On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence; Bush image focus

JustanObserver wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
What exactly did you want Bush to do during those 7 minutes?

What did I want him to do? SOMETHING. ANYTHING.

How about regaining his composure and waiting for more information. Is that ok?

Now that may come off as flippant but that's not my aim, see he did do "SOMETHING" but it did not please you.

So, again, what did you want him to do?

And please tell me how that would have made a meaningful difference.

Quote:

He's the president of the United States, for Chrissakes! He's just been told the country he's in charge of is under attack!

He could easily have excused himself in order to start making phone calls, get information, etc.

But there's nothing wrong with wasting time while kids read to him, I suppose.

What was the negative result of those "wasted" minutes by your estimation?

Because if you think he could have made a significant difference in the result of the attacks I wonder if you realize that not everyone would agree with that what if scenario. I hope you are not suggesting that anyone who uses "ANY rational thought" will come to the same conclusions on this that you have reached.

Is the net negative simply that it would reflect on the president in a bad way? Because if so, I suspect you wouldn't be a big fan regardless of what transpired in those few minutes.

Heck, I'm not. I think he's the worst US president of my lifetime. But not because of those 7 minutes.

And my personal feelings are that you undermine the more legitimate qualms against Bush by pursuing what I consider to be frivolous ones.

That being said, there are plenty of people who put "rational thought" into it and feel differently than I do.

I suspect this is merely because the issue is subjective and people can have different opinions on the matter. I think your use of emperor's new clothes fallacies undermines your position (which can be made just as easily without it).

Can you appreciate that people can have reasoned but different opinions on those minutes? Or do you insist that "ANY rational thought" should lead people to thinking like you do?

0 Replies

His expression did remind me of De Niro in "Goodfellas" at the bar -- he happened to say nothing but you could see in his face that he was plotting to whack someone.

It's a visual and sound bite that is part of a story -- I suggest in excerpting that one image is not as powerful as all the images together.

He also might have been trying to get his mind off the tragedy by thinking of last night's roll in the
hay with Laura. No wonder he was able to keep a stone face. (Sorry, could not resist).

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

What exactly did you want Bush to do during those 7 minutes?

How about, "Excuse me, just a for a moment, children..." and then get up and go find out what was happening?

How about almost anything except nothing?

Perhaps you were not aware that Ari Fleischer was standing in the back of the classroom holding up a sign which read, "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET".

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/people/bushatbooker.jpg

Quote:

Bush on 9/11

Draw your own conclusions. Mine is, this is not how a man purporting to be a leader shows leadership.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
What exactly did you want Bush to do during those 7 minutes?

How about, "Excuse me, just a for a moment, children..." and then get up and go find out what was happening?

How about almost anything except nothing?

Perhaps you were not aware that Ari Fleischer was standing in the back of the classroom holding up a sign which read, "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET".

Fair enough, personally I'd have excused myself. But what you failed to answer is how it would make any meaningful difference.

Can you imagine a different decision causing problems? e.g. causing more panic

Quote:

Draw your own conclusions. Mine is, this is not how a man purporting to be a leader shows leadership.

PDiddie, call it a wild guess but I suspect you'd not be a big fan of his leadership regardless of whether he had excused himself or not.

So I believe it is safe to say that even if he had excused himself then, he would still not be able to count you among his fans. Is that correct?

0 Replies

He was chewing gum right?

0 Replies

My conclusions is there are so many approximate times and so many disqualifiers 'seemed to' (etc.), and less than subjective suppositions in this piece, it cannot be used either to commend or condemn the president.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

He was chewing gum right?

That was funny. Stupid teachers. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

It's difficult to commend or condemn Bush. It may be akin to addressing how an aardvark eats ants.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Fair enough, personally I'd have excused myself. But what you failed to answer is how it would make any meaningful difference.

We cannot know whether any difference would have been made. We seem to agree that inaction is unworthy of a leader.

Craven wrote:

PDiddie, call it a wild guess but I suspect you'd not be a big fan of his leadership regardless of whether he had excused himself or not.

I'll call it searingly perceptive of you. How do you do it? :wink:

Now that we're even in the sarcasm exchange....

Were we discussing my opinion of Bush in general or simply his failure of leadership at a critical moment in the nation's security?

I am more than willing to give credit where it's due when Bush does something I like. His comments at the unveiling of the Clintons' portraits last week, for example, were gracious and on-point.

I have also said that his statement of being a uniter and not a divider has also been prescient (though not in the way he obviously intended).

And yes, you are correct that I am doubtful -- in fact, just put me down as "skeptimistic" -- that his actions past present and future will sway me much. Cool

0 Replies

Those portraits looked like they were painted by a computer. They both look like a couple of smiling lamb chops. I didn't perceive a real sincerity in Bush's little speech, obviously scripted and likely aimed at making points with the moderate voters.

0 Replies

Well, I will concede that GWB probably isn't the world's best art critic. Smile

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Fair enough, personally I'd have excused myself. But what you failed to answer is how it would make any meaningful difference.

We cannot know whether any difference would have been made. We seem to agree that inaction is unworthy of a leader.

I'm not sure if we agree on that. I'd excuse myself because I think that not doing so just fuels the cannon fodder. But then again, hindsight is 20-20, I see before me a good public releations reason to do so.

Quote:

Craven wrote:
PDiddie, call it a wild guess but I suspect you'd not be a big fan of his leadership regardless of whether he had excused himself or not.

I'll call it searingly perceptive of you. How do you do it? :wink:

Now that we're even in the sarcasm exchange....

Were we discussing my opinion of Bush in general or simply his failure of leadership at a critical moment in the nation's security?

I am more than willing to give credit where it's due when Bush does something I like. His comments at the unveiling of the Clintons' portraits last week, for example, were gracious and on-point.

I have also said that his statement of being a uniter and not a divider has also been prescient (though not in the way he obviously intended).

And yes, you are correect that I am doubtful -- in fact, just put me down as "skeptimistic" -- that his actions past present and future will sway me much.

Well, sarcasm wasn't so much my intent as was this next point:

Is it plausible to suggest that the majority of the people who are inclined to fault Bush for those 7 minutes are people who would find him lacking as a leader regardless of those minutes?

I mean, I've seen nobody suggest that alternative decisions for those 7 minutes would have made a big difference in anything except the perception of his leadership qualities. But at the same time I strongly suspect that the people who fault him for those 7 minutes think he's not of presidential timbre for many more reasons than that.

Just a hunch. But it does make me believe that it wouldn't have made much of a difference either in the events of the day or in perception of him as a leader.

0 Replies

That scene is only a small segment of the whole. It's like holding up one piece of a jigsaw puzzle, fiting it into another and then yelling that you solved the puzzle. There's a barrage of such footage and it's sum total is IMO devastating satire of a "CEO" President who gave up the three-martini lunch for munching on pretzels. Need I say more?

0 Replies

(A self-appointed CEO at that -- I very much doubt that any corporation would have jumped at the chance to hire Bush on to ever head up their company. I now need a few minutes for the hysterical laughter).

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I'd excuse myself because I think that not doing so just fuels the cannon fodder. But then again, hindsight is 20-20, I see before me a good public releations reason to do so.

Craven wrote:

But it does make me believe that it wouldn't have made much of a difference either in the events of the day or in perception of him as a leader.

These two remarks seem to suggest that at the moment the President was informed that America was under attack, his concern was -- or should primarily have been -- how it would look if he got up and left the classroom.

Why should he give a good goddamn how it would look?

Since when do appearances take precedence over action when it comes to the nation's security?

The record, BTW, indicates that Andrew Card whispered, "A second plane has hit the WTC. America is under attack."

Nothing more or less than that.

Bush heard those words, and continued to sit reading a book to elementary-school students for seven minutes. Since the facts aren't in dispute, let's empathize for a moment. As previously suggested, pretend you're the President, pretend you're sitting in a class with kids and you're reading a book about a pet goat, and pretend you have just heard those words. Then sit there quietly for seven minutes. Time yourself.

Look, this is pretty simple to me. A Commander-in-Chief worthy of the title would not just sit still knowing that something horrible was in the middle of happening, that thousands of people were probably dead, that decisions about the security of the nation would need to be made. I cannot get to the mindset of a man who would, upon hearing those words, just sit there, even for half a minute.

There is ample evidence (at the link, in my prior post) he knew what was going on -- that is to say, he knew a plane had hit the WTC -- before he walked in and sat down. He quite typically made another misstatement about that; saying he saw the first plane hit the tower, when video of such was not available until the following day -- and he made his usual inappropriate joke: "That's one bad pilot."

Put my bias aside for just a moment, Crave.

You need to (if you have not already) click on the Cooperative Research Council link and read it all the way through and then come back and tell me -- again -- if you still think his inaction is just a public-relations faux pas.

And I thought I answered your question already, but let me clarify:

We cannot any more know if those seven minutes would have saved any lives as we could the 9/11 attacks were preventable if someone just did one tiny thing differently in the months leading up to those horrid events.

This is the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument. History tells that our Founding Fathers would debate this very subject for hours and days at a time, while on break from arguing about Constitutional planks, provisions and phrasing.

That they, great men that they were, did so did not make it a worthwhile discussion for them to have. :wink:

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I'd excuse myself because I think that not doing so just fuels the cannon fodder. But then again, hindsight is 20-20, I see before me a good public releations reason to do so.

Craven wrote:
But it does make me believe that it wouldn't have made much of a difference either in the events of the day or in perception of him as a leader.

These two remarks seem to suggest that at the moment the President was informed that America was under attack, his concern was -- or should primarily have been -- how it would look if he got up and left the classroom.

Given that all of the criticism has centered on how it makes him "look" as a leader I think appearances are pretty much the only issue at stake.

Is there something other than appearance that would be changed by Bush having excused himself?

Quote:

Why should he give a good goddamn how it would look?

Other than how it made him look are there any other negatives from those 7 minutes?

Quote:

Since when do appearances take precedence over action when it comes to the nation's security?

Are you asserting that he made a mistake insofar as national security is concerned? This would be the first time I've seen someone make this case and quite frankly I have no idea what it would be comprised of. IMO it made no differenece to national security but I'd like to hear theories about how it would have.

Quote:

The record, BTW, indicates that Andrew Card whispered, "A second plane has hit the WTC. America is under attack."

Nothing more or less than that.

Bush heard those words, and continued to sit reading a book to elementary-school students for seven minutes. Since the facts aren't in dispute, let's empathize for a moment. As previously suggested, pretend you're the President, pretend you're sitting in a class with kids and you're reading a book about a pet goat, and pretend you have just heard those words. Then sit there quietly for seven minutes. Time yourself.

Look, this is pretty simple to me. A Commander-in-Chief worthy of the title would not just sit still knowing that something horrible was in the middle of happening, that thousands of people were probably dead, that decisions about the security of the nation would need to be made, and just sit there.

PDiddie, you assert that he sat "knowing that something horrible was in the middle of happening, that thousands of people were probably dead".

Upon what do you base this? A lot of people who were watching it unfold and who saw the graphic imagery didn't have an idea of teh scope of the event till hours later.

I didn't until the towers actually fell.

Are you asserting that Bush immediately knew the scope of the day's events?

Quote:

There is ample evidence (at the link, in my prior post) he knew what was going on -- that is to say, he knew a plane had hit the WTC -- before he walked in and sat down.

On January 5, 2002, Charles Bishop crashed a plane into a building. This was after 9/11 but as you well know the scope of the event was very different.

It was different for reasons beyond a plane jitting a building but do you assert that based merely on the combination of plane/building the president should have immediately known the scope of the event?

Quote:

You need to (if you have not already) click on the Cooperative Research Council link and read it all the way through and then come back and tell me -- again -- if you still think his inaction is just a public-relations faux pas.

I have significant portions of it memorized so I'm not sure reading it would help.

Frankly I don't even think this was a faux pas.

Anywho, I think we are pretty much at an agree to disagree stage, unless you want to flesh out how it caused anything negative other than appearance to a select group of people.

But one interesting question is the following:

Do you think that in the subsequent days Bush demonstrated admirable leadership?

Many Americans do, probably a comfortable majority.

If it helps any, I think they are just as wrong.

0 Replies

The morning of the Today Show telecast it was only a matter of minutes before the program switched over to the tragedy of the two towers. That's been permanently engraved in my mind's eye. I would believe it was within minutes when Bush was notified. The pictures were graphically clear that there had to be several thousands of people in the building who were dead or dying. The pictures of people leaping off out of windows to their death was in the same time frame which had to be less than an hour. The government didn't have access to the Today Show? All this notification was by word of mouth with no images? I don't believe that. I'm sure it is something that could be glossed over -- there are missing pieces in the jigsaw puzzle that may never be found. Again, this piece of the puzzle is only a part of the whole picture which has been piecemealed out and in turn made to look in their individual impacts as not serious. Put them together and it's like the assemblage of a bomb which is about to go off. If one is not impressed by the parts, perhaps the explosion of the whole might wake one up. Just as that explosive whole will impress on the minds of those who see this President for what he is will merely fortify their conclusion, so those who believe the President is without peer and criticism proof will duck and run.

So perhaps Andy Card should be villified more than Bush -- take your pick.

0 Replies

I was under the impression that the leapers were never aired stateside....

But I do think you are hastening things, we are talking about the first 7 minutes after the second plane hit.

Incidentally I was notified within minutes in a chorus of phone calls but it was not until I saw the images that I started to pause.

0 Replies

They were shown on the live broadcast of the Today Show and later mostly censored. We aren't talking about the first 7 minutes after the planes hit. We're talking the 7 minutes after Bush was notified. There would be a determinable time lapse depending on how Andy Card received the information. I'm not sure we will ever hear about exactly how much time it took. It's difficult to believe they weren't being told what was flashing across the national TV screens in real time on the Today Show with Matt Lauer shouting into the mike that people were leaping off the building. Bush was also still there even after the camera was shut off for another twenty minutes.

On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence; Bush image focus

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know