What is wrong with this scenario?

Two planes have just slammed into the WTC in what is obviously an air attack on the USA.

The professional paranoids of the Secret Service sit with their thumbs up their collective butts and leave Bush in a location totally unsecured against air attack for at least half an hour.

I really expected a bit better from you.

I'm serious, what is wrong with the scenario?

Unambiguously confirmed air attack, SS leaves president in place unsecured against air attack.

Don't look at it with hindsight, look at it as if you were the SS agent in charge that day.

What would you personally have done?

It's not my scenario.

It's what actually happened.

When it comes to protecting my family I'm every bit as paranoid as the SS.

Which is why I tilt at the windmills I do.

the school location was "secure," having already been thoroughly checked out, etc., by the Secret Service

There was fighter air cover?

Surface to air missiles?

I'll just point out that a presidential motorcade is also secure and has the significant advantage of being a moving target.

To the other poster, yes Bush said he saw the first plane hit on TV. Like so many other Bush admin fiascos the question becomes "stupid or liar?"

Stupid in that he actually saw the plane hit on live TV and revealed it publicly *twice*?

Or stupid in that he doesn't actually have a clue what happened that day?

As carefully as Bush is scripted and coached I find it extremely difficult to believe that his first faux pas was not brought to his attention by someone, even if it be Ctheney.

The area was secured and the President's itinerary wasn't publicized until the 7th of Sept. I'm sure it's classified but if there aren't a few Stinger SAMs in one of the SS support vehicles I'd eat Bucky1's shorts.

Stingers are a heat seeking missile, the work on aircraft at which you have a rear shot so they can "see" the heat signature of the exhaust.

It would require a radar guided SAM to take out an incoming aircraft.

It's interesting to watch people put forth incorrect information time after time after time.

The title of the book that Bush was reading on the morning of 9/11/2001 was not _My Pet Goat_.

What other "facts" do you all have wrong if you can't determine something as simple as the title of a book correctly?

Leftists everywhere are pissing their pants because if Paul gets the nod, he'll flank almost every single one of them on the war, a supposed Secred Cow of true believer establishment leftists.

Yep, other than Kucinich, none of the Dems have as strong an anti war position as Paul.

Personally I think it would be interesting to see a Paul/Kucinich or Kucinich/Paul ticket.

Wouldn't that throw the establishment into spastic hissy fits?

That's your rebuttal? What difference does the title of the children's book make? It's the least important fact in the whole saga.

I wasn't rebutting you, if you read my previous letters you will see that I have been roundly criticized as a "conspiracy theorist".

Just pointing out that practically everyone is wrong about certain things.

I'm the one pointing out that the SS let Bush sit in a location that was totally unsecured against air attacks when an air attack of totally unknown magnitude was underway.

I completely agree with you that if it had been Bill Clinton or Al Gore sitting in that chair the screams of outrage from the rightwingers and the MSM would have echoed off Pluto.

We would *never* have heard the end of it.

To err is human, no problem..

Why don't you just shut up and go away. Auto-diddle yer auto-didactic self in the privacy of your own bathroom. You are confusing 60 year old Sidewinder AIM technology with modern IR tracking, all aspect, Stinger technology.

Ooops, I made an error..

Ever been under a flyover?

It happens *fast*..

Not to mention that even if you hit the plane, by the time it is in sight, it is going to continue on the same course, albeit perhaps in pieces.

Would you trust *your* life to the ability of a AIM to take out an airliner withing visual range headed straight for you?

I predict you will not answer this question.

Pol Pot - Intellectual

Josef Stalin - Intellectual

Adolf Hitler - Intellectual

Osama bin Laden - Intellectual

Yep, intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.

Mr. Aycharaych, first you left Lenin off the list. And you apparently forgot (or more likely never knew) that history's greatest mass murderers, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, were all motivated by the intellectual writings of Hegel and Marx and in fact justified their action precisely because of these men's ideas. Hitler was motivated greatly by the writings of Nietzsche.

Humanists also tend to be almost exclusively intellectuals.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Hitler all slaughtered intellectuals..

Pisser in cups.. Is that you?

Because you keep bending over..

Wrote _The Bush Dyslexicon_

Miller basically made the observation that when Bush is speaking about something which he cares about and knows something about (baseball for instance) then his speech is indeed much better than what we have come to expect from him in public situations.

It is the unfamiliar which Bush mangles, times when he has to think about or remember things in which he really lacks any interest. Miller also notes that Bush very often leaves clues in his speech as to what his true feelings might be.

I've heard a lot of speculation that Bush suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Personally I suspect is his a sociopath or well along the road to sociopathy.

It says we are far less societally advanced than we imagine ourselves to be.

I'm glad everyone is getting into the prediction game.

Emulation is the most sincere form of flattery.

Even Ctheney?

An interesting interview with MC Miller.

http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featbrasel_113.shtml