woooahh boy, easy on the tantrum there. i'm just trying to have a calm evaluation of potential legal interpretations. don't go off the deep end. meds MEDS if i strip away your vicious insult, obtuse analogy, and exaggerated questions attempting to produce a hypothtical scapegoat, i don't see anything else there. 20 minutes is a VERY long time for a Commander In Chief to inactively ponder thousands of his constituency currently burning to death in buildings with unknown numbers of other planes in the air. at that point in time, the defense of not conceiving of an intent to use airplanes in kamikaze attacks has been eliminated. do you disagree?
What exactly should he have done while he was sitting there that would have stopped the towers from coming down or saved the victims lives? What idiocy.
in·ept (ĭn-ĕpt') pronunciation adj. 1. Not apt or fitting; inappropriate. 2. 1. Displaying a lack of judgment, sense, or reason; foolish: an inept remark. 2. Bungling or clumsy; incompetent: inept handling of the account.
Regardless of the common belief at that moment in time, that it might of been an accident of a twin engine type plane. I know that if I were in his shoes, I would have jumped out of my chair to evaluate the situation. Don't forget, he did have knowledge of the intelligence reports of an impending attack.
since we're just dealing with the time between when he was informed of the actual attack at 9:07, and when he took action (disregarding all forms of warning from July, August, the previous day and onward that a reasonable person may have seen as cause for heightened emergency preparedness) he should have fulfilled his duty as Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces, and began coordination of defense. He had been informed that America was under attack. The total number of hijacked airplanes and the scope of the attack were pending. 3 more airplanes crashed in the 60 minutes following his first notification. Are you saying he unquestionably couldn't or shouldn't have attempted to influence that outcome? By early August, Bush knew quite a bit, and don't disregard that several top officials in the Pentagon, as well as mayor Willy Brown cancelled commercial flights scheduled for the 11th on the 10th. This was not a surprise attack. From the agreed upon pre-indications, it can be argued that 911 approached bush like a glacier.
That really is incredible. Coincedence? Wow that's kind of hard to swallow if there are more than a few. I'd like to know more about how many officials and family members of officials had flights scheduled and then cancelled. How many were out of Washington unexpectedly..etc.
I'll give you a "potential legal interpretation." A madman breaks into your home. You live in a faggot community that prohibits handguns so as a law abiding citizen you call 911. The police come. Instead of entering your home they stand around outside. Meanwhile you're shot to death inside. Are the police "liable". Nope. It's every man for himself. Now on September 11th, put yourself in the place of the Secret Service. As an agent you have better information as to the situation both in New York and over American airspace than does the President, eh? He's reading stories to kids while you're monitoring the crisis. On top of it as an agent you already know that a suspicious incident has already occurred in Naples that morning. Would you allow the President to IMMEDIATELY leave the safety of that school? OR would you wait, send teams of law enforcement out along the route to the airport and MAKE SURE that there's no chance of an exploding caravan about to strike the President's motorcade? The President doesn't just snap his fingers and travel at a moments notice. His time-table is choreographed to the minute. I'm not a big fan AC of second guessing. I've traded almost every working day for over twenty years and I HATE woulda, coulda, shoulda. With 20/20 hindsight EVERYONE knows what worked and what didn't. It's easy to say "IF I was Bush, I woulda done this" or "if Rodney King led me on a high speed chase I woulda reacted like this" or "if they blitzed the linebacker I woulda thrown the ball there.." That type of analysis is meaningless bullshit. But the newspapers are full of it each day. And usually the critics are those that have neither the guts nor brains to ever be in the situation to use their acquired lack of knowledge.
There's no reports of ANYONE at the "Pentagon" canceling a flight. Urban myth. Just like there were no Jews killed at the WTC when in reality there was 300 Jews killed there. Willie Brown does claim that he received a cryptic call warning him not to fly on the 11th. Considering that Willie Brown is A.) One of the strangest cats in America and B.) Such a weird lib that NO ONE in the Bush administration would ever warn him, I would chalk up his "experience" as to either a flat out lie or just a random crank call that turned out to be strangely accurate.
I'm looking online at the text of the Newsweek article from Sept 24th 2001 regarding Pentagon brass changing their flights on the 10th, but I'll go to the library and procure and share a copy myself just to please you your slurred testosterone rants don't merit a response
Since I've only heard passing references to this over the years, I'd be curious to see any credible documentation, and how coincidental the claims are. Is there any links?