Bush's odd behavior on the morning of 9/11

SweetHarmonics · October 2006

I like the thought police reaction of a few posters in this thread. They seem to be threatened by this type of discussion, like Bush is somehow above reproach in all of this.

Bush obviously knew before hand, hence the non-surprise after he was informed of the events taking place. Why didn't the Secret Service immediately rush him out of there after it was obvious than an attack was underway? It's as if they knew he wasn't at risk, no other explanation for it considering their protocol on handling threats of that nature. Quite a glaring contradiction to say the least.

And on the topic of the commission, why did it take Bush and Cheney so long to consent to testify? They stonewalled every effort to get a fact-finding mission going and after finally agreeing to testify they wanted to do it at the same time. They obviously did not feel comfortable discussing that day without being able to corroborate their testimony to fit whatever the other said.

It's all just suspicious as hell and some people still wonder why these kinds of discussions are rampant? Get out of the tank already.

denverfan · October 2006

SweetHarmonics wrote:

I like the thought police reaction of a few posters in this thread. They seem to be threatened by this type of discussion, like Bush is somehow above reproach in all of this.

Bush obviously knew before hand, hence the non-surprise after he was informed of the events taking place. Why didn't the Secret Service immediately rush him out of there after it was obvious than an attack was underway? It's as if they knew he wasn't at risk, no other explanation for it considering their protocol on handling threats of that nature. Quite a glaring contradiction to say the least.

And on the topic of the commission, why did it take Bush and Cheney so long to consent to testify? They stonewalled every effort to get a fact-finding mission going and after finally agreeing to testify they wanted to do it at the same time. They obviously did not feel comfortable discussing that day without being able to corroborate their testimony to fit whatever the other said.

It's all just suspicious as hell and some people still wonder why these kinds of discussions are rampant? Get out of the tank already.

Bush new before hand...what the fuck!! Please...ever experience the state of shock before!

Jackhammer · October 2006

I also think, there's way too much suspiscion in the air, that's not normal.

Bush reaction is also not normal, as the rest of his admin.

Will1659 · October 2006

This crap about "why didn't the secret service rush him out of that school" has been rehashed so many times and people never seem to get it. The president's schedule is worked out very far in advance for these types of public events. The secret service does a lot of advance work checking out a place, making sure it is secure, and making plans to keep it secure while the president is there. That school was the safest, most stable place the president could have been right at that moment. They were in control. There was no reason to, and maybe even some reasons not to rush him out of there onto the highways that they didn't have that kind of control over yet. If you look hard enough you can probably create a conspiracy in anything, but that doesn't make it real.

Paint a Picture.... · October 2006

Carlos D wrote:

And what would you have done,genius? ''Oh My God kids,run!run!run!We're under attack!aaaaaaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!It's all over!We're doomed!'' Gee,your president behaves like a president and,'he didn't do shit.' This isnt' a movie,he wasn't just gonna over react in front of school children. I mean really the only person you should be angry at is yourself for believing this poop.

Carlos u always seem to pop up into a debate and throw some sort of childish, sarcasm without making any relevant arguments, its almost like ur an 18 yr old kid from ireland thinking hes a worldly wise elder but completely missing the point?! (yeah there are profiles)
As for this debate, well i think most would know my view by now.

Smellyman2 · October 2006

Will1659 wrote:

This crap about "why didn't the secret service rush him out of that school" has been rehashed so many times and people never seem to get it. The president's schedule is worked out very far in advance for these types of public events. The secret service does a lot of advance work checking out a place, making sure it is secure, and making plans to keep it secure while the president is there. That school was the safest, most stable place the president could have been right at that moment. They were in control. There was no reason to, and maybe even some reasons not to rush him out of there onto the highways that they didn't have that kind of control over yet. If you look hard enough you can probably create a conspiracy in anything, but that doesn't make it real.

The president is always in safest place, but when there is an attack they always move. You sitll don't want to be in a known location. Cheney was, according to him, immediately swept away. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

I would like to think that in times of unprecedented devastation in the US that we would have a President who is able to excuse himself in front of a classroom of elementary students, but I guess that is too much to ask

Carlos D · October 2006

Paint a Picture.... wrote:

Carlos u always seem to pop up into a debate and throw some sort of childish, sarcasm without making any relevant arguments, its almost like ur an 18 yr old kid from ireland thinking hes a worldly wise elder but completely missing the point?! (yeah there are profiles)
As for this debate, well i think most would know my view by now.

My guess is you're just some delusional nerd with too much free time and too little common sense.None of the arguments you or any of the other nutjobs on this message board have put forward are credible nor are they logical.Is it really implausible to think you might be wrong on this?

jlew24asu · October 2006

Jackhammer wrote:

I also think, there's way too much suspiscion in the air, that's not normal.

Bush reaction is also not normal, as the rest of his admin.

not normal? what would have been a normal reation? wtf does that mean? must mean he knew. theres no other explaination

chopitdown · October 2006

Smellyman wrote:

The president is always in safest place, but when there is an attack they always move. You sitll don't want to be in a known location. Cheney was, according to him, immediately swept away. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

Cheney also was in Washington DC, at his desk and one minute later then pentagon was hit. and he was moved 5 minutes after the air traffic controllers at dulles saw an airplane flying east (towards washington) at a high rate of speed. It doesn't take a genius to think that maybe this plane is going to hit somewhere sensitive. I'm sure if the controllers in FL had seen something Bush would've been gone in a heart beat. I'm not defending him staying and reading to the kids, but you can't compare how they treated cheney and bush. And b/c he didn't react as quickly as you'd like (even though he was being kept informed...and he doesn't have the benefit of hindsight, like we all do) that doesn't mean he knew about it or there is something shady going on.

jlew24asu · October 2006

SweetHarmonics wrote:

I like the thought police reaction of a few posters in this thread. They seem to be threatened by this type of discussion, like Bush is somehow above reproach in all of this.

Bush obviously knew before hand, hence the non-surprise after he was informed of the events taking place. Why didn't the Secret Service immediately rush him out of there after it was obvious than an attack was underway? It's as if they knew he wasn't at risk, no other explanation for it considering their protocol on handling threats of that nature. Quite a glaring contradiction to say the least.
.

Obvious he knew before? based on what? that he didnt jump up and scream in front of some young children, AMERICA IS UDER ATTACK GET UNDER YOUR DESKS! would that have been acceptable? or then you would say its obvious he was acting, trying to pretend he didnt know. simply amazes me that someone would believe that.

LikeAnOcean · October 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Getting your debate tactics and opinions from the guys at South Park....how cute.

I'm just trying to add some light to the thread. How is posting this my opinion?.. Bush is an idiot. That's my opinion. He can't act if he wanted to. We're argueing about nothing. He acted like an idiot on 9/11 because he IS an idiot. People give him WAAAY too much credit. THAT'S my opinion.

sonicreducer · October 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

Obvious he knew before? based on what? that he didnt jump up and scream in front of some young children, AMERICA IS UDER ATTACK GET UNDER YOUR DESKS! would that have been acceptable? or then you would say its obvious he was acting, trying to pretend he didnt know. simply amazes me that someone would believe that.

both sides of this thread are like the far right and the far left, extremely opposite and illogical.

it is logical that he wouldn't 'jump up and scream', but bush's excuse is that he wanted to portray a feeling of 'calmness'. I interpret that as he didn't want to scare the kids. okay, but he could have calmly left the room and informed the kids he had some business to do. do you honestly think those kids would have freaked out if he did something along those lines?

im not president, but it seems common sense that if the country i was in charge of was under attack, i would have acted differently. it makes him look ridiculously incompetent, or seriously sinister.

chopitdown · October 2006

sonicreducer wrote:

im not president, but it seems common sense that if the country i was in charge of was under attack, i would have acted differently. it makes him look ridiculously incompetent, or seriously sinister.

and I'm pretty sure if he had it to do again, he prob would act differently. He made a choice to stay and have other people keep him informed about it; it's not a wrong choice or a right choice...He used the chain of command and delegated...yes, most would agree that he could have made something up to get out of the classroom, and perhaps should have...but it's not like if he would have left the other things wouldn't have happened. I think this whole argument that keeps getting brought up really does nothing to solve any problems; it merely serves to distract, polarize and infuriate.

jlew24asu · October 2006

sonicreducer wrote:

both sides of this thread are like the far right and the far left, extremely opposite and illogical.

it is logical that he wouldn't 'jump up and scream', but bush's excuse is that he wanted to portray a feeling of 'calmness'. I interpret that as he didn't want to scare the kids. okay, but he could have calmly left the room and informed the kids he had some business to do. do you honestly think those kids would have freaked out if he did something along those lines?

im not president, but it seems common sense that if the country i was in charge of was under attack, i would have acted differently. it makes him look ridiculously incompetent, or seriously sinister.

its easy to say after the fact what he should or shouldnt have done. I have no idea what I would have done. I believe he had no prior knowledge of the atacks. with that said, can you imagine what was going on in his head. america has been attacked like that on its mainland ever.

to say he knew something based on his actions when he was told is ridiculous and a pointless argument really. chopitdown is right, he probably would have acted differently would anything have changed that day if he did? no.

chopitdown · October 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

its easy to say after the fact what he should or shouldnt have done. I have no idea what I would have done. I believe he had no prior knowledge of the atacks. with that said, can you imagine what was going on in his head. america has been attacked like that on its mainland ever.
.

your last point is what i've been thinking about a lot. I mean, can you imagine the thoughts going through his mind...esp I'm sure he had been presented with purely hypothetical examples of planes being hijacked...but what are the odds this terrorist attack would come to fruition. I don't know how many threats they get a day, but seriously, before 9-11 would you really think that terrorists would hijack a plane AND use it as a weapon, not collateral to get what you want? I prob woulda crapped my pants if someone had told me that america had been attacked in that manner and now I'm the man who's got to get us through this.

jlew24asu · October 2006

chopitdown wrote:

your last point is what i've been thinking about a lot. I mean, can you imagine the thoughts going through his mind...esp I'm sure he had been presented with purely hypothetical examples of planes being hijacked...but what are the odds this terrorist attack would come to fruition. I don't know how many threats they get a day, but seriously, before 9-11 would you really think that terrorists would hijack a plane AND use it as a weapon, not collateral to get what you want? I prob woulda crapped my pants if someone had told me that america had been attacked in that manner and now I'm the man who's got to get us through this.

I know. its easy for everyone to say, he should have done this, I would have done this. its complete bullshit

sonicreducer · October 2006

chopitdown wrote:

your last point is what i've been thinking about a lot. I mean, can you imagine the thoughts going through his mind?

what good does it do to do the same thing i did, only with a different opinion? i think the only way we can argue this subject is by debating specific examples and presenting all sides equally. so, you are right. it is pointless to argue what was going through his mind. he has told us in interviews. he wanted to portray an act of 'calmness', and that is why he stayed and listened to the rest of the pet goat story. secondly, he said he saw the first plane hit on t.v. that is not possible unless they had prior knowledge and technology set up to see it. was it a slip of the tongue? maybe. what do you think?

chopitdown wrote:

I'm sure he had been presented with purely hypothetical examples of planes being hijacked...but what are the odds this terrorist attack would come to fruition?

The Tripod II Biowarfare Exercise,,The Alert II Terrorism Drill, The National Reconnaissance Office Plane Crash Drill, The Global Guardian Exercise, The Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian Training Exercises, Operation Northern Vigilance

those were war games that were in operation the morning of 9/11. all of them were related to highjackings, planes into buildings, and biowarfare.

coincidence, maybe. mass distraction, maybe. what do you think?

Three weeks ago there was another warning that a terrorist strike might be imminent - On September 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns 'Bush: We're at War, Newsweek, 9/24/01'

San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown admitted to having received a warning from what he described as his airport security late Monday evening, just hours before the attack.

http://www.sfgate.com/today/0912_chron_mnreport.shtml

Salman Rushdie, who is under the continuous protection of Scotland Yard, was prevented from flying on September 11th, 2001

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/londontimes_rushdieairban.htm

these are just a few of the many people who were warned.

chopitdown wrote:

I don't know how many threats they get a day, but seriously, before 9-11 would you really think that terrorists would hijack a plane AND use it as a weapon, not collateral to get what you want?

people were warned not to fly.

in the days after the attacks the bin ladens were flown out of the country when thousands of americans were stranded with no flights.

chopitdown · October 2006

sonicreducer wrote:

what good does it do to do the same thing i did, only with a different opinion? i think the only way we can argue this subject is by debating specific examples and presenting all sides equally. so, you are right. it is pointless to argue what was going through his mind. he has told us in interviews. he wanted to portray an act of 'calmness', and that is why he stayed and listened to the rest of the pet goat story. secondly, he said he saw the first plane hit on t.v. that is not possible unless they had prior knowledge and technology set up to see it. was it a slip of the tongue? maybe. what do you think?

Prob was a slip of the tongue, again you and I have the luxury of not being in that situation. Everyone on this board is so quick to show how bumbling and how stupid bush is and can't say anything right, but yet everyone picks this as his one instance of clarity? Besides, look at the psychological response to trauma and to terrible news, recall of events is not very reliable. Also, we always say the gov't is inept, yet supposedly at 9-11 this was supposed to be their moment of clarity where everything and everyone in the gov't (who are all human and subject to the shortcomings therein) does exactly what they are supposed to do. I'm sure in drills they screw up and that's when there is no danger...now we have complete chaos b/c no one knows what is going on and it's not a drill...don't forget the circumstances in which decisions were made etc...

sonicreducer wrote:

The Tripod II Biowarfare Exercise,,The Alert II Terrorism Drill, The National Reconnaissance Office Plane Crash Drill, The Global Guardian Exercise, The Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian Training Exercises, Operation Northern Vigilance

those were war games that were in operation the morning of 9/11. all of them were related to highjackings, planes into buildings, and biowarfare.

coincidence, maybe. mass distraction, maybe. what do you think?

The only known source for the exercise named Vigilant Warrior is Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies. 3 It is possible that the exercise referred to by Clarke was actually Amalgam Warrior, a NORAD field training exercise involving life-fly air interception, held twice yearly, in the spring on the East Coast and the fall on the East Coast. 4

On the morning of the attack, a large-scale military training exercise called Global Guardian was "in full swing." Global Guardian is an annual exercise involving Stratcom (the US Strategic Command), the US Space Command, and NORAD http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/wargames.html
I realize the dates were changed...but again, with any huge even there are always coincidences.

my point with these is that some of these happen more than once. Also most of these have the roman numeral II, which in my line of thinking means the second which means that there must have been a first, so it's not like these never happen.

sonicreducer wrote:

Three weeks ago there was another warning that a terrorist strike might be imminent - On September 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns 'Bush: We're at War, Newsweek, 9/24/01'

San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown admitted to having received a warning from what he described as his airport security late Monday evening, just hours before the attack.

http://www.sfgate.com/today/0912_chron_mnreport.shtml

Salman Rushdie, who is under the continuous protection of Scotland Yard, was prevented from flying on September 11th, 2001

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/londontimes_rushdieairban.htm

these are just a few of the many people who were warned.

people were warned not to fly.

in the days after the attacks the bin ladens were flown out of the country when thousands of americans were stranded with no flights.

in re: to the bin ladens http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

Smellyman2 · October 2006

“How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?” Bush replied, “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it.”

Weird slip ot the tongue.

chopitdown · October 2006

Smellyman wrote:

“How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?” Bush replied, “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it.”

Weird slip ot the tongue.

yep, he said that on december 4th of that year...almost 3 months after the attacks...and countless times after seeing the attacks on tv, seeing them in briefings, etc... It's not like he said this on sept 11th and 12th. He mispoke plain and simple. I'm sure we all have mispoken at times. It happens.

Bush's odd behavior on the morning of 9/11

Comments

Categories