🚀 go-pugleaf

    I did watch her too on TV and I really felt her Embarrassment , was
obvious  ....


"Monte" <montep@email.com> wrote in message
news:3ce65e50.966790@news.ev1.net...
> Mz Rice was noticeably uncomfortable on CNN when trying to explain
> what the administration knew and did or did not do prior to 9/11.  She
> carefully explained that although there was evidence that indicated a
> possible hijacking of airplanes, there was absolutely no indication of
> one being used as a suicidally guided missile.  This she repeated over
> and over.
>
> When speaking of the highest states of security and warnings that were
> placed to embassies and military sites overseas, she did not explain
> the rationale behind that other than to say that it was not felt that
> a threat existed domestically.  She never attempted, to explain why a
> domestic threat could not exist.
>
> One thing is certain, the people at the decision level believe that in
> order to attack openly they would need the terrorists to actually do
> something which would turn the domestic public opinion, and possibly
> world public opinion against the terrorists.  If that line of
> reasoning is logically followed then you would protect your embassy
> and military (for two reasons, one they are your people in the
> embassy, and two you must always protect your military.  The other
> reason is that attacks on those two had not previously caused
> sufficient outcry).  Now suppose that a terrorist hijacked a
> commercial airline and some innocent civilians were hurt or killed.
> Instantly a loud public outcry would arise and support for a major
> attack on terrorists would be guaranteed.
>
> That this particular group of leaders could forsee anything like the
> attack on the World Trade Center is not imaginable.  But that they
> could, or would reason as I have outlined is perfectly logical, and
> perhaps someday even supported by evidence.  Does that make the
> decision makers into criminals or worse?  No,  but it does speak
> volumes on where they place us lesser mortals on the ladder of worth.
>
> An aside to this is the point that could be argued for full warnings
> and alerts to the public.  It is always pointed out that general
> alarms are almost always futile as nothing ever occurs and the public
> wearies of them and soon ignores them.  But what is rarely mentioned
> is the possibility that the reason nothing occurs is that the
> terrorist is deterred by the possibility of failing in their effort.
> So the final question is simply which operational philosophy is best.
> Sacrifice a few to get support for large and consequential action
> against the bad guys, or possibly avert loss of any lives by
> implementing full alerts( which must include real actions and efforts
> by real preventors, military, police etc).
>
>
> Monte
> "Today's public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books,
>  and there is some evidence that they can't read them either." ---Gore
Vidal