Finn d'Abuzz wrote:He could have done any number of different things in those seven minutes. For honest criticism of what he did do to stick, there has to be at least an assertion of the substantive impact of alternative actions, not simply what might have looked more presidential to some.
<shrugs> I already have asserted that I don't think any specific action of the President in those seven minutes could directly have led to the rescue of any of the thousands who died in the WTC or the capture of the perpetrators or anything that drastic.
I do, however, think that at a moment when your country comes under attack, you can expect your President to imediately go there where he can most optimally safeguard his country's interests. (Sorry for the awkwardly rhetorical wording).
Now I can see how you can disagree about what that optimum place for the President to be in is. Sofia asserts the overriding need for him to be
safe - his killers might be underway, right then. You can also assert the need, like I did before, for him to be accessible to staff, Cabinet etc - so that, if crucial information comes in, a Presidential authorisation is needed or his advice is requested by those formulating the immediate response, you dont need some aide to be waving a sign from the back of the class or something.
Personally, I dont see why he could not be both. And in that classroom, he was neither. Bit of a ****-up, I'd say. WIth hindsight you can say, well, it didnt make any difference in the end - everybody who ended up dying (in the WTC) would have died anyway, and no further attackers came flying in, so no major harm was done - but that relativation by hindsight doesnt make the original set-up any more responsible, in view of all that could well have happened or be needed.