Again, that is from the latter interview where she eats her words. It is a *completely *different context.
Like I said earlier. She was correct when she admitted she was wrong.
Your OP does not make that distinction. Sorry if the actual context does make the reporter and you sound ridiculous.
I won’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Let’s start with what we have. It increases the security profile of America, it makes us safer.
sry El K, a poll on these boards hardly qualifies as scientific. Nor would one on kos, firedoglake, foxnews, etc.
PS this is the pit. Deal. Lord knows I get my share of insults hurled at me from mental giants like Lobo. Or are you a hypocrite?
Well, how many such air marshalls did you have in mind? Presmably, one for each flight originating in a foreign country bound for the US? Is that the plan?
Yes, I’m a hypocrite. Everyone already knows this. My sole objection to your (IMO) poorly thought-out plan and pre-emptive insults is purely on partisan grounds.
Well, not really.
Actually, I’m still trying to understand your point. In what way would the presence of an air marshal on the flight in question have altered the outcome? Seems to me it wouldn’t have changed a thing.
Before insulting I usually give others the benefit of the doubt, as I linked before, CNN reported that the recommended screening by the USA is done in Amsterdam, do you have a cite that this is not the case? You may be proposing something that was already implemented.
I’m no partisan, I’m more of a security-first moderate.
And I completely agree with you that the outcome, in this case would have been the same. However I do NOT want to rely upon Dutch tourists as our doctrine for defeating these kinds of attacks in the future.
And now let me ask you a question: do you agree that increasing the Air Marshal presence (on American flagged carriers…first…) and enforcing better screening, including backscatter, would make Americans safer? That it’s possible that it might deter some attacks? That it might even catch the next shoe/crotch-bomber before the cocksucker gets on the flight?
Look, if what we want is deterrence, how about uniformed military troops on every flight, with automatic weapons? Probably cheaper per hour than air marshals anyway. That would give pause to people threatening to use the toilets in the last hour of flight.
Hey! Some of my best friends are cocksuckers!
Interesting, the hysteria around one failed attempt on one airliner.
This interesting site, The Odds of Airborne Terror rather nicely puts these threats in context:
So based on this horrific, terrifying, un-manning threat (including two total fiascos, clownish bumbling failures), the hysterics want to pull out of international air conventions that have served the Americans for what, 50-60 years? Perhaps better, ban all flights to the US would be better. After all, people who look and talk foreign are on them, and that’s scary.
Better America cowers in abject paralysing fear after the horrible threat of two morons who did less damage than a kid with firecrackers could, than show some fucking bloody balls and shrug the idiocy off.
And you want to imposing this cowardly idiocy on the rest of the world? Fuck off, ban all flights to your fucking country, whinging cowards.
Right. What could he have done that the guy sitting next to him didn’t do? If there’s been a real change in airline safety since 9/11, it is that passengers are now alert enough to the possibility of an onboard act that they’ll jump on a guy like Reid or Abdulmutallab themselves, not just sit there bovinely wondering what’s going on.
If the point was that just *having *an air marshal on the flight would at least have made people *feel *safer (the apparent object for many), that’s false too. Their presence is not made known to anyone but the crew, for obvious reasons, and they aren’t often present onboard anyway.
Sinaijon, try this: Napolitano was neither right nor wrong on either occasion. Does that hurt your brain much?
I agree (in principle) on screening, disagree on air marshals. Although clearly I am not an expert on the subject, I am unaware of the presence of air marshals ever being of much use. Even re: screening, it appears that all mechanisms were already in place to have prevented the crotch-bomber from getting aboard the flight. I can’t see what, other than mandatory frisking of every passenger, could have made a difference here.
In my opinion, finally, re: this incident, I feel a rather large mountain is being made out of what, if not a molehill, is little more than a slight rise in the terrain.
If this means that the process of airline travel is going to involve somebody with rubber gloves looking down our underwear, then truly the terrorists have won. 
I’m still waiting for our War on South American Maintenance Outsourcing and our War on Bird Strikes.
Either is a vastly more serious threat to airline passengers than terrorism.
Well, them and the fetishists.
How much are you willing to *pay *for this increased security? Let’s see a dollar amount- how much more, in taxes, are you willing to pay to make Americans a little bit safer?
I mean, surely no amount of money is too large for safety, right? So let’s see how much you’re willing to spend to have an Air Marshall on *every *incoming flight (regardless of the fact that it wouldn’t have done a lick of good in this situation).
So does banning personal automobiles. By a much greater margin, in fact. The fact that a proposal may make us safer is not an automatic mandate to carry it out.
From memory and the CNN clip:
Your first quote mentions the lack of a marshal but even in the USA not all flights get a marshal. Their schedules are secret for obvious reasons, so we have to get a cite that shows that we never have them in international flights.
As for your second quote CNN reported that Amsterdam is working to get the body scans up, but **privacy concerns from the American public **and delays in their development and cost are the most likely reasons why they are not used widely, not because of stubbornness from the Netherlands.