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

[pervert]

@Marley23

Of course, and I’ll assume you didn’t know this, the line I was talking about was “The point isn’t exactly what the President could have done in retrospect that would have made the difference. Rather, the question is whether this President has the intellectual curiosity in a crisis to find out what is going on and what the options are.” (And also “I tend to think that engaging your brain and learning the facts about a situation is the first step in planning a course of action.”)

Well, yes, this does change the question, but not in a uesful direction. I’m sorry, but 7 minutes is not such a long time to finish what one is in the middle of, even in a crisis. Especially if you have trusted people handling all the details anyway.

What’s incongruous here? Could he have solved the crisis? No. Would it have probably been a good idea to try and take the very first steps in planning? mmmmaybe. Instead, he figured one way or the other that ten minutes or so during a crisis wouldn’t make a difference.

Yes, he figured that 10 minutes one way or the other of his personal time would not make the difference. Want to try to prove he was wrong?

I’m not playing Kreskin. I’m talking about the attitude that this response projects.

Yes, you are playing Kreskin. You are attributing thoughts to President Bush which are not in evidence. Your interpretation is not totally crazy, but neither is it proof of malfeasance. It certainly is not worthy of the emotional response most of you gave on the first page of this post.

If there is a crisis in your life, nevermind the Presidency - say it’s at your office and you’re the boss - and you’re told about it, and your response is to sit there and take your sweet time doing an unimportant task, doesn’t that suggest you don’t think the situation is very important? (Any time you don’t deal with a situation right away, you’re at least indicating your time is better spent elsewhere.)

But again, it depends on the level I’m at and the level that the crisis is at. If I am the CEO of GE and someone says a fire in one of our generators has occured, what exactly am I going to do to solve it? What am I going to do to make it better?

But you’d be completely ridiculous to do so, since I wasn’t attributing it as a comment from anyone.

No, but you did suggest that it is the only reasonable interpretation of the facts. You did so, in fact, without suggesting that you were making an interpretation of the facts. I didn’t ask for a cite because I understand this. I suggested I might because I wanted to make sure you did. Thank you for clearing it up.

I didn’t suggest he brushed them off.

No, you suggested that he returned to doing soming unimportant and that he left them with the impression that they were not to bother him. You didn’t use the word brush off, but you certainly implied it when you said:“But why would he react in a manner that says ‘I need no further information on this right now because I’m too busy reading to these kindergarteners?’”

Again, this suggests that reading to the kiddies is more appropriate at that point in time than asking questions about the attack, getting any information that is available, or indeed doing anything.

And for those few minutes it may have been.

Yeah, those softie Democrats, always wanting empathy instead of a man who decisively leads by sitting around and then chatting for a few minutes. :rolleyes:

Well, can you explain what substantive argument is being made then? Really, the only thing I have culled from this thread (and the others that I have read but not participated in) is that you guys wanted Bush to have done something, anything with no clear idea of what that would be. The only reasons you give for wanting some sort of action is that it would have shown Bush to be more “copnected” to the people. I characterize this as “feeling your pain”.

[pervert]

@jshore

pervert, you are certainly a natural defense lawyer. As I said in another thread on a very different topic involving Bush, if I committed murder I’d want you as my lawyer (or, better yet, in the jury) because you seem to be able rationalize just about anything when you want to!

Thanks very much. Really. I consider it a high virtue to be put myself in the mindset of others. Especially without maing condecending or insulting assumptions about them. It allows me to interpret things in very unusual ways. It allows me to “pervert” them if you will.

I am not a lawyer (but I watch them on TV ;)).

[ElectricZ]

@Shodan

I’ve said it before, and it is still true. If Bush reacted instantly, you would have said he panicked. If he waits to find out the situation before acting, you say he froze.

It’s not true, Shodan.

We’re debating his inaction, not an overreaction that never happened. “Bush reacting instantly” includes excusing himself to find out what’s going on. It includes getting with his staffers to make sure he’s got all the information he needs to make decisions. It includes, at a basic level, finding a TV set and turning it on any channel with a news team to see if something unbelievable just happened, or if the reports are exaggerated. Had he reacted in any of those ways, I’d be satisfied.

But he just sat there. Nobody’s speculating about that. And when he finally did start reacting, after having been briefed (repeating the 9/11 Commission Report again)

Between 9:15 and 9:30, the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. As far as we know, no one was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President’s statement to the nation. No decisions were made during this time, other than the decision to return to Washington.

Can you explain to me how this is acceptable behavior for a national leader, Shodan? This really pisses me off, and party politics has nothing to do with it.

Here’s a topic for debate. How would Bush 41, or Ronald Reagan have reacted on the morning of 9/11? Think there would have been a difference?

EZ

[pervert]

@ElectricZ

The problem here is that he didn’t even try. He’s the Commander in Chief, the head of our armed forces. As such it is his responsibility and duty to react when the country is attacked.

But you see, this is exactly wrong. It is not the responsibility of the President to react at all when the country is attacked. The whole idea is that we have a military and civil defence structure which reacts much faster than it could if it had to wait for orders from Washinton. I’m sorry*, I understand that you are emotionally attached to the idea that the President will personally take command of … something. That he will personally do … something. But the fact of the matter is that the details of an attack such as this would only have been slowed down if they had been controlled or had to report every few minutes to some central location.

[QUOTE]
Many balls were dropped on 9/11 because of lapses in communication and cases of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing.
[/QUOTEThere were some, yes. But I thought the report said quite clearly that many people did excellent jobs with little or no training for what happened. You might call that dropped balls, but I don’t.

Many middle-level people who were NOT the president were making decisions and taking action. How many times do you think someone said “get me the President?” “What’s the President say?”

I don’t know. Care to document even one?

If the captain of a warship had been attacked but was absent from the bridge for 7-20 minutes afterwards, what do you think would happen to him? It’s inexcusable for a man in a leadership position not to assume control in an emergency. That’s what leaders are for.

Again, a refusal to understand the the President is different from the captain of a ship.

The arguments defending Bush amount to “Meh, what could he have done, he’s only human. He’ll do better next time.”

No offence, but actually the defence of Bush in this thread amounts to something closer to Ha Ha.

[Loopydude]

@Muffin

In light of many of the major decisions Bush has approved since 9/11, it would have been best if Bush had spent far more time reading “My Pet Goat” rather than attempting to be a president.

Bush’s lack of intellectual curiosity, poor judgment, and improper behaviour which he displayed at the start of 9/11 did not cause any harm, but were illustrative of his utter inadequacy as a president, which since then has led to terrible mistakes that have harmed both the USA and other nations.

Until the Americans wise up and dump the dodo, it would be best to keep Bush busy studying “My Pet Goat” rather than attempting to be the war leader of the world’s most powerful nation.

Precisely. We can make these wonderful academic arguments about what constitutes the proper response of a commander-in-chief faced with such a crisis; but as soon as Dubya stopped sitting and blinking, things went downhill precipitously. Sure, maybe that moment provided some evidence of a certain lack of competence; but nearly everything since then has beaten us silly with the proof. If he’d stick to reading “Curious George” instead of being one, the nation, and I daresay, the world would be better off.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Shodan

I’ve said it before, and it is still true. If Bush reacted instantly, you would have said he panicked. If he waits to find out the situation before acting, you say he froze.

It’s actually no more true now than it was before. Keep repeating it, but it will not change.

Are conservatives really so limited in their ability to comprehend something other than a (false) dichotomy? He was either inert or he had to panic! Silliness.

And, wow, pervert! Do you really believe that you are good at putting yourself “in the mindset” of others?" Hmmm. It doesn’t really come across that well in text. Maybe it’s different in person.

[Jon_the_Geek]

@Shodan

This is all based on the apparent belief that, unless the President specifically and clearly asks, his staffers will make no effort to find out more about a terrorist attack. If Bush doesn’t ask, they will just sit there and do nothing.

Or else they already had the information, but they felt like playing “Twenty Questions” with the leader of the free world, and he didn’t ask, so they didn’t tell him.

Do you really believe this?

Not in the least. I’m sure the aides were finding out information. The problem is, the President wasn’t. The President didn’t seem to want any information unless they told him he wanted it. A leader should want to be informed.

[choie]

The only reasons you give for wanting some sort of action is that it would have shown Bush to be more “copnected” to the people.

Nooooo, we’ve been saying that it would have shown Bush to be an active, intellectually involved leader connected to the country of which he’s the commander in chief.

I was sleeping when my sister called me about the first plane attack. I immediately wanted to find out what was going on, and hurried to inform myself. I expect no less of a president.

Remember Bush’s own phrase, “The soft bigotry of lowered expectations”? Seems like a couple of folks here are falling into that trap. Dang, pervert, why you wanna be hatin’ on your own president?

[pervert]

@ElectricZ

We’re debating his inaction, not an overreaction that never happened.

Except we are not.

Also from the commission report

At 8:55, before entering the classroom, the President spoke to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice,who was at theWhite House.She recalled first telling the President it was a twin-engine aircraft—and then a commercial aircraft—that had struck theWorldTrade Center,adding “that’s all we know right now, Mr. President.”

At the White House,Vice President Dick Cheney had just sat down for a meeting when his assistant told him to turn on his television because a plane had struck the NorthTower of theWorldTrade Center.TheVice President was wondering “how the hell could a plane hit the World Trade Center” when he saw the second aircraft strike the South Tower.

Elsewhere in theWhite House,a series of 9:00 meetings was about to begin. In the absence of information that the crash was anything other than an accident, the White House staff monitored the news as they went ahead with their regular schedules.

[…]

The FAA and White House Teleconferences. The FAA,theWhite House, and the Defense Department each initiated a multiagency teleconference before 9:30. Because none of these teleconferences—at least before 10:00— included the right officials from both the FAA and Defense Department,none succeeded in meaningfully coordinating the military and FAA response to the hijackings.
[…]

It resumed at 9:37 as an air threat conference call,* which lasted more than eight hours.The President,Vice President,Secretary of Defense,Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley all participated in this teleconference at various times, as did military personnel from the White House underground shelter and the President’s military
aide on Air Force One

[…]

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 toVice President Cheney,Dr.Rice,NewYork 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.

Then we have your favorite paragraph.

Between 9:15 and 9:30,the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing.Staff was in contact with theWhite House Situation Room, but as far as we could determine,no one with the President was in contact with the Pentagon.The focus was on the President’s statement to the nation.The only decision made during this time was to return to Washington.

You see, I get that put alone by itself, your paragraph seems to indicate that the president blithley ignored information which was there for the asking. He shows a lack of “intellectual curiosity”. But the preceding paragraphs show quite clearly that there was not coherent information to be gleaned in those 7 miutes. No orders which had to wait for those 7 minutes. And finally no reason whatsoever that Bush should have done anything different than he did. With the exception, of course that he did not “feel our pain”.

But his recolection indicates that he thought it his job at that time in that place to project an image of calm. Perhaps rather than simply feeling our pain, he was trying to alleviate it in some small way. The only way, incidentally, that was open to him.

This is why the accusation against Kerry is funny. It is totally ridiculous to suggest that he could have or should have done something different than he did for those 40 minutes. It is at least as silly to suggest that Bush should have done anything different than he did.

[pervert]

@Hentor the Barbarian

And, wow, pervert! Do you really believe that you are good at putting yourself “in the mindset” of others?" Hmmm. It doesn’t really come across that well in text. Maybe it’s different in person.

I meant, in the context of this thread, putting myself in the mindset of President Bush on that morning. Being able to see the issue from his side. I have not been trying to see the issue from your side. Would you like me to try?

[pervert]

@choie

Nooooo, we’ve been saying that it would have shown Bush to be an active, intellectually involved leader connected to the country of which he’s the commander in chief.

Which is different from what I said how? If you remove any and all effective questions or commands, how is this different than simply “feeling your pain”?

I was sleeping when my sister called me about the first plane attack. I immediately wanted to find out what was going on, and hurried to inform myself. I expect no less of a president.

Since you like analogies so much (Not you, choie, but you guys) let me ask you, if you thought that your hurried actions might have caused more panic, would you have been so quick? Might you have delayed? Perhaps, even for a few minutes?

[pervert]

@furlibusea

I remember that morning, I remember every instinct I had was to get in the car and go get my daughter from school, and just hold her. I guess if President Bush didn’t want to dissapoint kids and wanted to hold a child right before dealing with the first attack on American soil since pearl harbor, then I guess I can understand it. In the end this is a silly argument. Those that like the man will not be persueded by this, for those of us that dont like the man this really isn’t a deciding factor. For those few who haven’t decided it must be an alienating argument.

Can you help me with something then? I still cannot get my head wrapped around the emotional attachement to this issue. If, as you say, “those of us that dont like the man this really isn’t a deciding factor”, then whence comes the angst? Why did so many take the OP so personally? OR at least react so viscerally? Why is it still so hard to find any opponents of Bush who get the joke? Any advice on this would be very much appreciated.

[emarkp]

@Askia

Seeing as hoe Michael Moore was the one who promoted that 7 minute revelation in the first place, and I don’t recall Kerry mentioning it once

He mentioned it Aug 5 in his address to the Unity 2004 conference.

Here’s one link.

[pervert]

@DMC

If the president is on the radio, telling me that there are hijackers in my plane, that they WILL crash it if they get in the cockpit, and knowing that I have an axe in the cockpit, I can guarantee you that I will at the very least slow those terrorists down to a crawl, and find a landing strip fast. I may or may not pull it off, but I’d sure as hell like the opportunity to give it a shot.

Reading stories about goats takes that opportunity away.

Well, it most certainly did nothing of the kind. Perhaps you could point out the technology he would have used to speak to every civilian pilot in the air at the time. And just for the record, they did, apperently have 7 minutes warning (not those 7 minutes, a different 7). Are you saying that 7 more would have allowed them to get the axe from its case?

[pervert]

@Equipoise

pervert, what were you doing that morning, and what did you do when you first heard that something was happening? What did you hear and what did you do when you heard it?

Sorry, I almost missed your questions. I started viewing the news after the second plane had hit. Yes, for your information, I watched quite a bit of news that day and the next. OF course, I’m not the president, and if I panicked a little or showed fear, no one noticed. If Bush had done much more than he did, everyone would have noticed. As they all did when he began to be shuttled to safe locations.

Anyone else remember the jokes about “Sure, he tells us to go about our daily lives while the Secret Service hides him in secure locations.”?

[Shodan]

@ElectricZ

It’s not true, Shodan.

We’re debating his inaction, not an overreaction that never happened. “Bush reacting instantly” includes excusing himself to find out what’s going on. It includes getting with his staffers to make sure he’s got all the information he needs to make decisions. It includes, at a basic level, finding a TV set and turning it on any channel with a news team to see if something unbelievable just happened, or if the reports are exaggerated.

But, as I thought I had pointed out, the President does not have to take any particular action to compel his staff to collect as much reliable information as quickly as humanly possible. Unless, as I said, you think his staff is going to sit around on their hands unless he specifically tells them to start collecting information. Which is, frankly, a pretty ridiculous notion.

And you want him to turn on the TV? In a crisis, you think the President of the United States has no more reliable or up-to-date sources of information than CNN? I heard one report that there had been bombings in Washington DC. I think it was even mentioned in the SDMB thread of 9/11. Do you think Bush should have disregarded everything else, and believed that?

Because, after all, nothing is real until it is on TV. :rolleyes:

@ElectricZ

Had he reacted in any of those ways, I’d be satisfied.

I doubt that. You and the rest would have flamed him for “watching TV during a crisis! Abandoning those poor, innocent children! PANICKING!”

@pervert

Can you help me with something then? I still cannot get my head wrapped around the emotional attachement to this issue. If, as you say, “those of us that dont like the man this really isn’t a deciding factor”, then whence comes the angst? Why did so many take the OP so personally? OR at least react so viscerally? Why is it still so hard to find any opponents of Bush who get the joke? Any advice on this would be very much appreciated.

Because hatred of Bush among a certain element of the Left is so visceral. And this is threatening to their view of Bush as anti-Christ, and so the topic makes them uncomfortable.

Airman Doors had it exactly right. Applying the same logic to Kerry makes it clear.

Regards,
Shodan

[choie]

pervert, I can’t fathom how you can distill “being decisive and engaged enough to seek information immediately about the fact that his country was under attack” into “feeling our pain.” You’re stretching our words to make a rather feeble and dismissive joke.

But his recolection indicates that he thought it his job at that time in that place to project an image of calm. Perhaps rather than simply feeling our pain, he was trying to alleviate it in some small way. The only way, incidentally, that was open to him.

Look, are you aware that this event wasn’t being broadcast live? He wasn’t “projecting” this alleged image of calm to the nation! As far as the kids in the classroom are concerned, they wouldn’t have “panicked” if he’d taken ten seconds to pull himself together, gotten up, said “I’m so sorry, I need to take an important phone call,” and left. He’s THE PRESIDENT, for God’s sake! I mean, teachers are called out of the classroom all the time for one reason or another, and the kids don’t freak out.

To answer your question regarding “what if my search for information resulted in panic,” I’ll say this:

If I had to choose between a) potentially causing some concern and confusion in some kids, or b) delaying getting more information about an attack currently occuring on my country’s soil, I sure as hell would choose the latter.

It’s absolutely incomprehensible to me that you think anyone with any sense, especially a President, would choose the former. The fact that George Bush did says a helluva lot about his ability to make sound decisions in moments of crisis.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@pervert

Well, it most certainly did nothing of the kind. Perhaps you could point out the technology he would have used to speak to every civilian pilot in the air at the time. And just for the record, they did, apperently have 7 minutes warning (not those 7 minutes, a different 7). Are you saying that 7 more would have allowed them to get the axe from its case?

I explicitly walked you throught the timing on this. They initially received the warning 4 minutes before the attack. They sought clarification of the message 2 minutes before the attack. (It seems that the warning came via some text communication system, but I would want to confirm that).

The attack on flight 93 came 23 minutes after Bush was told of the second plane hitting the tower.

(By the way, here you also repeat the idea of “all civilian” pilots. Are you sure you are good at putting yourself “in the mindset” of others?)

[cheddarsnax]

@pervert

No, it started out as a bait for bush bashers.

Heh.

[Voyager]

@pervert

Can you help me with something then? I still cannot get my head wrapped around the emotional attachement to this issue. If, as you say, “those of us that dont like the man this really isn’t a deciding factor”, then whence comes the angst? Why did so many take the OP so personally? OR at least react so viscerally? Why is it still so hard to find any opponents of Bush who get the joke? Any advice on this would be very much appreciated.

The reason this isn’t a deciding factor is that Bush’s actions that day are exactly in line with our opinion of him. He’s the stereotypical bosse’s son - nice guy, everyone likes him, but not the person who built the business, and someone who should be watched by those who are truly competent so he doesn’t mess things up too badly.

But the OP is a splendid version of Bushista hypocracy. (And if it were a parody, it would be a great one.) Here is a President who pretends he is a great warrior, but who jumped the line into the Guard do he wouldn’t get his rich ass shot at, and then who couldn’t even show up for that, criticizing someone who put himself into danger.

I also can’t help thinking about the days of the Cold War, when a seven minute delay could mean the difference between life and death for the nation. I can’t imagine Ronald Reagan sitting around for seven to ten minutes after being told the nation is under attack, can you? Or Bush Sr?