Letters to the Editor
shooter242
Published Letters: 1635
-
@Dawggone
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Instead, he responded to the warnings with "Well now you've covered your ass." That is about the worst anyone could have ever done.
As usual, when something seems grossly amiss, there is more to the story than is being told. To wit.....
I guess that Bush could have responded by having someone contact the FAA and issue a terrorist alert.
The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, that al Qaeda hoped to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks. The report detailed 52 such warnings to FAA leaders between April 1 and Sept. 10, 2001, about the terrorist organization and its leader, Osama bin Laden.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13203-2005Feb10.htmlMore importantly though was the standing policy of the airlines to assume hijackings were negotiations, and to be passive in an effort to preserve passenger lives. That was the essential flaw that allowed 9/11 to happen.
He could have asked the CIA and INS to compare notes to see if anyone connected to Al Quaida has tried to enter the country lately. (no there was no law against this, none at all)
That was illegal at the time. The CIA was not allowed to share info as part of fourth amendment protections. This link will explain it better.
www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_why_the_fbi.htmlHe could have considered his prior briefing about terrorists from Al Quaida taking over planes and flying them into buildings in the Philippenes and asked if anyone was monitoring our own flying schools.
You may remember the guy that actually reported flying lessons? He reported it up the chain which blocked it in the FBI legal Dept. because of civil rights, FISA restrictions, and incomplete information. All of which had gotten another FBI guys careered ended after the FISA judge chastized him for not following the letter of the regs. Same thing happened with the 20th hijackers laptop.
Also one had to consider ALL the other ways someone could attack NYC while remaining aware that many other cities were logical targets as well. Resources are finite.
Have could have instituted a color coded alert level and then raised it to orange thus discouraging some passengers from taking their ill fated flights into a pillar of glass and steel.
Please. Do you really think it would have been a good idea to panic the public away from flying? Should Bush destroy an industry and cripple commerce over a vague warning? I don't think so. It's all very easy to holler "DO SOMETHING". It's harder to know what to do if anything. As always the reality is much more complicated than people like Cid are willing to believe. Assuming of course that it's not all just a sham to make political points.
-
@Lupercus
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As I am sure will come as no surprise, I disagree radically with what you've said, but it's much more interesting to read your views without invective.
I like to think that I respond in kind to inquiries. You were straightforward and I appreciated that.
but I am curious why people are so convinced that the presence of 160,000 American soldiers on megabases and FOBs restricts this activity in any regard. To me, it seems like the perfect example of what a standing army can not control.
My view relies on the presumption that full civil war would be worse. I think things could be worse, much worse.
The violence in Northern Ireland was quite intense leading up to the ceasefire in 1993, I think some new record levels of murder and mayhem were logged in that year. The fundamental factor in the end of that war (if indeed the present peace holds) was the willingness of parties to work together. That, again, is not something that can in any wise be imposed by an occupying army.
I researched that a while back and found that the IRA bombings totaled about 50 with considerably fewer casualties. In addition they shared a common language and culture. We are looking at an alien society with none of the typical western ideas or attitudes. That's not a problem in itself but we've inserted ourselves for better or worse, and the result has global implications. We can't just abandon the situation.
I'd be interested in hearing of any place - the United States included - where religious fundamentalism is not on the rise. It seems to me that the plague of crazy is just getting worse and worse.
Actually I thought that secularism was ascending. It is the idea of seperating church from state that is the most needed here. Until and unless that happens to Islam, we will forever be opposed by formalized irrationality. The only way that's going to happen is the introduction of outside influence. Namely us. For as long as it takes. Japan, Korea, and Germany seemed to have worked out well.
-
@Dawggone
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's try it this way, I'll substitute the "greater than" and "lesser than" with parentheses so it would look like this....
(i)this sentence would be italics (/i)
(b) this sentence would be bold (/b)
(blockquote) this sentence would be in blockquote (/blockquote)
substitute the greater and lesser signs for the parentheses, like in the note above the box you write your post in and you're set.
It's just like turning a switch on, typing your words, and then switch off.
I'll check in tomorrow morning to see how you're doing and reply to your post. It's late and my wife is theatening to brain me with the laptop.