[Split]Bush at the School - Split from: New Griffin book out on March 14, 2008.

[Belz...]

I'm obviously not talking to skeptics here.

Insults will not avail you.

I think that behaviour is suspcious and I know I am certainly not alone.

Argument from popularity

Well that's your call... you can't prove it's normal for the President to stay stationary when he is in a known location and there is an airborne threat that can strike at any time from anywhere.

Assumption. They didn't know if there were other airborne threats at that time. And since the school was obviously safe because it was checked out, what then ?

I have my skeptic hat on and I say it's bull.

Argument from incredulity.

It certainly smells... were we supposed to see that film in the classroom?

Speculation.

How did Michael Moore get hold of it?

He certainly didn't steal it. The thing was broadcast.

I'm sure the White House painted it differently before Michael Moore showed us what really happened.

Michael Moore is a one-sided, biased fantasy maker. What he does is propaganda, pure and simple.

My argument is grounded in total logic.

Is there any other kind ?

 

[yodaluver28]

Still nobody has a reasonable explanation as to why when told 'America is under attack' the POTUS doesn't have a single question for at least the next 8 minutes.

What's the simplest explanation using the much loved skeptical razor?

The simplest explanation is that Al Qaeda struck the WTC in 1993 and had been planning furthur attacks against it ever since. There had been strong, but vague warnings and indications of an impending Al Qaeda attack throughout the summer of 2001, perhaps taking place on US soil. There had been concern that Al Qaeda operatives might hijack commercial jetliners. Andy Card tells Bush that the WTC has been hit by planes, probably hijacked jetliners. It doesn't take Stephen Hawking to do the math on that one.

As for Bush not leaving the room or school immediately:

1) The school had been throughly inspected and searched by local police and Secret Service. They were confidant that there were no bombs, hidden weapons, or security breaches inside the building.

2) There were snipers on the roof of the school in case of an attack by firearms.

3) At that point, the attacks had been confined to the WTC towers in NYC and even if there were other hijacked planes in the air, the odds of them knowing exactly which school they were in, finding it from the air, and hitting such a small building were beyond miniscule.

4) Given the increased threat of firearm or bomb attacks, agents needed time to re-inspect the route to the airport where Air Force One was waiting.

5) Since it was decided that Bush would need to stay in the building until the route to the airport had been checked, does it really matter what room he was in? At that point there was nothing he could do. He wasn't in NYC and couldn't help with what was going on there and in the event that there were other jets heading towards targets, there were qualified people in place, with access to far more up-to-the-minute information, to decide what to do about them.

 

[8den]

My argument is grounded in total logic.

It is not acceptable to have us believe that when the President is at a known and vulnerable location

You've yet to prove that the location was widespread knowledge in the days and weeks preceding the events of 911.

and there is an airborne threat that can strike at anytime from anywhere that it's OK to keep him there.

You've yet to provide evidence that the secret service thought there was any evidence of a hijack within a thousand miles of the presidents location.

You have yet to demonstrate why it's a good idea to keep him there.

You've yet to provide a better and more logical course of action, that doesn't involve the president being rushes to an unspecificed location, along an unspecificed route.


Oh and Harry, wake up, the Pet Goat footage was in the public domain far before Moore used it to juggernaught home his point, if you believe Farenheit 911 was the first forum that footage was ever broadcasted on, you are once again displaying the depth of your ignorance of the events on that day.

 

[Belz...]

Bump for Happy.

 

[pomeroo]

My argument is grounded in total logic.

It is not acceptable to have us believe that when the President is at a known and vulnerable location and there is an airborne threat that can strike at anytime from anywhere that it's OK to keep him there.

You have yet to demonstrate why it's a good idea to keep him there.

You have to demonstrate that you are privy to any inside information. Your criticism of Secret Service protocols is based on, what? You have yet to show that the men protecting Bush endangered him in any way or that anyone's behavior suggests an inside job. On the contrary, everything that happened on the morning of 9/11/01 indicates clearly that members of the government were stunned by the news of the attacks. How desperate must your evil movement be to clutch at straws like this?

 

[PhantomWolf]

You have yet to demonstrate why it's a good idea to keep him there.

It is a good idea to keep him there until:

a) A route to a more secure location has been established, closed off and secured.
b) The new location has been confirmed and secured as well.

On 9/11 the alternative locatioin was Airforce 1, a large Boeing 747 sitting on an open airfield. Which is the more likely target? A school that would be very difficult to locate from the air, or a 747 sitting out on an airfield?

Would it be sensible to take the POUS outside of the classroom without a secured route if there was a chance of snipers, ambushers, or bombers? All these things have to be considered and dealt with before you move him. A plane coming in won't just appear over the top of the school and hit it, ATC would see it at least 5-10 mins before it even got near, plenty of time to evac the POUS.