He was safe. As you mentioned before the SS would have hauled his ass out if they believed otherwise.
Or it takes national advisors a few minutes to get info together to present to him.
This takes a few minutes
It’s not about freaking out the children, it’s about not freaking out in general.
Ha, ha. Stop it, you’re killing me. You’ve got to be the MOST partisan guy in this entire forum.
Except that from the 9/11 commission quote from a few posts back, the SS wanted to get him to a SAFER place. Thus, he was not, in fact, maximally safe. This doesn’t strike me as the hugest of deals, and is not what really gets my goat about the whole situation, but I find it baffling that no one, him or someone else, decided to get him out of there sooner.
I only keep bringing it up because people keep saying “why blame Bush for sitting there for 7 minutes while they warmed up Air Force One or while the Secret Service decided how to keep him safe or given that he was already in the safest place possible”. It’s nonsense (imo) to think that if Bush had made the executive decision to leave the school THIS INSTANT the secret service would have said “sure, Mr. President… just give us 7 minutes to organize things”.
Watch the videotape itself. Someone walks in and whispers in his ear that the nation is under attack. Is his response “what? who? how? why? what can we do?”, followed by a response of “we’re getting information together and we’ll have it for you in a few minutes”?
It sure doesn’t seem that way to me. The issue is not so much that he sat there for x minutes not doing anything. It’s that he didn’t seem to be the remotest bit curious or champing-at-the-bit-to-act or nervous or any of the other things one might want a leader to be in that situation.
Despite all the talk about panicking the kids, I would have MUCH preferred if, 90 seconds after hearing the news, he’s suddenly leapt up and said “I’m sorry kids, but I can’t keep reading right now, I have something to attend to” and dashed out of the room, causing minor kiddie consternation.
I wouldn’t get upset unless I were one of them. I used the term “many” precisely because I don’t know the exact number. I feel your pain nonetheless, as I often feel a bit of a twinge when I read posts about people of faith. But then I remind myself — and I recommend that you do the same — that they are not talking about me.
Well, that’s ridiculous. I have regularly maintained that both parties are full of shit.
Nah, Brutus and Starving Artist still have Liberal beat for pure partisan stupidity.
Though not by much. 
Fair enough. Although you can see how it would be easy to misconstrue:
Person A: Man, I sure do love those Dodgers
Person B: I am so sick of hard-core nutjob way-out freakoid Dodgers fans who make my life miserable
In this exchange, Person B might well have not even remotely meant to be including Person A in his little rant. But there’s really no way for Person A to realize that.
I guess we have different definitions of “sooner”. I could see if he stayed there for say 2 hours, the question of why they couldn’t get him out sooner seems valid, but 7 minutes to get off screen, and then he hung around for 20 minutes or so?
Sure so he made the decision to deal with the info there instead of traveling first and dealing with it on the go.
Is it possible that “where under attack, we’re figuring what’s going on, we’ll let you know in a minute” was uttered?
You preferred he looked visibly nervous?
Fuck the kids, this isn’t about the kids. This is about one of the most watched guys on the face of the planet not going “HOLY FUCKING SHIT!” and exiting left at a million miles an hour. Can we at least clear that up? If there were no cameras I could care less what he told those kids, it’s about everyone else who will see it.
I don’t disagree with your priority list. However, it does not have any reference to a timeline. For instance, it could be almost (not quite, perhaps, but certainly almost) reversed if you were to list his priorities at 8:30 that morning. By 9:05 it was clear to everyone that the priorities had to be shifted. What those priorities were were not decided on until well after 10:00. That Bush stayed in the classroom for 7 minutes during that time is simply not important. We could just as easily parse the day more finely and locate some 10 seconds here or there which were not spen properly. It just would not be valuable.
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.
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.
Unlikely. Certainly we have no evidence to think that that’s what was actually said.
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?
(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?
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. 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.
Do you see the distinction I’m making?
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…
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.
Ten seconds definitely falls on one side of that line.
Seven minutes definitely falls on the other side of that line.
At least, that’s how I see it.
Well, I never called anyone stupid, but as far as defending Bush to their dying breath, those guys have got nothing on Lib. I’ll concede that Brutus scores more points for general knee jerk right-wingedness, though.
Agreed. However, that is not what happened here. I was responding not to a man who sure does love that Kerry, but to a man who sure does hate that Bush. In the past month alone, he personally has generated five of the anti-Bush threads, including one Pit entry that was so lacking in probative value that his own OP contained no rant, leading the first two respondents basically to ask, what the fuck? It’s almost as though he believes that Kerry is so lacking in positive qualities that the only recourse is to attack Bush. The only remotely positive political thread that he started during that time period was not about Kerry, but about a speaker at Kerry’s convention. And all he had to say about it was effectively, boy wasn’t that some speech. To top it all off, the forum he chose to clutter with that empty OP was Great Debates. So, what I was responding to was not a Dodgers fan, but a Yankees fan who is obsessed with the Dodgers.
You are an idiot. I have never defended Bush; what I have defended is the integrity of logic and rhetoric. I’m not defending Bush when I say that the five-minute wait at the school is reasonable; I’m defending every person on earth from the illogical and hysterical demands of unreasonable people. 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. But I have said it over and over and over. 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. You are the one defending Bush — by your selection of nonsense about which to care. You are playing right into his hands, joining his proclivity for negative campaigning with negative campaigning of your own. As I’ve said several times now, you are swatting at gnats while the whole room smells of camel’s ass. The record is the record, and the fact that you choose to ignore it and characterize my attacks on him as defense is so Twilight Zonish that it defies description. You are fooling no one but yourself and your small choir of non-thinkers.
You believe this? You’re delusional.
To the bitter end, baby. But to lump Liberal in with the us is, uh, a bit odd. The fellow is ‘passionate’, to be sure, but I have yet to see him defend Bush. He attacks Kerry, sure, but the two should not be confused.
I’ve seen plenty of threads about that.
This may or may not be true. Perhaps you’ve buried some statement somewhere in ravings that may be able to be interpreted in such a way, I don’t really know. Please point it out.
Are you doing any of these things somewhere people can see and understand your message, or this this entirely in you own head? I can’t really tell here whether you’re lying or simply deluding yourself. Again, a pointer to where you’ve previously set out the agenda you mentioned above would be helpful.
I can’t see any way to interpret this other than as being the the wing-nut approach: “If you criticize Bush, you’ll make people see that all you lefties are nuts, and Bush will win. So shut up”. It’s pathetic, and most of the wing nuts have abandoned the approach.
Well, the record is the record, and your own record is pretty fucking poor.
It’s a distinction without a difference.
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.
Most philosophers would regard this argument as a load of dingos kidneys.
It is you who is delusional. You ignored what I believe, and you did it deliberately as though you thought that, by some warped rationale, that if you pretend I said nothing more than the two sentences you quoted, the rest might actually disappear. Here it is again:
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.
It is right in front of your eyes, you blind fucking Chihuahua.