this is not exactly recent, but still rather fascinating viewing, particularly with the election year coming up. particularly since michael moore's new film (about the aftermath of 9/11) just won the gold palm at cannes:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm
what would BUSH do?
ProfessorPap 
JohnnyEnzyme 
QuirkyCrow
ok i don't want to make enemies and i respect the right of other people having their own opinion but every fibre in my body screams right now 
some things the site doesn't mention:
- shock, keeping your composure when getting a shock is one of the most ingrained and important parts of both politics and command or approval
- panic, the above is also important as the absolutely last thing one wants to do is to submit to or cause panic
- control, to achieve both of the above one has to retain control, the easiest way to do this is to keep doing what you were until in private (when in private aides etc. will help guide you as well as deliver information, verification of information and an immediate plan) i.e. you never want to run around like a headless chicken
- scope, never assume things you don't know! its natural to start doing this but it's damned important not to! bush would know this, or at least be instructed on the importance of this. he has to trust the secret service to intervene if things are absolutely critical. the secret service did not deem it necessary to hustle him out of there, so he wasn't.
as to control this explains the need for privacy i.e. the "loitering around" afterwards
what happened those minutes afterwards? here's an educated guess (not necessarily in this order cronologically):
- a very condenced briefing with more detail than "america is under attack". threath level, (proposed) defcon status etc. as well as requests for some basic decisions needing executive command
- possibly one or two extremely short conversations with non-present people like head of cia, nsa, nsc or similar. it's important to have some degree of internal communications to avoid internal confusion in the executive branch
- a very short presentation on the secret services immediate plan and possibly (but not necessarily) consent needed (probably not, the secret service were probably running the show from here on, but the "why's" would be explained briefly)
the following is not aimed at anyone in particular. it's just letting off some steam
that being said i want to voice my disbelief at the weirdness of the nitpicking bush's opponents excel in. when one does everything to reach the conclusions one desperately wants rather than get information/knowledge about how things actually work it's called propaganda.
and for those who cherish michael moore i would suggest doing some independent research, finding a few critical reviews on his work and not base their opinions exclusively on leftist/anti-bush sources but read elsewere as well. you probably wont change your opinon but you'll see that mr. moore is doing your "cause" a monumental disfavour through his shabby profitminded "comedic-propaganda-disguised-as-documentary"
there are plenty of stuff i disagree with bush on, both ideologically and in how it was/is done, but i get annoyed at the really low level of most anti-bush arguments. that being said there's probably no way to convince people otherwise if they are entrenched in the view that bush is some kind of reckless cowboy facist (and it seems many people are)
keep your opinions
some things the site doesn't mention:
- shock, keeping your composure when getting a shock is one of the most ingrained and important parts of both politics and command or approval
- panic, the above is also important as the absolutely last thing one wants to do is to submit to or cause panic
- control, to achieve both of the above one has to retain control, the easiest way to do this is to keep doing what you were until in private (when in private aides etc. will help guide you as well as deliver information, verification of information and an immediate plan) i.e. you never want to run around like a headless chicken
- scope, never assume things you don't know! its natural to start doing this but it's damned important not to! bush would know this, or at least be instructed on the importance of this. he has to trust the secret service to intervene if things are absolutely critical. the secret service did not deem it necessary to hustle him out of there, so he wasn't.
as to control this explains the need for privacy i.e. the "loitering around" afterwards
what happened those minutes afterwards? here's an educated guess (not necessarily in this order cronologically):
- a very condenced briefing with more detail than "america is under attack". threath level, (proposed) defcon status etc. as well as requests for some basic decisions needing executive command
- possibly one or two extremely short conversations with non-present people like head of cia, nsa, nsc or similar. it's important to have some degree of internal communications to avoid internal confusion in the executive branch
- a very short presentation on the secret services immediate plan and possibly (but not necessarily) consent needed (probably not, the secret service were probably running the show from here on, but the "why's" would be explained briefly)
the following is not aimed at anyone in particular. it's just letting off some steam
that being said i want to voice my disbelief at the weirdness of the nitpicking bush's opponents excel in. when one does everything to reach the conclusions one desperately wants rather than get information/knowledge about how things actually work it's called propaganda.
and for those who cherish michael moore i would suggest doing some independent research, finding a few critical reviews on his work and not base their opinions exclusively on leftist/anti-bush sources but read elsewere as well. you probably wont change your opinon but you'll see that mr. moore is doing your "cause" a monumental disfavour through his shabby profitminded "comedic-propaganda-disguised-as-documentary"
there are plenty of stuff i disagree with bush on, both ideologically and in how it was/is done, but i get annoyed at the really low level of most anti-bush arguments. that being said there's probably no way to convince people otherwise if they are entrenched in the view that bush is some kind of reckless cowboy facist (and it seems many people are)
keep your opinions