Posted on 02/09/2006 7:22:28 AM PST by RWR8189
US President George W. Bush was to say in a speech that international cooperation helped thwart a terrorist attack on the US west coast, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
McClellan did not provide any details about the plot, or the way it was prevented, but told reporters the purpose of Bush's remarks was to "show the kind of international cooperation that is required" to defeat terrorism.
He also said the goal was not to justify Bush's controversial order, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, to allow spying on Americans without getting a warrant, in a break with past practice.
Was an intended target on 9/11 in addition to the second plot from 2002 which Bush discussed today.
Many clowns around here are ready to throw him under the bus because desperate Mexicans sneak in to work. Most of them were anti-Bush from the beginning but many pretend they are conservatives.
See #138.
Well, that'd have to be a pretty finely calibrated shoe bomb, and I'm still not sure how they avoid catching a beating from a planeload of passengers in that scenario.
how much effort does it take for someone in the Phillipines to practice placing a small piece of plastic explosive on the lock on a cockpit door, and whipping out a Bic lighter or a match to ignite it? After enough practice, someone could do it in 20 seconds. the passengers aren't even going to know what is going on in such a short amount of time to be able to get to the guy in time, especially when two of his jihadi buddies are blocking the aisle.
Glad to hear that it was only 3 hours.
I'm not sold enough on her contributions that she merited a POTUS visit.
Your uncertainty about the effeciency of the terrorists plans is really neither here nor there. It certainly does not seem implausible to blow a door off with a shoe bomb and it could occur so quickly passengers would not have time to do anything.
Now thats good press... In order to shut the Democraps up we do need to shout out our successes however, not at the expense of national security...
As for the latter, I don't know about you, but the few times I've been near the front of a plane since 9/11, no one walks toward the front without being followed by many, many pairs of eyes.
Then there are air marshals, and perhaps armed pilots.
Call me skeptical. But then again I'm not one of those who attributes any kind of superhuman powers the terrorists, or thinks that just because they want to do something or talk about it that they can actually do it.
But feel free to think this was a real thwarting of a realistic plot, if it makes you feel better.
Has FR now gone so wobbly that the cries of 'never again' and vows to follow the example of Flight 93 have completely passed into memory?
I'll be more impressed when I hear of us stopping a plot that someone was actually trying to execute, rather than simply talking about.
Exactly!!!
Feel free to roam the range of your imagination and draw conclusions minus all the facts of the plot, if it makes you feel better. When or if we know the entire story, we can all take it up again. Till then...
Ah, now you poke your head up again, after refusing to respond to me earlier when I questioned your hostile tone.
I have no idea what you are referring to about going wobbly and forgetting. There are very few here who would fit that characterization. Perhaps those who do little but attack the President might.
BTW, who 'does little but attack the President'?
My husband works in a building that is in the afternoon shadow of the Sears Tower in Chicago. I'm on the lookout for a new job for him (to say the least).
No, the Presidents all left after the Clintons spoke. I think the funeral went on for another 2-3 hours after that.
Oh, but can you imagine the outcry if he had "snubbed" her by not attending? This President is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.
I drove by the Sears Tower on Saturday and it still takes my breath away. Except in a different way.
Maybe someone who lives near a chemical plant can fill in more details but I believe that was part of a fairly common strategy called shelter in place. If, for example, a chemical plant has a leak authorities do not want people to get in their cars tie up traffic and become exposed to a cloud of toxic gas. Instead they would like people to shelter in place, blocking up their windows and doors as best as they can with plastic and duct tape.
Of course the media spun this as duct tape is the only thing protecting us from an AQ attack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.