Skip to comments.
THE WARNING KERRY IGNORED
NY POST ^
| PAUL SPERRY
Posted on 04/19/2004 2:34:10 PM PDT by Liz
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:20:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
Sen. John Kerry boasts how he "sounded the alarm on terrorism years before 9/ 11," referring to his 1997 book "The New War." Too bad he didn't blast it when it really counted - four months before the hijackings, when he was hand-delivered evidence of serious security breaches at Logan International Airport, with specific warnings that terrorists could exploit them.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: airport; bos; elson; faa; forbes; kerry; logan; lurch; mckean; redteam; sperry; sullivan; thomas
FR SWAT TEAM ALERT It's about time Kerry answered questions about what he knew about Logan's security. No way can he spin or flip his way out of this. The facts are clear. He passed the buck when the lives of Americans were at stake.
Kerry's chief of staff writes (above), "Sen. John Kerry's office promptly forwarded Brian Sullivan's tape warning of security lapses at Boston's Logan Airport to the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General and contacted the General Accounting Office."
If Kerry contacted federal agencies, let's see the proof. Let's see copies of Kerry's letters. Let's see office memos routing the info to the several agencies. The agencies are now in possession of the tape? If so, let the agencies produce them, pronto.
Here's another good reference piece, circa 2001.
The Dennenberg Report November 19, 2001
HOW LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THE FAA, THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND OTHERS WERE BLIND TO THE OBVIOUS BEFORE AND AFTER 9-11.
If there's one thing that the recent World Trade Center catastrophe proves, it is that there has to be responsibility and accountability for failures, or those failures will be repeated and compounded. The case of airport security proves it all, having provided a long-running national disgrace with every aspect of its failures for many years. Yet nothing was done about it, and those responsible were not brought to book. As a result, four planes could be hijacked on September 11, 2001, in one of the greatest and most inexcusable and preventable security failures in history.
That whole catastrophe can be easily explained. Airline security was always virtually non-existent and no one did anything about it despite endless warnings. Congress, the Federal Aviation Administration, the airports, the airlines, and the security firms tolerated the intolerable until their negligence and stupidity caused the unthinkable.
Unfortunately, the evidence is clear that the lessons of September 11 are yet to be learned. Even after September 11, all the parties in question were slow to act, and permitted one fiasco after another, without speedy and dramatic remedies. As one of many examples, take the case of Logan International Airport, where the two planes that were flown into the World Trade Center were later hijacked.
On November 16, over two months after the catastrophe, Logan International Airport finally barred Argenbright Security from the airport. It acted, according to its own account, because it learned that Argenbright, which has 40 percent of the market for airport security, had pleaded guilty to felony charges in Philadelphia last year (for failure to do criminal checks of screeners, for failure to give exams to screeners, for covering up its wrongdoing, etc.) Although this matter had been in the national media and with special intensity after September 11, it took the management at Logan International Airport until November 15 to figure out something was amiss with Argenbright. Can anyone be so dense as to miss all the red flags flying on airport security and on Argenbright for many years before November 15?
The airport's interim security chief, Col. John DiFava, explained this long over-due epiphany on security this way, "After a while, it's like enough is enough when you just hear 'Argenbright, Argenbright' all the time. It's a drastic move, but I think it's the right move." It may be the right move, but it is certainly not drastic in view of what has been going on, and it calls into question the decision-making at Logan International Airport and the rest of the security system in recent years.
Even before the brain trust at Logan International Airport finally got the word on the felony conviction of Argenbright, there had already been security lapses at Logan that should have led to action. According to published reports, that same week an Argenbright employee left an airport exit door unattended for four minutes. That, of course, led to delayed flights and travelers being forced to go though the screening process again. The very next day, an Argenright employee abandoned an elevator post that was part of the airport's perimeter security.
What's more, even earlier, there were two highly publicized reports of Argenbright security lapses at Chicago, involving two travelers who got by Argenbright security with everything from tear gas and stun guns to knives and cleavers. But Logan, like the rest of the airport security system, apparently are in the tradition of the three monkeys that see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.
As I've noted, I tested Argenbright security and other security companies at the Philadelphia International Airport and found nothing resembling security. In fact, I sent an undercover employee to the airport, who got a job on the screening line for Argenbright. That security company did not even bother to check her employment references. That security lapse was worse than the other allegations against Argenbright, as they involved failure to check criminal background information. But in this case, they did not even check employment references.
So why isn't someone asking Logan International Airport why they weren't doing some checking on their own? Why weren't they aware of dozens of media reports over the years on airport security failures? Why weren't they aware of the findings of the FAA and other government agencies on airport security failures? Why were they in the dark about the obvious until September 11 and even thereafter? Why did it take them until November 16, 2001 to take action? This is a case of the incompetent watching the incompetent, and in turn being regulated by the still more incompetent FAA.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, professor at the Wharton School, and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner. He is an adjunct professor of insurance and information science and technology at Cabrini College. You can e-mail him at email@example.com (as of Nov 2001).
posted on 04/19/2004 2:34:14 PM PDT
To: bornintexas; terilyn; hope; MeekOneGOP; NYer; mhking; NormsRevenge; missyme; EdReform
FR Swat Team Alert: Get the word out.
What did Kerry know about Logan Airport's 9/11 security?
posted on 04/19/2004 2:36:46 PM PDT
You've gotta love Paul Sperry. Isn't he the one Clinton had forceably removed from the Whitehouse press corp and had his credentials stripped for taking the Clintons to task?
posted on 04/19/2004 2:44:19 PM PDT
(I feed the sheep the coyotes eat)
Boston is a fever swamp of patronage and cronyism. I would be willing to bet that Argenbright was paying off prominent Boston pols to keep this contract and shut up any complaints. That's why Kerry did nothing. And why he can't talk about it now. Of course he passed the buck, because he knew it wouldn't go anywhere. Prior to 9/11, the FAA was a total tool of the airlines.
posted on 04/19/2004 2:50:11 PM PDT
(Except for the one who married me!!!)
To: blackdog; Grampa Dave; Fedora; redlipstick; Just mythoughts; international american; kitkat
King Clinton the sociopath by Joseph Farrah
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
President Clinton's run-in with Investor's Business Daily reporter Paul Sperry gives us yet another insight into the twisted personality currently leading the executive branch of the federal government. It also illustrates the institutional flaws in the establishment press.
To recap, Sperry was attending a White House gathering for much of the press corps. As Clinton walked by him, he casually asked when the president might be holding his next press conference. At first Clinton brushed off the question as he has brushed off the idea that there is any reason for him to hold press conferences or Cabinet meetings or perform any other traditional presidential function of accountability or management.
But, unlike most members of the Beltway press, Sperry didn't just drop the matter. He's one of a handful of reporters in Washington who understand the watchdog role of the news media. He persisted.
So, Clinton begrudgingly ambled over to the reporter to see what was on his mind. "Who are you with?" he wondered. This was an unusual species, and Clinton was curious. Sperry answered him and repeated his simple, straightforward, reasonable and unthreatening question about the press conference.
Clinton asked why he should hold a press conference, and Sperry answered that the American people had many questions about the growing China scandal involving his administration and an FBI investigation.
Now Clinton was getting irritated. According to Sperry and other witnesses, he contorted his face, got testy and challenged the reporter. Clinton sputtered that the only reason the FBI was focusing attention on the China scandal was to divert attention from its role in the Waco scandal.
Did you catch that? Clinton, the expert on using one scandal to divert attention from another, accused the FBI -- his FBI -- of doing precisely that. Clinton appointed the FBI director. He appointed the attorney general who supervises the FBI. Yet, here he was passing the buck, again, suggesting that his FBI was victimizing him.
Well, I guess if I believed my mother victimized me, my grandmother victimized me and that I, as one of the most powerful people in the world, was still little more than a helpless victim of circumstances, then it would be natural for me to feel persecuted by anyone and everyone with whom I had disagreements. But this was clearly an enlightening exchange.
As a result, Clinton's White House banned Sperry from the White House. Banned him. Which raises the question, again, of just whose house this president thinks he lives in and works in. It's not his. The people of the United States graciously provide the president this office space and these living quarters while he serves.
--SNIP-- rest here http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14823
posted on 04/19/2004 2:56:59 PM PDT
To: TruthFactor; lilylangtree; redhead; Victoria Delsoul; GOPJ
FR SWAT TEAM ping
posted on 04/19/2004 2:57:51 PM PDT
If this is not investigated ASAP, then decommission the commission, call it a day, the press should admit that they are in fact leftists that hate the Bush administration and maybe run the leader of ANSWER for President.
This is freaking sad.
posted on 04/19/2004 2:58:14 PM PDT
(60 Senate seats changes America. Who is your Senator?)
posted on 04/19/2004 2:58:48 PM PDT
(Become a monthly donor on FR. No amount is too small and monthly giving is the way to go !)
To: Liz; Alamo-Girl; Mia T
Ever since he came back from the Vietnam War JOHN KERRY has been on the side of our Terrorist Enemies =
Mrs. KERRY funds our Terrorist Enemies =
JOHN KERRY gave BRIAN SULLIVAN's Logan Airport videotape to our Terrorist Enemies just in time for the Attacks of September11, 2001, perhaps..?
posted on 04/19/2004 2:59:05 PM PDT
by ALOHA RONNIE
(Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.LZXRAY.com)
Janna Davis's new book on the OKC identifies John Doe 2 from the infamous OKC bombing as later getting a job at Logan. He was working there on 911, and he has Iraq ties according to this OKC reporter who investigated the bombing. Did Kerry know this?
posted on 04/19/2004 2:59:40 PM PDT
(Kerry has more flip flops than Waikiki Beach)
There's so much that Kerry doesn't know (snicker).
posted on 04/19/2004 3:12:44 PM PDT
Thanks for the ping...I was going to say bring Kerry up before the 9-11 commission, but, that's just a three ring circus with Bin-Vineste, Kerry and Gorelick proving they aren't interested at getting to the facts...
Wonder if F'n Kerry flew commercially after he wrote his book.
posted on 04/19/2004 3:14:10 PM PDT
(How far will your passion take you?)
If this is not investigated ASAP, then decommission the commission.......
This needs ot be investigated til we have every scrap of info available.
posted on 04/19/2004 3:15:12 PM PDT
Not out of Logan, he didn't.
posted on 04/19/2004 3:16:38 PM PDT
Kerry pulled a Pontius Pilate, and then tired to take credit for initiating an investigation, LOL!
Kerry's actions in this matter need to be exposed.
posted on 04/19/2004 3:27:44 PM PDT
by TOUGH STOUGH
(A vote for president Bush IS a vote for principle.)
And here the rats were all over John Ashcroft for not flying commercially before 9-11, or so they thought he didn't...Ashcroft set them straight on that.
posted on 04/19/2004 3:37:50 PM PDT
(How far will your passion take you?)
To: TOUGH STOUGH; Libloather
Kerry's actions in this matter need to be exposed.
posted on 04/19/2004 4:05:09 PM PDT
But a Kerry aide said not to bother. "You're not a constituent," Elson was told just a few weeks before the hijackings. He went ballistic, warning that if Kerry didn't act soon he'd risk the lives of planeloads of his actual constituents. That warning now looks like prophecy: At least 82 Kerry constituents were murdered aboard American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.
Oh man, unbelievable!
posted on 04/19/2004 8:17:20 PM PDT
by Victoria Delsoul
(Kerry said he wasn't at the '71 plot-to-kill meeting, then, he was but voted NO, now he can't recall)
Wasn't the governor of Ma a woman and up to her keister in this whole mess?
posted on 04/19/2004 11:05:03 PM PDT
by Grampa Dave
(Question: "When does a lunatic lib like Woodward quit lying!")
To: ALOHA RONNIE
Thanks for the ping!
Expecting Kerry to do anything that isn't a top priority in the polls is expecting way to much from this guy.
I find it interesting that since Kerry's appearance on Russert he's lost ground, btw. The more he talks to the general public, the less likely he will garner additional votes.
posted on 04/20/2004 6:35:43 AM PDT
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson