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. 
)
Just taking things the way they happen to be.
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?
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.)
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.
Thank you, sir. “You saved me a lot of investigative work.”
Aaargh!!! indeed. I wish I could take anywhere near that much time off.
This is the paragraph that got me:
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.
It also didn’t say that the first plane would arrive at the WTC at 8:46.26 a.m. EDT.
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?
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)
Actually, I believe Kipling had heard of dub–
The Man Who Would Be King...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
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.
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:
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.
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 for disconnection with reality:
We’ve seen similar arguments made right here in this forum.
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.
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
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.
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.