Hypothetical question to skeptics about Bush's 'Pet Goat' reading event

reply to post by magicrat


Well, you keep saying that I am making unfounded assertions, however, the entire line of questioning is based on the assumption Bush could have done a lot more and a lot sooner and didn't because either he was:

In on it.
Too dumb to know what to do.
Overwhelmed.

No one appears to be considering that a lot of what goes on does so without direct and immeadiate input by the President.

on live t.v. in front of an audience bush said he watched the first plane hit the towers on t.v. BEFORE he entered the classroom. this is impossible because footage of the first plane hitting was captured by an amateur, and wasn't available until much later.

and boom goes the dynamite.

reply to post by hooper
No, I said you were making arbitrary assumptions, not unfounded assertions, unless I misspoke at some point.

Now you're kind of making unfounded assertions (he was in on it, too dumb to know what to do, or overwhelmed), but really what you're doing is proposing theories based on evidence.

The line of questioning proposed by this thread is not based on "the assumption Bush could have done a lot more and a lot sooner" - it's based on the evidence that President Bush did not do a lot more and a lot sooner.

In earlier posts, though, you were making a lot of assumptions (the President was safe at the time, there was nothing threatening the school at the time, the only thing known about the threat was that it was airborne) and using those assumptions to conclude that there was nothing suspicious about the lack of response from the President or Secret Service. I argue that those assumptions are not supported by evidence, so your conclusion is also not supported by evidence. And I'll say again, if you have evidence that supports those assumptions, I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this.

I don't want to speak for most people, but I'm certainly aware that a lot of what goes on does so without direct and immediate input from the President. I have a hard time believing that an attack on American soil is one of those instances.

reply to post by magicrat

....it's based on the evidence that President Bush did not do a lot more and a lot sooner.

Again, we're talking about 7 minutes here. Not hours. There was no "lot" sooner and no "lot" more. Less than a 1000 seconds.

reply to post by hooper
I've been consciously trying to avoid the appeal to emotion argument I'm about to make, but your persistence in minimizing the time frame really disturbs me. Also, deliberately missing the context of my post (the fact that I was quoting the language in your post) so you can put it in quotes and use it to attack my position is a disingenuous debate tactic and it kind of ticks me off - so here goes...

Watch this and count to 480. Start when the second plane hits. Then come back and defend your position that seven minutes isn't a long time.

Please note - I'm not suggesting that the President could have run, with super-speed, to New York to save people. Or even that he knew this was what was happening in New York - obviously he couldn't have. It's an appeal to emotion argument, and I know that. But I'm feeling a little emotional at the moment...

What I am doing is looking at the evidence: that he was told America is under attack, and that he did not know the extent of the attack and remaining threat. I am arguing that, for a leader, to choose to not be immediately involved in the response to a crisis is inexcusable, and that seven minutes is absolutely a long time in the context of crisis response and management.

I believe you started responding to this thread by implying you've had experience in positions of responsibility. I have a hard time believing that, if you really think it's reasonable to wait seven minutes before responding to a crisis.

So, to return to the OP's question - obviously seven minutes of non-response is enough to make me suspicious, and not long enough to do the same for you. So how much longer would this lack of leadership need to continue before raising a red flag for you? Ten minutes? An hour? I mean, heck, that's only 3,600 seconds...

I'll also say again - if you have evidence to support your assumptions and give meaningful context to make the decision to not respond for seven minutes appropriate, please share it. If your strongest argument is that seven minutes isn't a long time, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

reply to post by magicrat

I've been consciously trying to avoid the appeal to emotion argument I'm about to make, but your persistence in minimizing the time frame really disturbs me. Also, deliberately missing the context of my post (the fact that I was quoting the language in your post) so you can put it in quotes and use it to attack my position is a disingenuous debate tactic and it kind of ticks me off - so here goes...

You're right I should not have done that. Not fair.

Watch this and count to 480. Start when the second plane hits. Then come back and defend your position that seven minutes isn't a long time.

Its not. That's all there is to it. Its less than half a thousand seconds.

Please note - I'm not suggesting that the President could have run, with super-speed, to New York to save people. Or even that he knew this was what was happening in New York - obviously he couldn't have. It's an appeal to emotion argument, and I know that. But I'm feeling a little emotional at the moment...

Well, I think the whole argument is an appeal to those who opposed to Bush on an emotional level.

What I am doing is looking at the evidence: that he was told America is under attack, and that he did not know the extent of the attack and remaining threat. I am arguing that, for a leader, to choose to not be immediately involved in the response to a crisis is inexcusable, and that seven minutes is absolutely a long time in the context of crisis response and management.

I don't understand how he was not involved. Because he was sitting there in the classroom listening to the children? Please note that no one said "Mr. President, we are under attack and need to know what to do next". The fact that Card left it that simply tells me that Bush knew no one was looking for him to jump up and start barking commands - at that moment. Just think of the rest of that article. One of Bush's first decisions - to return to Washington - was argued out anyway.

I believe you started responding to this thread by implying you've had experience in positions of responsibility. I have a hard time believing that, if you really think it's reasonable to wait seven minutes before responding to a crisis.

It depends on who and where you are in the chain of command.

So, to return to the OP's question - obviously seven minutes of non-response is enough to make me suspicious, and not long enough to do the same for you. So how much longer would this lack of leadership need to continue before raising a red flag for you? Ten minutes? An hour? I mean, heck, that's only 3,600 seconds...

Half and hour. If they had advised Bush, like Card did and he sat there for more than 15 minutes without asking for an update then it would look weird. But then again, there is no baseline for this. That's the problem. You know as well as I the President usually looks to his staff and his security to tell him when its time to go and safe to go. This is not an assumption.

I'll also say again - if you have evidence to support your assumptions and give meaningful context to make the decision to not respond for seven minutes appropriate, please share it. If your strongest argument is that seven minutes isn't a long time, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

Actually read anything about the secret service and protecting the POTUS. And again, its not as much about 7 minutes but the assumption, on your part, that there was inaction.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by magicrat

I don't understand how he was not involved. Because he was sitting there in the classroom listening to the children?

See, you do understand how he was not involved - you just described it!

I'm going to be heading off line soon and just wanted to quickly say thanks for bringing more than the "seven minutes isn't a long time" argument to the table. Clearly, we're not going to agree on that point, and while I hope I never have to depend on your leadership during the first seven minutes of a crisis, I'll leave it at that and stop trying to convince you.

You've given me a few new thoughts to chew over in the rest of your response, and made me think I may be overly focused on the President's reaction rather than the big picture of the reaction of staff, Secret Service, etc. Did you know (you probably do) that Ari Fleischer was holding a sign in the back of the room that said "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" (source)? So, yes, I think you have a point when you say that no one was looking for him to start barking commands. To at least some extent, it looks like they were actually discouraging it. I will do some more thinking and researching on this angle.

I have done some reading on the Secret Service and protecting the President. I haven't come across anything in my research that condones not taking action when the President is threatened. Like I said, if you know of evidence that contradicts what I've seen, or that confirms a negative threat assessment at Booker after the attacks began, please point me to it.

Funny how the skeptic can't answer this hypothetical question!

It's pretty obvious why they won't. Don't want to cast any suspicions now, do we?!

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

I'll try to be back to argue more later - but before I run out the door I wanted to say that I just read your signature and I'm laughing out loud here... I'd be up for arguing with you about parts of the premise of your satire in that quote, but I agree with most of it and definitely understand where you're coming from - and it's really well written and funny. So anyway - thanks for that, and I'll look forward to disagreeing with you some more later.

Cheers,

I have to admit that it's not mine. It's from an anonymous commenter at the Guardian's site iirc. But it does raise an important point, I think!

Originally posted by ATH911
Funny how the skeptic can't answer this hypothetical question!

It's pretty obvious why they won't. Don't want to cast any suspicions now, do we?!

Or nobody cares about your silly question. Could be that.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

i'd like for you to explain the video i posted if there is nothing to see here. what bush said he saw isn't possible. it isn't like he slipped up on one word, but a whole story.

reply to post by ATH911

Funny how the skeptic can't answer this hypothetical question!

21 minutes.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

i'd like for you to explain the video i posted if there is nothing to see here. what bush said he saw isn't possible. it isn't like he slipped up on one word, but a whole story.

Add the word "had" to Bush's sentence:

"I was sitting outside the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane had hit the tower, you know the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself and I said there's one terrible pilot..."

He could be making a mistake in the tense he's using. Or he could be admitting that he saw footage that nobody else did because he's in on it. I tend to think the latter is more likely, especially if there's a conspiracy and he's drilled in what to say.

It just seems unlikely to me that someone who is in on something of such magnitude would make an error of that kind. And it appears that he could easily have meant that he saw that a plane had hit the tower. A far more likely explanation.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

He could be making a mistake in the tense he's using. Or he could be admitting that he saw footage that nobody else did because he's in on it. I tend to think the latter is more likely, especially if there's a conspiracy and he's drilled in what to say.

Am I misreading here, or did you just come over to the dark side?

It just seems unlikely to me that someone who is in on something of such magnitude would make an error of that kind.

That seems like a reasonable assumption to make. This clip has always made me picture Bush in the limo watching a closed-circuit feed of the Naudet footage, but you're right, it's difficult to see even him making an error like saying this in public if he was involved and that's the way it went down. So what, then? It also seems impossible that he would be genuinely misremembering such a significant moment.

And it appears that he could easily have meant that he saw that a plane had hit the tower. A far more likely explanation.

It could be, except that I remember looking into this and being pretty convinced by my research that there were no TVs at the school. I'll try to find the evidence I'm thinking of.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

i fail to see why the tense matters. he admitted to seeing the first plane hit the towers BEFORE he even went into the classroom.

no one caught the first plane on live t.v. and he was obviously talking about the first plane, because he says the second plane is what made him realize we were under attack.

unless you're arguing that bush has access to a secret channel from a regular school tv no one else can find that allows him to watch unwatchable things, then i honestly would have only one argument against you "you're mad as a hatter without the charm"

A good President wouldn't make a statement without being well informed, at the time Bush wasn't. Period.

I fear he was just a mere pawn in this whole charade.

Originally posted by magicrat

Am I misreading here, or did you just come over to the dark side?

You're not misreading! I made a mistake - meant to say "former".

That seems like a reasonable assumption to make. This clip has always made me picture Bush in the limo watching a closed-circuit feed of the Naudet footage, but you're right, it's difficult to see even him making an error like saying this in public if he was involved and that's the way it went down. So what, then? It also seems impossible that he would be genuinely misremembering such a significant moment.

Yes, but I'm not saying he's misremembering it, but that he's misreporting it. That he's saying that he saw that a plane had hit the towers, in common with what a lot of us first saw.

Given Bush's predilection for misspeaking and malapropisms I find this far more persuasive than the idea that he's actually, months after and with time to prepare, mistakenly admitting that he's in on it.

It could be, except that I remember looking into this and being pretty convinced by my research that there were no TVs at the school. I'll try to find the evidence I'm thinking of.

I must admit I did find that odd at the time. What school has TVs all over the place? The whole anecdote seems a bit false to me, and I actually think that it's designed to make it look like he was informed, when in fact he was out of the loop.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

i fail to see why the tense matters. he admitted to seeing the first plane hit the towers BEFORE he even went into the classroom.

no one caught the first plane on live t.v. and he was obviously talking about the first plane, because he says the second plane is what made him realize we were under attack.

unless you're arguing that bush has access to a secret channel from a regular school tv no one else can find that allows him to watch unwatchable things, then i honestly would have only one argument against you "you're mad as a hatter without the charm"

edit on 7-12-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

You've misunderstood me. The first plane crash was shown - not the impact but the immediate aftermath. Assuming he means he saw that then there's no particular mystery. I mean, I saw it. So did a lot of others.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You're not misreading! I made a mistake - meant to say "former".

That's a shame. I had a tinfoil hat all picked out for you.

The whole anecdote seems a bit false to me, and I actually think that it's designed to make it look like he was informed, when in fact he was out of the loop.

I can buy that as a possibility. It still doesn't account for the fact (again, I'm pretty sure I remember it as fact but haven't had time to look for the evidence again yet) that there wasn't actually a TV in the hallway. If they're creating a false anecdote to project a certain appearance, that seems like a detail they would check.

Originally posted by magicrat

I can buy that as a possibility. It still doesn't account for the fact (again, I'm pretty sure I remember it as fact but haven't had time to look for the evidence again yet) that there wasn't actually a TV in the hallway. If they're creating a false anecdote to project a certain appearance, that seems like a detail they would check.

Yes. but the alternative is that he accidentally admitted to seeing the plane hit the tower. Wildly improbable in my opinion. Why would someone admit to that? It's not like it's a slip of the tongue or something.

Far more likely that they just lied about the TV. Wouldn't be the first time a politician - or his speechwriter - has made something up. Or that there actually was a TV there. We can't say for absolutely certain there wasn't.

I think the gist of his anecdote means to say - I saw that a plane had hit the tower, I knew about it, was on the ball, but like a lot of people thought it was an accident. Whether it's true or not I can't say. Is it suspicious? Not particularly.