Ok, what technology do we have which allows the president to broadcast messages to all comercial airliners. Quick, in order for it to fulfill you needs, you need to be able to use it in the next 7 minutes.
Most likely this would have made little difference. Could they have come up with a defence plan which would have prevented the hijackers from killing passengers and taking the plane anyway? They didn’t do it in 7 minutes, why do you think they could have in 14?
No, it doesn’t. The hijackers had prepared for this for a long time. Do you really think the crew of flight 93 was prepared to hold the door while the hijacers killed their passengers and crew?
Right. And he could have given this order. Did he have enough information at his disposal to make such a command? Remember, we have to evaluate the events at the time, not with hindsight. Is there a system in place for the president to issue messages to all airborn comercial airlines? Would it have been faster than what happened? Unless you can prove otherwise, I think not.
The answers, in order: Protected himself, not entirely sure, and absolutely. He’s the President, it’s his decision. In a moment of crisis, he can’t just waste his time with pet goats while others make life-and-death decisions.
Possibly. We don’t know, and more to the point, HE couldn’t know until he asked the questions.
If it was, it wasn’t done by him, or at least not in that critical half-hour. He knew nothing about what was going on.
Did he know there was a mobile command centre? Did he know that there might be the possibility of planes being shot down? If you’re going to make a major decision, to kill many civilians, you need as much info as possible. Would it be acceptable to you if he’d gone on reading the book, chatting to the kids and posing for photos, and the entire decision on shooting down a plane was made on the basis of a whispered “Sir, should we shoot down this suspicious-looking plane?”
First, it’s about half an hour that he lingered at the photo op, according to various sources. And keep beating that straw man of our hypothetical attacks if he’d hypothetically had the balls to do his job.
In what way is that acceptable? He’s the one who’s supposed to know what needs to be done. He’s supposed to gather the information, take the advice of various subordinates, then make a decision. Not sit back and say, “You guys figure it out, my time would be better spent reading about goats”.
Heck, here’s three. Don’t say I don’t spoil ya:
Make or receive a phone call.
View footage of the attack.
Speak openly without frightening the children and spooking the media.
Isn’t the cognitive dissonance hurting you just a little?
I’ll keep this short, since you have so many people who understand that Bush’s lack of action was a poor thing for a President to do (oh, look, I can make digs, too; it wasn’t terribly funny, though, so I guess I’ll go back to my usual “keep it civil” rule).
(in reply to my wish that the whispering had been two-way)
Well, um, I saw the video of what happened. The aide whispered something into Bush’s ear, and Bush just sat there. He didn’t whisper back. It didn’t happen.
I’ll agree that sitting there was better than getting up and nuking Asia. I wasn’t aware that those were his only two options. If the choices are global thermal nuclear war and reading a book about goats, I think he should choose the goats in all situations.
Putting myself in the shoes of those aides, I find myself asking “What the fuck are we doing hanging around here, asking to use the principal’s phone so we can get information? Why aren’t we immediately moving to the president’s mobile command center where all the lines of communication are preconfigured for our information gathering needs?”
“Needed” is not a good word for a photo-op during a terrorist attack. And you ignored my comment that he could have, at the very least, thought of some things he would have liked his aides to find out. It’s perfectly fine to trust your people. To assume they will just tell you what you need to know is poor management in my opinion.
Could he have helped, meaning dealt with the hijackings or investigated himself? No. Could he have shown a little interest or initiative? I sure think so.
Keep in mind these same people were attacking Kerry last week for his war record and the week before because he has a lot of money. At the rate they’re going they’ll soon be saying Kerry’s unfit to be President because he’s from Texas.
Thank you very much. I really am having a good time with this. I’m not sure why. I usually avoid these Bush bashing threads like the plague. But this one just tickled my funny bone.
Could you help me out? Perhaps you have a better reason why this is such a minority opinion then? I have my own theories, but I don’t trust them. I never trust theories about the motivations of others.
On what basis do you think he should have made such a decision? Seriously, who could he have asked, and what could he have asked them which would have given him the information necessary to make this decision at 9:00 A.M. (give or take a half hour) on September 11? I realize that it sounds good in hindsight, but he really did not have the 9-11 Commission report at the time.
Ah, but we do know now. At least about the efficatiousness of the question. We know now that they would have made no difference. He knew then that he had top people all accross the country working on the situation and they would interrupt him if necessary if they needed his authority for anything.
But this is the point. In the first several minutes of an attack on American soil, the president does not have to be personally involved in very much at all. What exactly do you think his inaction hindered?
Yes, there always is a command center of sorts wherever the president is. Have you ever seen his motorcaid? It is really a site to see. Shut down streets, local police on every corner, and more cars than I could count. Very impressive.
Really? But we want him to have done something in that 7 minutes. How would he or his aides have gathered such information so quickly? Would his presence really have sped up the process so much?
If I am not mistaken others took the authority to shoot down planes if it came to that. Pilots were issued orders. They simply were not in the sky where they would have done any good. Issuing the orders 7 minutes sooner would have made no difference whatsoever.
Except, perhaps, we would be able to criticize President Bush for issuing murderous orders with too little information.
Where did you see it?
Well, I did not say those were his options. I said those were my thoughts. But realistically, what sorts of decisions does the military need presidential authority to carry out? Isn’t this limited to offensive actions and use of the nukes? Assuming we ignore the nuclear option, for a moment, how do you answer the question of what he could have done during those 7 minutes?
Cite?
Like what?
Really, for 7 minutes? Do you really think the entire defence structure of the country could not have functioned for 7 minutes?
But again, this gets to the heart of the matter. If the only question is really why did he not get up 7 minutes sooner even though it would have made no difference, and there was nothing for him to do in those 7 minutes, why all the angst? I really would like your help with this. Do you have any idea why there is so much venom about 7 minutes?
I think we may be missing a point here (assuming it hasn’t already been raised, I got bored reading the preceding squabbling). We must concede that there really wasn’t much the President could do once the second plain went into the WTC. To say that he knew that then gives him a gift of foresight that nobody has claimed for him. The point is that the President did not know there was nothing or little he could do. As far as the President and his on the scene staff knew there might have been something he could have done. Until someone can persuasively argue that the President knew that it was futile for him to ask questions, issue instructions, check in with the Vice-president, the Defense Department, the Aviation Administration, NORAD, the Faith Based Initiative Office to generally find out what was going on, I do not understand why on earth he chose to carry on with the goat. This might well be one of those situations when the watch word ought to be: I don’t care what you do, just do something.
On reflection, however, I can see that the President might reasonably have thought that anything he might do would surely make the situation worse. Maybe continuing with the goat story was the best thing for him to do – let what ever machinery there might be to deal with a problem like this work with out Presidential interference. That thought pattern is not one conducive to effective leadership of a major national power.
In retrospect there may not have been any action the President could have taken in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. But as many others have pointed out, there was no way to know this at the time. For all anyone knew the hijackers were aboard dozens of planes and planned on taking over and crashing them into targets all across the country. President Bush should have put himself into the loop and started asking questions and getting answers. He should have been finding out what his options were and what was possible. He should have been present and letting people see he was in charge. At the very least he should have made himself a moving target in case there was a plane coming at him.
The President of the United States is not supposed to be an ordinary man - we have the right to expect him to act above and beyond in a time of crisis. Instead he apparently sat and waited for his staff to tell him what he should do. Reading “My Pet Goat” will be the equivalent of the price scanner or the definition of “is” - a small incident that will characterize a man. Bush 41 was “out of touch”, Clinton was “slick”, and Bush 43 is “shallow”.
You can’t even think of anything he might have wanted to know? I’ve seen loads of questions proposed in this thread, ranging from the health of the Vice President and first family to the status of other planes, or simple things like ‘who might have done this?’
What does the defense structure have to do with it? I’m saying he could have just asked his aides a few questions. Assuming they would find out everything he might want to know without him telling them what they want to know requires either telepathy or bad management.
I have no idea why you’re defending Bush if you don’t even know what you’re defending him against.
Morning of September 11, I was sleeping in because I had an exam at noon and had been up studying. A fraternty brothercame running down the hall pounding on doors, then stuck his head in and said, “two planes crashed into the World Trade Center!”.
My first thought was that it was a dream - I mean, this was kinda unheard of. A few seconds after that, I was almost falling down the stairs (in my underwear) trying to get to the TV in the commons room.
In the 15 seconds it took me to wake up, analyze the information from a vague worded reference, and run downstairs, I put together enough to know that it was not an accident, and the embassy and Cole bombings went through my head. By the time I reached the TV downstairs to get more information, I knew what questions to ask and what was going on.
It strikes me as odd that the President of the United States took so long to catch on to something.
And yes, I would prefer a President who fell all over himself trying to get information about an attack quickly to one who sits solidly and exudes the confidence of the moronic and uninformed.
Okay, now I sense that you are being deliberately obtuse, so this will be my last exchange on this specific topic. Are you ready: A frickin’ phone. That is the amazing technology he would have needed. “Call the Chief of the FAA. Tell them to have this message sent to all planes…”
However, Spavined Gelding is correct (apart from belittling everyone else’s contributions as “squabbling”). There is no way for Bush to know that there was nothing he could do without asking first, unless he knows by default that there is nothing he can do.
So enjoy asking what apparently are rhetorical questions.
Sorry, I meant to add a note to the top of that post. I usually use the reply feature of the boards to keep my comments connected to appropriately attributed quotes. I did not do that in the last post. If I messed up and attributed anything to the wrong person please let me know I will appologize.
Again, like what? Was he really so disconnected that his staff could not reach anyone anywhere? And if so, what could he have done?
This is because you do not understand high level leadership, I assume. What specifically could he have done at that time in that place that he had did not have a reasonable chance of assuming was already being done? Seriously, a terrorist attack (up until that time) usually meant a bomb or some other such short term incident has occured. What questions was he to ask to make this sort of situation better? Which of his aides do you think was so incompetent that Bush has to stand over him to get appropriate work done? I’m really curious about this now. It seems perfectly obvious to me that spending 7 more minutes (ok, even if it was 9 or 10) in that classroom was not a waste of time at all. Afterwards, when his aides had a chance to brief him more fully, which orders did he issue that were concievably delayed?
No, this is exactly one of those cases where you cannot afford to do that. Military responses are quite serious. The only sorts of orders which could have changed anything during those 7 minutes would have made the situation worse. (excepting Hentor the Barbarian’s scenario, I don’t agree that it would have helped, but it is at least plausible).
To be clear, I am not arguing that he thought this. I have no such evidence. I am arguing that this may be true, but I do not know for certain that he thought this at the time.
I disagree entirely. Imagine the opposit pattern were true. Agencies all over the country were waiting for his word to do whatever needed to be done. Do you really think this is a better way to run a national power? Really?
No, it started out as a bait for bush bashers. Again, you do not seem to have gotten the joke.
Yes, and for all anyone knew the hijackers were only aboard those 2 planes. We found out later they had 2 others. If I recall correctly, there were 1 or 2 which were suspected but not in fact hijacked. But again, this did not come out until after the 7 minutes were up. Again, I ask, what would you have done were you president during those 7 minutes which would have made any difference.
I agree with this characterization. They are all good examples of bad arguments turned even worse by virtue of transfering them into sound bites, and they all contribute to the degradation of our political process.
Well, of course I can. The question is waht could he have wanted to know which sould have made any difference? Even in your evaluation of his performance. Are you saying that if he had asked for the flight numbers of the hijacked planes, or the names of the pilots that would have been sufficient “intellectual curiosity” for you?
Or, perhaps, it requires the passage of a few minutes while he pulls himself together. Remember, we are not claiming that he never asked any questions. Are we? Just that he did not ask them soon enough to suit those who now want to criticize him.
I do know what I am defending him against. I am defending him against vague, specious, and unfounded charges of malfesance which happen to make for good sound bites. Adn having fun poking the boards liberals in the process. I’m in heaven. (Is it permitted to accuse myself of trolling)?
But here again, you are assuming something not in evidence. The only thing we know is that he did not issue any orders or ask any question during that 7 minutes. We do not know what his thoughts were or what conclusions he came to.
Good, vote for me next election. I would have given the country some new mirrors.
Whew!
That’s exhausting. I need to go do dishes. I’ll check back later tonight if I get the gumption. Thanks for the lively thread, BTW.
But I thought you yourself demonstrated that this would have taken more time than we had. Or are you simply saying that Mr. Ballinger would have starte his calls sooner? I thought you were saying that the president had some way to make the messages go out faster.
How about this, then President Bush call the head of the FAA and orders all flights to be given the word that some planes have been hijacked. Leave aside the fact that this could have interfered with what was then going on. Leave aside the fact that few if any humans would have thought of such a thing. It could, in fact, have slowed Mr. Ballinger down quite a bit. If he had to field calls from his boss or his bosses boss instead of paying attention to his flights, he might not have notified Flight 93 when he did. Meanwhile, we are still left with the fact that they did get notice some minutes before the hijackers struck and it did no good.
It would have been a pretty pointless question, but at least it would’ve been a question! It would have been an improvement!
Well, it’s on video that upon receiving the news, he sat there and asked nothing. For at least seven minutes, maybe more (not even “by who?” when he was told “America is under attack”). I feel pretty confident that this did not further his understanding of the events. If he’d asked a few questions, he could not have known less and might have known more. When did he start asking questions?
Then you should stop asking the same questions over and over after they’ve been answered.
Let’s say that you are at work, and in the middle of a discussion at the water cooler, an associate comes up to you and says,“I just heard that members of your family were involved in a horrible car accident!”
Do you-
A.) Continue your discussion at the cooler, figuring that the police and the fire department are professionals, or
B.) Rush to find out as much as you can as fast as you can, because you actually give a shit about your family.
You’re right about one thing, pervert, I’m probably not qualified enough to be President. It’s an extraordinarily difficult job and requires an extraordinarily talented person to fill it. But even I with my less than Presidential abilities can imagine that if I was President and someone told me “America is under attack” I’d think “I’m the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. This is probably something I should check into.” Instead you think it was appropriate to think “America is under attack. Well, my staff can handle it and they’ll let me know if they need me.” So who ends up running the country in a time of crisis; the President or his staff? And how exactly does his staff bring him up to speed if they decide they need his authorization for something. Maybe they walk back into the classroom and whisper, “Mr President, we think it’d be a good idea to launch a couple of nuclear missles right now. If you could just push this button for us, you can get back to what you were doing.”
No, Airman Doors , I don’t expect them to be supermen. I do however expect someone elected President to react *immediately * in circumstances such as those unfolding the morning of 9-11.
**Oops! I forgot Bush was appointed by the Supremes, not elected. Could this possibly be part of the problem here? **
pervert, you are my new favorite poster to quote in emails to friends and things. We laugh and we laugh. “He was simply needed to read a couple books to some kids.”
The fact is he didn’t know what was going on. That he continued to sit and stare into space proves that he didn’t WANT to know what was going on. What’s so complicated about it?
