To: SilentZ who wrote (376359 ) 4/5/2008 11:23:39 AM From: i-node Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576770 I do. It was a really lucky shot. This reminds me a bit of the attitudes of the Left when SDI was announced. I suppose that might predate you, but we had the likes of Carl Sagan and other so-called "scientists" coming on Nightline telling us how it could never work, the laws of physics made it impossible, etc. Edward Teller would take the opposite position, but he was made to look foolish because he was old and slow thinking and Sagan had an answer for everything. I always thought at the time, "How many of these idiots would have believed, 15 years ago, that handheld calculators weren't possible?" The "lucky shot" theory is inconsistent with the determinations of practically everyone who has looked at the attack. From the first hours, it was obvious that the attack was well-planned and executed. These people were able to identify and exploit huge holes in our security. Now, it is true that many of these holes have now been closed. But these people are not idiots; they are resourceful and determined and they WILL be able to find other holes sooner or later. The Bush administration has done a great job of guiding the biggest bureaucracy in the world toward increased security -- particularly, given the constraints imposed by a Congress with a short memory and lust for power. There are still holes, however -- and the election of a liberal who is soft on terrorism will reopen some of the security holes and create new opportunities for terrorists they otherwise wouldn't have had. It wasn't a lucky shot. It was smart people exploiting huge gaps in our security -- and while most of those gaps are no longer there, other gaps are and more will be in the future. It would be idiotic to assume that it was a "lucky shot" and thus, couldn't be replicated. There exist nuclear devices weighing 50 lbs. When the port of LA unloads 7.5 Million containers a year, it is ignorant to ignore the possibility of a 50 lb. device getting through security.