More info leaked

September 13, 2001 5:41 PM

More info leaked on the reasoning behind the claims that the President was specifically targeted on Tuesday. Seems to raise a lot more questions than it answers, to me.
posted by rushmc (20 comments total)

yeah.

and we all know to trust anything drudge.
posted by jcterminal at 5:51 PM on September 13, 2001

There's plenty of quetions one could ask, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.....for now.

A great deal happened very quickly.

There will be PLENTY of revisiting 9-11-01 later on, but it's too early, especially with everything else still goig on.

I think they should leave the guy alone on this one for now, he can explain himself some other time in the next 3 years.

I wouldn't want to sit at Ground Zero/White House if Wash DC were being bombed by planes either, would any of you?

He's the POTUS, we gotta keep him out of the line of fire.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 5:57 PM on September 13, 2001

wouldn't that mean there's a mole in the white house or secret service?

maybe *that's* who we ought to go after....
posted by rebeccablood at 6:04 PM on September 13, 2001

fwiw, also, at a certain level the president doesn't get to decide this sort of thing. secret service rules.
posted by rebeccablood at 6:04 PM on September 13, 2001

wouldn't that mean there's a mole in the white house or secret service?

Not if it's an "official" leak.
posted by holgate at 6:10 PM on September 13, 2001

wouldn't that mean there's a mole in the white house or secret service?

Not if it's an "official" leak.

I think she meant "since the code words got out," but I don't think the "code words," whatever they may be, are restricted to a such a small group you could track down a "mole." Also, I know that the Secret Service decides the President of the United States' routes and what travel is safe in day-to-day life, but they don't tell him what he can do in a policy situation.

Either way, I don't have a problem with him not rushing home to what seemed to be Target #1. If anything, I was a little troubled with the media's continued attempt to let everyone know where he was. It seemed like a funny little game they were playing with him, forcing him to go to LA, NB, and everywhere in between before going home.
posted by yerfatma at 6:18 PM on September 13, 2001

and we all know to trust anything drudge.

And people say I'M suspicious...FWIW, it's also being reported on MSNBC, if you trust them more.
posted by rushmc at 6:24 PM on September 13, 2001

Before the lights get turned out someone please rename this site "self loathing pseudo-intellectuals who hate Bush"
posted by Real9 at 6:27 PM on September 13, 2001

I would be very interested in hearing an hypothesis on how Osama Bin Laden could possibly have gotten these codes.

Who sent this message, and from where? Was there follow-up on discovering where it originated? And what was discovered? Is the feeling now that it was connected to the other attacks, or that it was just another false "bomb threat," albeit at a much higher level?

Who made the determination that threats of attacks on Airforce 1 by "other planes" was plausible, and on what basis?

What purpose did it serve not to release this information earlier, once it was clear that the President was in fact safe?

Why did we have to find out about it through a leak, even now, and why was Ari Fleisher unable to look into the camera when he gave us the bare bones revelation that there had been a direct and specific threat against the President?

If the President's security was in fact compromised to such a degree, why did they suddenly reverse course and bring him back to the White House?
posted by rushmc at 6:32 PM on September 13, 2001

I worry more about all the explanation coming out now than where or why or when the president was not around. If his taking off was necessary and a smart move, fine. But why this rush to give all the explanations Sort of like the erring husband telling a batch of stories to convice his wife.
posted by Postroad at 6:49 PM on September 13, 2001

"FWIW, it's also being reported on MSNBC, if you trust them more."

not really. :(
posted by jcterminal at 6:49 PM on September 13, 2001

this sounds like it was all threatening and shit, but what if it was just a member of the secret service trying to let them know it wasn't a hoax BECAUSE he (or she) knew the code words?
posted by sugarfish at 7:11 PM on September 13, 2001

Another odd wrinkle to this story: Dick Cheney never even evacuated the White House on Tuesday, according to Ari Fleischer. He stayed in a "secure area." If the White House has one of those, is it only secure enough for vice presidents but not presidents?
posted by rcade at 7:20 PM on September 13, 2001

Folks, I believe that there was a clear and credible threat to the President. Imagine if they had been able to hit the White House or the Capitol. We could be listening to the Joint Chiefs giving a press conference now instead of the President and be under martial law.

I have NO problem with the President dodging and weaving a bit before returing to Washington. In fact, his safety DEMANDED it.

I DID feel the need for him to speak to the country from the Oval Office, though, which he did, much to his credit.
posted by dewelch at 7:25 PM on September 13, 2001

Mickey Kaus at kausfiles has a very good question regarding the reported Air Force One-related phone call. A rather obvious question. (It's at the top of "Hit Parade.")
posted by raysmj at 7:50 PM on September 13, 2001

Perhaps you're unable to see the benefits of not keeping the president and vice president in the exact same spot during a time of crisis. The Secret Service, however, understands.

I didn't recommend putting both of them in the same place. But if an area of the White House is so secure that Dick Cheney could be kept there amid Tuesday's chaos, why not use it to safeguard President Bush while Cheney was sent to Camp David or elsewhere?

Also, I'll repeat Kaus' question: If there was such a credible threat to Air Force One, why is the solution to keep him on that plane longer?

I support the decision to send Bush to Louisiana and then Nebraska. But there's a lot of odd stuff about the security decisions I'd like to find out more about.
posted by rcade at 8:12 PM on September 13, 2001

I don't believe Air Force One was a target, and I think this is a cover story to try to diffuse some of the political criticism Bush got on the day of the tragedy. The terrorist's plan seems pretty clearly to have been to send hijacked planes into buildings. Cruising around looking to, what, ram Air Force One in the air? doesn't fit.

I'm sure there's a procedure for protecting the president and getting him to a secure location in a crisis, and that that's what happened on Tuesday. All they have to do is say so.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:22 PM on September 13, 2001

It isn't like the situation would have changed if Bush had returned to Washington right away, any more than it would have changed if he'd been blown out of the sky. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Rowe are running the show.
posted by Allen Varney at 11:11 PM on September 13, 2001

I note with interest Klaus' final words:

And Clinton's reaction to the last major bout of terrorism--his bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan--does not at this point look like one of his finer moments in office.
posted by mikewas at 9:23 AM on September 14, 2001