> From: Deborah Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > iaamoac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is an old article, but it was still absolutely fascinating. > > > > http://slate.msn.com/id/2060825 > > > > This article was reprinted because the (cough, > > cough) 9/11 Commission > > has also concluded that NORAD dropped the ball on > > 9/11. > > OK, I may be just dreadfully dense, but what does the > "(cough, cough)" signify? That you think the > commission useless? Biased? Or what? >
According to our morning news, the 9/11 commission has "conclusively established" that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Is this what you read from it, or is that a misquote? > Interesting read, BTW. > > Debbi > I think its pretty harsh on NORAD. Imagine the outcry if they had shot down a civilian airliner, or caused it to crash or "air-blast" and nothing had happened? All very easy in hindsight, but its unrealistic to blame them for not preventing 9/11 I think. Did any of us imagine what was going to happen when we first heard about a plane being hijacked?. I sure didn't. As you said Debbie, I don't think people on planes are going to sit around and let people with nail clippers hijack planes any more, better to die trying (or perhaps get an over-vigorous manicure) than let planes be used that way again. Things changed on 9/11, I don't think we can use what we know now to judge what happened then. Andrew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
