The meeting was to have taken place later after the President's scheduled return. Whether that technically would have been "morning", ie., before 1200hrs is not clear, but could perhaps be clarified and is anyway not the main point at all (but a welcomed sudden expression of interest in facts, much of which could,per below, are contained in the article). < -snip- > The Presidenet as you may know, often vists three cities in different parts of the country in one day. The FLa school trip was almost over at 9 am when the towers's new arrived. Rather than return to the WH he took a base hopping trip. I hope this information and practicum helps to clear up any confusion and allow you all to appreciate the larger and obvious point.
|
Weren't there reports that an attempt was planned to assassinate Bush that day at the hotel he was staying at in Florida? I wonder if there were plans to assassinate him in Washington.
The meeting was to have taken place later after the President's scheduled return. Whether that technically would have been "morning", ie., before 1200hrs is not clear, but could perhaps be clarified and is anyway not the main point at all (but a welcomed sudden expression of interest in facts, much of which could,per below, are contained in the article).This explanation doesn't cut it for me. Bush was originally scheduled to make some remarks and take some questions afterwards, starting at 9:30 after reading to the kids, and was to leave Florida that afternoon via Marine One.
Yet according to Sami Al-Arian, the meeting with Bush was to occur in the White House at 11:00 AM. The timeline doesn't fit.
The FL school trip was NOT almost over at 9 am when the towers' news arrived. He was supposed to give some remarks and take some questions, and that wasn't even scheduled to begin until 9:30.
Even if the press accounts which stated that he was originally supposed to leave Florida in the afternoon were not correct, there simply would not have been enough time for him to start a short speech at 9:30, entertain 20 minutes or so of questions, then take a motorcade to the air force base to get on Marine One, and fly back to the White House in time for an 11:00 meeting.
And since the White House was locked down some time earlier than it was evacuated, and it was evacuated at 9:45, they would have needed to have been very early for such a meeting to be there prior to the lockdown. I suppose that is possible, but it seems to me to be unlikely.
And if Al-Arian's statement that the meeting was to take place at 11:00 is incorrect, and the news report that said Bush was originally scheduled to leave Florida that afternoon were correct, then they would have had to have been at the White House really early.
And since it was clear that there were terrorist attacks occurring, it would also have been clear that their meeting was not going to happen long before the White House was evacuated out of fear of a fourth plane heading that way. So the idea that they were sitting, waiting for an imminent meeting when they were escorted back to Norquists' conference room due to the fourth plane also strikes me as unlikely.
In other words, instead of this explanation making me more credulous, it makes me less.
Which leads me to the same place this thread has led me. I am troubled by some of the things regarding Norquist which appear to me to be undeniable, such as why he was pushing for the election (as a Republican) of someone who fits in well with Stalinist groups like the IAC. But I am also skeptical of some of the information presented as evidence of his perfidy.