Political Correctness Or Safe Skys?

[usjacket]

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/articl...1&articleid=711

 

[mweiss]

Responses should be directed here in the NW forum. It's been crossposted to just about every other airline thus far.

 

[TransatlanticFlyGuy]

Reading this articel sent chills up and down my spine. YIKES!

 

[cavalier]

I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play instruments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And I wonder if George Bushy can really call this country any safer after 9/11.

I wonder if George Bushy's action in Iraq did anything at all to make us all safer or did it or just inflame these insane radical religious zealots.

I wonder if four more miserable years of George Bushy becomes reality if this country can survive it.

I wonder why his administration is asking the question of postponing elections if a terrorist’s event takes place. (Supposedly an independent panels idea, sure it is)

I wonder if he doesn't care if one commercial airline blows to smithereens hence assuring him four more years of crushing the working class and lifting the wealthy to new and even loftier heights.

I wonder a lot more things but don't want to bore you....

 

[coolflyingfool]

I think it shows that the threat is not over and we all need to be aware of our surroundings. All I can say is that if something happens when I'm around, I'm going down swinging!

 

[FM2436]

And you think John Kerry, a Presidential candidate who's being call more Liberal than Clinton, is going to be any?


From the Boyd Groups Aviation Web Page

On The Democrat Side: John Kerry

Whatever faults Bush has in the area of aviation security, this pompous windbag trumps them in spades.

When one looks at the track record, the W is strictly junior-varsity compared to John F. Kerry when it comes to being all talk and most of it a pack of lies. Judging by some of the claims this guy has made in regard to his security record, it's a wonder he was never appointed to run the TSA - he fits perfectly in the shallow-integrity mold of Magaw, Loy, and Stone.

"I sounded the alarm prior to 9/11," Kerry has stated on the campaign trail. This guy gets his ethics from the Clinton I-didn't-have-sex school of political double-talk. That statement alone disqualifies the man to be president. It is a shameless lie from a person who obviously is used to being surrounded by people who never question anything he says. The truth is that Senator John Kerry blatantly ignored the alarm before 9/11.

In May 2001, Kerry was urgently contacted by Brian Sullivan, an honorably-retired FAA security inspector. Mr. Sullivan advised Kerry about the sloppy state of security at Boston Logan Airport. Mr. Sullivan reminded Kerry that there was a terrorist threat. Prophetically, he told Kerry:

"... Think what the result would be of a coordinated attack that took down several domestic flights on the same day. With our current screening, this is more than possible. It is almost likely..."

Kerry did nothing. But Kerry had clear proof that what Mr. Sullivan alleged was true. During this time frame, a video was sent to the good senator. It was done by a credible journalist at a Boston TV station, showing how Logan's airport security was a scandalous mess. Kerry ignored it. When Steve Elson, another retired FAA inspector, attempted to make an appointment to see Kerry to help him understand the gravity of the situation at this Massachusetts airport, the senator's office denied the request. The reason: Elson was not a "constituent."

Oh, and as for the tape, Kerry's office, after several months, claimed they had sent to on the the Department of Transportation for review. That's the equivalent of sending FBI wiretap evidence to John Gotti. Kerry now tries to smokescreen this by telling the world he brought the problem to the attention of the DOT. The lie there is that he didn't do anything to assure remedial action was taken. The truth is that John Kerry was told his state's biggest airport had security problems. He was told what could happen. And the truth is that Kerry blew it off.

Four months later, Kerry no longer had to stretch is sorry imagination to "think what the result would be of a coordinated attack."

The fact is that Kerry didn't give a damn about security before 9/11. The fact is that today he is not only lying about it, but he's trying to make political points out of it. The fact is that he's an out-and-out dishonest politician who bends which ever way the wind blows. He has no moral compass.

 

[FM2436]

I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play instruments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And I wonder if George Bushy can really call this country any safer after 9/11.

I wonder if George Bushy's action in Iraq did anything at all to make us all safer or did it or just inflame these insane radical religious zealots.

I wonder if four more miserable years of George Bushy becomes reality if this country can survive it.

I wonder why his administration is asking the question of postponing elections if a terrorist’s event takes place. (Supposedly an independent panels idea, sure it is)

I wonder if he doesn't care if one commercial airline blows to smithereens hence assuring him four more years of crushing the working class and lifting the wealthy to new and even loftier heights.

I wonder a lot more things but don't want to bore you....

Here is this morning's Hot Flash from the Boyd Group's Aviation Wed Page. Wasn't Garvey a Clinton appointee?


Democrats: Integrity Not A Requirement

""America: Secure at home, and respected in the world..."

That, or some similarly-worded doggerel, is the buzz line for the Democratic Party this year.

Ah, yes! Secure at home. The Democrats are going to make us safe and secure right here in the good 'ole US of A. We're saved! Security salvation is at hand!

And as their first move to establish this necessary level of protection from the forces of the Dark Side, they've brought in what they think is the "big gun" in security. The first step is to make their Convention this week in Boston totally secure, so America is not deprived of the full frontal political Monty from Hillary, Bill, and Teddy.

Yessir, the Democrats didn't go half way on their choice of "security advisor" for their big convention to be held this week in Boston. With all the potential for attacks, they didn't mess around, they appointed someone intimately experienced in security matters.

Like, how to screw up security. Someone with a proven, uncontrovertible track record of ignoring threats, inability to grasp issues, and generally proving that lack of ability is no barrier to high government position.

Yes, friends, the Democrats have crowned none other that Jane Garvey as their expert on making sure that al Qaeda doesn't crash their party. Like she allowed them to do with four airplanes (two from Boston) on 9/11.

Democrats: Quality Doesn't Count. Neither Does Integrity. Let's state it again. This woman truly is an expert. Been on the front lines. Garvey was in charge of a dangerously-mismanaged aviation security system that allowed four airliners to get easily hijacked. Even after months and years of warnings.

That, apparently, is the type of experience and integrity that fits the Democrats this year. Let's recount Garvey's wonderful resume, one that the Dems cannot but be aware of:

She ignored repeated security warnings before 9/11. Indeed, one GAO report stated that the FAA own facilities did not follow security guidelines. That oughta give great comfort to those in attendance.

She obviously showed little or no interest in security matters when she was head of the FAA. Former FAA people tell us that Garvey wasn't much interested in attending FAA security briefings. A clean-sheet mind, unencumbered by factual data, supposedly is better than being all confused by security briefings.

Garvey is a proven expert on not answering hard questions without fumbling and bumbling. Take a look at her performance before the 9/11 commission. That's probably because she doesn't know much. Let's not let lack of expertise get in the way of high-profile positions in government. Or at the Democratic Convention.

Garvey, who is now cashing in on her stint at mis-managing the FAA, was nothing more than a cheap patronage appointee to be head of the FAA - and her performance in office proved it.

This is just another example of why America is not any more secure than before 9/11. The politicians - in this case the Democrats, but Republicans are guilty, too - don't have the guts, the integrity, or the honesty to hold their own accountable for failure.

Anybody Really Want To Avoid Another 9/11? Appointing Jane Garvey to be head of convention "security" is like making John Gotti head of the FBI. It means the Democrats are making a political mockery of the victims of 9/11. The families of victims of 9/11 - a general group that is now "represented" by any number of self-appointed and sometimes politically-motivated "committees" - have been spit upon. Wonder if any of these "committees" really care?

Nah. Watch, members of at least some of these "committees" will be in Boston, cheering on Kerry. And all the while, they will be "protected" based on the advice of the same woman whose incompetence at the FAA helped lead to the deaths of their loved ones.

Real juicy.

And We Accuse Third-World Nations Of Being Corrupt. The 9/11 attacks were an enormous and continuing success for the terrorists. Almost 3,000 people died. Our nation's economy was turned upside down, and it sent Washington into an expensive frenzy of screwing up aviation. If Garvey had heeded repeated warnings, and had been competent in her job, it could have been avoided. That is a fact. But, facts don't matter to politicians and second-agenda "committees."

This Guy's Dangerous. So, if this is the Democrats' idea of making America secure, ask yourself this question: Just how much more "secure" will America be under John Kerry, when he and his party honor and actually reward the single person most responsible for aviation security failures before 9/11?

It's an issue of integrity and honesty - things sorely missing, if Garvey's appointment is any indication.

But, that's the type of "security" that these ethically-challenged politicians seem to like. And Kerry, let's be blunt, regardless of political leanings - well, he's beneath dirt. Before 9/11, he was given direct, specific, and hard facts regarding the major security problems at Logan Airport. First, he sat on it. Then, he claimed he sent the data to the DOT. Then, on September 15, 2001- after the hijackings, he told the media that he had previously requested the GAO to do an investigation of Logan. Gee, the DOT says they have no record of any such request from Kerry.

He lied.

And that lie is now enhanced by rewarding an incompetent, blood-on-her-hands former FAA Administrator - Jane Garvey - to be security advisor for the Democratic Convention.

Yeah. We're safer now. With Garvey bird-dogging security at the Dem Convention, the Republicans must be thrilled.

And, with the low security priority the Democrats are putting on at their own convention, al Qaeda's probably rooting for Kerry to win.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Gosh, I wonder why Michael Boyd of The Boyd Group - 'airline consultant' and well-known 'friend' of labor - would think voting Democrat might be a bad idea... The company that never saw an employee concession it didn't like has our best interests at heart!

 

[BillLumbergh]

We've got at least two threads on this topic. We'll concentrate on the other thread:

This Article Is Spreading Like Wildfire