[Dark Helmet]

Ok I am not one for conspiracy theories but this footage and timeline are things that have puzzled me right after 9/11.

Forget that Bush had something to do with the attack. With that aside I cannot understand the following.

- Why in the world does Bush continue to read a book about a goat in-front of cameras when he gets news of a second plane hitting? Wouldn't anyone else jump up and run to deal with it? Wouldn't it actually make him look good to the cameras?

- Why does Bush with the best security and communications systems in the world only find out about the attack after 1.5 hours? I heard about it within 15 minutes.

- What is with Bush's comment to the child about watching the first plane hit on public TV before reading to the kids. I also remember that footage not coming out until at least the day after.

- Since camera's were following him all day reveling his location over the news why wasn't Bush worried about security for himself when a massive terrorist attack is taking place?

- For me it looks like they are all acting as if they are trying to create an alibi. If not that his security is horrible. Those things aside it still doesn't explain his comment about knowing of the attack before entering the classroom, his relax attitude knowing one plane hit and later finding out about the second.

- 411 days before an inquiry about how such a terrible act could have happened?

http://911blogger.com/node/4032

[Nicko]

control malfunction...

[Atheist]

Have you never seen a deer in the headlights? The man was clearly in shock and didn't have a freakin' clue what to do...

[pman68]

He's in waaaay over his head.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Have you never seen a deer in the headlights? The man was clearly in shock and didn't have a freakin' clue what to do...

The first step should have been walk out from the classroom. The second step is getting your story straight on when you found out about the attack.

Bush being an idiot aside that doesn't explain why his top notch security did nothing.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

The first step should have been walk out from the classroom. The second step is getting your story straight on when you found out about the attack.

Bush being an idiot aside that doesn't explain why his top notch security did nothing.

Just imagine what students and historians will make of that footage when they study it 100 years from now. Facinating.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

- Why in the world does Bush continue to read a book about a goat in-front of cameras when he gets news of a second plane hitting? Wouldn't anyone else jump up and run to deal with it? Wouldn't it actually make him look good to the cameras?

The official story, which I've also heard parroted by the sheep in this forum , is that Bush kept reading because it was vitally important to national security that the kids not panic. This is then elaborated as: after all the President has no power to defend us against terrorist attacks so helping the kids was the best use of his time -- and then: he was planning our retaliatory attack on Iraq.

[Wiskedjak]

Haven't all these questions been debated, years ago, to death with both sides refusing to believe anything other than what they want to believe?

[ironknee]

bush's alfred e newman face showed how he was in shock. the kids said his face turned red

keeping the children calm is one thing but as president, he may have been a target as well...so by staying the kids were in danger...

or he wanted to know what happened to the pet goat

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by tie 

The official story, which I've also heard parroted by the sheep in this forum , is that Bush kept reading because it was vitally important to national security that the kids not panic.

I really hope nobody seriously believes that.

I mean you don't yell at the kids "Duck and cover, duck and cover! I'm getting the hell out of here".

You just get up and say being the "President is an important job and I need to go attend to something important".

I mean the kids found out about it an couple hours later anyway.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Haven't all these questions been debated, years ago, to death with both sides refusing to believe anything other than what they want to believe?

I've never seen the debate plus I can't possibly imagine what the legitimate reasons were for my points in the original post.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Just imagine what students and historians will make of that footage when they study it 100 years from now. Facinating.

bush reacted poorly in the classroom and that's that. bush could have easily excused himself while complimenting the kids on their reading skills. he didn't. i'm sure the teacher prepped the students beforehand, if that didn't already know, that the president is a busy man and any time spent with him is an honor.

bush isn't personally responsible for his security, the secret service is. if he were in immediate danger, they would have gotten him out of the room.

[Nicko]

The true nature of a person is revealed when crisis happens. (reminds me of the red badge of courage)

[Millennium]

So what, exactly, should he have done? Or is just a cry of "Do More!" with no actual ideas for a solution?

[placebo1969]

On the 5th anniversary of 9/11, I saw a clip on the news about the children who were in the classroom. Most of them felt comforted by the President's behavior and reaction to the news and didn't think he could have/should have done anything differently.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

So what, exactly, should he have done? Or is just a cry of "Do More!" with no actual ideas for a solution?

It doesn't matter what I or anyone think Bush should have reacted, nevertheless the footage is intriging for what it reveals about his true personality.

Like I said before, until a crisis happens one can never predict with certainty how someone will react. Will they run into that burning building to save a stranger? Or will they collapse and have a mental breakdown?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

So what, exactly, should he have done? Or is just a cry of "Do More!" with no actual ideas for a solution?

Is it too much to ask that the president do something when our country is under attack? How low is your standard for leadership?

Exactly: He should have gotten up, left, and tried to see what he could find out and what he could do. There is no defense for doing nothing, none.

He made a serious mistake -- freezing when our country was under attack -- and people could easily have died because of it.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol

[Wiskedjak]

Honestly, I'm not convinced there was anything he could do at the time, short of authorize the shooting down of any threatening commercial airliners. At the time, all he could do was wait for more information and it makes little difference where or how he waits for information, so he might as well continue doing what he was doing.

At the time, nobody knew how broad the attack was. The President rushing out could have generated a public impression of severe danger, which coupled with the lack of information could have generated panic and disorganized evacuations of the major cities resulting in unnecessary deaths. It also may not have, but I respect the decision to ere on the side of caution until more was known.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

So what, exactly, should he have done? Or is just a cry of "Do More!" with no actual ideas for a solution?

Correct me if I'm wrong but to defend this statement you would have to prove to us you are incapable of coming up with a single thing he could have done better. This would mean you are either dumb as rock or as unimaginative as a rock. Perhaps both.

Since I know you are neither, I genuinely look forward to seeing how you rise to the challenge of proving yourself dumb and unimaginative.

For whatever reason, this issue can get the most level-headed people to say the wackiest ****.



[Edit: Not that you've said anything wacky yet. The position you seem to taking only gives me hopes. ]

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by tie 

Is it too much to ask that the president do something when our country is under attack?

Only if there's something that can be done right then that makes a substantial difference. It doesn't seem to me as though there was one.

How low is your standard for leadership?

True, I don't expect Superman. Do you have a problem with that?

There is no defense for doing nothing, none.

I don't know about that. When there's nothing to do, I'm not sure there's an excuse for doing anything.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

- Why in the world does Bush continue to read a book about a goat in-front of cameras when he gets news of a second plane hitting? Wouldn't anyone else jump up and run to deal with it? Wouldn't it actually make him look good to the cameras?

Well when the first plane hit, it was thought an accident, so in that vein, should he drop everything when a tragedy occurs. As a leader I'd expect that his people were being mobilized and getting everything pulled together (I know I'm reaching here on that).

- Why does Bush with the best security and communications systems in the world only find out about the attack after 1.5 hours? I heard about it within 15 minutes.

I work in an office and news didn't trickle in for about 45 minutes, but you raise a good point.

For the other points, I really have no answer.

It seems to me the administration seemed a little unprepared about the scope and veracity of the attack.

[King Bob On The Cob]

You're about to have to give an order on whether or not to shoot down a commercial airliner with 100-200 innocent lives on board. Would you not stop to think?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Well when the first plane hit, it was thought an accident, so in that vein, should he drop everything when a tragedy occurs.

he didn't - he carried on with his normal schedule.

andy card told him that a second plane hit the other WTC tower. at that point, it would appear something was amiss to even the most dim-witted individual.

Originally Posted by Millenium

I don't know about that. When there's nothing to do, I'm not sure there's an excuse for doing anything.

bush had long known about a threat of this very kind. and after that threat was manifesting itself, he did nothing for seven minutes. bush may not have had some prior military experience, but he failed when first thrust to the forefront as commander in chief.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

You're about to have to give an order on whether or not to shoot down a commercial airliner with 100-200 innocent lives on board. Would you not stop to think?

what commercial airliner? the two bush knew about at the time had already crashed. card whispered "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."

this is a decision he wouldn't know that he might conceivably need to make for the next several minutes.

At the moment Card told Bush about the second plane, the children weren't reading to Bush. They had finished reading words from an easel and were reaching under their chairs for a book when Card whispered to Bush. Another 30 seconds would elapse before they started reading again. This pause was a perfect time for Bush to politely excuse himself.

The Memory Hole > 5-Minute Video of George W. Bush on the Morning of 9/11

[olePigeon]

I think Bush intended to show calm, but I think he let it go for too long. As usual, he had a good idea, but he just f*cked it up.

[probablecause]

I didn't hear this issue talked about much before Michael Moore's documentary and the skewed context in which he presented that situation is what has stuck.

I remember when the first plane hit that the reports were saying it was a small aircraft that crashed by mistake into the towers. The President was probably getting information about as reliable as the average CNN broadcast that everyone was watching that day. My guess is that he did not want to initially overreact and so he lingered a bit longer than he should have.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Only if there's something that can be done right then that makes a substantial difference. It doesn't seem to me as though there was one.

True, I don't expect Superman. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't know about that. When there's nothing to do, I'm not sure there's an excuse for doing anything.

How could Bush have known that there was nothing he could do?

He didn't even ask if there was something he could do.

[Face Ache]

It's just George's management style - he's a hands off the wheel, eyes clenched shut kinda guy.

[JansaNova]

This thread fails.

[Doofy]

And nobody has yet entertained the possibility that when he was told about the incident the words "but don't worry about it Mr President, we're taking measures" might have popped up?

There's a reason why you have an administration running the place, not just one bloke.

[Dakar²]

When something this crazy occurs, I think I'd like the President to take a more hands-on approach to it. This wasn't exactly run-of-the-mill.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

When something this crazy occurs, I think I'd like the President to take a more hands-on approach to it.

Maybe he left his cape at home that day?

The Prez has people around him. Military people. Security people. Paper-pushing people. You don't keep a dog then bark yourself when a burglar enters.

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

This wasn't exactly run-of-the-mill.

You'd be surprised what is and what isn't run-of-the-mill stuff in top-end politics.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Maybe he left his cape at home that day?.

It doesn't take Superman to leave a room and find out exactly what is going on and what his people are doing.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You'd be surprised what is and what isn't run-of-the-mill stuff in top-end politics.

Hijacked planes on US Soil is run-of-the-mill? Sorry, but no.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

It doesn't take Superman to leave a room and find out exactly what is going on and what his people are doing.

His people would be doing exactly what the "protocols" say they should be doing for such a scenario. He wouldn't need to leave the room to know that.

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Hijacked planes on US Soil is run-of-the-mill? Sorry, but no.

Yep. It may not be run of the mill to you or I, but the people in charge of running things talk about (and prepare protocols for) this kind of thing on a regular basis.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

His people would be doing exactly what the "protocols" say they should be doing for such a scenario. He wouldn't need to leave the room to know that.

Protocols are general guidelines. Situations almost never fit general guidelines exactly.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. It may not be run of the mill to you or I, but the people in charge of running things talk about (and prepare protocols for) this kind of thing on a regular basis.

Well, until I hear that from the horse's mouth, I ain't buyin' it.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And nobody has yet entertained the possibility that when he was told about the incident the words "but don't worry about it Mr President, we're taking measures" might have popped up?.

What reality are you living in?

First off you don't think having to shoot down airborne planes with civilians on them might need the Presidents input? "Don't worry, find out about the goat, we'll take care of the biggest ever terrorist attack in the US".

Second, the second he whispered something does not allow enough time for the 1 second he was at Bush's ear.

[Spliffdaddy]

Oh, so the president - who you believe is a doofus and can't do anything right - should have done something?

Are you trying to imply that you believe the president would have taken actions that you would have agreed with? and that would have been effective?

Hypocrite.

The whole world criticizes what America does - what the president does. We have never done anything right...in fact we always make the situation worse.
Yet, these same people that criticize every action and inaction are the first to stand there with their hands out - begging us for assistance - pleading for us to solve the world's problems.

[subego]

Initiative doesn't fall in your lap, you take it.

Ignore this at your peril.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Oh, so the president - who you believe is a doofus and can't do anything right - should have done something?

Are you trying to imply that you believe the president would have taken actions that you would have agreed with? and that would have been effective?

Hypocrite.

Yup. At least TRYING is better than sitting listening to a story about a goat.

All the "doing nothing" aside it still doesn't explain the major inconstancies in why it took so long for the info get to him and when he said he saw it on TV which is obviously either a lie or a slip.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Oh, so the president...

Logical fallacy.

Denying the antecedent.

[P.S. Congrats on the insanity. I always pegged you for a crazy mother****er ]

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

What reality are you living in?

The real one.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Yup. At least TRYING is better than sitting listening to a story about a goat.

It's this simple: Any actions to be taken in such an event would have been planned years in advance. If those actions aren't automatically triggered by the event itself, a simple "make it so" sets them in motion.

You've got Automator on that there computer of yours, right?

[JansaNova]

***President Bush turns to Page 2***

"Mr.Goat turned around to see his brother eating garbage once again. 'Brother,' said Mr.Goat, 'You really need to stop eating junk f...' OH SH*T! F**K! F**K! Holy sh*t kids, I have to RUN out of here...if I move fast enough I may be able to stop something that already has happened! Uhh...take care! Stay in school! Do not worry kids...it is nothing bad."

Sorry, just trying to recreate the scene here if Bush did what some of you (and Michael Moore) thought he should have done.

[besson3c]

Maybe the goat was busy not allowing gays to marry and refusing to raise taxes? That would be a compelling read for him that maybe he just couldn't pull himself away from?

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's this simple: Any actions to be taken in such an event would have been planned years in advance. If those actions aren't automatically triggered by the event itself, a simple "make it so" sets them in motion.

You've got Automator on that there computer of yours, right?

If that is your way of lying to yourself and avoiding the question no wonder things are going the way they are for the US.

[Spliffdaddy]

Hey, at least we have a president you respect - and you have faith that his actions are the correct ones.

You said it yourself.

[besson3c]

oopps.. wrong thread.

[besson3c]

You digging the job that Stephen Harper is doing SWF?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

If that is your way of lying to yourself and avoiding the question no wonder things are going the way they are for the US.

Things are going the way they are in the US because of an Englishman's opinion?

You make no sense at all.

What was the question again?

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

First off you don't think having to shoot down airborne planes with civilians on them might need the Presidents input?

You're just not getting it are you? The President's input into such a situation doesn't have to happen right there and then - it can be input years in advance.

You know when your copy of Mail.app turns those viagra sale messages brown? Do you actually believe that there's Lilliputian Apple programmers sitting in your Mac reacting to those viagra sales messages as they come in or do ya reckon that someone wrote a set of protocols at some point in the past to make it happen all by itself when adequately triggered?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

His people would be doing exactly what the "protocols" say they should be doing for such a scenario. He wouldn't need to leave the room to know that.

i think part of the protocol was to inform the president - which may or may not have required a response - at his discretion. if it was being handled without his input/need to know, why didn't card just wait until the end of the press op?

maybe card whispered "just sit there for seven minutes"?

bush may not have realized that the US was watching him live simultaneously with the WTC coverage. his advisors probably wanted him to do something, hence the intervention.