[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

So is my claim that the President could have left the room and talked to his team (if only to provide each other some mutual reassurance in the face of what is to come) some crazy conspiracy theory?

What you're saying is not crazy. What's crazy is; "Bush's odd behavior on 9/11". There is a supposition there and I'm sure you're pretty hip to it. Let's say you heard news that John's wife died and this person told you that John exhibited "odd behavior" that day. We're not talking about slack jack, we're talking full-blown conspiracy theories lodged by the usual suspects. It wasn't part of the bipartisan 9/11 commission, I wonder why? It didn't come up in any credible publication as being odd. I wonder why? Because it's crazy, that's why.

You have this one reversed. The administration has not made word one about this being related to Secret Service protocol. If someone is disconnecting this from reality, blame the people in authority who refuse to give this as an explanation.

That's just it, there is absolutely nothing they could say that would assuage the suspicions of those who would even ask such a question.

I'm not arguing whether this is the right thing for them to do (though personally, I think they're smart enough to explain this without compromising protocol), I just think it's unfair to blame the public for being "disconnected from reality" when they don't see through intentional obfuscation.

The "public" couldn't give a rat's a$$ why Bush reacted the way he did to the single worst news a President could ever hear. This wasn't in the New York times. It's blog-fodder. The "public" assumes there is protocol and had there been a "team" available to discuss a terrorist attack and were they not already enroute to their respective positions, they are satisfied that Bush reacted as Bush reacted. Nothing more, nothing less.

So if the issue is, "cut the President some slack during one of the worst moments in the history of our country..."

Good God man, of course I'm willing to cut him some slack.

This isn't what you or the "opposition" is asking me to do. You all claim that the President needs no slack in this situation, that he behaved in exactly the best way possible.

I've not asked you to do anything. I never once claimed that the President needs no slack. Strawman aside, what I'm saying is there's an indictment in the statement; "Bush's odd behavior on 9/11." If my house were just robbed and a police officer said you behaved oddly, my first question would be where you're locked up. You may recall that me and the "opposition" didn't even bring up this blog-fodder indictment against the president. I suspect it was your ilk who did however.

In fact, not only did he do the right thing, there is a vast government conspiracy to keep secret the vital piece of Secret Service protocol, which if leaked (even in the most innocuous way) would show that the President actually acted in an exemplary fashion.

The Secret Service is not obligated to offer priveleged information to assuage quack theories lodged by their subject's fringe opposition. Especially when the question is framed as this post has been framed. It's patently obvious what the article suggests. The best way to not get answers is to prove you're not interested in them. Have you ever been interviewed by the press? Notice how easy it is for them to hack what you've said into some convoluted soundbite that only serves the intent of their story.

Oh yeah, and don't forget that this protocol is so secret, you keep implying we're idiots for not realizing how obvious it is.

Oh not idiots. Zealots on agenda sure, but not idiotic. These theories play well to the idiotic and the fellow zealot, but that's different.

You brought up Occam's Razor. How is your explanation simpler than this one:

President receives information.
President decides to process information while continuing to read goat book.

Sounds fine to me. Why is that "odd behavior"???

If this is what happened, with the aforementioned amount of slack I'm willing to cut him, the only reason this is an issue is when the "opposition" insists this was the best thing to do, and he needs no slack.

Anything more is just giving fuel to the nonsense. They need not say more. I'd be more concerned if they gave a three-hour press conference on why Bush needed to stay and continue reading the goat book while considering the implications.

Well, if we're not giving him any slack (as per the "opposition's" request), yeah, I can armchair quarterback a half dozen reasons he should have done things differently, if only for perception purposes.

The perception of those who would make such a claim is already formulated subego. I guess you have to decide whether or not you'll buy into the blog-fodder. I'm not buyin' it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

[Face Ache]

You get the leadership you deserve.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Time to flush it down the old memory hole, eh?

[tie]

ebuddy, you're calling it blog fodder and saying that nobody cares, but people obviously do care (still). You've really run out of arguments when all you have left is, `well anyway people don't care.' Or, `it's a conspiracy theory.' No it isn't -- what's the conspiracy?

There is no reason to think the secret service had anything to do with it, or that the situation was anything more than what it looked like. It's an anti-conspiracy theory.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by tie 

There is no reason to think the secret service had anything to do with it

If the secret service knew the president might come under attack, those kids were human shields! I'm surprised GWB didn't have the kids form a circle around him.

[analogika]

I think his remote control was running low on batteries, is all.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The bit about Cheney gets old, too. Cheney, being already physically in the White House, acted according to standard security protocols that are actually part of the public record.

The President was in an unsecured area, and - if you care to remember correctly - there was even speculation at the time that Air Force One itself was a possible target - so relocating the President to it would have been moronic. The Secret Service did their jobs, acting according to Standard Operating Procedures, and secured the President's safety before moving him.

Having actually been in the USAF, and having been a Pararescue Specialist stationed at the Headquarters of Aersopace Rescue and Recovery Service - the entity responsible for pre-positioning emergency medical personnel and equipment everywhere the President is scheduled to go, I have a much better grasp of what is entailed in moving the President than you, Hyteckit.

It would have made NO sense WHATSOEVER for the President to run out of the room. And go WHERE? It's so easy to sit back and "Monday Morning Quarterback" the situation, but YOU - sir - are the one who has demonstrated absolute cluelessness when it comes to the security protocols of high-ranking officials.

The uncertainty of whether AF1 was a target added to the FACT that ground units had to be moved into position to affect the moving of the president, the egress routes secured, etc., etc., etc. I would say that 7 minutes is a PHENOMENALLY SHORT period of time and shows immensely the professionalism and skill of the Secret Service.

Umm, not too quibble with you too much but whenever the President goes anywhere he is never "in an unsecure area". He may be in an area less secure than other areas but he is *never* unsecure. Also, the ground units are *always* in position "to affect the moving of the president" and the egress routes are *already* secured ahead of time. The President only has a few completely secure areas (AF1, M1, White House, Camp David, personal residence) and whenever he is not in one of those areas there is always a plan in place, and the means to implement the plan, to get him back to one of those areas.

His motorcade would have been positioned outside the doors of the school and the local police escort would have been sitting there *waiting* to lead the way through local traffic. The Secret Service would NOT have to wait for the local police to show up or to clear a route as they would be pre-positioned to do so and would be waiting for the President's motorcade. "The President waits for no one/Everyone waits for the President" is a common refrain in security circles.


So, were you ever stationed at Andrews, where Air Force One resides, or just at Moody in Georgia?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, not too quibble with you too much but whenever the President goes anywhere he is never "in an unsecure area". He may be in an area less secure than other areas but he is *never* unsecure. Also, the ground units are *always* in position "to affect the moving of the president" and the egress routes are *already* secured ahead of time. The President only has a few completely secure areas (AF1, M1, White House, Camp David, personal residence) and whenever he is not in one of those areas there is always a plan in place, and the means to implement the plan, to get him back to one of those areas.

His motorcade would have been positioned outside the doors of the school and the local police escort would have been sitting there *waiting* to lead the way through local traffic. The Secret Service would NOT have to wait for the local police to show up or to clear a route as they would be pre-positioned to do so and would be waiting for the President's motorcade. "The President waits for no one/Everyone waits for the President" is a common refrain in security circles.

If you were expecting the Pres' motorcade to trundle along a particular egress route at (say) 11am as per schedule, how long do ya think it'd take to clear that route of traffic at 10am? About seven minutes, maybe?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If you were expecting the Pres' motorcade to trundle along a particular egress route at (say) 11am as per schedule, how long do ya think it'd take to clear that route of traffic at 10am? About seven minutes, maybe?

More like 60 seconds. The local police who will be doing the clearing of traffic are stationed along the route at key points so they *can* suddenly stop traffic outside of the planned schedule.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

ebuddy, you're calling it blog fodder and saying that nobody cares, but people obviously do care (still).

Yeah, folks like 9/11 blogger which is exactly what I've been saying. If the general public cared this much about it, you'd be able to find stories like these in more prominent publications and not just among those who would propagate any suspicion they thought would get some hits.

You've really run out of arguments when all you have left is, `well anyway people don't care.' Or, `it's a conspiracy theory.' No it isn't -- what's the conspiracy?

Again (and I think your question is a disingenuous one), the implication behind Bush's behavior being odd is that he's somehow behind it. Did you read the article supplied by the OP? No? Well, then you're going to have a difficult time understanding what this thread is about and an even harder time knowing what I'm talking about. Tell ya what, go back and click the link to the blog-fodder provided by the OP (and by me again, above). Along the left side of that link you can purchase T-shirts from "Conspiracy Clothes" (you're welcome to ask them what conspiracy), or you can click on AmericatheBushieful.com, or you can click on the PRO-AMERICA, NOT PRO-BUSH link, or how about the "Why Bush is a Coward" site? I mean c'mon tie. I can understand why you and some other fringe anti-Bushites might find this kind of nonsense appealing, but I think it's friggin' disgusting. They're not interested in truth, they're interested in hits, spreading anything remotely anti-Bush, and in selling some "conspiracy clothes". Talk about running out of arguments.

There is no reason to think the secret service had anything to do with it, or that the situation was anything more than what it looked like. It's an anti-conspiracy theory.

There's no reason to think the Secret Service was behind the President's whereabouts? Are you new here? You're right about one thing though, there's certainly nothing credible to suggest it was anything more than what it looked like, but you can sure bet there's a host of fringe opponents out there willing to extrapolate all kinds of BS from nothing.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

More like 60 seconds. The local police who will be doing the clearing of traffic are stationed along the route at key points so they *can* suddenly stop traffic outside of the planned schedule.

So, they can stop traffic getting onto the route in 60 seconds. What about the traffic which is already on that road?

And you think they'd use the scheduled egress route in such a situation? Don't ya think they'd roll to the backup one?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, they can stop traffic getting onto the route in 60 seconds. What about the traffic which is already on that road?

Traffic on the road is either allowed to pass through or shunted off on to a side road until the motorcade goes by. In the case of an emergency, it is probably the latter where they would just get the cars off the route right away by any means possible. (In DC they have police tow-trucks that transit the route ahead of the escort vehicles; If you've got a parked car along the route it gets dumped off on the nearest side street.)

Have you ever seen a Presidential motorcade transit an area, Doofy? I've seen it several hundred times, at least. I lived in Washington, DC for 14 years and spent 9 of those years working three blocks from the White House and another 2 of those years working three blocks from the Capitol. I have seen, and felt the inconvenience, of more Presidential motorcades than you could ever imagine. But when they need to close down a road they can do it right quick.

And if it is a major emergency they don't wait for the roads to get closed, they just go with their local escort. (That is what happened when President Reagan was shot. As the motorcade was rushing back to the White House it was led by the local police escort clearing traffic only moments before the motorcade moved through, in effect creating a moving roadblock.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Traffic on the road is either allowed to pass through or shunted off on to a side road until the motorcade goes by. In the case of an emergency, it is probably the latter where they would just get the cars off the route right away by any means possible. (In DC they have police tow-trucks that transit the route ahead of the escort vehicles; If you've got a parked car along the route it gets dumped off on the nearest side street.)

And how long to shunt those cars? Sixty seconds or seven minutes?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Have you ever seen a Presidential motorcade transit an area, Doofy?

Nope. I've 'em clear a space for Air Force One over a number of hours (I can see the air above Manchester International from here), that's about it.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I've seen it several hundred times, at least. I lived in Washington, DC for 14 years and spent 9 of those years working three blocks from the White House and another 2 of those years working three blocks from the Capitol. I have seen, and felt the inconvenience, of more Presidential motorcades than you could ever imagine. But when they need to close down a road they can do it right quick.

So the FL police are just as quick at doing this as the DC police are? They get as much practice at it?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And if it is a major emergency they don't wait for the roads to get closed, they just go with their local escort. (That is what happened when President Reagan was shot. As the motorcade was rushing back to the White House it was led by the local police escort clearing traffic only moments before the motorcade moved through, in effect creating a moving roadblock.)

If the Prez is already in a relatively safe location surrounded by SS (and hasn't actually been shot and require urgent medical treatment or anything), is it actually an emergency? Wouldn't the emphasis be on security rather than speed?

Speed: "We've been attacked, Mr President. Everything is being taken care of."
Security: (7 minutes later) "We've been attacked, Mr President. Everything is being taken care of."

[Macrobat]

Actually, as I earlier stated, I was stationed at Scott AFB, the Headquarters of ARRS. Moody AFB has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand, as there is no element there remotely connected, and if stationed at Andrews, you would know departure and arrival times. I was where EVERY airborne movement of AF1 is tracked to the minute. AF1 does NOT sit on the ground, spun up and ready to roll, either - things take time, they don't happen instantaneously. You are highly mistaken (or deliberately obtuse) in stating that egress routes are already secured - within the building or its grounds, most certainly, but are you actually going to try and claim that motor routes were already blocked off for the president's entire visit?

And yes, the president is VERY MUCH in unsecure areas all the time. There is relative security because of the Secret Service's advance preparation. Gee, a preparation that had the President at that elementary school for a further 1.5 hours, with motor escort and highway usage planned for THAT egress time, as opposed to suddenly needing to leave immediately and make sure that AF1, the motor route, the airport, etc. are secure AT THAT VERY TIME.

Trying to equate personal experiences from D.C., where the President's comings and goings are commonplace (and he even has his own permanently assigned element of the DC police) to an appearance where he might appear again never in 8 years of office is disingenuous and specious in the extreme.

Hate to break it to you, but NO, local police are NOT stationed in place along the ingress and egress routes while the president is already AT the location he is visiting. SUch a practice would be MORONIC from a security standpoint, as it ADVERTISES the motorcade's route. FYI, local police departments are more typically given 15-20 minutes notice when the president is about to move, in order to affect those blockages. A general idea is known where he will move, the specifics are NOT advertised beforehand.

Comparing the movement of an already shot President (Reagan) to one that the Secret Service is trying to keep from being shot - or worse - is also moronic. Of course, if there is already a medical emergency, there's not much else a potential assassin could do - now is there? The importance is then shifted to getting the fewk outta Dodge.

As far as "leaving the room to discuss with his team," why in Hell would he want to have a pow-wow with his security element?

Rushing from the room to "do something." Let's see, spend 10-15-20-30 minutes cobbling together someosort of ad-hoc communications and computer network to get access to national security elements or wait 7 minutes for the Secret Service to prepare, and move him to AF1, from which ALL of those (and more) are readily available?

Oh yeah - odd behavior indeed.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again (and I think your question is a disingenuous one), the implication behind Bush's behavior being odd is that he's somehow behind it. Did you read the article supplied by the OP? No? Well, then you're going to have a difficult time understanding what this thread is about and an even harder time knowing what I'm talking about. Tell ya what, go back and click the link to the blog-fodder provided by the OP (and by me again, above). Along the left side of that link you can purchase T-shirts from "Conspiracy Clothes" (you're welcome to ask them what conspiracy), or you can click on AmericatheBushieful.com, or you can click on the PRO-AMERICA, NOT PRO-BUSH link, or how about the "Why Bush is a Coward" site? I mean c'mon tie. I can understand why you and some other fringe anti-Bushites might find this kind of nonsense appealing, but I think it's friggin' disgusting. They're not interested in truth, they're interested in hits, spreading anything remotely anti-Bush, and in selling some "conspiracy clothes". Talk about running out of arguments.

There's no reason to think the Secret Service was behind the President's whereabouts? Are you new here? You're right about one thing though, there's certainly nothing credible to suggest it was anything more than what it looked like, but you can sure bet there's a host of fringe opponents out there willing to extrapolate all kinds of BS from nothing.

I looked at the OP's linked page, and it is rather ridiculous. (Is there an article? -- I just see a movie, which no I didn't watch.) I don't think that has much to do with this thread, since AFAIK nobody here has suggested any sort of conspiracy theory (except possibly the OP, dunno). If that's your best argument, then you are arguing against the wrong people.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I looked at the OP's linked page, and it is rather ridiculous. (Is there an article? -- I just see a movie, which no I didn't watch.) I don't think that has much to do with this thread, since AFAIK nobody here has suggested any sort of conspiracy theory (except possibly the OP, dunno). If that's your best argument, then you are arguing against the wrong people.

Okay, OP posts movie regarding nefarious Bush behavior on 9/11. I express a distaste for the suggestion posed by the OP and I end up arguing with someone who didn't visit the site posted by the OP?

If you find the suggestion ridiculous, it would seem you are in fact arguing the wrong one. Thanx though.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

As far as "leaving the room to discuss with his team," why in Hell would he want to have a pow-wow with his security element?

Not that team, his team. Andy Card, Ari Fleischer, his staff.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What you're saying is not crazy...

I think we've had one of those argument disconnects that happens when someone directly responds to a response of a response of a response, if that makes sense.

Likewise, the more I think about it the more I can see how the overall debate on this subject has spun out of control. It may take a few swipes to really nail it, so I ask you to be patient with me.

I'm guessing (and your response helped immensely with this guess), that most Americans feel essentially the same about that seven minutes, but our country's partisan fracture is keeping both sides from seeing that agreement. The fact that the incident was revealed long after 9/11 (embedded in propaganda no less) certainly magnified the fracture with regards to this issue.

To get to the point, if I may make sweeping generalizations for brevity's sake:

"Republicans" want it acknowledged that he couldn't have had a practical impact. Case closed.

"Democrats" want it acknowledged that it was possible (not that he should have, possible) Bush could have reacted in a way that came off as less "deer in the headlights".

I think both of this things could be easily accepted by both sides, but the equation changes when you look at what the acknowledgment means in terms of the other is asking. This is doubly so with the constant miscommunication that comes from imprecise wording.

Take some of the basic arguments from this debate:

The Republican says "Bush couldn't do anything".

To the Democrat, who is saying "Bush could have looked better", the Republican argument is patently false.

Note that the Democrat could have worded their argument just as imprecisely.

The Democrat says "Bush should have left the room".

To the Republican, who is saying "Bush couldn't have done anything", the Democrat argument seems silly. Left the room to do what?

Thoughts?

[Macrobat]

Not that team, his team. Andy Card, Ari Fleischer, his staff

To what end, exactly? Everyone onsite would have the exact same information. Why have a watercooler conversation? No decisions were going to made on-site, with the lack of information.

He leaves the room he does exactly - what?

He relocates the confusion?

I would argue that he reacted much the same as any garden-variety parent would have to news so shocking while in the presence of children.

It's all nit-picking. No one can predict how they would have reacted, the VAST majority of Americans wimply froze - precisely like a deer in the headlights - in front of their televisions, computers, and radios.

The plain historical fact of the matter is that the ball was already rolling, people were doing their jobs, the President was secured, the Vice President and the other leadership of the country was likewise secured.

In short, the SOP for such national emergencies worked.

As I already showed earlier, the man who wanted to be our president froze in place "unable to think" for 40 minutes.

I honestly do NOT see where Democrats possess anything remotely ressembling a moral high ground to pontificate about anything the president did or did not do - period.

It is worth noting that during this 7 minutes, orders were given grounding all flights, AF1 was taxied out to a ready position, then took off once the President was aboard, heading for a secure, military position - as had been planned and prepared for time and again.

The military calls these "wargames" and we run simulations of the unthinkable on a regular basis. This training and practice paid off. Anyone who honestly believes that, had there been a way to attack the President or Vice President directly that day, that attack wouldn't have been carried out is seriously deluded.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

He leaves the room he does exactly - what?

Check out my post right above yours. I address this exact argument and where I think the gears are grinding.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I would argue that he reacted much the same as any garden-variety parent would have to news so shocking while in the presence of children.

An excellent explanation that I had not heard or thought of until you mentioned it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

To get to the point, if I may make sweeping generalizations for brevity's sake:

"Republicans" want it acknowledged that he couldn't have had a practical impact. Case closed.

"Democrats" want it acknowledged that it was possible (not that he should have, possible) Bush could have reacted in a way that came off as less "deer in the headlights".

I think both of this things could be easily accepted by both sides, but the equation changes when you look at what the acknowledgment means in terms of the other is asking. This is doubly so with the constant miscommunication that comes from imprecise wording.

Take some of the basic arguments from this debate:

The Republican says "Bush couldn't do anything".

To the Democrat, who is saying "Bush could have looked better", the Republican argument is patently false.

Note that the Democrat could have worded their argument just as imprecisely.

The Democrat says "Bush should have left the room".

To the Republican, who is saying "Bush couldn't have done anything", the Democrat argument seems silly. Left the room to do what?

Thoughts?

I hadn't seen your query to me so I'll address it now. I apologize.

My point had always been two-fold and yes, it is in direct response to the "spirit" of the original post indicated by sloppy, but wholly intentional rhetoric.

It is one thing to say; "Bush could've reacted more professionally, swiftly, vigilantly, etc..." There's really little I could do to argue this point. I mean, there would always be disagreement on how one could react to such news and yes, it will often fall down the party line. I will say for most however, the question does not even come to mind which was the second part of my point.

It is another thing to say; "Bush's behavior was odd on 9/11". There is an implied guilt here. If your spouse were to come up missing and people said of you that your behavior was "odd" that day, there's an implied guilt that is beyond question. By clicking the link provided by the OP, it becomes apparent that by "odd" they don't simply mean "a potentially inadequate response to an attack on our homeland", they imply guilt and conspiracy. This was what I found particularly distasteful.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I hadn't seen...

Thanks for the response.

No worries. I'm certainly not trying to make any conspiratorial connections. I'll admit, I didn't even click the link. I think the goat thing would have come up regardless.

I'm actually quite surprised with myself for untangling this semantic knot. I (and I think many others) have been caught in it since at least the 2004 election (the last time it was really relevant).

So I would also like to apologize to Millennium. I picked on you unfairly for arguing against me when all you were doing making your own separate point. I normally like to try and clarify things in these sorts of situations, but the argument I had imagined you were making seemed so shockingly irrational coming from you, I was stupefied, and let it get the best of me.