# GWB's Strangely Passive Presidency **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 14, 2004, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972 "2004-04-14T15:01:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/61 "2004-04-15T17:32:54Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > You lose, sir. > > My opposition to Mr. Bush and his bunch has never been virulent. Early on (2000 primary) I took his measure as a lightwight and, alas, have not seen anything to overturn that opinion. At the time I wrote that you did not seem to be in the discussion. As one of the less emotional and biased posters to this thread, I would of course be inclined to exclude you. 🙂 (Careful now…you are in danger of being regarded as thought of at least somewhat highly by me. I apologize for putting you in that position. 😃 ) > [@BJMoose](#): > > (Suggestion: don’t project your own personality on others - it perturbs the petunias.) Just taking things the way they happen to be. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/62 "2004-04-15T17:48:21Z")
Here’s a point I’ve made before on the SDMB, but it bears asking again… Even if we accept the Bush Administration’s position that they couldn’t prevent the 9/11 attacks because they didn’t have enough detail, and they couldn’t “shake the trees” because they didn’t know it’d yield anything, would it have been a big problem to **warn the FAA and/or the airlines** that they believe that an “incident” will occur soon? Something like, “We’re not sure, but just to be safe, keep an eye on suspicious passengers, and maybe be prepared to fight off a hijacker or two”? No need for increased budgets, no need for new equipment or bureaucratic infrastructure, just _tell_ people that a storm might be coming and it’d be a good idea to make sure the sandbags are within easy reach. As it is now, the total lack of warning the FAA and the airlines got from the Administration suggested that Bush was willing to take a reactive strategy instead – like, maybe after a jet has been hijacked and a few stewardesses have been killed. Would that have been any better? ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/63 "2004-04-15T18:11:06Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > (Careful now…you are in danger of being regarded as thought of at least somewhat highly by me. I apologize for putting you in that position. ) No problem. I only position I object to is the one that requires me to grab my ankles. . . Are you saying that, since the nasty ol’ media will distort whatever he says, Bush (or anyone in his position) should say nothing?? Then how, pray tell, does he communicate? (I really think you’re overdrawing the media. From experience I know that they aren’t any brighter or more organized or more devious or whatever than the rest of us.) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/64 "2004-04-15T18:27:05Z")
Or maybe let NORAD know? By 8:43 a.m. on September 11, NORAD knew **three** commercial flights had been hijacked over the eastern United States in the preceding hour or so. _Three._ I keep coming back to that moment. Based on even the hints and scraps of information available to the Administration, you’d think at that point the bells would’ve rung clear up the ladder. The NORAD people following the hijackings should have called the chief of NORAD, he should have called Rumsfeld or Rice or the chair of the JCS, whichever one he could get hold of, and that person should have immediately grabbed Bush and said, “Battle stations time, boss.” But apparently few people knew there was a threat, and they didn’t seem to be at the FAA or NORAD. That would have taken a few minutes, and it’s unlikely that even the second plane hitting the WTC could have been stopped that late, but there was plenty of time to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. The point here is that it’s one more major piece of evidence of Bush’s passivity. He didn’t even bother to make sure someone got hold of him and took him out of his routine if a terrorist attack actually happened. A half-hour passed between the time Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower, and the time Bush left the classroom at 9:16 that morning to confer with aides. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/65 "2004-04-15T20:56:56Z")
> [@notquitekarpov](#): > > Staving Artist - just one example of your seperation from reality - the idea of Clinton having been offered the head of OBL, let alone having declined it, has been debunked so many time it is incredible you have not come across it. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248355&highlight=clinton+sudan+osama](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248355&highlight=clinton+sudan+osama) > > Oh, of course, CD kicking in, I forgot… Thank you, sir. “You saved me a lot of investigative work.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/66 "2004-04-15T21:10:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [You’ve gotta read it.](http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/) > > It certainly shows why delegating is more than just handing jobs off to subordinates, then waiting indefinitely until they report back. > _ **Aaaaaaaaaagggggghhhhh!!!** _ Slap me silly and call me Condi. I’m stunned, too. > > The piece also has some stuff on the contradictory stories of who ordered up the infamous August 6 PDB, but that’s nothing compared to this. Aaargh!!! indeed. I wish I could take anywhere near that much time off. This is the paragraph that got me: > [@](#): > > Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and the State Department’s counterterrorism chief from 1989-93, explained on MSNBC this afternoon, during a break in the hearings, why the PDB—let alone the Moussaoui finding—should have compelled everyone to rush back to Washington. In his CIA days, Johnson wrote “about 40” PDBs. They’re usually dispassionate in tone, a mere paragraph or two. The PDB of Aug. 6 was a page and a half. “That’s the intelligence-community equivalent of writing War and Peace,” Johnson said. And the title—“Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US”—was clearly designed to set off alarm bells. Johnson told his interviewer that when he read the declassified document, "I said ‘Holy smoke!’ This is such a dead-on ‘Mr. President, you’ve got to do something!’ " (By the way, Johnson claimed he’s a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000.) But the PDB did not give the flight and seat numbers of the terrorists, so of course nothing could be done. Is that a mistake enough for you, Mr. SA? I wonder if someone should rewrite _Small Circle of Friends_ for Mr. Bush. - The terrorists are in our land, That is the memo’s claim But playing golf is so much fun It’s a shame to blow the game. \* I actually wonder if Mr. SA were not George Bush. He certainly doesn’t seem to read the papers. (If that is considered a deadly insult, I apologize in advance.) Asking for a cite for the absence of WMDs is a classic, after all. By the way, Mr. SA, I was a registered Republican up to a few months ago, but left a party which was loyal to such a dolt. I did not vote for Mr. Bush in 2000, however. I did vote for Richard Nixon in 1972, but even I have a level below which I can’t sink. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/67 "2004-04-15T21:30:01Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But the PDB did not give the flight and seat numbers of the terrorists, so of course nothing could be done. It also didn’t say that the first plane would arrive at the WTC at 8:46.26 a.m. EDT. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/68 "2004-04-16T07:26:29Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Or maybe let NORAD know? > > By 8:43 a.m. on September 11, NORAD knew **three** commercial flights had been hijacked over the eastern United States in the preceding hour or so. _Three._ > > f, and that person should have immediately grabbed Bush and said, “Battle stations time, boss.” But apparently few people knew there was a threat, and they didn’t seem to be at the FAA or NORAD. > > He didn’t even bother to make sure someone got hold of him and took him out of his routine if a terrorist attack actually happened. A half-hour passed between the time Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower, and the time Bush left the classroom at 9:16 that morning to confer with aides. I think this begs the question. The really scary thing is not that dub failed to say, like Hey, guys, I’m gonna take a nap, but be sure to wake me up if there’s any kind of terrorist crisis… The scary think is that “the guys” knew better than to bother dub while the hijackings multiplied–why bring in the one guy who you KNOW (because, after all, you work for him) is bound to fuck up? ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/69 "2004-04-16T07:30:44Z")
We be the Gods of the East? Older than all? Masters of Mourning and Feast? How shall we fall? Mr. Kipling, may I present Mr. Vajpayee… (Rudyard K-the guilty pleasure of Brooklyn Born Trotskyites) ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/70 "2004-04-16T07:34:32Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > (Rudyard K-the guilty pleasure of Brooklyn Born Trotskyites) Actually, I believe Kipling had heard of dub– ``` The Man Who Would Be King... ``` ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/71 "2004-04-16T15:30:28Z")
In response to Voyager (as I continue my policy of ignoring ignore the vehemently incoherent Starving Artist for the rest of this thread) I would like to grovellingly offer my cringingly humble submission for the “Small Circle of Friends” poetry contest: Why lookee, here’s a memo Says bin Laden might attack He wants to kill Americans And has made lots of threatening cracks Maybe I should cut vacay And get back to Washington But that would set a precedent And besides Richard Clarke’s no fun And I’m sure it wouldn’t interest Anybody Aside from a small circle of friends ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/72 "2004-04-16T22:50:58Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > The scary think is that “the guys” knew better than to bother dub while the hijackings multiplied–why bring in the one guy who you KNOW (because, after all, you work for him) is bound to fuck up? Because no one else was empowered to issue certain orders than might have been helpful, like shooting down Flight 77. Anyway, I’m tired of the soft bigotry of low expectations that seems to have Bush as its object. Even if he _is_ the village idiot, he’s still President of the United States, and we should expect him to be able to handle the job. Nobody _made_ him run for President, after all. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/73 "2004-04-17T08:01:01Z")
Interesting that this article also refers to Bush as “passive” Excerpt from a Salon article at [Bush faces a revolt – from the U.S. military:](http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/blumenthal-revolt.html) > [@](#): > > As the iconic image of the “war president” has tattered, another picture has emerged. Bush appears as a **passive** manager who enjoys sitting atop a hierarchical structure, unwilling and unable to do the hard work that a real manager has to do in order to run the largest enterprise in the world. He does not seem to absorb data unless it is presented to him in simple, crystal-clear fashion by people whose judgment he trusts. He is receptive to information that agrees with his point of view rather than information that challenges it. This therefore leads to enormous power on the part of the trusted interlocutors, who know and bolster his predilections. Thus Rice fulfills Bush’s idea of the national security advisor as the comforting briefer. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/74 "2004-04-17T08:22:25Z")
It’s an well-known secret that the military leaders and the administration have deep contempt for each other at this point, particularly between Rumsfeld and th major commanders. They just can’t confirm so openly. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/75 "2004-04-17T15:13:53Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > It’s an well-known secret that the military leaders and the administration have deep contempt for each other at this point, particularly between Rumsfeld and th major commanders. They just can’t confirm so openly. Shit… I have to defend Rummy a bit here. Part of his problems with the major commanders are due to his mostly correct view that the military needs to be reformed. Though his lack of subtelty is guilty of a lot of problems too. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/76 "2004-04-18T00:27:11Z")
**Rashak** , you’re right about that as far as you take it. Rumsfeld does indeed advocate the military being lighter, faster, and more adaptable, and has met with a lot of resistance from those whose careers are damaged by the cancellation of programs their careers are bound up in. He wants the military to be capable of rushing into a country with WMD’s and posing an imminent threat, overthrowing their dictators, and pulling out almost as quickly with the thankful natives throwing flowers. His plan for Iraq has been described as his way of proving to the entrenched establishment that he was right about that. He also does not see much place for heavy weaponry meant for line battles against massive Soviet-equipped enemies, or for weapons systems that can only operate effectively in that environment. He’s generally right about both those areas. But he’s egotistically wrong, and won’t or can’t listen, about others: The need for a massive conventional ground force for cases when the light, fast ones can’t get it done, or when the assumptions that they can finish the job turn out to be wrong. He was totally, unlisteningly wrong about that, and punitive towards those who tried to suggest otherwise (General Shinseki, want your old job back?). He appaarently dismisses the need for ground-based human intelligence as yet another Cold War relic, and too soft-edged to bother with. That arrogant atttitude, not only his sacred-cow slaughtering, plays a part in his poor relations with the good people he commands. It’s natural for them to resent his having caused more people to die than necessary in this mission, even for those who accept its stated goals and strategy. What role does the Commander in Chief play in this drama? A passive, uninvolved one, like the OP says. Dereliction of duty. [Even Bill Saletan has turned on him](http://slate.msn.com/id/2098810/) for disconnection with reality: > [@](#): > > Outside Bush’s head, his statements keep crashing into reality. Tuesday night, ABC’s Terry Moran reminded him, “Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, ‘We know where they are.’ How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong?” > > Inside Bush’s head, however, all is peaceful. “The oil revenues, they’re bigger than we thought they would be,” Bush boasted to Moran, evidently unaware that this heightened the mystery of why the revenues weren’t covering the reconstruction. As to the WMD, Bush said the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq had confirmed that Iraq was “hiding things. A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught.” See the logic? A country that hides something must be afraid of getting caught, and a country afraid of getting caught must be hiding something. Each statement validates the other, sparing Bush the need to find the WMD. > … > On 9/11, as on WMD, Bush mistakes affirmation for verification, description for reality, and words for deeds. “I was dealing with terrorism a lot as the president when George Tenet came in to brief me,” he told Chen. “I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office all the time. And we had briefings about terrorist threats.” This was Bush’s notion of dealing with terrorism: being briefed by the CIA director. The world that mattered was the Oval Office. > > Did the briefings lead to action outside the office? No, because there was no “threat that required action.” What about the Aug. 6 brief? “I asked for the briefing,” Bush told Chen. “And that’s what triggered the [Aug. 6] report.” Tuesday’s Washington Post tells a different story: “According to senior intelligence officials familiar with the document, work on it began at the end of July, at the initiative of the CIA analyst [who] wanted to raise the issue” of Bin Laden’s threat to the U.S. mainland. But Bush can’t believe that someone outside his head was trying to tell him something. He’s certain he “triggered” the brief. That’s why, as he explained to Chen, he “didn’t think there was anything new” in it: He assumed it was his idea. He doesn’t understand that the point of a briefing is to be told something you hadn’t already thought of. We’ve seen similar arguments made right here in this forum. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/77 "2004-04-18T01:07:50Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > Ah, the **John Mace** Principle - when you have no arguments to make, hurl invective. \ > > I’m with the original post on this one. It _does_ seem odd for the President to say re: Iraq, Well, we’ll see whut happens. Hello? How about some _goals_? Wait - the goal was to oust Hussein. Mission accomplished. Never mind. > > Now I’m in a quandry. Which is worse, his lack of genuine leadership ability or his inability to admit even the possibility of making a mistake? His approach surpised even me and I think he is abyssmally incompetent to be President. On _The News Hour_ just before Condoleeza Rice spoke to the Comission, Bush said that, gee, he really was anxious to hear what she was going to say because he didn’t know. As if he were an interested bystander who had had little or no contact with Rice and had no stake in the outcome. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2004, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/78 "2004-04-19T13:48:31Z")
It just keeps getting worseLast night on 60 Minutes Woodward explained that Bush’s people explained the war plans to the Saudi Ambassador — that would be the ambassador from the country that actually attacked us on 9/11 — BEFORE telling Colin Powell and that the Saudis have agreed to lower oil prices before the November election to help ol’ George get in. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml) I mean, Jesus, exactly how incestuous does this guy actually have to get with our true attackers before the rest of the country intelligently allows foam to start coming out of its mouth? I want to die. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/79 "2004-04-19T16:51:13Z")
> [@braintree](#): > > I mean, Jesus, exactly how incestuous does this guy actually have to get with our true attackers before the rest of the country intelligently allows foam to start coming out of its mouth? I want to die. Whoa, friend! While I agree that the incestuous relationship between the House of Saud and the House of Bush has reached a new low with this business, it’s still wrong to confuse the fact that Saudi Arabia was home to most of the 9/11 hijackers with the false notion that 9/11 was an attack on the U.S. by the Saudi Arabian government, directly or indirectly. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/80 "2004-04-19T17:02:15Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > His approach surpised even me and I think he is abyssmally incompetent to be President. On _The News Hour_ just before Condoleeza Rice spoke to the Comission, Bush said that, gee, he really was anxious to hear what she was going to say because he didn’t know. As if he were an interested bystander who had had little or no contact with Rice and had no stake in the outcome. Thanks for bringing that up again; I briefly noticed that bit, but forgot it in the surfeit of news we’ve had lately. It’s scary to think that the President didn’t know what his National Security Advisor might say in such testimony. But completely believable, now that I’ve read _The Price of Loyalty_. O’Neill portrayed an Administration where even the Cabinet meetings are scripted, so that Bush wouldn’t have to deal with divergent points of view even in that sort of protected environment. And he portrayed a President who rarely asked even the obvious questions of the people who reported to him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972.md?page=5)