Posted on 07/29/2011 2:21:29 AM PDT by markomalley
It was not “Monday morning quarterbacking.” In the circles I was in, the political game was ongoing on 9/11 and Bush’s reactions to it would affect the political environment we and our candidates would have to operate in. My brother’s reaction that night was also that the prolonged session with the kids would come back to haunt Bush and the GOP — as it did.
BS
Which is exactly why Kerry and the dims swept the the elections in '04... oh, wait...
Could it be that it is more an explanation than concern about reputation.
Anything after the heat of the moment, and coming from anyone who was not in the action, is by definition “Monday morning quarterbacking” (even if it may come sooner or later than the day after a game as the NFL “Monday morning QB” reference would suggest).
I agree that such review and assessment is not automatically suspect (as the colloquial phrase is usually intended to suggest), since all (political) actions of significance merit critical review. We all need to evaluate and (let’s hope) try to learn from the past.
One of my points is that staying in that room for 7-8 minutes was perfectly reasonable, even yes ADMIRABLE, under the circumstances.
If unnamed “pros” such as your brother really did have concerns about it I suspect that’s more about the potential for “political” mis-use (as we came to see with Michael Moore et al) rather than with the issue of whether there was something inherently bad, mistaken etc. in its own terms for the POTUS to continue with a public activity for 7-8 minutes after being informed of a crisis.
So the claim seems to be that Pres. Bush should have foreseen and acted upon unspecified “political” fallout in the future if he did not rush out of that room 7 min. sooner?? Even though it would have no bearing whatever upon his or the govt’s actual response to the crisis??
I submit that’s exactly the kind of thinking we should NOT want in a POTUS in a crisis!!
We are discussing what should be one of the fundamental differences between conservatives (principled, results and substance driven, competence-oriented) and current liberals (appearance driven, shallow and superficial, media-influenced and obsessed, etc.).
I would agree that conservatives can’t live in a bubble and totally ignore how the media will play stuff, but do you really want a POTUS whose first thoughts in the first 1, 2, 3 minutes of a national crisis will be “how can I look good for the media?” and “how can I forestall the Michael Moores of the world from attacking me?”
MY take on Pres. Bush in that room is “here is a man who can walk and chew gum at the same time, who doesn’t have a meltdown even in the face of a grave national crisis.”
There was no good substantive reason for him to get up and leave immediately without any more information, so he (briefly) completed what he was doing and then made his exit.
I submit that this is exactly the kind of self-command we should want in a POTUS (I’m critical of GW Bush on quite a variety of policy issues but not on his bearing and behavior on 9/11).
Out of office, Presidents worry about their reputations as obsessively as Swiss bankers guard their balance sheets. Bush is no exception.
And yet Bush’s reputation is marred by his lapse on 9/11.
Opinion
I was the political pro, not my brother. Simply put, after being told of the second crash into the WTC, Bush ought to have promptly excused himself from the kiddies and tended to his duties as commander in chief. That would have been the best political course because it would have been the best choice for the sake of the country in a moment of shock and peril.
Thanks to all for comments - one time ping to say that I think this is actually an important issue (of major long term importance):
how the left is allowed to “frame” such judgments in the media, to the public, to political “pros” and indeed to “history” is of crucial significance.
We already lost this particular battle long ago, but over time it is useful and important to continue to challenge dominant media narratives again and again.
When it is pretended (and comes to be “conventional wisdom”) that a rabid charlatan like Michael Moore is correct in his propaganda use of this incident, then that kind of propaganda creates its own significance, however despicable.
I maintain that there was nothing wrong with Pres. Bush remaining in that classroom for 7-8 min., that there were no substantive or national security reasons for him to rush out abruptly.
Of course, if Pres. Bush HAD excused himself and quickly departed then the left would have created a meme of “Pres Bush rattled by 9/11 attacks, lose his cool before students etc.”
We need to see and understand how these propaganda battles function. It was a “no win” situation in propaganda terms, when it comes to the uses which can be made by scumbags like Michael Moore.
The only (useful) thing Pres. Bush could do in those 7-8 minutes is what he did do: remain calm, complete his current public activity promptly, and steel himself for what was to come.
Opinion backed by fact.
Your original point was that Bush's "lapse" would hurt him and the GOP- not mar his reputation. My question is: why did it take 5 freakin' years (2006 congressional elections) for people to become aware of it and take action?
I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004, but by 2008 I was highly pissed at many of his (and the GOP's) political positions. The 7 minutes in 2001 never even crossed my mind. I suspect I'm not the only one.
(1) Leaving abruptly would simply have provided a different propaganda line for the media: “Pres. Bush rattled before classroom of children, Pres. Bush rushes out of classroom etc.”
(2) Nothing in that first 7-8 minutes would further his “duties as Commander-in-Chief” — a man in his position knew it would take more time than that to gather initial facts.
What we were seeing here was probably the first time ever a POTUS was informed “live” of an initial attack upon the USA with media present (there was no reporting on the first 7-8 minutes or even hours of when FDR learned of Pearl Harbor).
Nothing Bush could do in those first 7-8 min. would have made any difference at all to what was already happening on 9/11, so the only useful “duties” he could perform at that moment was to carry on, think about what might await him outside of that room, and to await a more detailed briefing which was to come.
Put it another way: if he had been anywhere in private at that moment, informed by an aide in total secrecy, there was still nothing more consequential he could have been doing in those first 7-8 minutes.
...and so called conservatives who were all aboard the Bush bandwagon following 9/11 but now find it convenient to continue the piling on even this insignificant and idiotic event..............
You are probably correct in your opinion when it comes to most politicians... former POTUS Clinton, Nixon, LBJ, Carter to name a few. I'm not saying GWB isn't concerned about public opinion but I don't think he is "worried" about what the world's opinion is of him.
I think Bush is more happy in his personal life than most and that is what is most important to him. I think the same is true of his father...who was more actively involved in politics than GWB...who was on the fringe until he ran for governor.
The Bush men don't seem to have the need to have thier egos stroked as some of the others. Just my opinion.
Recall how so much of Obama's appeal in 2012 was that he seemed so smart and articulate -- in implicit opposition to the seemingly slow witted and word-mangling George Bush. Jobless or job scared and living back at home now, many of those Obama kids are having second thoughts. Too late. If they listen carefully, they can hear the laughter of con men emanating from the White House.
(2) Keep in mind that Bush was informed of the first WTC crash before he went into the classroom. He was told of the second crash before the kids. I hope that Bush's first thought would have been a recognition that the US had suffered a coordinated terrorist attack.
(3) Here's what I would have done in the next six or seven minutes: talk to the Joint Chiefs; talk to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell; order the US military to full alert and assistance to New York; ask for suggestions as to additional measures to take; order a return to Washington; and so on. Of course, Bush eventually did all those things and more -- but, having left the kiddies, I would have done them sooner than Bush did.
Even without the quirkiness and dark corners to the personality that other Presidents had, both of the Bushes are proud, competitive, and jealous of their standing. Bush I’s WASP reserve tends to hide that, while Bush II’s “aw shucks” manner does the same for him.
Not arguing that...just don't think they spend a lot of time thinking about what people think of them.
On the whole, I think you are right about that — and it is not always to a good effect. The Bushes tend to be regarded a arrogant.
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.