Senator Kerry Sat Frozen: Unable to Think for 40 Minutes on 9/11

The following are transcripts from Larry King aired July 8th. Now Senator fish on a hot boat deck is claiming "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, nicely, that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it."

Oh that's just super. Now let's compare that to what Kerry actually did or claimed he did.

KING: Where were you on 9/11?

HEINZ KERRY: You know, it's very interesting. I landed at National Airport less than 12 hours before, coming from Pennsylvania, where I was doing a prescription drugs thing -- meeting. And I came in from Pittsburgh, landed at National, and that's the last time I landed at National for quite a while.

KING: How'd you hear about it?

HEINZ KERRY: I was at home in Washington. I had just come in and I got a call...

KERRY: I think I called.

HEINZ KERRY: And they said, look at the TV. I looked at the TV and I couldn't believe it.

KING: Where were you?

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.

Click to expand...

CNN Transcript of Larry King interview with John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry July 8, 2004.

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning.

So here John Kerry is watching TV.

9:43 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately.

So for 40 minutes, I want to restate that for the record. For forty minutes John Kery sat stunned, unable to think and the only thing that got his attention was the smoking Pentagon across the Potomac river. Meanwhile President Bush is accused of not knowing what to do for 7 minutes in a classroom. Meanwhile, John Kerry is stunned.... unable to think.

13 minutes before the Pentagon was struck, while John Kerry was stunned, unable to think George Bush was addressing the nation saying we had suffered an "apparent terrorist attack" while John Kerry and the rest of the Democratic leadership, the same leadership that now criticizes George Bush for 7 minutes of inaction sat.... unable to think.

Wow, what a double standard the Farenheit 9/11 crowd has huh?

CNN 9/11 Timeline

John Kerry wasn't president at the time so whats your point?

I think the overall point of this is that we were ALL shocked when we found out about this. The president, no matter who it is, is still just your average human being who puts their pants on one leg at a time.

What good would an extra 7 minutes have done anyway, all the same people would have unfortunetly died. Besides this is a great example of how bureacracy can actually be a good thing, other people than the president can start plans in motion.

Both sides of this arguement are just an attempt to take personal shots at both presidents. Just because a person is taken aback by something that no one could ever imagine does not diminish their ability as a leader. That's the main reason I consider this a non-issue for both candidates.

Kerry could sit back for 40 minutes and do nothing because he wasn't needed for anything, I will give you that Thunderscope. However, you have to look at it from the other side also, the president does not and can not direct every single person that works underneath him, it simply wouldn't make sense. This is why even if he had jumped up 7 minutes earlier and ran out of the room, nothing would have been very different.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']I think the overall point of this is that we were ALL shocked when we found out about this. The president, no matter who it is, is still just your average human being who puts their pants on one leg at a time.

What good would an extra 7 minutes have done anyway, all the same people would have unfortunetly died. Besides this is a great example of how bureacracy can actually be a good thing, other people than the president can start plans in motion.

Both sides of this arguement are just an attempt to take personal shots at both presidents. Just because a person is taken aback by something that no one could ever imagine does not diminish their ability as a leader. That's the main reason I consider this a non-issue for both candidates.

Kerry could sit back for 40 minutes and do nothing because he wasn't needed for anything, I will give you that Thunderscope. However, you have to look at it from the other side also, the president does not and can not direct every single person that works underneath him, it simply wouldn't make sense. This is why even if he had jumped up 7 minutes earlier and ran out of the room, nothing would have been very different.[/quote]

I disagree. The reason that VP Cheney had to illegally give the order to shoot planes down that threatened Washington airspace was because President Bush was AWOL. The chain of command was in turmoil that day, and it's because Bush had not taken charge. You can get a lot done in seven minutes, particularly when the safety of the nation is at stake.

Now this is the first part I've taken in the political forums, but here goes.

I hate Bush. I hope Kerry wins (if I could vote I would). But I have to say in regards to 9/11 and the few days that followed, Bush handled the situation very well. In fact, I'd say he did a great job then.

The problems I have are more what is happening now. First we were after Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. Then next thing I know, were in Iraq and after Hussein.

Nowadays, its like Osama bin Who? Its like bush has ADD, he can't concentrate on getting the job done in one area before moving on to the next. Now we'll be stuck in Iraq for quite some time (even if Kerry is electd, we just can't pull out, it would destabilize)

That's just my two cents.

I agree RedvsBlue. And if Bush had jumped up and bolted out of the classroom, Moore would probably be criticizing him for looking too excited to go to war...[/quote]

I don't think anyone is suggesting Bush should have bolted out of the room. Merely calmly explain that a matter has come up he must attend to and politely excuse himself.

I hate Bush.
This is one thing I don't understand. You mean to tell me that you actually hate him? Why? Hatred is a powerful thing, and I think people throw around the word "hate" far to much. Save for the murder, rape or maiming of my loved ones, I doubt there is much anyone could do to make me "hate" them.

I hope Kerry wins (if I could vote I would).

I've never understood the "vote for the other guy because he can't be any worse" mindset.

[quote name='guardian_owl']I don't think anyone is suggesting Bush should have bolted out of the room. Merely calmly explain that a matter has come up he must attend to and politely excuse himself.[/quote]

I wonder how the WWII presidents would be regarded if the media were as quick and pervasive as they are now.

[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='guardian_owl']I don't think anyone is suggesting Bush should have bolted out of the room. Merely calmly explain that a matter has come up he must attend to and politely excuse himself.[/quote]

I wonder how the WWII presidents would be regarded if the media were as quick and pervasive as they are now.[/quote]

Yeah I've often wondered this myself. After 911 there were quite a few people saying we were to blame and it was all of our fault that the terrorists were forced to do this blah blah blah. Its not our fault that these religious extremists hate anything having to do with christianity and the west (if its just America then why did Al Qaeda hit christian churces in Iraq that were filled with Iraqis?). I wonder if they would have said Pearl Harbor was our fault also?

The same people today that claim that (9/11 being our fault.) would have said Pearl Harbor was our fault as well because of our oil and scrap metal/steel embargoes against Japan. That's what precipitated the attack on Pearl Harbor. We cut them off from natural materials and they went and invaded the Dutch East Indies for oil and needed our navy incapacitated to continue their conquests in the Pacific.

Of course Pearl Harbor was the biggest strategic mistake of all time and it was also a tactical failure for Japan. The Hornet, Lexington and Enterprise were all out of Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41. If they hadn't been the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway would have been Japanese victories.

In the same regards 9/11 will turn out to be a historical mistake for militant Islam.

i believe Bush handled 9/11 very well, and like any person in his position at the time, he was probably in the state of shock when he first received the news.

When they came in the room and whispered to him "some airplanes were hijacked and crashed into the world trade center and the pentagon", he obviously would be a little shocked, and wouldnt instantly think "tell them to shoot down all planes off course.''

I think this quote from The Memory Hole nicely sums up the possibilites

Bush was appearing in public at a previously announced photo-op. He was a sitting duck. The attacks were ongoing at that point (planes had yet to hit the Pentagon or the field in Pennsylvania), and nobody knew how much more destruction was going to happen. Were there two, three, four, eight more planes hijacked and on their way to crash into prominent buildings? Was one headed for the school, where anyone who checked the President's public itinerary would know he was located? Were other terrorists planning to detonate dirty nukes? Were they going to release anthrax or smallpox or sarin? Was an assassination squad going to burst into the school and get Bush? Was a suicide bomber going to ram a truck full of explosives into that classroom? During the midst of the attacks, any of these things could've happened

Click to expand...

And this is precisely what his Chief of Staff states he told Bush in that classroom: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."

[quote name='RedvsBlue']I think the overall point of this is that we were ALL shocked when we found out about this. The president, no matter who it is, is still just your average human being who puts their pants on one leg at a time.

What good would an extra 7 minutes have done anyway, all the same people would have unfortunetly died. Besides this is a great example of how bureacracy can actually be a good thing, other people than the president can start plans in motion.

Both sides of this arguement are just an attempt to take personal shots at both presidents. Just because a person is taken aback by something that no one could ever imagine does not diminish their ability as a leader. That's the main reason I consider this a non-issue for both candidates.

Kerry could sit back for 40 minutes and do nothing because he wasn't needed for anything, I will give you that Thunderscope. However, you have to look at it from the other side also, the president does not and can not direct every single person that works underneath him, it simply wouldn't make sense. This is why even if he had jumped up 7 minutes earlier and ran out of the room, nothing would have been very different.[/quote]

The point is that he should not have been in the classroom. This was 7 minutes after the SECOND plane hit. He was told about the first one BEFORE he went into the classroom. Now look at what Bush knew. He knew that Al-Queda was determined to strike at the US from the August memo. He also knew that AL-queda could use planes as weapons, since this was threatened at the G8 meeting he attended in France, so the French had placed anti-aircraft batteries around the meeting to prevent it. If you are president, and an airliner is flown into a tower, maybe you should do your job and at the very least assess the situation before you ATTEND A PHOTO-OP.

Notice how not one rebuttal to this post has expressed any doubt about John Kerry freely admitting he had no idea what to think? Not one.

It all stems back to Bush. No one will even address John Kerry's fitness to handle a situation in a national crisis and emergency. Sorry, but Senator qualifies you to have some semblance of common sense in an attack. You don't sit in the middle of a target, unable to think , and expect people not to question your judgement do you?

Yet the candidate for the highest office in the land was unable, by his own words, able to come up with anything reasonable to do despite sitting in a high priority terrorist target. He didn't even have the good sense to get the shaq'fu out of the building did he? Nope. He sat there, unable to think, until the Secret Service announced they were evacuating the White House and finally someone came and told Senator Flip Flop "Hey bud, time to go.".

So John Kerry, by his own words, didn't have the good sense to save his own hide.... yet we're supposed to think he's good enough to save the rest of us? That's just super.

PAD, I'm not sure if you know this, but Kerry wasn't the President on 9/11. He can't call up the Joint Chiefs, the NSA, CIA and FBI and start coordinating a plan like Bush could have done.

Republicans are getting desperate when they blame Kerry for the same things that Bush did.

[quote name='MrBadExample']PAD, I'm not sure if you know this, but Kerry wasn't the President on 9/11. He can't call up the Joint Chiefs, the NSA, CIA and FBI and start coordinating a plan like Bush could have done.

Republicans are getting desperate when they blame Kerry for the same things that Bush did.[/quote]

Can I blame Clinton for doing nothing for 8 years?

And Democrats are splitting hairs if they fail to see the correlation between suggesting Bush sat for 7 minutes while the Democratic leadership did nothing.

Why would you blame Clinton for doing nothing for 8 years, when he did far more than Bush did?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Notice how not one rebuttal to this post has expressed any doubt about John Kerry freely admitting he had no idea what to think? Not one.

It all stems back to Bush. No one will even address John Kerry's fitness to handle a situation in a national crisis and emergency. Sorry, but Senator qualifies you to have some semblance of common sense in an attack. You don't sit in the middle of a target, unable to think , and expect people not to question your judgement do you?

Yet the candidate for the highest office in the land was unable, by his own words, able to come up with anything reasonable to do despite sitting in a high priority terrorist target. He didn't even have the good sense to get the shaq'fu out of the building did he? Nope. He sat there, unable to think, until the Secret Service announced they were evacuating the White House and finally someone came and told Senator Flip Flop "Hey bud, time to go.".

So John Kerry, by his own words, didn't have the good sense to save his own hide.... yet we're supposed to think he's good enough to save the rest of us? That's just super.[/quote]

PAD, you are nothing but a shill, especially with name-calling like Senator Flip Flop. Kerry has not flip-flopped on postions, meanwhile Bush has flip flopped since the 2000 campaign. I think it's funny how you quickly spit out the RNC spin points, but when they are proven wrong and innacurrate, you
are nowhere to be heard from.

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample']PAD, I'm not sure if you know this, but Kerry wasn't the President on 9/11. He can't call up the Joint Chiefs, the NSA, CIA and FBI and start coordinating a plan like Bush could have done.

Republicans are getting desperate when they blame Kerry for the same things that Bush did.[/quote]

Can I blame Clinton for doing nothing for 8 years?

And Democrats are splitting hairs if they fail to see the correlation between suggesting Bush sat for 7 minutes while the Democratic leadership did nothing.[/quote]

The 9/11 Commission lists 10 specific points at which the attacks could have been prevented. Four happened during Clinton's 8 years in office; six happened during Bush's 8 MONTHS in office.

Bush didn't take terrorism seriously, and pooh-poohed the advisors trying to tell him of the looming threat. Face it, Repubs, your man screwed up and now is trying to spin that straw into electoral gold. Why don't you stop pointing fingers elsewhere and start considering Bush's actual accomplishments in the War on Terror, which are few and negligible?

After the first plane hit jets were scrambled and they neeeded an executive order before attacking planes that refused to land.

The pilots are not allowed to attack civilian targets without authorization. At best the Pentagon would not have been hit.

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample']PAD, I'm not sure if you know this, but Kerry wasn't the President on 9/11. He can't call up the Joint Chiefs, the NSA, CIA and FBI and start coordinating a plan like Bush could have done.

Republicans are getting desperate when they blame Kerry for the same things that Bush did.[/quote]

Can I blame Clinton for doing nothing for 8 years?

And Democrats are splitting hairs if they fail to see the correlation between suggesting Bush sat for 7 minutes while the Democratic leadership did nothing.[/quote]

The 9/11 Commission lists 10 specific points at which the attacks could have been prevented. Four happened during Clinton's 8 years in office; six happened during Bush's 8 MONTHS in office.

Bush didn't take terrorism seriously, and pooh-poohed the advisors trying to tell him of the looming threat. Face it, Repubs, your man screwed up and now is trying to spin that straw into electoral gold. Why don't you stop pointing fingers elsewhere and start considering Bush's actual accomplishments in the War on Terror, which are few and negligible?[/quote]

I need only point to the opportunities Clinton had to kill Bin Laden and instead opted to try to arrest him and as such failed by taking no action.

Apparently you view a cruise missle strike on an asprin facility in the Sudan as more valuable than taking out Afghanistan?

Any other rhetoric you would care to spew?

CTL

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample']PAD, I'm not sure if you know this, but Kerry wasn't the President on 9/11. He can't call up the Joint Chiefs, the NSA, CIA and FBI and start coordinating a plan like Bush could have done.

Republicans are getting desperate when they blame Kerry for the same things that Bush did.[/quote]

Can I blame Clinton for doing nothing for 8 years?

And Democrats are splitting hairs if they fail to see the correlation between suggesting Bush sat for 7 minutes while the Democratic leadership did nothing.[/quote]

The 9/11 Commission lists 10 specific points at which the attacks could have been prevented. Four happened during Clinton's 8 years in office; six happened during Bush's 8 MONTHS in office.

Bush didn't take terrorism seriously, and pooh-poohed the advisors trying to tell him of the looming threat. Face it, Repubs, your man screwed up and now is trying to spin that straw into electoral gold. Why don't you stop pointing fingers elsewhere and start considering Bush's actual accomplishments in the War on Terror, which are few and negligible?[/quote]

I need only point to the opportunities Clinton had to kill Bin Laden and instead opted to try to arrest him and as such failed by taking no action.

Apparently you view a cruise missle strike on an asprin facility in the Sudan as more valuable than taking out Afghanistan?

Any other rhetoric you would care to spew?

CTL[/quote]

Clinton didn't have the support of islamic countries before 9/11. We couldn't just invade afghanistan at that point because Clinton knew where the line was. So he did what he could do. It wasn't until 9/11 happened that we had world-wide sympathy from islamic countries, france, germany, and even castro to go into another country like that. But, as the last 3 years of history have shown, Bush squandered that sympathy foolishly, and thus turned world-wide sympathy into world-wide hatred towards america in just 3 years. Impressive.

Any other rhetoric you would care to spew?

[quote name='E-Z-B']

Clinton didn't have the support of islamic countries before 9/11. We couldn't just invade afghanistan at that point because Clinton knew where the line was. So he did what he could do. It wasn't until 9/11 happened that we had world-wide sympathy from islamic countries, france, germany, and even castro to go into another country like that. But, as the last 3 years of history have shown, Bush squandered that sympathy foolishly, and thus turned world-wide sympathy into world-wide hatred towards america in just 3 years. Impressive.

Any other rhetoric you would care to spew?[/quote]

Oh you really have no idea what you are talking about:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200309/FOR20030904h.html

Clinton Spurned Bin Laden Offer Because He Didn't Want to Work With Sudan, Analyst Says
By Stephen Mbogo
CNSNews.com Correspondent
September 04, 2003

Nairobi, Kenya (CNSNews.com) - Former President Bill Clinton turned down an offer from the Sudanese government to arrest and hand over Osama bin Laden because his administration did not accept that a country regarded as a sponsor of terrorism wanted to change, a leading regional analyst believes.

After the U.S. declined to take the al Qaeda terrorist leader, Sudan sent him to Afghanistan, according to Akasha Alsayeed Akasha, a Sudanese scholar based in Nairobi.

Debate on Clinton's handling of the global terror threat has been rekindled by publication of a book called "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," by investigative reporter Richard Miniter.

It says the Clinton administration turned down offers by Khartoum to share intelligence information on al Qaeda operatives and to arrest bin Laden himself.

The Saudi-born terrorist, whose whereabouts are unknown, has been linked to attacks against Americans starting in 1992, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombing of East African U.S. embassies, up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Commenting on the U.S. reluctance to cooperate with Sudan in the counter-terror field, Akasha told CNSNews.com that the Clinton administration had underestimated Khartoum's determination to end relations with terrorist networks around the world.

An example of its willingness to do so, he said, was seen in Sudan's decision to hand over Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the fugitive terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal" to the French authorities in 1994.

Bin Laden had moved to Sudan after Saudi Arabia expelled him in 1991.

After Washington turned down the bin Laden offer in 1996, Sudan reportedly favored sending him to Saudi Arabia, but Riyadh refused to accept him, fearing he may overthrow the government, Akasha said.

"It is at this point that Sudan decided to send Osama to Afghanistan," Akasha said.

Akasha said the Taliban, the fundamentalist militia then ruling most of Afghanistan, had been very happy to accept bin Laden.

They needed bin Laden both for his financial resources and his "organizational" skills.

The Taliban was overthrown by U.S.-led military campaign launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. Bin Laden disappeared and remains unaccounted for.

Akasha believes the shift in policy towards Sudan and Africa in general that accompanied the arrival of the Bush administration, was shaped, in part, by a U.S. realization of the grave mistake of having spurned the Sudanese offer.

While Clinton's foreign policy toward Sudan could be termed as all "stick," the Bush administration had adopted a "carrot and stick" approach, Akasha said.

"Clinton wanted to bring down the Arab regime in Sudan, but Bush is interested in a constructive engagement," Akasha said.

According to the Texas-based intelligence analysis group, Strafor, Bush's interest in Africa has been heightened by the fact that "Africa has become a significant battleground between U.S. forces and al Qaeda."

"African states, seeing this expanded U.S. interest, are eager to establish cooperation with Washington. The result is a renegotiation of Africa's geopolitical significance to the U.S. and the rest of the world," Strafor says.

(CNSNews Pacific Rim Bureau Chief Patrick Goodenough contributed to this report.)

******

And with respect to Afghanistan you miss the point. Bush did what he could when the opportunity presented itself. Clinton did not.

Its an analogy, not "why didn't Clinton invade Afghanistan"?

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='E-Z-B']

Clinton didn't have the support of islamic countries before 9/11. We couldn't just invade afghanistan at that point because Clinton knew where the line was. So he did what he could do. It wasn't until 9/11 happened that we had world-wide sympathy from islamic countries, france, germany, and even castro to go into another country like that. But, as the last 3 years of history have shown, Bush squandered that sympathy foolishly, and thus turned world-wide sympathy into world-wide hatred towards america in just 3 years. Impressive.

Any other rhetoric you would care to spew?[/quote]

Oh you really have no idea what you are talking about:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200309/FOR20030904h.html

Clinton Spurned Bin Laden Offer Because He Didn't Want to Work With Sudan, Analyst Says
By Stephen Mbogo
CNSNews.com Correspondent
September 04, 2003

Nairobi, Kenya (CNSNews.com) - Former President Bill Clinton turned down an offer from the Sudanese government to arrest and hand over Osama bin Laden because his administration did not accept that a country regarded as a sponsor of terrorism wanted to change, a leading regional analyst believes.

After the U.S. declined to take the al Qaeda terrorist leader, Sudan sent him to Afghanistan, according to Akasha Alsayeed Akasha, a Sudanese scholar based in Nairobi.

Debate on Clinton's handling of the global terror threat has been rekindled by publication of a book called "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," by investigative reporter Richard Miniter.

It says the Clinton administration turned down offers by Khartoum to share intelligence information on al Qaeda operatives and to arrest bin Laden himself.

The Saudi-born terrorist, whose whereabouts are unknown, has been linked to attacks against Americans starting in 1992, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombing of East African U.S. embassies, up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Commenting on the U.S. reluctance to cooperate with Sudan in the counter-terror field, Akasha told CNSNews.com that the Clinton administration had underestimated Khartoum's determination to end relations with terrorist networks around the world.

An example of its willingness to do so, he said, was seen in Sudan's decision to hand over Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the fugitive terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal" to the French authorities in 1994.

Bin Laden had moved to Sudan after Saudi Arabia expelled him in 1991.

After Washington turned down the bin Laden offer in 1996, Sudan reportedly favored sending him to Saudi Arabia, but Riyadh refused to accept him, fearing he may overthrow the government, Akasha said.

"It is at this point that Sudan decided to send Osama to Afghanistan," Akasha said.

Akasha said the Taliban, the fundamentalist militia then ruling most of Afghanistan, had been very happy to accept bin Laden.

They needed bin Laden both for his financial resources and his "organizational" skills.

The Taliban was overthrown by U.S.-led military campaign launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. Bin Laden disappeared and remains unaccounted for.

Akasha believes the shift in policy towards Sudan and Africa in general that accompanied the arrival of the Bush administration, was shaped, in part, by a U.S. realization of the grave mistake of having spurned the Sudanese offer.

While Clinton's foreign policy toward Sudan could be termed as all "stick," the Bush administration had adopted a "carrot and stick" approach, Akasha said.

"Clinton wanted to bring down the Arab regime in Sudan, but Bush is interested in a constructive engagement," Akasha said.

According to the Texas-based intelligence analysis group, Strafor, Bush's interest in Africa has been heightened by the fact that "Africa has become a significant battleground between U.S. forces and al Qaeda."

"African states, seeing this expanded U.S. interest, are eager to establish cooperation with Washington. The result is a renegotiation of Africa's geopolitical significance to the U.S. and the rest of the world," Strafor says.

(CNSNews Pacific Rim Bureau Chief Patrick Goodenough contributed to this report.)

******

And with respect to Afghanistan you miss the point. Bush did what he could when the opportunity presented itself. Clinton did not.

Its an analogy, not "why didn't Clinton invade Afghanistan"?[/quote]


This was proven untrue in the 9/11 commision report.

You guys are pathetic. Both the republicans and democrats are screwed up. It's all about what kind of screwed up you can personally tolerate.

Besides, I don't think the question we are looking at here is what would Kerry have done on 9/11, but what would Gore have done? If you think bush looked dumbfounded, Gore's head probably would have exploded.

[quote name='jer7583']You guys are pathetic. Both the republicans and democrats are screwed up. It's all about what kind of screwed up you can personally tolerate.

Besides, I don't think the question we are looking at here is what would Kerry have done on 9/11, but what would Gore have done? If you think bush looked dumbfounded, Gore's head probably would have exploded.[/quote]

How about Gore would have cancelled his vacation after he got the August warning? Gore did chair a commision on how to make airlines safer against terrorism, which included such suggestions as being able to bar the cockpit from the rest of the plane, but was shot down from the airline industries as being to expensive to implement

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='E-Z-B']

Clinton didn't have the support of islamic countries before 9/11. We couldn't just invade afghanistan at that point because Clinton knew where the line was. So he did what he could do. It wasn't until 9/11 happened that we had world-wide sympathy from islamic countries, france, germany, and even castro to go into another country like that. But, as the last 3 years of history have shown, Bush squandered that sympathy foolishly, and thus turned world-wide sympathy into world-wide hatred towards america in just 3 years. Impressive.

Any other rhetoric you would care to spew?[/quote]

Oh you really have no idea what you are talking about:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200309/FOR20030904h.html

Clinton Spurned Bin Laden Offer Because He Didn't Want to Work With Sudan, Analyst Says
By Stephen Mbogo
CNSNews.com Correspondent
September 04, 2003

Nairobi, Kenya (CNSNews.com) - Former President Bill Clinton turned down an offer from the Sudanese government to arrest and hand over Osama bin Laden because his administration did not accept that a country regarded as a sponsor of terrorism wanted to change, a leading regional analyst believes.

After the U.S. declined to take the al Qaeda terrorist leader, Sudan sent him to Afghanistan, according to Akasha Alsayeed Akasha, a Sudanese scholar based in Nairobi.

Debate on Clinton's handling of the global terror threat has been rekindled by publication of a book called "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," by investigative reporter Richard Miniter.

It says the Clinton administration turned down offers by Khartoum to share intelligence information on al Qaeda operatives and to arrest bin Laden himself.

The Saudi-born terrorist, whose whereabouts are unknown, has been linked to attacks against Americans starting in 1992, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombing of East African U.S. embassies, up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Commenting on the U.S. reluctance to cooperate with Sudan in the counter-terror field, Akasha told CNSNews.com that the Clinton administration had underestimated Khartoum's determination to end relations with terrorist networks around the world.

An example of its willingness to do so, he said, was seen in Sudan's decision to hand over Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the fugitive terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal" to the French authorities in 1994.

Bin Laden had moved to Sudan after Saudi Arabia expelled him in 1991.

After Washington turned down the bin Laden offer in 1996, Sudan reportedly favored sending him to Saudi Arabia, but Riyadh refused to accept him, fearing he may overthrow the government, Akasha said.

"It is at this point that Sudan decided to send Osama to Afghanistan," Akasha said.

Akasha said the Taliban, the fundamentalist militia then ruling most of Afghanistan, had been very happy to accept bin Laden.

They needed bin Laden both for his financial resources and his "organizational" skills.

The Taliban was overthrown by U.S.-led military campaign launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. Bin Laden disappeared and remains unaccounted for.

Akasha believes the shift in policy towards Sudan and Africa in general that accompanied the arrival of the Bush administration, was shaped, in part, by a U.S. realization of the grave mistake of having spurned the Sudanese offer.

While Clinton's foreign policy toward Sudan could be termed as all "stick," the Bush administration had adopted a "carrot and stick" approach, Akasha said.

"Clinton wanted to bring down the Arab regime in Sudan, but Bush is interested in a constructive engagement," Akasha said.

According to the Texas-based intelligence analysis group, Strafor, Bush's interest in Africa has been heightened by the fact that "Africa has become a significant battleground between U.S. forces and al Qaeda."

"African states, seeing this expanded U.S. interest, are eager to establish cooperation with Washington. The result is a renegotiation of Africa's geopolitical significance to the U.S. and the rest of the world," Strafor says.

(CNSNews Pacific Rim Bureau Chief Patrick Goodenough contributed to this report.)

******

And with respect to Afghanistan you miss the point. Bush did what he could when the opportunity presented itself. Clinton did not.

Its an analogy, not "why didn't Clinton invade Afghanistan"?[/quote]

You're looking at it with hindsight. When the offer was made, did Clinton know that Bin Laden would attack the Cole? Or the embassies? Or New York? Great that you can see crystal clear now.

And look at the government in the Sudan today. They allowing ethnic cleansing to take place in their own country, with the arabs killing off the blacks. I'm GLAD the U.S. didn't sell their soul to those bastards. But let me guess: Bush would've, right?

Again, the offer was never made.

[quote name='ZarathosNY']Again, the offer was never made.[/quote]

Yeah, I got distracted with work during the middle of my post, and didn't see your post until after I posted.

[quote name='ZarathosNY']Again, the offer was never made.[/quote]

Then you can provide a link?

And yes isn't it fun to bash Bush with hind-sight?

Astounding how you couldn't see the actual point of my post before it smacked you in the face, and even then I had to tell you what it was.

CTL

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20041130/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec4.pdf

It's a pdf, go to the bottom of page 109-110. It says that there is no credible evidence that the offer was ever made,

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='ZarathosNY']Again, the offer was never made.[/quote]

Then you can provide a link?

And yes isn't it fun to bash Bush with hind-sight?

Astounding how you couldn't see the actual point of my post before it smacked you in the face, and even then I had to tell you what it was.

CTL[/quote]

Where in this thread did I say that Bush should've done using hindsight?

Sounds like you're just making up crap again.

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='E-Z-B']

Clinton didn't have the support of islamic countries before 9/11. We couldn't just invade afghanistan at that point because Clinton knew where the line was. So he did what he could do. It wasn't until 9/11 happened that we had world-wide sympathy from islamic countries, france, germany, and even castro to go into another country like that. But, as the last 3 years of history have shown, Bush squandered that sympathy foolishly, and thus turned world-wide sympathy into world-wide hatred towards america in just 3 years. Impressive.

Any other rhetoric you would care to spew?[/quote]

Oh you really have no idea what you are talking about:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200309/FOR20030904h.html

Clinton Spurned Bin Laden Offer Because He Didn't Want to Work With Sudan, Analyst Says
By Stephen Mbogo
CNSNews.com Correspondent
September 04, 2003

Nairobi, Kenya (CNSNews.com) - Former President Bill Clinton turned down an offer from the Sudanese government to arrest and hand over Osama bin Laden because his administration did not accept that a country regarded as a sponsor of terrorism wanted to change, a leading regional analyst believes.

After the U.S. declined to take the al Qaeda terrorist leader, Sudan sent him to Afghanistan, according to Akasha Alsayeed Akasha, a Sudanese scholar based in Nairobi.

Debate on Clinton's handling of the global terror threat has been rekindled by publication of a book called "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," by investigative reporter Richard Miniter.

It says the Clinton administration turned down offers by Khartoum to share intelligence information on al Qaeda operatives and to arrest bin Laden himself.

The Saudi-born terrorist, whose whereabouts are unknown, has been linked to attacks against Americans starting in 1992, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombing of East African U.S. embassies, up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Commenting on the U.S. reluctance to cooperate with Sudan in the counter-terror field, Akasha told CNSNews.com that the Clinton administration had underestimated Khartoum's determination to end relations with terrorist networks around the world.

An example of its willingness to do so, he said, was seen in Sudan's decision to hand over Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the fugitive terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal" to the French authorities in 1994.

Bin Laden had moved to Sudan after Saudi Arabia expelled him in 1991.

After Washington turned down the bin Laden offer in 1996, Sudan reportedly favored sending him to Saudi Arabia, but Riyadh refused to accept him, fearing he may overthrow the government, Akasha said.

"It is at this point that Sudan decided to send Osama to Afghanistan," Akasha said.

Akasha said the Taliban, the fundamentalist militia then ruling most of Afghanistan, had been very happy to accept bin Laden.

They needed bin Laden both for his financial resources and his "organizational" skills.

The Taliban was overthrown by U.S.-led military campaign launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. Bin Laden disappeared and remains unaccounted for.

Akasha believes the shift in policy towards Sudan and Africa in general that accompanied the arrival of the Bush administration, was shaped, in part, by a U.S. realization of the grave mistake of having spurned the Sudanese offer.

While Clinton's foreign policy toward Sudan could be termed as all "stick," the Bush administration had adopted a "carrot and stick" approach, Akasha said.

"Clinton wanted to bring down the Arab regime in Sudan, but Bush is interested in a constructive engagement," Akasha said.

According to the Texas-based intelligence analysis group, Strafor, Bush's interest in Africa has been heightened by the fact that "Africa has become a significant battleground between U.S. forces and al Qaeda."

"African states, seeing this expanded U.S. interest, are eager to establish cooperation with Washington. The result is a renegotiation of Africa's geopolitical significance to the U.S. and the rest of the world," Strafor says.

(CNSNews Pacific Rim Bureau Chief Patrick Goodenough contributed to this report.)

******

And with respect to Afghanistan you miss the point. Bush did what he could when the opportunity presented itself. Clinton did not.

Its an analogy, not "why didn't Clinton invade Afghanistan"?[/quote]

Also, CTLesq, you could help make your point better if you chose a source that wasn't a right-wing news site. As we've regularly found here, they often don't let the facts get in the way of their ideology, and it's you poor dopes who've drunk deep of the Kool-Aid who pay, being embarrassed in conversations like this by faulty and misleading information they've given you.

Still, not one person on the left arguing against Bush has illustrated with any kind of clarity why we should trust John Kerry who sat, unable to think, for 40 minutes watching these attacks while sitting in the middle of a high priority terrorist target. Even when the Pentagon was hit and the smoke for the attack was visible at the capitol John Kerry didn't even have the common sense to move away from apparent danger.

I'm not claiming he could have done anything. I'm not saying there's something he could have done from an official standpoint. I'm saying the man didn't even have enough sense from a self-preservation standpoint to get out of a high value target. Yet we're supposed to believe he has the ability to protect us all when he doesn't have enough common sense to get out of a building in the crosshairs?

Up next on my hit parade.... John Kerry's "Christmas In Cambodia" that never happened.... yet he claimed it did on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1986 while voting support for a continued Communist government in Nicaragua. Look for it soon kids.

[quote name='jer7583']You guys are pathetic. Both the republicans and democrats are screwed up. It's all about what kind of screwed up you can personally tolerate.

Besides, I don't think the question we are looking at here is what would Kerry have done on 9/11, but what would Gore have done? If you think bush looked dumbfounded, Gore's head probably would have exploded.[/quote]

I'm with you on this screwed up part. Let's be honest here. Clinton and Bush would both sit on their ass about this if they could. Only catch is that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Am I defending Bush? HELL no! I don't appreciate him pulling the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq.
Also about dealing with Bin Ladin and killing him, well Bush's father had a chance to kill Sadaam at one time so what's your point?
Here's what NEEDS to be done. Both parties need to quit their Partisan BICKERING and do what's best for the country. Here's what's best: Stand behind your President in a time of war!. Kidding, kidding. I'm not one of these Republican assholes who spouts that shit off and wouldn't do the same for a Democrat president. Naw but seriously these Presidents need to stop the procrastination game. Both of em' do this shit. NY and Pitts and everyone else listen up to this shit. There was a Bi-Partisan commission earlier that recommended a Homeland Security Organization. What happened? Bush did SHIT! until 9/11 than the asshole and his adminstration took credit for Homeland Security or something like that and I'm sure there are other stiuations LIKE that with Clinton except without the 9/11 bit.
Seriously we need to get our SHIT together and STOP the finger pointing for the most part although I will give Bush two things he deserves to be finger pointed at for. 1.I mentioned this above with Iraq. 2.The Patriot Act.
You want me to say something about Clinton? Well I don't like the fact he sold weapons or weapons plans to the Chinese. At least I won't give a ing excuse that I didn't like him because he got Oral sex from an intern. I mean I didn't like that but I don't think he deserved impeachment for that.
Now that I've got that finished with I'm for Kerry. Why? Because at the current time I think he's less dangerous to us losing our Civil Rights and if he tries to pass something like a 3rd Patriot Act, all of us Partisan(Republican, Democrat) and non-Partisan will ing roast him verbally.
And yes I realized I was Partisan bickering near the end but can you see what I'm saying?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Still, not one person on the left arguing against Bush has illustrated with any kind of clarity why we should trust John Kerry who sat, unable to think, for 40 minutes watching these attacks while sitting in the middle of a high priority terrorist target. Even when the Pentagon was hit and the smoke for the attack was visible at the capitol John Kerry didn't even have the common sense to move away from apparent danger.

I'm not claiming he could have done anything. I'm not saying there's something he could have done from an official standpoint. I'm saying the man didn't even have enough sense from a self-preservation standpoint to get out of a high value target. Yet we're supposed to believe he has the ability to protect us all when he doesn't have enough common sense to get out of a building in the crosshairs?

Up next on my hit parade.... John Kerry's "Christmas In Cambodia" that never happened.... yet he claimed it did on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1986 while voting support for a continued Communist government in Nicaragua. Look for it soon kids.[/quote]

The reason no one's responding to your remark, PAD, is that you have to read an embarrassing amount into Kerry's single paragraph to infer that he sat thoughtless for 40 minutes or knew that there were other planes in the air headed to Washington, therefore making the U.S. Congress a target.

I know you like to act the mind-reader, but I think you need to come up with a more convincing timeline than one based on one off-the-cuff comment. Maybe one based, say, on seven minutes of videotape showing Bush...er, I mean, Kerry....staring off into space when he knew planes were in the air and Americans were dying.

Again, no one addresses what's brought up and continues to drone "he knew planes were in the air and Americans were dying". Well duh Dennis. Tell us something anyone not in front of a TV at 9 AM on 9/11/01 didn't know. You mean... Senators don't get CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX News, CNBC, CNNfn and any of the other networks that day, that eventually included MTV, and weren't able to tell highly visible targets were being struck?

You mean to tell me your best defense for John Kerry sitting in the capitol building without enough common sense, especially as a "decorated combat veteran", to oh I don't know... get away from an obvious target is "teh Bush had teh blank face fur 7 minutes!1!1!!!".

Just what I expected.

What was he supposed to do? Keep a diary of what he would have done if he was president in case one day he ran for president? Call up GWB and offer some advice? Christ, probably 99% of this country sat around in shock that day.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Again, no one addresses what's brought up and continues to drone "he knew planes were in the air and Americans were dying". Well duh Dennis. Tell us something anyone not in front of a TV at 9 AM on 9/11/01 didn't know. You mean... Senators don't get CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX News, CNBC, CNNfn and any of the other networks that day, that eventually included MTV, and weren't able to tell highly visible targets were being struck?

You mean to tell me your best defense for John Kerry sitting in the capitol building without enough common sense, especially as a "decorated combat veteran", to oh I don't know... get away from an obvious target is "teh Bush had teh blank face fur 7 minutes!1!1!!!".

Just what I expected.[/quote]

I don't know about you, but I didn't know other planes had been hijacked until one barreled into the Pentagon. All I knew was that both World Trade towers had been struck. Which is the exact same time Kerry knew about it. It is hoped that Bush, given his greater information resources -- he does have a direct line to the FBI, CIA, etc. -- had a leg up on all of us, congresspeople included.....

And I do wish you'd give the ad hominem insults and "teh Bush had teh blank face fur 7 minutes!1!1!!!" a rest, PAD. They don't add to your argument and only make you look like a buffoon. Unless you'd rather I begen to add a "teh Kerry din earnnn dem war medals!1!1!1" at the end of each of my posts, cleverly using your piquant brand of satire to point out how dim-witted your arguments are.

Dennis, you again prove my point. You won't address why John Kerry didn't have the common sense to get out of a high value terrorist target on 9/11. 3 targets hit, 1 in Washington, he sat and did nothing.

Again, I'm not saying from an official standpoint he could have done anything just that the man had no common sense when it came to self-preservation. You want to knock anyone for being dim witted? Point the spotlight in John Kerry's general direction and any other congressperson that sat in the room with him.

I mean why did Al Qaeda pick 9/11? Didn't the 9/11 commission report say because Congress would be in session? Wow, wonder what the last target was going to be.

You're right, PAD. Kerry should've turned tail and run. He should've done a Cheney and fled to an "undisclosed location" for days, because after all, that's what our Great Leader did too, right? You know, hopping from one city to another. Then, when Kerry was safe and secure in his secret hiding spot, not being able to tell the public what was going on, he should've called up the FBI, CIA, NSA, the cabinet, and congress, told them to come to his secret hiding spot where they could come up with a plan of action.

After all, a movie like Indepence Day where Bill Pullman led the Americans against the tyranny of the aliens would've never happened under a REAL leadership like the Bush Administration.

Wasn't John Kerry unhurt on 9/11? Apparently his self-preservation skills work just fine.

[quote name='MrBadExample']Wasn't John Kerry unhurt on 9/11? Apparently his self-preservation skills work just fine.[/quote]

PAD's right about Bush's self-preservation skills working. Didn't he get his dad to get him in the National Guard to avoid conflict in Vietnam, then even bail out on his duties as National Guard? That's our cowboy for ya. Kerry must be "stupid" for not having any self-preservation skills -- you know, volunteering for tours of duty in Vietnam to "serve our country", or some crap like that. Right, PAD?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Dennis, you again prove my point. You won't address why John Kerry didn't have the common sense to get out of a high value terrorist target on 9/11. 3 targets hit, 1 in Washington, he sat and did nothing.

Again, I'm not saying from an official standpoint he could have done anything just that the man had no common sense when it came to self-preservation. You want to knock anyone for being dim witted? Point the spotlight in John Kerry's general direction and any other congressperson that sat in the room with him.

I mean why did Al Qaeda pick 9/11? Didn't the 9/11 commission report say because Congress would be in session? Wow, wonder what the last target was going to be.[/quote]

There you go again, PAD, distorting the facts to help prove your point. Your initial post indicated that while Kerry was sitting in the Congress with his colleagues, only the WTC had been struck. The quote that YOU provided said the Pentagon hadn't been hit yet, nor had that fourth plane gone down in Pennsylvania. How was Kerry to know there were more attacks on the way? How was he to know he was in a high-priority target that could be subject to attack? He wasn't sitting atop a military intelligence network, a'la Bush.

You have just managed to take a single quote from Kerry, distort it for your own purposes, and then a few posts later somehow misquote your own damned post. This doesn't do wonders for your credibility, PAD. Don't you read what you've written?

Its all over. I don't know why you guys are still fighting about this crap. John Kerry will be our next president end of story. Not because he is a great leader but because Bush has failed the common man. The common man is dying a slow death with increased spending in just about all areas and an average income that has fallen for the past two years. The last time American average income went down for two years were the two years following the great depression. Bush is just like his father with foreign policy tunnel vision. Somebody needs to lean in and whisper DOMESTIC AGENDA sir.

[quote name='Lil Stinky']Its all over. I don't know why you guys are still fighting about this crap. John Kerry will be our next president end of story. Not because he is a great leader but because Bush has failed the common man. The common man is dying a slow death with increased spending in just about all areas and an average income that has fallen for the past two years. The last time American average income went down for two years were the two years following the great depression. Bush is just like his father with foreign policy tunnel vision. Somebody needs to lean in and whisper DOMESTIC AGENDA sir.[/quote]

exactly... if kerry wins, it wont be because he's a good leader, it'll be because he "isn't GWB." Nobody that likes kerry has paid attention to his stance on things, they dont care about his policies, because as long as he's not GWB, he's got their vote.



The whole point of this thread is that democrats are putting Bush down because for 7 minutes he was in shock and didnt jump up and start spoutting out orders, and Kerry says he was in shock for 40 minutes.

The whole point is that you cant blame Bush for being in shock for a few minutes. It would be like you sleeping and your parents coming in your room and throwing a cold bucket of water in your face and then saying "somebody's trying to break into the house, what should we do?" You're not instantly going to know what to do.

and a few posts up somebody was bashing the Pres. and Cheney for going to an undisclosed location? Thats what they're supposed to do when the nation is under attack. And they do have it setup in these locations where the president can address the nation, so dont try and make it seem like they're off hiding somewhere and not taking care of business.

[quote name='Cracka']exactly... if kerry wins, it wont be because he's a good leader, it'll be because he "isn't GWB." Nobody that likes kerry has paid attention to his stance on things, they dont care about his policies, because as long as he's not GWB, he's got their vote.[/quote]

And Dubya "won" because he was the most qualified?!? People voted for him because he wasn't Clinton/Gore. Same difference.

Republicans are just going to have to accept that people are voting against the policies of GWB and it's not a personal attack. I guess this is to justify not abandoning their neo-con beliefs once Dubya is out. You can claim that everyone just hates Bush personally and ignore that his presidency has been the worst since Nixon.

If it was all a personal dislike his approval rating would have never shot up to 90%.

The whole point of this thread is that democrats are putting Bush down because for 7 minutes he was in shock and didnt jump up and start spoutting out orders, and Kerry says he was in shock for 40 minutes.

The whole point is that you cant blame Bush for being in shock for a few minutes.

Click to expand...

No one has claimed that Bush should have known exactly what to do as soon as he knew the second plane hit. I do find it strange that he chose to sit there for 7 minutes stunned. The rest of the country was glued to their tv's watching. He didn't even do that. The least he could have done was excuse himself and start talking to his advisors.

You can't say Kerry did the same thing because he wasn't President then. That's like asking what Bush would have done if there was a VC attacking his swift boat.

Bush/Cheney - Not Qualified in 2000, Not Qualified in 2004

[quote name='Cracka'][quote name='Lil Stinky']Its all over. I don't know why you guys are still fighting about this crap. John Kerry will be our next president end of story. Not because he is a great leader but because Bush has failed the common man. The common man is dying a slow death with increased spending in just about all areas and an average income that has fallen for the past two years. The last time American average income went down for two years were the two years following the great depression. Bush is just like his father with foreign policy tunnel vision. Somebody needs to lean in and whisper DOMESTIC AGENDA sir.[/quote]

exactly... if kerry wins, it wont be because he's a good leader, it'll be because he "isn't GWB." Nobody that likes kerry has paid attention to his stance on things, they dont care about his policies, because as long as he's not GWB, he's got their vote.





The whole point of this thread is that democrats are putting Bush down because for 7 minutes he was in shock and didnt jump up and start spoutting out orders, and Kerry says he was in shock for 40 minutes.

The whole point is that you cant blame Bush for being in shock for a few minutes. It would be like you sleeping and your parents coming in your room and throwing a cold bucket of water in your face and then saying "somebody's trying to break into the house, what should we do?" You're not instantly going to know what to do.

and a few posts up somebody was bashing the Pres. and Cheney for going to an undisclosed location? Thats what they're supposed to do when the nation is under attack. And they do have it setup in these locations where the president can address the nation, so dont try and make it seem like they're off hiding somewhere and not taking care of business.[/quote]

Actually, my point isn't the 7 minutes in the classroom, but why did he go in the classroom in the first place? Those 7 minutes were after the SECOND plane hit. The first one hit BEFORE he went into the classroom. Why wasn't he consulting with ppl before he went in to the classroom?. He knew Al-queda wanted to attack us from the August PDB. He knew they could use airplanes as weapons from the G8 summit in France, where they put up anti-aircraft guns to prevent such an attack. Why did he choose to continue with a photo-op instead of finding out what was going on?