So you don't care about the issue or my actual argument, you're just trying to do petty point-scoring? These two questions are prompted by your argument about my statement: Doesn't the doing nothing approach to the situation require knowledge of the situation in order to make that determination? And is doing nothing a course chosen on purpose? These pertain to your argument about my argument. Backing it up requires you to address them. If this is to be considered debate. If you don't want to answer the questions then fine, but that just means you copped out and you don't score that point you were after.
Are you arguing that both men had no knowledge of the situation? A rather obtuse tactic. Have fun with it.
I argued no such thing. I merely asked you questions. Don't call arguments I've not even made obtuse. There is a difference between an argument and a question. Have the questions got you stumped? They are not trick-questions. They are basic and straightforward. Do you have answers or not? They are pertinent to your statements, so if your next reply doesn't answer the questions I will consider that to be you abandoning your argument.
I've shown that this is just untrue, and you've even contradicted yourself on this several times. They both were doing what they felt was right for the situation. Bush was addressing our nation to keep from full blown panic. Whether the meeting was pre-scheduled or not, Rumsfeld was doing the RIGHT thing by getting information from his intelligence team. Why would he answer it? What did you want him to say? Do you know who was calling him? Do you know what the plan they came up with in the intelligence briefing was? Do you know if there wasn't someone else designated to taking his calls and pushing up important information? Do you know if he was requested to immediately move to the damaged part of the Pentagon? Do you know if he had friends dying in the fires? What did you want them to coordinate? There are agents inside of the government that are specialized to deal with exactly these situations. There was no one, anywhere, waiting for approval from Rum or Bush, that caused there to be a road block. Saying, "that's a fact" doesn't actually make it a fact. No one is saying that they didn't "do other things", they're saying that you are under the assumption that those "other things" were the "wrong things" and you've shown nothing that makes that the case. And then? Like I said, no one knew we were under attack until the second plane hit the tower. At that point there was no way to prevent the third plane from hitting it's target, outside of pilot failure. The process was in motion and neither one of the two people you referred to had any power to change that. Previously you stated their staff was running around like chickens with their heads cut off, and you suggest that either Rum or Bush would have been able to neutralize that. I guess the question is, how? You consistently say that they weren't trained for this. No one was trained for this. Then what did you expect either of those two to do to further the situation. What could they have done that the trained professionals weren't doing? They DIDN'T fail to lead, Rumsfeld went out and helped carry people. You pick out one specific picture and state that he is doing it for the phone op. Instantly insulting Rumsfeld by saying he cared more for the camera than the people. You have no idea what the circumstances were, you just base things off of your own interpretation. That's called incredulity. Well, what the (*)(*)(*)(*) was it? Did he go to a meeting? Was he in "photo ops"? Tell me specifically what your problem is, please. You're so all over the place I can't even keep up. Where is the problem? Here we have again you say that he was at the stretcher, after the intelligence meeting. The photographers job isn't to carry stretchers, it's to take pictures. Should he be helping? Yes, I think so, but it was also important to document the day. You say that helping recover or assist the wounded isn't Rums' job, but it is the photographers job. What was Rum's job? One might learn to follow ones own advice.
You don't have an argument, you only have your own speculation on what "you" think looks fishy. Reminder: You've had 12 years of after-the-fact to analyze a situation that was very fluid and confused at the time it occurred.
This is exactly what I didn't want to engage him in. This is where he wants to play games about what would have happened if only... If only SECDEF had answered his phone! If only fighter jets had been scrambled! If only SAMs were launched. If only SECDEF had used that MANPAD he keeps under his desk! If only Tumbler had ordered a full scale attack on everything in the air! Then we wouldn't be getting groped by TSA on our way to Disney. Clearly they did it on purpose.
That's exactly what I was hoping to get out of him. I've seen him do nothing but tap dance and skirt his way around everything. "I'm saying this, but not REALLY saying this." The whole game is getting obnoxious. Spit it out or don't. If you think he should have been doing something else, say it. If you don't know what it is he should have been doing, then let it go. Prosecution: The defendant looked really fishy Judge: Guilty!
It's better than that: The argument is: The defendant did something that I think is stupid, it must have been on purpose.
First of all, thank you for being polite. I claimed they didn't do their job, not that they didn't do what they thought was right. So, until you can tell me what they did to command, you haven't disproved me. There was no full-blown panic either way, but giving a speech is not the president's job. Nor is "projecting calm" as he puts it. His job is commander in chief, that is the leader of the armed forces. Rumsfeld was not being briefed on the situation at hand. He was receiving a routine briefing. In fact, he even claims notification of the second plane came from outside, proving that this wasn't part of what was being discussed. It was a prepared briefing, and the information Rumsfeld needed was in the crisis response conference he didn't attend. Rumsfeld himself said that he was "out of the loop" and that when the plane hit the Pentagon, he didn't know what was going on (he thought it was a bomb) and he made no efforts to seek the information. You answer a phone because someone needs to get in touch with you and you can give them the guidance or answer they want. If it's a crisis situation, we can assume any call is important. Nobody was calling for a cake recipe while the Twin Towers burned. What I want him to say depends on the call, which I can't know because he never picked up. Of multiple people trying to get a hold of Rumsfeld, one was Stephen Cambone. So why wouldn't Rumsfeld pick up his phone? There was no plan. The planning was being made elsewhere, where Rumsfeld did not attend. I don't know of anyone else delegated as a communications middle man, but we know people couldn't reach Rumsfeld, so there would be no one to relay that information. Rumsfeld was never requested to move to the crash site. There were multiple requests to get him involved in the crisis response meeting. And there's no indication made by Rumsfeld or anyone else of his friends dying in the fire. Rumsfeld wouldn't even know what made the boom till he got there. I answered this already. He could get all the information from all the otherwise compartmentalized departments, who weren't communicating well between each other, and with the information then issue orders based on the full picture, such as plane scrambling and heading, evacuating non-essential personnel from potential targets, grounding flights (although that did get ordered, but later) and hell forbid a shoot-down order, something only the NCA (National Command Authority which is CiC and SecDef) can authorize. If they needed a shoot down, they couldn't get it because the entire NCA was missing.etc. If there were, then why wouldn't they have done so? Which agents are you referring to? You must remember, the situations weren't dealt with, so obviously such agents that could do so weren't there. Remember, SecDef involvement and approval is written into the rules for hijacking, and as well the NCA are the only ones who could give shoot down orders. No and I never claimed otherwise. What I claimed was orders came too late, because of lack of cooperation between agencies. The fact that it's a fact makes it a fact. You dispute that there was a lack of coordination, where one hand doesn't know what the other is doing? The 9/11 Commission Report claims this. If you don't think it's a fact then you dispute that report. We know the president and secretary of defense are the top two positions on the military chain of command. They are those leaders, and the nation was under attack. I can show you the constitutional role of the president, and the statutory role of the Secretary of Defense. What I can't show you is the job description of a president making a speech during a real time attack. Bush even posed for more photos, after he finished the reading session, after he was informed of the two planes two towers. I know. I clearly stated I was referring to the period of time after they were notified of the second plane. They had the following information: two planes hit two towers and at least one other plane was rogue, implying another target. The plane could have had time to intercept if it were launched sooner. But what we know in hindsight isn't the issue. I'm referring to their actions based on what they knew at the time. They wouldn't have known what could or could not be done, so arguing on Monday morning about whether or not it would have made a difference is besides the point. Even my argument was they maybe could have saved lives at the Pentagon, not definately could have. It doesn't matter because they didn't try. By coordinating. The same way your brain coordinates your two hands. I already answered this. He gets information from the different agencies, then he knows the whole situation, and the interagency wall are no longer a factor. It's called leadership. It's the chain of command and it serves a purpose. Yes, in response to the argument that the CiC and SecDef wouldn't have needed to get involved because there are people below them who are trained for this sort of thing. I merely shoot down that argument with the fact that they were not actually trained for this. That's not leading the military, that's assisting the medics. No, I'm basing this off Rumsfeld's own testimony. I explained this as well. He was in his routine meeting until the Pentagon was struck, then he went outside to the crash sight. So helping carry a stretcher isn't the photographer's job. Is it the Secretary of Defense's job? Meeting with all the top officials in crisis management, to help make decisions and coordinate during a real-time attack. I also addressed this earlier. - - - Updated - - - It's not. You just can't stop lying about my argument.
I did. I specified exactly what they should have been doing right off the bat. I never made any such argument about it looking fishy. What is it with you guys misrepresenting my argument?
Nope. I never said anything about it looking fishy. My argument was that they didn't attend to their posts that morning. Something you didn't answer. The fact that they weren't involved in the crisis management is a fact. Not speculation. I can prove that with the Bush video, which we all saw, Rumsfeld's own testimony, and the 9/11 Commission Report. Speculation comes in trying to figure out why. How does that refute anything I said? My argument was framed in what they knew at the time, that is two planes, two towers, and at least one more errant plane. Conversely, the others are the ones saying that it doesn't matter, because in their hindsight there would have been nothing they could have done. Which is unproven, because they haven't explained why the planes couldn't be launched sooner, without long delays that the 9/11 Commission Report points out, or why there could be no evacuation of the Pentagon etc. But they look back and say there was nothing they could have done after all. That is the argument based on MMQBING. You're telling this to the wrong guy. Neither Bush nor Rumsfeld had a crystal ball, to know that there was nothing they could do. At the time, they could only know what they could or could not do by seeking information, which they dragged their feet on. Therefore, the idea of what we would ultimately learn about what they could or could not do does not apply when examine why they made the decisions they did at the time, before they could know that.
Yet you did engage me. You attempted to counter my argument by saying choosing to sit on the sidelines could have been a decision that counts as doing something, as in they decided that's the best way to handle the situation. I then asked you two basic, straightforward questions you made that directly relate to this argument you presented. Wouldn't they need information about the situation in order to know if that's a proper action? And, would that be considered doing nothing on purpose? You dodged these questions, therefore you didn't defend your argument, so your argument died. This isn't a game. I NEVER claimed what would have happened. I NEVER claimed an if/then scenario. It is the other people that are insisting, as fact, that such leadership couldn't have helped. Not me. Off the bat, I said MAYBE they could have made a difference. So this is a straw man on your part. Straw man. I didn't say anything would or would not have happened if he answered his phone. I stated the fact that he didn't answer his phone, and then asked the question why wouldn't he answer his phone. Planes could have taken off soon enough to defend DC airspace. Even so, I didn't claim they definitely could have prevented things. Straw man. Straw man. Straw man. Straw man. Did what on purpose?
That's not the argument. I stated that what they did was not their job, and there was another job they should have been doing.
I see, so you think not doing your job is a smart way to carry out your duties. How wrong of me to characterize it as a stupid way to conduct yourself. My deepest apologies.
I never said it was smart or stupid. You claimed that I said my argument was proven because they were stupid actions. I did not. I argued their actions were not their job and it was dereliction of duty. I didn't say the actions weren't stupid. And I didn't say they were smart. They were stupid. But the stupidity isn't what I based my argument on, like you claimed I did.
I was merely pointing out your misrepresentation of the premise of my argument. I clearly stated the premise and it's not what you claimed it was.
It was a statement, not a premise. Do you know the difference? A premise is a statement, but a statement isn't necessarily a premise. You claimed I said that the stupidity proved my case. I never said that stupidity proved my case. You were misrepresenting me. My ACTUAL argument, the one you won't talk about, was that the actions were inappropriate, not their job, and it was dereliction of duty. Not that they were stupid, even though they were stupid.
You're the one doing that. You chose to abandon your argument that actually did relate to the discussion, instead going on with straw mans and you said but didn't say blah blah arguments. And you claim I'm the one playing games? Let me know when you figure out an answer to those questions I asked you.
??? This sentence makes no sense. If you're getting bored, try answering the questions relating to the actual discussion.
