The airlines had been notified of a threat for the 9 months previous to 9/11/2001.  The FAA had notified all carriers about a possible threat from 1/2001 on.

Actually, the clinton administration had warnings all the way back to 1999 and I have heard there were more general warnings as far back as 1993.  The democrats are really gonna shoot themselves in the foot with this.  They really look stupid right now.

More details: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53120,00.html[/url]

Just as Condoleeza Rice said in a one sentence reply, "the information was too general to be of any value". Ok, say you receive info that someone "might" be planning to hijack a plane...what are you going to be able to do with that? Not much IMO.

When? Where? Why? How many? What do they intend to do with the plane? What is their motive? Who is the hijackers? These are just a few of the many questions that would have to be answered to be of much use. The truth is we simply didn't know. This general info was passed along to the proper authorities. If anyone failed to act, it wasn't Bush...it was the FBI. But I can't blame them either based on what the democraps are spewing. And maybe the airlines did take extra precautions. But prior to 9/11 what would we have been looking for? Guns, knives and bombs...right? Who would have expected terrorists to commandeer a plane with box cutters and nail files? What we saw was a method never used before and that's why we missed it. It is easy to see a picture when a jigsaw puzzle is already put together and sitting out on display isn't it? But when looking at all the pieces, it isn't always so clear. Hindsight is and always has been 20/20. I say we need to move away from this blame game and work to prevent the next one.

"But prior to 9/11 what would we have been looking for? Guns, knives and bombs...right? Who would have expected terrorists to commandeer a plane with box cutters and nail files?"

uh...it's been done many times before with NO weapon, whatsoever...just threats of violence.

"What we saw was a method never used before and that's why we missed"

not exactly. a previous attempt to crash an airliner into the eiffel towel was thwarted by good security, as was a plot to hijack/crash one here in america. (was it 1992 by a demented man...pittsburgh? been too long)

Let's see...
Government...Hey FAA, watch out for possible Middle Eastern men hijacking your aircraft!
Faa...Rodger that. We will increase security and be a little more vigilant of Middle Eastern men...
The American and non-American arabs....yo are using racial profiling to discriminate against Arabs!! We have retained the ACLU and all other spineless make-a-quick-buck, i-have-nothing-better-todo-than-file-baseless-lawsuits lawywers and are gonna sue you!!
News...the American avation industry has been bankrupted by lawyers!!

Not what really happened, but it was and is still a possibility. How many Arab people are given closer scrutiny since 9/11? No as many as needed, and there is actually a whole lot of reason to use profiling. Tehy want to bither with women who have large breasts, and Medal Of Honor recieptients, but let's not offend Arabs.
Teh airlines have known something like this could happen, and should have been prepared. They should have lobbied against the ban of guns on flights back in the '70's.

Has any other group of people hihjacked or blown up any airlines, other than arabs?

IIRC, Bush signed an EO that pulled the FBI off Bin Laden. EO W99I, IIRC. Anyone have more info on this.

R35

Here is what I was thinking of.

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm[/url]

R35

You make some good points, but yes, there have been non-arabic hijackings. D.B. Cooper comes to mind, and then there was the PSA hijacing that resulted in the plane being driven into the ground.

I'll probably set a fire by saying this, but in times of national danger, we SHOULD be profiling.  In other words, taking action with indications, in the absence of enough proof to convict someone.  Lots of arguments about what those indications ought to be, but to paraphrase prior postings and you, basically, we need to be looking closely at primarily arabic males between the ages of 15 and 45 and then similar females, not grannies, or, like you say, the bigger-breasted.  We need to be saying 'OK, she has a nail file, she's 50, black, has a teen with her, etc., she's OK, even though she paid cash for her ticket she's going to Atlanta from here in DC.  Next!

Well, screw the ACLU and who is it, Norm Mineta? Another PRK exile.  Norm, you may not like this, but the internments were the right thing to do at the time, even though many innocent people suffered.  That's another price we pay in wartime.  We'll have to pay again.

We should allow passenger profiling and screw the ACLU, whose ideology has hijacked its stated mission. We've all noticed they haven't come to the defense of Emerson, or anyone else on firearms charges.

All this bullshit about what Bush might have known is just that.  If you read carefully the details, there has been little factual sign that he failed to act on any information specific enough to be useful.  If 9/11 hadn't happened, people would be up in arms about measures that resulted in long lines at the airport, profiling, etc.   Well, it happened, flying is a pain, and the measures seem to be misdirected as if to ignore the very people most likely to try something.