9/11/2001 established "Dubya" as a leader. How?

No doubt, there will be lots of threads about Sept 11, 2001 as the 4th anniversary approaches.
One thing I could never understand is how this attack made George “Dubya” Bush seem to be a forceful, authoritative leader. Heck not that I ever thought that, but a great many people started feeling this way.

Here, to me, are a few examples of leaders really inspiring the people in the face of adversity.
Franklin Roosevelt (1st inaugural address during the Great Depression) stated that “this great nation will endure as it has endured”.
FDR in 2nd inaugural address (Great Depression still going strong) “this generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny”.
Winston Churchill stated (when England was getting the Hell bombed out of it by Germany) that “We will fight in the alleyways. We will fight in the streets. We will fight until the battle is won! We will never give up!”

Yes, I am one of the more liberal, “Dubya bashing” SDMB members, but I’d still like to know what Dubya said or did that was so inspiring.

I think being in charge when it all went down made him seem more authoritative. People needed the leadership at the time, and the crisis probably played more to Bush’s strengths than the previous eight months, which had been kind of formless for a variety of reasons.

Goodness knows where you picked up that mangled version of Churchill’s speech:

He acted calmly and rationally by sitting and listening to The Pet Goat for several minutes. He would have politely excused himself from the room under normal circumstances, but he was afraid of terrifying the children. Nevermind the fact that thousands were dying… we can’t startle any school children! Their egos are so fragile that seeing the President walk out of a room sooner than expected could cause life long trauma.

This is it. People were terrified, and it was even more terrifying to consider we had a crappy leader, so he was magically transformed into a non-crappy leader to meet people’s emotional needs.

Then, of course, reality re-intruded.

So where’s all the great leadership already?

Just around the corner.

I think the leadership was tied to the stupid Axis of Evil speech.
As 9/11 happened and as the next few days unrolled.
Many people felt grief and horror, but many of us also felt impotent rage, we wanted to strike out at evil, march to war, shoulder to shoulder. In my case and many of my friends cases we wanted to re-enlist. (I am now fat and have 2 small kids) I knew hackers that were determined to bring down the enemies web-sites. (They couldn’t define what this meant, but they were determined)

This was an initial reaction and many bought into his axis of evil speech.
It turned me off pretty quick.

Translated: During a period of irrational hatred some people confused a militant speech with leadership.

BtW: on 9/11. Mayor Giuliani rushed to the scene to do everything possible to save lives and coordinate the rescue attempts. Our Fearless leader allowed the Secret service to order him to safety. Last I checked a CIC could overrule the secret service agents.

It wasn’t any one thing in particular, but he carried himself very well in the days following 9/11. His speechs were forceful and “presidential”. His first pitch at the World Series in NYC was as thrilling a moment as I’ve ever seen a president have.

Just as a point of reference, from the dates in question our own GD and IMHO takes on his speech to Congress Sept. 20th.

Take note of the prominent Bush haters who praised him (or at least didn’t slam him) that night. For the time after the event, he really did do what presidents are supposed to do, lead.

You know, of all the criticism one could reasonably lay at President Bush’s feet, the whole “Pet Goat” schtick is absolutely the lamest.

Face it, this thread was started in The Pit so that all the Bush-haters could come in and say “Bush is a fucking idiot, he’s never done anything ‘presidential’, and his motorcade burns too much gas!” The OP didn’t want his question answered or even debated or this would be in GD. Instead, it’s posted here so it can become yet another Bush-bashing circle-jerk thread.

And you apparently fell for it.

Actually, I had more of a “don’t they ever get tired of bitching about the same thing over and over” reaction.

Agreed. While what he did was silly, he could not have done anything that would have made a difference.

I’ve heard it said that emotion and expressing conviction are two of Bush’s strong points, and he was able to display those in his post-attack speech.

I’m not a fan of Bush by any stretch of the imagination, but he did a very good job in the wake of the attacks by looking and sounding strong and confident. The most memorable scene to me was when he had the bullhorn and was talking to a group of firefighters at ground zero. Quite stirring.

Of course, this is all a big pony show. But it works.

Had Gore been inaugurated in 2001, he would’ve been thought of as a “great leader” for the same reasons Bush was/is.

Turek

Gee Turek, congratulations - you saw right through my flimsy disguise. I think I know what may have given me away - I said “Yes, I am one of the more liberal, “Dubya bashing” SDMB members”.

Seriously, my intent was (and still is) an honest one. How long do you think this topic would have lasted in any forum except the Pit? I really wanted “Dopers” pouncing on this topic and saying "Hey Wolf you’re wrong. What about the speech where he said … " Quite often I have started threads where I have said “If you think I’m wrong, feel free to pounce”.

Well Turek, here’s your chance. Instead of just jumping in and “exposing” this thread for what it really is, give me an example of Dubya’s inspiring behavior.

Unfortunately, I think my question has been answered.

(Incidentally, this might surprise a lot of people but I have never seen Fahrenheit 911).

What I would like to know is why Bush felt safe enough to linger in a public school, where everyone knew he was, yet had to be kept flying around secretly most of the day?

No. While I concede that nothing Bush could have done in those few minutes would have made a difference, Bush had no way of knowing that and I’m not going to give him the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Given the information he had at the time, I can’t comprehend why he stayed in the classroom.

Sure, his advisors could have rushed him from the room if absolutely neccesary. But what if the 5 or 10 seconds it took to walk outside could have been the difference between a plane getting shot down or ramming into a building. He should have immediately understood the situation as being time critical and acted accordingly.

He couldn’t miss! The script is already written in the minds of the audience. You walk around, make stern and defiant pronouncements, hug a few firemen, make a few more stern and defiant pronouncements, a bit of chin jutting. The emotional storm raised by the 9/11 attacks were tailor made for a man with Bush’s gift for mediocrity. CarrotTop could have done it, its almost fool proof.

Its one of our most cherished myths: that great events will raise mediocre men to heights that exceed themselves. Its a steaming load, but we fall for it every time. Its bad enough that we believed it, it gets worse because he believed it, the dull little twit honest-to-God believes that he is a Leader of Men, Elmer Fudd channeling Winston Churchill.

(Question for history buffs: biggest shitwit? Churchill/Gallipoli, Bush/Iraq?)