Skip to comments.Bush explains slow reaction to September 11 attacks
Posted on 07/29/2011 7:52:16 AM PDT by nuconvert
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush says his apparent lack of reaction to the first news of the September 11 2001 attacks was a conscious decision to project an aura of calm in a crisis.
In a rare interview with the National Geographic Channel, Bush reflects on what was going through his mind at the most dramatic moment of his presidency when he was informed that a second passenger jet had hit New York's World Trade Center.
Bush was visiting a Florida classroom and the incident, which was caught on TV film, and has often been used by critics to ridicule his apparently blank face.
"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," Bush says in an excerpt of the interview shown to television writers on Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The rest of the world understood immediately.
why bother answering liberal propaganda?
when one answers a fool one becomes foolish.
Americans and even some liberals understand he didn’t want to create undue fear in a classroom of first-graders. He knew he had a very capable team working the issue one room away.
Because liberal propaganda works, especially when it goes unanswered. That's how we went from being the land of the free and the home of the brave, to being the land of the managed and the home of the frightened.
Once again, the Lib media tries to control the narrative.
There was nothing wrong with Bush’s reaction, in fact, it was 100% correct for the circumstances - but of course, the MSM have ask the question in a biased way.
Gag me with a spoon.
I have never felt that President Bush had to explain OR apologize for anything he did on that day.
It was all unselfish, mature, uncomplicated and logical.
His focus, strength and cold resolve were impressive. The President Liberals loved to claim had no foreign policy experience, did not put a foot wrong.
I remember seeing the film about Bush’s reaction. How stunned he looked yet quiet. How I swear you could see the blood/color draining from his face and his eyes became “intense”. I don’t know if I am describing it exactly right but that is what I remember. I guess the liberals would have preferred that Bush stand up and give a “shout out”? After the Ft. Hood massacre, I remember that and will remember that craziness for my entire life. Although I didn’t agree with Bush all of the time, I MISS HIM LIKE CRAZY!
Another “created” smear of GWB. The first was that he was “stupid”; took them awhile to come with that; but they did.
Had he reacted any differently; they would have said he “panicked” or “wasn't calm”, or something else.
I hate these people.
Even the story’s title shows the bias that is the “antiquated” media. One more point; let’s say that President Bush wanted to jump up and run out to the limo that would take him to a waiting Air Force One. Do people realize how tightly scripted moving the President is? Having done security at the HIGHEST level, believe me when I tell you, you don’t just MOVE the President. The routes must be secured, air traffic has to be closed, etc. And to think this all started with that fraud Michael Moore.
He did everything right. I’ve never understood why he was ever questioned on it.
“..when one answers a fool one becomes foolish.”
A trap the classy and well-meaning George Bush fell into, too many times.
A better strategy is to attack back rather than play defense. Challenge the very premise, the very wording, of the groundwork they attempt to lay for their sick propaganda.
Do it early. Do it often.
Because liberal propaganda works, especially when it goes unanswered. That's how we went from being the land of the free and the home of the brave, to being the land of the managed and the home of the frightened.One of the big failings of the Bush administration was its absolute inability to respond in any meaningful way to its critics on the left. Some say it was Rove. I don't know. But it certainly was a failing. A big failing.
“Gag me with a spoon.”
My pleasure. Consider it done
His focus, strength and cold resolve were impressive.
But then the “political professionals” got to him.
Before the end of that first horrible week, we had a Presidential visit to a DC mosque, and the spewing or morally equivalent detritus, such as that the Islamic death cult is “a religion of peace”.
There is one Presidential visit with school kids that should be questioned.
Because the left will never forgive not being allowed to steal the 2000 Presidential election in broad daylight. *ALL* the 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' stems from this...
It all runs through very fast, but you can see the conscious decision not to react. Liberals are blinded to this because they hate so much.
No one but a libtard sees a ‘slow reaction’
Imagine you are sitting there reading to children and you are just informed the nation is under attack.
Would it be ‘presidential’ to scream and raun around flapping your arms.
He took the news calmly, tol them the activate the military, and went back the business at hand.
He knew something was up because he could see the media all talking among themselves.
Once again- only a libtard wants or needs any further ‘analysis’ of ‘his reaction’.
My mom and I discussed this at length.
I am a strong Christian, but Christian morality doesn’t apply to government so often, I’m afraid. Our thought was Bush naively thought if he just did what was right, people would notice and he wouldn’t have to attack back.
I see it happen so often in churches also. But in public positions, you must make your side known.
Really? It’s almost ten years to the day later and somebody still wants to talk about the “My Pet Goat” thing? Seriously? Teh Stupid...it burns.
Guys, when Andy Card was whispering the news in Dubya’s ear, one of the photographers got a really good angle on Dubya’s face as he got the news. His face, especially his eyes, pretty much said without words what he now says in so many words was going through his mind. If they want to fault him because he didn’t get up and run around with his hair on fire...well, sorry. He had other things to worry about.
And another Left narrative that Bush needs to squash. . the "Mission Accomplished" ruse. It was a banner pertaining to the Naval battle group that had completed THEIR mission. It was never meant to represent an assessment of the overall war mission.
He acted absolutely 100% appropriately. "Blank face" is a slanted way of saying "poker face."
If Obama had acted exactly the same, he'd he hailed as a calm, cool-headed and adult.
To be on the defensive is to be at a disadvantage.
It's simple, but a lot of FReepers don't seem to get it.
Still waiting to find out who shorted the airlines stocks...
Bush’s answer was to add another layer of government with the NSA using airport harassment of passengers. 9/11 shows the President was not in control of anything, just an interested observer, a puppet.
“It’s simple, but a lot of FReepers don’t seem to get it.”
Ah, the “we’re better than that”, or “let’s not sink to their level, because then we are no better than them” faction?”
I think you’re right. He took a very Christian attitude towards his critics and unfortunately that weakened his administration. I’m not saying Christian attitudes are wrong, in general, I’m just saying that Bush made a mistake by basically bringing a Bible to a gun fight.
Are they good natured or simply gullible?
Truth is, there are some lines I won't cross. However, when your very existence is at stake, you take the gloves off.
I’m glad to see others think this also.
It’s certainly in my thoughts when I look at who may be running in 2012.
Another related story, a buddy just told me an MSNBC poll showed 94% of viewers believe Obama should "enact the 14th amendment in the debt crisis".
"Attack back"?? How could anyone consider reactions to the incident before knowing what was happening. All the World knew was that airplanes were crashing into buildings. Almost no one knew why!
Your statement reveals your thinking, not his!
Ten bucks says 99% of that 94% have no idea what the 14th Amendment is.
Nothing good would have come from panicking in front of a classroom of young children, and I think most people understand that, as you say.
Where was that poll taken, in the MSNBC 'News' Room???
“Liberals would only be satisfied if Bush had jumped up on the table and started to scream, “oh my God, children we are all going to die. . .WE SURRENDER!!”
They would be especially satisfied if he’d done it with a lisp.
They had no idea what course of action should be taken, they didn't know what to do.
This story disappeared off the scope rather quickly.
When Resident Reagan was shot, Secretary of State Alexlander Haig made the statement "I am charge here at the white house". He was was crucified in the media for that statement.
I am sure as a General in the US Army he knew the chain of command if a president was incapacitated. To me his statement was made to say there are plans (the Constitution) in place after the shooting occurred.
On 911 President Bush knew there were plans in place for an emergency like this. It wasn't job to run to the nearest airport, jump into a fighter and go shoot down the remaining planes.
Faced with a similar event 0bama and his teleprompters would be saying I, I, I, I, me, me, me, me in a complete panic as a failed "leader" who had no idea what to do next.
Bush 911 Inaction, just more Bush's Fault BS from the MSM and Bush haters.
He was reading to a group of children. While the phrase is over used, I believe it means exactly what it says - that he was focused on the group of kids he was reading to.
Sheesh - You must be allergic to spoons, or something! ;-P
Exactly. I knew this by just watching.
Sounds like a line is forming to help with the ‘gagging’.
Sounds like a line is forming to help with the ‘gagging’.
Sorry. This was supposedly after he was informed that there was an on-going attack against the United States of America. If he was really thinking about a small group of children 1000 miles away from the point of attack, then he is truly the idiot that his detractors say he is.
I’m not talking about the plane attacks. I’m talking about the personal attacks he suffered every day in the press. I don’t think Bush took it to the press the way he should have because he wasn’t that type, but he suffered for it.
I was responding to post 14.
I disagree. At the time, he was told first that an airplane had hit one of the towers, then that the second hit. He maintained an outward calm while allowing information to be gathered and brought to him. He then excused himself and proceeded with business of state.
How would you have preferred he act, and what would the fallout from his actions have been?
I prefer a calm leader in times of crisis, personally.
Actually, I thought he did okay at the time. It's this that I think is absurd: "My first reaction was anger. Who the hell would do that to America? Then I immediately focused on the children." Ask yourself, "What would Churchill have done, or written subsequently?"
I agree with that. You touched on Bush's major failure. He didn't communicate.
He made speeches early on, talking about the impending sub-prime housing crash but the speeches were to select audiences. He did not take that problem to the people.
He allowed the libs and MSM to beat him over the head about the reasons for removing Saddam from power. He was depending on 'History' for vindication. In other words, he was waiting for someone else to do the job.
The historical fact will be that his failure to communicate and allowing the libs to own the narrative contributed significantly to Obama's election.
As a result, he tried to cover his butt by writing a book, released 2 years after he left office. Sorry! If he had something that the American people needed to know, he should have spoke up while he was in office.
bump for later