It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Skeptics? Don't have an answer to my hypothetical question?


I answered you and you called me a liar.

You then - after a tortuous introduction to the logic of the situation - admitted that it wasn't that suspicious that he waited around, and would be more suspicious if he'd leapt into action.

Not sure what more you want me to do.




posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 



President Bush did none of these things on that morning. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can defend that as a normal response.

No, he did none of those things while briefly on camera at a public event that included small children. 7 minutes. 480 seconds. As much as I realize that many folks here on ATS do not like President Bush he did the right thing in not appearing to panic in public. Its not like he personally was going to go outside and man a ground to air missile station.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I've just worked out the ATH911 method. You feel you've scored some kind of victory if someone doesn't answer your question (or if you can tell yourself that nobody has). You've convinced yourself that there are thousands of interested observers keeping score. So you purposely - but I have to say extremely obtusely - ask questions that are either unworthy or impossible to answer.

Often you do this through a logic so opaque that you become unintelligible. But that doesn't matter to you, as long as people can't reply. This is so far from the realms of honest enquiry that it touches upon the absurd.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


That's what I don't get about this. Surely unpreparedness and vacillation is much less suspicious than immediate action. Had Bush jumped up and started gravely sermonising about terrorists and OBL I'd be much more inclined to think he knew about it. As it is he looks like he's got no idea about the seriousness of the event.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by magicrat
 

President Bush did none of these things on that morning. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can defend that as a normal response.

No, he did none of those things while briefly on camera at a public event that included small children. 7 minutes. 480 seconds. As much as I realize that many folks here on ATS do not like President Bush he did the right thing in not appearing to panic in public. Its not like he personally was going to go outside and man a ground to air missile station.

I assume you've watched the video, and you've seen that there's a brief pause after Card interrupts and before the teacher goes into the next part of the reading lesson. There's clearly an easy opportunity to say "Excuse me, kids, I have to do some grown up stuff. Thanks for letting me join your class this morning."

To suggest that the only alternative to inaction was to panic is just a weird jump in logic. As is the suggestion that the only thing he could do is man a missile station. I really don't get why you're using such absurd leaps in logic to defend this.

Also, seven minutes is an incredibly long time in a crisis. Regardless of your position in the chain of command.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by hooper
 
As it is he looks like he's got no idea about the seriousness of the event.
That's exactly it - he knew that a plane had crashed before entering the classroom, and he was told "A second plane has hit the second tower. America is under attack." So how is it defensible for the Commander in Chief, the leader of America in a metaphoric and practical sense, to sit there for seven minutes looking like he's got no idea about the seriousness of the event?

Regardless of what he could actually accomplish by politely excusing himself and getting to work (jumping up and gravely sermonizing is a bizarre option for him to choose but okay, I guess he could have done that), that's clearly a better choice than sitting there doing nothing.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


Well, that's the 20-20 of hindsight. The idea that everyone new immeadiately and instantly after the second plane hit the tower that we were "under attack" is just not true. Again, what was the President going to do in those 7 minutes? If the Secret Service had determined that his life was in immeadiate danger they would have rushed him out of there, if not then you (you being POTUS) let your people do what they have to. They would tell him when its time to go and when its time to stay. Don't forget as POTUS you are in a very unique "position" you are, at the same time, a real person, an entire branch of the government, the commander of all military forces and a powerful symbol of the nation.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat

That's exactly it - he knew that a plane had crashed before entering the classroom, and he was told "A second plane has hit the second tower. America is under attack." So how is it defensible for the Commander in Chief, the leader of America in a metaphoric and practical sense, to sit there for seven minutes looking like he's got no idea about the seriousness of the event?


It's not. He's clearly out of his depth. That's why he and his cronies spend their time avoiding telling the US public about how bad their intelligence was. That's the cover up.


Regardless of what he could actually accomplish by politely excusing himself and getting to work (jumping up and gravely sermonizing is a bizarre option for him to choose but okay, I guess he could have done that), that's clearly a better choice than sitting there doing nothing.


I agree. I chose the other option because I would find it more suspicious. So of the several options available he took one that was not the most suspicious.

The thread surmises (or at least implies) that there is something odd about his actions that might suggest a conspiracy. But nobody who follows that line of thinking can adequately explain why conspirators would put him on camera with the intention of making him look like he was involved. The best answer so far has been that it was a mistake. I don't find this persuasive.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
Man, you guys are quick (I just saw TrickoftheShade's response too). I won't be able to keep up, but I'll try for a bit and keep reading... you're not convincing me, and I don't understand why you're making this argument. The idea that Andy Card told the President "America is under attack" is true, so I think it's fair to assume he thought we were under attack, regardless of what you or anyone else thought at first. I don't know exactly what he would have done in that seven minutes, but I know seven minutes is a lot of time to do stuff, and I know doing nothing is one of the absolute worst choices a leader can make.

Oh, and the Secret Service - I hadn't thought to mention that weirdness, and can't remember if it's been brought up in this thread, but if I'm remembering right VP Cheney said that agents picked him up by the elbows and ran, carrying him, to a safe area. But agents at Booker, a publicly announced, scheduled visit, did nothing? That seems really weird to me. I don't care how well they checked the building before arriving; once we're under attack, I have to expect they'd reevaluate threat levels and not assume anything. So there's another lack of action that seems really weird.

I understand that I'm more inclined to conspiratorial thinking than you are, and there's a lot we're not going to agree on - I appreciate you trying to share your non-conspiratorial thinking on these details, but I'm not swayed yet.

Thanks for kick-starting the thread, ATH911.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

It's not. He's clearly out of his depth. That's why he and his cronies spend their time avoiding telling the US public about how bad their intelligence was. That's the cover up.

Okay, I can imagine that. I think in the big picture the cover up points to something deeper, but I agree he's out of his depth, and I agree that pride can make us cover up our inefficiencies in pretty extreme ways. So I'll agree that's a possible scenario.


The thread surmises (or at least implies) that there is something odd about his actions that might suggest a conspiracy. But nobody who follows that line of thinking can adequately explain why conspirators would put him on camera with the intention of making him look like he was involved. The best answer so far has been that it was a mistake. I don't find this persuasive.

Fair enough. I don't find that answer persuasive either, though it's definitely possible. I can imagine other answers (he's not involved and They wanted to keep an eye on him; he's involved and They're performing a ritual of some kind that's more effective if it's public; he's involved and They think it works as an alibi for some reason; he's not involved and They wanted to send him a message...), but I don't mind spending time deep in the rabbit hole while imagining. You seem to be not so comfortable there, and that's cool.

But what I keep coming back to is that we can't find any proof by imaging the motivations of people we don't know and don't understand. We can only consider evidence, and the video evidence of President Bush on that morning is pretty weird and warrants consideration, in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Interesting questions. Assume for a minute that the government folks had no idea if there were other planes, or even missiles, headed toward the US. And assume for a minute that the those with the President had no idea what was happening. This means that they might, just might, have concluded that the President - at that location, might be a target....

The question to ask is why did they let him stay? For the sake of the children seems rather crazy, as I can't imagine the Secret Service handbook says "get the President out of any dangerous situation, unless kids are involved in which case leave him alone."

I am not any kind of expert, but I seems to me in times past when there has been and kind of "threat," known or other, the President is usually whisked out of the room or area as a precaution. For people who knew nothing about what was happening at all; "sir, two airplanes just hit the world trade center" they were very unconcerned. At the very least the event would spark a "what the hell is going on!!!!!!!!!!!!" reaction, followed by a "get me the hell out of here............" reaction, and neither were done.

We can conclude at least one thing from this. A crises is not like in the movies, people don't freak out, they don't really panic, folks simply ignore the implications that have been assigned later through hindsight, and go about their business. Since no one told him a plane was headed at him, there was no reason to change a thing until he was told otherwise.

The other thing we can conclude is he was not told what happened. More likely he was told something like "we need to wrap this up early sir...." and that was it.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat

Okay, I can imagine that. I think in the big picture the cover up points to something deeper, but I agree he's out of his depth, and I agree that pride can make us cover up our inefficiencies in pretty extreme ways. So I'll agree that's a possible scenario.


I'm uneasy about bringing other factors in. It often seems to me that Truthers concede a point but add a caveat that "if you take into account everything else..." when in fact everything else has also largely been debunked. And isn't actually relevant. But if that's an expression of your opinion then fine.

The point of this topic, as I see it, is that people bring Bush's reaction and the surrounding events into discussion as evidence of wrongdoing or complicity. It's really up to them to explain why they think it makes him look complicit and I don't see any firm evidence that it does. As I say below I can think of a lot of other reactions that would be far more odd.



Fair enough. I don't find that answer persuasive either, though it's definitely possible. I can imagine other answers (he's not involved and They wanted to keep an eye on him; he's involved and They're performing a ritual of some kind that's more effective if it's public; he's involved and They think it works as an alibi for some reason; he's not involved and They wanted to send him a message...), but I don't mind spending time deep in the rabbit hole while imagining. You seem to be not so comfortable there, and that's cool.


I'm happy to entertain other explanations, but only if they are supported by evidence. Otherwise you're just musings about what may be. The point is that there are a million possibilities, but does this actually further the notion that he was involved particularly strongly? I think not.


But what I keep coming back to is that we can't find any proof by imaging the motivations of people we don't know and don't understand. We can only consider evidence, and the video evidence of President Bush on that morning is pretty weird and warrants consideration, in my opinion.


I absolutely agree. He seems unprepared and out of his depth. Quite pathetic really.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
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,



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 



The question to ask is why did they let him stay? For the sake of the children seems rather crazy, as I can't imagine the Secret Service handbook says "get the President out of any dangerous situation, unless kids are involved in which case leave him alone."

Well, I look at it this way, common sense dictates that if you don't know the exact nature of the threat, that you can't say for certain that there is a safer location nearby then you stay put until the nature and direction of the threat has been determined and a safer altenative location has been ascertained. In those cases where the President has been whisked away it was when the nature and the direction of the apparent threat are known. Also note that Bush was the POTUS and the Secret Service protects the POTUS and not just the person. Bush, like Presidents before him defer to the Secret Service in those matters. His instinct may have been to run or take shelter but instinct and best practises are not neccessarily the same thing.

As for the matter of not endangering the children, don't underestimate that consideration. As important as their mission may be to them, to protect the persons in their charge, they are still Americans and humans and do consider the safety of all others in the execution of their jobs.

Think of this analogy - you are in one of those big shopping malls in one of the stores with your spouse and children. Someone comes in and says the mall is under attack, there's a guy or guys out there somewhere with guns. Now, you don't hear any gun shots and don't see anyone running around - what do you do? Run out of the store and into the hall in the hope of escaping or stay where you are where you know there is no one with guns shooting at you?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



Interesting point about not knowing the nature of the threat. There is a minor problem with your contention. Bush claimed that he saw the second plane hit, live, and could not believe what a bad pilot he was. So the knew something, at least according to what he said. The other problem with the contention is that the VP was said to have been whisked away immediately, I don't recall reading where he sat for a few hours to figure things out. So the VP was underground in moments, the actual presiding president was not. It is also assumed a plan of retreat was in place if there was some sort of attack, which wasn't executed.

As for the children, the mall analogy isn't completely accurate either. Those to protect are trained to protect on instinct only - no thinking. If the "leader of the free world" is in danger, he has to move, regardless of who is around - at least that is what we are told. The protection of the leader is not comparable to any other act of protection, as there are folks trained for all events and a mall incident is happen-chance to those involved, instinct training isn't part of the equation.

Regardless, the President's trip to the school, on the day of the "greatest attack on US soil since pearl harbor" was remarkably leisurely and since that wasn't part of a nationwide broadcast - a good reason for looking calm and reserved, we might assume he knew about nature of the attack not being a threat to him personally, or more likely, was told nothing at all. Which of course contradicts his statement that he knew about the attack - live, in which case the calm seems very out of place and the Secret Service NOT rushing in to shield him seems negligent at best.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 



Interesting point about not knowing the nature of the threat. There is a minor problem with your contention. Bush claimed that he saw the second plane hit, live, and could not believe what a bad pilot he was. So the knew something, at least according to what he said. The other problem with the contention is that the VP was said to have been whisked away immediately, I don't recall reading where he sat for a few hours to figure things out. So the VP was underground in moments, the actual presiding president was not. It is also assumed a plan of retreat was in place if there was some sort of attack, which wasn't executed.

Well I was going to mention the VP in my other post. The VP was whisked away, because, like I said unless you know for certain that there is a safer place, then stay where you are safe. In the case of the VP they did know for certain that there was a safer place and that is where he was taken. This was not the case with the POTUS. The room he was in was not under direct immeadiate and apparent threat so it was best to keep him there until a safer course was determined. I may be speaking off the cuff but I'm pretty certain there wasn't an underground war room available at that elementary school and taking him outside increased his exposure to risk.

As for the children, the mall analogy isn't completely accurate either. Those to protect are trained to protect on instinct only - no thinking.

Oh, I must disagree vehemently with that. Thinking is the cornerstone of successful protection. Persons in those postions know that the bad guys will often rely on their victims to act "instinctively".

If the "leader of the free world" is in danger, he has to move, regardless of who is around - at least that is what we are told.

Well, I've never been told that any other American's life is secondary to protecting the POTUS. There may risk/benefit decisions to be made but they idea that those charged with protecting the POTUS would endanger others with no regard, I cannot hold. Noting the simple notion that if the POTUS is being attacked and you are near the POTUS at the time, the quicker they get him away from you, the safer you are.

The protection of the leader is not comparable to any other act of protection, as there are folks trained for all events and a mall incident is happen-chance to those involved, instinct training isn't part of the equation.

The point wasn't how the mall cops would react, the point was how would you react? The idea with the analogy was to put you in the position of protecting yourself and your loved ones. I may not be as important as the POTUS in general, but to me I am MORE important.

Regardless, the President's trip to the school, on the day of the "greatest attack on US soil since pearl harbor" was remarkably leisurely and since that wasn't part of a nationwide broadcast - a good reason for looking calm and reserved, we might assume he knew about nature of the attack not being a threat to him personally, or more likely, was told nothing at all. Which of course contradicts his statement that he knew about the attack - live, in which case the calm seems very out of place and the Secret Service NOT rushing in to shield him seems negligent at best.

Or he may have looked calm and reserved because he was President. You may not like him personally but that doesn't mean he didn't have anything on the ball. As to cover and whisk away. The cursory knowledge of the threat at that time was not bullets or pipe bombs but possibly planes. Again whisk to where? There was no where else in the school that was any safer than the one place you know the President is safe at that moment.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
reply to post by hooper
 
Bush claimed that he saw the second plane hit, live, and could not believe what a bad pilot he was. So the knew something, at least according to what he said.

The President actually said that he saw the first plane hit live on TV - he said there must have been a TV on in the hallway at the school - and thought that it must be a bad pilot. That can't be true, of course, unless something really crazy was going on, but it's another weird little detail, and he gave that account very clearly at least twice.



Regardless, we know that the press that was at Booker waiting for the Presidential motorcade to arrive had already learned of the first plane crash, and President Bush was informed either during the drive to the school or immediately on arrival (sources).

Your point still stands in my mind - he was definitely aware of the magnitude of the threat, especially once Card told him "America is under attack," and he was unaware of the exact nature of the attack - making it really weird to me that neither he nor the Secret Service saw a need to move him from a public location that could not possibly have been considered safe given the circumstances.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 



Your point still stands in my mind - he was definitely aware of the magnitude of the threat, especially once Card told him "America is under attack," and he was unaware of the exact nature of the attack - making it really weird to me that neither he nor the Secret Service saw a need to move him from a public location that could not possibly have been considered safe given the circumstances.

Please note that they did move him away and within a few minutes. Reading this one would think that he lingered in that classroom for hours....he didn't. Moving the President around in public, particularly during an emergency of unknown proportions, and I want to emphasize that they did not know, at that time, the full extent and direction of the threat. The President was safe where he was. There was nothing threatening the school at that time. The safest place for the POTUS when he is "on the road" is generally Air Force One, however on 9/11/2001 the only thing they did know about the threat, at that time, was that it was airborne. So do you rush the President out of school and into the open and put him on a plane when the threat may be coming from above?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I think his reading about the 'Pet Goat' is evidence that he didn't know the attacks were coming. Some people here say he knew and was part of a conspiracy to make them happen so we could go to war. But his 'deer in the headlights look' ... coupled with the fact that if he knew the eyes of the world were going to be on him he'd have picked a better photo op place ... anecdotal evidence that Bush was NOT 'in the know' before it happened.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
I don't think we're going to be able to convince each other ... I get what you're saying, but it seems to me like you're willing to make a lot of arbitrary assumptions to justify what, to me, is an unjustifiable lack of response.


Please note that they did move him away and within a few minutes. Reading this one would think that he lingered in that classroom for hours....he didn't.

I don't know what you're reading that makes one think he lingered for hours. I've emphasized several times that "a few minutes" is a long time when dealing with a crisis, and I don't understand why you're still trying to minimize that. Also, we can all watch the video and time it for ourselves. So I don't think I need to reiterate the facts when it comes to how long the non-response actually lasted.


Moving the President around in public, particularly during an emergency of unknown proportions, and I want to emphasize that they did not know, at that time, the full extent and direction of the threat. The President was safe where he was. There was nothing threatening the school at that time. The safest place for the POTUS when he is "on the road" is generally Air Force One, however on 9/11/2001 the only thing they did know about the threat, at that time, was that it was airborne.

I'm curious about your sources for information within the White House staff, the Secret Service and the NSA, since you seem very confident about what was known, what the threat assessment was (with information like this and this I have a hard time assuming "the President was safe where he was" as easily as you do), and what options were available as safety precautions. If you can share your research on this, that'd be great. Otherwise it just seems to me like you're making assumptions - and they're all assumptions that I don't see any evidence for, and disagree with strongly.


So do you rush the President out of school and into the open and put him on a plane when the threat may be coming from above?

Again, you're creating a false choice. Rushing the President out into the open is hardly the most logical alternative to sitting and doing nothing. In my opinion, yes, I would definitely get the President out of a building where his presence is public knowledge, given the information that terrorists were attacking buildings seen as significant targets by crashing planes into them.

But that's just my assumption - if you have any evidence to support your assumptions, I'd be interested to see that.

I'd also be interested in hearing your thoughts about the President's assertion that he saw the first plane hit on TV outside the classroom...




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join