Bush's Actions on September 11

[andyfox]

On Bill Maher's show last night (I believe it was a re-showing of a show that originally aired the night after Kerry's acceptance speech), the former Prime Minister of Canada made what I thought was an interesting comment on George Bush's conduct immediately after he was told of the 9/11 attack.

In Michael Moore's movie, he shows Bush being told of the event and then sitting there for seven minutes. (The Republican congressman on Maher's show said it was "five to seven minutes.) Maher went on insistently and incessantly about how bad it was that Bush sat there and "did nothing." The Republicans on the show defended Bush not alarming the children.

But irrespective of whether one likes or dislikes what Bush did or didn't do, the interesting point to me was the one the former Prime Minister made: that except for Moore's movie, we would never have seen this footage. Why are we deprived of seeing our president in action (inaction?) to be able to judge for ourselves whether what he did was appropriate or not?

Again, I'm not criticizing what Bush did or didn't do, I don't know exactly what he was told. What I'm wondering about is why we haven't seen the footage anywhere else. Perhaps the most crucial moments in our recent history and the footage is only available in a movie where it's intent is to make the president look as bad as possible.

Am I wrong? Has anybody seen this footage elsewhere?

BTW, on another issue, the Republican congressman compared Moore's movie to Pravda. Hard to believe that insinuating Communist sympathies is still a viable tactic in 2001.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, on another issue, the Republican congressman compared Moore's movie to Pravda. Hard to believe that insinuating Communist sympathies is still a viable tactic in 2001.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, Cuba is broadcasting it on their state-run TV as anti-American propaganda. Here's a comment by a viewer from the article:

Emerging from the Yara Theater in downtown Havana, Abigail Nelson, an American college student learning Spanish this summer in Havana, noted, “Michael Moore and Fidel Castro see the world eye-to-eye.”




Cubans flock to see ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5578080/)

Cubans flock to see ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’

By Mary Murray
Producer
NBC News
Updated: 12:24 p.m. ET Aug. 2, 2004

HAVANA - No surprise here: Cuban audiences love Michael Moore's anti-Bush “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

After opening the island’s summer film program and playing to sold-out crowds in 120 movie theaters across the island, Cuba’s communist government decided to air it on state-run television last Thursday.

Unlike the controversy it’s causing at home, Cubans take the documentary at face value.

Towing the party line
Again, no surprise. For four years now, Fidel Castro has berated George Bush for waging war to destabilize his government.

Also, the Cuban press widely promoted “Fahrenheit” before anyone ever got a look.

The day after the movie opened in U.S. theaters, Cubans had their hands on bootleg copies. For weeks before the Havana premier, underground video stores were renting “Fahrenheit” for five pesos a night.

“Cubans can identify with the agony in Iraq. We are also a target of George Bush,” said Lisandro Otero, author and playwright whose works have been translated into 19 languages. “It’s a brilliant expose of how Bush lied to the American people.”

Pedro Hernandez, a supervisor at the Havana airport, thinks along official party lines. “The movie couldn’t be any clearer: Bush is the bad guy, and the U.S. people should remove him from office.”

Younger audiences appreciate freedom to make film
Younger audiences seem to be thinking a bit more independently.

Ariel Morales, 17, said “Fahrenheit” condemns all wars, not just Iraq. He bristled at a Cuban military ad that aired on Cuba TV immediately following the U.S. documentary.

“Hasn’t the world progressed at all? We should be able to settle conflicts peacefully, not by killing people,” said Morales.

Others were surprised that the U.S. system tolerated such strident criticism of a sitting president.

Alex Martin, 30, praised both Moore for having had the “courage” to make the movie, and “U.S. democracy for protecting freedom of speech.”

Despite the new U.S. travel regulations limiting visits to the island, there was a sprinkling of Americans who saw the documentary in Cuban theaters.

Emerging from the Yara Theater in downtown Havana, Abigail Nelson, an American college student learning Spanish this summer in Havana, noted, “Michael Moore and Fidel Castro see the world eye-to-eye.”

Mary Murray is an NBC News producer based in Havana.

[cardcounter0]

Not seeing Bush showing the determination and courage to "stick with the course" and continue reading a story about a goat to some school children while two planes destroyed the World Trade Center killing 3000 people, a second plane was on course to hit the Pentagon, and a third plane was on route to another target in Washington?

Bush showed great leadership ability in not alarming a group of 30 schoolchildren.

You have not seen this film footage elsewhere, because this is an example of the great Liberal Media machine and how far they will go to cover-up the failings of Clinton.

[andyfox]

"The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening.

"The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading."

[busguy]

I'm not sure where you were in the first few hours following the attacks but the coverage of Bush in the classrrom with the school children was shown on EVERY national news channel in the country. I was switching channels every few minutes and must have seen it at least 6 or 7 times.

Not that this adds much to the crux of your arguement but it does contradict one of your points.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif busguy

[TenPercenter]

Comments deleted, to remain objective.

Ten

[cardcounter0]

A scientific experiment:

Get a stop watch, and whisper 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' Do it about ten times, whispering at a pace that could be understood by a listener. Note your time that it took to say 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.'

Now take your stop watch and check the amount of time the guy leans over and whispers in Bush's ear.

Compare the two times.

[Cerril]

I'm not a big fan of Bush (big understatement there), but this isn't an area where I ever decided to attack him. I'm certainly not going to blame this on 'Liberal Media' (since after all, I haven't found the media to have anything approaching an all around liberal bias) or try to call Moore or anyone else who says this is fishy a communist, even though I'm not a big fan of Moore.

Anyway, point is, there just isn't a heck of a lot for Bush to do there on the day of Sep. 11. Pretty much what his entire job was to project a solid image, keep people calm, and convince America that we were going to be fine. I think there are very few wrong things he could have done, and this is why I've never really bought into him being a good leader because of how he handled the aftermath of Sep. 11. It does show him as something shy of a complete incompetent but I've never bothered trying to take that line to begin with - it's excessive and a bit of a straw man if I go there.

So while I don't think he's particularly admirable for what he did the day of and the days immediately following, I don't really think he can be attacked for it either. I just can't see putting him on 'decision making' as his primary purpose right then and there.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
...the interesting point to me was the one the former Prime Minister made: that except for Moore's movie, we would never have seen this footage.

[/ QUOTE ]

The footage of the President being told about the WTC attacks in front of a group of school children was shown all over the news on the day of the attacks and ever since. I've probably seen small pieces of it more than fifty times, including today.

How do you think Moore got the footage? Do you think he took it himself and withheld it from the public for the past three years? It's stock footage.

The political attack that the President "read to children while the country was attacked" is stupid. I'd be much more worried if we had a reactionary President who jumped out of his seat every time bad news came.

[Roy Hobbs]

What a joke. The liberal media? Clinton? What do they have to do with this?

If you want to see a nice take on the "liberal media," check out "Control Room," which gives you an idea of just some of the things that the "liberal media" didn't report in the Iraq war.

[John Cole]

If the measure of great leadership is not alarming thirty schoolchildren, well, then, we got more than enough great leaders in this country.

[jdl22]

Shouldn't he have done what Bill Maher said - say "bye kids I've got some president business to take care of!"

Seriously I think the move that would have been the best would have been to stand up and calmly with confidence tell the kids that something has come up and he must go and then walk out of there with the usual arrogant strut he has going. Considering how it looked like he was going to shit his pants in the first press conference I don't think he was capable of that.

[daryn]

am i the only one who doesn't think 7 minutes is a big deal?

[astroglide]

when the nation is literally under attack using hijacked airplanes, yes, you are probably one of the only ones that thinks 7 minutes is not a big deal. he should have been seeking intel and grounding flights immediately.

[BadBoyBenny]

I'm with you. I think about 2-4 would be better but come on, it's not like he sat there for an hour. It's not like this was part of his plans when he got up in the morning.

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

I have seen the footage a lot, so I am not sure what you are refering to.

To the specific point of whether sitting there for 7 minutes was a big deal. Probably not. In crisis, snap decisions on imperfect information are the norm. Certainly the decision might have been inferior to leaving. However, the instinct, logic, and desire to portray calm can hardly be faulted in this case. To attack him on this point is a pure cheap shot.

I am most curious what was really going on in his mind. Was he calculating the neccessary steps or did his mind go blank with panic? My guess is the former (although I could be wrong).

btw - just got back from DC. Man, the security is tight at the World Bank (photo ID into the building, registration and photo at counter, 100% escort at all times, bags checked, laptops serialized, exact matching on exist, etc). We were 4 minutes late to the 30 minute preflight cutoff while leaving DC. Ended up spending the extra night. No way they would let us get on the flight as there is no "sprint to the gate" ability in D.C. While the dems might think the terrorism threat is trumped up, D.C. is taking it pretty darn seriously.

[cardcounter0]

Review the 9/11 Commission Report Timeline. Although all the hijack planes had either hit their target or crashed, Rumsfield and Cheney were talking together and Cheney said he had given the order if any other planes were detected being hijacked, for the Air Force to shot them down.

Rumsfield was questioning who he had told this order too, double checking if it was properly sent down the chain of command, and ultimately to the scrambled Air Force Pilots.

At no time, did anyone question why the Vice President was giving this order instead of the President. Or even if the President was even aware of this order. Bush at the time was flying from LA airbase to an Iowa airbase on Airforce One, and despite the communication systems set up on the plane, he wasn't a part of the conversation.

What a leader.

[Cyrus]

Someone wrote that 9/11 was not part of his plans when Bush got up that morning - implying that he could not have prepared himself how to properly "react". Others have suggested that "seven minutes is no big thing" - and this when we are decades into the ICBM era!

The correct play has already been broached by that TV commentator: Bush ingests the news for a few seconds, remains calm (if poker players can remain calm when they are all-in with crap, can't the Prez?), says to the children something like "Now, kids, keep reading while I attend to some Presidential issue and I'll try to get back to you", then also calmly gets up, waves at the kids, and at the newspaper people at the back of the class, then walks out towards ACTION.

Should not take more than thirty seconds, and I'm being generous. This is not one correct play, it's the ONLY correct play!

Now rewind the above to the words "ingest the news": This is where I believe the problem was. Bush was not "remaining calm"; he was trying to think what to do next! You have seen poker "players" who seem to be into deep thought and you say to yourself "Wow, he must be doing some serious mental calculations!", while the schmuck is only trying to remember if he felt lucky when he got up this morning.

There was a critique recently of Bush's seven minutes of rabbit-like immobility, written by a British military commander. The man was elaborate and extremely critical. He concluded that, if he was to witness such an attitude from one of his officers, in a time of war, he would immediately relieve the man of his duties and send him packing elsewhere, because the man would have been clearly unfit to command.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
"The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.'


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, when was he told about the first plane? He later claimed to have seen it on TV. I'm asking because I don't know.

This is why some people think he knew in advance.

NT

[Senor Choppy]

Footage of him sitting in the classroom and being told about the 9/11 events was shown, but what we didn't see was more telling, the lack of action on his part, him sitting there silently doing nothing for an impossibly long period of time.

It's not the fault of the media for not showing us 7 minutes of GW listening to a story about a goat, they had much more important things to cover at the time. But it is sad that this sort of critical analysis hasn't been done up until a left-wing fanatic like Moore took the time to do it.

It's really a shame that no news organizations have the balls to point out what a dunce we have leading us, for fear of being seen as lacking objectivity. If they can label certain people terrorists and others freedom fighters, they should be able to characterize our president accurately.

[Phat Mack]

...then walks out towards ACTION.

...or flies to Louisiana, which, upon reflection, was safer for all of us.

[MMMMMM]

I have heard two versions of the story:


Version A: Bush is told, after the second plane hit, that the WTC has been hit a second time and that we are under attack. He continues reading to schoolchildren for 7 minutes.

Version B: Bush is told the WTC has been hit, but he is told after only the first plane hit, so it is not immediately apparent or certain that America is under any sort of concerted attack. He continues reading to schoolchildren for 7 minutes.


Which version is factually correct?


I haven't read up on this or even watched the schoolhouse setting on TV, so I am looking for a certifiable, verifiable account.

Please, to the peanut gallery: don't provide an answer unless you are sure. Just because Michael Moore portrays something doesn't make it so (as we all should know by now).

[cardcounter0]

According to Bush, he saw the first plane hit the tower on a TV right before he entered the classroom. He said he remembers thinking to himself, "What a lousy pilot" when he went into the classroom.

There is some confusion as to when a TV airing of the first plane crash occured, and when exactly Bush entered the classroom, as to if it were possible for Bush to have seen that event when he said he did. But that is Bush's story and he is sticking to it.

Andrew Card said he leaned into the President's ear and whispered, 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' That is what Andrew Card says and Bush confirms. So I guess he sat there for 7 minutes trying to calculate the odds of two lousy pilots hitting the same tall building at the same time, or if as Andrew Card told him, we were indeed under attack. Of course, he had to balance this with not scaring the schoolchildren.

If you watch the film footage carefully, Andrew Card leans into Bush's ear for about 2 seconds. Some people say he wouldn't have had time to say 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.', but more like something like 'Wrap it up', or 'We are ready to go'.

But that is Bush's and Card's story and they are sticking to it. Anyways, after the 7 minutes the rest is clear. Bush flew off to Louisiana in Air Force One, and the defense of the country was left in the hands of Rumsfield and Cheney.

[MMMMMM]

Reason I ask is I read this on Boortz today:

"...First of all, Bush was not told that "America is under attack." He was told that an airplane had struck one of the World Trade Towers. The second airplane had not yet struck. President Bush had no idea it was a terrorist attack. What good would it have done to run screaming out of the classroom? Even the principal at the time, a Democrat, said she felt it was an unfair attack and that Bush did the right thing. She says she didn't vote for Bush, but on that day she would have.[/i]"


So: you state that Bush and Card said something different ("Andrew Card said he leaned into the President's ear and whispered, 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' That is what Andrew Card says and Bush confirms.")

Since I don't know which is correct, my next question is: where are you getting that which you state Bush and Card said? Verifiable report and link, if possible?

[cardcounter0]

It is called the 9/11 Commission. Their final report has been published as is available for purchase at book stores.

Bush and Andrew Card both testified before the commission.

I don't know if they were under oath at the time.

[MMMMMM]

So did you read the report yourself or are you just going on second-hand information (which you haven't linked to either, BTW)? Can you please provide a link to the relevant passages in the report?

[elwoodblues]

From the 9-11 commission report (on Westlaw, sorry can't link)

[ QUOTE ]
The President and the Vice President



The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is Search Term End under Search Term Begin attack." The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening. - FN203

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
FN203. For the President being informed at 9:05, see White House record, President's Daily Diary, Sept. 11, 2001. For Card's statement, see White House transcript, Card interview with Ron Fournier, Aug. 7, 2002. For the President's reaction, see President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004).


[/ QUOTE ]



Edits: Subsequently edited for style, not substance

[cardcounter0]

Nevermind. It doesn't matter if the facts are rubbed into your face and smashed up your nose until they come out your ears -- you will find room to find excuses for Bush.

Too lazy to find the facts for yourself? Most knee-jerk apologist just let Rush Limbaugh tell them the 'facts' and watch Fox News since no effort at thinking is required.

It seems you don't even go that far in your quest to remain ignorant.

[cardcounter0]

"Reason I ask is I read this on Boortz today ...."

Boortz is lying to you. Why don't you try reading some factual material from reliable sources?

[MMMMMM]

"Nevermind. It doesn't matter if the facts are rubbed into your face and smashed up your nose until they come out your ears -- you will find room to find excuses for Bush."

I am just trying to find out the facts. So far I have your word against Neal Boortz's word.

"Too lazy to find the facts for yourself?"

I provided a link to the Hastert quotes in another thread, and eventually even provided two more sources when you persisted in attacking the source. You demanded excessive links then from me. Yet you won't even provide ONE link here when politely asked.

"Most knee-jerk apologist just let Rush Limbaugh tell them the 'facts' and watch Fox News since no effort at thinking is required."

Irrelevant, and I do neither.

"It seems you don't even go that far in your quest to remain ignorant"

My quest is to NOT remain ignorant and therefore I was asking for a little help from someone who knows and could provide a verifiable link so that I needn't rely on third-hand information.

It seems discussing things with you is entirely a one-way street: you won't perform the same simple requests for others which you so loudly demand of others.

[MMMMMM]

^

[MMMMMM]

Yes, so I had your word against Boortz's word.

Somehow I didn't think that asking you to provide a link to support your contention would be too much to ask, but obviously I presumed too much.

[cardcounter0]

Instead of reading Neil "Mighty Whitey" Boortz, who as you have seen in this case is a proven liar, why don't you pick up the 9/11 Commission Report and read it, AS I FIRST SUGGESTED???

I realize that it doesn't have a lot of pictures in it, and it will be a struggle for someone used to having his propaganda spoon fed to him, but it will be your first steps to actually reading truthful things and forming your own conclusions.

GARBAGE IN - GARBAGE OUT. Keep reading your right wing/religious nut case web sites -- provide links to them for all to see -- remove all doubt about what an idiot you really are.

[cardcounter0]

Read the 9/11 Report. It is factual.
Throw away the National Enquirer or what ever rag you used to determine what a 'credible source' was.

[elwoodblues]

Just curious, did Boortz have documentation supporting his contention(s)?

[MMMMMM]

No, which is one reason I mentioned it here--to get to the truth of the matter.

[MMMMMM]

"Instead of reading Neil "Mighty Whitey" Boortz, who as you have seen in this case is a proven liar, why don't you pick up the 9/11 Commission Report and read it, AS I FIRST SUGGESTED???"


I read the Boortz piece first, which raised enough question in my mind to post the two versions here in order to resolve the conflicting information--then you suggested reading the 9/11 report.

"Keep reading your right wing/religious nut case web sites -- provide links to them for all to see -- remove all doubt about what an idiot you really are."

Why do you continually feel the need to engage in personal attacks? I am just trying to have a factual discussion; you put everything on way too personal a level IMO. Why can't you just discuss matters on a factual and logical basis?

[andyfox]

From the 9/11 Commission Report:

"White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told us he was standing with the President outside the classroom when Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove first informed them that a small, twin-engine plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. The President’s reaction was that the incident must have been caused by pilot error.

"At 8:55, before entering the classroom, the President spoke to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who was at the White House. She recalled first telling the President it was a twin-engine aircraft—and then a commercial aircraft—that had struck the World Trade Center, adding 'that’s all we know right now, Mr. President.'"

[andyfox]

I've seen the footage of him being told. What I hadn't seen was him sitting there so long after being told.

As I indicated in my original post, I wasn't questioning the President's reaction. I was commenting on us not seeing the footage in its entirety. If our main broadcast media outlets are as liberal and anti-Bush as their critics make them out to be, why wouldn't they have shown it in that way?

But since you bring it up: the President was told by Condi Rice, before he went into the classroom, that a commercial airliner had hit the WTC. Then he is told, while in the classroom, that a second plane has hit the second tower, and that America is under attack. Bush himself, immediately after leaving the classroom, told Cheney that we were apparently at war. Understanding this, he chooses to sit and listen to the children read, without doing anything, for five to seven minutes. This wasn't just "bad news." He was told America was under attack and he understood it as an act of war. And he sat there. And sat there.

As a citizen, I would have preferred a reactionary President.

[andyfox]

See my post "From the 9/11 Commission Report" and my reply to nothumb. Version A is what the Commission says.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
As I indicated in my original post, I wasn't questioning the President's reaction. I was commenting on us not seeing the footage in its entirety. If our main broadcast media outlets are as liberal and anti-Bush as their critics make them out to be, why wouldn't they have shown it in that way?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe because they were too busy actually showing the real news for once. Maybe the sight of 3,000 people dying and a huge symbol of Western free markets and economy collapsing made them forget about bashing the president for 5-7 minutes. Maybe the bigger story was Manhattan in a cloud of dust and smoke in the midsts of the largest foreign attack on our soil in 50 years. I would guess that even the most anti-Bush radical would probably have his attention diverted by that. What would you watch on TV given the choice - 5-7 minutes of the President in a classroom or the unfolding of the most significant single event in American history in the last how many years?

[andyfox]

I'm not sure if attacking Bush on the issue is a cheap shot or not. We want a President who we can count on in a tough spot. It's important to see exactly how he reacted to the horrible news and what he did or didn't do in the moment of crisis. One can think he did the right thing, considering what had happened, reviewing options in his mind, knowing that the government was springing into action, trying to project an aura of calm, or one can think he did the wrong thing by not calmly excusing himself and projecting an aura of being in charge to the other officials who were with him. But either way, shouldn't we be able to judge for ourselves by seeing the footage in its entirety?

Read an article the other day (can't remember by whom) indicating just how tight security is in Washington; like living in a garrison state. Sad, no doubt, in a way, but comforting, I suppose, in a way as well. Despite the extra day, glad to hear all went well for you.

Regards,
Andy

[andyfox]

The footage didn't have to be shown on September 11. It's almost three years later now. While I've seen card whispering into Bush's ear and Bush's grimace in reaction, I've never seen the footage of him sitting there so long after receiving the news.

Moore's film was a piece of propaganda. If we had seen the fotage, in its entirety, in a less Bush-bashing context, we could decide for ourselves whether we thought he acted properly or not.

Nobody was anti-Bush in the wake of 9/11. He had an approval rating of 90% at one point.

[MMMMMM]

Yes I saw that post of yours a few minutes ago;-)

Thanks to you and elwood for your help.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
The footage didn't have to be shown on September 11. It's almost three years later now. While I've seen card whispering into Bush's ear and Bush's grimace in reaction, I've never seen the footage of him sitting there so long after receiving the news.

Moore's film was a piece of propaganda. If we had seen the fotage, in its entirety, in a less Bush-bashing context, we could decide for ourselves whether we thought he acted properly or not.

Nobody was anti-Bush in the wake of 9/11. He had an approval rating of 90% at one point.

[/ QUOTE ]
This footage only has meaning in the context of Moore's propaganda. It was never necessary to be shown and nobody had any interest in showing it or seeing it until Moore came along. Would you really have wanted to sit and watch the President mostly just sitting there for 5-7 minutes a few months ago? I really doubt it.

[andyfox]

Yes, I think it's significant and I would want to see it. BTW, Moore didn't show the entire 5-7 minutes. He did show Bush sitting there, in obvious discomfort, after Card whispered to him.

This was one of the most critical passages in American history. The President's reactions at a moment of crisis are of interest to all Americans.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It was never necessary to be shown and nobody had any interest in showing it or seeing it until Moore came along

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? If there was documentary evidence of the presidents immediate reaction to the 9/11 attacks, why would you not want to see it and judge for yourself. I think Andy's point is that it could have been shown and let the people decide for themselves. Instead, the only time anyone has seen it is in the context of an admittedly anti-Bush film...in that context it is more difficult to look at the clip fairly.

"We report, you decide." Shouldn't a news network with that slogan have reported it (i.e. shown the video) and let us decide? By choosing not to report, them media decided for us (that it was unimportant). Even if it was unimportant to you (as it apparently is), it might be important to others.

[The once and future king]

I for one am impressed that he read the story book all on his own.

You have to realise that he would have been pushing his intelectual envelope just doing that.

Having to process new info about terrotist strikes would have pushed him beyond his capabilies.

So he finished the book and then had to go find an advisor to tell him what to do.

[John Cole]

M,

The easiest way to determine the correct version is to study Bush's reaction. I quite clearly remember my own reaction while watching the events transpire: in fact, I woke up Mary to tell her that, from all reports, some sort of plane, possibly a twin engine, a cargo plane, or a commercial airliner has collided with the building. When the second plane hit, I woke her up again to tell her bin Laden had somehow manageg to fly two planes into both buildings. I wasn't calm, and then I had to go teach three classes.

The "projecting calm" argument seems specious to me, an invention after he fact. Nevertheless, I'm not ready quite to blame Bush too much for his delay. However, I do blame his staff. Immediately when the second plane hit, ending all doubts of an accident, someone on his staff--or more importantly--the secret service, should have had him out of there.