I find that the left has "lost it" when they consider Bush. If they were to look closely at the man, he is closer to LBJ or Carter than to any icon on the right.

Prior to the Iraq war, with my limited knowledge of the intelligence in the region, I did not feel that WMD's were a threat to the US nor did I feel that Iraq was a major player in terrorism (at least not the the extent that Iran and SA are). But the problem with the region is that 50 years of peace efforts have not been able to control the hostility of Arab, Muslims. I was hopeing that Bush would eliminate Iraq as a stepping stone to physical domination of the entire region. I retort on WMD, etc. was I felt a means to mobilize the masses as you could not articulate the real reason for the war to the public. My disappointment with him and his administration has been his failure to follow up with a power policy. Instead he stopped and wants to be nice to everyone. That concept is treated as weakness in that area of the world. This was compounded by the immediate efforts of the left to undermine any foreign policy set forth by his administration. I have then been gravely disappointed by the Republicans who controled both Senate and House at the time to not back their leader and have a get tough policy with the left and the Arabs.

The primary concern in the Middle East is oil. I have no problem with saying that out loud and making it our policy to secure this substance and contro our own destiny, even at the expense of a weaker nation. That is good business sense. When it boils down to foreign policy, we must begin to realize that our own interest and survival need to be number one.

When facts no longer matter in a debate there can be no debate. This finding is no different than 'Bush lied:People died', US and Republicans endorse torture, etc.

It just no longer matters what the truth is.

Well,

After Nixon faked the moon landings its hard to know for sure anymore ;->

I won't get into the "Bush knew" thing, except to raise a tangentially related question: why the hell, when he learned about the attacks, did he just sit there in the classroom? This, to me, has always gone to Bush's quickness of thought and leadership skills, rather than to a his possible involvement in a conspiracy. Cripes, buddy, do something! "The eyes of the world," an so on...

Clearly, there is a surplus "a" in that post, and the final "an" should be read "and."

Carry on.

Doc, it is possible that the Secret Service wasn't going to move him until they had word that they could. He was scheduled to be there for a set time, and all travel security was set on that schedule. They would have to adjust their plans, make sure the word was out that the timetable just changed, and then move.

He wasn't going to cruise out of the door on a split-second unless there was a threat at that location. And until there is a threat to that location, they are going to stay as close to the schedule as possible.

I don't know for sure, but it only makes tactical sense.

I think he just didnt want to scare the kids.

Doc,
What would you have done in the same situation. Fog of war reports about what happened to the first tower, and a realization that the world would look at your next actions/inactions would be on your mind. "Mr. President, a plane has hit the World Trade Center." I remember my first reaction upon hearing the news was that some dang Cessna joy rider hit it. Even CNN with photo's was on that same line of thought. It was not until the second plane hit the Trade Center that, at least I, knew that something big had happened.

Further, do you remember the threat scares at the Capital later. You saw all the people panicking, running for the doors, trying to find their way to safety. They looked like frightened fools, and that is what the opponents of President Bush would be saying. He just can't win.