MSCL.com

I understand that the president is taken to a safe location in the event of an attack. That doesn't bother me. As far as waiting 5 minutes before leaving the school, I have to wonder it really matters. It's not as if the president was going to respond in person, and that 5 minutes could mean someones life or death. He's the president, not an ambulance. You could argue that his prompt response could save lives. Perhaps if the response was authorizing a neuclear counter attack, but then all of us are really screwed anyway. Otherwise, the responses to the attack were already in motion. Saftey personel were on their way. The tracking and grounding of planes had all begun. Most of it was already in play and didn't need presidential approval. The systems are set up so that when it hits the fan, we react promptly, we don't all turn and look wide eyed at the president wondering what to do. I can't believe that the president sat there because he didn't care. Would I have reacted differently, yes. Would that 5 minutes saved the people in the towers, no. There are plenty of issues I disagree with the persident on, and I would not vote for him in the upcoming election, but I think there are much larger issues out there than this one.

<back on topic>

Whatever the merits of the Reagan mini-series, it's sad when the home of Murrow and Cronkite caves to political pressure and refuses to air something. The Tiffany network has been tarnished.


http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2003/1 ... index.html

The recent report done by 9-11 commission leaves a lot of info censored. This despite the fact that the Saudi government asked for it to be released.

Again, nothing may be amiss here. Everything could be totally on the up and up, really. It just looks very, very bad. As one knows, in politics perception is reality.

I think the commission found out that the Saudi government's hands are soaked with blood. It gave money to extremist groups and did nothing to curb these groups that called for American deaths. Why did it do this? It kept those groups off of the back of the Saudi ruling family. Yes, the Saudi government called for the documents to be released (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) because it knew damn well that Bush or any other US president wouldn't release them. The costs, which could possibly include a total meltdown of the American oil-centric economy, would be too great. Plus, there just might have been some legitimate intelligence assets and people to protect.

TomSpeed wrote: Did you know that the US wasn't being attacked by a national government and that more attacks weren't coming on 09/11? I didn't.

That's because you weren't. On 9/11 the US was attacked by a terrorist group. The Taliban. This had nothing to do with the government of Afghanistan at the time. The reason Bush declared his war on terror and invaded afghanistan was because the afghan government were HARBOURING the terrorists (a completely wrong thing to do) and refused to hand them over.

I happen to think Bush was right to invade Afghanistan when he did. But it isn't true to say that another government attacked you. They harboured the people who did it. It's a subtle difference, I admit, but it's there.

Starbug, I don't think TomSpeed is saying we were attacked by a government. He was saying that on 9/11 we had no idea what was happening or who was attacking us. It could be a Timothy McVeigh or it could be Great Britain for all we know. That is what he was saying (i think).

Oh, right... sorry

starbug wrote:

TomSpeed wrote: Did you know that the US wasn't being attacked by a national government and that more attacks weren't coming on 09/11? I didn't.

That's because you weren't. On 9/11 the US was attacked by a terrorist group. The Taliban. This had nothing to do with the government of Afghanistan at the time. The reason Bush declared his war on terror and invaded afghanistan was because the afghan government were HARBOURING the terrorists (a completely wrong thing to do) and refused to hand them over.

I happen to think Bush was right to invade Afghanistan when he did. But it isn't true to say that another government attacked you. They harboured the people who did it. It's a subtle difference, I admit, but it's there.

Sorry, I meant to write that at the time, no one knew who was attacking the US. The attacks could have been coming from anyone, including a foreign government. There's a Frontline show on 09/11. I don't have the name of the episode in front of me. The episode shows how US officials responded to the attacks. It's chilling but also reassuring to see plans we never thought would be used put into action. Anyway, early on 09/11, we didn't know who was attacking us. American officials had to take extreme precautions. The recent news that more terrorists and planes were supposed to involved in the attacks is scary news indeed.

9/11 -- Clear the Skies
Wednesday, November 5, 10:30pm
A minute-by-minute account of how America's air defenses responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

I recommend this episode of Frontline on PBS to everyone. I'm sure it will be shown again.

You can read a transcript of the Reagan movie on Salon. I haven't read it yet.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/ ... index.html

Hello,

Interesting bit from David Corn of the Nation. He writes in "Ann Coulter Goes to the Movies" (see http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/i ... 3&pid=1050)

what you won't see in the this depiction.

"On air, I noted that since the movie, as far as I could tell, does not detail how Reagan had cozied up to the apartheid regime of South Africa, the murderous dictator of Chile, and the death-squad-enabling government of El Salvador, it indeed has a problem with accuracy."

Another perspective to keep in mind.

LanceMan