Authorization had been given by both the Vice President and the President after the 2nd plane hit the tower.
You guys should all read at least the part of the 9/11 commission report that details the events that happened that day. Its a fairly fascinating read.
Shooting down a commercial airliner may now be built into a predetermined reaction plan but on 9/11 it sure as would have required presidential permission with the possible exception of secret service action to shoot down a plane headed for the President.
Its not an either or. Its obvious you're not much for history, but people still criticize actions made or not made by each and every president we've ever had. We can both be critical of Obama and still have a discussion on this action by Bush. I don't understand why you or anyone else is so bothered by the mere action of discussing it, however. No one is making you read it.
Also, this board is HIGHLY critical of Obama. So far all you've spewed is a bunch of bull .
You know why the discussion in this thread centers on being critical of Bush? We're discussing a Bush action, thats why. Too much of a logical leap for you?
mmmm no i was not aware of it. thanks for making me aware of it though without being a smartass about it and calling me ignorant. i appreciate that. must be that USAF bond or something. however, im not making about the parties im making it about the respective presidents. as i said earlier i feel the blame for 9/11 needs to be shared by both clinton and bush.whats that? i blamed bush a little bit? yeah i sure did. he could have/should have taken action pre-9/11. but again like you said earlier its hard to say what one could have/would have done in that situation because NONE of us will ever be in that position of that much responsibility. that is what i have been trying to get through peoples head like chump dumper who just wants to call people ignorant.
chump didnt mean to hurt your feelings there lil guy.
Maybe I haven't been clear, but I think I've stated that already. I just don't think said actions had a strong negative impact, so I don't fault him too much.
I disagree. I liken it to those morality questions like "If you could push one old dude into a bus to save three children, would you?" In extreme situations like those, I don't think one's actions especially speak to their morality.
I understand if people have high expectations for the President; I tend to as well. But I'm willing to believe that due to the unique situation presented, I can forgive him for not making the optimal choice. Others, like yourself, feel differently. *shrug*
I actually have the 9/11 commission report, but it's been a few years since I read it. I'll have to thumb through it again.
Edit: Does it mention that specifically in the report? Just wondering where you found this info from.
I have a question for you, LNG. Suppose you build a 20 buildings in 20 earthquake zones across the world. None are built to earthquake proof standards. Within 10 years, 1 of those buildings has been in a large earthquake and has collapsed while the 19 others are still standing because they have not undergone earthquakes.
How many of those buildings were mistakes to build? Only the one that was destroyed by an earthquake or all?
WTF does morality have to do with this conversation? This has nothing to do with morality. You've lost me here.I disagree. I liken it to those morality questions like "If you could push one old dude into a bus to save three children, would you?" In extreme situations like those, I don't think one's actions especially speak to their morality.
Its not about forgiveness or not. Its about whether or not it was a mistake. No one is expecting him to be perfect. Chump has even flat out said this.I understand if people have high expectations for the President; I tend to as well. But I'm willing to believe that due to the unique situation presented, I can forgive him for not making the optimal choice. Others, like yourself, feel differently. *shrug*
not too much of a logical leap for me. i understand people wanted him to react differently. roger that, got it. what im saying is, this goes for this entire forum as well, the people that sit here and say "well i would have done this or i would have done that" have no basis to sit there and say what they "would have done". again i go back to my original post i made on this topic, everytime airmen in my career field gets deployed they talk about wanting to get in a fire fight and "do this or that" and THAT is how i view this thread. a bunch of people bashing someone and saying they would have done this or that. when the reality of the matter is they dont know how they will react or what decisions they will make. maybe my interpretation is different from yours; i dunno. again none of us really can say how they would have acted in that situatoin unless you are that person.
Well, the funny thing is I got the same news Bush did that morning and I didn't react by finishing a book I was reading to children. I asked questions.
It is quite a reasonable expectation to not have your president sit and do nothing for 10 minutes when he's told the country is under attack. If one cannot meet that simple criteria then they likely have no business trying to be a countries leader.
If you'll remember, Bush ASKED for this job. If you'll remember back to the primaries in the last election, Obama was criticized because he wouldn't be able to react in this type of a situation. Its a pretty damn common expectation of the job. THATS why he's been criticized.
No one is saying Bush should have grabbed the closest M16, parachute, and demand the military air lift him to Afghanistan so he could go Rambo on Bin Laden.
It is ironic you guys feel the need to defend Bush when he himself choose the lable DECIDER. I guess he forgot slow and late.
LNG
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/r...Report_Ch1.htmPrior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense). Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States-and using them as guided missiles-was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11.98
The report is online.
All of them if they are all in zones equally likely to have similar earthquakes, but I don't follow the point.
Maybe poorly done, but I was trying to point out that in extremely critical/severe/urgent etc etc situations, I don't fault someone for not performing optimally, and I limit my criticisms of them.
Sure, it was a mistake. But I don't think it had any impact on what happened that day, and to me, I don't think 10 mins was an exceedingly lengthy amount of time, so I don't really care much about that mistake.
Thanks!
The point is that in this thread you and others have demonstrated results oriented thinking. You've stated that you give Bush slack because nothing happened as a result of his lapse. Whether or not a specific event happens does not make a decision a mistake or a good decision but rather whether or not that decision caused unnecessary risk.
In other words the mistake had nothing to do with an earthquake actually occurring but the decision to build in the zone to begin with. Even though 19 of those buildings remain, they were still bad choices. Even though Bush's actions did not directly lead to anything bad happening, they were a mistake.
My frame of reference is different due to the risk analysis that was critical when I played poker, but the fundamentals guiding correct decisions are the same when analyzing risk in any arena.
See above.
Sure, it was a mistake. But I don't think it had any impact on what happened that day, and to me, I don't think 10 mins was an exceedingly lengthy amount of time, so I don't really care much about that mistake.
gnsf addressing everyone on this forum. lol
i think myself and LnG's thinking, since it seems to be along the same lines, comes from our time in the military. we try to cut out all unncessary actions to achieve optimal results. thus my thinking of 10 mins really doesnt amount to a hill of beans in this instance. he cut out running out on the children and possibly appearing scared and still achieved the same result. he gathered the intel we had, which wasnt much, and got on his plane. now, as pointed out, obama rushed to the side of kennedy during his inaugural luncheon and started barking out orders while everyone stood around with their thumbs up their asses was a decision that could have had an effect if he waited and didnt spring into action. 9/11 was a catastrophy at ground zero, in our personal lives, and for our government. however, i think we learned from 9/11 about the "new" enemy we were facing and the unpredictability of being attacked.
the attacks were predicted.
was this before or after he finished the story. This is my point. People keep acting like 10 mins is no big deal, and in hindsight, THOSE 10 minutes werent. However, no one knew at THAT time that there weren't dozens of other planes in the sky ready to smack into large buildings. I distinctly remember those on the news wondering aloud under what cir stances would the president order the killing of a commercial airliner. Shoot, my buddy was in the federal building downtown and they evacuated that right away. Yes, a small building in little old San Antonio. Why? because NO ONE knew the scope of the attack. Those 10 mins could have meant another 3k lives. I will say this though, after those first 10 mins, Bush performed EXTREMELY admirably up until the Iraq debacle. I didn't vote for him, but I backed the out of him during that time, then he lost me again. I can absolutely see through partisanship to admit that. However, to pretend that those 10 mins and that reaction were no big deal on THAT day is completely dishonest or ignorant.
Drachen, exactly. The fact that the 10 minutes didn't cost any lives doesn't mean it couldn't have. Everyone is trying to look back with hindsight in order to evaluate his actions which is a mistake.
I've never put it on Bush but rather on the entire system, but the inability to see the attacks as a possibility was a supreme failure. Tom ing Clancy had worked in the ing scenario as an ending to his best selling novel. The CIA had reported it as a possibility. They have wargames and plans for what to do if Putin farts in the wrong direction but they didn't see this coming. Just makes me SMH.
i agree 100% with this. its already been said. this whole thing was a failure from the GROUND UP!
i still dont think that 10mins was a big deal go ahead and label what you want. i really dont care.
We all do that. The person who drives home drunk and doesn't hit anyone is as morally at fault as the person who drives home drunk and does hit someone. But the person who hits someone will be considered more morally culpable.
What about a coach who calls a risky play? The same thing occurs; it succeeds and the coach is a genius. It fails and the coach is a dunce.
And you've failed to show anywhere that said ten-minute lapse actually involved unnecessary risk. I can't imagine what could have occurred in the space of those ten minutes that would've required any such decision. What unnecessary risk was Bush taking?
Have I ever said it wasn't a mistake? I just think that a) it wasn't a big one and b) due to the gravity of the situation, I expect that a greater than average amount of humans placed in the same situation might also present errors in action/judgment.
I know a good deal about risk analysis, though moreso from a network security standpoint. And you should know that poker isn't always about the odds, right? It's about mental toughness, and sometimes people don't have it.
Can you detal what actions Bush could have taken in those ten minutes that might have had a strong impact on the situation?
So what should the President have done in those ten minutes? Order fighters at every major base to get in the air? Order planes shot down? Is there a specific action he could have performed in those ten minutes that would have saved additional lives?
How so? This seems like pure conjecture.
Thanks, but I don't need someone else putting words in my mouth.Saying that my personal opinions are either dishonest or ignorant is somewhat offensive.
Nothing happened the rest of that day, would you be ok if he read the rest of the 2nd grade books in the school library to the kids? You know, since in hindsight it was no big deal.
Also, is time not a factor in military operations? 7 other planes could have slammed into buildings in ten minutes. Or 15 planes. Maybe they could have detonated a couple of bombs at the base of the 50 tallest buildings in the US. Who knows? No one did at that time.
At the very least (as has been posted in this thread) probably the things he did in the 10 minutes after leaving the room.
Also:
See my post previous to the one you quoted for a hypothetical.
Thanks, but I don't need someone else putting words in my mouth.
You are quite welcome
One of the Bush administrations biggest failure was ignoring German intelligence on Muhammad Atta and letting him back into the U.S. without notifying domestic intelligence sources of his whereabouts and his su ious behavior and associations in Germany 2000
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote