Ahem. The President is not a figurehead in the United States of America. Said individual has constitutional powers and obligations. I think you’re confused iether as to what country is being discussed or what the word “figurehead” means.
& before anyone else corrects it: “iether” should read “either.”
Actually, yes, the President is a figurehead. The thing to keep in mind is that he is not just a figurehead. Yes, he has many important obligations and duties. He is also the representative of the country. Attacking him IS attacking the United States - that’s why he’s an assassination target.
Fortunately, our government is set up so that if the President is killed or incapacitated the country itself is not. Indeed, for several weeks after the last big election the country was entirely without a Chief Executive. A trifle embarassing, but the lights stayed on and the garbage still got hauled away.
In other words, I did not mean “figurehead” in the sense of “useless sucker of the public teat” but "figurehead in the sense of “representative”. I thought that was apparent by also describing the White House as a “symbol” - it is, but it is also an office building and in many respects a working machine maintained for the benefit of the Chief Executive, to be used in the service of the citizenry. Perhaps I could have phrased it better, but I am somewhat miffed that you implied I didn’t know what country I happen to be residing in.
Broomstick:
Please indicate which Constitution you’re reading. The President of the USA is not a figurehead in any sense of the word. He is the Executive branch of the country’s government. Unlike the United Kingdom, where the Monarch is a figurehead and the Parliament is both the Executive and Legislative (and to a large extent, the Judicial) branches of the government, the United States functions with an actual separation of powers–none of them assigned to any figurehead.
I suggest you get over being miffed if you’re going to describe the government of the country in which you reside in such an inaccurate manner.
Okay, this part’s just malarkey. The country was never without a chief executive. Perhaps you meant to say that the country was without a president-elect. Entirely different thing.
I beg of you: read the Constitution (with amendments).
It has been my experience that news articles written by local news staff shortly after a major event often contain more than grains of salt. It’s when the big media moves in and others have the chance to think that the direction of “news” stories change, often away from significant points.
How can you “guarantee” we would have heard more about it (implying if it were true and assuming it’s not)? Just because the White House says Flight 93 was destined for the White House does not make it so. ATC reports said the plane that eventually crashed into the Pentagon circled over the US Capitol before turning west and onto the Pentagon. The White House is almost impossible to find from the air, unless you know where exactly to look. I will still go with very early reports (before the government put a clamp on such talk among ATC controllers) that the plane which eventually hit the Pentagon was destined for the White House. However, the hijackers couldn’t find it so it crashed into the Pentagon. It was Flight 93 that was destined for something more prominent (in appearance), probably the US Capitol or even the Washington Monument.
The White House continues with its own slant of the news for its own ends, regardless of Congress, the people or the truth.
Much of the big media today no longer does the investigative journalism of an earlier time. They merely regurgitate press releases, add a few talking head “experts” and post the story. They are pulled by arbitrary deadlines to beat each other to first place. They also are beholding to the big corporate empires which own them. I’ve been to enough “big” media events, only to watch the evening news and wonder if the media folks and myself really attended the same event. I even managed to catch those same “journalists” at a later event and question the earlier story. To a tee, they all said “it’s old news and no one cares …”
I was taught to “question authority.” I still do. I also find myself at odds with most of the teeming millions who don’t and take everything spoon-fed.
Amen, Duckster. In the hours immediately following the WTC attacks, I learned that a car bomb had gone off outside the State Department, that the Supreme Court had blown up, and that a half dozen more planes were on their way to Washington. But did we ever hear anything more about those stories? [John Belushi voice]Noooooooooo![/John Belushi voice]
Oh, wait, I remember now–we didn’t hear anything more about the equally wild stories that floated that day because they turned out to be bullshit rumors. Hint, hint.
It seemed pretty creepy in Tom Clancy’s Executive Orders and Debt of Honor when a guy crashed a 747 into a joint session of Congress, wiping out most of the 535, the president, and all 9 Supreme Court justices.
I think the trouble would be mostly political.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? From what I remember, Bill Clinton was Pres. of the U.S. until mid-January, when George W. Bush became our Chief Exec. There wasn’t one day the U.S. was without a President.
Can you please explain your assertion at bit more?
Get rid of all the engineers and what happens? Everybody dies. Get rid of all the politicians and what happens? Everybody’s happy.–R. Buckminster Fuller.
After reading this thread I am thoroughly ashamed.
I think people need to go take another Civics class and learn about the system of government.
But to really pick on one person:
Ummmmmmmm, did you forget that President Clinton was still in office? Did you forget that he was STILL the president despite the long drawn out ballot problem? And did you forget that a president will remain in office until another one has successfully been determined as the successor?
Anyhow to the OP.
I do believe that it was considered a VERY strong possibility at the very beginning that the White House or the Capital was the main target.
Would it have been worse? Yes I think so because the economic market relies so much on our system of government these days and any mass loss of life (even if that had only been 10 elected officials and their aids) would have sent the markets across the world in to a serious tail spin, not just the big blip we saw.
I am not by any means smart when it comes to economics but yes, I do think that had a plane crashed into the Capital or even the White House (regardless of the loss of life) it would have had more serious concequences on the economy.
To some of you…please, learn about the system.
actually, economically speaking, hitting the white house or congress would have done less damage economically.
WTC took out or damaged several major investment banks, Cantor Fitzgerald being the most prominent. Sure the ibanks went into backup mode, reallocated staff, etc, but still there was a major financial hiccup. It certainly didn’t help the global stock markets that all of the investment banks share price got seriously hammered in the aftermath.
I totally disagree with you China Guy, completely.
The reason being that US international policy makes the markets fluctuate (sp) on a regular basis. When the “federal reserve” which is not really a government entity makes decisions it hits the markets. Many of the government and “non-goverment” entities affect the markets in a big way even though this is a a so-called capitalist society.
In my estimation, if the Capital or White House were to be hit and several or many politians were killed, the markets would fall deep and hard effecting the entire economy. Even little news effects it.
I can’t say why but I bet if I asked my father the same question that Guin asked he would completely agree with me…maybe I will ask him tomorrow about this, if I remember.
I remember hearing about Flight 93 and thinking how much more horrible (Christ, could it have been more horrible?) the images on CNN would have been if they included a collapsed Capitol Dome and a burning White House.
I don’t think the military response would have been as reasoned and careful as it has been so far; I think the first shots of the war would have been fired by USS Ohio.
I also think some of our gravest fears from the first days would have been realized. I remember going back to a book I’d read on the Japanese internment in 1942 and reading the exact same rationale about present danger and hidden societies of saboteurs.
Had the Capitol been hit, I think that anger and fear instead of heroism and grief would have carried the day.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/23/flight93.target.ap/index.html
<hijack>
(just a little)
This artivle and various news sources will confirm there were 44 on flight 93 that died. Is that everyone? Flight crew, hijackers, and passengers? Even if it only passengers or passengers and flight crew, that seems like an awfully empty flight for a 757/767, which are wide body planes. I have never been on a wide body plane and thought, “Gee, there are so few passengers on this plane, a large leer jet could take us instead.”
44 people on a wide body plane is kinda weird. Has there ever been any discussion about this?
</hijack>
By Sam Stone
Where does this come from? I have herd this but have yet to see it in print, mabe someone could
supply a link?
Something like 200 people were on all four of the flights. These were all red-eyes that left around 7 a.m., so they had fewer passengers than most wide body flights.
I’m sorry techchick68, but I’m going to have to ask for a cite on this one. My understanding was that Clinton’s term (would have) ended on Jan 20, whether or not another president was selected. Article II of the Constitution states (about the president):
It does not say “He shall hold his office until a successor is chosen…”
Put it this way… suppose no election had been held (for whatever reason). Clinton does not remain as president. The presidency becomes vacant on Jan 20. The office then devolves down to the vice president. The vice-presidency is also vacant, due to the lack of an election. The office would then devolve down to the next person in the line of succession, the Speaker of the House.
The fact that the winner of the election is not clear could be viewed as a “disability” in the presidency, which, until resolved, would cause the office of the presidency to be held by the next person on the list.
Zev Steinhardt
One of the closest actual disasters is described in the opening chapters of U.E. Baughman’s Secret Service Chief. Baughman was chief from 1947-1962 (ironically retiring and writing his memoirs, with Leonard W. Robinson, just before the Kennedy assassination) and his book is full of interesting stories about the White House security detail, a full account of the Truman assassination attempt, Eisenhower’s heart trouble, nutcases that target/threaten the President, and some of the anti-counterfeiting operations of the Treasury Department.
The opening chapter, called “A Puff of Smoke” (possibly “whiff”, I forget) describes the Kennedy inauguration when the Service agents detected a puff a smoke rising from one of the many television and radio cables strung under the wooden platform built for the ceremony. The platform had been constructed with a single narrow exit leading back into the Capitol building, making an evacuation extremely difficult if the platform had gone up in flames, taking the President-elect, Vice-President-elect, Chief and several Associate justices, numerous key members of the House and Senate, etc.
The agents found the smoldering cable and yanked it. The whole incident is written as an example of the ulcer-building stress situations they deal with that no-one ever hears about, until they go horribly wrong.
SHUDDER. Image their Day-timers for 9-11 “Hijack plane; fly into World Trade Center.” That idea is scarey.