Yes it will!
Not a comfortable thought at all.
It has to have been their greed and their lack of concern for our safety which has kept them from instituting the security necessary.
For the sake of their brethren who died, I challenge all surviving liberals to get a frikkin' clue.
for later reading.
"Criminality"???? No kidding!!! And here I thought it was just about "sex"!
Abdul Carville .... where are you? You've been sooooooo quiet lately! BTTT
Keep the Faith For Freedom
MAY GOD BLESS AND DEFEND THIS HONORABLE REPUBLIC>
Greg
Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
St. Petersburg Times
October 04, 1999, Monday NATIONAL; Pg. 1A
Gore cultivates close ties to airlines
(My title: "Follow The Friendly Money")
Bill Adair
WASHINGTON -- Some say the vice president's priority for the aviation industry has come in exchange for political support.
Time after time, Vice President Al Gore has proven to be a friend of the aviation industry.
He hosted a White House news conference so airline CEOs could announce they were putting smoke detectors in all jets. At another event, he acted as a spokesman for Boeing, unveiling rudder improvements for 737 planes.
Then, a few months ago, he announced a "passenger bill of rights" that went easier on airlines than other proposals. His praise of the industry has been effusive. At the smoke detector announcement, he said airlines were taking the initiative and "the winners will be the millions of Americans who fly on these planes."
The Boeing announcement, which came just four days before Dateline NBC was to air a story about 737 safety problems, helped Boeing soften the story.
Gore's work on behalf of aviation companies illustrates how aggressively he has courted powerful business leaders as he positions himself for a presidential bid. His ties with key American industries helped him become the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, and may help him stave off challenger Bill Bradley.
But his close ties with aviation represent a risky move at a time when the airlines are under fire from consumers. He could be blamed for being too soft if service and safety problems worsen.
Burdett Loomis, a political science professor at the University of Kansas, says the risk is that "you might take credit for something that will later come back and bite you."
Victoria Cummock, a member of Gore's commission on aviation safety and security, says the vice president has become a "mouthpiece" of the airlines in exchange for big contributions to his presidential campaign.
Likewise, Paul Hudson, executive director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project, said Gore has "walked with the industry arm-in-arm. There are very few industries that have the luxury of White House press conferences."
Gore spokesman Chris Lehane strongly denies that the vice president is assisting the airlines in exchange for their political support, but he acknowledged that aviation is a high priority for Gore.
"This administration has shown for the last 6 1/2 or seven years that you can balance both the private sector interests and public sector interests in a way that's good for the country," Lehane said.
Promoting and regulating
It was about three years ago that Gore gave the airlines a boost on the White House stage.
In November 1996, the FAA announced it would begin the long rulemaking process to require smoke detectors on small jets, in response to the ValuJet crash in May near Miami. A month later, the airlines decided to begin the installation. Gore and President Clinton joined 15 airline CEOs to explain the plans.
"With this announcement, virtually all of the airlines are saying that they're not going to wait for the regulatory process to catch up, they're moving forward on their own," Gore said. "They're jumping over the regulatory and the financial hurdles. And the winners will be the millions of Americans who fly on these planes."
Cummock said Gore and the FAA were too quick to accept the industry's promises without setting a deadline, which allowed the process to take longer than it should have.
Ten months after Gore's announcement, the National Transportation Safety Board wrote to the FAA saying it was "disappointed" the agency was taking so long to get the smoke detectors installed. Another NTSB letter at that time said only one plane had been retrofitted since Gore's announcement.
Cummock, a Miami resident whose husband was killed in the 1988 explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, sees this as an example of Gore's cozy relationship with the industry.
"It was, once again, to give everybody a placebo about safety," Cummock said. "That's what the administration has been doing for the last eight years."
Lehane, Gore's spokesman, said it's important to balance government's two roles with aviation: promoting and regulating it.
"A strong airline industry is good for America's economy, providing a valuable infrastructure as well as providing thousands of jobs," he said.
Federico Pena, a former transportation secretary in the Clinton administration and a member of the Gore commission, said Gore has been an advocate for safety, even when it was costly to the airlines: "I think the airlines probably felt he pushed pretty hard on them."
But along with the duplicity of the former administration, is also an implied complicity. When we worked to expose the crimes of the Clintons and helped to get Bill Clinton impeached, the extremely influential Council on Foreign Relations asked him to speak in front of one of their large gatherings. CSPAN covered it, and after he assuaged them with his notorious charm, they gave him a standing ovation. Many might believe that the fact the Senate failed to remove him from office had little to do with the establishment power elite's obvious support of Clinton. But I didn't agree, and stated such here at FR. By appearance, they decided to stand behind him, at whatever cost, and for reasons for which we can only speculate. It's possible that their concerns were simply over the notion that removal of a president might have had a poor effect on the then strong economy. But whatever reasons they had, the fact is that they stood behind him, in spite of the evidence that he had seriously comprimised American security in countless ways.
Therefore it's not an unreasonable guess to conclude that the establishment felt that removing Clinton, even though they clearly knew of his crimes, was not in their best interest. Because if WE knew and documented them here at FR, THEY also knew.
Recent events seem to suggest that they miscalculated the net effect of their lock-step support of the Clinton clique. And because in retrospect this miscalation is turning out to be SO costly, it's my hope that they may finally move to help expose the crimes of the Clinton admininistration, and possibly bring some to indictment, if for no better reason than to deflect some of their own involvement in supporting the status quo during the Clinton tenure, whatever their reasons may have been.
So thanks very much, CAL, for helping to keep the pressure on by exposing one more credible link -- or should we say 'incredible' -- were the real cost of the Clinton administration may be tallied not only for history, but for accountability.
