You may or may not be surprised to learn that the Commission doesn't agree with Michael Moore's foolish and libelous characterization of Bush as being "too frightened to do anything without his handlers" after learning of the second aircraft strike. From pp. 38-39:

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. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He next spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice, New York Governor George Pataki, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.

Good! I got so sick of the anti-Bush folks criticizing the President for not rushing straight back to D.C, and implying that he was a coward for getting on AF 1 and going to Omaha. My thought that very day was good, that is exactly what he should be doing. AF 1 is a flying command post. He was never out of touch, and he was secure until the situation was sorted out. Hey ABB crowd, sitting calmly after hearing such horrendous news is not paralysis, it is leadership.

The Moore-on had to find SOME way of attacking that moment -- it directly opposes the whole "cowboy who acts without thinking" notion. I'm sure the moore-onic crowd would rather have had film of the President causing a panic in an elementary school.

-Eric.

Yea like run over and pick a kid up by the head and start screaming in terror right at the kids face.

Why, of course, guys. Obviously his only alternatives were to either sit there like a stuffed pig for 7 minutes after it became clear that the US was under a major terrorist attack of uncertain scope, or run out of the room screaming in terror and panic the kids. Certainly none of US would have thought of telling the kids, "Sorry, something's come up, got to go", and strolling briskly out of the room (with or without a wave). And, of course, after he saw the press' "phones and pagers start to ring", he knew through mysterious clairvoyance that there was no danger at all that some of THEM would blurt something out and frighten the kids.

Obviously, Moomoo, you should have been president. Then you could have strode (striden? damn subjunctive) briskly out into the open air and brought the planes down to earth with your Superpresidential Tractor Beam Superpowers! But nooo, instead we had to have old chicken Bush, who refuses to use his Superpowers because he's an old meanie Rethuglican!

(You all can really tell I'm so over these "Bush just sat there frozen in fear!" morons, can't you?)

What is your opinion of Ronald Reagan's daughter?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=98

Note the key clause: "The President told us..". His other recollections (as told to the press) of the event was that he actually saw UA 173 hit on TV (which he didnt). So his memory might have been (understandably) a bit fuzzy.

I will say his reaction was better than mine (jaw on ground trying to convince myself Drudge was making s**t up). But the power of the Famous 7 Minutes is that you see Bush reacting as a average dumbfounded human being, rather than the Man-Of-Steel/Glad-he's-there-instead-of-Gore/Strong-Leader-in-these-Times-of-Trouble image Rove has been trying to project on the nation.

The next paragraph conveys the operational passivity of the POTUS at this time:
"...Staff was in contact with the White House Situation Room, but as far as we could determine,no one with the President was in contact with the Pentagon.The focus was on the President’s statement to the nation.The only decision made during this time was to return to Washington."

On September 11th, probably the only major decision that Bush made was the inclusion of the "..and those who habour them.." language in his somewhat shaky address to the nation. Significant, to be sure. But especially since then, I have never felt like this President isn't out of his depth. That is why I try and critique the administration, rather than the man. I really don't think the man actually has that much responsibility for the actions of the White House.

Bill, I think that Patti Davis is a talented writer (perhaps a gift from her father) and someone who finally came to terms with her father and her love for him, but someone who also remains completely clueless, politically.

Duncan, I largely agree with you, except that I do think that the president is continually misunderestimated by his foes.

It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you're on, to make criticisms of that nature is the most poisionous kind of partisanship.

No one has ever suggested the President should have *done* anything differently at that time (like what? order a nuclear strike?). That is, the critics of the President suggest only that he should have *appeared* different. For example, consider the poster above: his suggestion is simply that the President should have provided better theatre, acted -- and I emphasize the verb "acted" -- more decisive, more steely-jawed, more like an action hero in the movies and less like an ordinary man with substantial responsibility suddenly thrust upon him.

I have no doubt their criticism is sincere: to this kind of person appearance is everything, of far more importance than substance. Or rather, to them appearance is itself substantial and consequential. In a nutshell, they believe reality is determined by consensus, and so the President's poor persuasive skills put comfortable elements of our reality at serious risk of disappearance. This is perhaps one reason the President's harshest critics tend to be those -- e.g. actors, journalists, trial lawyers -- whose daily life work consists of constructing and reconstructing alternate realities.

For example, consider the poster above: his suggestion is simply that the President should have provided better theatre, acted -- and I emphasize the verb "acted" -- more decisive, more steely-jawed, more like an action hero in the movies and less like an ordinary man with substantial responsibility suddenly thrust upon him."

Stephan: You do realized that the carefully constructed Man of Steel performance has been the White House's game plan since September 20th, 2001. Not without some justification, I might add. At least for the first month.

Everyone gave Bush a pass for his wobbly first few days after 9/11, for good reason. Folks like Moore only get traction for showing the reality of an average man with the rug yanked out from under him when that average man refuses to get off his Big White Horse.

And hell, if you want a good model for comfortable synthetic realities, read any Peggy Noonan column. Constructing those for certain presidents was her specialty, back in the day.

This is perhaps one reason the President's harshest critics tend to be those -- e.g. actors, journalists, trial lawyers -- whose daily life work consists of constructing and reconstructing alternate realities.

You might want to include most scientists and working journalists, who also deal with reconstructing alternate realities, a condition known as "doubt".

The President's biggest and most feverent supporters, of course, are those gifted with a singular and impregnable Reality, handled down from on high. These fortunate individuals will never have to deal with the awkwardness of having to make real decisions.

Mr. Young;

If Bush didn't see the first plane hit, why did Card say "A second plane hit the second tower"?

As for "might want to include most scientists and working journalists", the very text you quote includes "journalists". I'd like to see some evidence that "most scientists" object to Bush rather than just accepting it on your word.

AOG, I believe that the president had been told about the first plane before entering the classroom, when it was still being viewed as an accident, and no one yet realized the implications.

Re: scientists - anodotal. Items like the UCS report. The response to the Vision at LPSC. Personal experience. I believe their has been some polling, but I havent been able to google it. Etc. Etc.

UA 173 was the second plane. Bush was informed of AA 11 by Rove just before he entered the class room. No TV involved.

Ummm... Bruce M., you do realize, don't you, that the POTUS has a staff (the entire Executive Branch actually) that has authority delegated to it and they generally only ask POTUS for a decision when there's something to be decided? Likely very little was known in those seven minutes, and also likely there was little to be decided by the President in those few minutes. To me, it was one of the most telling and touching moments, a real bright spot in an otherwise bleak day, that GWB spent those extra few moments with those kids. Those who criticize him for that prove that *they* are the lesser person.

- Eric.

Simple question:

What action(s) should have been taken by a president after hearing the news on 9/11 while attending to a classroom of children?

If you argue for one and only one form of action, provide a convincing arguement that anything but that choice was correct.

---

IMHO, in context of peacetime pre-9/11, I think many different actions would have been appropriate. I don't see any problem with leaving the event in a quick orderly way, or staying a few minutes as he did. Rushing out might have seemed a bit rash; after all what can the president really do? The president, despite the fact he is commander in chief, doesn't make on the spot decisions, but rather sets the strategic direction.

Well, Mr. Young, I'm a scientist. Ph.D., research university faculty, NSF funded and all that. And as for personal experience I'd guess, for example, that I've shaken the hand of more Nobel prizewinners than you can name. So just to add to your anecdotal evidence I'll mention that I personally think Bush Jr. is doing just fine and that Mr. Kerry is a bad joke. And that, in my personal experience, there is no shortage of supporters of the President among physicists, chemists and engineers (which is who I know).

Actually, privately I have concluded that the smart, capable Democrats -- of which there is no short supply -- are sitting this election out, and don't mind Mr. Kerry carrying the ball until he's flattened by the Bush team. Reasons being (a) Dubya's pretty hard to beat, and he isn't that far from the New Democrat mold anyway; (b) smart capable Democrats don't much like John Kerry, a vain and selfish man with vanishing political talent, nor his core support of ADHD-afflicted narcissists, and they are perfectly happy to have them flame out so spectacularly, since after the meltdown it will be far easier to jack the Democratic Party back onto the rails and actually win a few elections; and (c) *any* Democrat in 2008 is going to look wonderfully adult and competent compared to the Team With Better Hair circa 2004, so a reasonable Democrat will be able to get a lot of free mileage just by averring the Clintonian proposition that he's not John Kerry.

Stephan: You know, I thought twice about that particular post. Shoda thought thrice. Touche.

I stand by my particular anodoctes though.

I think the interesting thing about this election is that there are two candidates that are consistently underestimated in their political talents. You can ask Anne Richardson, John McCain, William Weld and the greasy spot formerly known as Howard Dean about that.

The UCS report?!? Jee-bus, you might as well ask Helen Caldicott what she thought of Ronald Reagan. The day the UCS has a positive thing to say about ANY Republican president will be the day that Beelzebub is skiing down the lower forty of his private residence.

As for the 7 minutes, here's a thought: The President is sitting there w/ staff nearby. If he said, "Have them prepare Air Force One to fly out," or if he were told, "We're going to evacuate you momentarily," is this something that would show up on tape? Is this something that would have been overheard? Could he have known he had time to spend w/ the kiddies anyway?

His not jumping up immediately does not equate with DOING nothing, any more than "vacationing" in Crawford means no state business is being accomplished.

...but the name of the game is, "Bash Bush". It matters not a bit if the issue being used is germaine, or if Bush really was on the wrong side of it, or even if teh issue really exists or not. Bush is the antichrist and a hateful Hitler clone with no brains and a genius ability to manipulate the American lumpenproletariat (which includes all voters not enlightened enough to vote Democrat... stupid, deluded fools that they are) and therefore, any anti-Bush statement or cause is automatically valid, even if it is a total lie.
Otherwise, the American people (those who really count, that is... Democrats) might be faced with another four years of a man who is so easily distracted so as to waste time and resources fioghting his trumped-up War on Terror instead of concentrating his attention on the REAL Main Enemy of the United States:
Americans who vote Republican.
Hates them... hates them forever.