PLEA TO OBAMA: CANCEL RISKY, RECKLESS 'SITTING DUCK' TRAIN STUNT

by Scrivener | January 12, 2009 at 10:24 am
1200 views | 2 Recommendations | 17 comments

What happened to Homeland Security warnings of "heightened risk" during Presidential transition?

How about the late November FBI warning about possible Northeast  train station attacks?

"Amtrak Joe" Biden's longstanding warnings about security flaws along the Amtrak Northeast corridor -- why isn't he waving this whistle stop tour to a halt?

GET POLITICAL w/ VIC LIVINGSTON

(UPDATE:  The train journey came off without a hitch.  Kudos to the many men and women of law enforcement and the various security agencies, all of whom ensured the safety of the incoming president and vice president in the face of dire warnings.

But was there a contradiction between those admonitions and the degree to which the excursion exposed "high-value targets" to potential danger?  We believe that question is still valid,  as are the points made in the commentary below:) 


It is both mystifying and frightening to contemplate the unnecessary risk to which President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden are subjecting themselves by going through with Saturday's planned pre-inauguration "whistle stop" train ride from Philadelphia to Washington.

In his farewell press conference on Monday, President Bush seemed to go out of his way to twice repeat that the greatest threat the nation faces is another terrorist attack.  At one point in his presser, he said that by giving official voice to the threat, he was not "trying to set something up."  Here are President Bush's exact words:

"There is an enemy that still is out there.

"You know, people can maybe try to write that off as, you know, 'he's trying to set something up.'  

"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America -- Americans -- again. There just is. That's the reality of the world."


George W. Bush could not have been more plain-spoken, candid and direct.  The incoming White House team ignores his words -- which he most likely thought about before uttering them  -- at their peril.  

If the threat is so grave that the warning was twice repeated during Bush's final press conference, how can his administration's security officers allow the Obama-Biden inauguration planners to go through with such reckless folly...

...a widely publicized, multiple-stop train excursion down a set, pre-scheduled route that is replete with potential hazards -- bridges, tunnels, chemical factories and depots, tall buildings, easy access to lightly guarded right-of-way and unscreened track-side crowds?

How can law enforcement and the U.S. Secret Service possibly secure the route?  And how can they square signing off on the train trip with their repeated warnings about the possibility of a terrorist attack?

Terrorists come in a variety of forms, both foreign and domestic, as the Oklahoma City federal building bombing so pointedly demonstrated.

Terrorists foreign and domestic may have access to the latest high-tech armaments, such as so-called "directed energy weapons" which fire invisible pulsed beams of potentially deadly radiation instead of bullets or shotgun pellets.  Such weaponry has been and continues to be widely deployed among military, intelligence and law enforcement personnel.

The Secret Service has acknowledged that officials have investigated a number of threats against the life of Barack Obama.  The predictability of the timing, route and geography of the train trip provides potential evildoers with many opportunities to wreak havoc.  Unlike a motorcade, which ensconces the "high-value targets" in a bomb- and bullet-resistant vehicle that could take evasive action in the event of an attack, the train ride exposes the incoming President and Vice-President to wide-open, immutable hazards -- from narrow bridges over expanses of river water to viaducts and tunnels that pass over and under easily accessible streets and highways.

Despite assertions to the contrary, it would appear to us that there is no possible way this entire route could be adequately secured.

The fact that the President-elect and the Vice President-elect are scheduled to travel on the same train at the same time should be reason enough for security officials to strongly recommend against this stunt...

...a purely optional railroad journey that may be inspiring, and a harkening back to past historical glories, but in the end amounts to little more than political theater.  

No practical need or justification for this stunt can be rationally demonstrated.  It constitutes an unacceptable risk and should be canceled forthwith.

If Mssrs. Obama and Biden do not come to this conclusion themselves in the next couple of days, this would be one case in which the outgoing administration would be totally justified in saying:  "No, we cannot allow this to go forward" -- especially in light of the stark political fact that the Bush administration surely would be blamed if something untoward were to happen.

This ill-advised junket conjures up memories of President John F. Kennedy's star-crossed trip to Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.  The very morning of his assassination, an  invective-laden newspaper ad appeared in the Dallas Morning News, featuring JFK's portrait bordered in black (as in "crepe").  And yet, the President was allowed to parade through Dealey Plaza in the open air, exposed, his armored limo's "bubble top" removed.

Surely the security forces charged with protecting the incoming President and Vice President cannot invite a repeat of a comparable procedural misjudgment.

If Obama and Biden are not exercising good judgment in going through with what could prove to be a harrowing journey, then Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan have the sworn duty to protect the incoming administration from itself.

Mssrs. Chertoff and Sullivan:

Hear me well.  Do your sworn duty.  Stop this errant Obama locomotive immediately to obviate the chance of an inaugural train wreck that would further traumatize and roil the nation in these troubled times.

FOR OTHER STORIES ABOUT THREATS TO OUR LIBERTY AND SECURITY:

http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener

Advertisement
recommend Sign In or Join to post comments
0
Scrivener

To all readers:

I wrote the first draft of this article for posting on The Washington Post's "The Fix blog.

The article would NOT post.  I received a full-screen message (which I believe was a "spoofed page" inserted into my data stream by rogue surveillance agents and malicious interceptors) that the post "was being held for the blog owner."

I believe this was another instance of CENSORSHIP.  Not even "by proxy" -- because I am sure that The Washington Post had nothing to do with it.

I then attempted to post links to this story on some mainstream media web sites, including blogs at The Washington Post.  The link posted on "The Fix" and "44" came out as I intended, with a live link. 

But on "The Inauguration Watch" blog, the link came out deactivated.  I re-posted.  Same result.

Is it possible that someone or some entity watching my every keystroke does not want to make it easier for the story about the DANGERS of the Obama-Biden train ride to gain wide readership? 

Or is this another inconveniently timed "glitch"?

Good people on the inside -- I know you're there...

Others who follow my output:  Please make the link to this story VIRAL.  Copy it from your URL line and make sure it's not corrupted.

ALSO -- It appears that comments are not making their way to my articles lately.  I have not had recent comments posted.   (Also, the stat counters seem frozen...).

So in lieu of those comments, please post the link to this story to any relevant blog or media site that you can think of.

Is this undue alarm, or preventive prescience?  Either way, please spread this link around the net.  I believe it's very important.  Hopefully, we won't know whether I was right or not, because the powers that be will cancel the train trip. I hope.




0
dsdsds

Stop being such a fear mongerer.

Go away, please...

 

0
hello!!!???!!!

THE PUBLIC NEEDS PROTECTION FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
YOU ARE A FEAR MONGERER. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT BUSH SAYS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AT THIS POINT. GIVE IT UP D-BAG, PLEASE RETIRE WHILE YOURE KIND OF LOWLIFE JOURNALISTS ARE STILL POPULAR...

0
Scrivener

Have I struck a nerve?

When you say, "Give it up" -- who exactly "gave it up" here?

Have a nice day and thanks for confirming that at least SOME comments are getting through here!


0
Scrivener

Update: I attempted to post a link to this story to a political blog on the Phila. Inquirer web site.  I receive (another) on-screen message that my post "was being held for review." I know from experience that's not the way the blog works.  Only obscene language triggers  an automatic "hold."

What rogue operation is censoring and maliciously interfering with my constitutional right to communicate?

And how much longer will these rogue operators think they are above the law?  They reveal their disdain for our judicial system and American values with each additional affront.

To quote Marvin Gaye:  "How long has this been going on?"  And how long do these rogues think they can trample upon our Constitution? 

0
Alida Antonia Cornelius

Are you suggesting that the security people should be able to tell Obama and Biden what they can and cannot do?

What good does it do to speculate such things?

Leave it to the experts...now what other conspiracy theories do you have to report?

And sometimes blogs won't post if you have certain words in them which are filtered by the website.

For example, if you try to write the word, "honky" at the Courier Journal site in a blog, it won't post.

Maybe that's your problem posting and they are not making it clear why it won't post.

I kept writing the word, honky tonk, not knowing that the term "honky" was considered a racist term by the Courier. 

I have to use the work together, as in "honkytonk" and then my blog posted.

They are probably just filtering your blog for offensive words.

They are not doing strange things to you.


0
Scrivener

Do you really think anyone is buying your lame psy ops?

0
Scrivener

UPDATE: My post of a link to this article was taken down from CNN.com/Rick Sanchez' blog.  I attempted to repost this morning.    The post would not go through.

This is apparent CENSORSHIP.   I don't even think it is "by proxy."  This is blatant, abusive, malicious censorship, tampering and unconstitutional interference by rogue operators who think they are above the law.  And now my computer is running at a slow crawl.

This is not American.  It is what one would expect in China, or Nazi Germany.  Those doing this should be ashamed -- then prosecuted.




0
Alida Antonia Cornelius

It's not censorship...the people who OWN the website can refuse to post whatever they want.


0
Scrivener

UPDATE: Tried to correct a typo that I believe was maliciously inserted in the article.  Got a message:  "Content has been altered by another user. Changes cannot be saved."


Checked main page. Error was fixed.

Computer again running at snail's pace.

More evidence of malicious tampering and unconstitutional interference with telecommunications.



0
Alida Antonia Cornelius

When you pay for a service, it's a contract...your constitutional rights are not hindered, no matter what you think.

Just because you have a computer, a cable connection, and you can write your opinions all over the net, that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to write whatever you want...unless YOU own the website yourself and pay for it.

Consider paying GoDaddy a fee, make your own website, and THEN complain about someone altering your writing.

When you PAY, you can PLAY all you want, honey.

You know the rules, lol...after all, you WERE a newpaper editor.


0
Scrivener

"Alida":


If the web sites have nothing to do with the failure to post or the malicious tampering -- or if posts are taken down at the suggestion or order of an agent of government, that is CENSORSHIP BY PROXY.

Since you are so interested in contesting what seem to be clear infringements upon my constitutional rights, perhaps you should read this article about how censorship by proxy works to circumvent the law of the land:

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/does-politico-com-censor-comments-targets-govt-spying

And yes, I WAS a newspaper editor and now I have a more important job -- which, unfortunately, sometimes demands that I respond in kind to your lame disinfo/psy ops.

Why do I respond?  Because you are so helpful in making my case! 

Thanks again... I'm sure my unseen friends in the Hoover building and on the Ninth floor at 6th and Arch get some chuckles each time you reveal your "craft."






0
Alida Antonia Cornelius

You cannot prove a "government agent" stops your posts, lol..and you just like to write controversial topics because then you get the most comments and your stories stay in the headlines.

I think it's called trolling.

Hey, you know how to market your wares...

And "hi" to the guys in the Hoover building for me.

Anyone who thinks they are THAT important that they rate having a person watch everything they post may have delusions of grandeur, don't ya think?

I mean, how many people are there in the blogosphere are there who write stuff like you do?

Probably too many for the government to afford to monitor them, lol.

Have a nice day up there in the burbs of Philadelphia.

0
Scrivener

If they can't afford it, who's paying YOU?


(That's a shout-out for my Bureau buds...)



0
lonemoderate

You are an idiot! Not just for the article, but for the comments as well.

Nothing more needs to be said.

And you being a former newspaper editor explains a lot about the state of modern journalism.

0
Somebody's Watching You Scrivener

How come when anybody says anything that contradicts your delusions you accuse them of being a government spy or whatever?

In your mind is it really the entire world against you?

Trust me, you're not important.  Nobody would even know who you were if you weren't busy spamming the comments sections of so many publications.

Although I am sure that you probably think they are for mind control, there are actually some great psychotic drugs that can help you.

It is very clear to me why you are a *former* mainstream journalist.

Of course, I expect you to say that I am against you.  Everybody is against you, right?

Quick question:  If people were really messing with your data streams and your computers, why in the world would they permit you to publish this garbage?  Better yet, wouldn't they just make it look like the world could see it, but in reality only you could?

Even better:  If anything you say were actually true, don't you think somebody would have "silenced" you by now?  They haven't because none of what you say is true and nobody is paying attention to you -- except to laugh at you and/or correct you.

0
shakinmyhead


To the stereotype repeaters and dis-info propagandists:

I truly enjoy myself every time Vic's stories and comments provoke you  sadistic bastards into scratching your dander, so I would have to say that I myself am not completely clean of the sadist gene.  But then there's that poetic justice thing ... 

You are angry because what Mr. Livingston says is quite believable, and there is a potential for some portion of the public to say that it's credible. 

Everybody against him?  Nah, only the portion of the population that benefits from the fascist's game-plan as it goes on and on, and admittedly, it will continue for awhile.

The exposure that Mr. Livingston provides by his efforts to spotlight the activities of you and your miscreant legions will eventually turn your  "game-plan"  into a "game-over".

That's what really gets your dander roiled up!


closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from