Posted on 07/29/2011 2:21:29 AM PDT by markomalley
George W Bush says his blank reaction to the first news of the Sept 11 attacks while US president was a conscious decision to project an aura of calm in a crisis.
In a rare interview with the National Geographic Channel, Mr Bush reflected on what was going through his mind when he was informed that a second passenger jet had hit New York's World Trade Center.
Mr Bush was visiting a Florida classroom at the time, and the incident - which was caught by television cameras - has often been used by critics to ridicule his apparently dazed response to the attack
"My first reaction was anger. Who the hell would do that to America? Then I immediately focused on the children, and the contrast between the attack and the innocence of children," Mr Bush said.
Mr Bush said he could see journalists at the back of the classroom getting the news on their own cellphones "and it was like watching a silent movie."
Mr Bush said he quickly realised that a lot of people beyond the room would be watching for his reaction.
"So I made the decision not to jump up immediately and leave the classroom. I didn't want to rattle the kids. I wanted to project a sense of calm," he said of his decision to remain seated and silent.
"I had been in enough crises to know that the first thing a leader has to do is to project calm," he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
That is true. There is never a moment when they are not seeking their own advantage, which they always believe is best achieved by destroying or tearing somebody down. They don't care what's happening in the world. It's all about them.
Thank you President Bush for the ultimate poker face!
If I could have strangled him through the airwaves, I would have.
George Bush did it right on 9/11.
Obama hid for 2-3 weeks when the underwear bomber did his thing during bambi’s Christmas vacation.
I disagree. Bush erred badly. Other Presidents seem to have been born for the role. For example, even when shot, Reagan joked and put those around him — and the country — at ease.
(YAWN)
Among the state level Republican party staff I was part of on 9/11, we saw two politically consequential errors by Bush the first day: (1) the failure to react promptly and appropriately before the kiddie class; and (2) the failure to immediately and directly fly back to Washington, a failure fortunately remedied by the close of the day.
As to 9/11, two more issues remain for history to examine and likely hold against Bush: the nature and depth of official Saudi and Pakistani connections to the 9/11 plot; and the Bush administration's catering to Muslim sentiment after 9/11. Not only is there reason to suspect that the Bush administration knew of and suppressed evidence of substantial involvement in 9/11 by Saudi and Pakistani intelligence agencies, but after 9/11, even Muslim extremists were embraced by the Bush administration as part of a misguided hug-a-Muslim policy.
Meanwhile, due to open borders and lack of effective immigration enforcement -- more Bush security lapses -- we remain vulnerable to major terrorist attacks.
You can be among all the state level GOP leaders you want, the country was under attack and Washington DC specifically so, and the secret service made the correct decision (IMHO) to take the president elsewhere.
Once again people fall for an inappropriate reaction by the left wing democrat phonies. All GOPers should have been busy smashing any such “political” criticism in the democrats’ faces. But republicans are feckless.
That is the GOP’s “political error”.
He should have strutted around saying “I’m looking for some ass to kick”.
That’s how mature statesman world leaders like Obama handle a big crisis like that.
Well, I think we can disagree there.
An American President is not a box of glassware to be carted about as the Secret Service directs for safety’s sake. Despite any dangers, Bush needed to return to Washington on 9/11 because, like Churchill in London during the Blitz, when the country is under attack, a President must at least symbolically share the risks and fate of his government and people. America can survive losing a President to hostile action more readily than it can survive a wartime President about whom there is a whiff of cowardice.
We don’t use teleporters on planet earth yet, landing the President at a city under attack and then using a helicopter to transport him across that city in combative air space, to get him to his known address, seems pretty stupid to me when we think he is being targeted in a massive national commando mission.
I’m far from an unqualified supporter of GW Bush but this carping about the FL classroom scene is simply Michael Moore bs and tedious 2nd-guessing.
It is purely a media/Hollywood fantasy that the POTUS could or would make any Commander-in-Chief type of decision in those first 10 min. Bush knew that information was being gathered and whatever immediate actions could or could not be taken were outside of the oversight of the POTUS in the first 10 min.
“PR event” or not, Bush was in front of media and not only children. There was no benefit to the country for him to disappear so fast. Anyway, it was necessarily a “snap” judgment and it is worthless to 2nd-guess him unless there was some clear and compelling reason to act differently.
Only people with some other inherent reason to trash Bush would waste any oxygen still thinking and talking about whether Michael Moore is right after all.
Again, you are engaged in precious 2nd-guessing of a tedious nature. The WH had been evacuated the morning of 9/11 within minutes, with reason to believe another plane was headed for a crash assault there (Flight 93 which crashed in PA was headed for DC and no one at the time could know what its target might be or if there were more planes and/or other forms of attack underway or imminent).
Playing “Churchill in the Blitz” for the media without knowing the most elementary facts would not help anything. Bush did in fact return to DC by that evening, I believe, but the idea that he should rush there in the first hours is just silly.
I was in the heart of Manhattan on 9/11 (working in a mid-town skyscraper looking out at the WTC burning and collapsing a couple of miles down the island). No one knew then how many more attacks might be imminent on both NYC and DC, or other places, but in those first hours and days it was certainly more important to know that our govt was still functioning to some degree than to believe that the POTUS was rushing into the firing line to share our dangers.
I know that you are aware that Bush is no longer in Office. Now as much as I have criticized the man, I can’t for the life of me think what is to be gained by chewing on this old rag that was torn to shreds a decade ago. It’s time to put it down, salute the dead and walk away.
btw, and kindly correct me if I’m wrong on the following, but the question of Pres. Bush in that FL classroom was never any significant issue before the release of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911” in June 2004.
Thus, for nearly 3 years after 9/11 there was no issue about Pres. Bush and the first 7-9 minutes after he was informed of the 2nd plane attack. It was not a “problem” (that I can recall or find in some web searching) until Moore & co. fabricated the issue.
It was purely a propaganda creation of the loathsome excremental Michael Moore.
It is not surprising when the media and international take and run with the propaganda memes of the likes of Michael Moore, but it is totally foolish and unacceptable for “conservatives” to allow themselves to absorb these propaganda points unchallenged.
In war, the lives of generals, high political figures, and even commanders in chief must at times be put at risk. Fortunately, Bush ended 9/11 back in Washington — and that is ultimately to his credit.
Among the pros on our side, the immediate assessment was that Bush bobbled the ball by not promptly ending his PR session with the kiddies. That Michael Moore and other adversaries used it against him and the GOP confirms that assessment as well-founded.
Ahh yes the unnamed invisible pros that like to monday morining quarterback like you are. Get back under the bridge troll, the billy goats gruff are coming.
Part of the regular functioning of government is that the capital city is safe enough for the government and its highest officials to reside there. If you do not like the analogy to Churchill during the Blitz, look to Lincoln during the Civil War and his determination to remain in Washington.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.