To: Hal1950
Everything is "preventable". The question is, was it reasonably preventable? That is, was there negligence, or would there really have had to have been an extrodinary (unreasonable) effort?
Also, what would the timeframe for this effort have been? Are we talking a year to prevent (meaning that Clinton would have had to have started the effort).
This report conveys no relevent information.
22 posted on
12/17/2003 5:36:22 PM PST by
jmstein7
To: jmstein7
Everything is "preventableGreat point! I maintained right after 911 that EVEN if GW (or any POTUS) got word that terrorists were training to FLY 747's to use as a missle against some target in the USA, what could he have done? Stop ALL AIR TRAFFIC for a day? A week? A month? Panic the country and every airline passenger? This country would have been in CHAOS!!!
I sure hope this KEAN dude is NOT trying to get his 15 minutes at the expense of our President!
47 posted on
12/17/2003 5:46:32 PM PST by
PISANO
(God Bless our Troops........They will not TIRE - They will not FALTER - They will not FAIL!!!!!)
To: jmstein7
If Bush had been told the day before what was going to happen,what could he really do?
The law hadn't yet been broken, you can't shut down air traffic without doing massive harm to the economy. The only thing that could have been done as a precaution is to have fighters on near strip alert (2 minute alert).
Clinton had 7 1/2 years and did nothing.
Anybody who goes to the press, like Keen did, loses credibility and deserves suspicion.
173 posted on
12/17/2003 7:53:30 PM PST by
Finalapproach29er
("Don't shoot Mongo, you'll only make him mad.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson