Non-issue? Bush waiting 7 minutes on 9/11 - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-11-2004, 12:47 PM   #31
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
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.
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 01:22 PM   #32
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel

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

Angela
I agree.

Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel

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 is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 01:26 PM   #33
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had sat there for seven minutes? He would have been upbraided for it the next day, national unity be damned.
Sadly, I believe it.
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 01:36 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BostonAnne
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.
...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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 02:10 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
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
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 02:20 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 12:26 PM
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?
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 02:47 PM   #37
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Actually, it wasn't just seven minutes. After being told of the second crash, Bush didn't leave the school for half an hour.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 03:24 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 10:26 AM
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).


Quote:
Originally posted by kobayashi
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.
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 04:52 PM   #39
Refugee
 
stammer476's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,058
Local Time: 01:26 AM
I can't help but think that this whole argument centers around one fact: what did the aid actually say to Bush?
__________________
stammer476 is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 05:53 PM   #40
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
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.

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

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.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 06:33 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 06:54 PM   #42
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by stammer476
I can't help but think that this whole argument centers around one fact: what did the aid actually say to Bush?
"A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack."

Or from the guy who said it (though you'll have to excuse his lies at the end of the article): "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 02:37 AM   #43
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Re: Non-issue? Bush waiting 7 minutes on 9/11

Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen

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.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 02:57 AM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:26 AM
Re: Re: Non-issue? Bush waiting 7 minutes on 9/11

Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler

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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 03:54 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:26 AM
"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 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com