Kerry knocks Bush for inaction on 9-11
By My2Cents Posted in User Blogs — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from Diaries
Before a gathering of journalists in Washington, DC today, John Kerry criticized President Bush for his actions on 9-11-01 following the attack on the World Trade Center. Kerry blasted Bush for not acting swiftly, and instead choosing to sit with children in a Florida classroom.
"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."
Read on.First, it's telling that Kerry is using Michael Moore's propaganda as a playbook in his campaign. This has a definite whiff of desperation about it.
Secondly, where exactly was John Kerry that morning when America was under attack, and what was he doing?
In an interview with Larry King on CNN, July 8, 2004, Sen. Kerry was asked where he was the morning of September 11th. Here is part of his response:
Kerry: "...And as I came in [to a meeting in Sen. Daschle's office], 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..." (emphasis added).
It should be noted that the second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m., and the plane hit the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m. By Kerry's own words, he and his fellow senators sat there for forty minutes, realizing "nobody could think."
In other words: Sen. Kerry, who criticized President Bush for not rushing out of the Florida classroom for seven minutes, sat paralyzed with his colleagues for a full forty minutes. He is hardly in a position to criticize President Bush for "inaction."
Here: "John Kerry must be frustrated in his campaign if he is armchair quarterbacking based on cues from Michael Moore."
I would have dashed right out of the classroom and taken AF1 into the sky and pushed the magical turbo-booster and made it all the way to NYC in time to shoot down the second plane with my nonexistant sidewinders (man! what a failure of intelligence, why aren't there any missiles on AF1?!) before it hit! [/Sarcasm]
Before this I merely thought Kerry was a fraud and poseur. I was wrong.
In his awful book Pretext for War , James Bamford made the incredible statement that Bush should have immediately flown to Andrews Air Force Base and given a defiant speech from the tarmac.
The book contains several allegations of cowardice on Bush's part that made me (very uncharacteristically) throw down the book in raw anger.
While Bamford and Moore are willfully forgetting the manic situation in the wake of the attack others are falling for this because they seem to not remember just how little solid information there was immediately after the attack (Raise if your hand if you remember accounts of an explosion at the State Department, or that the National Mall was on fire, just to name a couple of spurious reports).
For anyone wondering why I picked the book up in the first place, Bamford wrote two solid books about the National Security Agency ( The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets). I had no idea that he could toss responsible writing so far out the window.
in response to a question, or part of a speech? The article would seem to indicate that it was in response to a question, in which case I wonder what answer you would have preferred from him.
From the phrasing of the answer, it sounds as if the question was on the order of, "If you were in a classroom in Florida reading "My Pet Goat" to some children and were told that the second plane had just struck the WTC, what would you have done?"
For propriety's sake, should he have refused to answer the question? If not, what answer would have been appropriate?
Here is the context:
Addressing minority journalists in the nation's capital, Kerry was asked what he would have done as president the moment he received word of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Bush spent seven minutes reading "The Pet Goat" to Florida elementary school children after his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered, "America is under attack," as televisions cameras recorded the anxious scene.
"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," Kerry said as the crowd applauded. "And I would have attended to it."
You can believe or disbelieve Kerry if you like, but he didn't bring it up and it is a fair criticism. The right action upon hearing that "we are under attack" is clearly to get up and do something about it, or at least get on top of what is happening. The event might have been shocking, but it's setting the bar pretty low not to expect the commander-in-chief to do that much.
I think there are three pieces of data here, and they cannot be compared directly: what Bush did, what Kerry did, and what Kerry said he would have done in Bush's shoes. What Bush and Kerry actually did are not comparable because Bush was Commander in Chief and Kerry wasn't. What Kerry said he would have done isn't comparable with what Bush did because Kerry in this situation has the luxury of not being in the heat of the moment and can come up with an ideal response.
It would be interesting to know what Bush would say he would do if, God forbid, he was again in a similar situation. Would he do something different (which most likely would be along the lines of what Kerry said)?
Well done buddy. You're post is cited on The Corner over at National Review. Awesome publicity for Red State too!
What was whispered in Dubya's ear?
'the plane might not be ready, Flight 93 incoming security couldn't allow the flight back to Washington directly, decisions regarding communications were pending...
Just how in a 'hurry' to stampede out of there would you have been?
I would like to see this come up in the debates so that the President can reply in this way: "The heat and emotion of September 11 was no time for panic or precipitous action. I was apprised of the situation and was confident that the experienced and skilled people I had chosen to serve as my Vice President and cabinet were fully capable of dealing with the immediate needs of this country in a responsible and effective manner." (As a contrast to the inexperienced and unqualified VP Kerry has chosen).
This was a set-up. It was a softball question, pitched high and slow over the plate by a friendly newsman. Both of them knew this was an unsubtle reference to Michael Moore's agitprop.
What Kerry should have said was that the question is ridiculous second-guessing, and that the important question at hand is instead "what do we do now?" But he is not such a leader.
And as I came in [to a meeting in Sen. Daschle's office], 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
He says that he went to a meeting sometime between the first plane hitting and the second plane hitting and that shortly after the second plane hit, they sat down and realized nobody could think.
I'm not sure how you get from there to "he and his fellow senators sat there unable to think for the entire time between the two planes hitting", but one thing's for sure: you get an F in reading comprehension.
. . .the time between the plane hitting the second tower and the plane hitting the Pentagon, as actually reading the diary entry would have revealed.
Looks like you're the one with the reading comprehension problems. Maybe Duncan MacClown over at Eschaton or Michael "Lord Pork-Pork" Moore can give you a remedial course--minimal reading skills are important for understanding the latest moonbat talking points.
. . .of Lord Pork-Pork's Kool-Aid, and drinks deeply. Taking the "Bush should have dashed right out of that classroom" argument with the slightest amount of seriousness is a pretty good moonbat litmus test.