Bush and the Morning of Nine/Eleven

[Marigold]

An article on the morning of Nine/Eleven by Bill Maher that should be read by everyone. (I have spelled out the numbers):


August Twelfth, Two Thousand and Four Ten fity-six am
Bush Blew It the Morning of Nine/Eleven


by Bill Maher / Daily News

John Kerry has waded into an issue raised by Michael Moore in his film "Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven," 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 twenty-seven minutes that day - not only the seven minutes reading to kids but twenty 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 twenty 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.

------------------------------------------------------------

It just blows my mind that Bush sat like a lump on a log that horrible morning - when he knew we were under *serious* attack - the worse attack ever.

If Clinton had been in his place and done the same thing - I would be just as amazed, horrified - and furious.

There is no excuse.
There is no rationale.

And There is No Doubt in my mind that a true president would not have sat still like a store manikin for seven long minutes (and posed afterwards for his precious photo-op twenty more minutes)! when he was *told twice* "the United States is under attack" -

on the morning of -

:angelNine/Eleven:angel.
-Marigold:sun

[ribbon]

I actually never criticized how Bush reacted on september eleventh until I read this article http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html , believe it or not :zoinks :muhaha. I can't believe I gave him the benefit of the doubt about that :ohboy.

There is no time in the nuclear age for a President to sit like Forrest Gump "gathering thoughts" after an attack has begun.

I think this comparison is a bit unfair...... to Forrest Gump :muhaha.

[shortstop]

I totally agree. Gather thoughts? Ridiculous. He should have known. His JOB is to know what to do. What happens when you can't do your job...you get fired. Plain and simple.
I want someone who knows what to do, who is going to lead the country and be a role model. The morning of that day he showed none of those characteristics.

[Marigold]

Ribbon and Shortstop -

I agree completely w/both of you.

It's not a bipartisan issue - it goes way beyond that.

It's the spectacle of a man who is president not only freezing up during the worse time to freeze up - a large-scale attack on the US -

But then blithely going on to a photo-op - putting his own ridiculous interests before the nation's horrifying ordeal.

I think Most people, whatever political banner they carry - want a president who Cares about us being attacked - and is on the alert immediately.

Honestly, I think Forrest Gump would have acted w/more quickness and integrity on that morning.
-Marigold:sun

[MegaVictory]

Sorry, I respectfully beg to differ with your opinions on this. I worked for the government at the time, and when we first heard what was happening, we all tried to maintain our composure, keep up what we were doing, so as to avoid a mass panic. After the third place was hit, THEN, right or wrong, all mayhem broke loose, a lot of us attempted to leave by, WALKING down the steps of our federal building (no elavators in a time of emergency), and went to a coffee shop, at a big mall across the street, undismissed, but scared; then we eventually told each other we loved each other, and eventually went home. What better alternative could Bush have picked, than to continue to read to those children for seven minutes? When there is that feeling of all is lost, the last thing you need is a tactic to put further fear into the American people. I'm sorry, I felt strong with him as our leader. I went to work the next day with a heavy heart, (because he said the government was open, and I knew if I didn't go that day, I would never go again), but nonetheless, committed.

[Marigold]

MegaVictory,

I am sorry but I cannot agree w/you -

What government workers do - is not the same as what I want our President to do when it is clear to him (and it would be clear to him much sooner than to regular people like you and I) - that a national emergency of staggering proportions is underway.

Reading to kids - and continuing w/a photo - op (these two actions taking twenty-seven minutes in all) is just crazy.

He needed to start talking to people and gathering info *immediately* - which is alot different than acting like it's just a regular ole day in the neighborhood and there's time for the kids and a nice photo-op built into it.:wacky

He clearly missed the boat on that one - the biggest one - and I have to wonder: why?

Whatever the reason(s) - it reflects very badly on him indeed.
-Marigold:sun

[Catherose]

Some questions to consider:

Do we know exactly what the secret service said to Bush?

Did Bill Mahr base his article completely on the footage in Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven (in which case, he has no more information about it than any of us, ie, he has no idea exactly what information the secret service gave him or what they advised him to do)?

How do you speculate things would have been different had Bush responded twenty-seven minutes earlier?

[Marigold]

Catherose,

The footage (shown on Nine/Eleven - the film) but available elsewhere too - as Moore must have gotten this footage from someone - is proof of Bush's delay.

I don't know if Anything would have been different - but that's not to say it wouldn't have been. We will Never know as Bush Did delay - twenty seven long minutes.

Important to consider: WHY did Bush do that? Read to kids after being told: "We are under attack" - these words I have read from the NYTimes - and I'm sure they are Also available elsewhere - Bush was, in fact, told Twice about being under attack. And why exactly would the secret service Not tell him????

It's crazy.

He's told and...

So he goes and keeps reading?:wacky
Sits and looks out of it?:wacky
Goes on to a photo-op?:wacky
On the most terrible morning of All????:reallymad

Here's a question:

What does this say about Him as a leader? As a person?

That's the question I'm asking.
-Marigold:sun

[savagesoprano]

do you realize, that during the clinton administration, the world trade center was bombed by al-queda. and he didn't take enough action? I have to say that Bush isn't a perfect person, and had clinton been in his place which he was to some extent, he wouldn't have done any better, which he didn't, considering that it happened again. All I can say is, at least Bush has some idea of what's right and worng. The Islamic fundamentalists in the middle east are trying to destroy america, and bush is trying to respond. Unlike Kerry, Bush is going to stay in there and push through. Ok big deal, he sat there for seven minutes. If he had gone with his initial reaction, which is anger, he night have done something completely ridiculous. I'm glad we can have a president that knows when he needs to compose himself.

[Rosey]

The Islamic fundamentalists in the middle east are trying to destroy america

That's an interesting statement. I'm the first to admit that I know little about this situation, but I got the impression that it was more about fighting for their own territory, and against what they pervceive as American (and British, and whoever else) 'interference'. I thought they wanted to tell the US to leave them alone, not to destroy it/them/you.

I agree that Bush should have acted quicker. Quietly apologised to the kids, explained that he has an important job to do, without having to let anyone know the full scale at that point. However, I also agree that it was important he didn't let loose what we must assume was his initial reaction - 'Oh F*ck!' :zoinks

:love Rosey

[Marigold]

Assuming a president is prepared for such an attack (and he should be) then he's going to know how to deal w/his feelings - and how to act.


If Clinton had sat reading a book to kids after being informed of Nine/Eleven - and then went on to a photo-op - I doubt his opponents would have been as forgiving as the many who have tried to justify/explain way Bushe's non-actions on that morning.

There are no excuses or rationales that I've heard that justify *twenty-seven* minutes of frivolous activity during our worst crisis yet.

It says alot about him as a person and a president - and none of it is good in my opinion.
-Marigold:sun

[Anonymous_Member009]

Dick Cheney was at the White House. Ithink Bush had full confidence in his staff to do what needed to be done and there wasn't a whole lot more he needed to be doing.

I think the rest of it falls under the brick wall that the AlMicheal Moore couldn't even get over: Classified. .....thus the details and interpretations of the day were made at will by the AlMicheal and fed to us like the feeding of babes.

[savagesoprano]

I think it's hard to judge Bush's behavior. After all, none of us were in his mind during those ******** minutes. Ok, now I'm going to play devil's advocate. What do you suggest that he should have done in those wasted ******** minutes? Run around frantic and scare the children out of their minda? First of all, the movie that portrayed this incidient was produced by the ultra-left. Of course it's going to be insulting to Bush. Had Kerry done the same thing the same people wouldn'ty have made the movie. Terrorists are islamic fundamentalists, whose goal it is to "destroy the infidel." America is considered the "great Satan" and this ideaolgy is taught in many of the schools in the Middle East to indoctrinate childrenm, making them believe it. In my opinion, the reason they hate America is not because we were founded on Christian principles. It is because of the evil that our country entertains, i.e. drugs, alcohol, homosexuality, pornography, and basically just the lack of morals that the media has portrayed. Obviously the media isn't an accurate portrayal of Americans, but it certainly is disturbing. I don't mean to offend any one by what I say.....I have read many books on these topics, so I'm sort of just picking things out that i believe fit.

[Marigold]

I'm sorry - but obviously I disagree w/both of you - Picasso and SavageSoprano -

for reasons I've already discussed.

Guess I'll have to agree to disagree...

-Marigold:sun

[ribbon]

As vice president Cheney only has the power to make presidential decisions is when the president is incapacitated or has been killed. I don't think that reading to children and posing for a photo op counts :muhaha . I do agree that Cheney would have handled the decision making better and would have probably responded better in that situation.

Soprano, you make an interesting point because my european friends tell me that the :usa is a laughing stock because we are so conservative, particularly after how the anti clintons responded after monicagate. From the perspective of those I know who live overseas, we're thought of as sexually oppressed. They also consider us bullies, not just because of the decision to go to war without nato authorization.

I'm currently embarrassed to be an american for many (but not all) reasons. I hope after november I'll feel differently and once again fly the flag with pride.

[bellydancer]

Soprano,
I don't think that Bush needed to get up and "run around frantic." I do think that he should have put the book down, turned to the teacher and said something along the lines of "I"m very sorry, but there is something that I must attend to," and left the room.
He's the president, it's assumed that he should know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack.
At best, I'm guessing the kids would have been puzzled, maybe disappointed and everyone would have understood, in the end, why he had to leave.

[savagesoprano]

I guess I just don't understand what he could have done in those seven minutes. The attacks were already made. He chose to finish what he was doing, and then move on to the next thing. The fact is, that Bush is a good, decent man, and i don't consider a movie made by an ultra-liberal about Bush very objective.

[macgirl]

:challenge how can you make a judgement about somebody if you've never met them?

[MegaVictory]

I feel Bush is a good, decent man, too (at least nothing has occurred yet, that makes me feel otherwise), and I trust his decision, too, because, when all appears to be lost, what do you do? You finish the important job at hand of reading to the children.

[Catherose]

macgirl said: :challenge how can you make a judgement about somebody if you've never met them?

You can, and absolutely should, make judgments about political leaders based on what they do. When you vote for someone, you "make a judgment." I've never met any of the candidates I've voted for, and yet I feel justified in my reasons for voting.

[macgirl]

I'm not saying don't make a decision. We should evaluate our politicians, based on the issues and based on how they do their jobs, how effective they are.

What I don't understand (and let me say first that I'm a :uk that only just became :usa and this will be my first presidential election to vote in) is how people choose to vote for a candidate based on superficial, surface qualities.

Example: there are those out there who, given a choice between two middle aged white men (which unfortunately most candidates are :sad) will base their decision on whether one is seen holding a bible or not.

I realize that faith is a very important issue for many people. But how do you know if this potential candidate is truly a religious person, simply because they are seen carrying a bible or occasionally attending church services?

Okay, perhaps the bible was a bit touchy for some, but you can substitute most other "surface" qualities. I wouldn't choose a candidate based on what kind of :cargreen they have, or what kind of house they live in. To me, it's akin to bigotry. Using a surface condition to make a judgement.

When I choose a candidate I will base my decisions on important issues to me, such as health care (I recently wrote to one local candidate about mental health parity), air quality (I have asthma, and I appreciate those who will work towards cleaner air standards), and rationalization of the tax code (okay, okay, that last one is a pipe dream :supergrin).

I don't like a two party system, as it leaves very few choices. In the upcoming US presidential election, it seems that many people will select a candidate based on who is "least offensive". Look at the MM election, where the public was so torn between two candidates, who appeared to be similar, that they had a difficult time choosing between the two.

If I see a candidate playing with children or attending a religious service, that will not make me believe that the particular candidate is "good" (or more accurately more "good" than their opponent).

I suppose it's more important for me that a politician be effective than "good" (which to me implies making judgements about a lifestyle, which I would rather not do), that they work hard to do their job.

[Catherose]

Macgirl-
I understand what you're saying, but I'm unclear as to why you posted your first comment in relation to this thread. What were you specifically challenging as you wrote it?
-Catherine