9/11 and the ZOT

9-9-06 | ThinkWithJohn

[ThinkWithJohn]

What is a good response for those who question why the Secret Service did not immediately remove Bush from the classroom on 9/11 when, at the time, it would have been reasonable to consider him a target?

[Diana in Wisconsin]

IBTZ.

[Condor51]

Uh.. because kids in 1st grade don't pack heat - assh*le!

[Gay State Conservative]

A good response would be that given that the SS was in the vice grip of the Bush Family Evil Empire there was nothing that would have happened to him there.

[ThinkWithJohn]

Wow. Why would you call me that when I asked a serious question? No one suggested first-graders packed heat. But I don't for a minute think that the terrorists would care one iota about children if they were gunning for Bush. Please be civil.

[ThinkWithJohn]

Forgive me, I'm new here. What does IBTZ mean? Thanks :)

[Robert Teesdale]

Two primary reasons.

1. It is not the job of the Secret Service to run around screaming "We're all gonna DIE!!" and bring the President along with them.

2. The President was not in active danger at that moment.

Had the day's events been different - namely, if we had suddenly heard that instead of airliners and skyscrapers, it was suicide bombers targeting and killing the Speaker of the House, the Vice President, the head of the FBI and other senior officials at public engagements - then I think we can safely assume that the Secret Service would have removed the President immediately. However, it was clear that the 9/11 events were mass attacks and not personally directed.

Tentative IBTZ issued.

[Condor51]

ZOT!!

---

---

ZOT!!!

ta-ta troll

[Robert Teesdale]

IBTZ means that the poster has managed to insert a comment into the thread before a moderator locks it, and bans you. Essentially, they think you're a troll.

However, if you remain, debate civilly, and actually discuss rather than parrot conspiracy cliches - then you'll find yourself made welcome even if disagreed with.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

It means you're new here, this is your first day here, it's a VANITY post versus working your way into the crowd by posting articles for discussion, or even discussing other posts with us. In other words, you haven't earned our trust yet and you may just be trolling us. (Trolling = Fishing for quotes to take back to Democratic Underground, or whatever other lunatic liberal site you're affiliated with.) :)

(IBTZ = In Before The ZOT!)

[1rudeboy]

1. He was not in immediate danger.
2. He's always a target.

[Robert Teesdale]

He is not necessarily a troll. The question is in fact a reasonable one that I haven't heard asked before, and it does bear answering.

I would add that the Secret Service always considers the President to be "under attack". And if you think about it, he essentially IS always under attack. The only thing that varies is his relative proximity to those who wish to carry it out, and their relative capability to do so.

Any President is often said to only be somewhat safe while at Camp David. Even then, the Russians can incinerate him in about an hour.

[toddlintown]

Here today John, and gone today too!

IBTZ

[Robert Teesdale]

Another consideration is that the Secret Service may well have attempted to remove him, but been ordered not to by the President himself. They do work for him, in the final analysis.

Had the President allowed himself to terrify the nation by being bustled off in a frantic rush, his ability to coordinate the emotions of the country and establish leadership would have been crippled.

[Robert Teesdale]

Do you have another question? Welcome to FreeRepublic.

Here on FR, it's considered bad form to post a vanity topic (i.e. your own question) in Breaking News. Had you posted this in Chat or Bloggers/Personal, you'd have gotten less flak from people. It's also considered proper to include (Vanity) in the title of your thread, if it is a personal question or rant.

[ThinkWithJohn]

Well, no one suggested that it's the job of the Secret Service to run around and scream "We're all gonna Die." But it is their job to protect the President. True, we know now that individuals weren't the target on 9/11 but at 9:03 am on 9.11, I don't understand why the Secret Service would assume the best and not the worst? Wouldn't it have made more sense to err on the side of caution and prudence?

[defenderSD]

If a troll falls in the forest but nobody hears him fall, does he make a sound, and if so does it sound like...

ZOT?

[BluH2o]

Another newbie ditz ...

[defenderSD]

They had some information that a terror attack was likely that week, so the entire area was under surveillance by the Secret Service and therefore they knew he was safe at the school. Any other questions, troll?

[ThinkWithJohn]

Thank you for the education. Sorry everyone for by-passing the rules. I am new here and didn't mean any offense. I am not part of a democrat underground, I am an independent though and I believe in loyalty to the truth over loyalty to any politcal party so if I am welcome to participate with that up front, I would like to stay. I seriously just wanted to hear what people thought about the question I raised because it's the one thing about 9/11 that I haven't been able to reconcile. Thanks. Peace. John.