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

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ummm...I know reading comprehension isn't your strong point and all, but could you please point out exactly what it was Bush did between the time he was told and the time he left the class, 7 minutes or so later ? Seems to me that the article stated that he interacted with the class, but that's about it...nothing much there about coordinating communications...Nothing much there about getting on the phone with his national security advisor, vice president, secretary of defense or transportation....No, can't seem to find that....Why don't you point it out ?

But, see, that's not how it works.

We're saying we don't know what happened during that time. You're saying that nothing happened. So you have to come up with evidence to show that nothing happened. All we have to do is say why we're skeptical of Moore's portrayal and are open to other scenarios.

If you think Moore's version is correct, and you admit that Moore isn't the best source, you need to go find something else to back up what he's saying.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
No, but I would expect him to be communicating with key peole to find out what was happening AS IT WAS HAPPENING, not 10 minutes after the fact. Unless he is telepathic, he was NOT communicating with his staff for those minutes while he was "projecting calm" for the tv cameras.

I have no doubt that they were updating him as info came in..he had staff with him..not just in DC..


What, are you taking lessons from Steve now on how to be insulting ? Please point to ONE instance where I stated that, in a normal situation, the president should not rely on his staff ? This was not an ordinary situation, and a leader would have taken charge, not sat there with a goofy look on his face "projecting calm".
not insulting just stating the obvious, the staff should continue to do their job in a crisis situation, perhaps more frequent briefings..but why would they stop functioning and expect the president to do everything...if they can't handle a crisis they aren't a very good staff..

and again you call it a goofy face others call it a troubled face..


Oh, brother....Fine, I was wrong....Happy ?

How about a man that says "Bring it on" ? Or maybe "F*** yourself" on the floor of the senate ? Watch out for those glass walls in that house of yours...

the glass walls analogy would only imply if I were saying such things..and I'm not...

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Actually, I'd say my "only forte" is making you look like a fool, but that's not exactly something that requires a great amount of skill

Oh wahhh ... I am so injured by your rapier wit.

Ummm...I know reading comprehension isn't your strong point and all, but could you please point out exactly what it was Bush did between the time he was told and the time he left the class, 7 minutes or so later ? Seems to me that the article stated that he interacted with the class, but that's about it...nothing much there about coordinating communications...Nothing much there about getting on the phone with his national security advisor, vice president, secretary of defense or transportation....No, can't seem to find that....Why don't you point it out ?

I've never laid claim to having anything more than a single functional brain cell and on my best days that little fella barely operates at 1/4 power. So, you're probably right about that reading comprehension thing.

However, unlike you, I don't claim to know what President Bush did during the 7 minute period. I have no psychic abilities. I have not seen a video of the entire 7 minutes. I have not read a single account from any news outlet/reporter/observer who was actually there that provides a moment-by-moment account of what occurred.

So, I have to go with what it appears we both read from the article -- that he continued with an interaction with the class. Given what limited knowledge I have about how things work in a presidential administration, I think that his staff was busy working on obtaining more information, setting up secure communications (given the fact that he had to use a school telephone, which I don't believe is a secure line) and preparing for his immediate departure (since his life was not in imminent danger there was no need for the Secret Service to rush into the room, enclose him in their guard and rush him away from the scene).

But then, that's just my foolish, silly, ignorant, delusional thoughts on the matter. Hmmm... did I cover all the insult bases with that one, sir?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
HE WAS IN PLAIN FRIGGIN' SIGHT !!!!!!!!

They don't have to GUESS who he talked to, THEY COULD FREAKING SEE HIM.



Geez.

So, phlueeze direct us to the moment-by-moment account that any of these reporters or observers have filed that would substantiate your allegations in any way. Remember, you are the one who keeps alleging that he did NOTHING.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
HE WAS IN PLAIN FRIGGIN' SIGHT !!!!!!!!

They don't have to GUESS who he talked to, THEY COULD FREAKING SEE HIM.



Geez.

I can logically conclude he went to the bathroom that day, but if I can't find it in a press report, it never happened?

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
HE WAS IN PLAIN FRIGGIN' SIGHT !!!!!!!!

They don't have to GUESS who he talked to, THEY COULD FREAKING SEE HIM.



Geez.

perhaps if you take the time to research and get some facts you wouldn't get so upset...

another news clip...


Behind Bartlett, with his back to reporters, Bush was on a telephone for several minutes with Card standing next to him. After the call, Bush conferred briefly with Card

yep he was in plain site...not sure how you know who he talked to,,but he was in plain site..

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
HE WAS IN PLAIN FRIGGIN' SIGHT !!!!!!!!

They don't have to GUESS who he talked to, THEY COULD FREAKING SEE HIM.



Geez.

A question that begs to be asked:

Does anyone honestly think that anyone's mind/opinion about this will change as a result of this "discussion"?

Maybe we all need to pop open a few cold ones, kick off our shoes, share an amiable toast and agree to disagree.

Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream, but let me "smoke" it a little longer before you burst the bubble.

 

[JKanownik]

On 9/11 after the first plane hit I was monitoring the news every few minutes at work. After the 2nd plane hit I was immediately glued to the news from that point on. This is just me, regular guy at work, with no knowledge of an terrorist intelligence information and no ability to control any response. It's important to note that at that point no one knew how many planes were unaccounted for. It was possible that there were another 50 hijacked planes flying around the US ready to crash into another 50 targets. Had that been the case, 7 minutes could have made a world of difference. It's easy to use the expression "hindsight is 20/20" as an excuse to write off criticism of past events, but in order for it to be a valid arguement the action that was taken (or in this case not taken) had to seem like the correct one at the time it was taken. There is not a single justifiable reason for not leaving the school immediately and doing everything in his power to make sure our nation was being protected to the best of its ability. Not that leaving immediately had to upset anyone in the room, but even if it did I think the life of even one person is more important than concerns over possibly upsetting some children.

By the way I don't think there is any video available of the full 7 minutes, but here is a link here that shows over 5 minutes of video (and explains where the 7 minute figure comes from) and also outlays a few arguements as to why Bush was wrong to not take immediate action.

-Josh

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by IamTink
N.Bailey wrote:



Now, N. Bailey, do YOU have a personal problem w/me? It seems to be that you do. Just wondering,

I'm just starting to get caught up on this thread, but let's see, you have a whopping 81 posts. How on earth could I possible have a personal problem with you? I've never even seen your name until this thread.

Don't you think it's more than a little odd that after almost 3 years, not one person has raised a stink about this 7 minutes? NOT ONE, at least that I have ever heard of. Correct that if you can, anyone?????? Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because till MM's film, everyone in the country thought he done a pretty damn good job? Nahhhhm, that couldn't possibly be it!

We also don't know exactly what was going on in that school that day, but many possible reasons have been pointed out, like perhaps the Secret Service was planning his exit, staff getting communications up and running with Bush's advisors, yet all anyone can say is, he shouldn't have done that!

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by JKanownik
On 9/11 after the first plane hit I was monitoring the news every few minutes at work. After the 2nd plane hit I was immediately glued to the news from that point on. This is just me, regular guy at work, with no knowledge of an terrorist intelligence information and no ability to control any response. It's important to note that at that point no one knew how many planes were unaccounted for. It was possible that there were another 50 hijacked planes flying around the US ready to crash into another 50 targets. Had that been the case, 7 minutes could have made a world of difference. It's easy to use the expression "hindsight is 20/20" as an excuse to write off criticism of past events, but in order for it to be a valid arguement the action that was taken (or in this case not taken) had to seem like the correct one at the time it was taken. There is not a single justifiable reason for not leaving the school immediately and doing everything in his power to make sure our nation was being protected to the best of its ability. Not that leaving immediately had to upset anyone in the room, but even if it did I think the life of even one person is more important than concerns over possibly upsetting some children.

By the way I don't think there is any video available of the full 7 minutes, but here is a link here that shows over 5 minutes of video (and explains where the 7 minute figure comes from) and also outlays a few arguements as to why Bush was wrong to not take immediate action.

-Josh

I appreciate your perspective. However, exactly what should President Bush have done upon leaving the school that would have made any difference in what happened on 9/11? Even if he made it back to Air Force 1 and managed to somehow get airborne in that 7 minute time frame, what could he have done to "make sure our nation was being protected to the best of its ability" that he could not do from that location, using the staff available to him onsite, secure communications, and other staff in the Situation Room of the WH?

I have no problem with criticism, but if you're going to say that what President Bush did was wrong, you should have something constructive to offer in its place.

 

[ToriLammy]

Originally posted by kbeverina
I can't decide if you are deliberately evading the point or truly don't get it...

?

I vote A. Always A

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by wvrevy
The rush of conservatives to make excuses for this president never fails to amaze me

1 - If a plane crashed into the world trade center, it would indeed qualify as something the president should get involved with. That is a highly visible symbol of the US, and at the very least there was going to be a huge loss of life. If nothing else, he should have immediately been on the phone with Giuliani and Pataki offering his assistance.

2 - Given the fact that the building had been hit before, it wouldn't take a genius (nor a psychic) to stumble onto the thought of "Hey, I wonder if this was an accident" after the first plane hit. But instead of being in a position to start finding out what was going on, he chose to stay in front of the cameras.

Do you people honestly think that sitting in front of an elementary school classroom was the best place the president could have been in that time ? Would anybody have blamed him for simply saying that something had arisen that demanded his attention and excusing himself ?

One of the biggest problems I have with this president, his administration, and those that support it is the complete unwillingness to ever admit to a mistake, regardless of how serious. I don't think anyone is blaming him for the attacks, and I don't even know if there would have been anything he could have done to prevent the second or thirdhad he been in the absolute best position possible. I'm not trying to blame him for anything, really. But can we not at least agree that sitting there like a bump on a log after the initial attack wasn't exactly the most productive use of that time ?

You're pretty outspoken here on The Dis. Let me ask you this, prior to MM's F-9/11 movie, how far back in your rantings would I have to go to hear the outrage you felt because of those 7 minutes?

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by JKanownik
There is not a single justifiable reason for not leaving the school immediately and doing everything in his power to make sure our nation was being protected to the best of its ability. Not that leaving immediately had to upset anyone in the room, but even if it did I think the life of even one person is more important than concerns over possibly upsetting some children.

So such esteemed public figures as Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, with considerably more resources at their disposal, failed to see what is painfully obvious to you? They and the other members of the 9/11 commission were quite satisfied that President Bush acted appropriately under the circumstances. The 9/11 commission is hardly a partisan body with an agenda either way.

At least some of you who criticize President Bush over this were awfully quick to accept the judgement of the 9/11 commission in regards to Al Qaeda links or lack thereof. Why now are the 9/11 commission's findings not as relevant?

 

[The Edge]

What would I do if I were president? I guess I'd probably say, "Excuse me." to the children, even if I thought the first crash was an accident. NYC is probably considered the major city in the USA. A plane crashing into the WTC would most likely lead to many deaths. I'd want to express my condolences to the families involved ASAP. Lots of people here are acting like an accident crash at the WTC is not Bush's responsibility. No, he's not NYC mayor or NY state govenor, but I do think he as an obligation to make a crash at the WTC a priority over reading to the school children. He could have rescheduled his school visit. Could have made it up during one of his ranch retreat days.

 

[ToriLammy]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ah, see, THIS is another issue entirely. At this point, I don't know that anything would have changed as far as the results of the terrorist actions against us. Maybe...and that's a big maybe...quicker response on the part of the entire government may have kept the pentagon from being hit, but that's debateable at best.

My point about his lack of leadership in this situation was that it was his job to be in charge of the situation, and he very clearly wasn not.

Did you vote for a president to be in charge and make command decisions as quickly as humanly possible, or did you vote for a man who would rather "delegate" until he can gather himself enough to actually become involved in the situation ? Is there ANY scenario in which the nation was better served by the president sitting in front of a class full of kids and reporters rather than getting the information the very second it became available ?

I'm not trying to blame the president for anything that happened that day. May whole argument has been that it was a mistake to not leave the moment he was told of the second plane hitting, and it reflects very poorly on his leadership abilities that he would rather his underlings relay the information to him rather than getting it himself. This isn't some ordinary issue we're discussing that could easily be delegated. We're talking about a massive attack on the United States, on our own soil.

I vote for a President who will take command upon learning the facts. Gathering the facts is a job for underlings. I would much rather see Rice on the phone with the FAA tryin to find out what happened then the President lowering himself to the position of micromanager. It's mind boggling that people believe the President should be calling around to agencies to find out what is going on when in fact the exact opposite should be happening. Those agencies should be calling a central command post/situation room (probably in the White House) where all the information can be tracked and put into a logical assessment of what is happening. The President is then briefed of the situation and decisions made.

But what the heck, let's chain the President of the US to the White House (he or she) can never leave but must always be in the building ready to take command because wrevy says so

 

[AirForceRocks]

NYC is probably considered the major city in the USA.

To NYers it certainly is the major city in the USA, but I'm not convinced that the rest of the country feels the same way.

A plane crashing into the WTC would most likely lead to many deaths. I'd want to express my condolences to the families involved ASAP.

And they would have had a list of those families available at their fingertips for the President to contact them right away? I highly doubt it.

No, he's not NYC mayor or NY state govenor, but I do think he as an obligation to make a crash at the WTC a priority over reading to the school children.

Why would he make an accidental crash at the WTC a priority over anything else?

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by JKanownik
On 9/11 after the first plane hit I was monitoring the news every few minutes at work. After the 2nd plane hit I was immediately glued to the news from that point on. This is just me, regular guy at work, with no knowledge of an terrorist intelligence information and no ability to control any response. It's important to note that at that point no one knew how many planes were unaccounted for. It was possible that there were another 50 hijacked planes flying around the US ready to crash into another 50 targets. Had that been the case, 7 minutes could have made a world of difference. It's easy to use the expression "hindsight is 20/20" as an excuse to write off criticism of past events, but in order for it to be a valid arguement the action that was taken (or in this case not taken) had to seem like the correct one at the time it was taken. There is not a single justifiable reason for not leaving the school immediately and doing everything in his power to make sure our nation was being protected to the best of its ability. Not that leaving immediately had to upset anyone in the room, but even if it did I think the life of even one person is more important than concerns over possibly upsetting some children.

By the way I don't think there is any video available of the full 7 minutes, but here is a link here that shows over 5 minutes of video (and explains where the 7 minute figure comes from) and also outlays a few arguements as to why Bush was wrong to not take immediate action.

-Josh

OK here's a single justifiable reason for Bush to not leave the school immediately..the secret service would not take him out without making sure the route was ecurte and checking to make sure the whole thing wasn't a trap to get the pres to rush out into the open...


I once drove a car in The VP's motorcade..the VP heard about the grand opening of a local supermarket and decided it would be a great idea to stop for donuts and congratulate the store on it's opening..the secret service went nuts..we sat fro at least 20 minutes while they sent agents ahead to check out the store and make sure it was safe....


with the exception of the president being attacked, they don't alter plans or routes without checking things out thoroughly..

 

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

Think of the message this footage sends to the terrorists. "Is there anything we could do to freak this guy out???" The ONLY acceptable immediate public response to a terror attack: poker face all the way. React when the cameras are out of the room.

 

[JKanownik]

Originally posted by jrydberg
So such esteemed public figures as Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, with considerably more resources at their disposal, failed to see what is painfully obvious to you? They and the other members of the 9/11 commission were quite satisfied that President Bush acted appropriately under the circumstances. The 9/11 commission is hardly a partisan body with an agenda either way.

At least some of you who criticize President Bush over this were awfully quick to accept the judgement of the 9/11 commission in regards to Al Qaeda links or lack thereof. Why now are the 9/11 commission's findings not as relevant?

The 9/11 commission was concerned with what ACTUALLY happened, not with what COULD have happened. There is a huge distinction to be made there. Given the events that unfolded there was nothing Bush could have done in those 7 minutes to change what happened. However, all Bush had been told by Card was something along the lines of "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Given what could have possibly unfolded (which is of no consequence to the 9/11 commission) with only that information, that is where everyone has a problem with Bush's actions.

-Josh

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ah, see, THIS is another issue entirely. At this point, I don't know that anything would have changed as far as the results of the terrorist actions against us. Maybe...and that's a big maybe...quicker response on the part of the entire government may have kept the pentagon from being hit, but that's debateable at best.

My point about his lack of leadership in this situation was that it was his job to be in charge of the situation, and he very clearly wasn not.

Did you vote for a president to be in charge and make command decisions as quickly as humanly possible, or did you vote for a man who would rather "delegate" until he can gather himself enough to actually become involved in the situation ? Is there ANY scenario in which the nation was better served by the president sitting in front of a class full of kids and reporters rather than getting the information the very second it became available ?

I'm not trying to blame the president for anything that happened that day. May whole argument has been that it was a mistake to not leave the moment he was told of the second plane hitting, and it reflects very poorly on his leadership abilities that he would rather his underlings relay the information to him rather than getting it himself. This isn't some ordinary issue we're discussing that could easily be delegated. We're talking about a massive attack on the United States, on our own soil.

So, it would have been all for show? I mean, did it really matter to you at the time? Again, you seem to be basing you opinions on what you know 3 years later, not on what every was trying to figure out at 9:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, 9/11/2001. It's so much easier to criticize now, isn't it.

I voted for a President that wasn't going to micromanage the govt like the previous one did. I voted for a President that knew what being a leader meant, and that didn't mean not trusting the people he put in charge. The people responsible for making decsisions were doing just that. It's apparent to me you have little understanding of just what a CEO or a President's responsibilties are. 3 years later yes, we all know it was a massive attack. I defy anyone to say the knew, definitively, what we were dealing with at 9:03 AM PDT on Tuesday, 9/11/2001