America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

+ + Kerry attacks Bush for the 7-minute delay

A few days ago, Sen. John Kerry read from the Moore playbook in criticizing President Bush for the supposed 7-minute delay.

Here is what Kerry said:

Had I been reading to children and had my top aide
whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the President of the United States had something that he needed to attend to -- and I would have attended to it.

+ + What Did Kerry Actually Do On 9/11?

Events were unfolding quickly and there was much confusion in those first moments.

That said, it is important to point out the hypocrisy of Sen. Kerry by looking at what Kerry himself did at that same moment in time.

Here is Sen. Kerry's explanation of what he was doing when the first attacks came (see link below to the full transcript):

KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.

+ + Kerry: "Nobody Could Think"

For the record, it was about 40 minutes between the when the second tower was hit and when the Pentagon was hit. For 40 minutes, Sen. John Kerry, a sitting member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sat in a room with Senate Leader Tom Daschle.

In Kerry's own words, "nobody could think."

Sen. Kerry sat in a very vulnerable place on Capitol Hill for 40 minutes after the second tower was hit. What did he mean when he said, "nobody could think"? Perhaps the chaos and confusion of the moment meant that a group of top leaders in the Senate really did not know what to do! So they sat in a vulnerable Senate office, exposed to attack. Apparently, Kerry and others did not yet realize that America was at war.

When did Kerry know America was at war?

Again, in Sen. Kerry's own words:

And as we went out of the building, my immediate feeling was, we're at war. I mean, that was the sense, that we are under attack. People are attacking the United States of America and we needed to respond.

So, more than 45 minutes after the second tower was hit, as Sen. Kerry was evacuating the Capitol, his "immediate feeling" was that America was "at war." In his own words, it took Sen. Kerry 45 minutes to come to this conclusion.

...quite honestly, some of the worst decisions that have ever been made by anyone were fast decisions that were made during times of extreme stress.

The president has an entire staff of folks that make decisions in his absence. Would anything he could've said or done sitting in that classroom have made a difference in regards to the attacks or their outcomes? The situation was undoubtably being handled quite well by the people charged with handling situations of that nature.

So he sat and gathered his thoughts for seven minutes(watch the videos, and you will see the intense concentration, worry, and even fear in his eyes while he's reading to the kids), and then politely excused himself and went and attended to his duties (that were already being attended to by the folks that do so in his absence as I say above. Don't forget that it was his "duty" to be in that room with those kids. It was his "duty" to give them the reading they were promised. His only job is not to run wars.

Would you rather he had jumped up and ran out of there barking orders to people and scaring the sh*t out of all the kids (not to mention letting them down, since they were "expecting" to be read to by the President).

In a firefight (some of you can relate to this, some not, but just use whatever scenario that fits your experience), there is clear, concise, confusion and a lot of yelling of orders. I've made some really good ones in stressful situations (luckily!). When the firefight is 1000 miles away, a lot of yelling and screaming will NOT help. During those types of situations, I've also sat down, lit a cigarette, and thought for 5-10 minutes before I made a call that would "assist" in the action. All the while knowing that others at the scene were in a panic. My 5-10 minute delay allowed me the concentration to make a valued decision (at the cost of some suffering to those at the front) that would have the best outcome overall.

The guy sat, finished his duty of reading the book to the younger citizens of our country, and during this focused intensely on his next course of action. He then acted promptly, excused himself, and left the classroom to do his job, while causing the least amount of undo stress to the kids as possible.

I wonder what the effect on those kids would've been if he had jumped up starting yelling orders to folks and put not only the kids, but the teachers, the film crews, and everyone watching on television into a literal panic. Those kids would be scared to death even today.

I hope that if the world ever goes to Hell again in such as way as it did on 9/11, whoever is sitting with my children at the time thinks as rationally about their well being as he did.

...there, I said it again!

Absolutely!

Tell me, what could he have possibly done in that seven minutes that would have had any sort of impact whatsoever on the events that had just occured, and the events that were still unfolding? What could he have possibly done, besides gather his thoughts, formulate a plan, and then continue the mission ONCE HE HAD ALL THE DETAILS AND THE ENTIRE STORY.

Any reaction that was necessary to prevent further attack to us as a country was already into play. We have plans on paper that dictate these things. The President does not react to every situation with absolute power and sole "order giving" authority. While the President was still reading that book, sirens on military bases were already sounding and alert crews were getting geared up. Nobody was sitting around thinking "gee, what should we do, if only the President would tell us."

Although the men and women of the NYFD and NYPD were actively engaging the situation, DO NOT for a moment think that they were responding to a "known terrorist attack" and that they were acting more valiant than the President. They were responding to a call of tragedy involving mass casualties and nothing more. They were doing their jobs! Setting up perimeters, securing sectors and saving lives. That's what they get paid to do (not enough pay unfortunately). They were reacting to the situation as their operating procedures dictate. The president does not get paid to rush into burning buildings......he gets paid to initiate plans, write doctrine, and react not with instinct and "immediate urgency" but with rather well thought out reactions to emergencies. That's why Generals don't rush bunkers in war, they stay in the rear and "run the war."

The brave guy that was attempting to stop his airplane from crashing was not attempting to thwart a terrorist attack against the USA and therefore save the world from a war.....he was reacting to an immediate threat to his life, and the lives of the people that surrounded him. It was pure instinct and realization of his own impending death that gave him the courage to try to stop the situation aboard that airplane. All of us have that in us, it's called survival.

I read the article, and like so many clueless writers before, the authors have allowed their own prejudices to misrepresent factual information. Sadly enough as usual, folks are believing everything they read again instead of researching. I won't get into the details, but there are so many mistakes in that article it's almost funny. It criticizes itself continuously.

Before I go any further, I will offer a couple explanations to AVB's questions above. Keep in mind, I don't claim them to be factual, just my opinion based upon common sense and a lot of experience. I believe in weighing facts and then deciding on answers, I don't believe in reacting to what first comes to mind:

In regards to the president being the only one authorized to give the order to take military action against a commercial airliner, you'd better check your regs a bit more. I won't get into specifics, but you can trust me on this one....I know these regs and policy pretty well. Secondly, the entire time frame we are discussing here is about an hour. It is not feasably possible for the President to be informed of everything that is going on in the world in "real time." Regardless of what the article says, there are in fact lapses in time when a man sitting in a limosine isn't in tune or should be expected to be in tune with the entire countries problems. So he heard there was a plane crash in New York (as the article states).....should he have immediately knee-jerk reacted to this news and "launched the fleet?" If he did it then, why not do it every time a plane crashes?

It is not in any policy I am aware of to notify NORAD when a plane crashes, veers off course, or loses contact with ground or tower operations. Only when a plane codes 7500 into their transponder and a specific threat to the USA has been issued is NORAD notified. 7500 is the sent code via transponder for "hijack" The article states the following:

Even though Flight 175 left about the same time as Flight 11, it appears to have been hijacked much later. At 8:41, its pilot was still talking to ground control [New York Times, 10/16/01], but at 8:42 it sharply veered off course, and a flight controller noted that its transponder had been turned off and communication cut. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01, New York Times, 10/16/01] One minute later, at 8:43, NORAD was notified the plane had been hijacked. [NORAD, 9/18/01] The hijackers turned the transponder back on but used a different signal code. This allowed flight controllers to "easily" track the plane as it flew toward New York City. [Washington Post, 9/17/01] At about 8:46, Flight 77 began to go severely off course. According to regulations, a fighter is required to be dispatched if a plane strays from its official course by more than two miles or 15 degrees

When the transponder was turned back on as stated above, most likely it was coded to 7500 (hijack) or 7700 (emergency). This leads me to believe that the crew had made an attempt to regain control of the airplane, and were doing their jobs by attempting to turn the transponder back on. The BS above about a fighter being deployed if an aircraft strays is only true if 7500 is coded, or if there is a specific threat to civilian populations given verbally. Based on my understanding, I will assume that at 8:43 am, we finally "understood" that something was actually wrong. Now, is it too much to say that the passing of information is never "instantaneous" in the real world and that time was not our friend here? If the code being tracked was 7700, then we had no knowledge of a hijack, only a possible emergency.

Back to the aircraft being shot down.....what makes you think it wasn't? Suppose for a moment that the order was given to shoot down the plane and it crashed into a field in rural America....how would the American population deal with this knowledge? What would be YOUR choice in information to release to the public, the fact that some heroes attempted unsuccessfully to regain control of their plane, or that our own government killed it's citizens? Would the public say to themselves if we shot it down, "well, we had to do it." or would the outcry be so loud with accusations that other options should have been excercised that all faith and allegiance to our government would be in jeapordy? Think really hard about that one! Can you handle the truth? Don't think for a moment that that plane might not have been shot down and that you aren't being told about it on purpose. The sacrificing of American's by our own government because or possible or even probable threats is a very very horrible thought to even consider....could you handle the truth if it were told?

Now, about the "heroism" on the last plane, and why wasn't it displayed on the first three planes.....that one is utterly simple. Prior to 9/11, we all knew (movies and television taught us) what to do if an airplane we are on gets hijacked. You sit quiet and keep your mouth shut. The plane lands in a foreign country and the hijackers go to jail, and you are released. This is most likely what the passengers aboard the first three planes were thinking. On the last one, thanks to a cell phone call to the ground, the passengers knew that they would die if they did not act. No questions about it, they were on a suicide mission, so they acted. End of story. Never again will an airplane be hijacked in America. Our reactions will never again be to sit and remain quiet and hope to land in Cuba for some free cigars. We will act and make an attempt as heroes to stop the hijack....our lives will depend on it.

Rick, would you quit sugar coating things and tell us how you REALLY feel? Good points, and well taken.

Okay, I supported Bush long enough in this thread, so I will now revert back to the original topic (Kerry) and support him for awhile.......

Hog, this is what you state:
"For the record, it was about 40 minutes between when the second tower was hit and when the Pentagon was hit. For 40 minutes, Sen. John Kerry, a sitting member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sat in a room with Senate Leader Tom Daschle. Sen. Kerry sat in a very vulnerable place on Capitol Hill for 40 minutes after the second tower was hit. What did he mean when he said, "nobody could think"? Perhaps the chaos and confusion of the moment meant that a group of top leaders in the Senate really did not know what to do! So they sat in a vulnerable Senate office, exposed to attack. Apparently, Kerry and others did not yet realize that America was at war."

Well, I have to disagree with your conclusions and I'll explain:

Kerry claims that they just came out of a meeting and then saw the 2nd plane hit the building. He then says they heard and saw the explosion at the pentagon. Eventually they evacuated when given the order. What is wrong with that, besides the fact that he was doing his job?

Since New York and Washington DC are not within eyeshot of each other, they obviously didn't "see" the plane hit the building by looking out the window. Most likely they were watching a tape of it that was being replayed on CNN or some other channel. They had just left a meeting, so were most likely caught by surprise as to the events at the WTC by someone yelling, "guys, turn on CNN fast!!!" There's a pretty good chance that they had stood there saying "Holy f*cking sh*t!" for about 3 minutes before they were finally startled back to their senses by the explosion they heard and saw at the pentagon. I doubt they watched the plane crash live, then sat around dumbfounded for 40 minutes.

In regards to leaving a "vulnurable Senate Office," that was "exposed to attack." first of all, I'm certain they assumed the pentagon was a victim of a bombing, not a plane crash. More importantly should he have left that office at all? Yes, upon receiving word that they were evacuating, they did, but should they have left prior to that? Think really hard now....he was a member of the Government and that was his job to stay there in his office with his phone, fax, files, and whatever else he uses to do his job. Should he have thought only of his own personal security and fled the building at the first sign of trouble in New York waving his arms in the air, screaming like a banshee and flailing about like some groupie at a Grateful Dead concert with his hair on fire? He stayed in his office and did his job!!!! He left when ordered to do so. A private in the military's job is to sit in a foxhole (pretty dangerous place to be) and not leave until told to do so. John Kerry stayed in the dangerous office most likely because in the confusion no one knew it was a dangerous place to be, but regardless it was his PLACE OF DUTY AND HE DIDN'T LEAVE IT.

Everyone was caught by surprise that morning, and anybody who claims they didn't stand there in awe staring at their tv screen for at least 5 minutes (an hour?) prior to reacting is a liar. Don't forget that our members of the government are human too, and this (regardless of a few conspiracy theorists views) was a surprise to them as well.

I myself saw it on satellite TV at a bar in Jakarta where I was enjoying a drink. For a good minute, several of us thought it was some sort of joke. It was a full 11 minutes before my cell phone rang and my boss in Virginia told me what he "knew." Did I react so quickly? I lit a smoke, slammed the rest of my drink and then started making calls to my colleagues to inform them. We all moved slow that first 30 minutes. The only folks I can think of that moved fast between the first plane and the second were the cops and firefighters that were rushing to the scene.

adroomi

i'll try not to hold back next time.

You've got to be kidding! Basicly you have stated that our choice is either the President did little or nothing or did everything and is lying and involved in a conspiracy. Sounds like a great person to have in charge.

Going back to shoot-down authority, if you read the 9/11 report you'll see where it says that Cheney was asked sometime between 10:10 and 10:15 for the authority to down Flight 93. Minutes later he was again asked for this authority. White House deputy chief of staff Joshua Bolten, at the conference table with Cheney, suggested that the vice president contact Bush and confirm his authorisation.

In most cases, the commission said, the chain of command in authorising the use of force runs from the president to the secretary of defence and from the secretary to military commanders.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was briefed by Cheney at 10:39am that he had been authorised by Bush to instruct fighters to shoot down hijacked planes.

Also, on Sept. 27, 2001, Two generals were given specfic authority to bring down civilian planes. There is nothing in FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2,
effective July 12, 2001) or

'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1 June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects," 4.Policy (page 1) that gives or lists shootdown authority to local commands or the FAA as that is always a request up case by case and not (at that time) blanket coverage.

Adroomi had it accurate on both counts. Hasty decisions would be counter-productive. What can Kerry (Senator) or Bush (President) really do in the first few minutes of 9-11...let alone the first few hours.

View Government as a slow moving...multi level waterfall. Any order given by Bush would have to pass through so many levels that any effective communication would be worthless by the time it got down to the actual players.

The actual job of intervention, prevention and action would be conducted on a local level, with all the decisions made at that level.

If there was any failure to act..it occurred months, if not years before 9/11. Whether Bush or Kerry reacted appropriately in the hour following the 9/11 attack made no difference. Nothing would have changed except a classroom full of kids would have had a story not read by the President.

the only reason I posted this post was to catch the responses from everyone... as many of you hear it spoken over and over from Kerry's mouth it is also in a Major motion picture of Moore's... Blaiming the president for not taking action.. i've read this and heard it on major news stations recently also...

the fact is as everyone here atests to... EVERYONE was overcome by the events on 9/11 and as adroomi points out the only one's who were attentioned to the events to do anything were the people on the planes, NY FD and Police at the time everything was unfolding...

I know for a fact that on 9/12 my/our mission changed from a training everyday in/out same routine to locked and loaded for any other possible strikes against our country in the ways it happened just hours earlier...

I was serving on a base that shares the airport with munincipals... not a full blown AFB... meaning we do not have the facility's to store such firepower this local.. so as the days wore on.. I knew if we could muster like we did.. then the whole Nation was locked and loaded for a defensive... and in less then a month from the time Terror struck inside the US we were dropping havoc on the persons responsible!!!!

and from that day forward we have kept this type of Terror off American Soil by taking the fight to them...

I do not hear this coming out of John Kerry's mouth as he heads across this country for everyones vote...

thus this Man scares me for I have children I want to see make a future for themselves in America as we know it...

right now we don't need a gentle War on Terror or go at it more sensetivly... this isn't a friday night First Date!!! It's Protecting our Freedoms...

Hog

I usually do not agree with Adroomi, but this time he's spot on! I WAS att a Military base that day! Norfolk Naval Base. We watched the planes hit with everyone else, in total shock. I heard mumblings about a suspected bombing at the Pentagon (we're only about eighty miles from there) and they finally decided to take the base to Threatcon Delta and secure the base totally, and ordered all personnel not on duty to go home so if a large scale attack of the suicide hijacking type should take place we would suffer less casualties. We were recalled three or four days later and thing were a lot different! We were in a new world, new threats, new ways of looking at things. I don't fault Kerry for not reacting instantaneously, but I DO take exception to his hypocritical blaming of the President for a seven minute delay. My GOD! all I could do was pace back and forth in my office for five minutes before I went to go see the TV to find out if what I just heard was true! Rick, get of it! We all know you know exactly what should have been done, and you were probably on the phone trying to understand why they didn't have NYC ringed with Stinger Launchers ready to shoot down any such threat, and any republican president who couldn't order every plane still in the air shot down in thirty seconds is incompetent. GIVE ME A FRIGGIN' BREAK! As Adroomi said anyone who says they were not in shock is a lying sack of what makes the grass greener! It makes me sick that the left blames the right for not being better than the left was and if someone from the right throws the brown flag, they are labeled as blindly supporting Bush! How about blindly supporting some hypocritical lying rats who make it sound as though THEY were calm, cool, and collected? No, lets cast aspersions on the President because he was as confused as we were and to hell with explaining what WE were doing, we'll just lie about it. And people like Rick suck that up! I can't understand it. This makes ME a "blind follower" PLEASE!

Yo Rick:

I agree with CW, you do "suck-up" all the leftist liberal anti- Bush crap those websites spoon er make that shovel down your throat.

One thing I don't understand is the real reason that your so anti-Bush. Is it because he is 6'3" and your 5'1" tall and you hate tall people or is it because he was an Officer and a Gentleman and they "red-flagged" you from the Officer Candidate program.

JonR

I've met Bush...he's only that tall on paper.

adroomi, don't tell me you're a Redleg too.

Yes, but we will always remember him as JfK, never JFK!

He probably peed in his pants on 9/11.........!

Charlie

CWFoster

well, not hitler.

now i understand what you mean by suck it up. and may i ask have you sucked up all the information about bush's business sense that made him wealthy and his completed service in the national guard.

cwaddell_1

I guess that explains his business sense. and all along i thought being bailed out of every business he ever got involved in by a family friend's money and dumping stock illegally, knowing it was going to fall when he was an insider, and failing to file the proper forms with the sec for 9 months, remember martha stewart.

i refer you to at least one site that you won't want to visit, because it will upset your preconceived position that an mba with a gpa of c, makes you a business leader.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7545&forum=DCForumID38

Rick,
Talk about preconceived notions, when did I ever defend George Bush’s business dealings? I simply made the observation that if he hadn’t wasted his time at Harvard he could have learned how to sleep his way in to fortune as Kerry did. From the information I provided it is obvious that seducing wealthy women is a much more effective way of obtaining massive amounts of money.

Oh, and by the way, I have been on Democratic Underground before. It is quite the bastion of objective information. ROFL! Can you provide me with some more objective info? May be a report by the SEC when they did an investigation into President Bush’s alleged illegal activity? Or for that matter any government agency that has investigated his past business dealings. But once again, I never defended his business dealings; I just made the aforementioned observation.

AVB there isn't a 50/50 split... she made him sign a pre-nup when they married.. she's not as dumb as she sounds eh??

LOL

Hog

prenups and trust funds aside. Do you really think that Kerry wants for anything. Do you think when he goes to dinner he thinks twice about the cost of that bottle of wine. When the bills come at the end of the month do you think he worrys about how much to pay on each one? Do you think he worrys about the cost of the gas his SUV burns, or how much jet fuel he uses when he goes windsurfing in Nantucket?
Yep the common man in touch with America

First, I wasn't saying money is bad! I was saying that the leftists accusing Bush of trying to start a "dynasty" is a massive case of the pot calling the kettle black! and if you take the 50/50 split of "what is left" bein $70 million, that's STILL almost five times Bush's $15 million! So I reiterate, WHY is Kerry so much better a choice than Bush? everything the left says about Bush being bad goes in SPADES for JfK!

I know something he did - he missed 100% of the Intelligence Committee meetings in the 12 months after 9/11.

Too busy playing Thurston Howell III, I guess.

I really think he is smart. Smart enough to know he'd never be able (or want) to work his way to a fortune, so he took up gold-digging instead.

It might help if you whining libs meet at Ricks house and have a good cry and pat each other on the butt.

JonR

And dont forget to bring the French wine and cheese and Russian caviar. Most of you will be driving up in your German euro sedans with the Greenpeace bumperstickers.