I agree that the claim that AF1 was a target were absurd to begin with (see the threads on this subject on this board, in which it was asserted that even finding Af1 would be “like a needle in a haystack if you’re also a needle.”).
However, Bush’s actions were absolutely justified. He should not have been anywhere near DC until there was an Air Force base was secured and that means that all planes are out of the air. I would have regarded it as foolhardy, and nearly suicidal, to land at an unsecured AFB or landing strip at a time like that.
And count me as another Democrat, who didn’t vote for him, thinks he’s an idiot, and wishes he didn’t look like a scared 8 year old on National television. Nevertheless he did the RIGHT thing in this situation.
I agree on all counts with this. Staying in DC at the time would have been idiotic posturing.
Some of compared Bush unfavorably to Kennedy, who stayed in DC during the cuban missile crisis. I’m no expert on the CMC, but I think Kennedy was wrong. Why risk giving the enemy such a valuable victory?
I read in an article in Time magazine that Bush wanted to address the nation, and didn’t want to wait for as long as it would have taken them to get to NORAD, so he had them land at Shreveport to give his speech before taking off again.
With regards to everyone else who has said that the White House was not actually the target…fine. So it probably wasn’t. But could anyone have known that for sure on the day of the attacks? I agree with Deej. I mean, we sure didn’t predict that a couple of planes would hit the WTC, did we? I still maintain that the safest and smartest thing to do was for the President to move to a safe location for awhile.
Frankly, I don’t know why everyone cares so much about the President’s location, anyway. It’s not like he can’t run the country effectively from NORAD or wherever. Sure, it looks great symbolically to have him standing in the White House while attacks are happening all over the country, but as I’ve said before, it also looks incredibly stupid. What would you rather have, a live President who is still capable of running the country, or a dead President who cared more about symbolism than safety?
Yeah right. We should let Bush telecommute full-time from Bumfuck, Texas, he doesn’t need to be in DC where other political leaders can consult with him in a time of crisis. Bush has declared that he is our first “CEO President” but he doesn’t seem to realize that his other executives don’t have any powers as Commander-in-Chief.
And there’s the rub. Apparently Bush never learned basic military philosophy in the few months he served at the Texas Air National Guard before going AWOL. One basic principle he might have learned is that a commander cannot expect his troops to execute an order he isn’t willing to execute himself. Leadership by example and all that. Bush is completely lacking in leadership, unless you think that hiding in a foxhole is setting a good example for our soldiers.
Salon.com does not fit MY model of a respectable news source.
The only time the word “lie” was used other than by non-official sources, was from an unnamed military official, who may or may not have been referring to the specifics of the OP.
The President was in Miami when the airliners were impacting. Should he have teleported back to the white house?
I do not know for certain that a sidewinder missle can hit a target advancing from the rear, or from the side.
Missles do, in fact, miss. Ask Israel.
The president is the elected leader of our country. His responsibilities include staying alive to serve the nation in his elected capacity.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
Misinformation is a counter-intelligence tactic. Unless you’d like us to give details on exactly what we’re going to do, when and where, I’m sure that it will continue to be a tactic. Deal with it.
I think Manservant has hit the nail on the head here. Citing Salon.com as a reference in an argument against President Bush is like citing The National Review in an argument against Teddy Kennedy. The bias is so pervasive that all of their arguments fail to hold water.
Bush’s actions are completely justified and the fact that so many posters here feel pissed or betrayed makes no sense. Cheney appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday Sept. 16th and described being physically removed from his office by the Secret Service and carried to a secure bunker in the basement of the White House. To think that in times of crisis our governmental leaders are running their own security matter is false. The Sec. Svc. and the military have outlined a set course of action for them so that it is difficult or impossible to decapitate our federal government.
I realize that many people feel angry about the result of our last pres. election, but to challenge Bush for being smart, safe, and responsible on Sept. 11 is low. It just shows what some people will stoop to in order to embarass the guy.
Y’know, even given my low opinion of Bush, I consider that a cheap shot. It was a cheap shot when the Rush Limbaughs of the world did it to Clinton, and it was a cheap shot when the past and present GOP Congressional leadership lauded Rush and his cronies for using that sort of tactic to bring them to power in 1994, and it’s a cheap shot on Bush now. Give it a rest.
People deserve a statute of limitations; unless you’ve killed, raped, maimed, or done something else in that ballpark, you don’t deserve to have your youthful sins follow you around for your whole bloomin’ life. Even if you’re George Walker Bush.
Misinformation is a counter-intelligence tactic when it’s used to confuse the enemy, not one’s own people.
How does it confuse bin Laden if the White House claimed AF1 was threatened, if it wasn’t? He knows what his targets were; the only side fooled is the home team. I’m all for throwing smoke in an opponent’s eyes, and I am aware that in wartime, it may occasionally involve some smoke in the eyes of the American people. But when we can’t see and they can, then that’s just the same old same old of leaders BSing their own people for their own purposes.
MsWhatsit:
I still think it was a mistake at the time. NORAD was probably only an hour away, and earlier - after hearing about the second plane hitting the second WTC tower - he’d spent another 15 minutes reading to the kids or whatever he was doing that morning.
A pretty minor mistake, in retrospect - and I think the boy’s done us proud since then. But at the time, it felt extremely disquieting. (I’m surprised, btw, that they don’t have a telecom setup on AF1 so that the President could be on TV from up in the air.)
Do you have a cite for that? Or can you point out on a photo of AF1 where those Sidewinders are mounted? **
[/QUOTE]
I saw this in a documentary on Air Force One, but alas I cannot find a web cite. The sidewinders are supposedly mounted on retractable pods inside the belly of the plane.
I thought that I explained what I meant, but I guess not so here goes. The bias in Salon against the Republicans in general and Bush in particular is so evident and pervasive that their arguments come off sounding like every other bit of bashing that they have published. It’s the boy who cried wolf. All Salon ever does is beat the living shit out of the President - non-stop everyday 24/7. So now they claim that their unnamed sources are saying that there never was any threat. Big surprise there. It seems to me that Salon is just getting mileage out of the one miniscule bit of political controversy in this whole tragedy and finding an excuse to be on George. I don’t find Salon to be a credible source on information at all - merely just a loud, partisan voice from the left. So if I were trying to present an argument criticizing the President’s actions on Sept. 11th, the last source that I would use to build my assertion would be Salon.
Mmmmm. So I guess all the members of Congress who were airlifted out of D.C. to “secure locations” on the morning of September 11 are a bunch of cowards also? Give me a break. The morning of September 11 was a time of complete chaos. The twin towers were hit, the Pentagon was hit, another plane went down, other planes were unaccounted for, there was a report of an explosion at the State Department (since determined to be false), there were reports of other explosions on Capitol Hill (also false), all within about a two hour time period. Did I miss anything? Yeah, it would have been brilliant for Bush to return to the middle of all of that, the sissy. Also, it would have been brilliant to have Bush and Cheney in the same location. Can you say President Hastert? Sheesh.
P.S. It seems to me this thread should be moved to Great Debates.
This is not true. The President does not have the authority to refuse the protection of the Secret Service. They can and will forcibly remove him from wherever he is if there is an emergency, completely against his will if necessary.
The relevant law is Title 18 of the US Code somewhere; can’t find it right now though.
This is not true. The President does not have the authority to refuse the protection of the Secret Service. They can and will forcibly remove him from wherever he is if there is an emergency, completely against his will if necessary.
The relevant law is in Title 18 of the US Code somewhere; can’t find it right now though.
What, do you think that there was a guy on a camel waiting to run it across the oceans to Bin Laden, carrying news? A coconut-laden swallow? The news travels by CNN these days, baby, not so much the Pony Express. Frankly, Neither you nor I has a list of all the possible targets. And, to be sure, the US government didn’t either.
Have you ever played poker? There comes a point, when you’re playing for high stakes, when you just gotta bluff.
Surely, you can see where I’m going with this…if not, I’ll continue.
So. The Feds didn’t know what all was targeted. We didn’t know where every airplane in the country was, we were dealing with three enormous tragedies. Confusion, chaos, and tragedy are rampant. The White House staff, playing what they’re dealt say “Okay, I don’t know what you’re doing, but in case you’re doing what I think you’re doing, I’m saying that I already know about it, and am making maneuvers to thwart it.”
At near light-speed, the news of this travels into space, bounces off a sattelite, and is presented to Osama. Maybe he was planning an attack. If that’s the case, he says :
“Aw fuck it. They figured it out. Try again next time.”
Until you know all the facts, which you most assuredly do not, since nobody else has them all yet, to assume that the intent of these statements was to mislead the American people solely, is folly.
Chas, if you can find anything, I’d be obliged. Everything I’ve ever read on AF1 indicates that it carries passive anti-missile technology, but no fixed or otherwise offensive armament.
Could a 747 in flight even fire a missile? That would be damned cool.
thermalribbon - so because Salon’s (and the National Review’s) arguments are heavily slanted, that means their facts aren’t to be trusted?
Sorry. I don’t buy. In either case.
There are numerous very partisan sources on both sides that can be trusted with a fact.
Manservant Hecubus - Remember, we aren’t talking just about the hours immediately following the attacks; we’re talking about the following two weeks of misinformation. There was no poker game going on then regarding an attack on 9/11; 9/11 had come and gone.