Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

U.S. clamps down on banking transactions; terror group finds new funding

By Robert Windrem and Garrett Haake
NBC News
updated 7:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2008
Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials believe they've won many small victories against al-Qaida's ability to finance its operations, but they remain unable to put a concrete dollar figure on their impact.

That's because they have no reliable estimate of al-Qaida's overall budget, according to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, which means the only measures of the organization's economic health are sporadic, anecdotal and fragmentary.

"When you see a cell complaining that it hasn't received its monthly or biannual stipend and it's unable to pay the salaries of the people in the cell, unable to make the support payments to the families of terrorists living or dead, that's a tremendous indicator we have pressured the financial channel," said Adam Szubin, the director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the man in charge of tracking terrorist finance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27644191

725-

Bonjour Sylvette


Aucun rapport, je suis tombé sur cette vidéo par hasard et me suis fortement étonné de son contenu....

Sylvette a écrit:

Comme cette vieille dame, vous le croyez aussi, Lawrence ?

Mais dites voir quel est le rapport entre cette video et la politique socialiste de notre president?

Aaaah, ok!

Friendly fire: NYT hits Obama

By JONATHAN MARTIN | 3/22/09 7:10 PM EDT A chorus of liberal voices from The New York Times criticize the president in Sunday’s paper. Photo: Composite image by POLITICO [/i] The leading liberal voices of the New York Times editorial pages all criticized—and, in some cases, clobbered—President Obama on Sunday for his handling of the economy and national security. It's not unusual for Barack Obama to take a little friendly fire from the Times. But it's perhaps unprecedented for him to get hit on the same day by columnists Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd—and in the paper's lead editorial. Their critique punctuated a weekend that started with a widely circulated blog post by Paul Krugman that said the president’s yet to be announced bank rescue plan would almost certainly fail. The sentiment, coming just two months after the president was sworn in, reflects elite opinion in the Washington-New York corridor that Obama is increasingly overwhelmed, and not fully appreciative of the building tsunami of populist outrage. Unlike with President Bush, the Obama administration is less apt to dismiss such commentary, at least publicly, as so much carping from an out-of-touch peanut gallery. These are voices that have been sympathetic, and at times gushing toward Obama, during the campaign and in his administration’s early days. The president and his top aides read the Times closely and react quickly to its reporting and commentary. Tom Daschle, for example, withdrew from consideration as Health and Human Services Secretary amid back tax issues on the same day that the paper ran a tough front-page piece and editorial on what keeping Daschle would mean to the Obama brand. So it likely caused some consternation this morning at the White House and at Camp David, where the president is staying this weekend, to pick up the Times and find: —Frank Rich, who made a cottage industry of Bush-bashing, writing that until Obama “addresses the full depth of Americans’ anger with his full arsenal of policy smarts and political gifts, his presidency and, worse, our economy will be paralyzed.” Recalling the Daschle episode and the public’s response to the image of a wealthy former senator not paying taxes on a limousine, Rich said that judging from their response to the AIG case “the administration learned nothing from that brush with disaster.” Larry Summers, perhaps the president’s most high-profile economic adviser, came in for the worst of it. “Summers is so tone-deaf that he makes Geithner seem like Bobby Kennedy," Rich wrote. —Thomas Friedman, the paper’s highly-read foreign affairs columnist, turning his focus home to find the nation lacking “inspirational leadership.”

...

Hugo le qualifie d'"ignorant".

Chavez calls Obama "ignorant"

Sunday, March 22, 2009



AP


Feb. 13: Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, center, is greeted by a supporter during a rally.


CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday called President Barack Obama "ignorant," saying he has a lot to learn about Latin America.



The Venezuelan leader said he had been ready to name a new ambassador in Washington when Obama took office, but put that on hold after the new U.S. president accused him of "exporting terrorism" and being an obstacle to progress in the region.



"At least one could say, 'poor ignorant person,"' Chavez said on his weekly television and radio program, adding that Obama "should read a little bit so that he learns about ... the reality of Latin America."



...



----



Bon revoyons donc le CHANGEment depuis la fin jancier: Donc la Russie, toujours froid, l'Iran, toujours chaud, le Venezuela, toujours rouge



La Chine, exportateur de denrees empoisonnees, de produits dangereux, etc.. nous fait des remontrances.



La France, pays socialiste parmi tant d'autres en Europe, nous demande de suivre sa ligne de conduite qu'elle nous a proposee.

Le Moyen Orient: ben c'est tres silencieux depuis le retour d'Hillary.



Quel CHANGEment!

Bonjour Sylvette !

Ben oui, il faut dire que VNPP (*) n'a pas eu la main très heureuse jusqu'à maintenant...

Peut-être ça va CHANGER ?

(*) Votre Nouveau Pauvre Président

To avoid getting bogged down in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama will keep U.S. committed but not too committed.

The middle ground in inconclusive war

By DAVID S. CLOUD | 3/27/09 4:30 AM EDT

The Obama administration fears getting bogged down in a bloody and inconclusive war in Afghanistan and Pakistan—but it also fears walking away from the region.

So its new strategy, which President Barack Obama plans to announce Friday at the White House, is a careful middle course that seeks to avoid both of these unacceptable outcomes.

It keeps the U.S. committed but not too committed.

It doesn’t promise fast results or sweeping achievements, like defeating the Taliban insurgency or quickly bringing security to the Afghan people.

It seeks to draw allies into the effort but doesn’t greatly expand the U.S. footprint, though Obama will announce he is sending 4,000 more troops, several hundred civilian reconstruction experts, and $1.5 billion in additional economic aid to Pakistan.

And it will contain benchmarks that give Obama a chance to review the strategy at regular intervals to decide whether it is working.

The question that arises is whether in trying to keep the U.S. commitment limited, the White House is making it that much harder for the new strategy to work.

The main new U.S. goal is as constricted and clear-eyed as can be. It is to go after Osama bin Laden and the other remains of al-Qaida hiding along the Afghan-Pakistan border region. Everything else will be secondary.

When senior administration officials talk about when that objective might be completed, they say it will occur “eventually.” They stress, rightfully, that for reasons of politics and geography, eradicating the safe havens where al-Qaida still hides eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks will be hard and potentially long-term work.

...

=====

En passant, certains se souviendront peut-etre de Cindy Sheehan? elle n'est pas tres contente avec NNP qui continue a envoyer nos enfants a la guerre.

Date ...............Presidential Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove

03/28/2009	+4	35%	31%	56%	43%
03/27/2009	+5	35%	30%	56%	43%
03/26/2009	+5	35%	30%	56%	43%
03/25/2009	+5	36%	31%	56%	43%
03/24/2009	+4	36%	32%	56%	43%
03/23/2009	+5	36%	31%	56%	42%
03/22/2009	+4	35%	31%	56%	43%
03/21/2009	+4	36%	32%	55%	44%

Sylvette a écrit:

U.S. Constitution

Interessant quand on se souvient des reproches constants fait a Pres. Bush par la gauche de ne pas respecter la meme Constitution.

Interessant effectivement car il s'agissait exclusivement d'une remarque sur l'esclavage, totalement sortie de son contexte, comme d'habitude.

Le fait de ne pas echanger n'empeche pas de faire le point sur certaines "verites", de facon generale.
Certaines seulement, sinon on y passerait ses jours.

Date .....................Presidential Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove

04/10/2009	+5	34%	29%	55%	44%
04/09/2009	+5	34%	29%	55%	44%
04/08/2009	+6	35%	29%	57%	42%
04/07/2009	+8	37%	29%	58%	41%
04/06/2009	+8	36%	28%	58%	41%
04/05/2009	+6	36%	30%	56%	43%
04/04/2009	+3	34%	31%	56%	43%
04/03/2009	+3	35%	32%	56%	44%
04/02/2009	+5	35%	30%	56%	44%
04/01/2009	+8	37%	29%	57%	41%
03/31/2009	+11	38%	27%	59%	39%
03/30/2009	+8	38%	30%	58%	40%

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, April 10, 2009; Page A17

In his major foreign policy address in Prague committing the United States to a world without nuclear weapons, President Obama took note of North Korea's missile launch just hours earlier and then grandiloquently proclaimed:

"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."

A more fatuous presidential call to arms is hard to conceive. What "strong international response" did Obama muster to North Korea's brazen defiance of a Chapter 7 -- "binding," as it were -- U.N. resolution prohibiting such a launch?

The obligatory emergency Security Council session produced nothing. No sanctions. No resolution. Not even a statement. China and Russia professed to find no violation whatsoever. They would not even permit a U.N. statement that dared express "concern," let alone condemnation.

Having thus bravely rallied the international community and summoned the United Nations -- a fiction and a farce, respectively -- what was Obama's further response? The very next day, his defense secretary announced drastic cuts in missile defense, including halting further deployment of Alaska-based interceptors designed precisely to shoot down North Korean ICBMs. Such is the "realism" Obama promised to restore to U.S. foreign policy.

He certainly has a vision. Rather than relying on America's unique technological edge in missile defenses to provide a measure of nuclear safety, Obama will instead boldly deploy the force of example. How? By committing his country to disarmament gestures -- such as, he promised his cheering acolytes in Prague, ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Really, now. How does U.S. ratification of that treaty -- which America has, in any case, voluntarily abided by for 17 years -- cause North Korea to cease and desist, and cause Iran to turn nukes into plowshares?

Obama's other great enthusiasm is renewing disarmament talks with Russia. Good grief. Of all the useless sideshows. Cut each of our arsenals in half and both countries could still, in Churchill's immortal phrase, "make the rubble bounce."

There's little harm in engaging in talks about redundant nukes because there is nothing of consequence at stake. But Obama seems not even to understand that these talks are a gift to the Russians for whom a return to anachronistic Reagan-era START talks is a return to the glory of U.S.-Soviet summitry.

I'm not against gift-giving in international relations. But it would be nice to see some reciprocity. Obama was in a giving mood throughout Europe. While Gordon Brown was trying to make his American DVDs work and the queen was rocking to her new iPod, the rest of Europe was enjoying a more fulsome Obama gift.

Our president came bearing a basketful of mea culpas. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own people for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness, for genocide, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantanamo and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world.

And what did he get for this obsessive denigration of his own country? He wanted more NATO combat troops in Afghanistan to match the surge of 17,000 Americans. He was rudely rebuffed.

He wanted more stimulus spending from Europe. He got nothing.

From Russia, he got no help on Iran. From China, he got the blocking of any action on North Korea.

And what did he get for Guantanamo? France, pop. 64 million, will take one prisoner. One! (Sadly, he'll have to leave his bridge partner behind.) The Austrians said they would take none. As Interior Minister Maria Fekter explained with impeccable Germanic logic, if they're not dangerous, why not just keep them in America?

When Austria is mocking you, you're having a bad week. Yet who can blame Frau Fekter, considering the disdain Obama showed his own country while on foreign soil, acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating between his renegade homeland and an otherwise warm and welcoming world?

After all, it was Obama, not some envious anti-American leader, who noted with satisfaction that a new financial order is being created today by 20 countries, rather than by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy." And then added: "But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in.

It is passing strange for a world leader to celebrate his own country's decline. A few more such overseas tours, and Obama will have a lot more decline to celebrate.

Date ............Presidential Approval Index - Strongly Approve - Strongly Disapprove - Total Approve Total Disapprove

04/20/2009	+3	33%	30%	55%	45%
04/19/2009	+6	35%	29%	55%	44%
04/18/2009	+7	36%	29%	55%	44%
04/17/2009	+3	35%	32%	55%	43%
04/16/2009	+4	36%	32%	55%	43%
04/15/2009	+2	35%	33%	55%	44%
04/14/2009	+3	35%	32%	55%	44%
04/13/2009	+2	34%	32%	55%	44%
04/12/2009	+2	34%	32%	55%	44%
04/11/2009	+5	34%	29%	55%	43%
04/10/2009	+5	34%	29%	55%	44%
04/09/2009	+5	34%	29%	55%	44%
04/08/2009	+6	35%	29%	57%	42%
04/07/2009	+8	37%	29%	58%	41%
04/06/2009	+8	36%	28%	58%	41%
04/05/2009	+6	36%	30%	56%	43%
04/04/2009	+3	34%	31%	56%	43%
04/03/2009	+3	35%	32%	56%	44%
04/02/2009	+5	35%	30%	56%	44%
04/01/2009	+8	37%	29%	57%	41%
03/31/2009	+11	38%	27%	59%	39%

------------

01/21/2009

+28

44%

16%

65%

30%

=======

Cela rappellera un peu la blague des petits chats socialites qui ouvrent les yeux un-a-un, pour ceux qui la connaissent.

Bonjour Sylvette.

Bonjour Dame Sylvette ! Je vous suis, je vous suis...

Jack Merci (elle est magnifique)

Biloulou (C'est formidable! )

Date ................Presidential Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove

04/22/2009	+2	34%	32%	54%	46%
04/21/2009	+2	34%	32%	54%	45%

=====

01/21/2009 .............................

+28

44%

16%

65%

30% Et nous n'en sommes toujours pas aux 100 jours!

Desolee pour les nombreuses editions, ce sont des essais de reformatage.

Sans jamais avoir atteint les sommets historiques d'approbation de George Bush, Barak Obama descendra-t-il plus bas ?
Seul l'avenir pourra nous le dire.

En tout cas l'érosion se poursuit à un taux soutenu...

En encore, ces nombres sont ceux de son approbation personnelle, ceux qui correspondent a ses actions/decisions politiques sont bien plus mauvais.

Most voters continue to believe that the financial and auto bailouts were a bad idea, but the Political Class disagrees. Sixty percent (60%) now believe the federal government has too much power and too much money.
(Rasmussen)

Citation :

Sans jamais avoir atteint les sommets historiques d'approbation de George Bush, Barak Obama descendra-t-il plus bas ?

Il vous faudrait donc un attentat sur le sol Americain si je vous comprends bien, pour juger d'une "popularite historique" ?
Desolee je prefere faire avec un pourcentage moins eleve !!!

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

Shansaa en 743 a écrit:

Il vous faudrait donc un attentat sur le sol Americain si je vous comprends bien, pour juger d'une "popularite historique" ?

Desolee je prefere faire avec un pourcentage moins eleve !!!

Non, ça non non ! Puisse Dieu et les actions contre le terrorisme initiées par l'Administration Bush vous en préserver à tout jamais !

Il me semble, il me semble seulement que l'approbation du peuple americain pour le Pres. Bush etait due a la facon extraordinaire dont il a su faire face aux attentats terroristes du 11 septembre dans les semaines et les mois qui ont suivi ceux-ci; alors si la gauche refuse de le reconnaitre maintenant (perte de memoire clintonnienne), je me souviens parfaitement de Democrates qui a l'epoque ont meme exprime la chance que nous avions que Gore ne soit pas a la tete de notre nation.

De plus, NNP qui ne l'est plus, a bien ete elu grace a une crise economique, des lors....

Members of Congress were briefed on the subject of interrogation techniques more than 30 times since 2002, FOX News has learned. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was at the first meeting, and she raised no objections.

FOXNews.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009

Republicans, hoping to turn the tables on Democrats who are open to prosecuting Bush-era lawyers for justifying "enhanced" interrogation techniques, are seeking to reveal the names of those lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics as much as seven years ago.

FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.

The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.

The briefings were given to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate until 2006. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans.

Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen.

Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has personally requested from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair an unclassified list of names of all members of Congress who attended those briefings, complete with dates and locations.

He told FOXNews.com the list will probably show many members were briefed "early and often."

"The purpose of this, of course, is to underscore the fact that people in Congress knew or were aware of the program, its details, and they approved of this program and authorized its funding," said Jamal Ware, spokesman for Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.

Republicans have criticized President Obama for opening the door to prosecuting Justice Department lawyers who drafted the so-called "torture memos," which authorized harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding. But they've also raised the point that if Democrats pursue charges against the lawyers, they'd be shielding others involved in the interrogation program.

"They can't blame the politicians in Congress who approved these tactics in 2002 because these are their friends," Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mail. "So they're placing the blame on Bush administration officials, political appointees."

It's unclear how detailed the briefings with lawmakers on the interrogation programs were.

Pelosi said Thursday that at the briefing she attended, she was not told that waterboarding "or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods" were being used.

"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative council ... opinions that they could be used, but not that they would. And further, the point was that if and when they would be used, they would brief Congress at that time," she said.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that he would follow the law with regard to the interrogation program.

A number of Democrats have defended the call for probes. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has been pushing for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters Thursday that he will not throw his support behind any independent commission to look into Bush-era interrogation policy until the Senate Intelligence Committee has completed its review late this year.

"I think that's really the direction that I'm going to follow closely. I think the intelligence committee is a bipartisan committee. They will make a public report..And then I think it's appropriate to start talking about what we do with that information. But until we get that information, I think we would all be better off just relaxing, understanding how difficult this is," Reid said. "I think that we must get the information. It's spotty now, and I think that a few months waiting to determine the right way to go about this is certainly not going to hurt us."

While some aides back the idea of an independent, 9/11 Commission-style body to investigate, FOX News has learned that Obama opposes the idea.

Reid offered few details Thursday on the nature of the briefings with lawmakers, and said he doesn't remember specifically when he was briefed.

"Of course there were briefings on different subjects," he said. "I'm not going to get into all of this ... It's pretty clear that any time I had concerns, I raised them."

FOX News' Jim Angle and Trish Turner and FOXNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.

Sylvette en 746 a écrit:

De plus, NNP qui ne l'est plus, a bien ete elu grace a une crise economique, des lors....

Suis-je distrait au point de ne pas y avoir pensé ? Pourtant je le savais aussi bien que deux plus deux font quatre....

(Je vais de ce pas revêtir mon cilice de cérémonie et me priver de porto pendant au moins trois heures, tiens ! )

De plus ca en dit long sur leur comprehension de la terreur (oh pardon, le mot est banni) vecue par les victimes survivantes du 11 septembre

-----------

A 'Classified' Photo Op Turns Into a Soaring Blunder for the White House

Mission to Get Beauty Shots of Presidential Jet at Statue of Liberty Panics 9/11-Wary New York

By SUZANNE SATALINE, JONATHAN D. ROCKOFF and CHRISTOPHER CONKEY

As secret missions go, this one was a flop.

On Monday morning, one of the 747s used to ferry around the U.S. president was dispatched to the Statue of Liberty, escorted by a fighter jet. Assignment: Get some fresh glamour shots of the plane.

The Air Force said the flight needed to remain confidential. So while New York police knew about it, as did at least one person in the mayor's office, regular New Yorkers remained in the dark.

Readers' Photos

View Slideshow




As a result, to onlookers Monday all across downtown Manhattan -- where the World Trade Center once stood -- the photo shoot looked like a terrorist attack. People watched in horror as a massive aircraft, trailed closely by an F-16 fighter jet, banked and roared low near the city, in a frightening echo of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Fearing the worst, thousands of people streamed out of the skyscrapers and into the streets. Some buildings ordered evacuations. "Oh God, it was mayhem in here, just mayhem," says Rubin Shimon, manager of Styling Haircutters, a barbershop near Ground Zero. Many people took shelter in the shop to call loved ones on their cellphones.

It was all over in a half-hour or so. Then the finger-pointing began. "I'm annoyed -- furious is a better word -- that I wasn't told," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a news conference. He'd been scheduled to talk about a swine-flu outbreak at a Queens school, but also sounded off at the federal government for its "badly conceived" flyover plan.

He chastised his own office for its role in keeping the flyover secret. On Thursday night, city officials say, a junior mayoral aide had been alerted to the flyover by the Federal Aviation Administration, which requested that it be kept secret. Someone in City Hall alerted the New York Police Department, but no public announcement was made.

Marc Mugnos was reprimanded for not apprising the mayor, and a disciplinary letter was placed in his file, a spokesman said. Mr. Mugnos couldn't be reached for comment.



Low-Flying Plane Causes Scare in Manhattan 1:44

A low-flying airplane escorted by military jets sent worried workers fleeing offices in the New York City area. The FAA said it was a "photo op" conducted by a unit of the Air Force.

The email sent to City Hall describes a "flying photo op" -- government-speak for a publicity photo -- to include two or possibly three passes over the area. The email, sent by an FAA official and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, lists flight patterns and specifies a photo-op altitude of 1,000 to 1,500 feet.

The email specifies that the information "only be shared with persons with a need to know" and "shall not be released to the public." It also says that, "Due to the possibility of public concern regarding [Department of Defense] aircraft flying at low levels, coordination with Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies...has been accomplished."
The email's author, James J. Johnston, of FAA air traffic, declined to comment.

An Obama administration official said the mission was "classified" by the military and that the FAA, which controls much of the airspace over Manhattan, did what the military asked. "The mission was to send [the aircraft] up to get a picture of it flying around the Statue of Liberty," this person said. "They said they needed to update their photo files." President Obama wasn't aboard.

The New York photo shoot wasn't the only one planned. The White House had scheduled a follow-up session on May 5 or May 6 in Washington, D.C., according to two government officials. The D.C. flyover has now been canceled, a government official said.

Louis Caldera, a former Secretary of the Army who runs the White House Military Office, took the blame. "While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption," he said. "I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

Mr. Caldera met Monday afternoon with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina "to hear the president's displeasure," an official said.

It was a beautiful spring day in the Big Apple -- perfect for picture taking. The aircraft, painted in White House livery, was trailed by one F-16 fighter jet. The aircraft had flown from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, across New Jersey, down the Hudson River and then circled the Statue of Liberty before heading off.

For many who witnessed the maneuver, it stirred dark memories. Andrew Wybolt, who works for Barclays PLC in a skyscraper that borders the Hudson, said people rushed for the windows when they heard the planes. "They just started sprinting and freaking out," he said.


Associated Press

Louis Caldera, pictured in 2006, took blame for the flight.

Thousands of workers from Merrill Lynch, American Express and other companies in the buildings that ring the former World Trade Center site hustled for the exits. Many stood outside their offices, nervously looking up into the sky, while hundreds of others walked north, along the West Side Highway, as thousands of people had done the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

"To do something like this to all these people who have already been through 9-11 is just wrong," said Greg Forman, a broker at the New York Mercantile Exchange, which is located in a building along the Hudson river, across the street from the World Trade Center site.

One block north, construction workers on the 43-story Goldman Sachs Group Inc. tower said they had a close-up view of the low-flying plane. "I saw that thing coming and ran down the stairs," said Eddie Navedo, who was clearing construction debris on the 23rd floor of the new building when he spotted the plane flying low over the river, then banking sharply to the west. "Everybody was saying, it's a terrorist attack."

Not everyone lost his cool. Mr. Shimon, the manager of the barbershop where people fled on Monday, was present for the attacks in 2001, and in fact at that time worked in a shop even closer to the World Trade Center than his current one. He watched the towers fall that day.

So did the events of Monday scare him? "To tell you the truth, not really," Mr. Shimon said. "I didn't think it was such a big deal. I'm a New Yorker."—Jonathan Weisman, Alex Frangos and Michael Corkery contributed to this article.
Write to Suzanne Sataline at suzanne.sataline@wsj.com, Jonathan D. Rockoff at jonathan.rockoff@wsj.com and Christopher Conkey at christopher.conkey@wsj.com