Non-issue? Bush waiting 7 minutes on 9/11

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:
If the terrorists had the intel to hit GWB in an elementary school in Florida during his relatively brief visit, then we have bigger troubles that this "7-minute issue".

On September 7th the White House announced that Bush would be in Sarasota on the 11th, so it wasn't a secret.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:

Yeah. Out of all the things I could criticize Bush for, this is way, way down there on the list.

Angela

I agree.

Moonlit_Angel said:

But yeah, we all knew about it the day it happened. That's kinda weird to hear that your school handled it that way, Dread.

Angela - you must have been in high school? I think it would be handled differently in elementary school. My kids didn't know any has happened until they got home. They were in 5th & 3rd grade.
 
BostonAnne said:
Angela - you must have been in high school? I think it would be handled differently in elementary school. My kids didn't know any has happened until they got home. They were in 5th & 3rd grade.

:der:...oh, yeah, good point-forgot about that. Yeah, I was in high school-11th grade, to be exact. That would explain why it was handled differently then.

Angela
 
ThatGuy said:
President Bush has made his "strong leadership" a cornerstone of his campaign. The problem with those seven minutes is that they directly call into question his role as a "strong leader." True, he could not have accomplished much in those seven minutes, but a truly strong leader would not have sat there reading The Pet Goat for seven minutes.

I think this has to be the main point of the '7 minutes' footage. How much of a 'strong leader' are you when you are unable to get yourself and get ready to react? Sitting there and going on as usual so as to not to scare any children (while at that point airplanes have killed many of your citizens on your homeground) is also different to sitting there unable to do anything.

In the end, those 7 minutes would have meant nothing much for the total chain of events (as noted, his aides and agencies could be (and probably were) handling many things themselves. But they did show how the President would react in a moment of crisis.

C ya!

Marty
 
ThatGuy raises an interesting point...given the uncertainty at the time and the hundreds, maybe thousands of planes in american skies, why wasn't the President removed from the classroom to a 'safe' spot? why would his handlers allow 7 minutes to lapse?
 
Actually, it wasn't just seven minutes. After being told of the second crash, Bush didn't leave the school for half an hour.
 
Yes, Bush did not leave the school, and from what I have read (similar to what A_wanderer has posted), there were quite a few communication breakdowns and a lot of flase information circulating between the armed forces and different government agencies (hmmm, it STILL seems to be happening almost three years later).


kobayashi said:
ThatGuy raises an interesting point...given the uncertainty at the time and the hundreds, maybe thousands of planes in american skies, why wasn't the President removed from the classroom to a 'safe' spot? why would his handlers allow 7 minutes to lapse?

THAT is part of what Bill Maher has been saying on his show. I think we are beating a dead pet goat with this issue though.
 
nbcrusader said:
Funny, few made an issue of this before Moore's film.

Great leadership is demonstrated by calm, deliberate action.


No one knew before Moore's film. One of Moore's complaint's media didn't cover this.

I don't think anyone is making this an issue, by that I mean a deciding point as to if they should vote for him or not. It just puts his "great" leadership skills into question. His time at the school was still cut short. A calm "excuse me I need to step out" would have been the thing to do.

nbcrusader said:

And 7 minutes did not change a thing.

I think this is why so many are letting this slide because now in hindsight, 7 minutes didn't change a thing. But like it's been said, how many more planes were in the sky? Think of how much "bigger" 9/11 could have been. Remember we're talking about 7 minutes after the SECOND plane hit. The first plane was tragedy enough, the second cemented the idea that we were under attack. As a leader you don't take that kind of risk.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

No one knew before Moore's film. One of Moore's complaint's media didn't cover this.

I don't think anyone is making this an issue, by that I mean a deciding point as to if they should vote for him or not. It just puts his "great" leadership skills into question. His time at the school was still cut short. A calm "excuse me I need to step out" would have been the thing to do.



I think this is why so many are letting this slide because now in hindsight, 7 minutes didn't change a thing. But like it's been said, how many more planes were in the sky? Think of how much "bigger" 9/11 could have been. Remember we're talking about 7 minutes after the SECOND plane hit. The first plane was tragedy enough, the second cemented the idea that we were under attack. As a leader you don't take that kind of risk.

That is incorrect...this was known long before Moore.

And no matter how many planes were in the air....two investigations by congress and the 9/11 commission have not indicated that the Presidents actions were a problem.
 
Diemen said:

Here's my thing - is this really that big of an issue?

No. The '7 minute' scene set the tone for the film though, and in that respect (i.e., as an element of storytelling) it did what it was supposed to do.

But did it mean anything? Not in my opinion. What was Bush supposed to do? Get on the hot line and give the order to immediately bomb the entire Middle East? (He waited a little while before he began that aspect of his Christian missionary work, er, uh, the bombing).

The last two-thirds of the movie was where Moore made his most powerful statements; statements that, for me, exposed the invasion of Iraq for what it is: an immoral and disasterous action.

Taken as a whole, I thought the film was well done; Moore is one of the few people saying some things that need to be said.
 
Re: Re: Non-issue? Bush waiting 7 minutes on 9/11

pub crawler said:

The last two-thirds of the movie was where Moore made his most powerful statements; statements that, for me, exposed the invasion of Iraq for what it is: an immoral and disasterous action.

Clearly it is....and shame on President Bush for misleading us....

[Q]Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.


Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.


The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.


Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America. [/Q]


Mike Moore is right...Bush has mislead us.
 
"Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom."

Lee Hamilton, Democrat, Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission
 
Dreadsox said:


That is incorrect...this was known long before Moore.

And no matter how many planes were in the air....two investigations by congress and the 9/11 commission have not indicated that the Presidents actions were a problem.

I'm saying I never saw any of the main media cover this.

Yes hindsight is 20/20. We all know now that his actions didn't result in any problem that's not the question. And the question, like some have brought up, isn't about whether he could get on a hotline and jump into retaliation. The question is why would our fearless leader not excuse himself calmly and jump to his position as protector of our country get briefed and start to find out right away what can be done. People start mentioning communication breakdowns and so forth...so what? Bush knew nothing but the fact that we were under attack and he waited and hesitated to take a role in finding out what can be done. This isn't what I look for in some who calls themselves a leader.
 
Dreadsox said:
"Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom."

Lee Hamilton, Democrat, Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission
I don't think anyone would have preferred it if he had started shouting to the kids that they should run for the lifes because the country is under attack and push them away in a bid to make for the door first

I would have done exactly the same as what Bush did probably
but I do think I would expect he president to explain to the kids that he had to go because of urgent business and get all the information possibly about this when the country is under attack

I don't think Bush really did much wrong
but to say he made a right decision is an awful stretch
he didn't make any decision really
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Non-issue? Bush waiting 7 minutes on 9/11

Dreadsox said:


Mike Moore is right...Bush has mislead us.


I guess I'm offering a concession here, Dread, in that I will concede that much of this debate on the invasion of Iraq has to do with the perception of those debating.

For example, at the time David Kaye's report came out, someone posted Kaye's conclusions here on Interference as though these conclusions somehow vindicated the Bush administration, when all I saw were a bunch of "if's," possibly's" and "potentially's." The fact is, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for what, almost a year-and-a-half? And still no WMD's found. I will add, though, that for the purposes of the Bush Administration saving face, they've found all the evidence they needed to find (i.e., almost nothing).


Another point: Above you posted Bush's speech in which he lays out several seemingly rational points as to why the invasion was necessary. Interestingly though, shortly after the invasion the U.S. battle cry was that we were saving the poor oppressed Iraqis from their tryannical oppressor. Here's what I want to know: why weren't all these concerned Americans marching in the streets, why was their virtually NO national debate or discussion about Hussein's tyranny until AFTER we invaded? I believe that the vast majority of Americans didn't give a flying f**k about Sadaam gassing Kurds until it became convenient to do so -- i.e., the fact that Ameicans could suddenly believe we were saving oppressed Iraqis helped many Americans feel like their soldiers were being sent to do something noble. (I'm not faulting the soldiers here, I'm faulting their commander in chief).

Finally, I've written it a number of times on this forum (and I won't bother quoting from whitehouse.gov again): many of us who oppose this invasion heard Bush addressing the nation and the world prior to and after the invasion and we very clearly heard Bush linking Sadaam Hussein and Iraq to the events of 911.
 
Ahem, 17 Sarin Shells, Cyclosarin and Mustard Gas as well as the remnants of a nuclear program. I think you should say no stockpiles of WMD have been found. But technically we have found WMD and Weapons Programs.
 
I wasnt talking about the Polish "discovery", I was refering to the numbers given by Rumsfeld in relation to the number found after the roadside bomb that definitely had binary sarin agent. It is a falsehood to say that Iraq has no WMD, because > 0 is not zero, it would be wiser to say no stockpiles or no significant quantities of WMD.
 
Ok, I don't know about you, but when I found out about this I roke down crying. I had WAY too much on my mind and I know all of you can relate.

The president is a human being. He was shocked and sad and EXTREMELY worried and he was probably trying his hardest to to figure out the best thing to do. I bet NONE of us could have stayed as calm and collected as him.

Also, seriously, moore is a complete liar. I don't understand why you respect this guy, he's a complete moron. He's more deceptive than Bush will ever be.
 
Last edited:
shart1780 said:
I bet NONE of us could have stayed as calm and collected as him.
I'll take that bet


really now
Bush didn't do anything wrong here
he didn't do anything that shows extraordinary skills either
 
Most of us have watched the planes hit the towers, albeit on television but still watched. If he had said, I was there when the planes hit the towers, then you should rip him a new one.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-issue? Bush waiting 7 minutes on 9/11

pub crawler said:

Another point: Above you posted Bush's speech in which he lays out several seemingly rational points as to why the invasion was necessary. Interestingly though, shortly after the invasion the U.S. battle cry was that we were saving the poor oppressed Iraqis from their tryannical oppressor. Here's what I want to know: why weren't all these concerned Americans marching in the streets, why was their virtually NO national debate or discussion about Hussein's tyranny until AFTER we invaded? I believe that the vast majority of Americans didn't give a flying f**k about Sadaam gassing Kurds until it became convenient to do so -- i.e., the fact that Ameicans could suddenly believe we were saving oppressed Iraqis helped many Americans feel like their soldiers were being sent to do something noble. (I'm not faulting the soldiers here, I'm faulting their commander in chief).

Unfortunately....that was not Bush's speech it was Clintons.....

and you proved my point for me.....Clinton's words are extremely similar to Bush's.

Which leads me to believe that they were both being fed the same intelligence information and their positions were not far from each others other than 9/11 changes the spectrum through which President Bush and others looked at the situation.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Most of us have watched the planes hit the towers, albeit on television but still watched. If he had said, I was there when the planes hit the towers, then you should rip him a new one.

alright.

according to his words he saw the first plane hit before going in to the classroom and was then told about the second.

mixing up words again? perhaps. but his explanation is pretty well formed, according to the transcript.

there are inconsistencies that no one is willing to address and that is a sad injustice. this is something moore obviously wouldn't touch.

from cnn's transcript of the bush town hall meeting
from the white house's transcript of the bush town hall meeting

G. W. Bush

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And 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 use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And 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, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

And Jordan (ph), I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your daddy and mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America.

edited for formatting...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom