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

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...

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 ...

We pause now for a minor rant…

“My car has a flat tire.” “You should buy a new car.” Every time I hear President Obama and other Democrats talking about “health care reform,” that’s what the conversation sounds like. A health care crisis is declared and the only solution is to replace the entire system. At most, around 15% of the American population is without health care insurance. Ignoring the fact that for most of them, this is a matter of choice, it also means that 85% are insured. And of that 85%, something like 70+% like their current coverage and don’t want the government to touch it. So for the vast majority, the current system works and works great. Yet, because of the minority for whom it allegedly does not...toss it all, start again. Admittedly, regardless of insurance coverage, it all costs too much, but again, the only accepted approach to controlling costs are to throw out everything and turn it all over to the government. Tactics that are proposed to address specific cost issues are not consid...