Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
drudge report is reporting that a low flying plane flew back and forth over Bush
http://www.drudgereport.com/
take it with a grain of salt... it's drudge
I would like to here that.
Sox, you wanna talk about how this WHOLE thing could have been avoided if Clinton had accepted bin Laden on the FIVE separate occasions he was offered?
re; I never said they occured prior to detection. If I gave that impression I'm sorry.
No problemo. Going back to the origin of the discussion, I chimed in with my personal experience because someone (I think you) blamed NORAD for the loss of life. My only assertion was that such blame was misplaced because detection and protection of domestic airspace was not NORAD's directive prior to 9/11. The original discussion centered on detection, not post-detection actions.
Not a big deal, as discussions on these boards can take many twists and turns as they play out. It's just the nature of the medium.
I never said they occured prior to detection. If I gave that impression I'm sorry.
Sorry to dissapoint you but the "training camps' were in Northern Iraq in territory controlled by the Kurds and not Saddam. The only terrorist that we know Saddam supported were the suicide bombers in Palestine as he paid their families money. Much like the Saudies did.
There was no connection to Saddam prior to 9-11 even though we tied very hard to draw a direct connection. Since the war we have found out that there is ever less but I guess you can believe whatever this administration alludes to as they count on that and I point to just tow items for your consideration:
1 - American polled just prior to the war - 48% said they thought Saddam planned 9-11.
2 - 34% of american thought Saddam used WMD on our troops during this war.
Our citizens are vastly uninformed are because of that I think our democracy is threatened.
You should note in that PDF document that escort missions are requested by FAA ot Transport Canada (their FAA) authorities. NORAD's involvement occurs post detection.
Sox...
The terrorists, responsible for 9/11, were al-Qaeda. They have training camps in Iraq, and were funded by Hussein. That's the connection...one of them, anyway.
Yes, one of our missions was accomplished - the ousting of Hussein. The rest is guerilla and will take a long time, just like the President and his generals have been saying all along.
There is conflicting evidence on when Norad knew but the earliest would have been 8:31 and the latest was 8:40.
Here is some info on the role of Norad with hijacked aircraft in 1990. I'm sure it changed as I think in 1999 I read somewhere where is got much tougher and also tracked terrorist and potential drug smugglers.
http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/NORAD%20Policy%20for%20Hijacked%20Aircraft.pdf
re: Okay So who then does the FAA call when they have an emergency, still prior to 9/10/01.
That is a different issue, beyond the scope of my experience. What was being discussed was, "what was NORAD's mission prior to 9/11?" Monitoring and protection of domestic airspace was not part of their directive at that time.
You have asked a separate question. To paraphrase, "who did the FAA notify when an emergency situation was detected in domestic airspace prior to 9/11". One topic speaks to detection, the other speaks to post-detection action. I do not have the background to comment on the latter vis-a-vis an emergency in domestic airspace.
Okay So who then does the FAA call when they have an emergency, still prior to 9/10/01.
As I noted in my first post on this topic: Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace.
That means Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and Strategic Bombers coming over the DEW line, for the uninitiated.
so what was their mission on Sept 10th?
re: Then we disagree as to their mission
Yes, we do. Vehemently.
Then we disagree as to their mission. They knew and could listen to the first airplane highjacked as the pilot was turning on and off his radio. By the second highjacking they had no doubt.
They could track the planes on radar as they made their way to NY. It was a major failure and why there has been no investigation is a public disgrace. I just can't fathom why Bush/Chaney are stonewalling this investigation.
Soxfan,
I am not disputing the timeline. You missed the thrust of my post (I think). The point I was making was that such detection and protection in domestic airspace was not NORAD's mission on 9/11. Post 9/11, their mission has been expanded to include such, but this was not the case on 9/11.
Well let's look at their actions on the morning of 9-11. Rather than waste the space here I'll provide a link to the timeline on 9-11. Our governmet had policies if effect at the time and if we can get a plane next to Paine Stewart in a matter of minutes we certainly didn't have to wait so long to get planes in the air when Otis AFB is 7/8 minutes away from the WTC.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/dayof911.html
SoxFan,
re: Plus the fact that NORAD was absolutely incompetent IMHO caused many Americans to lose their lives.
Respectfully, you are placing blame where it is not deserved (if blame needs to be placed, at all). Monitoring and protecting against terrorism in domestic airspace was not part of NORAD's mission prior to 9/11, although it is now. As a person who once served in an ICBM silo as a launch officer, I can assure you that the men and women of NORAD are anything but incompetent. Now, if you want to take shots at those who define NORAD's mission, fine. Although you do have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight working for you. I could use your rationale and say that if we had grounded all domestic flights on the evening of 9/10, then 9/11 would never have happened. But why would we have grounded those flights in the absence of the benefit of 20/20 hindsight?
http://www.norad.mil/index2.html
Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace. Because of that day, NORAD's focus has increased to include domestic airspace. NORAD's mission is truly global.
Prior to Sept. 11, NORAD was a word that was associated predominately with the Cold War. The eyes and ears of NORAD were focused on aerospace threats that may come from sources far away from the shores of Canada and the United States.
Today, the highly skilled men and women of NORAD use ground-based radar, airborne radar, satellites, fighter aircraft, proven command structures and intelligence capabilities to enforce control of the skies over the United States and Canada.
This website is dedicated to the men and women of the Armed Forces in Canada and the United States who have given their lives to maintain the freedom we enjoy in North America. In their names we will continue to "Deter, Detect and Defend."
I don't think Iraq has anything to do with 9/11. The report that came out yesterday makes it pretty clear that there weren't even any ties to Al Qaeda. How many times did Bush make that assertion?
And I don't think you are cold. I remember your nephew from a while back. It is not about blaming soldiers it is about the Foreign Policy of the USA.
She didn't read the damn thing. I think the Taliban negotiations in June/July that went sour caused the 9-11 attack. Right after that both the CIA and FBI and even Cheney and Rice said the chatter increased. How they couldn't connect the dots is because everything is just decided by a few neo-cons.
Bush said it exists and couldn't explain it so maybe you can. Where is there a connection to 9-11. Just a few relevant facts are all I ask.
I understand guerilla warfare. What makes you think I don't? I was just restating what our President said on the "mission accomplished" aircraft carrier PR speech.
We will be in Iraq a long time and 220 killed will be small change when this is over. Three were killed today.
I think a lot hinges on the report Sandy Berger left for Condi Rice. I would like to see that report and I have not heard anything from Berger. I think the Clinton politics are to stand by Blair at this point. Though I shoould qualify that by saying I didn't like Clinton's foreign policy at all.
Sox...
I cannot help that you don't get the connection. It doesn't change the fact that it exists.
And, apparently, you don't understand guerilla warfare, either.
Oh well, welcome to the board, anyway!
Excuse me but what on this earth led you to believe that Iraq had one smidgeon to do with 9-11. Quite frankly I don't get the connection?
BTw - did anyone ver doubt our Military would have anything but success considering the enemy? However, combat is over according to Bush and that is where we find ourselves. Plus it's costing us $4 billion per month and lives lost on both sides. How many non-American civilians have to die for the blood lust of revenge?
The point, ergo, is that the liberal media and their "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!" slant to everything fail to mention the enormous success our military is enjoying in Iraq.
Sure, death is sad, but let's not lose our resolve, lose sight of our goal, nor forget 9/11. Those are the people I mourn, more than our soldiers...after all, fighting and perhaps dying, is part of their job. And, lest you think me cold, my nephew is part of the 101st. I prayed for his safety, daily, until his tour was up. Thankfully, he's back stateside now, and not a scratch on him.
I think they could have been prevented as well. I wonder if they looked at Bush's Taliban negotiations and what effect that had on the attack of 9-11. Plus the fact that NORAD was absolutely incompetent IMHO caused many Americans to lose their lives.
Of course if it wasn't for 9-11 Bush wouldn't even be considered a credible candidate for the Republican nomination as he would have many challenging his absolute incompetence with the economy.
Here a snippet I lost the link.
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., asked if he thought the Sept. 11 attacks could have been prevented, said on CBS' "The Early Show" he thought the answer "is probably yes. The most significant set of events, in my opinion, are in the section of the report that has been censored and therefore won't be available to the American people."
Actually a more recent estimate is over 6,000 civilians killed. Plus the US dead are over 220. Some question how we are not calling all the ones who die in "traffic accidents" as not killed by the enemy. Last week a soldier in Maine was killed by a "traffic accident" and his parents were told that he was forced off the road and killed by an angry mob. He was classified as an accidental killing and not included in the number killed by Iraqi's.
However, we should also list the wounded as their lives have been horrifically altered in many cases. We have well over 1200 wounded.
It is important to remember that the number killed is not the number of dead in Iraq we have lost over 200 people there. But as Tommy Franks said we don't count the dead, meaning the ones we kill. That is why it is not reported how many Iraqi's are killed. No one knows, the government does not care. People estimate we have killed about 3000 civilians, people who just got in the way but I have yet to see the number of military. I do know in one bombing in Baghdad the estimate was 2 to 3000. Yesterday I read that there were some 20,000 bombs dropped in Iraq.
Personally I mourn them all.
Must be the heat........
Bank Robber Writes Holdup Note on Resume
Thu Jul 24, 8:16 AM ET Add AP - Feature Stories to My Yahoo!
FORT WORTH, Texas - A bank robber made the ultimate bad career move when he wrote a holdup note -- on the back of his resume.
Police used the job-search information to identify the man, who was arrested and charged with robbing a Wells Fargo bank branch on Fort Worth's east side.
The man had tried to hide the personal information by taping black construction paper over it. But then he forgot to retrieve the note and take it with him after giving it to the teller.
Police then just peeled the tape from the note.
A tip led police to a Fort Worth motel, where the man was arrested Saturday. He remained in federal custody on a bank robbery charge in the July 15 holdup.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=817&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20030724/ap_...
And I thought my cat was weird....
This Cat Burglar Is Really a Cat
Thu Jul 24, 8:17 AM ET Add AP - Feature Stories to My Yahoo!
SIMI VALLEY, Calif. - A cat burglar's booty is being hoarded in a Ventura County home.
A marauding feline named Midnight -- now dubbed Klepto Cat -- has been sneaking off in the dark to raid neighbors' homes, garages, sheds and patios, bringing home shoes, hats, shirts, socks and even a wrapped Christmas present.
It's stressful for pet owners Richard and Sue Boyd.
"We get so embarrassed by this," Sue Boyd said. "We wake up in the morning and go out and there's stuff under the truck. The cat leaves things all over. We don't want these things."
"He's a klepto cat," her husband said.
Each day, Midnight's owners leave a bag with the purloined goods hanging from their mailbox so neighbors can reclaim missing items.
It is unclear why Midnight prefers wearables.
Gary Sampson, an Indianapolis-based veterinarian who specializes in cat behavior, said the 13-year-old cat is probably drawn to body odors.
"He's obviously a hunter," Sampson said. "He's doing this at night. This is when they can get prey. It's just an extension of that."
Police Sgt. Paul Fitzpatrick said there isn't anything the police could do about Midnight's crimes, except refer the complaint to animal control.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=817&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20030724/ap_...
Amen, Castle. eom
If they did report the enemy deaths... must be something like hundreds to one... we wouldn't have the space to print it all
Seriously... may our folks rest in peace.
Why the FCC needs to spend more money to carry out it's decision? Specifically... I wouldn't know... but I would think they would need money just to operate...
You are allowed to paste the whole article on this board...
(bolded are my emphasis)
House Votes to Prevent Change in Media Rule
By Christopher Stern and Jonathan Krim
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 24, 2003; Page A01
The House voted yesterday to block the Federal Communications Commission from imposing rules that would allow the nation's biggest broadcasting companies to buy more television stations, setting up a potential showdown with the White House.
A bipartisan coalition pushed through the measure by attaching it to an appropriations bill to fund the Commerce, State and Justice departments and several agencies, including the FCC. The spending bill was approved by a vote of 400 to 21, despite a veto threat from the Bush administration and objections from the Republican House leadership.
The legislation would prohibit the FCC from spending any money to carry out its decision last month to allow individual companies to own television stations that reach as much as 45 percent of the national audience. The House measure would keep the limit at 35 percent.
If the House language becomes law, it could have significant repercussions for the corporate parents of the CBS and Fox broadcast networks, which own stations that reach more than 35 percent of the country. Those companies could be forced to sell stations in some of the nation's largest and most lucrative markets. NBC owns stations that reach 34 percent of the country. ABC, which has stations that reach 24 percent of the national audience, has room to grow under a 35 percent ownership cap.
The major networks say they need revenue from the cash-rich stations to pay for expensive programming.
Several industry lobbyists said yesterday that they expect the Senate to take a similar approach to the House in amending an appropriations bill to roll back the ownership cap. The lobbyists said they would work to strip the language from the legislation when conferees sit down to reconcile differences between the two bills.
"The backdoor efforts by the (House) Appropriations Committee to cut off funds to the FCC needed to implement these rules is very disappointing to us." said B. Robert Okun, NBC's chief Washington lobbyist.
The House vote would stop the FCC from spending money on its new rule for only one fiscal year. The support the measure attracted may embolden critics of the 45 percent ownership cap to seek a permanent change to the rule.
Opponents of the FCC's action included conservative and liberal public interest groups worried that further consolidation among media companies would lead to more-homogenized programming and make it harder for unpopular viewpoints to be heard. Many also worried that stations would lose their local identities as they became part of huge media companies.
As the House considered the spending bill yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on the effect the FCC's rule would have on local ownership of television stations. L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Parents Television Council, a conservative group that opposes the FCC's action, testified that his members are overwhelmed by the "raw sewage, ultra-violence, graphic sex and raunchy language that is flooding into our living rooms night and day by giant media corporations with no concern whatsoever for community standards."
Yesterday's vote was a setback for FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell. He has argued that the media business has gone through a dramatic transformation in the past 10 years, making it possible for the agency to relax its limits on corporate ownership.
"Our Democracy is strong," Powell said in a prepared statement. "It would be irresponsible to ignore the diversity of viewpoints provided by cable, satellite and the Internet."
Small and medium-size broadcasting companies opposed the FCC's decision to allow the major networks to own more stations. They claim that the networks are able to force them to carry shows they don't want at the expense of local and regional programming.
(Alan Frank, chief executive of The Washington Post Co.'s television unit, Post-Newsweek Stations Inc., is chairman of an alliance of 600 television station owners who lobbied against raising the cap.)
Page 2 of 2
House Votes to Prevent Change in Media Rule
If anything, the Senate is more antagonistic than the House to the FCC's deregulatory approach.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) supports legislation that would force some of the largest radio companies to sell some of their stations. Other lawmakers want to reverse an FCC decision to allow one company to own newspapers and television stations in the same market.
Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) is pushing a rarely used legislative device known as a "resolution of disapproval," which would effectively vacate the entire FCC decision. The resolution is awaiting a vote in the Senate. To go into effect, it would have to be approved by the House and signed by the president.
Many lawmakers and lobbyists expect the Senate's best chance to undo the FCC's action would be to follow the House's lead.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) declined to comment yesterday on his plans for the bill. Other prominent Republicans, such as Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), have joined Democrats in calling for a wholesale reversal of the FCC's ownership rules.
Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), a member of the Appropriations Committee, said it is almost inevitable that Congress will send legislation to the White House that rolls back at least some of the FCC's decision on media ownership. "It's got momentum in my opinion," Hollings said in an interview.
Staff writer Frank Ahrens in Hollywood contributed to this report.
On Wednesday, two American soldiers were killed in separate attacks on their convoys, including one near Mosul.
The latest deaths brought to 158 the number of U.S. servicemen killed in action since the war began March 20, surpassing by 11 the death toll in the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).
Also Thursday, Arab satellite broadcaster al-Arabiya aired a tape of what it said were a group of Saddam Fedayeen vowing revenge for the deaths of Odai and Qusai Hussein.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030724/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ir...
You know what pisses me off about these reports? Their complete lack of balance. So, 158 soldiers have been killed...how many terrorists? How many Iraqi soldiers? Makes it look like we're just on vacation in Iraq, and getting picked off.
LOL I wanted something controversial! Something about how big government and large corporations are combining to poison us with BS.
I'm trying to understand this right now.
The House and the Senate want to restrict Media access to 35% of a market. Only FOX and CBS right now have more than that %. The President and the FCC want to raise this to 45%. In order to prevent the FCC from implementing the higher standard, the House is trying to restrict the funds the FCC needs to implement the higher standard. I can't figure out why the FCC would need more money in order for the networks to increase their market share? This makes no sense to me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37741-2003Jul23.html?nav=hptop_tb
Ergo... some topic you chose...
speaking of "flatulence"
http://www.mrgoodbeer.com/fart/
ergo..okay...well, enjoy! eom
Your Friend Castle told me.
Welcome, ergo! How'd you find me so fast? Be sure to tell all your friends!
Thank you Vivian
This just in:
WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- Farmers are mailing parcels of sheep and cow manure to lawmakers to protest a so-called "flatulence" tax on greenhouse gas emissions from their flocks and herds, the New Zealand's postal service complained.
The service said about 20 reeking packages and envelopes had been sent to the nation's Parliament and that the protest ‹ dubbed the "Raise a Stink" campaign ‹ was endangering the health of postal workers.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |