it's worth noting that the tone of a lot of coverage of the 9/11 panel seems to indicate that they will sit around and look pleased with themselves for telling the several agencies of the government what they did wrong. Should we make changes at the FAA? Obviously. But terrorism exploits weaknesses, and it depends on surprise. That is how the few can fight the many. And so the masterminds of terror must have known that using airplanes was a one-shot deal. As flight 93 showed, even before the day was done, the effectiveness of the hijacked missile strategy was used up -- thwarted not by the FAA or air marshalls, but by passengers who got the gist and fought back.
My guess is that sleeper agents in the U.S. already have their next target planned. Looking back should be about 1% of the panel's mandate. The rest should be asking, "Where will the next strike come?"
1 comment:
Wow, way to get your law on. I think it's worth making a distinction between the two. I can have evidence that supports an incorrect conclusion, and thus it is not proof of that conclusion -- just misconstrued evidence.
Post a Comment