The Tape?

[fable]

@Aledar, I've removed your post which again was about me, instead of about this topic. Please, reply to the topic under discussion, and once again--if you have problems with my behavior, take it Buck. This isn't the place to reveal your gripes. Thanks.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>As regards your question: I'm not trying to pull anything. HighLord Dave made the excellent point several weeks ago that Clinton appeared immediately after the Oklahoma bombings, in his persona of president, officially reassuring the victims' families, smoothing the flow of federal funding to the area--in short, doing what a leader of a nation is expected to do at the moment of such a crisis. Of course he was protected! That wasn't the point: the point was, he was there. If you've ever lost a loved one in such an event, having the head of your country grieve visually along with you, say the right words, and do the right things, I think you would find that greatly strengthening. I know that was the effect it had on many of the families involved at the time, because I know members of several of the said families.

Bush, on the other hand, metaphorically stuck his head in the sand and vanished for twelve hours. Security wasn't the issue. The issue was being seen, being vocal, being "Presidential," if you like, a symbol of a caring, dignified nation. Nixon did this; Carter did this; Reagan did this; the older Bush did this. Dubbyah didn't.</STRONG>

1.) Give me a valid source that says Bush was unwilling to do what you're saying he "should" have done and that the reason he 'disappeared' for 12 hours had nothing to do with security.

2.)It wouldn't matter if it was the President, Vice President, the Pope, Billy Graham, or Jeri Ryan; I would find no consolation in them coming to comfort me. I'd be more like, why are you here doing this instead of doing your job and making sure everything possible is done to catch whoever did this.

IIRC, there was report of a jet heading towards the area of Florida he was in, which also happened to be in the direction of Disney World. IIRC, they shut down Disney World. IIRC, Bush gave a 'statement' to the nation from that school he was visiting. Then he got on AF1 and headed somewhere, no reports being given of where he was headed. Don't insult Bush by calling him a coward without proof to back up what you're saying, fable. And whether you believe it or not, that's exactly what you're doing. Instead of being so damn iconoclastic and searching for flaws in Bush, why don't you try looking at the good things he's doing; or are you afraid you might find you actually like him.

I mean, come on, would you rather Bush have flown directly to NYC and walked over to where the WTC towers were and start saying "It'll be alright" to all those dust covered people while buildings were collapsing around them? Hmm? Do you really think that would console anyone? I know I'd have been thinking "What an idiot, putting himself in danger instead of working on getting an investigation going to find whoever did this!"

[Aleldar]

@Fable, check your PM.

@Buck, check your Email.

[fable]

@SS, nothing in what I wrote (or thought, for that matter) either said or implied that Bush was a "coward." I said that he didn't act presidentially, as I consider it. Like I wrote above, I didn't think he should have shown up at the WTC. But I *do* think that an immediate statement, expressing a sense of shared grief and dignity with the families of those who suffered, was required. That's my opinion. I'm sorry you don't agree with it, but I'm not out to change your feelings on the matter, and I've yet to read anything from the White House, its followers or its critics, to cause me to change mine.

As to Bush disappearing because of security: security be damned, IMO. I'm one of those people who feel that if you take the top job, you take a few top risks, too. It was his business to act presidential, even if it meant the possibility that some terrorist would know he was in a given city. I think he made a misstep, and that's my opinion.

And for the record, I think this would hold true of any president who acted in this fashion, regardless of party affiliation.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>@SS, nothing in what I wrote (or thought, for that matter) either said or implied that Bush was a "coward."</STRONG>

"He metaphorically stuck his head in the sand." Maybe this doesn't hold true where you're from, but where I come from that's a veritable insult that's using figurative language to call them a coward.

<STRONG>I said that he didn't act presidentially, as I consider it. Like I wrote above, I didn't think he should have shown up at the WTC. But I *do* think that an immediate statement, expressing a sense of shared grief and dignity with the families of those who suffered, was required.</STRONG>

He made a statement before leaving that school he was at. I remember watching it. They replayed it several times. Then he made a statement that evening. Do you know what he was doing while he was "in hiding"? I don't, but I'd bet he did some praying. And, considering that our founding fathers were Christians and this nation was founded upon the word of God, I'd say that was a very presidential thing to do.

<STRONG>That's my opinion. I'm sorry you don't agree with it, but I'm not out to change your feelings on the matter, and I've yet to read anything from the White House, its followers or its critics, to cause me to change mine.</STRONG>

It may be your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that some opinions are wrong. And you very well could be wrong. You're being cruel, unfair, and unjust to assume the worst when you don't know for sure.

<STRONG>As to Bush disappearing because of security: security be damned, IMO. I'm one of those people who feel that if you take the top job, you take a few top risks, too. It was his business to act presidential, even if it meant the possibility that some terrorist would know he was in a given city. I think he made a misstep, and that's my opinion.</STRONG>

I agree that risks must be taken from time to time, but not all risks are necessary. Think about it. Most the people who needed consolation(pretty much everyone in the US) were either on site at the WTC or Pentagon and probably didn't have access to a TV or were elsewhere in the US watching the events unfold on the news. He would've had to interrupt the broadcast of what was going on to make a statement at some point during those 12 hours. Personally, I would think people were too pre-occupied with watching what was going on to give a damn whether or not Bush spoke to'em. I know I was.

<STRONG>And for the record, I think this would hold true of any president who acted in this fashion, regardless of party affiliation.</STRONG>

That maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that I haven't seen you say one positive thing about Bush. I don't know what type of person it takes to be this critical of Bush in a time like this, but I honestly don't see how it could be a good person. Every post I read of yours about Bush reminds me of the "friend" of my dad's who sent out an email on 9-11 saying only "Thank you, Bush."

BTW, if you don't like what I'm saying, that's your problem. I'm not flaming you, I'm just stating the facts as I see them.

[Shadow Sandrock]

The way I see it, she's not flaming you fabes, so she's technically not breaking any rules at all.

And yeah, as a 'modern American youth' (Gawd I love that term ) I really found what Bush did rather inspiring and well, so what if he wasn't perfect. Do you think you would have done a better job if you were President? Do you think people would have liked what you did more than they agree with what Bush did?

[fable]

Originally posted by Shadow Sandrock:
<STRONG>The way I see it, she's not flaming you fabes, so she's technically not breaking any rules at all.</STRONG>

And since I never said she was flaming me above or brought up the rules about SS, why even bring it up?

[Shadow Sandrock]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>And since I never said she was flaming me above or brought up the rules about SS, why even bring it up? </STRONG>

You win.

Man, just when I thought I'd actually be right for once

[fable]

"He metaphorically stuck his head in the sand." Maybe this doesn't hold true where you're from, but where I come from that's a veritable insult that's using figurative language to call them a coward.

And where I come from, saying that someone stuck their head in the sand means they didn't pay attention to what was going on around 'em. I guess we come from two different places.

That maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that I haven't seen you say one positive thing about Bush. I don't know what type of person it takes to be this critical of Bush in a time like this, but I honestly don't see how it could be a good person.

I'm sorry, but I'm not one to fall in lockstep behind the marching majority when I'm told it's unpatriotic if I do otherwise. I think for myself--or at least, I try to. The fact that I think Dubbyah has made a lamentable president compared to his dad is something I haven't been quiet about, but that's what this forum is for. As to good decisions: he hasn't yet attacked Iraq. Smart move. He didn't settle back after dislodging the Taliban, but is still going straight for bin Ladan: ditto. He's played his hand close to his chest on releasing any information even to Congress, which demanded it of him: also ditto. And the drive to go after bin Ladan was a good idea, too, IMO.

Beyond that, I think his showing is poor. Brand me as anti-American, but that's the way I feel about it.

@SS, we're obviously never going to agree on this one. If you can let it rest, so can I.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[fable]

Originally posted by Shadow Sandrock:
<STRONG>You win.

Man, just when I thought I'd actually be right for once </STRONG>

LOL! You're young, my friend. Your greatest asset is the ability to be as wrong as you want for as long as you want. Treasure it!

[Shadow Sandrock]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>LOL! You're young, my friend. Your greatest asset is the ability to be as wrong as you want for as long as you want. Treasure it! </STRONG>

I thought Sailor Jupiter had the greatest assets ( at Sailor Saturn )

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>And where I come from, saying that someone stuck their head in the sand means they didn't pay attention to what was going on around 'em. I guess we come from two different places.</STRONG>

Obviously.

<STRONG>I'm sorry, but I'm not one to fall in lockstep behind the marching majority as someone tells me I'm unpatriotic if I do otherwise. I think for myself--or at least, I try to.</STRONG>

I never said you were unpatriotic. This has nothing to do with patriotism. This has to do with unfair criticism.

<STRONG>The fact that I think Dubbyah has made a lamentable president compared to his dad is something I haven't been quiet about, but that's what this forum is for.</STRONG>

That's a very unfair assessment, comparing him to his father. He isn't his father. You can't expect him to be his father. THat's a problem he's having to face as president, people comparing him to his father. That puts him under undue stress, which is very unfair and unneeded.

<STRONG>As to good decisions: he hasn't yet attacked Iraq. Smart move. He didn't settle back after dislodging the Taliban, but is still going straight for bin Ladan: ditto. He's played his hand close to his chest on releasing any information even to Congress, which demanded it of him: also ditto. And the drive to go after bin Ladan was a good idea, too, IMO.</STRONG>

No offense, but it's about time you said something good about Bush. All your negativity was giving me a headache.

<STRONG>Beyond that, I think his showing is poor. Hell, lock me in the stocks, brand me as anti-American because I believe (allowing for courtesy among human beings) in free speech and the ability to think and discuss.</STRONG>

Free speech is fine. But why be so damn negative about everything?

<STRONG>@SS, we're obviously never going to agree on this one. If you can let it rest, so can I. </STRONG>

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just asking you to be less negative and more positive. Positive outlooks are a lot more enjoyable, both for you and everyone around you.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>LOL! You're young, my friend. Your greatest asset is the ability to be as wrong as you want for as long as you want. Treasure it! </STRONG>

Hey, you old folks have the right to be wrong, too.

[fable]

That's a very unfair assessment, comparing him to his father. He isn't his father. You can't expect him to be his father. THat's a problem he's having to face as president, people comparing him to his father. That puts him under undue stress, which is very unfair and unneeded.

Bah. He didn't win the popular vote, he snuck in via the Supreme Court, and I think that his showing since then--and I've been watching very closely, and frankly hoping for the best--is poor even when compared to...himself. Happy?

Free speech is fine. But why be so damn negative about everything?

I'm very positive about many things that have been discussed here, @SS, starting with the effort to get bin Ladan, going through Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast, taking a side trip to tons of fantasy novels, stopping off for poetry, architecture, quotes, BG2, Planescape: Torment, loads of different, completely unique cultures, lots of people I count as long distance friends up here, and finally ending up somewhere around Budapest. Maybe it's more a case of the fact that you really take strong exception to some of my opinions.

In any case, I don't mind your sticking up for him. But so far, I regard him as a failure in all but one respect that's covering for a multitude of presidential sins. IMO, he's been terrible at handling the economy, he's kowtowing to Israel, his bigname job appointees are politically motivated (30% of Clinton's were Republicans; 2% of Bush's were Democrats or non-aligned), and he's been playing to the rightwing of his party.

But you know--I think he'd do a better job at being president than Jon Irenicus would! YES!

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[fable]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Hey, you old folks have the right to be wrong, too. </STRONG>

Yes, but we get a much shorter time to do it in, and we have less lung power to back our mistakes.

[HighLordDave]

I have just been reading some of the above posts and saw that my name has been invoked about Dubya's conduct on 11 September. As our friend fable has said, I do not believe that the president acted "presidential" on 11 September 2001. In a moment when the country needed the President to be the leader we elected him to be, there was a woman on the news telling us that "President Bush has gone down into the rabbit hole" which presumably is Secret Service talk for an undergound bunker somewhere.

From the time the first plane hit the World Trade Tower until Dubya appeared live on TV, twelve or so hours had passed. In between, Dubya said a few words in Sarasota, FL before being whisked away by his protectors. Then he made a videotaped statement from Louisiana.

The White House spin was that the President was incommunicado because of security concerns. I think that's a crock of hooey. I don't know what the president was thinking, but I do know that he was not on TV, the radio or the internet telling us what we all need to hear in times of crisis (ie-I'm appalled at the events of today, we've got our best people on it, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families, we're going to find out who did this and bring them to justice, etc.). Instead, Dubya was flying all around the country in secretive little jumps which gave the appearance of going into hiding.

Here's what I think happened: the Secret Service had (and may still have) one and only one contingency plan for national security emergencies, which is probably left over from the Cold War. Under the circumstances that would invoke such a plan, we would be looking at the mutally-assured destruction which was promised by the vast build-ups of MIRVs and ICBMs by the US and USSR. As such, the best thing for the president and the country's leaders is to take cover and avoid and searing death of a nuclear bomb.

When the first plane hit the World Trade Tower, the Secret Service got out their book, looked up "What to do if There is a Major National Security Threat" and did A, B, C, D, E and on down the list. Unfortunately for Dubya's public image, it looked like he was turning tail and running.

When Tim McVeigh planted a bomb outside the Murrah Federal Building, the scene looked very much like that in NYC on 11 September; smoke, chaos, etc. But you know what? Not too long afterward, Bill Clinton was on TV saying all of the right things, telling the governor that he had the full support of the United States behind the state of Oklahoma, and being seen on TV which gave the appearance of calm and reassurance to a country that needed it.

Dubya did no such thing. He allowed himself to be ferried around and squirrled away out of the public eye. Yes, I know what you're going to say: "He was just doing what the Secret Service told him to do." Hogwash. Like the rest of us, he was sucker-punched by these terrorists and was too shocked to react. However, unlike the rest of us, the President of the United States does not have the luxury of being able to take five or catch his breath between plays. The President of the United States needs to be the leader of the greatest and most powerful nation on the Earth. On that day, Dubya was not that leader.

Sure the Secret Service manual lists out the steps that must be taken to protect the president. But who is the Secret Service's boss? The President of the United States. On 19 April 1995, the Secret Service told Bill Clinton what he should do, and he told them to shove it; he was going on TV to act presidential because that's what the American people expected him to do. I think that Dubya was too new to the job, too shocked by the images of a second plane running in to the other World Trade Tower, and not strong enough to say to the people around him, "I'm the President of the United States, dammit, get me on all the networks."

Did the president need to go to New York? Of course not. There were already two very fine public servants on the ground, George Pataki and Rudy Guiliani, and adding the presidential entourage would only have caused more havoc. Did Dubya need to go to Washington? Not necessarily; he couldn't have done anything else there and may have become a target. Should he have gone about his regularly scheduled day? No; again he could have been a target and it was prudent for him to cancel all of his publicly announced events.

There is no reason why the president could not have appeared to the media either from whatever bunker they hid him in or from Air Force One. If he can run the country from his plane or a pre-determined bunker, then he can beam a signal to the networks, so I don't believe for a second that he was incapable of being seen if he wanted to be. We needed the president on that day; we needed him to hold our hands, we needed his shoulder to cry on, and we needed to hear his words of comfort and assurance. Unfortunately, we did not get him until the sun had gone down.

[Sailor Saturn]

@HLD I don't necessarily disagree with you, nor do I necessarily disagree.

Personally, I don't think Bush going on TV earlier than he did would've done any good other than boost his popularity, which is, IIRC, plenty high as it is.

You yourself said that, like the rest of us, he was in a state of shock. Yes, he is the president. Yes, he needs to be a model of strength for our nation. However, there is no reason that he can't be given the chance to absorb what has happened. How can he show us how to be strong and deal with what happened if he hasn't had the chance to do that very same thing himself, hmm? There are some major differences between 9-11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing. The OCB was one bombing, not the ramming of a jet into each WTC Tower and the Pentagon. IIRC, only part of the OCB collapsed, whereas both WTC towers collapsed completely as well as two or three nearby buildings. The magnitude of the attack shows there was far more chance of Bush being in danger than there had been with Clinton. 9-11 was a lot more traumatic and shocking for everyone, including the Presidents. The shock Clinton had to deal with was nothing compared to the shock we all had to deal with on 9-11.

While "hiding away" may not have been the best thing to do, when looking back, it obviously seemed to be the best thing to do at the time. What's the point of saying "Bah, he shoulda done this" when what's done is done? Unless you can, not only go back and change it, but also know for sure that changing it would be 100% for the better, just put it aside and provide the support Bush requires. How can a leader lead his people if his people won't follow? Just as followers need a leader to follow, leaders need followers to lead.

[Aleldar]

I look at it this way, why should we always count on the Media. We don't always have to know what the President is doing. BTW, Bush did make a speech that evening.

After all the attack, was considered a statement of war. Terrorist or no terrorist attack, people were killed, on American soil.
But, all of this could of been taken care of a few years back. Clinton chose not to, the only thing he did was send some tomahawks.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Personally, I don't think Bush going on TV earlier than he did would've done any good other than boost his popularity, which is, IIRC, plenty high as it is.</STRONG>

Dubya needed to go on TV because that's what the American people expect their president to do. Instead he stuck his head in the sand. Yes, I read your above posts and I believe that Dubya gave the appearance of being a coward. How much glee do you think the bad guys took in watching the President of the United States turn his tail and flee at the first sign of danger?

Instead of being a calming, reassuring voice, Dubya was not heard, leading to lots of speculating, bad press, and instead of taking as much control of the event as he could, he let the event control him.

Also, Dubya's popularity is high now, but it wasn't in September. He was new to the job, acted unilaterally and partisan on a number of issues and was still viewed as a usurper to the presidency. I will say that he recovered nicely and is now riding a wave of public support, but it's not really for Dubya, it's for the president.

Dubya's dad enjoyed similar approval numbers during the Gulf War, but squandered that popularity through bad fiscal and domestic policies and lost his job. Dubya will probably follow the same route. The American people love their president during times of conflict, as long as we're winning (think Lyndon Johnson).

<STRONG>

You yourself said that, like the rest of us, he was in a state of shock. Yes, he is the president. Yes, he needs to be a model of strength for our nation. However, there is no reason that he can't be given the chance to absorb what has happened.</STRONG>

The President of the United States cannot be human. We hold him to a higher standard and expect more out of the man who holds that job. Instead of taking an active role in the crisis, even if all he did was direct traffic, Dubya looked re-active and it was less than the country needed out of him.

On a note more closely related to the original intent of this thread, I saw on CNN yesterday that the folks going spelunking in Afghanistan have found a cache of videos in what appeared to be a former hiding place for Osama bin Laden. Now they may be Osama's private stash of Afghan porn or videos of his kids birthdays, but I have a feeling that they're related to Al-Qaeda training, propaganda, strategy, etc. Hopefully, these videos will put to rest any speculation that the first video released by the White House was fabricated by ILM or Pixar as an American propaganda tool (regardless of its suspect nature).

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
<STRONG>...<SNIP>...On a note more closely related to the original intent of this thread, I saw on CNN yesterday that the folks going spelunking in Afghanistan have found a cache of videos in what appeared to be a former hiding place for Osama bin Laden. Now they may be Osama's private stash of Afghan porn or videos of his kids birthdays, but I have a feeling that they're related to Al-Qaeda training, propaganda, strategy, etc. Hopefully, these videos will put to rest any speculation that the first video released by the White House was fabricated by ILM or Pixar as an American propaganda tool (regardless of its suspect nature).</STRONG>

Thanks for bringing this thread back to the subject at hand, HighLordDave. I agree with you: it would be real nice to see a few more home-videos of bin Laden acting chummy with his friends, as this would dispel any doubt about the veracity of THE tape. Most arguments against the original tape have centered on "why should he make it" / "he would never let himself be video-taped like that." I find those arguments weak in any event, but more of the same might change a few minds.