but it somehow never happens. Everyone wants to guard their turf.



It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see that those involved in carrying out the 9/11 attacks were planning something unprecedented. InstaPundit lists a few reasons why.) Knowing that, what could be done?



Issue a warning? Done. For several months leading up to 9/11 it was known that Bin Laden & Co. were planning some sort of Big Thing involving hijacking aircraft. So warnings were issued. Needless to say, big deal.



Put law enforcement on alert. And then...? I've heard on the radio cries that "airport security could have been increased." Toward what end? Special interest groups, focusing more on political correctness than valid law enforcement issues, have stifled the ability of police (at any level) to use profiling in the prevention of crimes. So you can list all the things to look out for when it comes to potential bad guys who want to swipe an airliner, but if one of those items is "male of Middle Eastern descent," you are prevented from doing a damn thing. Evidence of that? Witness all the cries of "racial profiling" over the increased security actions since 9/11. All of that shouting is coming after it's been demonstrated that the profiles are accurate! Performing these actions before 9/11 would have been politically impossible.



Besides, increasing airport security would have done nothing. The hijackers, until they took over their target aircraft, did not break any law. Oh, sure, they might have fit a profile for potential threat, but no one was allowed to act on those profiles (damn racists, you know).



Today, right now, what happens when security alerts are issued? People make a joke of them. California Governor Gray Davis gets an alert of an unconfirmed, unverified threat to California bridges, alerts the CHP, the California National Guard, the media, puts cops and soldiers on the bridges and...gets ridiculed (including by me, since I thought it was more than a little amusing that he thought all that show of force would stop someone from driving a truck bomb onto the Golden Gate Bridge and going "boom").



All in all, and until more information comes to light, it continues to look as though Bush & Co. knew something was in the works, something involving bin Laden & Friends and hijacking aicraft. Were steps taken? Oh, some were, but there are how many airports in this country? (Can't remember!) At any given moment in time there are some 4,000 aircraft in the air, some 500,000 people. Do you ground them all? And how do you know when to do so?



Last, all of this is currently coming about from reports from "reliable sources," which more and more appears to be leaks from Congress itself. Which means that some members of Congress knew as much as Bush is alleged to have known. What did they do? Damnit, if we're going to get to the bottom of all this, let's do so, and that means everyone.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.