The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Why did Bush sit for seven minutes despite being told "America was under attack"?in United States

George_Horse

Bush sat in a chair for a long time while America was "under attack". Why did he do this? Why didn't he simply get up, dismiss himself, and continue to resolve the situation? Did he have   knowledge that he and the school was in no danger? Did he know what                                                                                                                                                                                                           buildings would be hit?

Vincent_Costanzo

At that moment, the most President Bush could have done was say more words. There was little he could have done to actively "resolve the situation" what the children in that school needed in that moment was for the people around them to respond in a way that didn't cause a complete panic. If you watch the video that was taken of the moment in question, the next thing he did was explain the situation in a very calm manner and ensure the children that everything was going to be fine. I think that was the best thing he could have done in that specific moment.

George_Horse

@Vincent_Costanzo The country was under attack and the best thing to do is to sit in a chair for seven minutes taking no action? Nonsense. He does nothing but endanger the children and the school by being foolish.

George_Horse

@Vincent_Costanzo The country was under attack and the best thing to do is to sit in a chair for seven minutes taking no action? Nonsense. He does nothing but endanger the children and the school by staying there. He has no knowledge about who was attacking the country, what kind of attack, just simply told "America is under attack" as if the statement is of no importance or concern to him.

Vincent_Costanzo

@George_Horse First off, in the face of a crisis taking a mere seven minutes to determine what to do, is not a bad thing. rushing forward without thought is simply foolish. Moreover, the 9/11 attacks were carefully orchestrated and thus would not have been changed in order to crash into a separate building in a separate location. Furthermore, as I stated previously the best thing he could have done was give an address which is what he did at the end of those seven minutes.

George_Horse

 " Philip Melanson, the author of a book about the Secret Service. “With an unfolding terrorist attack,” Melanson said, “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” That this indeed would have been standard operating procedure is illustrated by the fact that, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, one agent said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?”

CYDdharta

There really wasn't anything for Bush to do at the time.  The classroom teacher, Kay Daniels (certainly no fan of Bush), thought he did the right thing.

George_Horse

CYDdharta said:

There really wasn't anything for Bush to do at the time.  The classroom teacher, Kay Daniels (certainly no fan of Bush), thought he did the right thing.

Yes thought sitting there while the country was in danger of guided missiles flying towards populated targets. Ha ha! Seems reasonable. Yeah, I've already posted

 “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.”


 

 Yeah that is how it was supposed to be. He didn't know who the attacker was, what kind of weapons were being used against the country, he was told "America is under attack" Kay thinks is was okay to sit there while under attack, but he doesn't know better, he does not have much knowledge about procedures, it is what should happened but did not happen because Bush or the Secret Service may have had knowledge about who was being attacked and who was safe.

CYDdharta

George_Horse said:

 Yeah that is how it was supposed to be. He didn't know who the attacker was, what kind of weapons were being used against the country, he was told "America is under attack" Kay thinks is was okay to sit there while under attack, but he doesn't know better, he does not have much knowledge about procedures, it is what should happened but did not happen because Bush or the Secret Service may have had knowledge about who was being attacked and who was safe.

The Secret Service thought it was OK as well, since they didn't rush the president out of the classroom.  They have the right and responsibility to protect the president from an immediate threat regardless of any objections.  The Secret Service didn't do so because there was in no immediate threat.  Since the president was in no immediate danger, taking 5 minutes to keep the classroom calm and collect his thoughts as to what to say was, indeed, the right thing to do.

Erfisflat

In an attack on the country, the presidents life becomes priority #1, they wouldn't have let him sit there unless it was staged.

George_Horse

CYDdharta said:

George_Horse said:

 Yeah that is how it was supposed to be. He didn't know who the attacker was, what kind of weapons were being used against the country, he was told "America is under attack" Kay thinks is was okay to sit there while under attack, but he doesn't know better, he does not have much knowledge about procedures, it is what should happened but did not happen because Bush or the Secret Service may have had knowledge about who was being attacked and who was safe.

The Secret Service thought it was OK as well, since they didn't rush the president out of the classroom.  They have the right and responsibility to protect the president from an immediate threat regardless of any objections.  The Secret Service didn't do so because there was in no immediate threat.  Since the president was in no immediate danger, taking 5 minutes to keep the classroom calm and collect his thoughts as to what to say was, indeed, the right thing to do.

"There was in immediate threat" BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! So the country's safety isn't of any importantance? Look Mac I have no Idea where you're getting this garbage from but its nonsense. I already told you from before! In the bold was what should have happened.

George_Horse

@Erfisflat You're feeling me!

CYDdharta

George_Horse said:

"There was in immediate threat" BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! So the country's safety isn't of any importantance? Look Mac I have no Idea where you're getting this garbage from but its nonsense. I already told you from before! In the bold was what should have happened.

Bush was NEVER in an IMMEDIATE THREAT.  I read you OPINION of what you think should have happened.  It was idiotic when the left originally brought it up and 16 years later it's still idiotic.

SilverishGoldNova

He was warned America was under attack and instead of evacuating, he sat there reading "my pet goat". Even then, it is impossible for a steel frame building to collapse because of a fire, and if it could have it should have happened within 15 minutes, not after an hour.  Not to mention building 7 wasn't even hit by a plane and it also fell. It is likely that we are simply talking about controlled demolition, that was exaggerated so that way the Bush administration could invade Iraq. After all, that was the original justification. Not to mention Bush's campaign was focused on "9/11 9/11 because 9/11 9/11 Al Qaeda box cutters 9/11"

To quote @Erfisflat

"If you think Al-Qaeda, armed with 99cent boxcutters directed by a middle aged man on dialysis in a cave halfway around the world outwitted the most advanced military in the world at the height of it's power, say "I'm gullible" below. We need to have a talk."

George_Horse

@SilverishGoldNova Absolutely great input! My words cannot describe the amount of joyfulness I feel! Great point friend! 

Erfisflat

What's idiotic is thinking this is about left versus right. It's about the haves versus the have nots. 

SilverishGoldNova

@CYDdharta this has literaly nothing to do with left vs right...

George_Horse

@Vincent_Costanzo The country was under attack and the best thing to do is to sit in a chair for seven minutes taking no action? Nonsense. He does nothing but endanger the children and the school by doing that.

George_Horse

@Vincent_Costanzo The country was under attack and the best thing to do is to sit in a chair for seven minutes taking no action? Nonsense. He does nothing but endanger the children and the school by doing that.

Erfisflat

CYDdharta

SilverishGoldNova said:

@CYDdharta this has literaly nothing to do with left vs right...

LOL, it must have just been a coincidence that hard leftist Michael Moore made this a national issue in Farenheit 9/11.  What this issue truly has nothing to do with is have vs. have nots.  One group of well financed haves said Bush should have run out of the room like his hair was on fire, even though he didnt know just what was happening, and another group of haves disagrees.

CYDdharta

George_Horse said:

@Vincent_Costanzo The country was under attack and the best thing to do is to sit in a chair for seven minutes taking no action? Nonsense. He does nothing but endanger the children and the school by doing that.

Ridiculous.  Bush was never a target, national landmarks were.  Thus neither the children nor the school were in danger.  If, in an alternate reality, al Qaeda terrorists had somehow figured out Bush's itenerary and targeted the school, Bush's leaving after planes started crashing wouldn't have made any difference.  Bush or no Bush, the plane would already have been on its way.

SilverishGoldNova

CYDdharta said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@CYDdharta this has literaly nothing to do with left vs right...

LOL, it must have just been a coincidence that hard leftist Michael Moore made this a national issue in Farenheit 9/11.  What this issue truly has nothing to do with is have vs. have nots.  One group of well financed haves said Bush should have run out of the room like his hair was on fire, even though he didnt know just what was happening, and another group of haves disagrees.

So because Michael Moore referenced it, this is now a  left vs right debate, and because you disagree with leftists, its false? This reminds me of what Dawn (who isnt here but whatever) is doing in the FE debate... (trying to make it a left vs right debate because I mentioned NASA)

CYDdharta

SilverishGoldNova said:

So because Michael Moore referenced it, this is now a  left vs right debate, and because you disagree with leftists, its false? This reminds me of what Dawn (who isnt here but whatever) is doing in the FE debate... (trying to make it a left vs right debate because I mentioned NASA)

You're right, it isn't a left vs right argument per se; its just a vapid and inane anti-Bush argument.  The fact that leftists who were trying to destroy Bush at the time, came up with the argument makes it a leftist argument.  The fact that it makes no sense and has been undeniably refuted makes it false.  The fe debates are so ridiculous I don't botherlooking at them.  

I'm still waiting for someone to show me how this is a haves vs a have nots issue.  Its been a bad week, I need to be entertained.

SilverishGoldNova

CYDdharta said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

So because Michael Moore referenced it, this is now a  left vs right debate, and because you disagree with leftists, its false? This reminds me of what Dawn (who isnt here but whatever) is doing in the FE debate... (trying to make it a left vs right debate because I mentioned NASA)

You're right, it isn't a left vs right argument per se; its just a vapid and inane anti-Bush argument.  The fact that leftists who were trying to destroy Bush at the time, came up with the argument makes it a leftist argument.  The fact that it makes no sense and has been undeniably refuted makes it false.  The fe debates are so ridiculous I don't botherlooking at them.  

I'm still waiting for someone to show me how this is a haves vs a have nots issue.  Its been a bad week, I need to be entertained.

if you want entertainment I would suggest entertainment for entertainment