Posted on 05/17/2002 9:57:10 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:33:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If you know anything about history (and you say you are not a little girl) then you know that, up until September 11, the correct response to a hijacking was getting the plane safely on the ground and beginning negotiations with the hijackers. However, back in 1992 a report was given to congress that detailed the suicide bomber scenario. This was new. The idea would be that, assuming someone could get past airport security they would be the only one armed on the plane and could do away with the crew and use the plane as they wished.
Maybe arming the pilots should have been the last line of defense, but it would still have been an outstanding one. And, if anyone in congress had read the report (no dot connecting required) it could have been done. Had the pilots been armed on 9/11, no plane would have been flown into any buildings.
Shalom.
/sarcasm
LOL.That's Dem logic at it's best. Whats scary is how many Dems use this kind of " Dem logic" and draw "Dem conclusions".
"August warning of highjacking". Ok, I will say that most freepers will agree with the fact that the White House had vauge information about a highjacking somewhere in the states or in Europe during August of 2001.
Plus
"Middle Eastern guys at flight school". What the he!! is that suppose to mean. As a private pilot for 25 years. I've seen people from all over the world tranning to fly here. Whats new about Middle Eastern men learning how to fly in one of thousands of fixed based operations in this country? What's the connection your trying to make?
Plus
"Osama bin Laden". Can you fill us in on this inference? What is "+ Osama bin Laden" suppose to mean?
Equals
"Bad News". What!?! Can you fill us in on this illogical conclusion?
I had an orange for lunch today + It rained yesterday = Today is Friday. Wow, using Dem logic is kind of fun.
You mean demchucks!
There's no "seems to be" except your own wishful thinking. Either he is, or he ain't, blaming someone else. And since this is such a fresh story, with so many stories online, I'm sure you'll have no trouble locating the exact words with which Bush "seems to be blaming everything on the previous CEO".
In other words, put up or shut up.
Possibly. But the report was given to Congress. You know, the democRAT congress? The same one that is now standing up and blaming the White House for not taking action?
It's time we all realized that if anyone had believed for even a moment that the events of 9/11 could have happened they would have done everything possible to stop it. I'm sure Dubya would be happy to still be arguing about who won the 2000 elections if it would give him those two buildings and 3000 lives back. I'd even go so far as to say the same about Clinton, although without quite as much conviction.
Nobody knew. Nobody covered anything up. Nobody is guilty of negligence. Nobody wanted the WTC to come down, killing thousands on the way. We were blindsided and that's it.
Shalom.
Be honest, Jenna. Why are you here? No B.S. Tell us about yourself. Anything to hide, hmm?
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.