I saw the video that he was reading to a young class and an advisor interrupted him, saying there has been an attack on the first Twin Tower -- he didn't move. When his advisor had informed him of the second plane attacking the other Tower, he also didn't budge as if he didn't here anything...
2007-10-05 11:58:26 · 23 answers · asked by SUPERman 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I don't think it was immediately known that it was an "attack." The advisor probably told him that a plane hit the WTC. There have been other plane crashes in US history. Once the second plane hit, it became more obvious that it really was an attack. However, I don't think racing out of the room would have done anything to help the situation. Either he would have been in a classroom in Florida, or he would have been sitting in his car in the motorcade in Florida driving back to the airport and Air Force One. Either way he would have been blamed for not doing anything.
2007-10-05 12:11:00 · answer #1 · answered by Michelle M 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The first plane crash could have been an accident. After the second one, we knew it was an attack. Do you honestly believe the Secret Service would allow the President of the USA to just take off knowing we are under attack? You don't think they were first assessing the situation and making a plan on how to keep him safe? Use your brain.
2007-10-05 19:22:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
man, i just saw this video about the attacks, but i dont remember alot of it. I really dislike Bush, but you have to understand that he was talking to a class of 6 years olds, and he didnt want to scare them, even if he didnt say "sorry kids i have to go the nation is under attack", leaving suddenly might scare a bunch of little kids with wild imaginations. plus i heard somwhere that the FBI didnt have all of the information at the time
2007-10-05 19:21:19 · answer #3 · answered by la di da di da 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well that was actually the right thing to do because we did not know what was going on at that time so he had to stay in the same place because we still had to asses the situation.
2007-10-05 21:41:34 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Smith 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Listen, I'm no fan of the President's work, but even I think that's a poor interpretation of the evidence. Would you prefer him to scare the crap out of a classful of small children, before all the facts were in?
2007-10-05 19:08:01 · answer #5 · answered by Beardog 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
He had to remain calm and in charge. You wanted him to rant and rave like that stupid azz Kerry would have? Or have a triple drink like Kennedy would have.
2007-10-05 23:59:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Seriously read the website below and seriously consider what is going on in our country....
2007-10-05 19:45:03 · answer #7 · answered by HowFuzzyWuzee 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
And if he had jumped up and rushed out out of the room you would have said that he lost control and did not remain calm like a president should and he frightened the little children.
2007-10-05 19:08:20 · answer #8 · answered by hdean45 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I think he was in shock, and had no idea what to do. To panic would have been a bad idea and could have caused a lot more worry than sitting still and thinking about it. I do think he sat for too long, and should have politely excused himself immediately.
2007-10-05 19:06:56 · answer #9 · answered by smartsassysabrina 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The fact is Bush is a puppet president who has to be told what to do. Before he became president, he couldn't have pointed to Iraq on a globe. He had no idea who al Qaida or Osama bin Laden were. He was installed in the White House specifically to carry out certain assignments for the right wing of the Republican Party, and he's done excellent work for them.
2007-10-05 19:08:23 · answer #10 · answered by unclemax0 3 · 3⤊ 6⤋