The infamous "7 minutes"

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Aelius
I hope you guys realize that Bush was told what happend between 8:46 and 8:55 right?

This was way before he ever reached the school, let alone was sitting in the classroom.

He was then told again between 8:55 and 9:00.

From what I read he missunderstood or was missinformed and thought that only one plane has crashed at this point and still thought it was an accident.

I find this not impossible to belieave, considering the person we are talking about, but he claimed again and again that he saw the first hit live.

Which is impossible to accomplish through news channels since none of them had that footage until the following day and he couldn't have meant that he saw the second plane hit since he was told of that event later in the classroom after it happend.

There are only three other options.

1. He is outright lying. I cannot come up with a reasonable cause for this and even though I think he is an idiot it makes no sense for him to claim this by lying. He seemed to ask several educated questions from those whom told him what happend (bad weather? accident?) that is not unsual for someone with flight experience to ask. This suggets he had no prior knowledge of the event that some sources claim. That's assuming he wasn't acting but lets leave the unknown out of this.

2. He saw it because there was some sort of security camera of some sorts that part of his escort/staff was watching as the event happend and he happend to see it. This is highly unlikely since security cameras do not point straight at other buildings, never have before or since. Especially not "up" at a building. This pretty much rules this option out. Even if this was somehow true why were they watching it in the first place? It would have to have been planned. It makes no sense.

3. They had purposefully setup a camera to watch the event unfold and Bush saw it as he was passing by.

Also don't forget the plane hit before Bush ever even reached the school.

Unless someone else has a possible explaination you are welcome to fire away. I cannot think of others.

When you eliminate all other possibilities the one you are left with, however improbable, must be the truth.

"(9:01 a.m.)

Bush later makes the following statement: ?And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower?the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, ?There's one terrible pilot.? And I said, ?It must have been a horrible accident.? But I was whisked off there?I didn't have much time to think about it.? [CNN, 12/4/01] He has repeated the story on other occasions. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] However, it has been noted that Bush doesn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] A Boston Herald article later says, ?Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit?which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.? The article points out that Bush had told the story more than once, and asks, ? How could the commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building?as it happened?? [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] "

source

This research site does not contain everything but contains a lot of information. Some of the more unnerving peices of information is outright missing and not mentioned. Not sure why. Possibly because there is no collaborative evidence.

He very well could have seen the video of the tower burning, and later saw the video of the 2nd plane hitting. He then assumed that video was the beginning of the one with tower burning instead of a 2nd crash. Why he thought so, and why he wasn't corrected is anyone's guess. I think it is very semantical to make an argument that he had a live feed from terrorists or had prior knowledge of the attack. That's just an absurd conspiracy theory. I myself had forgotten that the video wasn't aired until 9/12, and simply was mixed up by the order of the video. It could happen to anyone. I doubt there was a conspiracy. There's also the chance he just misspoke on numerous occasions and just saw the burning and not the plane. Humans have a way of exaggerating what they saw -- even the President.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
I hope you guys realize that Bush was told what happend between 8:46 and 8:55 right?

This was way before he ever reached the school, let alone was sitting in the classroom.

He was then told again between 8:55 and 9:00.

From what I read he missunderstood or was missinformed and thought that only one plane has crashed at this point and still thought it was an accident.

I find this not impossible to belieave, considering the person we are talking about, but he claimed again and again that he saw the first hit live.

Which is impossible to accomplish through news channels since none of them had that footage until the following day and he couldn't have meant that he saw the second plane hit since he was told of that event later in the classroom after it happend.

There are only three other options.

1. He is outright lying. I cannot come up with a reasonable cause for this and even though I think he is an idiot it makes no sense for him to claim this by lying. He seemed to ask several educated questions from those whom told him what happend (bad weather? accident?) that is not unsual for someone with flight experience to ask. This suggets he had no prior knowledge of the event that some sources claim. That's assuming he wasn't acting but lets leave the unknown out of this.

2. He saw it because there was some sort of security camera of some sorts that part of his escort/staff was watching as the event happend and he happend to see it. This is highly unlikely since security cameras do not point straight at other buildings, never have before or since. Especially not "up" at a building. This pretty much rules this option out. Even if this was somehow true why were they watching it in the first place? It would have to have been planned. It makes no sense.

3. They had purposefully setup a camera to watch the event unfold and Bush saw it as he was passing by.

Also don't forget the plane hit before Bush ever even reached the school.

Unless someone else has a possible explaination you are welcome to fire away. I cannot think of others.

When you eliminate all other possibilities the one you are left with, however improbable, must be the truth.

"(9:01 a.m.)

Bush later makes the following statement: ?And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower?the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, ?There's one terrible pilot.? And I said, ?It must have been a horrible accident.? But I was whisked off there?I didn't have much time to think about it.? [CNN, 12/4/01] He has repeated the story on other occasions. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] However, it has been noted that Bush doesn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] A Boston Herald article later says, ?Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit?which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.? The article points out that Bush had told the story more than once, and asks, ? How could the commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building?as it happened?? [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] "

source

This research site does not contain everything but contains a lot of information. Some of the more unnerving peices of information is outright missing and not mentioned. Not sure why. Possibly because there is no collaborative evidence.

He very well could have seen the video of the tower burning, and later saw the video of the 2nd plane hitting. He then assumed that video was the beginning of the one with tower burning instead of a 2nd crash. Why he thought so, and why he wasn't corrected is anyone's guess. I think it is very semantical to make an argument that he had a live feed from terrorists or had prior knowledge of the attack. That's just an absurd conspiracy theory. I myself had forgotten that the video wasn't aired until 9/12, and simply was mixed up by the order of the video. It could happen to anyone. I doubt there was a conspiracy. There's also the chance he just misspoke on numerous occasions and just saw the burning and not the plane. Humans have a way of exaggerating what they saw -- even the President.

He specifically said on several occasion he saw the first plane hit the tower.

You can't get any more specific than that. If you, as President, cannot say what you mean you should not be in office. Period.

So either scratch it up as he lying, a conspiracy, or outright incompetence.

Take your pick.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,519
595
126
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
I hope you guys realize that Bush was told what happend between 8:46 and 8:55 right?

This was way before he ever reached the school, let alone was sitting in the classroom.

He was then told again between 8:55 and 9:00.

From what I read he missunderstood or was missinformed and thought that only one plane has crashed at this point and still thought it was an accident.

I find this not impossible to belieave, considering the person we are talking about, but he claimed again and again that he saw the first hit live.

Which is impossible to accomplish through news channels since none of them had that footage until the following day and he couldn't have meant that he saw the second plane hit since he was told of that event later in the classroom after it happend.

There are only three other options.

1. He is outright lying. I cannot come up with a reasonable cause for this and even though I think he is an idiot it makes no sense for him to claim this by lying. He seemed to ask several educated questions from those whom told him what happend (bad weather? accident?) that is not unsual for someone with flight experience to ask. This suggets he had no prior knowledge of the event that some sources claim. That's assuming he wasn't acting but lets leave the unknown out of this.

2. He saw it because there was some sort of security camera of some sorts that part of his escort/staff was watching as the event happend and he happend to see it. This is highly unlikely since security cameras do not point straight at other buildings, never have before or since. Especially not "up" at a building. This pretty much rules this option out. Even if this was somehow true why were they watching it in the first place? It would have to have been planned. It makes no sense.

3. They had purposefully setup a camera to watch the event unfold and Bush saw it as he was passing by.

Also don't forget the plane hit before Bush ever even reached the school.

Unless someone else has a possible explaination you are welcome to fire away. I cannot think of others.

When you eliminate all other possibilities the one you are left with, however improbable, must be the truth.

"(9:01 a.m.)

Bush later makes the following statement: ?And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower?the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, ?There's one terrible pilot.? And I said, ?It must have been a horrible accident.? But I was whisked off there?I didn't have much time to think about it.? [CNN, 12/4/01] He has repeated the story on other occasions. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] However, it has been noted that Bush doesn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] A Boston Herald article later says, ?Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit?which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.? The article points out that Bush had told the story more than once, and asks, ? How could the commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building?as it happened?? [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] "

source

This research site does not contain everything but contains a lot of information. Some of the more unnerving peices of information is outright missing and not mentioned. Not sure why. Possibly because there is no collaborative evidence.

He very well could have seen the video of the tower burning, and later saw the video of the 2nd plane hitting. He then assumed that video was the beginning of the one with tower burning instead of a 2nd crash. Why he thought so, and why he wasn't corrected is anyone's guess. I think it is very semantical to make an argument that he had a live feed from terrorists or had prior knowledge of the attack. That's just an absurd conspiracy theory. I myself had forgotten that the video wasn't aired until 9/12, and simply was mixed up by the order of the video. It could happen to anyone. I doubt there was a conspiracy. There's also the chance he just misspoke on numerous occasions and just saw the burning and not the plane. Humans have a way of exaggerating what they saw -- even the President.

He specifically said on several occasion he saw the first plane hit the tower.

You can't get any more specific than that. If you, as President, cannot say what you mean you should not be in office. Period.

So either scratch it up as he lying, a conspiracy, or outright incompetence.

Take your pick.


Does anyone think for a minute that perhaps we have satellites watching some of our major cities...things that most people don't know about?

Who of us wasn't in a state of shock or surprise?

I was listening to "bob and tom" on my way to work and at first thought it was a joke.

We are always looking for a root cause to why these evil f*cks hate us...trying to blame the US for it...well guess what ...it was 19 evil f#cks who made the decision to hi jack planes and crash them into buidlings. Just like it was 2 evil f&cks that went into a school with guns on a shooting spree.

What MM does is try to make excuses for evil F@cks....doesn't anyone see this?

I am so sick of the Wile E Coyote / Road Runner type defenses...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Really folks...

The President knew about as much as I did about WHO kidnapped the airliners and the surrounding events at the time of those events. Now, don't you think he might just want to know some of the who, what, where, why and all that BEFORE he takes some kind of action. Can you imagine if he ordered shot down the airliner that crashed in PA.

Grounding ALL air traffic was the correct first step... a bit late but, a good move.

I think Bush is an ineffective leader but, this seven minute thingi is absurd. If he was in the White House do you think he'd be doing much more than waiting for information?

Re: The satellites and their positioning and objectives.

It is not real prudent use of surveillance satellites to position them over US cities. I doubt we spend money to monitor traffic conditions in Detroit.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
I hope you guys realize that Bush was told what happend between 8:46 and 8:55 right?

This was way before he ever reached the school, let alone was sitting in the classroom.

He was then told again between 8:55 and 9:00.

From what I read he missunderstood or was missinformed and thought that only one plane has crashed at this point and still thought it was an accident.

I find this not impossible to belieave, considering the person we are talking about, but he claimed again and again that he saw the first hit live.

Which is impossible to accomplish through news channels since none of them had that footage until the following day and he couldn't have meant that he saw the second plane hit since he was told of that event later in the classroom after it happend.

There are only three other options.

1. He is outright lying. I cannot come up with a reasonable cause for this and even though I think he is an idiot it makes no sense for him to claim this by lying. He seemed to ask several educated questions from those whom told him what happend (bad weather? accident?) that is not unsual for someone with flight experience to ask. This suggets he had no prior knowledge of the event that some sources claim. That's assuming he wasn't acting but lets leave the unknown out of this.

2. He saw it because there was some sort of security camera of some sorts that part of his escort/staff was watching as the event happend and he happend to see it. This is highly unlikely since security cameras do not point straight at other buildings, never have before or since. Especially not "up" at a building. This pretty much rules this option out. Even if this was somehow true why were they watching it in the first place? It would have to have been planned. It makes no sense.

3. They had purposefully setup a camera to watch the event unfold and Bush saw it as he was passing by.

Also don't forget the plane hit before Bush ever even reached the school.

Unless someone else has a possible explaination you are welcome to fire away. I cannot think of others.

When you eliminate all other possibilities the one you are left with, however improbable, must be the truth.

"(9:01 a.m.)

Bush later makes the following statement: ?And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower?the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, ?There's one terrible pilot.? And I said, ?It must have been a horrible accident.? But I was whisked off there?I didn't have much time to think about it.? [CNN, 12/4/01] He has repeated the story on other occasions. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] However, it has been noted that Bush doesn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] A Boston Herald article later says, ?Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit?which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.? The article points out that Bush had told the story more than once, and asks, ? How could the commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building?as it happened?? [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] "

source

This research site does not contain everything but contains a lot of information. Some of the more unnerving peices of information is outright missing and not mentioned. Not sure why. Possibly because there is no collaborative evidence.

He very well could have seen the video of the tower burning, and later saw the video of the 2nd plane hitting. He then assumed that video was the beginning of the one with tower burning instead of a 2nd crash. Why he thought so, and why he wasn't corrected is anyone's guess. I think it is very semantical to make an argument that he had a live feed from terrorists or had prior knowledge of the attack. That's just an absurd conspiracy theory. I myself had forgotten that the video wasn't aired until 9/12, and simply was mixed up by the order of the video. It could happen to anyone. I doubt there was a conspiracy. There's also the chance he just misspoke on numerous occasions and just saw the burning and not the plane. Humans have a way of exaggerating what they saw -- even the President.

He specifically said on several occasion he saw the first plane hit the tower.

You can't get any more specific than that. If you, as President, cannot say what you mean you should not be in office. Period.

So either scratch it up as he lying, a conspiracy, or outright incompetence.

Take your pick.

Sorry, but that is fallacious reasoning. There are other options than the ones you listed. Being mistaken or misinformed are options you forget. You immediately want to conclude the worst possible thing because it furthers the agenda you support. That is pure bias and highlights the problem with your argument. For all we know any of the reasons you OR I have listed are not the reason he said what he said. We are simply incapable of knowing, and it honestly isn't that big of a deal. People mistakenly say things about stressful situations all the time. I always remembered my Pastor wearing a Green Jacket when he told me my Father died in a plane crash. It wasn't until at least 10 years later that I found out that isn't what he was wearing. I was 8, so I was cognizant of colors at the time. Stressful situations and/or emotional situations can cause memory problems. I'm not trying to be defensive of Bush, but simply saying that your logic is hardly unbiased or thought out in a strong manner.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
I hope you guys realize that Bush was told what happend between 8:46 and 8:55 right?

This was way before he ever reached the school, let alone was sitting in the classroom.

He was then told again between 8:55 and 9:00.

From what I read he missunderstood or was missinformed and thought that only one plane has crashed at this point and still thought it was an accident.

I find this not impossible to belieave, considering the person we are talking about, but he claimed again and again that he saw the first hit live.

Which is impossible to accomplish through news channels since none of them had that footage until the following day and he couldn't have meant that he saw the second plane hit since he was told of that event later in the classroom after it happend.

There are only three other options.

1. He is outright lying. I cannot come up with a reasonable cause for this and even though I think he is an idiot it makes no sense for him to claim this by lying. He seemed to ask several educated questions from those whom told him what happend (bad weather? accident?) that is not unsual for someone with flight experience to ask. This suggets he had no prior knowledge of the event that some sources claim. That's assuming he wasn't acting but lets leave the unknown out of this.

2. He saw it because there was some sort of security camera of some sorts that part of his escort/staff was watching as the event happend and he happend to see it. This is highly unlikely since security cameras do not point straight at other buildings, never have before or since. Especially not "up" at a building. This pretty much rules this option out. Even if this was somehow true why were they watching it in the first place? It would have to have been planned. It makes no sense.

3. They had purposefully setup a camera to watch the event unfold and Bush saw it as he was passing by.

Also don't forget the plane hit before Bush ever even reached the school.

Unless someone else has a possible explaination you are welcome to fire away. I cannot think of others.

When you eliminate all other possibilities the one you are left with, however improbable, must be the truth.

"(9:01 a.m.)

Bush later makes the following statement: ?And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower?the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, ?There's one terrible pilot.? And I said, ?It must have been a horrible accident.? But I was whisked off there?I didn't have much time to think about it.? [CNN, 12/4/01] He has repeated the story on other occasions. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] However, it has been noted that Bush doesn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] A Boston Herald article later says, ?Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit?which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.? The article points out that Bush had told the story more than once, and asks, ? How could the commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building?as it happened?? [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] "

source

This research site does not contain everything but contains a lot of information. Some of the more unnerving peices of information is outright missing and not mentioned. Not sure why. Possibly because there is no collaborative evidence.

He very well could have seen the video of the tower burning, and later saw the video of the 2nd plane hitting. He then assumed that video was the beginning of the one with tower burning instead of a 2nd crash. Why he thought so, and why he wasn't corrected is anyone's guess. I think it is very semantical to make an argument that he had a live feed from terrorists or had prior knowledge of the attack. That's just an absurd conspiracy theory. I myself had forgotten that the video wasn't aired until 9/12, and simply was mixed up by the order of the video. It could happen to anyone. I doubt there was a conspiracy. There's also the chance he just misspoke on numerous occasions and just saw the burning and not the plane. Humans have a way of exaggerating what they saw -- even the President.

He specifically said on several occasion he saw the first plane hit the tower.

You can't get any more specific than that. If you, as President, cannot say what you mean you should not be in office. Period.

So either scratch it up as he lying, a conspiracy, or outright incompetence.

Take your pick.

Sorry, but that is fallacious reasoning. There are other options than the ones you listed. Being mistaken or misinformed are options you forget. You immediately want to conclude the worst possible thing because it furthers the agenda you support. That is pure bias and highlights the problem with your argument. For all we know any of the reasons you OR I have listed are not the reason he said what he said. We are simply incapable of knowing, and it honestly isn't that big of a deal. People mistakenly say things about stressful situations all the time. I always remembered my Pastor wearing a Green Jacket when he told me my Father died in a plane crash. It wasn't until at least 10 years later that I found out that isn't what he was wearing. I was 8, so I was cognizant of colors at the time. Stressful situations and/or emotional situations can cause memory problems. I'm not trying to be defensive of Bush, but simply saying that your logic is hardly unbiased or thought out in a strong manner.

All that text and you really haven't said much.


Lets assume for a minute you are right. Lets say he is given bad information, not impossible, and I even noted this in my original post, which you then used to accuse me of not mentioning.

Assuming this take into account that there is some possible evidence to point to this. He automatically assumed and even said so on more than one occasion during those few minutes that it was a small plane. Obviously he was mistaken and it is not clear but appears obvious that no one corrected him. This is why I DID mention that he might have gotten false information. No other reason what so ever.

However I'm not talking about that timeline. I'm talking afterwards when he said he saw the plane hit the tower. Assuming he would have seen what we saw, we will never know, it would have stood to reason, assuming he was a pilot with experience (sarcasm), that a hole the size of a couple of city bus' in the side of the building where up to 50,000 people worked might have set off a little lightbulb saying "hey this isn't normal".

A jet crashing into the mountain is an unfortunate accident, the same jet crashing into the WTC, a passed site of a terror attack and continuous threats, is not an accident. Assuming you are right and he assumed it was an accident or a small plane or was misslead to assume it was then it is "incompetence".

Why? Planes do not crash into the WTC or any other landmark even rarely in the US. Even if it was a small plane just assuming the best is not the mindset you want in a country where half the world hates you.

That fits into what I said before. No conspiracy, no lying, just sheer incompetence.

Maybe you don't like the word I use to describe the President of the United States of America but let me ask you this, what word or words would you use to describe him? Cool and calculating under presure? You gota be kidding me.

Also explain to me what is wrong with my logic.

All you have done so far is tried to insult me because you cannot come up with a line of logic to backup what you preach so instead it was far easier to accuse me and try to paint me of trying to follow some sort of agenda.

Next I will be accused of supporting Kerry or some other BS.

Try again.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
I hope you guys realize that Bush was told what happend between 8:46 and 8:55 right?

This was way before he ever reached the school, let alone was sitting in the classroom.

He was then told again between 8:55 and 9:00.

From what I read he missunderstood or was missinformed and thought that only one plane has crashed at this point and still thought it was an accident.

I find this not impossible to belieave, considering the person we are talking about, but he claimed again and again that he saw the first hit live.

Which is impossible to accomplish through news channels since none of them had that footage until the following day and he couldn't have meant that he saw the second plane hit since he was told of that event later in the classroom after it happend.

There are only three other options.

1. He is outright lying. I cannot come up with a reasonable cause for this and even though I think he is an idiot it makes no sense for him to claim this by lying. He seemed to ask several educated questions from those whom told him what happend (bad weather? accident?) that is not unsual for someone with flight experience to ask. This suggets he had no prior knowledge of the event that some sources claim. That's assuming he wasn't acting but lets leave the unknown out of this.

2. He saw it because there was some sort of security camera of some sorts that part of his escort/staff was watching as the event happend and he happend to see it. This is highly unlikely since security cameras do not point straight at other buildings, never have before or since. Especially not "up" at a building. This pretty much rules this option out. Even if this was somehow true why were they watching it in the first place? It would have to have been planned. It makes no sense.

3. They had purposefully setup a camera to watch the event unfold and Bush saw it as he was passing by.

Also don't forget the plane hit before Bush ever even reached the school.

Unless someone else has a possible explaination you are welcome to fire away. I cannot think of others.

When you eliminate all other possibilities the one you are left with, however improbable, must be the truth.

"(9:01 a.m.)

Bush later makes the following statement: ?And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower?the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, ?There's one terrible pilot.? And I said, ?It must have been a horrible accident.? But I was whisked off there?I didn't have much time to think about it.? [CNN, 12/4/01] He has repeated the story on other occasions. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] However, it has been noted that Bush doesn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] A Boston Herald article later says, ?Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit?which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.? The article points out that Bush had told the story more than once, and asks, ? How could the commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building?as it happened?? [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] "

source

This research site does not contain everything but contains a lot of information. Some of the more unnerving peices of information is outright missing and not mentioned. Not sure why. Possibly because there is no collaborative evidence.

He very well could have seen the video of the tower burning, and later saw the video of the 2nd plane hitting. He then assumed that video was the beginning of the one with tower burning instead of a 2nd crash. Why he thought so, and why he wasn't corrected is anyone's guess. I think it is very semantical to make an argument that he had a live feed from terrorists or had prior knowledge of the attack. That's just an absurd conspiracy theory. I myself had forgotten that the video wasn't aired until 9/12, and simply was mixed up by the order of the video. It could happen to anyone. I doubt there was a conspiracy. There's also the chance he just misspoke on numerous occasions and just saw the burning and not the plane. Humans have a way of exaggerating what they saw -- even the President.

He specifically said on several occasion he saw the first plane hit the tower.

You can't get any more specific than that. If you, as President, cannot say what you mean you should not be in office. Period.

So either scratch it up as he lying, a conspiracy, or outright incompetence.

Take your pick.

Sorry, but that is fallacious reasoning. There are other options than the ones you listed. Being mistaken or misinformed are options you forget. You immediately want to conclude the worst possible thing because it furthers the agenda you support. That is pure bias and highlights the problem with your argument. For all we know any of the reasons you OR I have listed are not the reason he said what he said. We are simply incapable of knowing, and it honestly isn't that big of a deal. People mistakenly say things about stressful situations all the time. I always remembered my Pastor wearing a Green Jacket when he told me my Father died in a plane crash. It wasn't until at least 10 years later that I found out that isn't what he was wearing. I was 8, so I was cognizant of colors at the time. Stressful situations and/or emotional situations can cause memory problems. I'm not trying to be defensive of Bush, but simply saying that your logic is hardly unbiased or thought out in a strong manner.

All that text and you really haven't said much.


Lets assume for a minute you are right. Lets say he is given bad information, not impossible, and I even noted this in my original post, which you then used to accuse me of not mentioning.

Assuming this take into account that there is some possible evidence to point to this. He automatically assumed and even said so on more than one occasion during those few minutes that it was a small plane. Obviously he was mistaken and it is not clear but appears obvious that no one corrected him. This is why I DID mention that he might have gotten false information. No other reason what so ever.

However I'm not talking about that timeline. I'm talking afterwards when he said he saw the plane hit the tower. Assuming he would have seen what we saw, we will never know, it would have stood to reason, assuming he was a pilot with experience (sarcasm), that a hole the size of a couple of city bus' in the side of the building where up to 50,000 people worked might have set off a little lightbulb saying "hey this isn't normal".

A jet crashing into the mountain is an unfortunate accident, the same jet crashing into the WTC, a passed site of a terror attack and continuous threats, is not an accident. Assuming you are right and he assumed it was an accident or a small plane or was misslead to assume it was then it is "incompetence".

Why? Planes do not crash into the WTC or any other landmark even rarely in the US. Even if it was a small plane just assuming the best is not the mindset you want in a country where half the world hates you.

That fits into what I said before. No conspiracy, no lying, just sheer incompetence.

Maybe you don't like the word I use to describe the President of the United States of America but let me ask you this, what word or words would you use to describe him? Cool and calculating under presure? You gota be kidding me.

Also explain to me what is wrong with my logic.

All you have done so far is tried to insult me because you cannot come up with a line of logic to backup what you preach so instead it was far easier to accuse me and try to paint me of trying to follow some sort of agenda.

Next I will be accused of supporting Kerry or some other BS.

Try again.

I didn't insult you a single time. I said your logic was fallacious, and it is. Your logic is that if it isn't X, then it must be Y. That's simply fallacious. See here.. Just because because Bush said that doesn't mean he is incompetent by proxy. Regardless -- I haven't accused you of being a Kerry supporter, but I simply said that you chose the worst possible scenario because it furthers your agenda. Your agenda is that Bush is either incompetent, a liar, or involved in a conspiracy. You ignore the idea that it could have been simple error in his recollection.

I don't remember Bush acting as if it wasn't normal, but the commentary at the time on CNN(I viewed the footage in the Vanderbilt TV archive before posting this) seemed to suggest it was a small plane that crashed due to an air-traffic control error. Bush's comments suggest that he too believed what others were saying at the time. I can't defend him continuing to make the error except that he made a mistake in judgment. It is possible that he was incompetent or lying, but I ask your for your proof of such claims. You posted information from a site that has concluded that there is a conspiracy(read their other information, that Bush is incompetent, or lying. Very little of your post or their site gave credence to the claim that it was a simple error in recollection, or an error in what he thought he saw.

Why? Planes do not crash into the WTC or any other landmark even rarely in the US. Even if it was a small plane just assuming the best is not the mindset you want in a country where half the world hates you.

There has never been such a terror attack before, but planes have crashed into the Empire State Building and other tall buildings before. At the TIME(before the second plane) most commentators and citizens(as well as Bush) concluded that it was a small plane and an accident. Hindsight it 20/20 for sure, but realize our knowledge of the incident now does not allow us to pass judgment on behavior or thoughts that happened at THAT time. Simply put -- we can't say that Bush should have known it was a terror attack or that it was obvious it wasn't a small plane. It is impossible to do so because at that time very few people considered it to be a terror attack. Bush was asked what went through his mind at that time, and not to reflect on the situation after the fact. It would behoove you to actually consider my logic instead of accusing me of personally attacking you.

I'd like to ask you to support the three options you give us with facts and not rhetoric or fallacious reasoning. I'd also like for you to point out why you can so easily discount something that is very under stressful situations. Not that it being common makes it true, but that the commonality of it all gives some credence to the idea that Bush made a simple mistake.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: daveshel
Right, I seriously boubt Dubya was thinking about security protocols - he probably didn't know much about them.

And the passage of minutes wasn't as big a deal for me as watching the deer-caught-in-the-headlights look on his face. That was not the face of a confident leader that I want making life-or-death decisions in a time of crisis.


no kidding. well the bush defenders probably won't see the movie anyways, not that they want to. better to keep their delusion going.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: daveshel
Right, I seriously boubt Dubya was thinking about security protocols - he probably didn't know much about them.

And the passage of minutes wasn't as big a deal for me as watching the deer-caught-in-the-headlights look on his face. That was not the face of a confident leader that I want making life-or-death decisions in a time of crisis.


no kidding. well the bush defenders probably won't see the movie anyways, not that they want to. better to keep their delusion going.

I have seen the movie, and I'm not a Bush defender. I'm a defender of Americans keeping a logical mind and not allowing emotion and rhetoric to persuade them. The idea is to be logical and decide why someone had the thought process and reaction that they did.
 

DeeKnow

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2002
2,470
0
71
i'm amazed by all the what-could-he-have-done-in7-minutes crowd...

In 7 minutes GWB could have (and should have)

- stopped what he was doing so he could pay attention to more important things that were unfolding

- asked to speak to his deputies, to get more details, to verify how much was known, from what sources

- checked that the people who were responsible (for responding to such an event) were actually available, had been contacted, and were responding appropriately

- asked whether anyone was hurt or killed (it was an 'accident' at that stage, so somebody might have been hurt, no ? DUH..)


need more ????
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
I hope you guys realize that Bush was told what happend between 8:46 and 8:55 right?

This was way before he ever reached the school, let alone was sitting in the classroom.

He was then told again between 8:55 and 9:00.

From what I read he missunderstood or was missinformed and thought that only one plane has crashed at this point and still thought it was an accident.

I find this not impossible to belieave, considering the person we are talking about, but he claimed again and again that he saw the first hit live.

Which is impossible to accomplish through news channels since none of them had that footage until the following day and he couldn't have meant that he saw the second plane hit since he was told of that event later in the classroom after it happend.

There are only three other options.

1. He is outright lying. I cannot come up with a reasonable cause for this and even though I think he is an idiot it makes no sense for him to claim this by lying. He seemed to ask several educated questions from those whom told him what happend (bad weather? accident?) that is not unsual for someone with flight experience to ask. This suggets he had no prior knowledge of the event that some sources claim. That's assuming he wasn't acting but lets leave the unknown out of this.

2. He saw it because there was some sort of security camera of some sorts that part of his escort/staff was watching as the event happend and he happend to see it. This is highly unlikely since security cameras do not point straight at other buildings, never have before or since. Especially not "up" at a building. This pretty much rules this option out. Even if this was somehow true why were they watching it in the first place? It would have to have been planned. It makes no sense.

3. They had purposefully setup a camera to watch the event unfold and Bush saw it as he was passing by.

Also don't forget the plane hit before Bush ever even reached the school.

Unless someone else has a possible explaination you are welcome to fire away. I cannot think of others.

When you eliminate all other possibilities the one you are left with, however improbable, must be the truth.

"(9:01 a.m.)

Bush later makes the following statement: ?And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower?the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, ?There's one terrible pilot.? And I said, ?It must have been a horrible accident.? But I was whisked off there?I didn't have much time to think about it.? [CNN, 12/4/01] He has repeated the story on other occasions. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] However, it has been noted that Bush doesn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] A Boston Herald article later says, ?Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit?which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.? The article points out that Bush had told the story more than once, and asks, ? How could the commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building?as it happened?? [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] "

source

This research site does not contain everything but contains a lot of information. Some of the more unnerving peices of information is outright missing and not mentioned. Not sure why. Possibly because there is no collaborative evidence.

He very well could have seen the video of the tower burning, and later saw the video of the 2nd plane hitting. He then assumed that video was the beginning of the one with tower burning instead of a 2nd crash. Why he thought so, and why he wasn't corrected is anyone's guess. I think it is very semantical to make an argument that he had a live feed from terrorists or had prior knowledge of the attack. That's just an absurd conspiracy theory. I myself had forgotten that the video wasn't aired until 9/12, and simply was mixed up by the order of the video. It could happen to anyone. I doubt there was a conspiracy. There's also the chance he just misspoke on numerous occasions and just saw the burning and not the plane. Humans have a way of exaggerating what they saw -- even the President.

He specifically said on several occasion he saw the first plane hit the tower.

You can't get any more specific than that. If you, as President, cannot say what you mean you should not be in office. Period.

So either scratch it up as he lying, a conspiracy, or outright incompetence.

Take your pick.

Sorry, but that is fallacious reasoning. There are other options than the ones you listed. Being mistaken or misinformed are options you forget. You immediately want to conclude the worst possible thing because it furthers the agenda you support. That is pure bias and highlights the problem with your argument. For all we know any of the reasons you OR I have listed are not the reason he said what he said. We are simply incapable of knowing, and it honestly isn't that big of a deal. People mistakenly say things about stressful situations all the time. I always remembered my Pastor wearing a Green Jacket when he told me my Father died in a plane crash. It wasn't until at least 10 years later that I found out that isn't what he was wearing. I was 8, so I was cognizant of colors at the time. Stressful situations and/or emotional situations can cause memory problems. I'm not trying to be defensive of Bush, but simply saying that your logic is hardly unbiased or thought out in a strong manner.

All that text and you really haven't said much.


Lets assume for a minute you are right. Lets say he is given bad information, not impossible, and I even noted this in my original post, which you then used to accuse me of not mentioning.

Assuming this take into account that there is some possible evidence to point to this. He automatically assumed and even said so on more than one occasion during those few minutes that it was a small plane. Obviously he was mistaken and it is not clear but appears obvious that no one corrected him. This is why I DID mention that he might have gotten false information. No other reason what so ever.

However I'm not talking about that timeline. I'm talking afterwards when he said he saw the plane hit the tower. Assuming he would have seen what we saw, we will never know, it would have stood to reason, assuming he was a pilot with experience (sarcasm), that a hole the size of a couple of city bus' in the side of the building where up to 50,000 people worked might have set off a little lightbulb saying "hey this isn't normal".

A jet crashing into the mountain is an unfortunate accident, the same jet crashing into the WTC, a passed site of a terror attack and continuous threats, is not an accident. Assuming you are right and he assumed it was an accident or a small plane or was misslead to assume it was then it is "incompetence".

Why? Planes do not crash into the WTC or any other landmark even rarely in the US. Even if it was a small plane just assuming the best is not the mindset you want in a country where half the world hates you.

That fits into what I said before. No conspiracy, no lying, just sheer incompetence.

Maybe you don't like the word I use to describe the President of the United States of America but let me ask you this, what word or words would you use to describe him? Cool and calculating under presure? You gota be kidding me.

Also explain to me what is wrong with my logic.

All you have done so far is tried to insult me because you cannot come up with a line of logic to backup what you preach so instead it was far easier to accuse me and try to paint me of trying to follow some sort of agenda.

Next I will be accused of supporting Kerry or some other BS.

Try again.

I didn't insult you a single time. I said your logic was fallacious, and it is. Your logic is that if it isn't X, then it must be Y. That's simply fallacious. See here.. Just because because Bush said that doesn't mean he is incompetent by proxy. Regardless -- I haven't accused you of being a Kerry supporter, but I simply said that you chose the worst possible scenario because it furthers your agenda. Your agenda is that Bush is either incompetent, a liar, or involved in a conspiracy. You ignore the idea that it could have been simple error in his recollection.

I don't remember Bush acting as if it wasn't normal, but the commentary at the time on CNN(I viewed the footage in the Vanderbilt TV archive before posting this) seemed to suggest it was a small plane that crashed due to an air-traffic control error. Bush's comments suggest that he too believed what others were saying at the time. I can't defend him continuing to make the error except that he made a mistake in judgment. It is possible that he was incompetent or lying, but I ask your for your proof of such claims. You posted information from a site that has concluded that there is a conspiracy(read their other information, that Bush is incompetent, or lying. Very little of your post or their site gave credence to the claim that it was a simple error in recollection, or an error in what he thought he saw.

Why? Planes do not crash into the WTC or any other landmark even rarely in the US. Even if it was a small plane just assuming the best is not the mindset you want in a country where half the world hates you.

There has never been such a terror attack before, but planes have crashed into the Empire State Building and other tall buildings before. At the TIME(before the second plane) most commentators and citizens(as well as Bush) concluded that it was a small plane and an accident. Hindsight it 20/20 for sure, but realize our knowledge of the incident now does not allow us to pass judgment on behavior or thoughts that happened at THAT time. Simply put -- we can't say that Bush should have known it was a terror attack or that it was obvious it wasn't a small plane. It is impossible to do so because at that time very few people considered it to be a terror attack. Bush was asked what went through his mind at that time, and not to reflect on the situation after the fact. It would behoove you to actually consider my logic instead of accusing me of personally attacking you.

I'd like to ask you to support the three options you give us with facts and not rhetoric or fallacious reasoning. I'd also like for you to point out why you can so easily discount something that is very under stressful situations. Not that it being common makes it true, but that the commonality of it all gives some credence to the idea that Bush made a simple mistake.

You give Bush too much credit.

If he was a manager of a bank and came to the conclusion he did then he can be forgiven.

He is the President. Yes he is human just like you and me but what people think when they elect a CiC is someone whom is prepared for anything. Instead they got this guy. He may even be an OK President if he wasn't the CiC but the fact is he is.

I made my points based on facts on hand. Don't get so caught up in your moral high horse that you forget the fact that you have but a single point that even I brought up, which you STILL refuse to acknowledge.

You are also splitting hairs on how you describe how Bush acted. You call it a mistake in judgment. I call it incompetence.

Let me tell you what a mistake in judgment was.

When Bush decided he could actually speak coherently at any given news conference without the aid of talking points and speech writers, that was a mistake in judgment.

Assuming the best possible circumstances when he was first told then told again of the second plane hitting the WTC as if everything was rosy, that's incompetence.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Imagine if he had jumped up, and his whole team ran out of the building. The children would have freaked out, and bleeding heart liberals would be blasting him for scaring the children and not acting calm, and reserve in a time of crisis! Who cares about the seven minutes, they mean NOTHING. :roll:
Exactly.
As opposed to sitting in front of those kids not saying a word with a dumbfounded look on his face for 7 minutes? The kids probably would have thought it cool if he had to leave in a hurry because of some pressing National Matters!
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I thought that 7 min was a big deal, but in truth after reading that it makes it seem like a witchhunt of little consequence.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
talk about apologist. it makes it sound like we have no modern mass communication systems. much can be done by a leader in a few minutes. perhaps just catch up on whats happening, make sure you get that info as quick as possible. in this case it might have not made a difference,but that doesn't mean that would always be the case. the fact that he didn't try is just horrible. a total failure of leadership when it was needed most.

and really, so whats the point, that he's totally out of touch and powerless when he steps into a classroom? perhaps thats what he was like when he was on vacation ignoring the threat of terrorism.

he makes himself out ot be a strong leader, but this is what he did after his long vacation sprees, he waffled under pressure.

you just have incredibly low standards for leadership.

I've always wondered why the military thought they needed to many officers. And why are there directors of the CIA, FBI, FAA, etc.??? Bush has a cell phone and he should be micromanaging every aspect of the government. In light of what went on during 9/11 it is abundantly clear that the only one that needed to make any decision about what to do on that day was W. And can you believe it? He was sitting in a class reading to some school children.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: rudder

I've always wondered why the military thought they needed to many officers. And why are there directors of the CIA, FBI, FAA, etc.??? Bush has a cell phone and he should be micromanaging every aspect of the government. In light of what went on during 9/11 it is abundantly clear that the only one that needed to make any decision about what to do on that day was W. And can you believe it? He was sitting in a class reading to some school children.

Actually, notwithstanding your sarcasm, there are any number of security decisions (including the authority to shoot down civilian planes over US airspace) that require Presidential approval. This is why he is the Commander in Chief. You seem to adopt the attitude that he is just an afterthought in the command chain, which just isn't the case.

As I said before, I think he was placed in an unenviable situation, and his choice to stay in the classroom didn't make any meaningful difference. That said, it clearly could have, and I'd like to treat this as a lesson learned for future reference. You, on the other hand, don't seem to think it matters, which I think is a foolish and dangerous attitude.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,359
32,868
136
Originally posted by: Ilmater
I noticed this comment on this website, which is, admittedly, out to discredit Michael Moore's new film. However, the comment is very true:
So, the woman who was there said that Bush did the right thing. The 911 commission says he did the right thing, but those who claim Bush is soaked with blood and oil know better.

Let me educate those of you who know not of what you write. Since the 1950s there has been a strict protocol on what the president and his staff is supposed to do if the country comes under attack. His first obligation is to get airborne with his closest advisors, or those who are available. Secondly, his plane is to rendezvous or at least stay in constant contact with "Looking Glass." Looking Glass is the code name for the plane that would be used to coordinate command and control of our nuclear forces. Looking Glass has since been put out to pasture as tactics and technology have changed. However, none of this can happen until escort fighters are scrambled and airborne whose mission is protection of AF1. Sarasota is just south of Tampa, where there is an Air Force base, I forget the name now. It would take at least several minutes for F16s to be manned, airborne, and in position to protect AF1. In the meantime, it would make no sense for Bush and his team to sit on the tarmac awaiting protection. If the terrorists really knew Bush's exact position, sitting in a classroom in Sarasota, then they would be able to attack regardless of where he was. If he was en-route to the airport, he would be putting commuters in danger. If he was at a McDonald's he would be putting customers in danger. Also, his security no doubt wanted to change his route to the airport, and to go to "plan B" requires escort and police to change position. Those few minutes would be needed for new placement of security. Let's say he got up and walked out of the room as you people suggest. What then? Stand in the hallway? Get on a phone? To whom? Does it make sense that the president try to call Cheney? Can you see him frantically dialing and saying "Crap, bad cell, let's go the cafeteria where maybe the signal is stronger"? His staff is supposed to do those things.

Monday morning quarterbacking is done all the time. Hell, I do it too. But to sit back and focus on 7 minutes as a national emergency unfolded is pointless. I suppose Michael Moore will next make a movie about FDR taking a dump after hearing about Pearl Harbor. I won't hold my breath. The totality of the response is what is important. Could the command, control and communication been better? Sure. But since when have a bunch of anti-military doves been the best to judge what the CiC should be doing at any given minute? No offense, but perhaps you should educate yourselves a bit more on the reality of logistics before you start claiming that "somebody do something." It's typical of those on the Left to want "somebody to do something" as evidenced by their support of gun-control as a means of "something being done" about crime. Sometimes there just isn't a hell of a lot that the CiC can do to stop a sneak attack on soft targets.

Let's just take what the school principal said, who was there, and rest on it.
If anyone isn't clear, this is referring to the 7 minutes that Bush sat in the classroom after he was told about the second plane crashing into the WTC.

I post this only because a) I'm curious if people really think that this makes Bush an idiot and b) because I'm curious to see if this changes anyone's mind.

Granted, I'm not a complete idiot. I realize 99% of those who read this won't change their mind either way. I just am so amazed that this small thing has become an issue.

So let me get this straight, you get a phone call that you wife or g/f is being beaten up, you would take 7 minutes and think about it?
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Gaard
I can't figure out what's wrong with my 'manner'? ;)

Trying to figure out what Ozoned is talking about is an exercise in futility. I am consistenly at a loss to understand him. I gather he is not a native English speaker, which is not his fault, but he is certainly cryptic. It may be, though, that he just deliberately speaks in non sequiturs all the time, though, which would indisputably be his fault.
:roll:


:cookie; for your non sequitur
 

TheGameIs21

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,329
0
0
All you GWB haters are correct... He should have stood up screamed like a 5 year old girl and ran for the limo and be taken to AF1.

It doesn't matter to you what he would have done... Anything anyone says will be labeled "Talking point" or "neocon babble" so it's not even worth the effort to explain this to you people. It's like casting pearls unto swine here...
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
All you GWB haters are correct... He should have stood up screamed like a 5 year old girl and ran for the limo and be taken to AF1.

It doesn't matter to you what he would have done... Anything anyone says will be labeled "Talking point" or "neocon babble" so it's not even worth the effort to explain this to you people. It's like casting pearls unto swine here...

I think I've been pretty consistent on this point, and I'll say it again: I think what GWB did was understandable, and certainly forgivable, but this kind of glib defense of his actions misses the point, and it prevents him, and us, from learning from the experience.

He could certainly have left the school politely but quickly, without "screaming like a 5-year-old girl," and that would have given him several more minutes to receive intel and advice, and start making decisions as to how to handle this unprecedented attack against the United States. You seem to be implying he reacted perfectly under the circumstances, which I find just impossible to agree with.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Way to punch back at the straw man Don...

Of course Bush's action here is debatable, and in fact no matter what he did, it would be worth asking if it was the right thing! Asking, not declaring.

Perhaps the decision vaccuum that might have stopped one of the planes from reaching its destination is the fault of Bush, maybe it is anothre official who blinked once too often, maybe it was a bad cell phone.

Sometimes though, optics matter, and in this case criticism should be expected, whether it was the rght action or not; whatever they reality might be, it LOOKED like Bush was doing nothing while his nation was under attack.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Ozoned
:roll:

:cookie; for your non sequitur

I hate to say it, but this is another non sequitur in this context.

So does this imply you ARE a native English speaker? I really didn't mean that as insulting - it's just that you are so consistently obscure, and your posts are so unclear, that they read like the English in a badly-translated owner's manual. I honestly never understand what you're talking about. As such, I just inferred that you weren't a native speaker. I apologize for the misunderstanding if you are.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Ozoned
:roll:

:cookie; for your non sequitur

I hate to say it, but this is another non sequitur in this context.

So does this imply you ARE a native English speaker? I really didn't mean that as insulting - it's just that you are so consistently obscure, and your posts are so unclear, that they read like the English in a badly-translated owner's manual. I honestly never understand what you're talking about. As such, I just inferred that you weren't a native speaker. I apologize for the misunderstanding if you are.


:cookie:

The topic is "The infamous "7 minutes"
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Aelius

You give Bush too much credit.

If he was a manager of a bank and came to the conclusion he did then he can be forgiven.

He is the President. Yes he is human just like you and me but what people think when they elect a CiC is someone whom is prepared for anything. Instead they got this guy. He may even be an OK President if he wasn't the CiC but the fact is he is.

I made my points based on facts on hand. Don't get so caught up in your moral high horse that you forget the fact that you have but a single point that even I brought up, which you STILL refuse to acknowledge.

You are also splitting hairs on how you describe how Bush acted. You call it a mistake in judgment. I call it incompetence.

Let me tell you what a mistake in judgment was.

When Bush decided he could actually speak coherently at any given news conference without the aid of talking points and speech writers, that was a mistake in judgment.

Assuming the best possible circumstances when he was first told then told again of the second plane hitting the WTC as if everything was rosy, that's incompetence.

Thanks for totally ignoring my arguments and creating a nice strawman. I'm done with you I do believe.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
The folks working for the President are tasked with the responsibility to bring him the accurate information. If he sits on his butt for an hour waiting for this then that is what he had to do. Now if sitting in a classroom causes some to shudder, then I proffer, it might have been the most reasonable thing for him to do. At that time, as I recall, there were reports that AF1 was a target as well.. Who knows for sure at this point? I'd have kept him in place till I was sure it was secure for him to move. I may have shut down the TV and all that media stuff.. but, maybe not. Who knew for sure that all the remaining airborne aircraft were in friendly hands?

If there is any fault in this event and I'm sure there is plenty, it resides with the folks tasked to uncover and make known the reality that became. And, when it did occur to provide the appropriate persons the information and recommendations... that last part is the tricky bit. It is butts on the line when a recommendation is made and it turns out ill thought out.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Ozoned
:roll:

:cookie; for your non sequitur

I hate to say it, but this is another non sequitur in this context.

So does this imply you ARE a native English speaker? I really didn't mean that as insulting - it's just that you are so consistently obscure, and your posts are so unclear, that they read like the English in a badly-translated owner's manual. I honestly never understand what you're talking about. As such, I just inferred that you weren't a native speaker. I apologize for the misunderstanding if you are.


:cookie:

The topic is "The infamous "7 minutes"


Are you going to let me know what's wrong with my manner?

What amazes me Gaard, is not the things you fixate on, but rather the manner in which you fixate upon them...