I think all additional security focus should be on identifying potentially dangerous people and maintaining an active and up to date no fly list. This should be done INSTEAD of reacting to specific instances with additional security screenings.
I think it's stupid that we have to take our shoes off because of Richard Reid. Just make sure the next Richard Reid never makes it on a plane, with shoes or otherwise. Ditto here.....are we going to initiate underwear checks? I will happily accept the small risk that a person with absolutely no criminal history or attachment to any terrorist organization whatsoever may up and one day decide to blow up a plane. That is an acceptable risk to keep me from having to strip to my civies and dance for 10 minutes every time I want to get on a damn plane. Enough of this already. On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com>wrote: > > The buck stops with Obama. In this case, I'm not sure yet what all was > missed. He could have been stopped by better screening equipment in > airports. That equipment has been proposed previously and been held up > in Congress. Nothing the executive branch can really do about that but > hopefully this moves it along. I suspect that having a head of the TSA > in place might have helped too. Obama took a long time to nominate one > but that nomination has since been held up by a hold placed by Jim > DeMint. I see blame on both sides there. > > There is also still a big outstanding question of whether this guy > should have been on a no-fly list and whether there was proper > communication between various intelligence agencies. That seems to be > a developing story and I'm going to guess that Obama's intelligence > setup still needs some work and didn't have all its ducks in a row. > That doesn't surprise me, of course, but that is his responsibility > even if it is a long standing issue he inherited. > > As for his reaction to the situation, I think it has been just right > thus far. We'll see how he deals with things as the full story starts > to come in. I see no reason for outrage thus far. I was not outraged > at Bush for 9/11 or Richard Reid. We have to remember that these are > acts of individual madmen, especially in the case of Reid and this new > guy. They are very hard to predict and difficult to shut down ahead of > time. We must continue to try and make things safer but we will never > be 100% successful. I'll grade Obama like I did Bush...on how well he > reacts to situations and works to get the important lessons out of > them and properly apply them in an attempt to make us safer within the > rule of law and with respect for individual liberty and freedom. > > Judah > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Based on Gruss' position about 9/11, it has to be Obama. Why? > > > > For starters, there was intelligence for more than one agency that was > > not shared. If ti was shared, maybe this guy never gets on a plane. > > Hell, the guy's father called a US embassy to tell them he thought his > > son was up to no good, why the hell was he allowed to fly > > > > Also, and this one is key, Obama was on vacation when the attack > > happened. We all know, based on Gruss assessment of Bush, that when > > the President is on vacation, he cannot do his job effectively. > > > > If this happend last year at this time, you guys would all be taking > > cheap shots at Bush, and blaming him for the failure of the system. > > Where is the outrage, people? > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:309849 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
