OK, first you say I'm insulting you, as seen in this post:
"TWICE in one post? I must be setting a record
if I can cause you to insult me twice in one post."
Now you're saying that I wasn't insulting you.
"Mike, I did not believe YOU were the one insulting me "twice in one post"."
Who, then, do you think was insulting you? Lamont Cranston, or his secret identity, The Shadow?
I'm not the one who needs to slow down. I know what you wrote, and I'm also apparently the only person who understands it.
In any event, you still don't get it, do you?
I've shown, repeatedly, how your accusations about Bush's actions on 9/11 simply don't hold water.
You can't point to a single, not ONE, thing that Bush did or did not do that supports your initial claim that Bush is responsible for the loss of 3,000 lives on September 11.
You continue to harp on what you THINK he should have done, based on exactly what, I can't really say.
You THINK he should have immediately adjourned from the meeting at the school.
Again, I ask, to what purpose? Yes, Bush is CIC of the military. That does not mean that he immediately assumes operational command of defensive/offensive postures.
You claim that he should have "been on top of the situation."
In fact, you can't say conclusively if he was or was not, or even if it would have made a difference.
A lot of people, not just you, like to point this out as some great failing of Bush's leadership, when in fact you can't point to a positive cause/effect relationship.
The main problem is your perception of how you think you would have acted, as compared to how you perceive the president acted, are at odds.
Once again, though, you can't point to any factual evidence of any kind to support your perception.
Using your tortured logic, answer this...
Given that the United States has been in ongoing military conflict for almost 4 years now, do you daily castigate the President for having gone to sleep the night before?
After all, according to your criteria, those hours sleeping are hours when he's not keeping up on the situation.
How about when he's dealing with other duties required of the office? He's not maintaining full situtional awareness of military operations at all times, so he must be negligent in your world, right?
Now we go back to this...
"National security demanded that he immediately end his visit and get a FULL update on the situation. His delay caused the deaths of a lot of people in the Pentagon because he did not react fast enough to scramble ARMED military aircraft into the air after the first plane hit the WTC."
As I've already explained, and which you apparently failed to read, it was not the President's duty to order armed aircraft into the air.
National air defense is automatic -- that is NORAD's duty. As I've noted in previous messages, NORAD had fighter jets moving towards takeoff within minutes of a hijacking being confirmed, very likely before word even reached the Presidents military security advisors, who would be the ones to tell him NORAD had activated the national air defense.
Now you claim this...
"The record of the events that played out showed that the Military has no aircraft in the vicinity except one UNARMED reconnisance plane yet there were several military airfields with armed aircraft within striking distance of the Pentagon aircraft prior to the crash. This was 20 minutes or so after the WTC crash. Yet GWB sat in the classroom and did nothing."
Once again,
IT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT'S DUTY TO ORDER STRIKE AIRCRAFT INTO THE AIR. THAT IS NORAD'S RESPONSIBILITY.
TRY to wrap your head around this FACT set:
The Federal Aviation Adminstration is responsible for tracking commercial aircraft in flight, NOT the President.
The FAA is responsible for informing NORAD that a hijacking is in progress, NOT the President.
NORAD is responsible for scrambling interceptors into the air, NOT the President.
NORAD and the FAA together are responsible for attempting to locate, track, and vector in those interceptors, NOT the President.
You keep coming back to this moronic, childish claim that somehow George Bush is responsible for thousands of American deaths because NORAD and the FAA were unable to determine exactly which aircraft had been hijacked and exactly where those aircraft were after the hijackers turned off their transponders, stopped responding to radio calls, and veered from their planned flight paths.
The President is an elected official, deemed by the Constitution, among many other duties, to be the Commander in Chief.
What the Constitution does not say, though, is that the President is responsible for front line military defense of the homeland.
The Constitution and associated US Code provide that the military handle those responsibilites on a practical and daily basis.
"Which is what I stated already. Nice to see that you agree with me. Since we agree, how is that I am the one who cannot see or state the facts?"
OK, here we go again.
In your first post, you stated as a fact that Bush caused the deaths of thousans of people on September 11. That's not a fact, it's a lie. Why is it a lie? Because when presented with actual facts refuting your claim, you refuse to back away from it. That's why it's a lie.
You claim that the President didn't scramble armed military aircraft to intercept the plane bound for the Pentagon. As I've pointed out, that's NORAD's duty, so your "fact," having been repeated several times now, has become a lie.
Those are your two big lies that have no basis in fact.
You've made a whole series of serious allegations that are patently and demonstratably false based on factual evidence that is available to anyone who chooses to read it.
That you keep repeating these allegations over and over after being presented with refutation heightens them to the category of lies.
You've used your own person perceptions as correlative "evidence," with no capacity for understanding how they're not applicable.
And you're not even tracking with your own posts, as seen by the first few lines of this one.
I'm simply aghast. It's like looking at the conversational equivilent of a fatal car wreck.
