Ok. Earlier in the year, which is even better. Thanks.
First, you said that Bush should have given this speech after the August 6 PDB and the other warnings. Are you now saying he should have pressed for these measures earlier in the year? If so, upon what basis? Further, did you even read the quote--Hart and Rudman both said that even had implementation begun in the spring, the attacks would still likely have happened.
No earlier in the year...or years.
Again, upon what basis? The purported warnings weren't received until the summer. Further, Bush didn't become President until January, 2001. Are you saying that Clinton is equally to blame? If so, how does this fit into any MIHOP or LIHOP scenario of yours?
Safety and security versus inconvenience. I included the FAA and the airlines in my scenario. Congress of course could have input.
Which means that every change would have had to have been thoroughly discussed and debated. Further, when Federal rules are changed on a non-emergency basis, they have to be proposed, and in most cases those affected given time to comment, and more time must be allowed for those affected to comply. This takes months, and even years in many cases. Look how long it took to implement all of the things you say Bush should have done during the summer, and that's with the tremendous impetus of the September 11 attacks driving events.
Sure. Source on hugely expensive? I'm sure a few corporate tax breaks here and there would help derail some of the costs.
From an Associated Press
article from April 2003:
Congress gave domestic airlines $100 million for the doors, which amounts to about $13,000 per aircraft — far less than the $30,000 to $50,000 the FAA estimates they actually cost. Airlines are lobbying Congress for more money to pay the difference.
The Senate voted on Thursday to directly reimburse the airlines for the cost of the doors, while the House proposed giving airlines cash to pay for new security costs. The issue is likely to be resolved next week.
Foreign airlines authorized to operate in the United States also have to install the reinforced doors. Wanda Warner, spokeswoman for the International Air Transport Association, said she expects them to meet the deadline.
The International Civil Aviation Organization, the United Nations' aviation arm, is requiring every airliner in the world to install reinforced cockpit doors by Nov. 1.
The association estimates it will cost airlines $2 billion to comply with the directive. The U.S. government won't reimburse foreign airlines for the cost.
Note this is just for the cockpit doors.
Of course had the pilots and airlines had these warnings, those protocols may have changed.
Wishful thinking. You're saying that one report among many should have been given special credence to make such a major change.
The protocol of a pilot is to give up control of his plane to a hijacker?
As I said, it was to cooperate, which includes letting them in the cockpit and letting them stand behind you. From which it's easy for them to knife you if they feel like it.
Misuse of the term?You can take that up with the Federal Government.
Please see-
http://ntl.bts.gov/faq/airmarshal.html
Sadly, just because Congress passed the law naming the program that it doesn't make it correct. The term Sky Marshal pre-dates this program by 10 years, and the change was unnecessary, confusing, and incorrect. Or do you think the US government is always right, Swing?
I understand now. You favor reactive instead of proactive.
Straw man. Of course I favor proactive approaches. But you are confusing "proactive" with "prescient," and ignoring the realities of the pre-September 11 political environment.
