John Bolton: I don’t want my family in New York during the KSM trial
posted at 6:03 pm on November 24, 2009 by Allahpundit
A shocking display of lameness from an unlikely source, courtesy of the producers of America’s Morning News. What the hell is going on lately? First Fred Thompson issues a public communique to troops in the field that the war in Afghanistan is lost because the C-in-C doesn’t have the stomach to fight it. Now the ‘Stache all but predicts a terror attack during the KSM show trial, the best efforts of the CIA, FBI, and NYPD notwithstanding. Good lord, people, have some faith in American counterterrorism. They’ve done okay for eight years, haven’t they? As if the left isn’t having enough fun with its “cowardly conservative” meme.
This reminds me of the time Biden told New Yorkers he wouldn’t ride the subway for fear of swine flu. Hey guys? For most of us, there’s no plan B. In which case, how about a pep talk instead? Sheesh.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Just file this under one man looking out for his own self interest, taking precautions and making contingencies around that. It really matters not how credible you or anyone else finds his motivations. It is his family and his own perceived justification.
It bothers me not so slightly, however, that this particular debate is having its credence raised while diminishing the real exposure of the abject mockery the administration seems hell bent on making of our justice system. I say focus on that aspect as it certainly affects the larger amount of people.
anuts on November 24, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Party at Lox’s! You best have one heck of a basement…there’s about 8 million coming.
You are right tho…prayers are always welcome, but an entire city can’t follow Bolton’s advice and high tail it away somewhere. Sorry, but what does Bolton actually accomplish by saying it won’t be safe? I really hate to use this word, but it’s fearmongering. We’ll be scared enough…we don’t need a high profile and respected man like Bolton instilling even more fear amongst the populace.
It accomplishes nothing.
JetBoy on November 24, 2009 at 7:50 PM
What a ridiculous statement.
beachgirlusa on November 24, 2009 at 7:51 PM
I said Bolton was wrong…blue said otherwise.
JetBoy on November 24, 2009 at 7:52 PM
I think its pretty ironic that AP posts about a government so enamored with PC and “looking good” to the rest of the world that they would prosecute SEALS for ALLEGEDLY giving a terrorist a fat-lip. Then immediately turns around and calls one of the brightest guys out there a coward for saying he wouldn’t want his family in NYC during what will be nothing less than the trial of the century for Islamists. Criminey, don’t folks realize just how ham-strung, demoralized and CYA our counter-terrorism forces are given this administration’s PC rules and anti-American attitudes?
Do you really think, given this administration’s blame America first attitude, that it is justified to call Bolton a coward for not being willing to risk the lives of his family on a counter-terroism effort that is going to have to be constantly looking over its shoulder to see which administration official is going to stab it in the back?
Sheesh – I don’t think AP thought this one through.
Fatal on November 24, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Why is there ANY comparison between Biden and Bolton.
Biden is the VP of the US. Many responsibilities are inherent in that position, especially how the government’s position/insight on an issue is articulated to the citizens. The swine flu comment was moronic in every way.
Bolton is a citizen without any of those restraints. How he protects his family is none of your business. He doesn’t owe you a darn thing.
nottakingsides on November 24, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Yes, and this is a teaching moment about the lunacy of PC when it comes to national security.
Obama owns it.
We need to begin our merciless, relentless push to take this country back from the idiot liberals. And that means hanging everything, every single thing that goes to hell around his neck, as they did with Bush.
disa on November 24, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Al Qaeda did not suddenly become smarter just because 9/11 happened. The whole scheme could have been stopped if people had just not been afraid to call stuff in. Why act like they are criminal masterminds?
Speedwagon82 on November 24, 2009 at 7:54 PM
NYC is already a target!
This makes NYC a bigger target!
Trial could be held in Gitmo!
Therefore why?
I along with my extended family will avoid NYC while the terrorists and their friends are there both out of a concern for safety and to send a message to the pols. That message, are you really really sure you want to host this circus in NYC? 3 or 4 years of reduced travel by tourists and business should do wonders for NYC and NY.
LCL4 on November 24, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Allah channels Grow Fins and Drywall.
Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Palin/Bolton 2012 has a very nice ring to it !
stenwin77 on November 24, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Anyone know,,, were these statements ever retracted??
Sec. of State Clinton: “Never waste a good crisis.” (note the words ‘good crisis‘)
The Independent World 3/6/09
Rah, Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is, an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before…” WallStreetJournal 11/8/08
You know, if someone in the Bush administration had said those words, no one would question a good journalist who asked President Bush if he likes a good crisis, too. I think it would be fair to ask the President if he stands by those kinds of remarks. What would be a bad crisis? If a crisis is good and an opportunity, is it unreasonable they would wish a good opportunity would come their way??? Is it unreasonable to think they might create conditions for a good opportunity to happen?
I think this is just common sense. Most people seek out good things that they define as opportunities. The Obama administration just happens to define a good opportunity as a crisis. So, the bigger the crisis the bigger the opportunity and the greater good.
Sounds like John Bolton is just applying a little logic to the situation.
JellyToast on November 24, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Then, shall I simply remain silent, shall all of us, and never express our concerns for New Yorkers? Never wish they could be safe someplace else? Pretend nothing is wrong here?
What Bolton’s statement accomplished for me, was that it reminded me that there are people whom I love, who are now at risk unnecessarily. I’m apologize but I can get easily distracted at times. I don’t want to forget about being concerned for the safety, security and comfort of the people I love. They are important to me. So, I will do my best to be as helpful as I can be. I’m sorry that all I can offer is so pathetic, but it’s as good as I can do.
ps: You’ll be camping out in the woods. Sorry.
Loxodonta on November 24, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Kind of like Fort Hood.
People are still afraid to call stuff in.
Even the very people to whom we are supposed to call stuff in: The FBI, the military.
They don’t have to be criminal masterminds when we are willing to play the dhimmi or the fool.
Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 8:02 PM
They live there.
But isn’t that exactly Bolton’s point? I really don’t see how he said anything worse than that.
Esthier on November 24, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Bolton is not trying to stir up fear, or initiate a mass exodus from New York. Bolton is trying to make it as clear as he can that this decision to bring the trial of KSM to NYC instead of hold it at Guantanamo is a dangerous, and perhaps DEADLY move for the law abiding citizens the President and our very constitution are in place to protect.
The elevated risk of an actual attack during this trial isn’t just some conjecture, just some political spin, it’s a real threat. Bolton wants to make that clear. It’s a big enough risk he’d not have his family in the area if that is an elective. I wouldn’t either, and not so much because of the risk of being a direct target in the event of an attack, but more because of the lock down and panic that could occur in the area should the attack be bad enough.
flyfishingdad on November 24, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Sounds like fraidy pants Bolten just had a mass exodus from his bowels into his pants.
e-pirate on November 24, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Dig a hole in the sand. Put in your head. Everything is going to be just fine.
Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Obvious sarcasm based on AP’s “Plan B” comment.
Christien on November 24, 2009 at 8:08 PM
True, even if they haven’t gotten smarter, it doesn’t mean we have.
Esthier on November 24, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Your lack of a Plan B doesn’t mean people shouldn’t speak the truth. NYC will not be safer during this trial. In actuality, NYC will not be safer during the Obama administration. Don’t get ticked when people leave. Mobility is key to the freedoms of our country.
j_galt on November 24, 2009 at 8:09 PM
I’m guessing he’s in a better position to gauge the threat than a blogger.
Yes, but you are a fool if you think they can catch them all, especially with all of the PC restraints. And, quite frankly, you should know better.
Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 8:10 PM
You’re not getting it. Stop thinking like a target. “Under what conditions of leadership” is the first consideration, then “where.” Our condition of leadership makes it more likely that we might be a target, period. In short: he wants us to be one. The next consideration is which place is more likely to be a target; more to the point, which place is he actively trying to invite our enemies to attack?
By have this trial in NYC under the conditions known, many things are potentially accomplished but one is that a signal is sent to our enemies: come get this target. (Another thing accomplished: the hollowing out of the rule of law.)
Now I believe in God and in prayer also. But God doesn’t want us sitting around waiting when he’s allowed our good sense to warn us. Example: King David was the greatest bible warrior and a man after God’s own heart. But when Saul was trying to kill him did he sit around and wait for Saul to make it so? No he got of Dodge.
Wake up.
baldilocks on November 24, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Whoa, Allah….what is up with you? First this broadside against a guy who has been as rock solid NOT afraid of these barbarians for years, then an attack on freakin’ Navy SEALS for being too tough on poor widdle terrorists?
I don’t see fear-mongering in Bolton’s statement at all. Simple fact: New York will be at much, much higher risk of attack during this trial,FOR NO GOOD REASON.
And the SEALS thing? We’ve lost our way…..just lost our way.
Priscilla on November 24, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Exactly.
And calling someone with Bolton’s credibility a coward is unseemly.
Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 8:12 PM
I don’t see a problem with it…. who would want to keep their family anywhere near a trail with these dangerous war criminal, enemy soldiers? Its not cowardly, its just taking precautions.
TonyR on November 24, 2009 at 8:15 PM
It’s one thing to be more alert…it’s another to high tail it out of dodge because of a threat. Is every NYer just supposed to beat feet to the mountains til the trial is over?
JetBoy on November 24, 2009 at 8:15 PM
John Bolton is not a coward.
Anybody willing to be seen in public with as ridiculously stupid a mustache as his has a pair.
Also, his plan of “there will be a trial so everyone run for your lives” is the definition of courage.
e-pirate on November 24, 2009 at 8:16 PM
He believes New York will become a bigger target because of this trial. This isn’t an uncommon belief. Anyone who thinks that but is then OK with their family staying there must be lying.
Esthier on November 24, 2009 at 8:16 PM
“He who has an ear, let him hear.” It’s not like the trial is tomorrow.
baldilocks on November 24, 2009 at 8:18 PM
ROTFL
beachgirlusa on November 24, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Move to Detroit, they could use the tax base.
Chris_Balsz on November 24, 2009 at 8:19 PM
That is what separates us humans from the death loving animals that are the real threat, not Boltons caution.
fourdeucer on November 24, 2009 at 8:20 PM
And by the way, he said he didn’t want his family in NYC. How does wanting to protect his family make him a coward? He didn’t bring himself into the equation and neither did the anchor.
Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Shocking. Allah’s idiot friend Charles hasn’t picked this up yet at LGF.
Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Anyone who can’t handle the truth is a coward.
Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 8:23 PM
New York will become a bigger target? How does that work, exactly?
Terrorist A: Ok guys, we’ve settled on our plan: we’re going to launch an attack on Toledo, OH.
Terrorist B: Hold up, chaps. It says here on the internet that there is going to be a trial in New York City.
Terrorist A: Gadzooks, this changes everything. Maybe we should make the largest US city a target now! Change of plans, boys!
e-pirate on November 24, 2009 at 8:25 PM
The Gruesome Fivesome were in the process of being tried through the military tribunal justice system when Eric Holder called a halt to the proceedings. They would have had their day in court in an appropriate venue, for their acts were not crimes. They were aggressive acts of asymmetrical warfare.
How hard is common sense for you to grasp?
This is not a matter of fear, warranted or unwarranted. It is a matter of exercising judgment.
onlineanalyst on November 24, 2009 at 8:25 PM
He’s too busy defending global warming and the hacked e-mails.
Knucklehead on November 24, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Although it could easily be argued that Bolton is guilty of poor timing, I don’t blame him in the slightest. The NY trial is a disaster waiting to happen and there’s little he or any other New Yorker can do to change that. If everybody followed the ‘see something, say something’ mantra, law enforcement would be absolutely overwhelmed even if they weren’t working under crushing PC restraints.
Of course, not everyone can just up and move. And speaking of that – as someone with a dear friend in New York – to the three stooges in this thread who fantasized earlier about a terrorist attack there to make a point: quadruplef**k you, your mothers, and the horses you rode in on.
Dark-Star on November 24, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Bolton’s book: Surrender Is Not An Option
Allah’s book: I Need A Pep Talk
Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Sarah Palin/Laura Croft 2012 – & Bolton as Secretary of State. Don’t stop believin’ ….
BHO Jonestown on November 24, 2009 at 8:28 PM
On what basis do these non-citizens have constitutional rights?
onlineanalyst on November 24, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Hey!
JetBoy on November 24, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Priorities.
Loxodonta on November 24, 2009 at 8:30 PM
We’ve been safe the last eight years under the PREVIOUS administration, not Odumbo’s.
ultracon on November 24, 2009 at 8:30 PM
How about:
Bolton’s Book: I just crapped by pants but since I’m hiding under my bed hopefully no one will notice
Allah’s book: Bolton needs to sack up and stop crapping his pants
(followed by 300 1 star reviews on Amazon by the HotAir faithful)
e-pirate on November 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Nope. Just leaf mold, composting garbage, bugs and worms.
Sorry.
Loxodonta on November 24, 2009 at 8:32 PM
It’s more like
A: When should be blow the city up?
B: 2012
C: 2013
D: 2011
Wait they’re having a trial.
A, B, C, D…AT THE TRIAL!!
It’s obvious another attack will take place in NYC. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool. The KSM trial pretty much tells you when it will be. And Bolton is pointing out the obvious that many of you are wishfully thinking won’t happen.
angryed on November 24, 2009 at 8:34 PM
You should listen to your own trolls, Allah they will tell you when you are on the wrong side of an issue.
The lefty spin on this trainwreck of a trial is “What, you scared of a few terrorists? Scaredy pants! PPPBBBPPTT!!” It’s the only line they’ve got, and they think it works. The truth is that this trial will be an unmitigated disaster, attack on New York or not, that will land square on Dear Leader’s face.
What has many of us here surprised, Allah, is that you are adopting the same spin regarding Bolton. This isn’t about merely critizing what he said, but doing so in the same way that the lefties are trying to justify this epic failure.
stefanite on November 24, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Roach traps do a good job, but that doesn’t mean you should leave a big blob of cookie dough on the kitchen floor.
Jim Treacher on November 24, 2009 at 8:38 PM
e-pirate on November 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Bolton: I’ve had a real career dealing with our nation’s enemies.
e-pirate: I’m an idiot who snarks on blogs.
Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 8:38 PM
You can’t truly be this stupid. I refuse to believe people old enough to use the computer can be.
They attacked the World Trade Center as a symbol of our wealth and power, the largest buildings in the nation. But they didn’t just attack New York. They never have.
And don’t make the simplistic suggestion that terrorists would divert their plans as though that’s the only option and as though all terrorists are one monolith. You can’t truly be so limited intellectually.
Esthier on November 24, 2009 at 8:38 PM
You’re asking when the terrorists will blow the city up?
With what? Their superpowers? A nuke from Wal-Mart?
How out of touch with reality do you need to be to suggest the terrorists are going to blow up a city?
You need to put down both the drugs and the comic books.
e-pirate on November 24, 2009 at 8:39 PM
HEY AP:
YOU DON’T GET IT:
INTEL IS ALREADY DRYING UP.
AGENTS AND TROOPS ARE ALREADY TAKING LESS CAPTIVES AND DOING LESS INTEROGATIONS BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO BE HAULED INTO COURT A FEW YEARS DOWN THE LINE.
ERGO: NYC IS ALREADY A LOT LESS SAFE NOW THAN EVER.
reliapundit on November 24, 2009 at 8:39 PM
OK, AP. Here’s you a pep talk. If for some reason you find a big ball of fire coming at you there in NY, like jet fuel, don’t hold your breath. That will only prolong the pain. Take a big deep breath of it and get it over with. Plus, whatever happens you won’t have to answer for your sins anyway, probably; maybe. Hope that helps.
MikeA on November 24, 2009 at 8:39 PM
This is dreadful. I used to love John Bolton, but now I’m just shocked and disgusted to find out that he lives in New York!!!! Such a disappointment.
I suppose I should thank heavens for small mercies. I mean, it’s not like the Boltons live in San Francisco.
uptight on November 24, 2009 at 8:40 PM
hardy har nice evasion of the point…hope it didn’t hurt too much
angryed on November 24, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Well, genius, it works like this: You drag one of the biggest terrorists in the world to the site of the biggest terrorist attack in history and put him on every single channel. Then you see who wants to wave, “Hi, Mom!”
Jim Treacher on November 24, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Shoot guys, I throw in the towel.
Captain Capital Letters has got me convinced.
Ya’ll are totally right.
e-pirate on November 24, 2009 at 8:42 PM
You first. Suitcase nukes aren’t the work of science fiction. Neither is using airplanes to take down buildings. They only needed 19 guys last time.
Esthier on November 24, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Oh, you’re right. The fatal flaw in Bin Laden’s 9/11 plot was that he didn’t get enough TV coverage. If only there had been a trial going on, he could have cracked his way onto the evening news.
e-pirate on November 24, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Sure… if you can, and you want to. If you don’t want to leave, stay. But, either way, you should recognize the truth that NYC is now a bigger target and be ready to take responsibility for your action or inaction.
j_galt on November 24, 2009 at 8:44 PM
There’s a bit of a leap from destroying some buildings and blowing up a city
e-pirate on November 24, 2009 at 8:45 PM
I’m with Bolton on this one..
Doogiesd on November 24, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Thanks to the “Shoe Bomber” we all have to remove our shoes before boarding a plane. Can you begin to imagine what it would be like if you had to stand in line and take off your shoes before riding a subway or bus in NYC?
I’m betting tourism and the revenues for department stores, restaurants, hotels and the theatre district will be waaaay down during this fiasco of a show trail.
Barb Dwyer on November 24, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Says the blithering idiot who has apparently neither heard of biological warfare or a suitcase nuke.
Dark-Star on November 24, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Are you for real?
angryed on November 24, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Obubba killed Las Vegas tourism when he scolded banks for having their employee get together there. Now NV has the 2nd or 3rd highest unemployment rate in the country.
It’s almost as if, as if I dunno, he’s purposely trying to screw the economy up. But that would be crazy conspiracy talk.
angryed on November 24, 2009 at 8:48 PM
There’s a bigger leap from having these terrorists tried safely in Guantanamo and giving them a mass media platform right next to the world’s worst terror attack site making it an even more likely target.
And Obama is responsible for that leap of illogic.
Loxodonta on November 24, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Sure, but it was also a bit of a leap to go from bombing the basement of the World Trade Center to bringing three of the buildings down.
Esthier on November 24, 2009 at 8:49 PM
You just destroyed your own stupid point. NYC is the media center of the western world. That’s precisely the point, idiot.
Jim Treacher on November 24, 2009 at 8:51 PM
That is all.
russcote on November 24, 2009 at 8:54 PM
What’s wrong with making sure your family is safe? He didn’t say HE was leaving NY. Each person has to do what they feel is best for their own based on what they know to be the facts. If NY’ers feel that the KSM trial will be a non-event then by all means hang out and enjoy the show.
If Obama insists on doing this then people need to face reality. Liberals can taunt all they want, mockery won’t stop an attack. How many times does a city need to get hit before a clue sets in?
BrideOfRove on November 24, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Are you suggesting that a terrorist attack on a military tribunal being held at Gitmo wouldn’t be able to preempt Dancing with the Stars in primetime?
Who’s making the stupid point here, Jimmy?
e-pirate on November 24, 2009 at 8:56 PM
allah thinks barry will protect us all. And if barry can’t do it, hillary, who he and his friends down at marie’s crisis cafe voted for, will step in and save the day.
peacenprosperity on November 24, 2009 at 8:59 PM
I don’t know what he’s saying, but it would certainly have less casualties. Considering the security there and the fact that it doesn’t have 8 million civilians from all over the world, it might even have a harder time being successful.
Esthier on November 24, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Are you suggesting that a terrorist attack is more likely at Gitmo than Manhattan? Are you saying there’s a bigger media presence at Gitmo than Manhattan?
Presumably you own some sort of mirror.
Jim Treacher on November 24, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Me neither.
Treacher, coherent as ever.
crr6 on November 24, 2009 at 9:04 PM
First Trade Center bombing was in response to the trial of the Blind Sheik.
flameofjudah on November 24, 2009 at 9:04 PM
The point is we have experienced an already ‘leap’. In the same city no less. Bolton is not willing to risk a highly unnecessary gamble with anymore ‘leaps’ that may or may not affect his family.
The lower the possibility one believes of what he is preparing to do will happen, then the less significant his proclamation really is. What’s the big deal? Let him make his own leaps. This debate is vastly misplacing the true nature of the issue. This is especially true if you don’t heed his caution.
anuts on November 24, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Yes, they do resemble one another, but it’s Obama making the stupid point this time, not Jimmy Carter.
Loxodonta on November 24, 2009 at 9:06 PM
It’s not the terrorist under heavy guard that causes concern.
jimmy2shoes on November 24, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Don’t you have law books to ignore?
Jim Treacher on November 24, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Allah, the troll repellant….supposedly.
RobCon on November 24, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Here in London we had an Al Qaeda attack on the subway, but security doesn’t seem to have changed at all. It would be impossible to search all those people.
It begs the question “do we need that much security on airplanes?”. I can’t help thinking it’s a bit over-the-top. Taking off belts, shoes and limiting liquids.
In reality, i reckon a better funded, unscaled security & intelligence operation could do the trick. Focus security on People connected to Islamists.
That or just make all passengers travel completely nude and have done with it.
uptight on November 24, 2009 at 9:10 PM
You do realize that there are missing Russian nukes that no one can account for somewhere out there, don’t you. Just sayin’.
jimmy2shoes on November 24, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Might have known that Allah didn’t like Bolton!
He’s not a coward. He had the b-lls to stand up to the corruptness and cowardess of UN unlike Kerry and the whimps like our C n C. Haven’t seen him bowing or apoligizing to anyone….
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
bluegrass on November 24, 2009 at 9:11 PM
I already took this troll down once, but the work, alas, is never done.
Without going through your whole incomprehensible stupidity regarding the exclusionary rule, suffice to say the “rule” is procedural and it is most certainly not a Constitutional “law”. It has so many holes in it from cases that followed Mapp as to be rarely important anyway.
But don’t argue to me that the 4th amendment would ‘disappear’ without it. That is complete and utter nonsense. The problem began when the Court forgot that not all searches and seizures were Unconstitutional but rather only “unreasonable” ones. One day, sooner rather than later I hope, the Court will recognize its mistake and simply discard the “exclusionary rule” as useless when the proper inquiry into whether a search was “reasonable” does perfectly well on its own.
But all this is completely besides the point because anyone who argues that terrorists caught on the battlefield during a War are entitled to Constitutional safeguards is an idiot of the highest order…and most likely a Harvard Law graduate.
russcote on November 24, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Allah’s a New Yorker, which pretty much explains everything.
Some day, SOME DAY . . . that coveted David Brooks/Ross Douthat mushy-conservative seat at the NYT could be Allah’s!
tsj017 on November 24, 2009 at 9:20 PM
The terror threat need not be a spectacular downing of a skyscraper to create pandemonium in a dense suburban area. Coordinated simultaneous attacks throughout the city would stress the resources of first responders and security forces. Hospitals, schools, hotels, department stores, etc. are all vulnerable in possible massacres, bombings, or hostage situations. Sarin gas, anthrax, or water tampering are all possibilities.
The Gruesome Fivesome are already on record being willing to die for Allah. Individual jihadists and small sleeper cells probably would be willing to create havoc, as well.
Obama and Holder have made NYC unnecessarily vulnerable and have given a soapbox to proselytize their murderous zeal.
onlineanalyst on November 24, 2009 at 9:28 PM
LOL, thank you for showing your ignorance. The 9/11 attacks took 5 years to plan, train for and execute (at least). They are patient.
After 9/11, the security was bumped up. Which at best meant that instead of taking 5 years to plan and execute a big attack, it would take 7 or 8 years.
Remember, bin Laden himself wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen on Clinton’s watch, but held off when Mohammed Atta told him they needed more training time. Better to take more time and get it right, and the 9/11 attacks had a 75% success rate with attacks happening within a perfectly coordinated time frame.
Now go sit in the corner.
Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 9:29 PM
I don’t see anything wrong with someone leaving or removing their family from a place they do not feel is safe, for whatever reason. I refuse to visit cities and states that deny me the right to carry my concealed weapon, that my state says is OK. I don’t have any way to change their laws, but I can avoid going there. Does that make me a coward? Maybe, but I don’t really care what some leftist thinks about that.
MikeA on November 24, 2009 at 9:30 PM
That should be “dense urban area”
Also consider the places where people’s guards are down: night clubs or the theater. Haven’t terrorists chosen those venues?
onlineanalyst on November 24, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Any one who is in love with dying and worshiping martyrdom couldn’t have picked a better stage.
fourdeucer on November 24, 2009 at 9:31 PM
I had more faith in Bush to keep us safe than I do in Barry. Focusing on people connected to Islamists? That smacks of profiling! Barry and the leftists would never stand for that…after all, terrorists are just misunderstood. According to Janet (from another planet) Napolitano, the real threats come from the Tea Partiers, Vets and the Pro-Lifers.
Barb Dwyer on November 24, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Clinton put the 1993 WTC bombers on trial. 9/11 was the result of the verdicts.
You were a lot funnier over at Captain’s Quarters, and more intelligent too.
Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 9:34 PM
LOL, she still hasn’t turned in her book review of “The Terror Presidency” by Jack Goldsmith that I asked her for 4 days ago.
Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 9:37 PM
I certainly wouldn’t want to be there during the trials either. If people become fearful because something MIGHT happen, the terrorists have succeeded. I saw fear 110 miles away from where the DC snipers were operating. American’s don’t seem to think about the “what ifs” enough and formulate plan B’s, so when something happens too many panic since they haven’t run possibilities through their mind.
amr on November 24, 2009 at 9:38 PM
macncheez on November 24, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »