Replies

see brackets:

[[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. ""

[[Read the whole thing first.]]

[[ Point is the meeting was scheduled and the Muslim groups new about it and it was moved to Grover's by the the White House contact, who was present. I don' think anyone is espcially making a stand on hwat specific time of the morning or day; that's not this issue. Also, As I said, people are often told the President will drop by and then he may or may ot. it's a prestige and motivating thing. We did it all the time in the 80s and it happens in politics all the time ("the President could't be here with us today as orignally planned but he sent this letter, tape, offcial, etc....." )]]

"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.

[[ obviously no one knew about the lockdown until it happened! everything scheduled, normal business went on as usual until it was disrupted. time logic fault here! that's when they walked 5 blocks to Grover's and held the meeting. ]]

"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.

[[ again he said "morning" and "day" in the implied context of recalling "that terrible morning when...." I don't think time coordinates are meant therein to be specfic v poetic.]]

"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."

[[I don't know the details of their preparing or waiting, except to say that if you are waiting in the OEOB for a mtg, you have no TV and will not know until you are told you have to evacuate, again, time logis here!. What I do know is that they regrouped, with WH staffer Suhail Kahn at helm, and held the meeting in Gover and Gaffney's conference room. End of story.

The point about the whole anecdote, which they all admit happened, is that the meeting was to dicuss, President or no-show, the elimination of "secret evidence' -- an agenda item blown apart by 9/11 but absent 9/11 was still on track to be given to them per the Presdient's Grover-arranged pledge! Had this polic change gone forward we would have been even further contrained from finding terrorist planning such attacks or arresting Sami Al Arian. THAT is the point, not what time who left where to get on with it!]]

"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.

[[ Well half-troubled is a good start! Ohter's defens NAwash above and excuse Grover's involvement. Next?]]