Adam Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 I have news for you retards: when America's attacked in the next four years, Obama won't "react" immediately either. Things don't work that way. Never have...FDR didn't jump out of his chair (metaphorically speaking) and leap (again, metaphorically) in to action when told about Pearl Harbor either. There's actually very little for the President to do the moment he's told "America's under attack" other than say "Get me more information." At the point he says that, his options then become very limited: stay where he is and wait until his staff sorts out some of the confusion, or try to sort out the confusion himself. The first choice is almost always the better one, if only because executive interference tends to distract people from their jobs (if the director of the FAA is trying to decide whether to ground all civil aircraft or not, and he's interrupted with "Sir, the President's on line one asking what the hell's happening...", how is the President helping things?), but also because of the completely reasonable observation that that's what staffs are for. Its not fun to be leader. That said- if you are the leader, you deserve the criticism you get and you have to handle it better than he did on Tuesday.
PastaJoe Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 They should anticipate that terrorists might fly planes into the World Trade Centers that day? And that all flights would be suspended- determining when they can leave? Why not plan for a 100 foot tall bugbear too........ He deserves criticism for more things than I can name- but IMHO, he was waiting for the call to leave. Air Force 1 would not be restricted from flight, it's the flying command center. And they train to be "wheels up" in a short amount of time. They would follow the same protocol as if there was an incoming nuclear strike. Andy Card should have grabbed him and said, "we have to go, now!".
Kingfish Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 I have news for you retards: when America's attacked in the next four years, Obama won't "react" immediately either. Things don't work that way. That's a hypothetical. There's actually very little for the President to do the moment he's told "America's under attack" other than say "Get me more information." So the accepted White House contingency plan is and always has been to relax, finish whatever trivial activities you were partaking, and then get the President to a secure location?
The Big Cat Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 They should anticipate that terrorists might fly planes into the World Trade Centers that day? And that all flights would be suspended- determining when they can leave? Why not plan for a 100 foot tall bugbear too........ He deserves criticism for more things than I can name- but IMHO, he was waiting for the call to leave. Mine is a criticism of secret service, since you've footed the blame to THEM for his lack of response. The specific situation should NOT alter their protocol. Something's wrong, Mr. President has to go, period. Also, last time I checked, AFO isn't restricted to the same regulations as commercial airliners...
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Its not fun to be leader. That said- if you are the leader, you deserve the criticism you get and you have to handle it better than he did on Tuesday. The President lives in a bubble, well-insulated from real events. I'm suspicious about the amount of "leadership" that office can effectively exert, particularly a short-lived, fast-evolving event like a terrorist attack. Which brings me to the second point: the LAST thing an effective leader ever does is jump in to a fast-evolving event and interrupt the people directly managing and dealing with the event. It's completely counter-productive. Sometimes sitting there and waiting for better information is, in fact, the correct and responsible course of action. 9/11 is the quintessential example of that.
The Big Cat Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Sometimes sitting there and waiting for better information is, in fact, the correct and responsible course of action. 9/11 is the quintessential example of that. You can call me a shill if you want, but regardless of who you support, I think your argument is pretty f'ing weak.
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 That's a hypothetical. No sh--, buckwheat. It defines "hypothetical". So the accepted White House contingency plan is and always has been to relax, finish whatever trivial activities you were partaking, and then get the President to a secure location? No, generally it's to secure the immediate area and assess the situation prior to taking constructive actions consistent with his security to allow the president to get the information he needs and act accordingly. Mine is a criticism of secret service, since you've footed the blame to THEM for his lack of response. The specific situation should NOT alter their protocol. Something's wrong, Mr. President has to go, period. Also, last time I checked, AFO isn't restricted to the same regulations as commercial airliners... The Secret Service doesn't rush the President out of danger unless there's an immediate threat on his life. Otherwise, they generally secure the immediate area and assess the situation prior to taking constructive actions consistent with his security to allow the president to get the information he needs and act accordingly. Are you people eight-year olds or something? Have you never had to deal with anything more urgent than a tangled shoelace? How do people think that immediate, panicked, and ill-considered reaction is the appropriate response to a crisis?
KD in CA Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 As are ridiculous rationalizations (like maybe Air Force One wasn't gassed up?????) of why GWB didn't immediately react after he was told "America is under attack". So did you completely miss the point that there are dozens of reasons why they might have left him as is for a few minutes, or are you just trying to fill the new void of pointless and substance-less post left by Father Hedd?
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 You can call me a shill if you want, but regardless of who you support, I think your argument is pretty f'ing weak. And you simply have no idea how the real world works, and can't get past "how things look" to see what things actually are. "When confused or when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout" is rarely effective leadership.
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Are you people eight-year olds or something? Have you never had to deal with anything more urgent than a tangled shoelace? How do people think that immediate, panicked, and ill-considered reaction is the appropriate response to a crisis? THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING! IT'LL MAKE ME FEEL BETTER! Retards.
The Big Cat Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 No sh--, buckwheat. It defines "hypothetical". No, generally it's to secure the immediate area and assess the situation prior to taking constructive actions consistent with his security to allow the president to get the information he needs and act accordingly. The Secret Service doesn't rush the President out of danger unless there's an immediate threat on his life. Otherwise, they generally secure the immediate area and assess the situation prior to taking constructive actions consistent with his security to allow the president to get the information he needs and act accordingly. Are you people eight-year olds or something? Have you never had to deal with anything more urgent than a tangled shoelace? How do people think that immediate, panicked, and ill-considered reaction is the appropriate response to a crisis? Firstly, he's the President of the United States. It's his job to make the toughest decisions under the toughest circumstances. Secondly, it's not what he DID do, or what he MIGHT have done, it's simply a question of him doing NOTHING AT ALL. Like someone else said, the LEAST he could have done was CALL somebody, or ASK for more information. Instead, he sat there. Just sat there. As for the Secret Service, I didn't bring them up. Adam did.
Dan Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 I have news for you retards: when America's attacked in the next four years, Obama won't "react" immediately either. Things don't work that way. Never have...FDR didn't jump out of his chair (metaphorically speaking) and leap (again, metaphorically) in to action when told about Pearl Harbor either. There's actually very little for the President to do the moment he's told "America's under attack" other than say "Get me more information." At the point he says that, his options then become very limited: stay where he is and wait until his staff sorts out some of the confusion, or try to sort out the confusion himself. The first choice is almost always the better one, if only because executive interference tends to distract people from their jobs (if the director of the FAA is trying to decide whether to ground all civil aircraft or not, and he's interrupted with "Sir, the President's on line one asking what the hell's happening...", how is the President helping things?), but also because of the completely reasonable observation that that's what staffs are for. Actually I think FDR probably said something like... well its about time, they were supposed to attack 2 days ago. In all seriousness, I have no idea what FDR's initial reaction was. He lived in a time when continual news coverage was not in existence. However, I would like to think he or any other leader of the free world would respond in some fashion other than to continue reading a book. I agree there's little the President can actually do, save for 2 things. First, as you suggested, call someone and say "get me more information". And second, give the appearance of being in charge and following some sort of plan - in essence lead. I can only imagine Bush did #1. Something to the effect of "thanks for the info, let me know the second you get any additional information". However, on #2, he failed badly. It's akin to the analogy above. Is there anything you can actually do if your wife or husband is in emergency double bypass heart surgery? No. But, wouldn't you still be at the hospital during the procedure appearing to at least care? The idea that all aircraft were being grounded is fairly absurd. I'd bet my left nut that Airforce 1 doesn't file a flight plan like all other aircraft, nor does it follow the same set of guidelines and protocols that every other aircraft follows by the FAA. If Airforce 1 wants to take off to potentially keep the President out of harm's way, you can bet they're not on the ground waiting for FAA clearance to taxi out. I don't' expect any President to react immediately. But I do expect a President to appear to take the circumstance seriously, suspend his current "press photo op" and start getting briefed on the situation and possible response scenarios.
The Big Cat Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 And you simply have no idea how the real world works, and can't get past "how things look" to see what things actually are. "When confused or when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout" is rarely effective leadership. So finding someone with more information to help clarify the situation is "running in circles, screaming and shouting?"
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 So finding someone with more information to help clarify the situation is "running in circles, screaming and shouting?" So the President of the United States is actually going to have to "find someone"? Do you have any idea how unbelievably ridiculous you sound? It's quite obvious that the vast majority of you has never been in command of a damn thing in your life, least of all been involved in managing any kind of crisis.
Kingfish Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 No, generally it's to secure the immediate area and assess the situation prior to taking constructive actions consistent with his security to allow the president to get the information he needs and act accordingly. Apparently it also involves allowing the President to remain a sitting duck at a meaningless photo-op at a time when planes were dropping from the sky and anyone with the internet could have known exactly where the President was that morning.
KD in CA Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 So finding someone with more information to help clarify the situation is "running in circles, screaming and shouting?" He didn't need to "find" someone with more information. The people who were seeking the additional information already knew to come to him as soon as possible. Which they did. Duh.
RkFast Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Actually I think FDR probably said something like... well its about time, they were supposed to attack 2 days ago. In all seriousness, I have no idea what FDR's initial reaction was. He lived in a time when continual news coverage was not in existence. However, I would like to think he or any other leader of the free world would respond in some fashion other than to continue reading a book. I agree there's little the President can actually do, save for 2 things. First, as you suggested, call someone and say "get me more information". And second, give the appearance of being in charge and following some sort of plan - in essence lead. I can only imagine Bush did #1. Something to the effect of "thanks for the info, let me know the second you get any additional information". However, on #2, he failed badly. It's akin to the analogy above. Is there anything you can actually do if your wife or husband is in emergency double bypass heart surgery? No. But, wouldn't you still be at the hospital during the procedure appearing to at least care? The idea that all aircraft were being grounded is fairly absurd. I'd bet my left nut that Airforce 1 doesn't file a flight plan like all other aircraft, nor does it follow the same set of guidelines and protocols that every other aircraft follows by the FAA. If Airforce 1 wants to take off to potentially keep the President out of harm's way, you can bet they're not on the ground waiting for FAA clearance to taxi out. I don't' expect any President to react immediately. But I do expect a President to appear to take the circumstance seriously, suspend his current "press photo op" and start getting briefed on the situation and possible response scenarios. From the entire security and military staff that accompanied him o nthe trip to the school, right? Good God. And Lemme get this right......you think a 747 carry the PUSA in and out of major airports doesnt file a flight plan and follow basic air traffic protocols? Can I call you "one nut"?
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Apparently it also involves allowing the President to remain a sitting duck at a meaningless photo-op at a time when planes were dropping from the sky and anyone with the internet could have known exactly where the President was that morning. You mean because the President of the United States doesn't have topcover at all times, right?
Adam Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 I'll end my part in the discussion at this- none of us probably know what happened, nor what the procedures are. There is enough things we know of to criticize him on.....I can't wait until next Tuesday
RkFast Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Apparently it also involves allowing the President to remain a sitting duck at a meaningless photo-op at a time when planes were dropping from the sky and anyone with the internet could have known exactly where the President was that morning. It took the 9/11 cocksmokers years to plan out the attack, when to hit, handle navigation, etc. And their targets were some of the biggest, most idenfiable buildings in the WORLD. Yet according to you the night before the attack they could have Googled Bush's pending appearance at a school in bum!@#$ USA and hit him with precision the following day. THIS IS WHY NORMAL PEOPLE CANT TAKE YOU TARDS SERIOUSLY.
Recommended Posts