# Yet another "Bush's 7 minutes" thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 9, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115 "2004-08-09T23:37:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/83 "2004-08-12T13:00:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It is right in front of your eyes, you blind fucking Chihuahua. I’m still not sure what you’re saying. I asked for a pointer to where you’d previously set out your agenda. It’s on the internet somewhere? It’s in this thread somewhere? Where? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/84 "2004-08-12T13:21:03Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > It’s a distinction without a difference. No, there is quite a difference. A person can happily attack one candidate without supporting another. You are using the ‘If you are not with us, then you are against us’ mentality, you know. Ironic. > [@](#): > > It’s arguable that the US never defended South Vietnam, it only attacked North Vietnam. And the US actually criticized South Vietnam at the same time, and so therefore was a fair and balanced judge of the situation. I suppose it is arguable, if you are a fucking moron. Hey! Speak of the devil… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/85 "2004-08-12T13:32:33Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > I’m still not sure what you’re saying. I asked for a pointer to where you’d previously set out your agenda. It’s on the internet somewhere? It’s in this thread somewhere? Where? Actually, I’m glad you’re such a disingenuous little snot. It gave me the opportunity to archive and bookmark my statements on this matter. From just the first page: 1. [His tyranny](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5157834&postcount=36) has been steadfast and predictable. 2. That gives me an opportunity to express once again my own opinion, namely that [Bush is a tyrant](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5140735&postcount=44) for reviewing any of the options and weighing anything at all besides whether Saddam was responsible for 9/11… He should have been doing his duty to secure our rights; instead, he has done his best to abridge and trample them. 3. They’re almost all liars, so what I need is a whopper like this one under discussion in order really to cite it when I bash [Bush for his tyranny](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5139006&postcount=9). 4. I have been begging for some time now that people refrain from these infantile nit-pickings and childish third-grade plays on names and call [Bush what he really is — an hegemonistic and imperialist tyrant](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5127177&postcount=2) who is determined to seize wealth and power for himself at the expense of our freedom. 5. I say [to the RNC] show us [your true face](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5124458&postcount=1). Make John Asshole your keynote speaker. Put him up there to boast about the new powers you have given him — to hold us in custody indefinitely, to sneak into our homes while we’re away, to inspect our activities in our churches, to read our e-mail, to find out what books we checked out from the library, to listen to our phone calls, to peer into our medical, mental health, financial, educational, and bank records, and to listen in on conversations between attorneys and clients in federal custody — all without probable cause and all without notifying us about what the hell they’re up to. Put the man behind the podium who will tell us that the Statue of David is obscene. Give us the face of your party that opposes gay marriage and other basic human rights. Let the world know exactly what we’ve gotten from you for the past four years — reckless spending, growth in government, new bureaucracies, new deficits, new wars, loss of freedom, increased corporate welfare, new trade restrictions, new capitalism-choking regulations, and loss of all international credibility — and how we can expect more of the same for the next four years if we elect you. Put someone up there to show us why opposition to the United States in some countries is now approaching 100%. 6. Like I said, people are concerned about a gnat while the whole place stinks from a camel’s ass. [Bush is a tyrant](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5118712&postcount=130) — that’s what’s wrong with him. 7. I’m disappointed when you pit Bush for mispronouncing words, or for having a goofy hairdo, or for not running out of the school like George Costanza in an apartment fire. If any of you ever decides to [pit him for his tyranny](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5115022&postcount=23), I will be delighted. 8. Meanwhile, Al Gore has blatantly [exposed Bush for the tyrant that he is](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5063627&postcount=116). No borrowed directoral techniques. No coy, leading, and unanswered questions. No piddly shit minutiae analyzed into irrelevance. And from this thread (twice before this one): 1. While you fret over piddly shit like how he pronounces nuclear, and how 300 seconds is some big fucking deal, I am citing his Patriot [sic] Act, his mad-cow Attorney General, his bloating of the federal government when he is supposed to be a conservative, his creation of whole new cabinet level departments, his spending like a drunken leftist sailor, his world hegemony, his fiscal irresponsibility, and his complete disregard for the sanctity of man’s consent. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/86 "2004-08-12T13:37:29Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > No, there is quite a difference. A person can happily attack one candidate without supporting another. You are using the ‘If you are not with us, then you are against us’ mentality, you know. Ironic. No, it’s not “if you are not with us you’re against us” at all. It’s “If you are against us, you’re against us, so fuck the fuck off.” > [@Brutus](#): > > I suppose it is arguable, if you are a fucking moron. Hey! Speak of the devil… Well, yes. I used it as an analogy to try to help you understand. And I pointed out that “Most philosophers would regard this argument as a load of dingos kidneys”. I really, really, really can’t help it if you can’t understand which one of us is the “fucking moron”. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/87 "2004-08-12T13:39:52Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > No, it’s not “if you are not with us you’re against us” at all. It’s “If you are against us, you’re against us, so fuck the fuck off.” What was that about a distinction without a difference? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/88 "2004-08-12T13:41:28Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > What was that about a distinction without a difference? Desmostylus is that rare breed that likes to pretend he is both stupid and clever. ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/89 "2004-08-12T14:13:56Z")
[Wish y’all had fired up this thread whilst I was still at work yesterday. Now I have to respond hijackingly late. . . .] > [@pervert](#): > > Then you would make a pretty poor president indeed. President is not firman, firechief, soldier, or even general. The nation was under attack. President Bush wanted to speak to the nation to assure us that people were responding to the attacks, and that America was not about to fall. He wrote the remarks while his aides were preparing to leave. > > As in “_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._”. He had already talked to his security people, and wanted to convey what he could as soon as possible to the American people. While I respect your opinion that the President should have grabbed a fire hose, or something, I think it is silly. You’ve misstated my position. On the previous page I said I didn’t expect Bush to grab a fire hose (or, as I put it, an F-102) and do the scut work himself. So what is a president supposed to be? PR-Guy-in-Chief? Now I’m not surprised Bush responded this way, since being a front man seems to be the only thing he has ever been good at; and these days political governance seems to be about eighty percent spin. (Sounds like we have the makings of a good GD thread here.) If you’re content with a president who is in the business mostly for the curtain calls, so be it. But I’m hung up on the old-fashioned notion that leaders should lead. And to my weary eyes, ol’ George was a bit slow on the uptake that day. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/90 "2004-08-12T14:17:04Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Which is why I brought up the hypothetical example of a guy with a gun. Obviously, the SS could have gotten him out of there more or less instantly if they’d wanted to. I doubt the SS really has any time setting other than “instantly” when they decide to spring into action. But I think we’re now more or less arguing at cross-purposes. I don’t doubt that if there was a dangerous situation in the immediate vicinity, they could rush him out the back door tootsweet. The fact remains however that there _wasn’t_ a situation, hence no need to take instantanous action. > [@](#): > > To recap the situation, some people have said something along the lines of “Why are you blaming Bush? He couldn’t have gotten out of there anyhow because the Secret Service needed time to warm up AF1” or words to that effect. I believe that claim is spurious. If, on the other hand, your claim is “Bush’s actions were reasonable given the overall crisis and the options available to him”, well, I disagree, but I don’t dismiss your opinion as nonsense, if you see what I’m saying. I see what your saying, it makes perfect sense, I just personally disagree. In fact the two scenarios you keep mentioning should almost have opposite responses. Crazed gunman = get the pres to someplace, _anyplace_ but here, now! Terror attack = anyplace may not be safe, let’s sit tight here for a minute the real crux of our disagreement is that I’ll give them 15 to 20 minutes of confusion to get their act together, you won’t. I think I have a lower expectation of people, because IMO 99% of people would have done something similar to Bush, nothing for a few minutes. > [@](#): > > Unlikely. Certainly we have no evidence to think that that’s what was actually said. We don’t have much evidence for anything that was said, we’re both extrapolating out of our asses here. > [@](#): > > Absolutely. There are two basic issues here: > (1) Why did the president of the United States, when informed that a crisis of unprecedented scope was unfolding, do nothing for seven minutes? Just because he didn’t do anything, doesn’t mean nothing was done! This is a critical point to swallow. Besides, We’ll never know the truth anyway. Personally, I think it’s something simple like he was almost done reading, he thought he would be done in 3 or 4 minutes, and it ended up taking 7. Remember this comes from a person who loathes this asshat with every ounce of hate they can conjure up. > [@](#): > > (2) Why would _anyone_, when told of the basic outline of the events of 9/11, have a reaction as apparently unruffled as Bush’s? _Apparently_? Unless you’re inside his head, you have no idea what his reaction is. I’ve seen plenty of people react to bad news with a stone face. > [@](#): > > If Bush’s reaction to 9/11 had been to sprint from the classroom and stare, slackjawed, at CNN for 7 minutes without doing anything useful, question (1) would still be open, but at least question (2) would have an answer. Question 2 already has an answer. > [@](#): > > If, on the other hand, we knew with absolute certainty that what he’d been told was “the nation is under attack, but we have absolutely no useful information right now, and we are certain that no decisions can be made right now, and the Secret Service can’t move you for a few minutes”, then question (1) would have an answer, but question (2) would still be open. Like I said before, I expect these idiots to bumble around for a few minutes. I have no expectations that Bush will tear his shirt off groundskeeper Willy style, utter some catchphrase, bust through the nearest wall, and sprint off to personally take care of things himself. The sooner other people realize this, the better for us all. [/quote] > [@](#): > > Do you see the distinction I’m making? Yes, I do, and it makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/91 "2004-08-12T16:52:45Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I must admit that I have no idea what you’re talking about here, so I may be missing the point entirely, but I’ll just respond to one little bit of this… I’m saying that you are right to put sitting in the classroom low on the priority list after 9:05 that morning. I was trying to point out, however, that it was much higher (based on what was known) at 9:00. I am also trying to point out that rearranging priorities takes time. > [@](#): > > There’s a line that can be drawn somewhere which is the amount of time it’s reasonable for a leader to do absolutely nothing, including talking to people and trying to gather information, when informed of an ongoing time-sensitive crisis. Agreed. However, I have to add that time sensitive is not a universal standard. Actions which were time sensitive for the firmen in New York were not time sensitive in the same sense for President Bush. Alternatively, activities which would be time sensitive during a nuclear attack would reverse this. That is, they would be much more time sensitive for Bush than the fireman. > [@](#): > > Ten seconds definitely falls on one side of that line. Well inside, but ok. > [@](#): > > Seven minutes definitely falls on the other side of that line. Maybe, depending on the sort of crisis we are talking about. If we are talking about an attack from sub based ICBMs, then you may be right. If we are talking about a terrorist attack which is untracked, and unknown, you may in fact be wrong. Again, try and remember that people in the government did not know what was going on for much longer than the 7 minutes under consideration here. Unless you believe that Bush could have imporved this information gathering in some way, I don’t understand how you can say the 7 minutes is unreasonable. > [@](#): > > At least, that’s how I see it. Also, fair enough. I see it differently. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/92 "2004-08-12T17:16:49Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > [Wish y’all had fired up this thread whilst I was still at work yesterday. Now I have to respond hijackingly late. . . .] > You’ve misstated my position. On the previous page I said I didn’t expect Bush to grab a fire hose (or, as I put it, an F-102) and do the scut work himself. My appologies. I have been very involved with the GD thread, this pit thread and my own pitting, all on this topic. I have not read through this thread. Frankly I probably won’t. No offence meant, but these three threads have taken up far more time than this topic is due. I offer unrestricted appologies for missing any earlier arguments. I would like to respond to this though. > [@](#): > > So what is a president supposed to be? PR-Guy-in-Chief? Now I’m not surprised Bush responded this way, since being a front man seems to be the only thing he has ever been good at; and these days political governance seems to be about eighty percent spin. (Sounds like we have the makings of a good GD thread here.) Well, even putting the Bush dig aside, yes. Partly the President is supposed to be PR-Guy-in-Chief. To some extent this is regrettable. But in another way it is a very good thing. We have professional people who’s job it is to do the “scut work” . The Presidents job, as a result, is very much less hands on than seems acceptable to you. > [@](#): > > If you’re content with a president who is in the business mostly for the curtain calls, so be it. But I’m hung up on the old-fashioned notion that leaders should lead. And to my weary eyes, ol’ George was a bit slow on the uptake that day. But you seem to have a very odd notion of leading. I’m not saying your wrong, exactly, but that your notion of leadership is way too narrow. The President is a very high level manager position. It is not his job to be hands on in very much of the day to day or even minute to minute opperations of the government. His job is to set policy in these matters, and, frankly, 7 minutes is simply irrelevant to such things. I’m not suggesting that PR is the most important part of the President’s job. But many activities which could be described this way definately are. For instance, I can understand the position that those 7 minutes were not spent productively. But the time from 9:15 until 9:30 when he was putting toghether some remarks was not. His instinct to address the nation as soon as possible was appropriate, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/93 "2004-08-12T17:42:51Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > I see what your saying, it makes perfect sense, I just personally disagree. In fact the two scenarios you keep mentioning should almost have opposite responses. > > Crazed gunman = get the pres to someplace, _anyplace_ but here, now! > Terror attack = anyplace may not be safe, let’s sit tight here for a minute An interesting question, actually, and one that **Liberal** and I briefly debated on another thread. When there’s an ongoing terrorist attack involving multiple semi-coordinated attacks in different places, is it safer to leave Bush in the school or move him? The advantage of keeping him in the school is that it’s already been searched, screened, etc., and whatever amount of keep-Bush-safe technology the SS has already been put in place there. The disadvantage, however, and this is a BIG one which shouldn’t be overlooked, is that Bush’s location had been announced to the public, and in fact had been known several days in advance. Any location the president could be where his location is publically known, barring NORAD headquarters or Fort Knox, is inherently less safe than any location where his location is unknown. In any case, the quote from the 9/11 commision which I posted earlier in this thread states that the SS wanted to move him somewhere “safer”, which clearly implies that the school was not the safest place for him. But I agree that it’s not a cut-and-dried issue. > [@](#): > > the real crux of our disagreement is that I’ll give them 15 to 20 minutes of confusion to get their act together, you won’t. I think I have a lower expectation of people, because IMO 99% of people would have done something similar to Bush, nothing for a few minutes. I’d also give them 15 to 20 minutes of confusion to get their act together. Or, at least, I’d be less critical of that. If, immediately upon hearing of the second tower being hit, Bush had dashed out to where his advisers were and they’d spent 15 minutes talking in circles, making snap decisions and then changing them, starting slack-jawed at CNN, and basically accomplishing absolutely nothing due to their complete inability to grasp the enormity of the situation, well, that’s obviously not ideal, but it’s a lot more understandable than the way I, and many other contributors to this thread, view what actually happened. I think a key distinction is how you interpret Bush’s mindset while continuing to read. Was he having a turmoil of thoughts and plans and worries and panics on the inside while basically reading on autopilot? Or is he some sufficient combination of dim and used-to-being-told-what-to-do that he just sat there until someone told him to do otherwise, and didn’t even really think about what leadership role he, personally, should take, because he was so used to being a puppet? > [@](#): > > We don’t have much evidence for anything that was said, we’re both extrapolating out of our asses here. Well, there is this, from the [Bush 9/11 timeline](http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html) (which, while perhaps somewhat partisan, is obviously very full of cites). > [@](#): > > Chief of Staff Andrew Card was in a nearby room when he heard the news. He waited until there was a pause in the reading drill to walk in and tell Bush. [Washington Times, 10/7/02, Washington Times, 10/8/02] The children were getting their books from under their seats to read a story together when Card came in. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Card whispered to Bush: “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/02] Another account has Card saying: “A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01] Accounts vary as to when Card gave Bush the news. Some say 9:05 [Salon 9/11/01, New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01, Albuquerque Tribune, 9/10/02], and some say 9:07. [Washington Post, 9/11/01, Washington Times, 10/8/02] ABC News reporter Ann Compton, who was in the room, said she was surprised by the interruption and “wrote [the time] down in my reporter’s notebook, by my watch, 9:07 a.m.” [ABC News, 9/11/02] I think unless someone comes up with strong evidence to the contrary that it should be viewed as accepted truth that what was whispered to Bush was “A seconed plane has hit the WTC. American is under attack”. No more, no less. > [@](#): > > _Apparently_? Unless you’re inside his head, you have no idea what his reaction is. I’ve seen plenty of people react to bad news with a stone face. Well, “apparently” is the wrong word. What I mean is “externally”. He was definitely externally unruffled. Which I still find completely baffling. (See my previous paragraph this post about whether it was inner turmoil or just dimness.) > [@](#): > > Like I said before, I expect these idiots to bumble around for a few minutes. I have no expectations that Bush will tear his shirt off groundskeeper Willy style, utter some catchphrase, bust through the nearest wall, and sprint off to personally take care of things himself. The sooner other people realize this, the better for us all. (a) Please stop bringing up the whole “Bush leaping into action and saving the day singlehandedly” thing. No one is saying that. (Although if he ever saves a young boy by wrestling a wolf into submission, I may well have to vote for him.) (b) If you’d asked me as a hypothetical question on 9/10/2001 what Bush’s reactions would be to an enormous, unprecedented, national crisis emerging as breaking news while he was reading a book to kids, I would have said that he would stop reading the book, leave the room, and then bumble around like an idiot for a few minutes. That’s what basically every president we’ve had in my living memory would do, although some (I put both Clinton and Bush Sr. in this category) would begin processing information, asking meaningful questions and making decisions when possible much sooner than others. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/94 "2004-08-12T17:56:52Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I’m saying that you are right to put sitting in the classroom low on the priority list after 9:05 that morning. I was trying to point out, however, that it was much higher (based on what was known) at 9:00. I am also trying to point out that rearranging priorities takes time. (a) rearranging priorities doesn’t need to take time at all. It would have been 100% possible for Bush to have the news whispered to him, for him to make a decision, stand up, say “sorry, kids, something has come up” and walk out of the classroom. Bam. Priorities changed, in about 2 seconds. I’ll bet dollars to donuts he could then have turned to his SS detail and said “get me to Air Force One or some secure location with good communications” and they would be out the door of the school within a minute. Part of what some of us liberals like to assume about Bush, however, and I don’t really know how true this is, is that he’s such a figurehead that he would never make decisions like those by himself, and would always wait for someone else to do it. (b) Speaking of 9:00, this has gotten somewhat lost in the whole discussion of what happened once he was already in the classroom, but let’s quickly recap the informaiton that was available at 9:00: -A plane has hit the WTC -There are rumors of hijackings -Over the past several months, information has indicated that AQ is likely to strike the US Why the hell the president ever walked into the classroom in the first place baffles me. Although that’s basically tangential to the current discussion. > [@](#): > > Agreed. However, I have to add that time sensitive is not a universal standard. Actions which were time sensitive for the firmen in New York were not time sensitive in the same sense for President Bush. Alternatively, activities which would be time sensitive during a nuclear attack would reverse this. That is, they would be much more time sensitive for Bush than the fireman. I agree in theory, but not necessarily in practice. For instance, as was suggested and analyzed in this or another thread by some doper (sorry for being so vague), it’s possible that if the president had gotten on the phone to the chief of the FAA and said “alert all other jetliners in the air to possible hijackings” it could have helped flight 93. My point being that, even if it turns out in retrospect that there were no time-critical decisions the prez could have made, that was by no means clear at the time. The president’s job is not to assume that there’s nothing useful he can do until someone tells him otherwise. Can you imagine any remotely reasonable set of circumstances which would have resulted in the symptoms that were known as of 9:05 a.m. in which the president could have done something useful and time-critical? As long as any such situation is imaginable (and I can imagine dozens of such situations) the president should not have been wasting time. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/95 "2004-08-12T18:02:35Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 1. Meanwhile, Al Gore has blatantly [exposed Bush for the tyrant that he is](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5063627&postcount=116). No borrowed directoral techniques. No coy, leading, and unanswered questions. No piddly shit minutiae analyzed into irrelevance. Hmmm…missed that one the first time around. Did it tell you anything that several people considered that SO out of character for you that they suspected you were being sarcastic? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/96 "2004-08-12T18:08:01Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > None of you — not one, and least of all you — has called Bush out for what he really is. How many of you have said that he is a tyrant who is trampling upon our civil liberties? Zero. Hang on, you’ve searched through the entire posting history of every person who’s expressed an anti-Bush sentiment in this entire thread, and not one of them has ever commented on the Patriot Act, etc.? That’s a pretty strong statement. In any case, if you look at paragraph one of the OP, you’ll see that I explicity acknowledge that there are far better reasons to oppose Bush. Why, then, have I killed so many electrons in this thread and not in some thread about far more important issues? A few reasons: (a) This happens to be the issue about which people were posting comments that I felt I could meaningfully dispute. If someone posts something saying “I support the patriot act because that’s a tradeoff of freedom for perceived security that I’m willing to make” I can’t really argue with that, other than to say “well, I’m not”. Not much of a debate there. The next time someone posts something about the patriot act which I feel is flat out wrong or misleading or what have you, and it’s something that I personally feel knowledgeable, or smart enough, or for whatever-other-reason-willing, I’ll dive right in. (b) Odd though it may seem, I think this issue may actually be one which has a chance of influencing voters. I think that a lot of people who might be swayable in this election already are unhappy with Bush for many of the actually-more-important issues, but would claim that one of his strengths is that he’s a strong and decisive anti-terrorism leader. Which I think is BS. And I think the 7 minutes of him sitting there like a tool is strong evidence of that BS. Which is why I think pointing it out, and defending my view of it, is worth doing. (c) Why not? Not every thread need be about the most grave and serious of issues. Heck, you might as well go into a discussion of jazz in Cafe Society and ask them why they’re wasting time discussing jazz instead of what a tyrant Bush is… ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/97 "2004-08-12T18:12:30Z")
Oh, and by the way, anyone who doesn’t think that **Liberal** , for all that I frequently argue with him about a variety of topics, is firmly and clearly opposed to Bush, hasn’t been paying attention. Let me repeat that: **Liberal** does not support Bush. I think part of his problem is that when he posts something opposing Bush, everyone basically agrees with him, no controversy ensues, and since controversy is the life blood of the SDMB, the issue is quickly forgotten. On the other hand, when he takes a position like the one in this thread, argument ensues and continues, and people think that he’s pro-Bush. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/98 "2004-08-12T20:12:19Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (a) rearranging priorities doesn’t need to take time at all. It would have been 100% possible for Bush to have the news whispered to him, for him to make a decision, stand up, say “sorry, kids, something has come up” and walk out of the classroom. Bam. Priorities changed, in about 2 seconds. Yes, but without the consultation with his people (read that without giving his people time to evaluate the situation) this would not have been prudent. > [@](#): > > I’ll bet dollars to donuts he could then have turned to his SS detail and said “get me to Air Force One or some secure location with good communications” and they would be out the door of the school within a minute. Possibly, but this was not the question. I’m very sure that he had been shot, for instance, that he would have been moved out of the school very fast. The fact of the matter is, however, that no on knew at the time where the best place for him to be was. He did have communication equipment in the school. He travels with it where ever he goes. The fact that Card told him anything at all is proof of this. > [@](#): > > Part of what some of us liberals like to assume about Bush, however, and I don’t really know how true this is, is that he’s such a figurehead that he would never make decisions like those by himself, and would always wait for someone else to do it. As for myself, I don’t mind people making this assumption. Everyone has their own personal biases about everything. That’s fine. But when we talk about 7 lousy minutes as if it proves this idea, or that it is even indiciative of it, we need far more evidence than has been presented. Simply taking the look on President Bush’s face as evidence of vapidity or indecisiveness is unfair in the extreme. > [@](#): > > (b) Speaking of 9:00, this has gotten somewhat lost in the whole discussion of what happened once he was already in the classroom, but let’s quickly recap the informaiton that was available at 9:00: > -A plane has hit the WTC > -There are rumors of hijackings > -Over the past several months, information has indicated that AQ is likely to strike the US Well, but your second 2 points were not known by the Presidents people at the time. Number three was “known”, but probably had not been put together with the other things at that time. Surely you are not saying the President is a failure unless he has instant recall of every bit of information that crosses his desk? I know you cannot be saying that he is a failure unless he can do so in less than 7 minutes from a sitting start. > [@](#): > > Why the hell the president ever walked into the classroom in the first place baffles me. Although that’s basically tangential to the current discussion. Yes. I can find fault with many decisions that day. Him going into the classroom is one of them, perhaps. But it is a very minor one, and not a very large indictment. > [@](#): > > I agree in theory, but not necessarily in practice. For instance, as was suggested and analyzed in this or another thread by some doper (sorry for being so vague), it’s possible that if the president had gotten on the phone to the chief of the FAA and said “alert all other jetliners in the air to possible hijackings” it could have helped flight 93. Yea, I think it was **Hentor the Barbarian** in the GD thread started by **Mr Moto**. It was thin, but at least it was a suggestion. > [@](#): > > My point being that, even if it turns out in retrospect that there were no time-critical decisions the prez could have made, that was by no means clear at the time. The president’s job is not to assume that there’s nothing useful he can do until someone tells him otherwise. Ok, but you cannot take this to an extreme either. It is also not the president’s job to assume that there are profound differences he can make in every conversation or activity that his aides might engage in. I realize you are not making that claim explicitly. But your insistence on viewing the 7 minutes as anything but a very short time slice of the activities that day seems to indicate it. > [@](#): > > Can you imagine any remotely reasonable set of circumstances which would have resulted in the symptoms that were known as of 9:05 a.m. in which the president could have done something useful and time-critical? As long as any such situation is imaginable (and I can imagine dozens of such situations) the president should not have been wasting time. Well, but this is not fair either. Sure, I can say that we might have been under attack by soemone in the former soviet union by ICBMs. But the fact was that we were not under such an attack. Those around the president knew this (the message would have come in another form otherwise). Can you say for sure that if any of these alternative scenarios had indeed taken place his update would not have been different? Do you really think that Card would simply have said “we are under attack” if he meant this school, or an ICBM attack? Can you back up such a thing? Doesn’t it seem much more likely that he was delivering an update on the situation discussed earlier that day? Doesn’t it seem much more likely that in addition to the “America is under attack” information, the message conveyed the fact that people were responding? Don’t you have to assume massive retardation on Bush’s part to make any of the assertions you are making? It seems to me that this whole discussion is far more revealing of your (and other’s) assumptions than it is about Bush’ character or capabilities. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/99 "2004-08-12T20:48:33Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Oh, and by the way, anyone who doesn’t think that **Liberal** , for all that I frequently argue with him about a variety of topics, is firmly and clearly opposed to Bush, hasn’t been paying attention. > > Let me repeat that: > > **Liberal** does not support Bush. > > I think part of his problem is that when he posts something opposing Bush, everyone basically agrees with him, no controversy ensues, and since controversy is the life blood of the SDMB, the issue is quickly forgotten. On the other hand, when he takes a position like the one in this thread, argument ensues and continues, and people think that he’s pro-Bush. Thank you, Max. It says much about your character than you can oppose a man on issues without assassinating him with lies. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/100 "2004-08-12T20:52:33Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Hmmm…missed that one the first time around. Did it tell you anything that several people considered that SO out of character for you that they suspected you were being sarcastic? Yes, it did. It told me that they knew nothing about my character. You will note that there were others in the thread who pointed out that my remarks about Gore were completely consistent with my five-year position at the board. In fact, I still admire him for that speech. It still stirs my soul. And I still believe it is one of the greatest speeches by a politician in modern times. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/101 "2004-08-12T21:23:44Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Yes, it did. It told me that they knew nothing about my character. You will note that there were others in the thread who pointed out that my remarks about Gore were completely consistent with my five-year position at the board. Actually, I can’t find even a SINGLE person who made such a statement in that thread, though it’s possible I overlooked one or two. I did try to read every post, though. The fact is, I saw AT LEAST 5 people who commented that the OP seemed out of character for you, and while many agreed with your sentiments (and if they agree with you, why not say so?), I didn’t see any who commented that it was consistent with your past behavior, only that they agreed with what you said in the _current_ thread. You might consider that, rather than all these people having trouble with reading comprehension, that, just maybe, you haven’t been as clear in stating your position over the years as you think. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115/102 "2004-08-12T21:44:17Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Actually, I can’t find even a SINGLE person who made such a statement in that thread, though it’s possible I overlooked one or two. I did try to read every post, though. The fact is, I saw AT LEAST 5 people who commented that the OP seemed out of character for you, and while many agreed with your sentiments (and if they agree with you, why not say so?), I didn’t see any who commented that it was consistent with your past behavior, only that they agreed with what you said in the _current_ thread. > > You might consider that, rather than all these people having trouble with reading comprehension, that, just maybe, you haven’t been as clear in stating your position over the years as you think. […sigh…] From MaxTheVool: > [@](#): > > I think Lib is quite serious. And he’s right. It’s an excellent speech which makes a number of telling points. From Gawd after I asked whether it was “out of character for me to praise men who champion freedom and defend liberty”: > [@](#): > > Point taken, and a ‘Hear! Hear!’ added for emphasis. From BinaryDrone: > [@](#): > > Liberal, There has been a time or two when I have been at odds with you but, for the record, your posts in this thread have stuck me as 100% sincere and made in good faith. From SpinyNorman: > [@](#): > > Liberal, my hat’s off to you for taking a stand based on your principles. I’m impressed. From SamClem: > [@](#): > > Lib. Your endorsement makes this old liberal’s heart glad. Thanks for the link. While you appear on the surface to be a loon, I know that you’re just being true to your core principles. The principle these people reference is the same Noncoercion Principle that I have championed for five years. It is my worldview. It is a part of my essence. I apply it to all without respect to person. If Gore defends liberty, then Gore is my hero. If Bush tramples liberty, then Bush is my enemy. These things should surprise no one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-bushs-7-minutes-thread/259115.md?page=6)