I lost interest in this thread after I read the first three posts! I mean, of course “John Kerry did nothing for 40 minutes,” he was only a Senator, not in any military or civilian chain of command. And now I check back and it’s on it’s sixth page! :eek: Jesus! How did such a totally retarded premise get this much attention? How bored are you guys?
Ah, but the question then becomes what is the charge? If you say that the president was in a classroom photo op while people were dying, I’d vote to convict. The question is what, exactly, in that time and place, was wrong with this.
Ah, then perhaps we should indeed show video of Kerry watching TV for 40 minutes while video of the dying and then video of the President’s actions after the classroom are shown. People vote for president for very odd reasons. This would not be the oddest reason to vote agains a person, but it would definately be up there.
Well, “If it doesn’t make sense, you must aquit!”
Well, it did go on for far too long. But it was actually fun to participate in. I would not recomend reading it to anyone, however. Just to recap, and because you are a good guy, the OP is somewhat tounge in cheek. The point being that comparing President Bush’s 7 minutes in the classroom is silly. Just as silly, as seriously suggesting that Kerry should have done anything substantive during the 40 minutes he watched TV and “could not think”.
Don’t worry, BrainGlutton you kind of had to be there. 
My charge is an utter lack of intellectual inquisitiveness or natural curiosity. I’d also put into evidence Bush’s lack of interest in reading the newspapers beyond glancing at the headlines and looking at the pretty pictures.
The nickname “Incurious George” is quite fitting.
If you wish to counter with any evidence showing that Bush engages his brain in any significant way, I’m open to seeing it.
Well, given the trainwreck this thread has already become, lets stick to the time period in question.
He had conversations about the incident before entering the classroom. He recieved an update during his visit. After it was done, he immediately got in contact with his National Security people again. Your contention amounts to saying that his not asking questions during a particular 7 minutes while ignoring the remainder of that day indicates “an utter lack of intellectual inquisitiveness or natural curiosity”. I’d simply like to say that this is exceptionally short sited of you. I could understand a stance like “It was a bad decision”, “I would not have done that”, or some such thing. But the idea that it represents a total and complete lack of curiosity is just ridiculous. Sorry, there is no way 7 minutes can do this.
Its possible. I’ve seen the pictures, and have a visceral reaction that I am most definitely not seeing a cooly rational Leader, calmly analyzing the facts with his razorsharp, steel trap mind. What it looks like, eyes darting this way and that like a speed freak ferret, face as blank as a coma patient’s diary, is a man who is analyzing for one of two options: shit, or go blind.
Now maybe, just maybe, with lightning cognition he had analyzed all the possibilities, and all their attendent consequences (skills he mastered while losing tons of other people money when he was playing “office”). IBM’s massive parallel computer, the chess machine, has got nothing on him when it comes to instantaneous calculation of all ramifications, zip, zip, ding! the answer.
In a matter of seconds, he arrived at the inescapable conclusion that the most useful thing he might do, as the single most powerful person on the face of the planet, was sit…right…there…and do…nothing. At all.
Its come to Jesus time, time to declare your faith. If you can look at what I saw, and see that…the chasm between our minds is too great to yodel over.
As insightful as your humor is, you sometimes fall off a cliff. The point I have spent so much bandwidth making is that this is a false dilema. There is no need to say that he is either a blathering idiot or a supreme genious. All you have to do is remember that the time period in question is only 7 minutes out of an entire day, and it becomes little more than ridiculous to suggest you know anything about anything based on this alone.
Again, just for the fun of it. He had conversations with his National Security people before the visit, recieved an update during the visit, and immediately had detailed conversations after the visit. Meanwhile, the visit itself lasted 7 minutes.
Except that the vast majority of what you “saw” is simply your interpretation of the event. If you cannot realize this, then your right.
Mine’s simpler. Walks like, quacks like, is. Occam’s Laser.
Are you seriously contending that your ascribing internal mental states to the noted inaction of President Bush is a simpler explanation than that he simply did not act? Your additional “observation” of phenomena notoriously unobservable is simpler?
Perhaps you were right. Perhaps our differences are unbirdgeable. Given this assertion, I do not know how you used the word “is” in your post.
Huh?
Bush arrived at the school before 9:00, Card whispered in his ear at around 9:05, Bush made his remarks to the assembled students, faculty, and the nation at 9:30 and he left shortly thereafter.
Sigh. The visit inside the school room after Card’s message lasted 7 minutes or less.
9-11 commission report Chapter 1: “We Have Some Planes”,
Page 35:
“At 8:55, before entering the classroom, the President spoke to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice,who was at the White House. She recalled first telling the President it was a twin-engine aircraft—and then a commercial aircraft—that had struck the World Trade Center, adding “that’s all we know right now, Mr. President.””
page 38 and 39:
“The President was seated in a classroom when,at 9:05,Andrew Card whispered to him: “A second plane hit the second tower.America is under attack.”The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis.The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening.
The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He next spoke to Vice President Cheney,Dr.Rice,New York Governor George Pataki, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.”
The time period in the classroom after he heard about the attack was about 7 minutes. He was in the classroom for a little longer than that because he had been in there a few minutes before being told that the incident was an attack.
Again, I need to agree with pervert - this thread has gone on too long. It is apparent that those who do not wish to understand are not going to allow themselves to be forced to do so.
But just to make my point for the fourth time -
**In other words, within seven minutes, as much information as humanly possible had been collected, and Bush knew that this had been done. He knew the information would be forthcoming, and it was. And the assertion that he showed a lack of curiousity, or froze up, or the rest of the partisan slanders to which you all cling with such desperation, is ridiculous.
Kerry has already admitted that he couldn’t think for thirty minutes. Bush has shown that he could think for seven, and did.
What does a real leader do in a crisis? He stays calm, and considers his alternatives, and has confidence that his staff will do their job for seven minutes. As it turns out, his confidence was well-placed. He knew the information would be presented to him as soon as possible, and it was.
And, as I also already stated, if he had done anything else, you would have attacked him for doing that instead. No matter what it was.
Apparently most of you don’t recognize how silly you sound. Pity. Sort of.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m sorry, but he could have left the room, and immediatley talked to those he needed to talk to. If someone had said “Mr. President, the country is under attack. We’ll have more information for you in no less than 7 minutes.” you would have an excellent point. That wasn’t said, and he could have had information sooner. There is simply no logical reason he had to stay. It did not help in any way, and it might have hurt. It’s not the end of the world, but it should put an end to his “George W. Bush, President of Action!” image.
We would have attacked him for leaving a room full of children and resuming his presidential duties as commander-in-chief of a nation under attack? Do you have such a low opinion of us?
At last something I think we can all agree on.
Since the only video tape I have seen was in Fahrenheit 911, which does not show the end of the The Pet Goat reading, you can be sure that I present this as a good faith test of theory.
Some here have suggested that the 7 minutes was put to use by Bush as a period of time for information to be gathered by his staff. Sitting calmly, they suggest, was preferable to interfering in the work of others, pointlessly looking over their shoulder, until he could be told what was going on. Once they had material to brief him with, he would then be useful.
Others, such as myself, suggest that his simply sitting there illustrates that he is congenitally incurious, and that he should have made a calm but expedient departure from the room, explaning that the president had work he needed to do. (After all, it is unlikely that the children in the room knew how long he should be there, and wouldn’t have thought twice about an adult dictating schedules and activities.) He should have immediately assumed the role of a leader by determining what was going on and helping in any reasonable way with the course of action.
I propose that, if the former is true, and his staff was taking the time to gather information, the information gathering and brief preparation would dictate the course of events. If so, the reading session would end at the time the briefing was ready. That is, it would be terminated by a staff person entering the room, signaling to Bush, who would then move to end the current activity so that he could receive the briefing.
If the latter is true, and the lack of action by Bush was not due to information gathering by his staff, then the reading activity he was involved in would determine his action. That is, the reading would persist to its conclusion, with some sort of wrap-up with the children.
Is this a fair test of competing hypotheses? Does anyone have access to the whole tape to see which way it comes out?
And pervert’s question remains unanswered. You allege that he had work he needed to do, and that he could have helped in some reasonable way to collect information faster than five to seven minutes.
What, specifically, would that be? I assume you agree that standing over their shoulders nagging every fifteen seconds is neither helpful, nor something only a President could do. We are returning yet again to the necessary explanation that you lefties seem so reluctant to give.
You keep saying that the President should have done something, but you cannot seem to describe what. If all you can say is that he should do something, but that it would not have done any good and didn’t really matter anyway, why do you condemn Bush for doing what he did, which was to continue to maintain calm while his staff did its job? That’s “something”, and none of you seem to have any reasonable suggestions for alternatives. And you have had nearly three years to think about it, and not seven minutes, or seven seconds.
What specifically are the tasks that Bush should have done seven minutes earlier? We have already seen that nagging his staff with questions that were already being answered as quickly as can be imagined would be counter-productive.
Sir Francis Drake had time both to finish the chess game, and defeat the Armada. Why do you all seem to be determined to argue “we have no clue what Bush should have done, but by gosh he is wrong for not panicking”.
And your evidence for alleging that the information was available sooner than five to seven minutes would be…?
Yes. And yes.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, isn’t that just handy as can be! You can predict behavior in a hypothetical situation, and simultaneously condemn the behavior based on nothing but your own expertise as regards “liberals”. Not only can you tell me what I would think, but you already know why I’m wrong!
Boy, that hypothetical stuff must save you a lot of time that might othewise be wasted on facts.
The video available on line shows the complete reading and Bush complimenting the class. It does not show him leaving the classroom.
However, I propose that your test is not entirely invalid. I think it does not come out as you hope. The evidence will show (look at the 9-11 commission report) that no coherent briefing was available until quite some time after 10:00 long after Bush had left the school. I suggest that he did indeed cut his plans short and change his itinerary substantially. That is, the commission report pretty clearly shows that what happened was that “the information gathering and brief preparation [did] dictate the course of events”.
[QUOTE=RogueRacer]
[ul]
[li]The 7 minutes have no bearing on the destruction caused by terrorists on 9/11[/li][/QUOTE]
True, but as I have already pointed out that’s irrelevant. Now pay attention and learn. What you’re missing is this: THEY DIDN’T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME. Strange as is may seem Rogue Racer, people do not have the ability to magically see into the future. Sometimes seven minutes can make a difference and sometimes it doesn’t. BUT YOU DON’T KNOW THAT UNTIL LATER. That’s why commander’s job is to TAKE CHARGE OF THE SITUATION as quickly as possible SO HE CAN DO WHAT CAN AND NEEDS TO BE DONE as quickly as possible. And why did Bush need to take charge quickly? BECAUSE THE EFFING COUNTRY WAS UNDER ATTACK. That’s why. What is the first thing a commander has to do in order to take charge? FIND OUT WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING. NOT sit on his ass while Americans are being mass slaughtered.
This is not difficult to understand. It could hardly be more simple and basic. The only reason some people are having trouble is because they simply cannot accept the simple reality that George Bush is a screamingly incompetent president and insist on confusing issues so they can feel better about themselves.
(And sorry about getting your name screwed up. That was not intentional).
[QUOTE=RogueRacer]
[li]Neither do Kerry’s 40 minutes, which was the point of the initial post since you missed it[/li][/QUOTE]
I’m not missing anything, sweetheart. Kerry was not in a position of authority. Bush was. That’s why Mr. Moto’s original point is so staggeringly inane. Again, this is extremely easy to understand. On top of that, this point has been repeatedly made by me others. I mean, really. What is the problem?
[QUOTE=RogueRacer]
[li]Bush’s approval rating in the months after the 9/11 tragedy was overwhelmingly high[/li][/QUOTE]
Uh, relevency?
The real issue is that Bush is a staggaringly incompetent and corrupt president who simply lacks the abilty to keep us safe and this is a vivid but hardly lone example. He let Osama bin Laden get away (who, according to today’s NYTimes, is preparing a 10-kiloton bomb for us — thanks, Mr. President!), did nothing to prevent the attacks, lied about who was responsible and got us into a war in which almost a thousand Americans have been needlessly killed as part of the most expensive and elaborate terrorist recruitment campaign in history.
And since Bush has made his leadership, such as it is, in the war on terror the central theme of his campaign, who are you to tell him that it isn’t among “the real issues of the election”? Speaking for myself, I want a president who is going to protect our chemical plants, our nuclear power plants, increase inspections of container vessels and buy up all that loose uranium in former soviet states. And I definitely don’t want a president who attacks irrelevant countries, while lying about the justification, or exposes CIA agents specializing in protecting us from Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Oh, yeah. And I also want a president whose going to make a point of killing Osama bin Laden on the petty and utterly self-serving grounds that he’s the guy who actually attacked us. UBL’s — what? — six-foot-six and on dialysis and we can’t catch him? If we had invaded Tora Bora when we had the chance, he’d be toast by now.
Well, I’ve had enough of this thread. Obviously, Rogue Racer and his pals are never going to see the problem. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”
Oh, the Time’s article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/opinion/11kris.html?hp
Twin Towers: Boom.
President Bush: [7 minutes of stunned silence]
**Sane Americans: **Why did you sit there in stunned silence for 7 minutes?
pervert: He didn’t; he quickly and cleverly intuited that sitting and, um, intuiting for 7 minutes was the most effectice course of action.
**Sane Americans: **No, it wasn’t just the appearance of inaction, it was *actual *inaction.
pervert, whose side are you on anyway?