As the long national nightmare comes to an end...

[Patroklos]

I cannot explain this any better than I have done for you. You will remain hopelessly ignorant.

To ask this question of yours once is immensely stupid, to ask it repeatedly after people have rationally explained to you why it's an irrelevant question is even more so.

You talked about being a good leader. You even went so far as to call it "Leadership 101". I've enumerated why it is not an example of good leadersihp. A passive leader (or even just the perception of a passive leader) is not a good thing. People want to know that in a time of crisis, the leader is working. They need to know he is asking the right people the right question, they need to know that he's gathering as much information as possible to form decisions, they need to know he is involved. What Bush did was create the perception of somebody who didn't know what to do, and was waiting for somebody to do something for him. The fact that this perception even existed for a significant number of people was a failure in leadership.

He needed to be doing whatever he could to be informed about as much as possible, as fast as possible. A good leader is an informed leader. It's nonsensical to state there was nothing to be learned while he sat in that room with the cameras on him.

God you are such a predictable tool.

In any case for you position to make any sense whatsoever you need to prove how Bush's actions in any way disconnected him from recieving informaion as well as prove that there was something he should have know about but didn't. Without these two things, all your objections are sematic BS.

You dug this whole for youself all by yourself. Enjoy the climb

What Bush did was create the perception of somebody who didn't know what to do, and was waiting for somebody to do something for him.

He did no such thing, this is just you being needy. To tell the truth, at the time nobody probably gave a damn what Bush was doing because any rational person would know off the bat that there was nothing he could do. But if you prefer empty puffed up chest gestures of Presidents doing busy work for no practical gain so be it. I prefer mine to realize the practical realities of the situation they are in.

And it is till beyond retarded that you have your panties in a wad about NINE MINUTES!

[Asher]

I should also mention that "optics" mainly differs from "appearances" in that it really includes the implication of distortion. Think of it in terms of glasses or a telescope or even coloured shades -- the idea is you can change the optics to reframe a subject in a way that may not reflect reality. If that makes sense.

[Asher]

:lo:

God you are such a predictable tool.

In any case for you position to make any sense whatsoever you need to prove how Bush's actions in any way disconnected him from recieving informaion as well as prove that there was something he should have know about but didn't.

You dug this whole for youself all by yourself. Enjoy the climb

Yes, I cannot fathom how it would be possible for me to prove that while Bush spent 10 minutes staring at the faces of children he was disconnected from receiving as much information as somebody dedicated to the task of finding out as much information as possible. Like almost every person in America who was glued infront of a TV at the time trying to do that exact thing.

How will I do it? I do not know. Looks like you win, Patty. Bush knew everything possible about the attack. He knew about the scale of the destruction as much as Joe Smith from Nebraska watching the towers on CNN.

[Patroklos]

Yes, I cannot fathom how it would be possible for me to prove that while Bush spent 10 minutes staring at the faces of children he was disconnected from receiving as much information as somebody dedicated to the task of finding out as much information as possible. Like almost every person in America who was glued infront of a TV at the time trying to do that exact thing.

1.) Please explain how Bush being a room away from his most trusted advisors and a whole host of SS people and other specialists whose whole job is to feed him information somehow constitutes him being insulated from any available information.

You may have missed it, but they DID walk in and give him the ONLY INFORMATION THAT WAS AVAILABLE during that time.

2.) Its funny that you think watching a flaming building on TV somehow imparts more information than Bush knew at the time. Please, do tell what exactly someone watching CNN for those few minutes would have gleaned that the poeple around the President (probably watching the same thing no less) didn't know and convey.

You sure do have a lot of look ups this thread!

How will I do it? I do not know. Looks like you win, Patty. Bush knew everything possible about the attack. He knew about the scale of the destruction as much as Joe Smith from Nebraska watching the towers on CNN.

Correct. Just like everyone else besides NORAD and the FAA who wouldn't get around to conveying that info until well after the minutes in question. Why this very simple fact has excaped you is beyond me. So we have boiled this whole thread down to the fact that you don't like the "optics" of his choice. Who gives a flying ****?

[Asher]

I can't believe you are still trying to argue this.

How much do I need to win before you go away?

I get it. You like leaders who wait for people to tell them things instead of being proactive. You think that's a good leadership attribute. I disagree.

It comes down to you being a military man. I'm not saying that to belittle you, but it's the culture that's permeated your thought process. Maybe even corrupted. Too much order and discipline, not enough free thought.

So we have boiled this whole thread down to the fact that you don't like the "optics" of his choice. Who gives a flying ****?

You clearly have no concept of how leadership works outside a system with enforced structure and discipline. In the real world, we elect our leaders and in the real world, the perception they give is important to instill confidence in the populace.

[Patroklos]

There were two main points to your arguement that were not simple semantics, both of which have been soundly disproven. Thats all that matters. If you want to cling to your "optics" opinion be my guest.

I really hope you don't use your professed "leadership" style above, it would be a shame if you do not trust or devolve any authority to your charges whatsoever

[Asher]

You are steadily becoming increasingly delusional, Patty.

I do not micromanage people under me, but I do know when to ask the right questions so I can be better informed. Again, you do not comprehend what I was talking about. I was encouraging Bush to become informed by asking questions and delegating certain discovery tasks to certain people if they didn't know, not tell everyone what to do on a micro level.

I also think history has shown Bush did not appoint the most competent people to many highly important positions, so trusting them implicitly was also a lapse of judgment.

[Elok]

I should also mention that "optics" mainly differs from "appearances" in that it really includes the implication of distortion. Think of it in terms of glasses or a telescope or even coloured shades -- the idea is you can change the optics to reframe a subject in a way that may not reflect reality. If that makes sense.

Vaguely, I guess, but the use of the word in that way still enrages me. What kind of tit thought that up? Oh well, at least I don't have to hear it at my workplace. Yet.

[MrFun]

Let's see . . .

where is my popcorn?

[Ecofarm]

it's not like anyone suggested he jump up and scream "DEATH! DEATH HAS COME FOR US PALE RIDER HAVE MERCY AAAAAAAH!"

Actually, I was (see back a couple pages). I think it's hilarious.

[Asher]

Vaguely, I guess, but the use of the word in that way still enrages me. What kind of tit thought that up? Oh well, at least I don't have to hear it at my workplace. Yet.

In a sea of monstrosities such as BRDs, SRSes, touching base, synergistic momentum, etc., "optics" seems somewhat tame and useful.

[HalfLotus]

Of course there are those that think that since we were goading them into action, that it really wasn't a surprise at all.

Considering the 20-odd prior warnings, it shouldn't have been.

[Elok]

Considering the 20-odd prior warnings, it shouldn't have been.

A. I'm too lazy to comb through all that, but are we talking about 28 separate warnings, 28 newspaper articles reporting the same damned story, or something in between?

B. The bit you quoted was about Pearl Harbor, not 9/11. Just sayin'.

[HalfLotus]

Oh, Pearl Harbor, I didn't notice that brief detour in the pointless rabble. Back to 9/11!

[Darius871]

Oh, Pearl Harbor, I didn't notice that brief detour in the pointless rabble. Back to 9/11!

What, Pearl Harbor foreknowledge doesn't turn your crank? I thought you were into every conspiracy theory...