Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Who needs Bush ?

  1. May 13, 2005 #1
    Last edited: May 13, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. May 13, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Given that your link doesn't work, would you like to give us a brief synopsis of this press conference and maybe tell us who you think needs Bush?
  4. May 13, 2005 #3
    here we go guys, enjoy.
  5. May 13, 2005 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    C'mon, stoned, what was lesson #1 of the tactical situation on 9/11? (answer: you don't have time to make decisions by committee - every reaction must be pre-programmed.)

    I'm not seeing a problem.

    edit: lemme explain more:

    The situation is that there is a small plane bearing down on Washington. Who do you call first, the President, or the CO of Andrews AFB? The President doesn't have any fighter planes, the CO of Andrews AFB does. What is Bush going to do, point at the plane to shoot it down? And since he's already given his approval to the response plan, you don't even have to ask him what to do - the order has already been given. That's what's called a "standing order".

    Pre-programmed responses are something the public and the media have never understood about the military because very few people (outside emergency service personnel) ever have to deal with real crisis situations. Simply put, stoned, when a crisis hits, you don't have time to think: you have to do all the thinking before the crisis and decide what to do ahead of time. Telling the President doesn't help deal with the crisis, so it is secondary to anything that helps deal with the crisis.

    edit2: After reading the report, I have to wonder who these reporters were. Do they have any experience with politics? They display an astounding level of ignorance - even for reporters - of how to deal with a crisis situation. Then again, I've never been real impressed with the insightfulness of Whitehouse reporters.

    edit3: One thing that apparently was revealed that really shouldn't have been (McClellan should have slapped the reporters a little harder):
    Well, it may be classified, but McClellan just told the press corps that Presidential authority is not required to shoot down a plane over Washington.

    edit4: Idiots. I'm just shaking my head here at the sheer idiocy of the questions, especially toward the end. Unbelievable. Haven't these people ever even taken part in a fire drill?
    Last edited: May 13, 2005
  6. May 13, 2005 #5
    so...you sayin Bush is a puppet ? not commander in chef ?
  7. May 14, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A commander in chief orders wars and large military action and does mass orders to our defensive capabilities, it doesnt make decisons on every little (and i mean in this case, very little) thing that flies in or around the white house. Its like a high-speed chase near a police commissioners house. You dont immediately call the police commissioner and ask what should be done, you get whoevers closest and tell them to blow up teh car or pull it over... whichever is cooler... preferably blow it up if Real Stories of the Highway Patrol was still on the air... that was a cool show.
  8. May 14, 2005 #7
    Actually, this falls under congresses jurisdiction. Congress has the power to make war not the president. Congress pays for any actions the president proposes.

    If the commissioners wife is spirited away and the entire city hall is evacuated then yes the commissioner gets a call.

    This situation is indefensible IMHO. The president didn't want to be disturbed (he did have SS there with the little ear buds I'm sure) for something as minor as a possible attack on DC. You can't defend this!!! The president has little men with radios around him at all times. The fact that he has made it clear that he is not needed and not to be bothered for something as trivial as an attack is simply disgusting. The captain of the boat I was on would have taken 1/2 months pay and a strip for far far less. I saw it happen. I saw a young man get RIR because he let someone onboard without authorization. This was years before 911 BTW, and here we have a situation where the capital was under attack(for all intensive purposes it was until the situation had been fully evaluated by a pair of F-16's) and our Child in Chief was out riding his bike. Do not bother the kid, he's popping wheelies.

    This is an indefensible thing and it's sad there are people so doe eyed for Bush that they will attempt to do just that. Sad sad day.
    Last edited: May 14, 2005
  9. May 14, 2005 #8
    Where did this lesson come into play. IIRC The president did nothing on 911 as well. Remember the little goat who could and the classroom full of kids?

    No, it wasn't a small plane. I was a potnetial attack until it was evaluated. I wonder just how long it would have taken to tell a real president that DC was under attack.

    The rest of your rant is irrelevent because this situation illustartes just how in touch the president actually is. He's a figure head---nothing more. A stupid smirk and some chopped up Tex-ar-connecticuit phrases to woo the masses.

    So, your remaining points can be summed up with a single question: "When should the president be informed of an attack on Washington DC?"
  10. May 14, 2005 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. I explained it in the last post. Please reread, paying particular attention to the concept of a "pre-programmed response" (what in the article is just called a "protocol")
    That is not what happened at all. Not even close.
    And that's exactly the point: there was nothing for him to do!
    I'm assuming the plane's transponder was on, but even if it wasn't, its impossible to mistake a small plane for a big one on radar. I suspect that from the instant the pre-programmed responses were activated, they knew the threat posed was extremely low.
    Answer: after all preprogrammed responses have been activated and the real threat level determined. If the threat was high, inform him immediately after. If the threat was low, informing him quickly is not important. Regardless, for 9/11 there weren't any pre-programmed responses. Ironically, that makes informing him about 9/11 even more useless than informing him about this non-attack.
    Last edited: May 14, 2005
  11. May 14, 2005 #10
    There must have been plenty of people on hand who could have notified GWB during the possible threat. He couldn't have done anything, but he certainly would have liked to know.
  12. May 14, 2005 #11
    Small plane full of chemicals is as deadly as a large plane wouldn't you agree? Your response is a lame attempt to justify your figure head president BTW. The president has men with radios around him at all times. If the country is under attack (real or false alarm) the president should be told immediatly. End of story. The possability of an attack is more pressing than an afternoon bike ride don't you think? It doesn't matter if he could do anything or not. He's the man in charge of the military. He should be told. This situation is a poingnent reminder of just how useless Bush-o really is. So, russ when do YOU want the president informed of an attack? Remember, he's not visiting with dignitaries or school children here---he was on a schwinn.
    Last edited: May 14, 2005
  13. May 14, 2005 #12
    faust9, leave russ_waters alone he knows better ! :wink:
    of course i agree with you faust9 but there is one possibility. you know that bush is mentally disturbed individual and he has suitcase with codes to launch ICBM's, so I guess they just left chimp alone, and let him play on his bicycle.otherwise WW3.
  14. May 14, 2005 #13
  15. May 14, 2005 #14
    Well, you know, I hate seeing a bicycle take the rap here. But anyway:

    Bush should have known, just for personal reasons. It's his house, after all, and it's his wife. He couldn't do anything to help handle the situation, but as a person he would have wanted to know as soon as possible.

    Since he wasn't told, you have to ask, why not?

    1. The president simply could not be contacted. The guys around him "forgot" their radios that day. (Yeah, right)
    2. In all the staff at and around the White House, there was nobody who had the ability to call the president who didn't have something better to do. (Not likely!)
    3. Of all the guys who could have called GWB and let him know what was going on, each thought that one of the others had done it. (Maybe, but pretty funny if true!)
    4. They all just forgot. (Ha!)
    5. The people who could have called him were worried he would overreact and give orders interfering with the procedures in place, something along the lines of what Stoned was saying. It wouldn't look good for the administration if GWB called in ten air squadrons, late, after one runaway plane that was already handled by the time the squadrons got there. Maybe. Cynical, but maybe.

    Now, all this leaves one important point unmentioned. Namely, GWB's wife! She was evacuated to a secure location in response to a possible threat. She certainly would have wanted to call her husband, and she wouldn't have cared if other people had or had not called before she did. Someone prevented her from calling GWB. Why? Did they figure that GWB already knew and was too busy for his wife? Or did she just not have the equipment to call? How much equipment do you need to call the president if you're the president's wife?

    Anyway, someone or some group of people clearly slipped up. It wasn't a major slipup, and it had no consequences, but to reiterate, GWB definitely would have wanted to know, just as a person, what was happening to the capital and to his wife. So how come McClellan stonewalled rather than admit that relatively minor blunder? People who can't admit there was some mistake, when there clearly was some mistake, should be fired. Does he think the US people are so dumb that they couldn't put 2 and 2 together and figure out that GWB would have wanted to be informed at the time it happened, regardless of the procedures in place? Are the US people that dumb? Why did he try to fool them into thinking there was no slipup at all?

    Personally, it strikes me as an exercise in very cynical psychology, in the with-holding of truth, even relatively unimportant truth, for political reasons.
  16. May 14, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Russ, what would you do, if you were President ? Kindly excuse the hypothetical, just this once...and I'm asking you to make your best guess, that's all.

    Alternatively, if you were the Chief of Staff, what might you advise the President to do, under the circs ?

    Is it not possible that the President's 10 minutes (or thereabouts) of inaction might risk introducing even a minute worth of delay in reaction time.
  17. May 14, 2005 #16

    LOL stoned? your asking who needs bush? The American people need thier president! maybe you should stop smokin that ****, and actually listen to what is going on in the world, instead of dissing the president about his chimp, and bikes. This is coming from a democrate's view point. If you want to say somthing worth while, bring some hard core facts.
  18. May 14, 2005 #17
    Into the Firepit...

    Although I don't want to interject... I hate to put 2 cents in here.

    Bush is not representative of the US population, realize that IF 100% of the population voted, the turn-out could have and probably would have been a lot different. The one thing republicans in general have going for them is a high voter turn-out.

    Even though I think he is one of the most ignorant people alive (who says I don't speak Mexican?), as a leader - I probably would prepare people who I felt were responsible with some orders explicitly stating what to do in case XYZ happens.

    BUT, I would still want to know afterwards if something went wrong.

    From the White House PR peoples point of view though: What would he have said if someone thrust a microphone in front of his mouth right afterwards if he had known???

    When I see him on TV, I just hope other countries don't think that's what all Americans think.

    - Vanes.
  19. May 14, 2005 #18
    I'm So Sorry Mr President :redface: :wink:

    Attached Files:

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?