I think...
...this post has ran its course, and served its purpose, at least to me.
My conclusive feelings about the link provided is that I didn't and don't find evidence that leads me to believe that these attacks were KNOWN about, and 'allowed' to continue..
The f*cked up ◊◊◊◊ I was referring to that I am still quite puzzled about is what the President did, why he did it, and when he did it, aswell as what he ne when he knew it.
I just got done reading the leftover responses from yesterday, and have not visited any of the links provided, so I may have to amend this statement...
Given the nature of the attacks, and that the FAA KNEW there were no less than 4 planes hijacked and headed off course within minutes of the hijacking, and known for SURE after the first plane hit the WTC, the President SHOULD have been briefed fully and NEEDED to be prepared to lead a nation. He did NOT need to be reading a story about a goat with children.
At the very least, he should have excused himself and been in the loop, prepared to give an order to possibly bring down a civilian plane inbound for the capitol. I mean, to say that he did the RIGHT thing by NOT 'rushing out the room upseting 16 kids' is the biggest load of complete and utter crap that I have every heard, period. Let's see, causing 16 kids to worry OR fulfilling the oath and duty of the Office of the President of the United States...? I think someone priorities were clearly WAY F*CKED up that day.
My biggest problem with most of the responses to this post was that out of 19 pages of text, few found any reason to think this was indeed "some f*cked up ◊◊◊◊". Even less found any 'problem' with the President NOT acting like the Commander in Chief. In my first post about this topic, that appeared on another board, I offered the possibility that the President really isn't THE guy behind most of the intelligent leadership decisions that take place anyway, so it was probably a GOOD thing that he was doing what he does best during the 9-11 attacks- reading children's books with people who wouldn't mind or notice that he stumbled over a few words.
A couple of posters questioned the validity of the piece provided in the link. I may be wrong, but I found that each and every statement about what was happening, was annotated to whom gave the description as well as the source it was printed in.
I found the piece to be not one person's view or idea of what happened, but actually a compilation of bits and pieces of eyewitness accounts of the actual event, strung together in time line form that outlines the succeses and failures of the Administration before, during, and shortly after the attacks.
To Conspire- To plan together secretly to commit an illegal act. To join or act together.
I DO think some people worked together to keep the President from acting like such. However, I can't and wouldn't assign motive to those acts, so I won't call this a "conspiracy". That being said, I think that it is easy to see that the ◊◊◊◊ hit the fan, our pants were down, and instead of pulling them up...this Administration and its lead faltered, stumbled, f*cked around, and FAILED in its duties.
---
To Randfan:
YOU WROTE:
"The author thinks that Bush was simply unable to deal with what was happening at that time. He assigns Bush's inaction to "a profound weakness".
I don't think so. Who knows but there is nothing there for a conspiracy or proof that Bush was profoundly weak.
*You don't think President Bush sufferes and WAS severely suffering from "a profound weakness" before, during and shortly after the attacks??? So how WOULD you characterize his ability to lead and direct a nation at the this time? I find that there was a complete and utter lack of competency in the communication outlets between this Administration, The F.B.I., the C.I.A., the FAA, NORAD, the Pentagon, and the actual events.
In fact, I see nothing BUT the demonstration of a profound weakness in this leaderhsip infrastructure. Moreover, I am completly at a loss to see any kind of 'strength, wisdom, or intelligence' demonstrated what so ever. However, please feel free to point out the evidence that lead YOU to believe such.
"People are human, even presidents and in the days that followed the President rose to the occasion and I was very proud of how he reacted to the situation."
*I guess this is all about perspective. YOU and my father would probably agree whole heartedly about what a fine job the President did, and how 'well' he rose to the challenge. To the contrary, what 'I' saw was a nation and the rest of the administration rally around an individual, as a show of ultimate unity. Who COULDN'T have smiled, looked brave, and read a speech or two, while visiting rescue workers, with literally hundreds of millions people behind him and or standing shoulder to shoulder with him in absolute support!?
I believed before this, that this sitting President was THE prime example of a figure head President. A creation of Karl Rove, that was much less than a shadow and less than comparable to a Xerox copy of the former President Bush. After having read this material, my original beliefs have been re-enforced, and not at all absolved.
A 'majority' of Americans see this Commander in Chief as a stong leader.
However, I think if the honest truth was known about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did after he knew it, that the majority of rational minded people would see that on that day he did NOT act strong, intelligent, or like the Commander in Chief. Moreover, they'd see and finally understand that THIS President, really is much less 'in charge' than previously thought.
