davidkin hollywood

Friday, May 17, 2002

Is Hijacking acceptible?
Heard George Bush say on NPR this morning (also reported in NYTimes, others):
Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people.
The disturbing implication behind all the revelations of inaction prior to 9/11 is that it was perfectly acceptible to have one or several airliners hijacked... Bush knew that Al Qaida was planning something involving planes and religious/political extremists, yet he, his staff, the FBI, CIA, failed to notify airlines of the possibility. The lame excuse is "we didn't know they were going to use the planes as missiles." Bin Laden didn't know that he'd be able to actually knock the twin towers down, either... that doesn't change the gravity of the outcome of events. Exactly how much information did the executive branch have about possible hijackings? Why were key agencies not informed of a possible threat? In other words, how much information is necessary before the FAA and airlines should be notified to "look out for shifty characters who might hijack your planes." The answer so far, that "well, we didn't think they were going to fly them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center," is absurd and unacceptible. Are the criteria for dealing with potential threats truly that they must imply only the most outlandish, unthinkable of scenarios? Do Ari Fleischer, Dick Cheney and George Bush really think people are that stupid?
comment 9:52:45 AM