Direct communication means actually speaking to people either in person or through the wonders of modern technology not merely being able to contact them. And the topic here is crisis managment not leadership “during any given time of the day.”
Well, by this line, I don’t see why you have a problem with what I’m saying. If someone is able to contact someone else, then why wouldn’t they be able to “actually speak” to the other person? In other words: what are you meaning by what you said here? (It seems you are making my case for me.)
Wow. It’s a good thing you spelled it out for me. Now I don’t have to go back and re-read all of your posts again. If you weren’t interested in carrying out an actual debate (as it appears by posts like this), then why are you even bothering posting in this thread?
LilShieste
Well, I’ve been at the beach (or so the travel agent claimed) for the last few days. I’ve had some reading to catch up on.
Taking a more distant view of this thread I see one fundamental issue that is dividing the two camps: the amount of power GWB actually had on 9/11 to respond.
One camp is saying that Bush should have been actively monitoring the situation to see if there was some sort of response (not retaliation) that we could take. This is my viewpoint.
The other camp is saying that the system was already working–that the military and Bush’s aides were already dealing with the crisis and could/would communicate any new information to the President. Bush, who has limited authority, would best serve the public by proceeding with his activities and remaining calm in order to prevent any panic. I hope I am not mischaracterizing this viewpoint.
However, I still believe that Bush should have cancelled the photo-op and been more actively involved in the crisis management. I personally don’t believe the President is simply a “figurehead” as some have said. I can’t think of any President, Republican or Democrat, who wouldn’t have cancelled an event in such an emergency because the President does have actual authority to respond.
For example, one poster said, paraphrasing, that Bush’s aides such as Condi Rice were in the process of formulating a response and could communicate with W if they needed his specific approval (such as shooting down any hijacked planes). If Bush were simply a “figurehead” he would not be needed to give such an order.
He is not a constitutional monarch who rubberstamps the Prime Minister’s policies. He is, in his person, the third branch of government. He is not an all powerful dictator but he is also not an impotent figurehead. Condi Rice could not give the order to shoot down the planes. Neither could Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld or anyone else in America but George W. Bush. To me that looks like he has a tremendous amount of authority.
Additionally, Bush is the only one in his administration who oversees all aspects of Administration policy. Condi Rice is concerned with national security. Powell with diplomatic issues. Rumsfeld with military/defense. Bush, who appointed all these people to their positions, formulates policy based on their guidance. They themselves do not formulate policies or craft responses and seek his rubberstamp. Bush has to consider any advice these people give in the context of overall administration policy.
I feel, since I consider the President to be vested with tremendous authority, that Bush should have been in constant communication with his aides. There may have been nothing to do but he did not know that at the time (and I don’t agree with the viewpoint that there was nothing to do). Dick Cheney was actively involved during the crisis. Once he was secured, he was in contact with other members of the administration. He is the one who told Bush we should shoot down any further hijacked planes, to which Bush agreed and gave the order.
What if a similar circumstance happened in the first Bush’s administration? What if Senior continued with a photo-op while Dan Quayle assessed the situation? What if Clinton continued with a photo-op while Gore assessed the situation? Would anyone have been comfortable with these scenarios? I wouldn’t have been.
What Bush could or could not have done at the time is irrelevant. But he should have been actively assessing the situation and formulating, with his aides, a possible response (again, I am not saying retaliation) to the attacks as they were happening. He could not have possibly done that while he was in the classroom.
The problem is that you continue to attempt to blur the distinction between talking to someone and being able to talk to someone. It’s a simple point yet you can’t seem to accept it. But this is what I have learned to expect from you in this thread. Deliberate ignorance.
If you wouldn’t continue to base your posts on premises which have already been rejected then there wouldn’t be any need for sarcasm. I’ve addressed the limitations of hindsight more than once. If you would do the same instead of repeatedly making assertions based on discredited assumptions then we would actually have something of substance to debate. Then we might come to some honest evaluations of the behavior of the President. Is that what you are afraid of?
Not to the level where I’d waste time talking to you again. After all, you might use the time-honored debating tactic of making fun of a typo again. Too scary for my blood, sorry.
I just thought it is funny that your response was, “Oh yea? No, YOU’RE wrong.”
Yep. I’m done with this “debate” thread.
LilShieste
Just a technical point here. They didn’t need the President’s assent to order an escort. The Secretary of Defense has the necessary authority to do that. However, it’s not at all clear that anyone has the authority to shoot the plane down: (warning, .PDF):
I’m not in the habit of making fun of typos so I doubt I’ve done it here. Try reading whatever post of mine again. Likely you just misunderstood. As for your time, it’s for you to decide how best to spend it. If you have no leg to stand on and also lack the spine to admit you have nothing then I certainly would say it’s a waste of time to attempt to debate me.