That final quote above was added to the article solely because Andrew Card has resigned. It's a free hit.
Posted on 04/08/2006 7:19:55 AM PDT by Drango
Whenever the president travels, security is a prime consideration. Motorcade routes are kept secret, and premature release of information about a presidential trip aboard one of the twin Air Force One planes can result in the Secret Service canceling a visit.
Thus, the Air Force reacted with alarm last week after The Chronicle told the Secret Service that a government document containing specific information about the anti-missile defenses on Air Force One and detailed interior maps of the two planes -- including the location of Secret Service agents within the planes -- was posted on the Web site of an Air Force base.
The document also shows the location where a terrorist armed with a high-caliber sniper rifle could detonate the tanks that supply oxygen to Air Force One's medical facility. (~snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Of course, nobody will go to jail for this.
(rolls eyes)
Here we go again.
Agreed- detailed plans of AF1 ought not be public information- but SF Gate couldn't let a day go by without banging this particular pet drum.
That final quote above was added to the article solely because Andrew Card has resigned. It's a free hit.
Liberals, the American wing of Al-Queida.
Uhhh.... this was published on a USAF website. I don't think there is a large population of "Bush haters" in the USAF. The SanFran Chronicle only reported that this was now public knowledge without giving any detailed specifics.
The President's CoS has no such power. He's not in the chain of command. Now he could recommend that the President order the SecDef to have the article pulled down, or even ask the SecDef directly to have it done, but he could not order it.
Given that this was released on an official Air Force website, it's a good possibility that the security aspects were examined ahead of time. It's also (slightly) possible that the information was not entirely correct. The Air Force is not above a bit of disinformation in the interests of protecting the President.
Personally I think the SF paper just wanted to take a whack at the military, and by implication at President Bush.
It's interestting that they do no identify which Air Force website the thing is supposed to be on, isn't it?
It wouldn't matter anyway, the article contains zero, nada, information about Air Force One, other than the fact that it has an anti-missle defense and a dispensary of some sort, with an oxygen tank. Big Whoop.
decoy
It could have been put out there for a reason.
But if it's on a military website, why blame the second tier, the newspaper, for reporting on it? Tough call on both sides how it happened and why it got reported and, no, I've not a mind to try to track the thing down.
This is the same thread that got pulled. I was in the middle of posting something when it disappeared- now it's back.
decoy. I thought of that, too.
Same here! Had my post ready to send and it was gone. Can't they track IP address for hits on a web page?
News organizations are like toddlers. One expects certain behavior from them and ought not be surprised when it happens. If this is the screw-up that it appears to be, then whoever posted the information on the website- and whoever was responsible for review of posted content bears the responsibility. As much as I detest the MSM- I cannot fault them for this one.
If it's a screw up and not a decoy...I blame the Air-Force nerd and their superiors for posting it. The secret service for being too bureaucratic to take it down, and the MSM for letting everyone read about it. Plenty of blame to go around.
Can't who track IP hits on what webpage and to what end? If someone posts information on an Air Force webpage that compromises security, it isn't Joe Websurfer's fault that he was browsing the site and saw it. I'd expect that the information will be pulled, the web team 'counselled', and arrangements made with AF1 to make anything particularly sensitive that the plans reveal obsolete, inasmuch as possible. As part of an information security effort- I might check to see if it had been crawled by any of the major search engines while the information was up, as well.
This story reminds me of ABC's deceased Peter Jennings, who immediately after the 9/11 attacks was on the air criticizing President Bush for remaining aloft on Air Force One instead of going to the White House. As if the arrogant, ignorant Jennings somehow knew the best place for the President to be during the ongoing crisis. ABC and the MSM in general continue daily with mindless attacks on our President. (ABC of course is owned by Disney, symbol DIS).
The layout wouldn't do any "sniper" must good, because there weren't enough details to provide a point of aim. After the second or third shot, the fighters which protect Air Force one, not to mention that orange helicopter (Coast Guard?) that is often seen when the President is about, and the Secret Service counter snipers, would be on the sniper like ducks on a June bug.
A pair of snipers would have better luck trying to shoot the pilots on takeoff or landing.
And that's a very big "if". I'll bet the information on the web site was not detailed enough to be of any real use, especially to the postulated "sniper" Although without seeing the actual information, rather than breathless "reports" about it, it's difficult to tell..
The first sentence is correct. The last sentence is based on the ridiculous, over-the-top assertions of the two middle sentences.
First, this was an air force website that posted it, not "Bush Haters."
Second, I know a lot of "Bush haters"--some describe me as that--and I know of no one who wants him dead, any more than we Clinton "haters" wanted HIM dead. Damn, the emotions of Bush-hater-haters worshipping at the shrine must really distort your thinking.
Except you can't detonate an oxygen tank. Oxygen will accelerate a fire but shooting a hole in the tank will just cause the oxygen to whistle out of the hole. The best you could do would be to rupture the tank suddenly to cause overpressurization, like Apollo 13.
Wasn't this on Myth Busters?
And the MSM keeps wondering why they are losing.
Stop making sense. You will frighten the sheeple.
The way I read it, he based his statements on the following;
A) What the article states, and B) the source of the article.
The article states how to breach the security and destory AF1, and it's posted on a lib rag site.
I contend that his comment was less about "emotion" and more about the surface facts.
It's kinda like screaming "I hate white people", then when confronted about your comments - saying you were just quoting someone else.
Sorta. They were doing shark week and were re-creating the scene from Jaws where a scuba tank in the shark's mouth was blown up by getting shot. The only way Mythbusters got it to blow up was by attaching some C4 to it.
Ok, I could be wrong but I seem to remember a Mythbusters where they showed that you could not detonate a air tank with a bullet.
To address what you say: sure, attempts have been made on his life, as they have on the life of almost every President (I don't know about, say, Washington). So what? That doesn't justify your generalization that Bush haters want him dead. That was a stupid remark that you should just retract and forget. Even if they were so inclined, why would anyone want to martyr him?
Believe me, I know a lot of people who wish him out of office--it's a little condescending to scream that it is obvious. Some of us want him out of office because he is harming the Conservative movement--and the Republican Party--much more than Bill Clinton ever did or could. Why can't you see the obvious?
You would think the Chronicle would be aware of Myth Busters filmed in their own city, but perhaps actually blowing up Air Force One with an oxygen bottle is just wishful thinking.
Wolfcreek and I saw Jack detonate an air tank with a bullet on "24" so we know that Myth Busters are full of it!
"The Chronicle told the Secret Service that a government document containing specific information about the anti-missile defenses on Air Force One and detailed interior maps of the two planes -- including the location of Secret Service agents within the planes -- was posted on the Web site of an Air Force base."
===
It seems like the MSM did the decent thing for once, notified the government, before publishing the article to give them a chance to pull the info from the website of the Air Force base, but apparently they didn't bother to do so -- later in the article it says that despite that, the info was still there.
Also, that info must be highly classified and it is a crime to disclose such info. The person who did it should be found, tried and jailed.
How do we know it's not a mole, for whom it was easier to post it, than be caught trying to send it to some Al Qaeda?
This way he can claim "it was just an error".
A serious investigation should be made into this.
Don't know much about those. I do believe anything can be tracked with a court order and if the logs are still in existence.
Your other post made sense.
Can't who track and to what end?
I thought the government or law enforcement could track just about anything to its source if they have sufficient reason. I don't know if that echelon is a myth or not, think not.
To some limited extent, I can do my own tracking (for good personal reasons) but usually hit a dead end because I don't have the knowledge, resources or authority to go further with it.
As far as google is concerned, if the page is pulled, people who click on the link will get a 404. Now the page is probably cached for some unknown period, and I'm sure the government could intervene and order it removed. Whether google is required to comply is another matter. I don't know whose side they are on anyway.
I wish google would change their search engine to include punctuation. If I want to search for "jane doe" in quotes, I get a bunch of pages with jane, doe. That makes it much more difficult to sort through the results. They have changed it recently, and not everything is bolded any more which I don't like.
There's also this insight into the Clinton White House thinking about free speech, Constitutional protections, and freedom of the press:
"It is tough enough for the Secret Service to do its job without this," said Leon Panetta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, who now runs a public policy study center at California State University at Monterey Bay. "If I were still chief of staff, I would order the damned site (to) pull it down."
So the Clintonistas thought it was within their power to go up to a legitimate web site which was publishing an item of national security, presumably, with the same immunity as the New York Times publishing "The Pentagon Papers," and Leon Panetta thinks he can act with imperial fiat and just shut them down. Now I really can't wait for Hillary to be the next president.
This sounds like an episode of "24"!
---
President: Get me CTU!
Aide: They're all dead.. somebody snuck in a bad batch of burritoes.
President: Well then get me CTU's back-up over at Homeland Security.
Aide: Homeland Security? Then we're all dead. (/sarc)
===== placemark =====
Thanks for the ping, Southack.
B-Day party here ***sigh*** will read as soon as humanly possible.
What I objected more strongly to was the gross generalization about Bush haters wanting the President dead. That's not true of some, most, 99.9% of Bush haters, and is certainly not true of people capable of rational thought. Before you reply, I will anticipate and agree with you that most Bush haters aren't capable of rational thought. That's the Republican secret weapon: Democrats.
I'd agree with that- although if it were up to me, I'd probably want to keep details about AF1 classified, just on general principle.
I can agree with you on that. I don't know many Bush haters, and can't really comment on what they honestly do think. I would say it's a gross generalization to claim that they want him dead. I'm sure there are fringe groups on both sides that want to see things such as that, but to stereotype ALL of them is wrong.
exactly, you can have any IP you want...
I would say it's a gross generalization to claim that they want him dead. I'm sure there are fringe groups on both sides that want to see things such as that
Which fringe groups would feel safer with Cheney as President?
Probably the fringe groups that aren't smart enough to think that far ahead. :)
"Liberals, the American wing of Al-Queida."
Al-Queida, the Middle East wing of the Democratic Party.
I have an easy enough time blaming the Comicle for a lot of evil-in-print, but not this time. They first went to the Secret Service, and when they did publish the stories, they gave no useful details.
Disclaimer: 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.