The Obamamobile: Drive as I say, not as I drive
Well, who is surprised by this story about the “monster gas-guzzling” Obamamobile? Once a Drive as I Say-er, always a Drive as I Say-er:
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to get a million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015. His own new presidential limousine will be far from green, however.
The Obamobile being prepared for the president-elect is said to be a monster gas-guzzler made by General Motors, the troubled car giant. It will look like a black Cadillac but is built like a tank. A spy photographer who tracks down future car models for magazines snatched pictures of the heavily disguised first-car-in-waiting when it was being road-tested last summer.
The armour-plated car, which has a raised roof, windows up to 5in thick, extra-strength tyres and a body made of steel, aluminium, titanium and ceramics, is thought to be based on a GMC 2500 truck that gets less than 10 miles to the gallon. Three cars are believed to be in production so that two can serve as decoys.
While security is paramount - the car is built to survive roadside bombs as well as gunfire - there are hybrid four-wheel drives on the market, such as Ford’s Mercury Mariner, which some critics believe could have been adapted for the president.
(link)
Obama’s eco-hypocrisy emission standard: Still high.
***
Previous:
If gas guzzlers are so evil, why does Obama keep riding in them?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Braden's Corner Of The Net
- PAXALLES
- Is that “Obama Derangement Syndrome” I’m hearing? « Cowardly political musings…
- Left Of Center
- Obama will have not have a Pelosimobile. « Mcnorman’s Weblog
- Obama’s “Born” Conspiracy « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
- SHOCKER: Obama REFUSES to lead by example! | The TIW Blog
- eCache » Blog Archive » Nit-Pickers
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
Bench Memos
» Sunstein to OIRA
Riehl World View
» An Unnecessary PresidentWeekly Standard
» Beat to the PunchNewsBusters.org
» R.I.P., Rev. Richard John NeuhausHot Air
» Video: Hamas’s greatest hitsHot Air
» Remember when deficits were evil?Right Wing Nut House
» IRAN OPENS SECOND FRONT AGAINST ISRAELNewsBusters.org
» Obama's Proposed Energy Czar Scrubbed From Socialist Website
On November 23rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm, Speakup said:
Well, there’s a lot I disliked about JFK but he didn’t come across as a snob. Time spent in the Army in WWII, I think, knocked the Kennedy snobbiness out of him…
Too bad his youngest brother missed out on the big War and inherited the worst snobby and thuggy traits of his father.
*****FOUND*****
The perfect Odopeymobile!!!
Navy.
The man who described the Arabic call to prayer as…
and confessed with a first-rate accent…
(those being the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer)
but who has not confessed with his mouth…
The man who wrote the book…
The man who said…
Has not proven that he meets the Contitutional Presidential eligibilty requirement of being a Natural Born citizen!
His Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is a fraud.
His paternal grandmother says he was born in Kenya.
Regardless of where he was born, his father’s British citizenship made him a dual citizen (with divided loyalties that the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement was designed to prevent).
It appears that he was adopted by his step-father Lolo Soetoro and gave up whatever citizenship he had to become an Indonesian citizen. He was registered in school in Indonesia as “Barry Soetoro” with citizenship: Indonesia and religion: Islam.
Why is this not being given more attention by MM and HotAir?
It matters a whole lot more than what car he is driven around in!
His Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is a fraud.
Obama’s being chauffered around in an armored limo while President isn’t what bothers me. I remember back during the campaign (June?) it was revealed that the Obamas’ personal car was a Chrysler 300C sedan with the hemi engine. When that was revealed - and contrasted with his “green” message - Obama allegedly traded it in on a Lexus hybrid SUV that cost far more than the average American family can afford. Some “sacrifice,” huh?
Note that Obama only started “practicing what he preached” when somebody called him on it. And did so in a way that only reinforces the notion that he’s better than the rest of us.
So I’d say his choice of car is fair game, huh? Especially given all the dirty tricks, trumped-up scandals and slander he and his campaign have thrown our way…
Should have stopped right there. You think I’m going to dispute that? I’m not. You think I want to defend Democrats in Congress over the past 8 years? I don’t. But yeah, you should have stopped here.
I agree, amazing how this doesn’t seem to matter. It’s almost certain the reason his college papers, admission forms, etc., haven’t been released is because they would reveal citizenship other than US, and possibly the source of the money he used to attend college. It’s not because he was a dummy in college that this information is being withheld, it’s much more important than that.
Say something about it then. Explain to me what your problem is.
Why would I get up in arms over it? Who cares what you think? Let’s see if you want to actually talk about something before we start assessing each others’ personalities.
On November 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 pm, PBoilermaker said:
I should stop posting when I am tired. Hell, I just saw PT 109.
True and it seems the courts are playing the, I’m not going to be the one to shine any possible light on this and be responsible for the riots that will surely ensue game. It seems impossible that rule of law is trumped by image today, but sadly is not so.
Barack Hussein Obama II’s father was a British citizen at the time of Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth.
That means the candidate known as Barack Hussein Obama II (also known as Indonesian citizen Barry Soetoro), was, at his birth, not a Natural born citizen of the United States, but rather a Natural-born subject of the crown of England.
Yes, exactly. “You have no problem with that.” You don’t care if George Bush breaks laws. So he does it. And you have no problem with it.
Heh. Liberals want to talk about torture, conservatives want to talk about waterboarding. Because that’s all we’ve done, right? Two or three times, tops, right? Sure. Soon you’ll be trying to pass off Abu Graihb as a couple of bad apples.
Oh wait.
Another example of a conservative believing as foundational the exact opposite of what is true. I’m sure you don’t think of yourself in that way, but maybe you should.
Not just who financed BHO’s college tuition, I would love to see where all of his campaign money came from. I would bet a great portion of the money came from entities who have sworn deadly attacks against the U.S.
dig, i have worked for the federal government for over 12 years, i know these people…how long have you worked for the government? These are people that have families, have donated off duty time to build parks and play soccer with local Iraqi and Afghan kids. Please tell me how long you have worked for the government and how many government workers you know and how evil they are. Yeah, Abu Ghraib was an embarrassment, they were punished, they were a few reservist who behaved like they were at a hazing party. Give me all of your examples of those evil government workers that you know. Those guys who love to torture…seriously guy, lay off some of the Hollywood koolaid. Loon.
Again, tabloid news. Do we really want the President of the US driving around unprotected?
I know some in here would, but it aint happening.
On November 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm, Silkyinfamous said:
Do we really want the President of the US to be someone who is not Constitutionally eligible?
Especially one who writes of his Hope to bring Assault from Jakarta to the White House and “bring an Empire to its knees“?
Oh yeah, dig, BHO has said, FISA remains intact, he needs that ability and he is not going to seek charges against all those torturing Agents we have. So I expect you to start criticizing your boy now.
Presidents used to ride in open-top limos, until JFK. A repeat of that would not help anyone, so let him ride in a tank. Also, the quoted article says it was being road-tested last summer. That was before Obama was elected, so he probably didn’t have anything to do with choosing the vehicle. That’s probably a Secret Service call anyway, and they don’t really care what we think about it. And they shouldn’t care. I find it a hopeful sign that at least the Secret Service hasn’t bought into the green madness.
This story is noise, there are substantive issues to discuss - like where Mr. Obama was born and whether he’s going to be as dangerously radical as feared.
Since FISA is law, and the Patriot Act which enlarged it is law, what you are saying makes no sense. If Bush acted within the law - how could he be breaking the law? Oh, yeah - you’re a lib…
your right, i do not see myself that way, i had experience in bosnia and afghanistan, had relatives in iraq…what experience you got? i’m betting none. monday morning quarterback, been nowhere, done nothing, but listening to msnbc you have all the answers. dolt.
Huh? You think I’m mad at ‘government workers?’ What?
Will there be an ashtray in the Obamabile?
On November 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm, Digshot said:
Usually you come in, drop a comment or two and then disappear. Now very loquacious. What’s up with that? Did ACORN lay you off post-election?
I’ve been right about George Bush every step of the way. And you voted for him…. how many times?
You think interragators torture at will…you think that since they have the power, they certainly must abuse it and love their jobs. You think they have no oversight or missions are not carefully planned. Actually, who cares what you think, you don’t know anything, why you voted for Obama, we all saw the videos of the moronic voters. Empty headed, know nothing, been nowhere…that’s you dig.
Good comeback….ooooh, you got me.
It has a cool horn though - sort of like those WWII subs.
Aaarrruuuuugalaaa.
It’s not the interrogators that I’m worried about, it’s the people issuing the orders to the interrogators. The people that made lawlessness and torture official policy of the United States government. That’s a small group of people. If you think I want to run through the entirety of the bureaucracy purging the rank-and-filers because of what George Bush did, you’re wrong. But someone has to take the fall, don’t they?
BHO is not going to go after the interrogators. He already said so and he is keeping FISA intact. I guess those top level government people must know stuff we don’t. My e-mail has an Agent friend of mine who is inviting me to Thanksgiving, sure hope I don’t get tortured if I don’t like the green bean casserole or something, since its policy and all.
Just asking out of curiosity…..do you think the 9/11 attacks were done by Arab terrorists or was it an inside job instigated by Bush/Cheney?
It was Bush/Cheney and the evil Zionist machine of course. Oh and Elvis too!
A Different “9/11 Truth”
My, how foreboding. You certainly left that hanging like a fart in the middle of the room.
Be careful. If you keep talking like that you might scare someone.
It was Arab terrorists, and anyone that thinks Bush and Cheney had something to do with it are morons. That said, we learned after 9-11 that George Bush is one of the least capable people on the planet. I wouldn’t trust George Bush to do anything, least of all effectively deflecting terror attacks. He’s too stupid, he’s too lazy, and he’s too self-centered to be President and have the kinds of responsibilities he has, it’s simple as that. If Al Gore were President, 9-11 wouldn’t have happened.
What’s your problem?
If Obama can have a car that best protects him and his family, shouldn’t I be able to choose one that does the same for mine? This is the problem with liberal elitest,they think they are better than everyone else because of what job they hold. This man and no other man comes before my families safety.You liberals who laugh at poking the nest may pay a cost much higher than you can imagine.
What makes you think this?
It’s quite obvious that you’ve never planned an operation or worked for any bureaucratic entity.
Your comments are incredibly naive. But let me guess - you read the NY Times.
On November 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am, 30 pcs of silver said:
Dig Shot, 30 is right - that statement makes it hard to take you seriously, on anything, from here on out!
I don’t care what a Republican has to say about my credibility. Could that be any more of a joke?
If you think 9-11 was some pre-determined event that would have happened regardless of who was in charge of the country, you’re really just excusing George Bush. You don’t think a better President could have stopped 9-11, as opposed to, say, going on vacation for a month at a time?
You and your absurd posts, of course.
What are you even talking about? I need bureaucratic planning experience to criticize Bush’s torture policy?
Make sense, please.
The president’s car really needs to have the full armor treatment–regardless of cost / gas mileage. There are probably 50 nut cases gunning / bombing for him (and any other “celebrities”) at any moment–the Pope, Larry Flint, President Reagan, President Ford, etc. Keep the tragic assassination of President Kennedy in mind–NO MAS!
John Bibb
1) its not torture
2) too bad he didn’t torture them, they deserve it.
3) after the interrogation, they should be shot, just like your hero FDR did to german SPIES in NJ.
Man, you are in this for life, aren’t you?
I’m into the truth. you’re not, you’re a liberal. its obvious.
so were OK with FDR capturing interrogating (read torturing) and killing those german spies??
Of course not. Anyone can criticize anyone. A 5th grader can criticize Bush. As you can imagine, they might not sound intelligent or experienced doing so.
BTW, I stated ‘planned an operation OR worked for any bureaucratic entity. It’s strange that you combined the two.’
btw: you never did tell me in the other thread what was going to take the place of oil??
oh and here is your new attorney general on whether your heroes at club gitmo are POWs..
hope and change baby!!
So what about planning a bureaucratic operation would give me more credibility as a critic of Bush’s torture policies?
You still don’t make any sense.
Excusing Bush???? What the heck does that mean???? Is that kinda like I’m excusing Clinton by stating that the first attack on the World Trade Center probably would have occurred regardless of who was in charge of the country?????
Please explain what Gore would have done to prevent the attacks on Sept 11. I can’t wait to read this.
Prey tell, what was Clinton preoccupied with when our national intelligence agencies, as well as those of other nations, were giving him warning after warning about OBL’s plans for “something big?”
What about the warning those national intelligence agencies gave George Bush, one month before the attack, about Obama’s specific plan to hijack an airliner?
You know what Bush was preoccupied with then? Golf.
Why do you continue to use bureaucratic as an adjective for operation? Please reread my statements.
Every Monday morning, all of my friends are allowed to criticize certain football teams. Most people respect the ones which criticize a team with thoughtful analysis based on some sort of experience.
The guys that say, ‘They threw the balls really really bad’ don’t usually add much to the discussion.
Along the same lines, anyone who characterizes a complex program executed by government employees that might even share quite a few of your ideals (as alluded to in this thread) as ‘making lawlessness and torture official policy of the United States government’ shows quite a lack of sophistication.
Even the NY Times did a better hit job than you. Or was the NY Times just trying to cover for the Bush administration?
There were many terrorists attacks while President Clinton was in office as well. There’s quite a list, actually. Al Gore’s “prescience” did not seem to help President Clinton much.
Besides which, arguing would have been is pointless. You have no means to prove such a statement while you also ignore the fact that there has not been another terrorist attack since… when?
BS.
its like sayin bin-laden is trying to hit the US
BINGO!!!
Hey Einstein, first, I think you mean Osama not Obama.
Second, if you’ve ever worked with intelligence, then you know that it’s like trying to put a big puzzle together with thousands of pieces. The game the media LOVES to play is to roll out the one little piece (out of thousands) which described, without specifics, some sort of threat. They do this even if the little piece wasn’t part of any other trend or corroboration.
Apparently you like to play this cheap game, also.
Someone with any experience wouldn’t make such a simpleton statement.
It doesn’t have to be Gore, it could be anyone. The fact that you won’t even allow yourself to entertain the idea that someone smarter or more cunning than George Bush might have been able to do something about 9-11 is probably representative of how fiercely loyal the conservative movement remains to George Bush, even as small, insignificant squirts of dissent that are more about political survival than anything else start becoming more frequent. George Bush has become one of the biggest jokes in American history, and still conservatives can’t willfully divorce themselves of that relationship with him. When you guys commit, you commit blindly and extremely hard. Bush has failed massively on every issue where he’s tried his hand, and protecting the country from terror attacks is no different. He failed, because he’s a failure.
OK, fine. Then please explain the steps that this “anyone” would have taken to prevent the attacks.
…how did a thread about the new Presidential limo turn into a 9/11 anti-Bush tirade?
What is the point of talking to you? You can just keep going on and on about these ‘government workers’ you incorrectly think I’m so hateful towards, I’ll be right over here waiting for you to finish debating no one.
you mean like Clinton when stopped the bombing of the USS Cole? or the murrah building in OK??
he’s a failure because he’s acting like a democRAT
That wasn’t me. I merely referenced it once. That isn’t my debate and you know it.
No 9-11’s though.
I’m ignoring a fact? Look in the mirror. Republicans always say, “We haven’t had any attacks since 9-11.” Setting 9-11 as the cut-off for what terrorist attacks Bush is responsible for is a little arbitrary, don’t you think? Isn’t it more factual to say “We have had one terrorist attack since Bush took office.” If you’re going to shower Bush with praise for all the things he’s done to prevent terror attacks since 9-11, then it would follow that you’d criticize him for the things he didn’t do to prevent 9-11. But hey, that would be consistent.
If we get hit again, will conservatives be so eager to implement a dead zone of responsibility around President Barack Obama? Do all of our Presidents from now on get a freebie terrorist attack before we start keeping track?
That’s not your debate? You certainly appear to be following me around with it.
You are laughably paranoid.
Parenthetically mentioning something once can’t be characterized as “following” someone around.
On the other hand, I’ve asked you to state the steps “anyone” taking office in Jan 2001 would have taken to prevent the attacks in Sept 2001. It’s quite obvious that you’re deliberating ignoring this question (or you haven’t finished finding a white paper on the topic).
This is all you’ve had to talk about today from what I’m reading.
I know this is all after the fact and it’s a lot of conjecture, but this is just simple reasoning. George Bush is a terrible President possessing a great number of terrible personal and professional characteristics. The difficulty of a particular course of action should not be solely assessed by whether or not George Bush fails at it. There is nothing in George Bush’s background that qualifies him to be President. He is in way over his head, and that’s why we’ve been going around in circles in Iraq for years, it’s why the economy is bottoming out, and it’s why we got hit on 9-11.
In other words, just because George Bush failed to stop 9-11 doesn’t mean it was a pre-ordained, unavoidable event. There are millions of very capable, skilled people in this country, liberal and conservative, better suited to be the President and who stood a better chance of preventing 9-11. How can you not agree with that?
Then you have very poor reading skills.
Yeah? Let’s see. All you have to do is explain whatever you’re trying to explain in another way.
But that won’t make any sense either, I bet.
Of course I don’t disagree with that. I have never disagreed with that.
I’m not stating, ‘if Bush couldn’t have prevented it, then nobody could have.’ I’m telling you that no nobody could have. This isn’t to say that the attacks were preordained. A confluence of events could have fortuitously preempted (a better word than prevented) it.
I’m saying that, realistically, no incoming President would have made the paradigm shifting changes which would have been required to prevent the attacks simply based on the scant intelligence information that was available at the time. I hope this helps.
Digshot = Watershed = Sean Penn
Riiiight. Why are you here - on a conservative website spouting your BDS? Now, that is funny.
You stop short of calling it an inside job but come very close.
I am wondering why you think that if the President had actionable intelligence and clear specifics about their plans for September 11, 2001 that he would have allowed it to occur. Mind-boggling.
I get that you don’t like Bush - I get it - but the man is on his way out and the soul-fixer is on the way in. One would think that the effects of BDS would slowly but surely wane but I guess that on the road to recovery one would have to admit that they actually have a problem. Good luck with that.
We didn’t need a paradigm shift. Our government had many pieces of this plan, and while there were problems with the agencies communicating with each other, it’s really hard not to notice the aloofness and incompetence of George Bush on the issue of terrorism in that first year. I think a memo a month before Osama flies a few airplanes into a few buildings that says Osama might want to hijack some aircraft should be considered quite a bit more than scant. What are you waiting for? A cocktail napkin to turn up that has the whole plot laid out in detail?
I hear Obama’s new limo is a gas guzzler.
I hear Obama loves “Big Oil”.
My German Shepherd would make a better president than Obama. Everyone knows it, it is a fact.
How you like dem apples?
Fire doesn’t melt steel.
Google it.
I agree with some of the other posters: I want the U.S. president riding in a domestic vehicle, what better than a Cad or a Lincoln, armoured to ensure no one can pop off a shot successfully. I also liked the idea of BO driving a hemi Chrysler, which are quite cool, while spouting off about what the rest of us should be driving, very uncool. Too bad the media took zero interest. As long as these stories fail to gain traction, they didn’t happen as far as the average American is concerned.
That’s great and all, but what are your thoughts on the scientific fact that Manbearpig would have thwarted 9/11 if the Supreme Court and Dick Cheney hadn’t stolen the election from him?
Google it. It’s an absolute fact. Everyone knows it.
I don’t have fun with politics if everyone is agreeing. I post on some liberal boards, and the conservatives always run away. That’s why I come here, if you’re genuinely curious.
Not really.
Bush didn’t see it coming because he wasn’t looking for it. But he did get actionable intelligence in my opinion, you aren’t the sole arbiter of what that terms means, and I certainly see enough in the PDB that I would call it actionable. I know what I would have done in that position if that memo came across my desk. I can’t speak to why Bush saw it another way, but from what we’ve learned about the man since 9-11, it probably had a lot to do with his aloofness and permeating stupidity.
Bush is leaving but that doesn’t mean we’ve learned all the lessons we need to from his administration. There is something wrong with if you if you can recognize all of the problems that Bush has put us in, but then insist we have to just forgive and forget and focus on the future. If you don’t learn from your mistakes you’re doomed to repeat them.
Giving credit to George Bush for stopping all terror attacks since 9-11 but excusing him from any responsibility for 9-11 is one such mistake. A minor one comparatively to some of the others, but one that should be fairly self-evident, in my opinion.
Is that what you’re hinging this whole debate on!?!? Hah!
Well, you’re wrong. In fact, you should be embarrassed.
One memo written by one FBI employee in Minneapolis which never even made it to the director of the FBI, nonetheless the AG, nonetheless the President can hardly be considered to be actionable intelligence for the President.
I can assure you that the FBI is currently in possession of over 300 such warning memos regarding a plethora of threats. The government would have to turn itself inside out in order to address them all.
Of course, much like lottery tickets, some of these warnings might be very accurate. I’m quite sure that the press and people like you will proudly showcase them as examples of intelligence failures in the future.
You don’t have your facts straight.
I think we’re talking about different memos.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
Make your time. Move Obama’s limo for great justice.
Dick Cheney meant to shoot that guy in the face. Google it. It’s a fact that everyone knows.
And your qualifications stack up, how, exactly? I can’t use the term actionable intelligence; however, you can determine that the POTUS had actionable intelligence that could have prevented September 11, 2001. Am I the only who sees something wrong with this picture?
I guess that “aloofness” and “permeating stupidity” has been just the right mix to prevent another attack on US soil since then.
Right. I don’t think anyone is extolling that you can’t criticize him… you seem to be getting hung up on that. The issue is simple - we disagree with your assessment. Additionally, maybe next time you can try and hold your e-tonuge long enough to wait until there is a thread dedicated to him where a full blown episode of BDS is much more appropriate.
You show me where any one has said anything remotely close to this?
The soul-fixer doesn’t make mistakes.
Let’s just agree to disagree, shall we?
30, you are too kind.
PB,
I have to be.
Roger that.
Here’s an idea. Reread your own link and try to figure out what your talking about. Are you keying in on the 1998 report? That’s the the only one mentioning the use of aircraft. Wouldn’t that have come across Clinton’s desk?
BTW, OBL wanting to hit the US was a staple of security briefings for years.
Figure out your point and get back to me.
Ya know. If Digshot thinks that there was action to take based on the intelligence, then shouldn’t Digshot be capable of telling us exactly what actions should have been taken?
Are we missing something here?
Good point. I’m guessing the answer would be something along the lines of: “anything Gore would have done.” Yeah, I think that about covers it.
I’m keying in on the memo itself. It cites the ‘98 report, yes. And immediately after 9-11, before anyone knew anything about George Bush and before he’d ruined everything he touched, that this could be explained away as being too vague or not particularly interesting might have been plausible.
Now we do know about George Bush. He’s not on top of things. At all. In fact, if he is actually working at all, he tends to be doing counter-productive, stupid things. He wasn’t doing anything about Osama bin Laden as President, like he wasn’t doing so many things he should have been doing. This is how things went in the Clinton administration when there was a similar PDB that warned of an Osama threat:
The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/26/rice-clinton-terrorism/
If you want to know what Bush should have done from that memo, I think that would be a good place to start. What’s so hard about that? We do have airports for a reason, you know. We have security at airports for a reason. Call some people, give them the heads up, what is there to lose? Better to err on the side of caution, isn’t it?
WHICH MEMO???!?!??!
Are you referring to Richard Clarke’s efforts during the Clinton administration?
Honestly, I doubt anyone can follow your incoherent ramblings.
Was this statement supposed to mean anything?
Please tell me that you also realize that boosting security at New York City area airports during Sept 11, 2001 wouldn’t have done anything to stop hijackers in Portland, Boston, or Washington. Please tell me that you’re smart enough to understand that. Please tell me that you have more than this.
It also says that they alerted security at other airports along the eastern seaboard.
The Presidential Daily Briefing that George Bush saw on Aug. 6th, 2001. Jesus, I linked to it for you, what more do you want?
Yes.
Exactly. “other” means not the ones that would have mattered. Because you have to admit that it would have been specifically mentioned otherwise.
So this is it? This is the great action you’re talking about? Boosting security at airports which might or might not be the right airports, and boosting security to levels that might or not might have preempted the attackers?? Genius.
How many more times do I need to state that the threat warning didn’t mention anything specific???? It merely stated that OBL wanted to hit the US. Everyone already knew that. Merely mentioning it again is meaningless.
Do you really not get this?