A comment about moore's bad editing in F 9/11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by dmadman43
So, what, exactly, should Bush have done. It's all nice and easy to criticize his reaction knowing what we know now, but given what you knew at 8:45 EDT on 9/11/2001, what would you have done?


I don't really think that w's actions as the events of 9/11 began to unfold impacted the situation to any great degree. Even if he knew immediately after the first plane hit that it was an attack there would probably be little that he could have done in those minutes that would have mattered.

However, I do find it odd that he sat for so long after learning of the second plane. He should have left plain and simple because, at that point, it should have been clear that this was anything but an accident.

Why should he have left? Well, for one, to get further information as it was becoming available. That is why he has all of those aids, right? To maintain the stability of government. Given that so little info was known it probably would have been best to have Air Force One off the ground.

To stay and continue to listen to a story seems very odd. And the whole "don't upset the kids" argument doesn't fly. These were, what, 8 year olds? An aid could have simply interrupted and said the president needed to leave. That's that. No one is saying he should have jumped from his chair and ran screaming from the room.
 
Originally posted by dmadman43
The reason you think that is because of what you know today, I'm pretty sure. Should there have been a state of emergency after Flight 800 blew up? Should there have been a state of emergency after the small plane flew into the side of a building in Tampa? Should there have been a state of emergency after the Oklahoma bombing?

And, what, exactly, should Bush have done? Launch missles at, uh... Saudi Arabia. You do understand that at the time NORAD had absolutely no plans for dealing with commercial airlines crashing into buildings on possible attacks WITHIN the country by commercial airlines. So, what, exactly, should Bush have done. It's all nice and easy to criticize his reaction knowing what we know now, but given what you knew at 8:45 EDT on 9/11/2001, what would you have done?

It isn't because of what I know today. I think my previous posts on this thread indicate that I feel it was a state of emergency at the very least, and he should have been in communications w/his advisors and air control. It was also a huge. commercial plane that hit the tower, not a small one. Although, a small plane hitting a building in Tampa is also of concern, but maybe not quite as much as hitting one of the towers in NYC, a major financial source of power and most populous US city.

I'll ignore your last paragraph, as it's just ridiculous. Not worth responding to.
:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by shortbun

OMG! Are you guys really complimenting the POTUS for putting
an elementary reading class ahead of national security? Good
grief people....you know the presidential election is November 3rd, right!?

No they are complimenting the President for having the confidence in the people he appointed to do the job, the job he appointed them to do.

I'm amazed at how many people seem to think that the President is the be all and end all when it comes to National Security - that he knows everything, does everything and makes every decision. Have you people never heard of delegation of authority? Everyone in the government gets their responsibilities and authority to do the job through it being delegated by someone else....the Joint Chiefs of the Armed Forces get the authority to do their job from the Secretary of Defense who in turn was hand picked by the President (and approved by Congress) to do the job - he was delegated certain responsibilities and the authority to carry out those responsibilities - and yes while the President is ulitimately responsible for ensuring the job is getting done - he is not the one doing the job. There are regulations, directives, plans and programs in place that cover what these people are do to, when, how, why, everything. There are procedures and protocals that must be followed. The President does not need to be standing over their shoulder watching as they pull out the checklist and do their jobs. Really people, think about it.

Now I know folks are going to point again (and I already did) that the President is ultimately responsible but if you really think about it - why would we need so many Secretaries and Under Secretaries, etc. Talk about streamling goverment - there you go fire all the people who work for the President and Congress and make them do everything. Geez people, are there really that many of you who don't understand how government works?

As for your comment about election day - enjoy voting on November 3rd - hope you can find an open polling location ;)
 
Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I don't really think that w's actions as the events of 9/11 began to unfold impacted the situation to any great degree. Even if he knew immediately after the first plane hit that it was an attack there would probably be little that he could have done in those minutes that would have mattered.

However, I do find it odd that he sat for so long after learning of the second plane. He should have left plain and simple because, at that point, it should have been clear that this was anything but an accident.

Why should he have left? Well, for one, to get further information as it was becoming available. That is why he has all of those aids, right? To maintain the stability of government. Given that so little info was known it probably would have been best to have Air Force One off the ground.

To stay and continue to listen to a story seems very odd. And the whole "don't upset the kids" argument doesn't fly. These were, what, 8 year olds? An aid could have simply interrupted and said the president needed to leave. That's that. No one is saying he should have jumped from his chair and ran screaming from the room.

I understand you point, but I rather doubt 7 minutes would have made a whole hell of a lot of difference, do you? What would 7 minutes of information done to change the events of the day. Would flight 93 have landed safely? Would the Pentagon have not been hit? Not bloody likely. Like you said, he has aids, a VP, a National Security Advisor, an FBI chief, a CIA director, all responsible for doing their jobs. The last thing the govt needs is micromanaging president. Yes, he needs to be informed, but I really don't see what could have been dramatically altered in those supposed 7 minutes.
 

Originally posted by Nancy
It took me a least 5 minutes or longer to realize that I just saw 2 planes flown in on purpose.
I had the same reaction--it really didn't sink in at first. My husband, in his Crystal City office overlooking the Pentagon, called to ask if I'd been watching the news, that two planes had hit the WTC. It took a few seconds for the implications of that to register. I said, "Two planes? On purpose?"

I got off the phone immediately to go watch the news, but didn't really feel the enormity of it until the newscaster with the Russian-sounding name giving a report from the Pentagon suddenly blanked out and the screen was shaking and you could hear through the static that he was saying something about the Pentagon being hit.

How many of us before 10am that day knew what we were watching? How many of us knew what September 11 was going to become? Not me. It was a terrorist attack, but it was not yet September 11.

There's no way for any of us to know what was going on behind the scenes in those 7 minutes. When dealing with complicated security detail, you don't just pick up and leave. Seven minutes is not a lot of time for Secret Service to deal with an exit not planned for. We don't know if he was fully aware that those preparations were being made and he made the decision to remain calm while that was going on.

Regardless, 7 minutes is not a lot of time from the moment you hear this news in a roomful of children to the moment you leave. I know for me it would pass like 7 seconds with all the things that would be running through my head--maybe it seemed that way to him, too. Who knows.
 
Originally posted by IamTink
It isn't because of what I know today. I think my previous posts on this thread indicate that I feel it was a state of emergency at the very least, and he should have been in communications w/his advisors and air control. It was also a huge. commercial plane that hit the tower, not a small one. Although, a small plane hitting a building in Tampa is also of concern, but maybe not quite as much as hitting one of the towers in NYC, a major financial source of power and most populous US city.



It was a state of emergency for New York and yes while it would and has affected the whole of the US-- the initial plane crash was something the governor of New York and the Mayor of New York were responsible for responding to in a timely manner. Not the President of the US.
 
Originally posted by IamTink
It isn't because of what I know today. I think my previous posts on this thread indicate that I feel it was a state of emergency at the very least, and he should have been in communications w/his advisors and air control. It was also a huge. commercial plane that hit the tower, not a small one. Although, a small plane hitting a building in Tampa is also of concern, but maybe not quite as much as hitting one of the towers in NYC, a major financial source of power and most populous US city.

I'll ignore your last paragraph, as it's just ridiculous. Not worth responding to.
:rolleyes:

Lemme get this straight. You think the President should have been monitor ATC? To what end? What would that have solved? Someone please tell me what the President should have done in those seven minutes and what would it have changed?
 
As I already stated, I doubt that it would have made much impact on the situation. I just find it very odd...

You're the president of the United States and you know an airliner has just slammed into the WTC. You're in the middle of a photo-op and an aide approaches you to tell you that yet another plane has just hit the second WTC building and then back away.

You do what? Sit there? You want no additional information? You don't feel the need to leave the situation for a better picture of the unfolding events?

Like I said, seems odd to me.
 
Originally posted by jason
Why would the president know that? Maybe the memo that was given to him just a moth erlier with the keywords: Bin Laden, Airplanes, and WTC would be a clue. Any person with any kind of logic could put two and two together and see this was no accident. Although this is W were talking about.
You mean the memo that said chatter indicated an attack overseas at a US embassy or the like--the one that prompted him to call back non-essentials and put in extra security, etc.? That memo?
 
Originally posted by kbeverina

There's no way for any of us to know what was going on behind the scenes in those 7 minutes. When dealing with complicated security detail, you don't just pick up and leave. Seven minutes is not a lot of time for Secret Service to deal with an exit not planned for. We don't know if he was fully aware that those preparations were being made and he made the decision to remain calm while that was going on.


Good point. I did wonder what exactly the aide told the President. For all I know, he was told to stay there for just such a reason or to wait for more information.
 
Oh, how I miss the old Debate board. :(

pong.gif
 
Originally posted by IamTink
It isn't because of what I know today. I think my previous posts on this thread indicate that I feel it was a state of emergency at the very least, and he should have been in communications w/his advisors and air control. It was also a huge. commercial plane that hit the tower, not a small one. Although, a small plane hitting a building in Tampa is also of concern, but maybe not quite as much as hitting one of the towers in NYC, a major financial source of power and most populous US city.

I'll ignore your last paragraph, as it's just ridiculous. Not worth responding to.
:rolleyes:

But that's just it...immediately fter the first plane hit they didn't even know it was a commercial plane. They knew it was a plane but didn't know what size. I was watching the news, the was tons of speculation about the size of the plane. It wasn't until the second plane hit that we all knew it was a commercial liner. I saw it and i couldn't believe what I saw. I still felt for a while that it was an air traffice controller that went nuts and gave the airliner wrong coordinates...it wasn't until my brain stated to put 2 and 2 together and I realized a pilot wouldn't fly into a building even with an airtraffic contoller giving him the directions...he would have pulled up and away long before it hit....that's when I realized something terrible had happened.

And just for the record...I have no clue I'm voting for .....I don't like Kerry and my only support of Bush is his handling of 9/11 and the aftermath.
 
Originally posted by Dan Murphy
Oh, how I miss the old Debate board. :(

pong.gif

I don't understand. You know this thread is a debate. You've looked at it. Why not just not click on the thread.
 
Originally posted by ThreeCircles
As I already stated, I doubt that it would have made much impact on the situation. I just find it very odd...

You're the president of the United States and you know an airliner has just slammed into the WTC. You're in the middle of a photo-op and an aide approaches you to tell you that yet another plane has just hit the second WTC building and then back away.

You do what? Sit there? You want no additional information? You don't feel the need to leave the situation for a better picture of the unfolding events?

Like I said, seems odd to me.

Like someone else said, maybe Card said they were getting more information. That is why our tax dollars go to paying salaries for cabinet members. Why does the concept of delegation seem so odd to people. Do we really want an Eisner type running the country?
 
For all of you who want to blame Bush for 9/11, take a look at some of these sites. If these aren't good enough for you go search for your own, but these came from a search on google and they were taken from page one out of 42,500 hits. The keywords I used were, "airline security al gore" Go look for ones you might believe if you don't like these!

This articule was what Al Gore had initially proposed:

<b>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A $300 million budget for counter-terrorism measures, better screening of airline passengers, and more teams of bomb-sniffing dogs were among the measures Vice President Al Gore recommended Thursday to boost airport security.
The proposals were developed by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, which Gore heads. The panel was formed after the July 17 explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island, which killed 230 people. There has been no determination of the cause of the crash.

The recommendations will go to President Clinton on Monday.

The commission wants the government to install state-of-the-art bomb-detecting equipment in airports and to fund the research and development necessary to make the technology more effective and readily available. If Clinton approves the measures, he will have to submit a $300 million budget addendum to cover the costs.


The proposal also calls for a study of which U.S. airports are most vulnerable to terrorist attacks, a "significant" increase in the number of bomb-sniffing dog teams, a mandatory full baggage match between passengers and their luggage and better screening of passengers through computerized profiles.

Airport security personnel would be trained to determine how great a security risk a passenger might be, and investigate accordingly.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it would fight any efforts to subject passengers to a higher level of screening based on their race or religion.

"Passengers not legitimately under suspicion should not have to fear that their private effects and private lives will be held up to public scrutiny," said ACLU Legislative Counsel Gregory Nojeim. "Safety and privacy will not be assured if people are targeted for searches based on incorrect criteria instead of evidence."

However, Gore said it was unlikely that every passenger would be put through every level of security. He said security checks for air cargo also could be increased, but did not specify how.

"These actions are tough, they are do-able, and we're going to get them in place quickly and effectively," Gore said. </b>



Now, look at this article, because it's what came of it all:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24638



<b>How Gore aborted air safety


The country is united politically right now, so I'm sure I'll be accused of divisiveness, partisan sniping, maybe even being unpatriotic by raising this issue.

But, heck, I've been accused of worse. Last week the Wall Street Journal called me a "purveyor of obscenity." I'll let you be the judge of whether that description suits me.

I never let those criticisms bother me – especially not from uptight, corporate media establishment mouthpieces and spoiled, little, ivory-tower reactionaries.

So, today I'm going to tell you how Al Gore may have contributed, in his own politically ambitious, selfish way, to the deaths of some of the victims of the terrorist attacks Sept. 11.

Following the downing of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, Gore was entrusted by President Clinton to investigate airline safety. He was named chairman of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety.

The Gore commission produced what most observers considered to be a tough preliminary report unveiled Sept. 9 of that year – one that included tough counter-terrorism procedures.

But within days, according to an insider on the commission, the airline industry jumped all over Gore. As a result, 10 days later, Gore sent a letter to airline lobbyist Carol Hallett promising that the commission's findings would not result in any loss of revenue.

In what can only be seen as a pure political payoff, the Democratic National Committee received $40,000 from TWA the next day. Within two weeks, Northwest, United and American Airlines ponied up another $55,000 for the 1996 campaign.

But the money trail didn't stop there. In the next two months leading up to the November elections, American Airlines donated $250,000 to the Democrats. United donated $100,000 to the DNC. Northwestern put $53,000 more into the kitty.

Following the election, in January, Gore floated a draft final report that eliminated all security measures from the commission's findings, according to the insider. Two commission members balked, as did CIA Director John Deutch.

Fearing more political heat, Gore pulled back the draft report. A month later, the final report was issued – one that included requirements that would cost the airlines some money, but, perhaps, save some lives in the future.

The report's requirements included:


high-tech bomb detectors;
more training for airport security;
criminal background checks for security personnel;
increased canine patrols.
Only one thing was lacking from the report, said the whistleblower – there was no deadline by which those requirements would have to be met. It was open-ended. In other words, it wasn't worth the paper on which it was written.

In a meeting with other commission members Feb. 12, 1997, Gore said he would leave room for a dissent by those who opposed the report. But within minutes, Gore was announcing to the president and the public that the report was the work of a unanimous commission. In other words, he lied – again.

In Washington, that might have been the end of the story. Scandals like this often go unnoticed. But one courageous lady, the dissenting member of the commission, Victoria Cummock, filed suit to gain access to files she was denied and for the right to file her dissent.

Who is Mrs. Cummock? She was appointed to the commission by Clinton because her husband was killed in the terrorist downing of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland. She's the insider. She's the whistleblower. She's the heroine of this story.

All this was chronicled in a Tony Blankley column a year ago – a year and five days before the latest terrorist attack that killed all passengers and all the crew on four airliners as well as thousands on the ground at the World Trade Center and Pentagon Sept. 11.

Would any of that death and destruction have been prevented had Gore not crawled into bed with the airline industry thinking only in the short term about potential financial losses, not realizing it might be saving itself from much bigger losses in the future?

I guess we'll never know for sure. But remember this story the next time Al Gore rears his opportunistic political head on the national scene. </b>

My favorite quote:

<b>"We may never see an end to terrorism, but we are sure going to do our level best to combat it and reduce to the absolute minimum level humanly possible the risk to American citizens traveling on airlines."-- Al Gore </b>

If all you have on Bush is waiting an additional 7 minutes, I think I can live with that! :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by ThreeCircles
As I already stated, I doubt that it would have made much impact on the situation. I just find it very odd...

You're the president of the United States and you know an airliner has just slammed into the WTC. You're in the middle of a photo-op and an aide approaches you to tell you that yet another plane has just hit the second WTC building and then back away.

You do what? Sit there? You want no additional information? You don't feel the need to leave the situation for a better picture of the unfolding events?

Like I said, seems odd to me.

I'm just told a 2nd plane crashed and the FBI, CIA, Joint Chiefs, etc are all on it (since you have no clue what Card said to him) -- so I expect them to do their jobs that they are trained to do with the authority I delegated. I finish as quickly as possible (7 minutes or so) knowing that when I'm finished those doing the job I appointed them to do (and have confidence in) will have a clearer picture of what is going on ;)
 
Originally posted by N.Bailey
For all of you who want to blame Bush for 9/11, take a look at some of these sites.

Um, maybe I'm missing it, but where is anyone saying that w caused 9/11?
 
Originally posted by ToriLammy
I'm just told a 2nd plane crashed and the FBI, CIA, Joint Chiefs, etc are all on it (since you have no clue what Card said to him) -- so I expect them to do their jobs that they are trained to do with the authority I delegated. I finish as quickly as possible (7 minutes or so) knowing that when I'm finished those doing the job I appointed them to do (and have confidence in) will have a clearer picture of what is going on ;)

I agree 100%!
 
Remember the kid who flew a plane into a building in Florida? Had Bush been delivered that news right before speaking to a classroom, would it be reasonable for him to go on and meet the class and wait for further info? Or would an immediate departure, at the expense of security, be the most appropriate reaction?
 
Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Um, maybe I'm missing it, but where is anyone saying that w caused 9/11?

True, no one here is. But the subject of the OP (Moore) certainly is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.





New Posts










Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top