I got mine from Peter Jennings. But also it makes sense: Who is the boss? Who pushes the button in the black box? Who tells the 5 star general what the plan is going to be?
If Bush decided to go to Washington, he was going to Washington, not Louisiana, or Nebraska. What part of Commander in Chief do you not understand?
Jeez, would you guys engage your brain cells please? Why can’t anyone see the obvious? No one knew the extent of the terrorist attacks when Bush got the alert. They didn’t have a lot of information as to what was going on, but they knew that Washington was a target. And they had no way to know that airliners were the ONLY method of attack.
You guys DO know that Bin Laden has a whole armory full of ground-to-air stinger missiles, don’t you? Does it really stretch the imagination to think that one of the plans might have been to put a guy on the ground near Andrews AFB with a Stinger, knowing that Bush would race back to Washington after hearing the news?
I guarantee you that before AF1 came back the entire area around Andrews would have been swept with a fine-tooth comb, and the approach would have been unconventional to prevent someone a couple of miles out from anticipating the approach path.
When you’re the Secret Service, and you are told that the Pentagon is hit, and New York is hit, and you’ve intercepted communications that seemed to know AF1’s special code name for the day, you don’t just go cruising home fat dumb and happy. You get the Hell out of Dodge.
There was quite a bit of criticism of Bush for not rushing back to the White House on that first day, by conservative and liberal pundits. The last couple of days have seen a number of retractions of that criticism, once people had time to reflect on what must have gone into that decision.
It has also come out that Bush finally DID override the Secret Service. They wanted him to stay overnight somewhere else, and he said “I have to address the nation tonight. I’m going to do it from the Oval office, not some bunker.” And ordered the jet home. But flying back into Washington earlier would have just been reckless and stupid.
While it now seems as if such a plan would have been unlikely to succeed, at the time there was no reason to rule such an attack out. If a plane was shot down in the vicinity of Andrews, and happened to be full of Sarin gas, or held a suitcase nuke, the President would be killed anyway. We know today that either scenario was untrue.
You listed a number of scenarios and why they would be unlikely. I’m inclined to believe that the Secret Service could come up with many more that aren’t so easily explained away. Especially if you are not allowed to assume any knowledge that has been gained from hindsight. They’re experts at being paranoid. And even if they’ve ruled out every possible scenario they can think of, they won’t gamble that someone else hasn’t thought of something they haven’t.
In any event, my argument is not that Air Force One was a target, was believed to be a target, or that the administration was telling the truth. I am merely trying to say that there is no logical reason to believe they are lying.
Exactly. You don’t run through a couple scenarios of ways Air Force One could be a target, then rationalize why they aren’t a threat. You try to toss out as many assumptions as you can (such as that the terrorists do not have chemical or biological weapons available), and look at the worst possible cases. The unlikely scenarios that can’t quite be ruled out entirely.
If the President wants to be brave and go to Washington anyway, you take whatever measures you can to dissuade him of that. Sure, he’s the President, but you’re the expert, and he will listen to you. And as the Secret Service is not part of the military, and has the Congressionally mandated responsibility to ensure the President’s safety, he can’t simply tell you to go away.
Perhaps some of you have never had someone* tell you a lie that: 1) you know is a lie and 2) there is no reason for telling the lie.
I’ve already said that I don’t care that Bush didn’t go right back to Washington. I just think this story isn’t the truth. Bush is so busy with everything concerned he probably doesn’t know much about this subject. But the rest of them, and I’m sorry to have to include Cheney, got themselves into this and had to put Cheney on TV to tell about his dragging feet. Tell a lie and you’ll have to tell more.
If there were missiles waiting for AF1 then they’d have been there that evening.
Well, your gut reaction isn’t really a good basis for a rational debate. As I said, I want to see evidence that would rule out the story having been true.
Perhaps in the evening it was possible to rule out many of the more far-fetched scenarios that could not have been ruled out as easily earlier in the day. Recall that earlier in the day there was confusion in the news media as to whether the Mall was on fire. Such was the state of confusion at the time. By the time Bush did come to DC, they may have been able to determine that the threat was no longer a cause for concern.
Thanks, kniz, I’d take that press secretary job in a heartbeat. Need someone to think rationally and logically, especially now. The problem with all the accusations regarding the president’s action is that it is assumed the only threat that existed is the hijacked airliners. We think we know that now, but do we? How much security information is it wise for the Secret Service to release at any time, much less when the nation is under attack? Seems to me that if a few more of our enlightened elected officials had engaged brain before opening mouth, and asked themselves “what would prevent the president from a prompt return to D.C.?”, then Ari Fleischer and others wouldn’t have felt under fire to explain the delay. I ask you, when the nation is under attack, which we all agree it was, who would logically be the number one target, especially once the Pentagon was hit? A member of Congress? Not likely. All of Congress? Possible. They were evacuated. The Cabinet? Again, not likely. Hmmm. The President? BINGO! I’ll say this one last time. Based on the information on hand on the day in question, it would be criminally insane to do anything but what he did. Why so many people seem to think he’s expendable, or should act that way, is a sign of a simplistic view of an incredibly complex world.
Oh, and by the way kniz, I’m a she.
I’ve got no problem with any of that and again I nominate you for your ability to state the case. That isn’t what they said is it? I heard that they had verifiable proof that the White House and AF1 were both targets. The verifiable proof turned out to be from the hijackers on the phone (verified?). Then they said that the Secret Service kept Bush from going to Washington. If you were Press Secretary would you have a hard time understanding what Commander-In-Chief means? I am sure that the Secret Service understands. So it is the spin story I’m talking about not what happened.
That is great. I really enjoyed Dee Dee.
The phrase Ari used repeatedly was “real and credible threat.” I have never heard the term “verifiable” used.
Look, if someone calls you up and says “I’m gonna throw a pipe bomb through your kid’s bedroom window in thirty seconds” and then proceeds to read your address and kid’s names, are you gonna wait to verify it? Of course not. Even if the voice sounds like a teenage kid crank calling you, even if you think it’s 90% likely a hoax you’re going to take precautions.
Pointing out that “He is the commader-in-chief” misses the point; it is within his constitutional power to order the secret service to stay in the White House while he prowls the streets of D.C. in a superhero costume looking to thwart gang activities. It would just be irresponsible; as it would be to ignore the advice of the SS in the moment of crisis.
I think the president and his security detail had to make a simple judgement call. Which is greater-- the potential threat to the POTUS from terrorists, or the need to immediately get back to D.C.?
Since there was no reason that the president MUST return RIGHT AWAY to Washington (except to mollify his critics), the decision must have been incredibly easy.
It remains silly to assert that the administration was lying and or spinning.
I never heard the government say they had proof that AF1 was a target. Do you have a cite for that? What I thought what they specifically said was that they had ‘credible’ evidence indicating that AF1 MIGHT be a target.
Saying “real and credible” evidence repeatedly sure sounds a lot better than saying they had an anonymous phone call.
A bit off topic but does anyone find it odd that they waited 5 days to release the informtion that the last plane was ordered shot down?
Here goes the long haired hippie peace creep defending George W. Republican President.
The Secret Service, and the US Air Force have spent literally billions of US dollars figuring the best way to ensure that whatever any enemy does, The United States will have a president on the second day of the big war. George W. is the Commander in Chief, not the Oracle of all Wisdom. He knows why certain folks say, “Mr. President, We have a threat code Alpha, and we are taking you to SacNorad right now. The Vice President will be in the Tube in a minute or less.” He also knows exactly what everyone has agreed we will do, in the event that there is a significant possibility that the nation is under attack.
Are the anti spin guru’s saying that the President should ignore his own security forces, and reject the planning of decades on the spur of the moment simply because the press will think he is a wimp? That sort of nonsense is beneath reasoned reply. In the opening hours of the worst attack on the United States the President decided to follow the plans that have been developed by the people who are responsible for defending the nation, and protecting its leadership. I find that a prudent, and responsible thing to do.
And within a few hours, when it became obvious that the extent of the attack did not warrant cold war pessimism, he came back. Whether or not the terrorists could reasonably expect to take out Air Force One is irrelevant. You don’t practice cowboy bullshit in an air raid drill. When you are the man with the button, you don’t get to peek out the window to see what the excitement is all about, you have to follow your plan. It’s a bummer, for the screenplay plot, but hey, that’s representative democracy for you.
What crap.
Tris
“Here Kitty, Kitty Kitty.” ~ Erwin Schrodinger ~
I want to thank y’all for opening my eyes to the fact that there was no spin put on the story in question. Everything reported surely was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Now would you help me understand the meaning of I’m not a crook and I didn’t have sex with that woman.
Yeah, we get it. You’re a cynic. Everything is spin. George Bush is a Wimp. You have no evidence, but man you sure hate to think that it was just professionals doing their job. 'Cause where’s the fun in that?
The thing is, cynical deconstruction of everything the President does at a time like this is just a wee bit inappropriate.
Sorry Sam but I am unprepared to suspend critical thought because there is a crisis. In itself this is not a big deal though it doesn’t bode well for the credibility of justifications given for future actions. If your leadership reflexively lies and spins to maintain support it needs to be discussed.
I was reminded in another thread about his father’s blatant lies regarding the Panama invasion. Certainly his declaration that Panama had declared war contained a tiny nugget of truth but it was grossly misrepresentative. I can’t believe you would argue this was a good thing. Perhaps a higher willingness to be cynical will stem the urge to engage in this sort of behavior in future.
One of the hard choices he will have in the future is whether to tell the truth.
You really throw those two situations into the same hat with Bush’s team keeping his whereabouts and the VP’s location separate?
Forget the “AF1 s a target” story – who cares if it was spin? There WAS indeed no other option but for Bush to stay in the air and away from D.C. IMO, it was incredibly common sense to keep Bush OUT of Washington while the nation’s capital was assessing what threats may have remained within D.C.
Reasonable people really think that Bush should have high-tailed it to Washington after the WTC bombing? Why? Cripes, with satellite phones and other technological marvels, the President can be in Tierra Del Fuego and still hand down important decisions. Why is anyone hot for him to be physically IN Washington?
Show me where I made any remark about George Bush being a wimp. Show me where I criticized George Bush for not immediately returning to Washington. As far as I know he has not uttered a word about the story in question. I have no problem with Bush not going back to Washington, in fact I personally thought he was headed for NORAD because to me that made the most sense.
My point is that the story in question was unnecessary. I was wrong to say the phone call was “verifiable”, but “creditable” was almost as much of a stretch. I personally was disappointed that Cheney took time to appear on TV and tell about “his day”, which was an effort to give “credit” to this story.
I think that George Bush has performed much better than I expected and the Cheney isn’t the infallible guru he has been spun to be.
“Credible”, not “creditable” – Fleischer and whoever else just said that a threat was believable.
Perhaps we can agree on this – at the time Fleischer spoke on the matter, NOBODY really knew a lot about what was going on.
Given that, surely we can see how some anonymous higher-up’s grumbling about “AF1/White House could be a target” would catch the ears of both Ari Fleischer’s team and the press. In an environment where supposition was reported to the American public alongside fact, something like the “AF1 is threatened” story was likely to emerge.
I can’t really pin that on the Bush Administration as some kind of fundamental failure or SNAFU. I imagine instead that Fleischer et al were just doing their best to field the flood of speculation swamping Washington at the time – speculation on which Fliescher was expected to comment knowledgably.
How so?
Even I’m getting tired of this topic, but I don’t see why so many people are so willing to unquestionably listen to the spin and not question it’s veracity.
In my opinion, the president fled to Nebraska out of a need to not only protect himself, but the safety of the nation. Furthermore, it was under the specific recommendations of the secret service, not orders from the service.
He returns to Washington after the all clear is given by a group of- for obvious reasons- jumpy security personnel.
Once he gets back, he see’s, or more correctly, his staff sees, the incredible job Mayor Rudolph Guiliani is doing in the face of real danger.
The mayor’s actions are inspirational to many, while the presidents are… hmmmm.
Light bulb goes off, or maybe damage control mode kicks in, and the idea to spin this sucker big-time, takes off.
The White House presents the spin that it was the president himself who wanted to return, but the secret service refused to let him due to “verifiable” threats made against the president (I too heard, “Verifiable” as the key word being said at that time, maybe it’s since been rescinded) and a skeptical press says, “Huh!?!”
They say “Huh” because it doesn’t make sense. He fled for a bunker. He could have returned, but it wouldn’t have been wise. I fully believe that’s true, at that time. Personally, I think it would have been better to go back to Washington, rather than Nebraska, but that’s only my opinion. And, I should add, it’s an opinion I held the day the events were unfolding.
Had he gone back, he would have looked as head-strong and fearless as Guiliani did, not a person being told what to do.
And maybe that’s the part that bothers me. The White House is saying, or I’m hearing it as, ‘the president didn’t have a choice in the matter’. Come on, of course he had a say in it, he’s the commander in chief- he can say and do what he wants. Saying he didn’t takes away from the issue that at some point the president said, ‘O.K… Let’s go the Nebraska’. He had to have said that at some time, but the White House would like to spin it that he didn’t.
And instead of looking at the real question here, people have decided to criticize the collective press, and people, who went, “Huh”.
This isn’t rip on the president or what he did, it’s a criticism on how the White House wanted to spin this thing. It, to me anyway, is how they want to make President Bush look more like what they wanted him to be- Guiliani- than what he was- Bush.
That, in and of itself, is the issue- the spin job. The fact that those questioning this series of events on behalf of the White House, is, to me at least, surprising.
Sorry, this should have been included in my original post above-
I was talking to some friends about this very thing and one commented that it would have been great to see a figure like Winston Churchill in this situation, if only to see how he handled it.
It was my bet, and his, that Churchill would have been right in the middle of it, stoically sticking his middle finger up to those that did this horrible act.
And that, at the very least, is what I’m second-guessing here-
As awfull as the moment was, it gave the president the ultimate chance to step up to the plate and nail a home run. In my opinion, he didn’t. He missed the opportunity of his administration.
Then, adding to that missed opportunity, was the spin that came out of the White House. Them trying to say he wanted to step up to the plate, and would have hit a home run, if it weren’t for the secret service.
Please.
That, in itself, is what disappointed me the most.
Am I critical of the president? No. Do I stand behind the president? Yes.
Do I think, and almost wish, he handled it differently? Absolutely.
But he didn’t. I can live with that. I can’t live, or remain quiet, when people say what happened wasn’t what was really happening.