John Kerry did nothing for 40 minutes on September 11th.

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

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.

Have you already explained how he knew this? I mean, Card came in, informed him of Boom #2, then left the room. For the following seven minutes, Bush had no way of knowing what was being done on his behalf.

As the President, as the C-in-C, as the person in whom ultimate decisiveness was vested, it was his duty to know what was going on, and to be available and comprehending if orders needed to be issued that could come only from him.

Not knowing what the timeframe of the attack was, but surely having some sense that things were happening fairly quickly (given the elapsed time between being informed of Boom #1 and Boom #2) it hardly seems outlandish to expect him to be where he could at least observe the conversations of his staff as they tried to get a handle on things. Even if he was The Fifth-Wheel-in-Chief.

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.

Ain’t been explained to me why this is so, in any of the other Seven Minutes threads. And I’ve once again explained why it’s not so.

Kerry has already admitted that he couldn’t think for thirty minutes. Bush has shown that he could think for seven, and did.

KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We’d just had a meeting – we’d just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle’s office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon.

Sure sounds to me like he meant, “we realized there was no way we could think about the stuff we’d been meeting about.” I could be wrong, of course, but it seems reasonable to me. He’s saying, we didn’t have to ask whether the meeting was over; it was over.

Anyhow, Kerry was a Senator that day. No decisiveness had been invested in him by the people of the United States, or by its Supreme Court, however you wish to see 2000. The legislative and judicial branches were inherently spectators that day. What was Kerry gonna do, sponsor a Congressional resolution? He was free to be a spectator; there was nothing else he could be doing.

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.

To consider your alternatives, you need information. For one thing, what made seven minutes magical? Maybe they only needed two minutes. Maybe Card expected Bush to follow him out of the room and down the hall as soon as he could excuse himself, and only sent for Bush when, in the confusion of the next several minutes, he finally realized Bush was overdue.

At any rate, I find the idea that Bush would have somehow been in the way, and of no help in sorting out the options, to be just one more instance of the soft bigotry of low expectations that have enveloped this man. Going back as far as I can remember, I can’t think of a single President, or even a single major-party nominee, who wouldn’t have belonged in the room where his aides were trying to get a handle on things, rather than in the classroom. Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, Goldwater, Humphrey, McGovern, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Bush I, Dukakis, Clinton, Dole, Gore…any one of them could have taken command, then stepped aside and let people do their jobs as necessary. Only Bush the Younger ‘belonged’ in the classroom, where he wouldn’t be in the way.

Except that, when it comes right down to it, even he didn’t belong safely tucked out of the way. Maybe he was too dumb to lead, too dumb to make good decisions, but in those early moments, it wasn’t at all clear whether or not he would have had to make a Presidential decision - for example, a decision of whether to have a civilian airliner shot down - whether on his own call, or because President-in-Fact Andy Card told him to.

Now we know that none of our fighter planes had much chance of shooting down any of the hijacked airliners in time to make a difference. But during those seven minutes, not only did Bush not know that that was the answer to that question; he had no way of knowing what the question, or questions, might be.

He needed to be in communication with those who could tell him what was going on. That is the one sure thing he ought to have clearly known, from the moment Andy Card whispered in his ear. Only then would it have become apparent what he could or should do, what he could or couldn’t do. Instead, he spent seven minutes not knowing, not being available, not learning anything at all about the crisis, other than that there was one, and it involved planes flying into the WTC towers.

No, it’s not the worst thing Bush has ever done, but it had the potential of being so.

[Little_Nemo]

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.

Nobody’s claiming the President should have been collecting information. His job was to receive information. When informed that “American was under attack”, he should have gotten the following information as quickly as possible.

What are the specifics of the attack?
Do we know who’s making this attack?
Have any terrorist organizations issued any comminques?
Have more planes been hijacked?
Are more planes in danger of being hijacked?
Is the President a target and should he be moved to a safer area?
Has the Vice President and the chain of command been secured?
Has the military been notified?
What is the state of our military readiness?
What are our options if we believe a hijacked plane is going to hit another target?
Are there any indications of other terrorist attacks being made in America?
Are biological or chemical attacks being made?
Are terrorists attacking other countries?
Is any foreign nation behind this?
Is this the opening part of a general military attack?
Will any foreign powers take advantage of this situation?
How will this affect my tax cut program?

[pervert]

@lissener

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?

Thank you very much for restating my argument. I have been having problems posting to this thread. Could you do me a favor and point me to the post in which I said that Bush “quickly and cleverly intuited that sitting … was the most effectice course of action”? :rolleyes:

[Mal_Adroit]

Anyone who thinks George W. Bush was doing anything but quietly shitting his pants during those seven minutes is an admirably loyal Rebublican and an utterly deluded human being.

[pervert]

@RTFirefly

Have you already explained how he knew this? I mean, Card came in, informed him of Boom #2, then left the room. For the following seven minutes, Bush had no way of knowing what was being done on his behalf.

But this is blatently false. He knew perfectly well that his staff was already getting informed on these events. He had talked to them before entering the classroom. Cards revelation was less a bolt from the blue than it was an update on continuing situation.

As the President, as the C-in-C, as the person in whom ultimate decisiveness was vested, it was his duty to know what was going on, and to be available and comprehending if orders needed to be issued that could come only from him.

Ok, but where is your evidence that this was not the case? Are you saying that if Card had come in again and whispered that the Air Force needed an ok to launch missles Bush could not have compreneded? Based on what?

Not knowing what the timeframe of the attack was, but surely having some sense that things were happening fairly quickly (given the elapsed time between being informed of Boom #1 and Boom #2) it hardly seems outlandish to expect him to be where he could at least observe the conversations of his staff as they tried to get a handle on things. Even if he was The Fifth-Wheel-in-Chief.

Ok, it is not outlandish. But to go farther and say that being away from such a position for a lousy 7 minutes amounts to deriliction of duty in some way is outlandish.

Ain’t been explained to me why this is so, in any of the other Seven Minutes threads. And I’ve once again explained why it’s not so.

No, you have not. And it has been explained add nausium. Here, again for your personal benifit:

President Bush talked to his National Security people before entering the classroom. He recieved an update while there. He immediately talked to them again when he left the room 7 minutes after the update. His actions during the rest of the day are more than reasonable (I’m being generous, I think his actions were exemplary). To harp on this seven minutes as some sort of failing is ridiculous and seems more so every time I hear it.

Sure sounds to me like he meant, “we realized there was no way we could think about the stuff we’d been meeting about.” I could be wrong, of course, but it seems reasonable to me. He’s saying, we didn’t have to ask whether the meeting was over; it was over.

Of course that’s what he was saying. Geeze, guys, get over yourselves.

For one thing, what made seven minutes magical? Maybe they only needed two minutes. Maybe Card expected Bush to follow him out of the room and down the hall as soon as he could excuse himself, and only sent for Bush when, in the confusion of the next several minutes, he finally realized Bush was overdue.

Aha, this is an excellent question. What, indeed makes those 7 minutes magical? They were included in a political hit piece masquarading as docutainment. There is nothing else about them which is interesting. Bush did, in fact go into the room with his staff, contact his national security people, and learn that there was very little to learn. In fact, the 9-11 commission seems to think nothing coherent was known until well after 10:00. But here we are focusing on these little 7 minutes as if they are actually important.

At any rate, I find the idea that Bush would have somehow been in the way, and of no help in sorting out the options, to be just one more instance of the soft bigotry of low expectations that have enveloped this man.

That is because you are so focused on your hatred of Bush that you have not listened. No president would have been very helpful if he had done some of the things you are angry at Bush for not doing. The argument is not that Bush would have so incompetant at asking question, the argument is that any chief executive frantically asking for information before it is available is, in fact, in the way.

Going back as far as I can remember, I can’t think of a single President, or even a single major-party nominee, who wouldn’t have belonged in the room where his aides were trying to get a handle on things, rather than in the classroom. Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, Goldwater, Humphrey, McGovern, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Bush I, Dukakis, Clinton, Dole, Gore…any one of them could have taken command, then stepped aside and let people do their jobs as necessary. Only Bush the Younger ‘belonged’ in the classroom, where he wouldn’t be in the way.

Bush had the misfortune of his “stepping aside” to occur during a very high profile national tragedy, and that it was caught on film. Other than this, there is no difference.

…when it comes right down to it, […]in those early moments, it wasn’t at all clear whether or not he would have had to make a Presidential decision - for example, a decision of whether to have a civilian airliner shot down - whether on his own call, or because President-in-Fact Andy Card told him to.

But his people were busily finding this out. He knew this, or had enough information to surmize it, and he was only a short walk away. He was not stoned or out playing hooky you know.

He needed to be in communication with those who could tell him what was going on.

Again, just in case you missed it. Talked to his people before, recieved an update during, and talked to his people immediatly after the 15 minute visit. I’m not at all sure what you mean by “in communication” if it is not some interfering thing which you refuse to accept as interfering.

That is the one sure thing he ought to have clearly known, from the moment Andy Card whispered in his ear.

Well, he did know, and he was from before Card whispered in his ear.

Only then would it have become apparent what he could or should do, what he could or couldn’t do.

Well, this is not true. Putting the president in “communication” (Whatever odd thing you mean by that) does not make information travel any faster. It was not clear what his options were until much later (after 10:00 at least). It was not clear what should be done for many days, if not weeks.

Instead, he spent seven minutes not knowing, not being available, not learning anything at all about the crisis, other than that there was one, and it involved planes flying into the WTC towers.

Escept this is blatently not true. He spent those 7 minutes finishing what he was right in the middle of. True, he did not know certain facts, but neither did any of his staff. The fact that he had talked to them before the visit, and recieved an update during it, is evidence enough that he was indeed available. He was not learning anything during those 7 minutes, because, therefore, there was nothing to learn.

Allow me to sum up. I agree that it is not a stretch to say that those 7 minutes were not spent as well as they could have been. But it is also not a stretch to suggest that they were not exactly wasted either. It is, however, a stretch to suggest that those 7 minutes tell us anything usefull about President Bush’s fitness for office. It is a stretch of comedic proportions to suggest that those 7 minutes amount to anything like malfeasance or deriliction of duty. As such, this level of a stretch is fair game for comedic rejoinders.

[rjung]

@pervert

I agree that it is not a stretch to say that those 7 minutes were not spent as well as they could have been. But it is also not a stretch to suggest that they were not exactly wasted either.

Agreed, the seven minutes were not wasted because there was a competent staff at the White House. However, this competency occurred in spite of Bush’s inactivity, not because of it.

@pervert

It is, however, a stretch to suggest that those 7 minutes tell us anything usefull about President Bush’s fitness for office.

That depends on what our individual criteria of “worthiness” are. If you feel (as you do) that it’s okay for Bush to sit still with a vacant stare for seven minutes in the middle of the worst terrorist attack on the United States, because a competent staff was “taking care of business,” then you won’t think the incident is worth any matter.

If, however, you feel (as I do) that the President of the United States must be a leader, in the full sense of the term – as in taking initiative, being decisive, and looking over the folks he’s leading – then Bush’s seven minutes of sitting still waiting for someone to lead him by the nose is a damning indictment of his unworthiness for the job. At the moment of his presidency when his leadership skills would be put to the ultimate test, Bush didn’t even step up to the plate.

[pervert]

@rjung

Agreed, the seven minutes were not wasted because there was a competent staff at the White House. However, this competency occurred in spite of Bush’s inactivity, not because of it.

No, this is not true either. He had talked to them earlier and knew they were looking into it. What exactly do you think would not have been done, or would not have been done well if Bush had left the classroom earlier?

If you feel (as you do) that it’s okay for Bush to sit still with a vacant stare for seven minutes in the middle of the worst terrorist attack on the United States, because a competent staff was “taking care of business,” then you won’t think the incident is worth any matter.

Again, not really the point. I’m not saying that Bush’s actions were perfect, just not nearly as bad as you seem to think.

If, however, you feel (as I do) that the President of the United States must be a leader, in the full sense of the term – as in taking initiative, being decisive, and looking over the folks he’s leading – then Bush’s seven minutes of sitting still waiting for someone to lead him by the nose is a damning indictment of his unworthiness for the job.

Funnier and funnier. This is patently ridiculous. 7 minutes are an indication that Bush cannot take initiative? 7 minutes are an indication that Bush cannot be decisive? 7 minutes are an indication that Bush cannot manage the folks who work for him (and this one is the best of all, it really means that Bush cannot manage without personally being in sight of his people). It is a damning indictment, but not of Bush.

At the moment of his presidency when his leadership skills would be put to the ultimate test, Bush didn’t even step up to the plate.

And yet it gets worse. He did, step up actually. He mad decisions. He took initiative. He even managed his people. Before, during and after those 7 minutes. This statement of yours is nothing but empty hyperbole. And when I say empty, I really mean negative. There is not a shred of evidence to back up a single thing in this sentence. It is so devoid of truth, that it morphs into something funny. Re read the OP and then consider your opinion of anyone who seriously thinks Kerry should not be a Senator because of his actions during those 40 minutes. As you point this accusitory and mental finger at such people, turn it around.

Look, rjung I understand that you hate Bush. Really I do. I think that’s fine. But you have to prevent this hatred from damaging you. You must not allow your anger to comprimise your ability to think rationally about these things. I’m more than willing to be wrong, and I won’t say any more about this. But it would ease my mind if you could point to a Bush thread where you were taking something with a sense of humor. I’d need the post number.

[pervert]

@Moody Bastard

Anyone who thinks George W. Bush was doing anything but quietly shitting his pants during those seven minutes is an admirably loyal Rebublican and an utterly deluded human being.

Well, aside from the fecal reference, or taking it figuratively, this is essentially what he said. One does not have to “project calm” if one is in fact calm.

But I take it that you were more serious than that. Care to provide a cite? From his laudry service, perhaps?

[Avumede]

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.

Specifically, he could have been there to learn what his staffers knew, and learn about the events as information was unfolding. Even a civilian like myself would have been interested enough to want answers as soon as humanly possible. And I’m not even the commander-in-chief.

But, no, it didn’t really make any difference. And his paralysis in the face of the attack is human and normal. But let’s all agree not to think of him as a heroic man of action, OK?

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”.

I’m sorry, you really should read this thread. No one has argued what you think we are arguing. “we have no clue what Bush should have done” - I have a very clear clue, thank you, he should have excused himself and immediately talked to his staff.
“gosh he is wrong for not panicking” - do you understand the difference between panic and quick action?

And your evidence for alleging that the information was available sooner than five to seven minutes would be…?

I don’t need any evidence, I just need to imagine myself in Bush’s shoes, and I would clearly hope that there would be something to learn by talking to the staff. Why on earth would I assume that I knew everything there was to know, and that all the new information would be there in 5 to 7 minutes?

[rjung]

@pervert

Look, rjung I understand that you hate Bush. Really I do. I think that’s fine. But you have to prevent this hatred from damaging you.

:rolleyes:

@pervert

You must not allow your anger to comprimise your ability to think rationally about these things.

I rationally believe that Bush’s behavior on the morning of September 11, 2001, is a classic example of gross incompetence. I could give him some leeway on deciding to proceed with the photo-op after hearing the first plane had hit the tower, but to sit there after being informed the second plane struck is beyond the pale.

If that’s what you want in a leader, fine. Just don’t ask me to lower my standards.

[zoo]

@pervert

He had talked to them earlier and knew they were looking into it.

You have posted this repeatedly but it seems to me that the situation had changed quite a bit when he recieved the message “we are under attack”.

I can understand why you are willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt regarding his reaction to the news. Can you not understand why it looks to some of us like he was just sitting there shitting his pants?

[pervert]

@Avumede

Specifically, he could have been there to learn what his staffers knew, and learn about the events as information was unfolding. Even a civilian like myself would have been interested enough to want answers as soon as humanly possible. And I’m not even the commander-in-chief.

Ok, but try and think about this from his position. Imagine that he knows everything which can be found out is being found out. Imagine further that you know that your presence may in fact slow down the rate at which you get information. Are you still sure you would not simply let your people do their job?

Why on earth would I assume that I knew everything there was to know, and that all the new information would be there in 5 to 7 minutes?

Because those are the facts. You have talked to your people before, they have given you information during, and very soon you will talk to them again. So soon, in fact, that there is virtually nothing new to learn.

Now, forget all that. Imagine instead that your first thought is “What is the most important job for a president during an attack.”, And your answer is that you need to assure them that they are not about to die. That their government is not about to fall. Are you really sure your first thoughts will not be along the lines of “projecting calm”?

But, no, it didn’t really make any difference. And his paralysis in the face of the attack is human and normal. But let’s all agree not to think of him as a heroic man of action, OK?

No, it is not OK. WE are talking about a lousy 7 minutes here. It is totally unfair to say that he is indecisive, or not a leader because of anything he did then.

Just for fun, lets reverse the day. Say, he jumped up, politely excused himself and went into the next room during those 7 minutes. Then lets say he hid under a bed during the rest of the day. Would you be happy to call him an “action hero” in that case? Or would you say that 7 minutes does not a hero make?

I’m sorry, you really should read this thread. No one has argued what you think we are arguing. “we have no clue what Bush should have done” - I have a very clear clue, thank you, he should have excused himself and immediately talked to his staff.
“gosh he is wrong for not panicking” - do you understand the difference between panic and quick action?

Do you? Quick action does not mean less than 7 minutes in many many cases.

I don’t need any evidence, I just need to imagine myself in Bush’s shoes, and I would clearly hope that there would be something to learn by talking to the staff.

Why would you assume this? Again, you talked to them before, they gave you an update during, and you talked to them immediately after the 7 minutes in question.

Again, I am not arguing that staying in the classroom during these 7 minutes was the best of all possible decisions. It simply was not very indicitive of Bush’s actions that day, his fitness for office, nor his character in general.

[pervert]

@zoo

You have posted this repeatedly but it seems to me that the situation had changed quite a bit when he recieved the message “we are under attack”.

Of course it had. That’s why he got the update. If I recall he also got a not asking him not to say anything yet as they were not ready.

I can understand why you are willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt regarding his reaction to the news. Can you not understand why it looks to some of us like he was just sitting there shitting his pants?

Sure. I accept the argument that sitting in the classroom was not the best thing to do. I simply reject the argument that these 7 minutes are a useful measure of the man or the President. Especially if taken out of context of his actions during the rest of that day. As such, the position that he failed his duty because of those 7 minutes alone is ridiculous. So ridiculous, in fact, that it can be lampooned by pointing out that Kerry did nothing for 40 minutes.

[pervert]

@rjung

I rationally believe that Bush’s behavior on the morning of September 11, 2001, is a classic example of gross incompetence.

Except that this is a self refuting statement. Gross Incompetence implies that there was something to be done which was not done. It assumes that some action could have been taken which was not. Some decision which needed Presidential authority which was delayed. You have not shown this to be the case.

I could give him some leeway on deciding to proceed with the photo-op after hearing the first plane had hit the tower, but to sit there after being informed the second plane struck is beyond the pale.

Why exactly? What was to be done which he did not have good reason to believe was being done?

If that’s what you want in a leader, fine. Just don’t ask me to lower my standards.

Except your standard is not a standard. Your standard is so ridiculously high that it is not achievable by human beings. I mean come on, “gross incompetence” for not going into a different room for 7 lousy minutes?

Parse any one of your days into 7 minute chunks and then make a judgement about your life by the failure of perfection in any one of them. I daresay no one could live up to this standard. If you have information about some godlike aliens who want to be president I wish you’d share.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@pervert

Look, rjung I understand that you hate Bush. Really I do. I think that’s fine. But you have to prevent this hatred from damaging you.

Who knew pervert was a little green Jedi with hair coming out of his ears?

rjung, you’re not going to go out and slaughter a bunch of Sandpeople now are you?

Wait a tick, Sandpeople? Hmmm. Bush as Anakin Skywalker? Cheney as Darth Sidious, insinuating himself into a position of power to use his mind control on the weak? Cheney subverting the Imperial Senate to unilaterally invade another planet? Bush avenging the “attack” on his parent?

Hentor the Barbarian as Han Solo, kickin’ ass and makin’ the chicks swoon?

AHA!

[pervert]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Who knew pervert was a little green Jedi with hair coming out of his ears?

rjung, you’re not going to go out and slaughter a bunch of Sandpeople now are you?

Wait a tick, Sandpeople? Hmmm. Bush as Anakin Skywalker? Cheney as Darth Sidious, insinuating himself into a position of power to use his mind control on the weak? Cheney subverting the Imperial Senate to unilaterally invade another planet? Bush avenging the “attack” on his parent?

Hentor the Barbarian as Han Solo, kickin’ ass and makin’ the chicks swoon?

AHA!

See, now this is very funny also. Well done! Outstanding really. Notice the use of a more comprehensive view of Bush’s presidency than 7 minutes.

Darn! I missed my opportunity to put the advice into yoda speak. Maybe I’m the one taking this topic too seriously now. Dang!

[rjung]

@pervert

Gross Incompetence implies that there was something to be done which was not done.

What, doesn’t “keep abreast of the developing situation” count?

We are not talking about a faceless bureaucrat, or a mid-level drone, or an authority-less paper-shuffler. We are talking about the President of the United States. In a time of national crisis, is it that unreasonable to expect that the President of the United States should be at the eye of the storm, being kept updated with the latest information, giving orders as he sees fit, and generally being available to make decisions when decisions need to be made?

@pervert

Except your standard is not a standard. Your standard is so ridiculously high that it is not achievable by human beings.

Yeah, everyone knows ho hard it is to say, “Excuse me, I have to leave now and tend to things which require my attention.” :rolleyes:

@pervert

I mean come on, “gross incompetence” for not going into a different room for 7 lousy minutes?

When the nation is under attack? Damn straight.

@pervert

Parse any one of your days into 7 minute chunks and then make a judgement about your life by the failure of perfection in any one of them. I daresay no one could live up to this standard.

Do I get the authority and responsibility that comes with being President of the United States? Or are you just muddling the issue to cover up Bush’s incompetence?

@pervert

If you have information about some godlike aliens who want to be president I wish you’d share.

We don’t need godlike aliens, just competent leadership. Which is what we don’t have right now.

[Little_Nemo]

Pervert, for the most part you’ve been presenting your opinions in a calm and reasonable manner and, while I disagree with those opinions, I appreciate the fact that you’ve been maintaining a high tone to what could have degenerated into a two-sided rant-fest.

However, your last few posts have started to veer off the issue. You’ve been repeatedly refering to the “7 minutes” as if that’s the only issue. As previous posters here have said, it’s not. After the seven minutes of reading a book there was a further twenty minute photo-op where the President conversed with school officials. So, let’s be honest and admit we’re talking about a half hour not seven minutes.

And please don’t dismiss opposition as the President as “hate” or “anger”. Most of us who think he acted incorrectly are speaking from our rational assessment of his actions not an emotional response. Unless you want this discussion to degenerate to the point where someone says, “well if you love George Bush so much, why don’t you marry him?” please don’t stop extending your opponents the courtesy of respecting their opinions even if you disagree with them.

[pervert]

@Little Nemo

You’ve been repeatedly refering to the “7 minutes” as if that’s the only issue. As previous posters here have said, it’s not. After the seven minutes of reading a book there was a further twenty minute photo-op where the President conversed with school officials. So, let’s be honest and admit we’re talking about a half hour not seven minutes.

Can you do me a favor. Point to the place in the 9-11 commission report which supports this view, or at least tell me why you think they are wrong and whatever source you are quoting is right. The report pretty clearly states that President Bush stayed in the classroom for 7 minutes or less after Card gave him the update. And after he left the classroom he imediately contacted his people. So, clearly, it is just about the 7 minutes.

And please don’t dismiss opposition as the President as “hate” or “anger”.

It was not my intention to do so. I understand more than is apperent from this one thread that there are legitimate reasons to oppose President Bush. I intend to vote for him, and I have issues with him. But stretching these few minutes into malfeasance is nothing short of irrational partisan hatred. IMHO of course.

Most of us who think he acted incorrectly are speaking from our rational assessment of his actions not an emotional response.

I agree with this. But this is not the language used in the vast majority of the cases. Saying that the president acted incorrectly is vastly differently (qualitatively in my opinion) than saying the 7 minutes are proof of gross negligence.

Unless you want this discussion to degenerate to the point where someone says, “well if you love George Bush so much, why don’t you marry him?” please don’t stop extending your opponents the courtesy of respecting their opinions even if you disagree with them.

If I have insulted anyone I appologize. And let me return the favor. This debate has been quite heated. It did not, however, degenerate into any sort of name calling or get very “nasty” at all. I would like to commend each and every poster who has participated. This subject, and especially my attitude throughout the thread would have easily been justification for engaging in a little of that sort of thing. That it has not happened is a testiment to the rationality and debating skills of those on the SDMB. Thank you all.

[Latro]

@pervert

Thank you all.

And thank you, Perv for an entertaining thread.
Now that you are done honing your ‘lawyer skills’, time to bravely admit that it was all hogwash?