Actually **Sinaijon **in the OP referred to Napolitano as being wrong **every **time she speaks, **after **pointing to the article where she does acknowledge that the early system failed. So is she correct or wrong now? Well, Sinaijon may be honest but he/she is clearly clueless.
So you are making the argument that if we unilaterally institute a policy that requires those reasonable security measures (ie, they are done in American airports now, fully backed by the Democratic party that’s been in power for awhile), then American planes will be banned from landing at OCONUS airports.
That’s your story?
Actually, she was asked that ealier. It was the very next couple of questions in the transcript I linked too. She weaseled the first one, and finally followed with this gem:
The system worked.
I guess I forgot the sarcasm quote thing.
Look, I’m not some black-helicopter, one-world-gov conspiracy theory guy. But I do a lot of work with both DHS and TSA. I know how they work, I know a lot of the people there. These are reasonable security measures. Janet’s silliness about sitting in your chair the last hour of the flight (“well, they can blow up the plane mid-flight, but not at the end of the trip by God…”) is ridiculous.
My guess is that if there were a poll about this (anyone got a link/cite to one?), that vast majorities of Americans would be infavor of what I’ve proposed. I know that doesn’t sit well with the chardonnay/sailboat/tofu crowd that dominates this board, but there you are.
Actually, the ‘every time she speaks’ was a bit of an allusion to the whole ‘The 9/11 terrorists came from Canada’ gaffe back in April. But she retracted that as well, so I guess we’re all good, right?
Once again the context can not be ignored, she was/is referring about the changes made after the incident; sure, the “And he was stopped before any damage could be done there” is silly in the context of the security system, but she was not lying.
Compared to the last administration that **even to this day **continues to say that all what they did was good?
Yes.
If we leave the ICAO, which we would have to do in order to require armed American personnel on foreign flag carrier flights to the US, we’d have to individually negotiate air travel allowances with every other country. The process would take years.
The fact that things are done in American airports does not mean it is reasonable to do them everywhere. You are talking about requiring foreign nations to allow our law enforcement personnel to walk around their airports and aircraft with guns.
Wasn’t this a Northwest flight?
I stand corrected. She is clearly always wrong, except when she is admitting that she was wrong. 
Well, she is certainly wrong when she says this -
No, he actually set off an explosive device on a plane. So “before” here must mean “after”.
And based on this, I am supposed to feel safe. If I feel threatened, a bit of double-think, and the problem is solved.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, but you said you want air marshals on “any plane that wants the privelege of direct-flying into our airports”.
Yet you are, apparently in all seriousness, proposing that the US pull out of the ICAO if other countries don’t acquiesce in allowing armed, plainclothes US law enforcement officials on board foreign-flag flights to the US. I’ve gotta think the cure is worse than the disease here.
I’ll go ahead and get your poll started. I think it’s an extremely bad idea, for several reasons.
Oh, and a good way to never be taken seriously is to pre-emptively insult any poster who might happen to disagree with your opinions.
I’m going to just post the question and answer again here so that everyone can see the context:
Oh, and just to be clear, I think Napolitano’s initial statement was…not very intelligent. I think most people would say that it referred to the entire security process, not just the part after the threat was identified. Likewise, if the system involves civilian passengers, late in a lengthy flight, having to intervene to stop someone who should have been stopped by this absurdly elaborate screening program we’re supposed to have, then the system didn’t work very well at all.
Well, lets be clear about it, I do think Napolitano was silly for the way she attempted to reassure the public by mentioning that the terrorist was stopped anyway. That it was stopped literally by the seat of his pants is not reassuring to me, but I have no respect for media that attempts to ignore the context.
Napolitano was reassuring the public after the incident, and she later mentioned that the system needs changes. The reporter in the linked OP insists that Napolitano should resign for this, I have to insist that the reporter needs to point to a good reason for that request, a silly attempt to reassure the public is not a good reason.
Anybody thinking that safety is a binary proposition is misguided. It’s a spectrum, and the curve is asymptotic. Nothing is perfectly safe. Nothing. If, as some of you say, what you want is the *feeling *of safety, well, get over yourselves. If you’re focusing only on certain perceived threats and not others, well, get over that, too. You can completely prevent any possibility of problems in airline flight only by not *having *airline flight. And it is still, by any rational measure, the safest form of transportation there is.
Safety, and the working of the system, are relative concepts. Napolitano was engaging in perception management, as a politician does. She’s being criticized here for nonobjectivity by people who are wallowing in it themselves.
If airlines remain Al Qaeda terrorist targets, it’s because they know that air travel has a very high emotion/reason quotient for so many people. It’s easier to create terror among people already predisposed to it.
I already mentioned that I don’t agree will all of what she said, but here is more context:
If we only had a color-coded alert system to tell us when to panic…
I preemptively shit my pants everytime it goes to plaid.