Actually, it wouldn't surprise me. This is the federal government - home of the $650 toilet seat and $1000 hammer. In the white house they already call Mr. Can't-lead-at-all "The commander and chief." I'm kind of surprised they don't count fairies and eastern bunnies - those are about as real at the rest of Obama's "facts."<br />
Just for fun though, I googled this and to my surprise.<br />
Note the ABC story says its not policy, but then say describe the policy and guess what, yes they do ask mothers to declare intention to bring in "yet unborn children."<br />
here's the original coverage from The Washington Free beacon as well.<br />
That one quotes a white house staffer on the policy.
Does this mean you equate the unborn with imaginary creatures? Wow. I'm impressed with your candor.
No Gnat - it means that inside the Obama White House they deal a lot in fairytales. Things like "If you allow me to spend a trillion in stimulous unemployment will never get above 8%."
We're saying the same thing here really. The links are all there from three different sources. I invite people to read for themselves.
It sounds as believable as what I heard today about al qaeda. My mother told me that they're working on ways to implant bombs in animals so they can blow up planes. This makes no sense, mainly because any bomb of effective size would end up killing the animal before they even got to the airport.
Actually not necessarily. It's really all about just piercing the side of the airplane. Anything projectile based can do the job. Take a look at the latest "underwear bomb" - which isn't really much larger than a coaster. I own a dog large enough to surgically implant something like that into. There was a great article on this subject about two days ago in (I think) the NYT. I'll try to find it and post a link.
My point is the animal would be dead and that alone would raise suspicion. Add in that it can take up to three hours for the animal to get on the plane after check in, let alone until it takes off, the margin for error is just way too wide. Without a person keeping an eye on the "package" the whole way through more than likely the bomb would get lost and it could easily go out of range of the remote. The only way is for a person with a remote to get on the plane and with our screening procedures it's getting less and less likely of anyone sneaking anything on board. Timers would be too sketchy, esp if the flight is delayed. This is all counting on the hope that the bomb would take down a plane, but history proves that planes with even massive holes in them from bombs can fly and land safely. Ultimately it's a fear weapon that would do very little damage and would only terrorize the public, like a dirty bomb. I'm not saying they wouldn't try it, I'm just saying that this is a big waste of time, and probably was only thought up as yet another thing for the americans to freak out over. How many people have tried shoes bombs? One, how many have tried underwear bombs? One. If they were effective or even practical we'd have nabbed more than two people.
Give me a BREAK !