Bush wasted 27 minutes, not 7.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Gibsie


If you think it's a non-issue that's fair enough, but pointing to what someone else who was not responsible for any type of response did at the time is a complete non sequitur. Now if you could show that other people at the top of the command chain in the US just stood around doing nothing for half an hour after the event, then you've got a point. Otherwise you might as well point at Bill Clinton or Michael Moore as much as Kerry. Hell you could even point at me, "Look at Gibsie, when he heard the news he was getting ready for a job interview and did nothing in response, so how can anyone condemn Bush for not doing anything for a while!?"

I believe I addressed your point. It is nonsequitor. it was meant to be so to illustrate the rabid meaninglessness of both sides.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Disagreeing with someones opinions isn't the same as disputing their facts.

Fair enough but what gives Maher any credentials with respect to factual reporting or fact finding? Is he an investigative reporter of the reputation of Woodward all of a sudden? As far as I know, he is still simply a commentator a talking head as it were.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I believe I addressed your point. It is nonsequitor. it was meant to be so to illustrate the rabid meaninglessness of both sides.

Only it doesn't really address why it is rabidly meaningless to expect the President to be on the ball immediately following a major terrorist act.

[Arrian]

Basically the complaint is that Bush didn't act Presidential in the immediate aftermath of the planes hititng the WTC. My basic two thoughts on that:

1) It WAS quite a shock, to all of us; and
2) Bush NEVER looks Presidential to me, so what's new?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Fair enough but what gives Maher any credentials with respect to factual reporting or fact finding? Is he an investigative reporter of the reputation of Woodward all of a sudden? As far as I know, he is still simply a commentator a talking head as it were.

I don't know, but it's obvious that you are just trying to arse me into finding another source, and I'm not going to do that because I'm certain he's telling the truth.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Gibsie


Only it doesn't really address why it is rabidly meaningless to expect the President to be on the ball immediately following a major terrorist act.

Listen this was hashed over a thousand times in the F911 thread. I see no reason to continue the "bash the head against the wall" discussions.

Were he to react immediately the conspiracy theories would be confirmed he was pre-aware of the attack, or at best that he is reckless.

Were he to be visibly stunned he is considered weak.

Regardless his ability to influence anything for those 7 or 27 minutes is next to zero. Thus a non issue.

To continually dwell on this meaninglessness is simply a display of rabid anti-bushism. Clearly there are better and more numerous issues of substance that Bush has clearly wet the bed on.

[Gibsie]

That is a good response. It explains my question without referring to what the absolutely inconsequential Kerry did for however many minutes. Thanks!

[Geronimo]

My problem is the vague message he received while reading to the children. It was a whispered "America is under attack" in his ear. Now, I don't care whether there was anything he could have done or not. The point is there was no way for him to know this at this point. the right thing to do, the perfectly understandable thing to do, the only plausbily defensible thing for him to do at that point would be to get more information. Even if this just involved excusing himself from the class for a moment and asking this aid a few pointed questions ("Attack? what kind of attack? foreign state? terrorist? where is the attack?"). Seven freaking minutes is a long long long time. A president can do a hell of a lot in repsonse to many attacks in those circumstances. Anything from authorizing a retalitory nuclear strike to authorizing fighters to shoot down hijaked civilian aircraft. He would not have to send out carrier pigeons to fly to washington. We have modern rapid communication at our disposel.

A good comparison would be a town with a tiny fire department. The firemen are gathered for a pot luck when someone comes in and says "guys there's a fire!" and runs out of the room. Even if all of the other fireman left at once wouldn't we fault the chief if he sat for 7 minutes and finished his cup of coffee before getting more information? And unlike in the case of our president there probably wouldn't even be anything that the fire department could not do without it's chief.

This is the modern age people. A presidents job is administration which is composed entirely of communication and we live in the age of instant communication. A president *must* keep himself as informed as possible when it appears an emergency in underway.

What makes me even more uncomfortable is the awful hunch that had Kerry been president the delay might well have been just as long. We need a president who understands the awesome responsibility that their office entails and will not fiddle while Romes burns not evcen for a moment.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Regardless his ability to influence anything for those 7 or 27 minutes is next to zero. Thus a non issue.

You're not arguing against a non issue. You are avoiding the issue, which is he neglected his duty by not finding out what he could do.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Which assumes he has no faith in his subordinates to gather said information and that he can, by interefering and micromanaging, have an ability to influence.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Which assumes he has no faith in his subordinates to gather said information and that he can, by interefering and micromanaging, have an ability to influence.

Which means the president is making the outrageous asumption that no surprises will possibly occur which demand his attention. None of his subordinates none of them could have given the order to shoot down civilian airfcraft or launch nclear weapons for example. You cannot rely on drill and contingency for surprises. Even if the president trusted his subordinates he had an obligation to stay informed the instant he heard of any crises.

[Last Conformist]

If he was only told "America is under attack", and did nothing to find out what kind of attack for seven minutes, I guess I need revise my opinion; that would be monumentally irresponsible.

I don't see why Kerry is irrelevant, BTW. The chance that he wins the election come september and subsequently gets to be president when another major strike comes is not neglible, and it would be encouraging to know that he's not lilable to go into incommunicado shock for 2h in a such situation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I can't be arsed to respond to this. Do a couple stints as an incident responder or better yet an emergency response coordinator and you'll rapidly understand the dangers of micromanagment and the need for respecting the roles of your staff.

[Japher]

Maybe Bush should of shot himself in the leg when he heard about the planes... at least that way he could of ad 1 purple heart, and be just that much more like Kerry!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Which assumes he has no faith in his subordinates to gather said information and that he can, by interefering and micromanaging, have an ability to influence.

This is soooo absurd. Having faith in subordinates and abiding by your duty are two different things.