They let the attack play out without involvement, and let the cards fall where they may. That was even agreed to in this discussion. Why don't you quote me where I claimed a specific intent which you think is speculative. All I said is the top two leadership positions in the military chain of command did not step up to lead, they just let things play out, and that was wrong. Apparently that pushed a few buttons. I didn't claim any sinister conspiracies or anything like that, but I'll await the quote where you think I suggested otherwise. Quote where I said what their intent was, otherwise you are the one misleading.
It didn't "affect" anything, rather it prevented opportunities to possibly prevent casualties at the Pentagon. The top two in the position LET the attack HAPPEN (for whatever reason or excuse you want to make for them) and they CHOSE their activities, so whatever they did was on purpose. They CHOSE not to get involved, while their underlings were running around like headless chickens. The decision to not get involved in the response is what they took, irrespective of what they could have or could not have otherwise done. Bush let things play out while he did a speech, and Rumsfeld let things play out while he did his routine intelligence briefing. These are facts. I'm not suggesting lizard people shot lazer beams at the Twin Towers. I don't know why you guys are having such a defensive reaction over this. What's so bad about suggesting that the two highest positions in the military chain of command should have been in the loop while the country was under attack in real time? There's a big scandal going on right now over Benghazi, and Obama doing nothing about US consulate personnel who were under attack by terrorists on the 9/11 anniversary last year. Like Obama could have intervened but didn't. When I hear that, I can't help but think of 9/11. Because I remember how weird it was to see the Commander in Chief address the nation while the country was still under attack.
Sorry fun dude, you're wrong, and even explain why in your own post. Bush and Rummy doing "nothing" on 9/11 didn't change a thing, as I have already said. It wouldn't have saved lives at the Pentagon. It wouldn't have scrambled planes quicker. It wouldn't have detected hijacked airliner quicker. It wouldn't have resulted in a shoot down. It wouldn't have changed anything at all. Your idea that Bush or Rummy picking up a phone would instantly turn a confusing situation into some blissful tranquillity of efficiency is hilarious and divorced from reality. You claim LIHOP because they did nothing. But you fail to give one credible example of how them doing 'something' would have changed the outcome on 9/11. They both knew the military would be doing what they were trained to do. They didn't need to baby them to do their jobs. Your claim is unfounded, failed, wrong. End of.
Sure I'll quote you. You said: LIHOP stands for "Let it happen on purpose" Are you trying to dance along some silly semantic line where "let it happen on purpose" does not mean they had an intent for it to happen as it did?
HFD - will you clear up a point for me? Are you claiming dereliction of duty on the part of Bush and Rumsfeld, or do you believe that either or both of them had foreknowledge of the attacks and let it happen on purpose?
They were derelict in their foreknowledge of letting it happen on purpose while not doing their job properly. Hope that help clears it up.
I made it clear since then exactly what I meant by that, so for you to hold my stance to something beyond what I said, but what you think the acronym means, is playing symantic games. I can't read their minds, but their behavior shows a complete lack of concern. I mean, the entire world were glued to their TV screens wondering what was happening, after that second tower was struck. When Rumsfeld was informed that two towers were struck by two separate planes and that we were under attack, his behavior of not being concerned about that is extremely odd. It suggests he didn't care. He wouldn't have known how it would ultimately turn out. Therefore it's dishonest for you to claim I said he wanted it to turn out as it did. The fact is, he did let it happen. He made that choice for himself. He can do this without being psychic, or desiring any specific result. My guess is, he didn't care how it turned out, even if bad, because he could use it to push his agenda. I don't claim that for certain, but I can't think of any other reasons why he would be the only person in the world basically who didn't want to find out more. What do you think about this? Why do you suppose it was business as usual that morning for him? The case of Bush isn't as bad. I think he probably thought reassuring the country would be a good thing to do. Of course, that is NOT his job, being commander in chief is his job, so he was wrong to take that decision, but that decision isn't as odd as Rumsfeld's. Your assessment of my stance is wrong. First of all, where does that state intent? LIHOP merely means let it happen on purpose. It says nothing about why. I asserted no such thing, until this post where I take a guess. Also, if you know there's a problem but choose to do nothing, you are letting it happen on purpose. It doesn't have to be part of some broad sinister conspiracy. The fact is, they chose to let the attacks play out without getting involved. That's a fact. I'm not sure why people are so aversive to this point.
Fangbeer claimed I made a claim, or implied a specific intent on the part of Bush and Rumsfeld. He cited my use of the term LIHOP (even though I clarified exactly what I meant since then). He's trying to claim my stance is not what I went on to explain it was for myself, but rather how he interprets the acronym. Yet, nowhere in that acronym does it say anything about reasoning or intent. Maybe if I said LIHOPBTWW (Let it happen on purpose because they want war) or LIHOPBTLAD (let it happen on purpose because they like Americans dying) or something like that, he would have a point. The fact is, Fangbeer accused me of claiming a specific intent behind their non-actions, something I never did, something that's not within that acronym, and I hope Fangbeer will acknowledge that I never did any such thing.
Yes. I have claimed this as fact. Have you been reading the discussion or not? I've made it clear. Both of these leaders failed to participate in a crisis response, or address the situation during the critical moments. Rumsfeld's phone was ringing off the hook, and he didn't answer it. Bush also should have been coordinating. Remember, the official story is that one hand didn't know what the other was doing, and that they were not coordinated. Leadership should have been there. That's a fact. The fact is these guys went and did other things. I'm not making that up. I'm just curious as to why people have trouble accepting that. Once again I also made this clear. I don't claim ANY knowledge on their parts, nor criticize ANY of their actions (or lack of) at the point prior to just after 9:00 a.m. when they were informed that both towers were struck by both planes and that the country was under attack. Upon acquisition of THIS knowledge, knowledge you would think would have run them straight to the conferencing and emergency-response mode, they chose to not be leaders. I'm pointing out the fact that the top two positions on the chain of command failed to lead. Again, I'm not placing this as part of a broader, sinister conspiracy. AFTER this, Bush, after a couple minutes of blank stare, worked on his speech to the nation. Rumsfeld went off to have a routine intelligence briefing while refusing to pick up the phone. Even after the crash he walked to the scene and helped carry a stretcher which didn't need help being carried (why couldn't the guy taking the photo help) which is STILL not his job. - - - Updated - - - Try to make an actual argument please.
No. My actual argument is there, so you don't need the strawman. Yes. Rumsfeld's own testimony, and video of Bush giving an address at 9:30 a.m. They were both doing things besides lead, and that's proven.
I rolled my eyes so many times reading that I think I pulled a muscle. You've made the case that our leadership was ineffective. That is certainly a legitimate concern. The problem I have is your claim that it was on purpose. That certainly does mean that they had an intent to be ineffective. You can keep throwing out mental hoops to jump through, but I'm not jumping. I didn't say you claimed you knew WHY they had intent to let it happen. I said you claimed they intended for it to happen, which you did. Once again.
"On purpose" means they made that decision for themselves. I explained this. They weren't being mind controlled, there were no guns to their heads, they chose to let things play out without their involvement. That is it. I explained exactly what I mean by this, so there's no need for you to try to claim otherwise for my own stance. Irrespective of WHY they decided to not get involved, the fact remains they decided that for themselves. That's what I mean by on purpose. In no place did I say they had an intent to be ineffective. What I said was they chose not to get involved. At any rate, if you don't like my use of the term then fine, it doesn't change my argument in the slightest. If I wanted to ascribe their non-action to a nefarious agenda or broader conspiracy, I would have. The fact that all you have to go on is your interpretation of what I meant when I said LIHOP (even after I clarified) proves I'm NOT sitting here claiming broader conspiracy. Now that you know I'm not, you need not go on about it.
Why don't you try and hold yourself to that standard hfd. My argument has already been made, and it's yet to be contradicted by you: MMQB's have the clarity of hindsight. - - - Updated - - - Is standing for nothing a form of standing for something? That's what your umbrella argument appears to be from my end.
How does that refute anything I said? It's other people who made the arguments that they couldn't have done anything about it anyway are the ones relying on MMQBing, not me. I'm saying their behavior was inappropriate and inexplicable based on the facts they would have known as of 9:03. If you think you actually have an argument based on MMQB accusations, define exactly what you mean by that. If it means looking back on things, then we're all doing it. In fact, how else could you talk about a historical event? I never claimed anything about what they "stood for".. My argument is about what they, did, and didn't do, when they learned about the attack. Their actions, or lack-of. That is ALL I've ever made this argument about. YOU GUYS are the ones trying to incorporate what they stand for, why they did it, motives etc. into the argument. Why? I'm not sure. How hard is it to admit that neither of them took the reigns that morning? That's a fact.
Especially you. Yes: "Like he said, it's beside the point. The point is the intent. He's trying to convince you of intent using innuendo and speculation. He has no proof of intent, that's why his argument is beside the point." As I stated, I have never stated, or implied any motive/intent into my agrument. You were wrong when you claimed I did. This quote of yours is the first place where intent or motive was a role in this discussion. You tried to inject intent into the conversation, or at least accuse me of doing that. It was never about intent. It was about inexplicable lack of action.
This does not support your claim that: I said that the point of your argument was the intent of the leadership. You said, and you continue to say that they intended to "let it happen." This is not an example of me injecting anything into the discussion. This is an example of me describing your argument in a way you apparently don't understand. But I think I understand the disconnect here. You don't know what the words you're using actually mean. Intent is not the same as motive, and "on purpose" does not mean "as a result of"
We've gone several posts now where I've clearly laid out exactly what I mean to say. I've not said motive means the same thing as intent. I'm saying neither were part of my argument. Do you not care to address the argument, and just want to quibble about words and who said what? Even if I misused LIHOP like you think I did, how does that matter since I've clarified EXACTLY what I mean? You just want to keep a back and forth going while not addressing the point I made? And no, you aren't describing my argument; you are misrepresenting it. But it doesn't matter because you know full well what I'm arguing and what I'm not, and you have known for several posts by now.
You're the only person here who's used the word motive. You did so in claiming that I "injected' claims about motive into the discussion when I pointed out that your argument was about intent. I can only assume you think that intent means motive. Why would I think otherwise? I'm not the one quibbling. Your last attempt to sort out the mess you left here was: " Also, if you know there's a problem but choose to do nothing, you are letting it happen on purpose." This, once again, is a point you have not proven. It's only supported by your innuendo, and speculation, like I originally stated. This is exactly the same as saying "If you know there's a problem but choose to do nothing, you intend for the problem to happen." "If you know there's a problem but choose to do nothing, you should expect the problem to happen." If you know there's a problem but plan to do nothing, you are letting it happen on purpose. Purpose, plan, expect and intend are all words that mean the same thing in this context. They are interchangeable. But let's dissect this even further. First, you have not shown that either man intentionally did "nothing" You've argued that they didn't do the right thing. This is not evidence of an intended plan or an intentional choice. This is only evidence of a poor plan or a poor choice. Second, your presumption "If you know there's a problem but choose to do nothing, you are letting it happen on purpose" is false. There are many ways to refute this presumption. First, let me say that I'm not claiming that this course of logic was the logic used by our leadership. I'm just refuting your presumption. Premise: It's possible for "nothing" to be the solution to a problem. Example: -Race car drivers take their hands off the wheel when a collision is inevitable. Not steering is believed to be the correct solution to avoiding injury in a crash. -Not tensing up or attempting to brace yourself is also recommended. 2. It's possible to incorrectly assume that nothing is the solution to the problem. - People make mistakes which by definition run counter to their intent. 3. When someone makes an incorrect assumption regarding the solution to a problem their purpose still remains to resolve the problem. Conclusion: Someone could do nothing, the problem could remain unresolved, and their purpose could still be to resolve the problem.
There's no mess, merely clarification for those who misrepresent what I said. I am saying the choice to not get involved was on purpose. This doesn't mean all the consequences are intended. Example: I usually close the door, but this time I left it open on purpose, so that my cat could get out. The cat got run over by a car. Tragic. Does this mean I let my cat get run over on purpose? Or dereliction of duty. Nothing is not their duty. In order to know that doing nothing is a viable action like you say, wouldn't they have to know what was going on in order to determine this is a viable solution? Incidentally, when doing nothing is a possible solution, does that mean doing nothing on purpose?
Whatevs dude, You're obviously skating on a razor's edge trying to justify some sort of obscure way that I've mischaracterized your argument, I'm sure. Maybe that whole bit about hindsight, motive and dead cats will work to confuse someone else, but I'm still sure I've accurately described your argument. I said you claimed they intended for the problem to remain unresolved and you have done nothing but argue that I'm right. I specifically like the way you're tacking about like a longboat after a whale trying to claim that you're not saying what you're saying.
Here's some questions: You said doing nothing could be a viable approach. So in order to determine that, wouldn't the person choosing to do nothing need to know what the situation was in order to determine that doing nothing could be a way to deal with it? And, would that be doing nothing on purpose? I speculate that Bush and Rumsfeld really didn't care how things played out, in order to explain their lack of curiosity about the nature of the attacks and their lack of being leaders. In order that I not think this, can you think of another reason why they wouldn't care what was going on? Also, at 9:03, after learning about the attacks, what is the duty of the CiC and the SecDef?
I didn't come here to answer your questions. I made a statement which you tried to refute. I defended that statement.
