don't know what's scarier about this CNN "Fact Sheet,"
September 18, 2001 4:40 PM   Subscribe

don't know what's scarier about this CNN "Fact Sheet," the fact that the FBI may have known about this plot six years ago and didn't prepare for it, or that CNN thinks readers need a "who's who" section that helpfully identifies "George W. Bush" as "U.S. president."
posted by moth (9 comments total)
Hindsight is 20/20.
posted by timothompson at 5:07 PM on September 18, 2001

Within the first couple of hours after the attack, some of the radio reports I heard (either NPR or CBS) made reference to the fact that one of the men convicted in the '93 bombing had talked about this type of attack. It shocked me to hear this, but how receptive do you think Americans would have been to the heightened security at airports without a concrete demonstration? The airlines and the tourist industry sure wouldn't have been very happy. When people say, "our world has changed," one of the ways it hopefully has is that such gambles with the public's safety won't be taken again.
posted by gimli at 5:09 PM on September 18, 2001

Wait, I thought Bush was the "Earth President". Why is he always talking down to your other Earth leaders.
posted by electro at 5:37 PM on September 18, 2001

well i think the internet is a giant archive

so 25 years from now some 8th grade kid will be glad it says who the president was at the time
posted by Satapher at 6:09 PM on September 18, 2001

wow, timothompson. what a link. um...

"An actor reads body language. An actor is trained to see into someone. To silently probe their psyche. An actor's laserlike slice into the heart of a foreign situation or human being is what enables him to don the mantle and play that other person. An actor's insight into behavior and manner can be as telling as a photograph."

If only we had more professional actors, especially those of the caliber of "omniscent [sic] all-seeing, all-noticing James Woods," protecting us, we might all be safe. Ah, cripes. I wish I'd never seen that article.
posted by moth at 6:18 PM on September 18, 2001

I agree that the public might have been reluctant to accept heightened security measures without a concrete demonstration—I’ve already seen interviews with passengers bitching about the delays due to the new measures—but there are things the government could have done in response: Reinstating the practice of having Air Marshals on domestic flights. Adding some kind of antiaircraft defense to at least the Pentagon. Implementing an air defense plan that involves scrambling fighters from Andrews Air Force Base, which is right outside DC, instead of from a base that’s 130 miles away. They were warned that these exact people were planning this exact action. It’s inexcusable.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:01 PM on September 18, 2001

May be it was to remind Mr. Bush that he IS the President, despite those damn democrats calling Mr. Cheney so. hehe. Could be they were sayin. Hey Mr. Bush, now. you ARE the president, so stop calling this damn war against terrorism a damn CRUSADE for christ sake.
posted by adnanbwp at 8:14 PM on September 18, 2001

wow, timothompson. what a link. um...

I thought the point of timothompson's link was this (!!):

ONE of the Secret Service agents who was at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when the Pentagon was hit:

"This plane was no doubt aiming for the White House. It was overhead so low I could read the markings. The pilot banked but seemed unable to regain the altitude needed to turn and hit his target. It was apparent they were going to crash. Also apparent that the Pentagon was not its primary target."

posted by Zurishaddai at 11:36 PM on September 18, 2001

yes... i wasn't making fun of timothomson, or trying to be sarcastic -- i was really, sincerely saying wow. i couldn't believe how absurd that article was -- it was an amazing find...
posted by moth at 8:14 PM on September 20, 2001

« Older Gephardt wants Congress to consider a national ID...   |   Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments