Fahrenheit 9/11

[Tawasakm]

I'm going to leave it for KK to defend his own argument but I would like to make one point.

To put it in perspective, my father was a volunteer firefighter. When the fire alarm rang, he jumped up and ran out the door, even if we were in the middle of dinner.

The two jobs (firefighter and president) are not analagous. Nor are those two situations analagous. When the fire bell rang your Dad knew what was going on and what to do about it - as he had many times before. The President did not know exactly what was going on - nobody did. Nor was it a situation he'd responded to many times before. Aside from that the two could be viewed as micro and macroscopic examples and therefore incompatible.

Anyway I really should just shut up and let KK have his say. Thankyou for following the link to read the thread however.

[MapleBear]

Where would the President go to get properly briefed while in a school Ceasar?  The washroom?  Principals office?

How about joining his AIDES, who should have been in communication with the White House and the Pentagon?

If they had been doing their job, they would have been relaying a steady stream of information to Bush...thus interrupting his story. Therefore, the decent thing for Bush to do was DROP the damn book and join the party.

But he didn't. He jus sat there. On his ass.

Bush, while waiting for them to get it down into intelligence that could be passed onto him did what he was supposed to have done, carry on like he was supposed to.  Not freak out like you would have him.

No one suggests Bush should have "freaked out." He should have done his job. Even if in the impossible event that there was truly nothing he could do, he should have at least PRETENDED to care. After all, he knew he was being recorded on video.

"All in place just waiting for the security guys to figure out where they would take Bush. This I would imagine would take a few minutes at least what with assessment of airspace and travel time and all, not to mention the verifgying that there were in fact no other aircraft en route to where they would be going."

The skies must have been clear, as I understand Air Force One wasn't even escorted by fighter jets for a while. Yes, I'm sure there was a credible threat to Bush.

During this time, with no briefing to get, no place to go, as the school was safer than any unknown place, what and where would you place the most powerful man in the free world?

Frankly, I would have handed him over to the terrorists, but that's another story.

He is the President, not the limo driver, not the janitor, not the pilot or security specialist.  He is the guy that heads the USA.  He doesn't need to have his ass turned in fifty different directions in the heat of confusion.

Heat of confusion??? Did you watch the video?! Even Bush's aides didn't look terribly concerned. Andrew Card walked over to Bush and whispered in his ear two or three times. Some confusion.

You on the other hand would have Bush say 'gotta go' and then stand around outside having a smoke while everybody did their thing  to figure out security...

No, I'd have Bush join in on a discussion with his aides, so he can keep abreast of events as they happen, not hear about them second hand seven minutes later.

You would have him do that standing beside AirForce One in the middle of a tarmac like a sitting duck in the middle of an attack?

No, not in the middle of the tarmac like a sitting duck - in the school, until he was ready to move to another location.

Use some COMMON SENSE, people!

[MapleBear]

I'm going to leave it for KK to defend his own argument but I would like to make one point.

To put it in perspective, my father was a volunteer firefighter. When the fire alarm rang, he jumped up and ran out the door, even if we were in the middle of dinner.

The two jobs (firefighter and president) are not analagous. Nor are those two situations analagous. When the fire bell rang your Dad knew what was going on and what to do about it - as he had many times before. The President did not know exactly what was going on - nobody did. Nor was it a situation he'd responded to many times before. Aside from that the two could be viewed as micro and macroscopic examples and therefore incompatible.

Anyway I really should just shut up and let KK have his say. Thankyou for following the link to read the thread however.

The two jobs (firefighter and president) are not analagous. Nor are those two situations analagous.

Amen! My father did his job, and Bush didn't.

The President did not know exactly what was going on - nobody did.

It's comforting to know that if we ever come under nuclear or biological attack, our commander in chief will sit on his butt and read a children's story unless he knows EXACTLY what's going on.

Reality Check: The best way to FIND OUT what's going on is to join in on a conversation about it.

I was riding a bus to work when I first learned about the terrorist attacks. I watched the carnage on a miniature TV. I was riveted to the screen; it was obviously a disaster of epic proportions.

Bush would have been ahead if he had at least done that - watched the attack unfold so he had SOME CLUE about what was happening, rather than say, "That must have been one bad pilot." What a stupid comment.

The proof's in the pudding: Would people who approve of Bush's conduct on 9/11 recommend that he whip out that goat story again if we come under nuclear or biological attack one day? Remember - one minute could make all the difference between life and death.

[Tawasakm]

The proof's in the pudding: Would people who approve of Bush's conduct on 9/11 recommend that he whip out that goat story again if we come under nuclear or biological attack one day? Remember - one minute could make all the difference between life and death.

The situations aren't exactly analagous. Theres been alot of work by now in developing a response to this kind of threat (biological and nuclear). People would know how to respond to a known and well analysed threat. The problem that was highlighted by the 9/11 attack was lack of preparation for that kind of attack. Which may still well be the case.

I was riding a bus to work when I first learned about the terrorist attacks. I watched the carnage on a miniature TV.

The President has other lines of communication and intelligence. They don't necessarily work the same way. I doubt you knew what was happening when watching tellie either. Bear in mind the intelligence being fed to him can't constitute a live feed - it needs to be a summation of real information.

If they had been doing their job, they would have been relaying a steady stream of information to Bush...

Again the information he receives can't be a live feed. It needs to be sorted before it gets to him not by him.

As to Bush's inactivity you don't know that he wasn't told, "We don't have intel yet we'll let you know when we do." or some such thing. Bush may have just known how long it would take them to get things put together and to get ready.

In addition I don't want you to think that I am arguing this position as the truth of what happened. I was offering it as a reasonable alternative explanation to your conspiracy theory. He may also have been incompetent, in shock, thinking things through while reading to the kids. Or too scared to move. Hard to say. These explanations are as, or more, viable then your conspiracy theory.

They are conjecture. The lines of conjecture (pro and con) that existed in this thread prior to your posting certainly aligned with the actual facts more easily. Yours is the only theory that involves a large presupposition lacking any evidence - that Bush participated in the 9/11 attacks.

There is merit in alot of what you are saying but the evidence doesn't support the ultimate direction you are taking - that Bush participated in the terrorist attacks.

I will stop responding to you in this and all other threads on the topic of "Bush as 9/11 terrorist" until you come up with real proof. For what its worth I agree with you concerning some of your points (as I have detailed elsewhere) but I feel that we are moving outside the realms of 'reasoned debate' and I am afraid we'll just end up creating an endless series of posts which are largely meaningless.

If you can come up with REAL evidence (not conjecture) linking Bush to participation in the 9/11 attacks I will join in again.

[MapleBear]

The proof's in the pudding: Would people who approve of Bush's conduct on 9/11 recommend that he whip out that goat story again if we come under nuclear or biological attack one day? Remember - one minute could make all the difference between life and death.

The situations aren't exactly analagous. Theres been alot of work by now in developing a response to this kind of threat (biological and nuclear). People would know how to respond to a known and well analysed threat. The problem that was highlighted by the 9/11 attack was lack of preparation for that kind of attack. Which may still well be the case.

I was riding a bus to work when I first learned about the terrorist attacks. I watched the carnage on a miniature TV.

The President has other lines of communication and intelligence. They don't necessarily work the same way. I doubt you knew what was happening when watching tellie either. Bear in mind the intelligence being fed to him can't constitute a live feed - it needs to be a summation of real information.

If they had been doing their job, they would have been relaying a steady stream of information to Bush...

Again the information he receives can't be a live feed. It needs to be sorted before it gets to him not by him.

As to Bush's inactivity you don't know that he wasn't told, "We don't have intel yet we'll let you know when we do." or some such thing. Bush may have just known how long it would take them to get things put together and to get ready.

In addition I don't want you to think that I am arguing this position as the truth of what happened. I was offering it as a reasonable alternative explanation to your conspiracy theory. He may also have been incompetent, in shock, thinking things through while reading to the kids. Or too scared to move. Hard to say. These explanations are as, or more, viable then your conspiracy theory.

They are conjecture. The lines of conjecture (pro and con) that existed in this thread prior to your posting certainly aligned with the actual facts more easily. Yours is the only theory that involves a large presupposition lacking any evidence - that Bush participated in the 9/11 attacks.

There is merit in alot of what you are saying but the evidence doesn't support the ultimate direction you are taking - that Bush participated in the terrorist attacks.

I will stop responding to you in this and all other threads on the topic of "Bush as 9/11 terrorist" until you come up with real proof. For what its worth I agree with you concerning some of your points (as I have detailed elsewhere) but I feel that we are moving outside the realms of 'reasoned debate' and I am afraid we'll just end up creating an endless series of posts which are largely meaningless.

If you can come up with REAL evidence (not conjecture) linking Bush to participation in the 9/11 attacks I will join in again.

If you can come up with REAL evidence (not conjecture) linking Bush to participation in the 9/11 attacks I will join in again.

I've offered evidence - and lots of it. Logic can be a powerful tool, especially when the enemy is up to his eyeballs in guilt and corruption.

[caesar]

that's not evidence that's "reaching" for excuses. good for a chuckle is all. I am referring to tawaksem is who I meant. I think he likes to be the devil's advocate.