[pman68]

I agree with Mahar. This is what's so damning about Moore's film 9/11.

check it out:



Bush Blew It the Morning of 9/11


by Bill Maher / Daily News
John Kerry has waded into an issue raised by Michael Moore in
his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," namely, President Bush's sitting for
seven minutes in a Florida classroom after being told "the
country is under attack." Republicans are waxing indignant,
of course. But the criticism is richly deserved.

The fact that Bush wasted 27 minutes that day - not only the
seven minutes reading to kids but 20 more at a photo op
afterward - was, in my view, the most outrageous thing a
President has done since Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the
Supreme Court.

Watergate was outrageous but it still did not carry the possibility
of utter devastation, like a President's freezing at the very
moment we needed his immediate focus on an attack on the
United States.

This is an issue about the ultimate presidential duty, acting in an
emergency. If nothing else in Washington is nonpartisan, this
should be.

But it is not. Republicans are tying themselves in knots trying to
defend Bush's actions that morning. The excuses they put
forward are absurd:

* He was "gathering his thoughts." This was a moment a
President should have imagined a thousand times. There is no
time in the nuclear age for a President to sit like Forrest Gump
"gathering thoughts" after an attack has begun. Gathering
information is what he should have been doing.

* From the White House press secretary: "The President felt he
should project strength and calm until he could better
understand what was happening." I agree that gaining a better
understanding of what was happening should have been his
goal. What I don't get is how that goal was reached by just sitting
there instead of getting up and talking to people. Is he a psychic?
Was he receiving the information telepathically?

* "He didn't want to scare the children." Vice President Cheney
has said of Kerry, "The senator from Massachusetts has given
us ample reason to doubt the judgment he brings to vital issues
of national security." So Kerry's judgment is suspect, but at a
moment of national crisis, Bush's judgment was: Better not to
scare 20 children momentarily than to react immediately to an
attack on the country!


If he had just said, "Hey, kids, gotta go do some President
business - be good to your moms and dads, bye!" my guess is
the kids would have survived.

I cannot see how someone who considers himself a
conservative can defend George Bush's inaction. Conservatives
pride themselves on being clear-eyed and decisive. They don't
do nuance, and they respect toughness.

But Bush choked at the most important moment a President
could have. We're lucky Al Qaeda had done its worst by the time
he pulled himself away from the photo op. Next time, it might not
be that way.

[OldManMac]

He's not the only one correctly blasting Bush. And there are still people who defend him. I find that incredibly sad.
----------

Published on Friday, August 13, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times


Rumsfeld and Bush Failed Us on Sept. 11


by Gail Sheehy


Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief opponents of investing real power over purse and personnel in a new national intelligence chief, told the 9/11 commission that an intelligence czar would do the nation "a great disservice." It is fair to ask what kind of service Rumsfeld provided on the day the nation was under catastrophic attack.

"Two planes hitting the twin towers did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld's leaving his office and going to the War Room? How can that be?" asked Mindy Kleinberg, one of the widows known as the Jersey Girls, whose efforts helped create and guide the 9/11 commission. The fact that the final report failed to offer an explanation is one of the infuriating holes in an otherwise praiseworthy accounting.

Rumsfeld was missing in action that morning � "out of the loop" by his own admission. The lead military officer that day, Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield, told the commission that the Pentagon's command center had been essentially leaderless: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find" Rumsfeld.

For more than two hours after the Federal Aviation Administration became aware that the first plane had been violently overtaken by Middle Eastern men, the man whose job it was to order air cover over Washington did not show up in the Pentagon's command center. It took him almost two hours to "gain situational awareness," he told the commission. He didn't speak to the vice president until 10:39 a.m., according to the report. Since that was more than 30 minutes after the last hijacked plane crashed, it would seem to be an admission of dereliction of duty.

Rumsfeld's testimony before the commission last March was bizarre. Asked point-blank by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick what he had done to protect the nation � or even the Pentagon � during the "summer of threat" preceding the attacks, Rumsfeld replied simply that "it was a law enforcement issue." That obfuscation � was the FBI expected to be out on the Beltway with shoulder-launched missiles? � has been accepted at face value by the commission and media.

Rumsfeld is in charge of NORAD, which has the specific mission of protecting the United States and Canada by responding to any form of air attack. The official chain of command in the event of a hijacking calls for the president to empower the secretary of Defense to send up a military escort and, if necessary, give shoot-down orders.

Yet President Bush told the panel he spoke to Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10 a.m. � 23 minutes after the Pentagon was hit and moments before the last plane went down. It was, says the report, "a brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed."

As a result, NORAD's commanders were left in the dark about what their mission was. When fighters were told to scramble from Langley, Va., they were sent not to cover Washington but on a fool's mission to tail and identify American Airlines Flight 11, which was already boiling the first Trade Center tower to the ground.

Why wasn't Rumsfeld able to see on TV what millions of civilians already knew? After the Pentagon was attacked, why did he run outside to play medic instead of moving to the command center and taking charge? The 9/11 report records the fatal confusion in which command center personnel were left: Three minutes after the FAA command center told FAA headquarters in an update that Flight 93 was 29 minutes out of Washington, D.C., the command center said, "Uh, do we want to, uh, think about scrambling aircraft?"

FAA headquarters: "Oh, God, I don't know."

Command center: "Uh, that's a decision somebody's going to have to make probably in the next 10 minutes."

But nobody did. Three minutes later, Flight 93 was wrestled to the ground by heroic civilians.

How is it that civilians in a hijacked plane were able to communicate with their loved ones, grasp a totally new kind of enemy and weaponry and act to defend the nation's Capitol, yet the president had "communication problems" on Air Force One and the nation's defense chief didn't know what was going on until the horror was all over?

The failures of 9/11 were not inherent in the system; they were human failures. Yet, so far, no one has been fired, which leaves the 9/11 families � and all of us � in a conundrum.

The inaction of both the president and the Defense chief under the ultimate test offer little reassurance to a nervous nation under the shadow of new terror warnings. Before we attempt to revamp the entire security system, shouldn't our government look first at why the people in charge failed to communicate or coordinate a response to the catastrophe?

Gail Sheehy reported on the 9/11 commission's findings for Mother Jones. She is the author of "Middletown, America: One Town's Passage From Trauma to Hope" (Random House, 2003).

[Zimphire]

Yup they are are Mooreons.

Someone let them know that the experts. You know, they people that know how the goberment works, has came to the conclusion that it would have changed nothing. The gov is put together so that when stuff like this happens, it does what it needs to do without having to have the President right there in the white house giving orders.

But hey, don't let that stop them from knee-jerking.

Some people's minds are like concrete..

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KarlG:
He's not the only one correctly blasting Bush. And there are still people who defend him. I find that incredibly sad.

Like the 9/11 commission? And believe me they aren't doing it because they are "Bushies"

It simply didn't matter.

The armchair presidents have no clue.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It simply didn't matter.

But did Bush know this at the time? No!

[Sock Puppet Theater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Like the 9/11 commission? And believe me they aren't doing it because they are "Bushies"

It simply didn't matter.

The armchair presidents have no clue.

Even if it turns out that it didn't matter (in hindsight), do you still approve of how he handled it? You know, it's ok to think he should have done something different. Bush will still send you christmas cards.

As for the "armchair presidents" quote...weak at best. It's our duty as citizens to oversee, criticize, second guess, analyze, etc.. the actions of our government. People only say "Well, let's see you try to run the government smart guy!!" when they've run out of arguments (not that you're saying that, just thought I'd throw that out there). Just because we, personally, couldn't do the job, doesn't mean our critiques aren't valid.

[Spliffdaddy]

well, yeah it sorta does.

[Sock Puppet Theater]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
well, yeah it sorta does.

Oh. Well then you may critique things on which you are an expert and have first hand knowledge. No more advice/criticism about children, judaism, Clinton, baton twirling, the military, history, homosexuality, etc..

This is the same mentality that says only women have valid opinions on abortion. That only homosexuals have a voice when it comes to gay rights. That only ex-presidents can second guess the current one. They have a unique perspective yes, but not the only valid one.

Either way, we're just idiots debating on some message board. Bush isn't reading this. And, aside from something about a secret service agent I read in an old thread, no one from the government cares about any of this.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Yet that doesn't stop the Mooreons from starting yet another thread.

So why did Roosevelt take over a day to declare war on Japan once Pearl was bombed. What a lousy President!

Tell you what. For every thread like this let's start another tiring "Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants" thread.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Scientist:
But did Bush know this at the time? No!

I am sure he did. He knew what said procedures are. How do you know what he didn't know?

You know there are a lot of things that are self automatic in the gov that doesn't need Bush's supervision. You'd think you would be happy about that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Sock Puppet Theater:
Even if it turns out that it didn't matter (in hindsight), do you still approve of how he handled it? You know, it's ok to think he should have done something different. Bush will still send you christmas cards.

I couldn't care either way. because I am not a petty anti-Bush zealot.

As for the "armchair presidents" quote...weak at best. It's our duty as citizens to oversee, criticize, second guess, analyze, etc.. the actions of our government.

Of course. But to pretentiously act as if you know what Bush knew at the time, and what procedures there is for such thing, and what is and is not automated responses and such is pretty silly.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
well, yeah it sorta does.

Wow. Five words. Glad you could contribute something to the discussion.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Scientist:
But did Bush know this at the time? No!

*smackdown*

Taliesin

[Sven G]

Moore & moron ---> Mooreon

... buuuuut:

Bush & debauchee ---> Debushee

Funny? Maybe not - but just to balance things a little...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
*smackdown*

Taliesin

How in the world was that a smackdown? He doesn't know what Bush knew.

That was a knee-jerk.