Interesting...


<a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050513/OPINION01/505130383" target="_blank">Editorial-The Louisville Courier-Journal
</a>

*****************

He's the commander


When a small private plane entered restricted Washington airspace Wednesday, the ensuing evacuations at the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court were no drill.

Indeed, they were conducted so hurriedly that some officials literally ran or jumped out of their shoes. The city was placed on the highest stage of alert. It's likely that a decision to shoot down the wayward plane was imminent.

It all turned out to be an innocent, though very serious, pilot error, and much of the emergency response was executed effectively.

We can all be thankful for that, of course, but a critical issue remains: Why didn't anyone tell President Bush?

The President, who was exercising on his mountain bike in a Maryland wildlife park, was not briefed until well after the crisis had passed.

Mr. Bush was not told of the incident until more than 50 minutes after two F-16 jets were scrambled to meet the intruder. He got the news more than 45 minutes after the evacuations began and the alert status was raised to red. In fact, he was clueless until after the small plane had landed.

The White House said the President was not informed because there was no danger to him and because emergency procedures do not require his personal authorization.

That is unacceptable. The President is in charge of the nation's security. If authorities believe the capital may be under attack, he must be told.

The President should demand that he be informed of such instances, and should assure Americans that next time he will be in the loop.

Anything else fails to meet minimum standards for presidential leadership

[ 05-13-2005, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Well, personally I'd feel safer knowing the President wasn't making any decisions...

Glad it was all a false alarm anyway [img]smile.gif[/img]

Why? He isn't a security expert, and it's not like he can just wave his hand and make the plane change its course. What would he be able to do if he were told?

On a less sarcastic note to my earlier post, Seraph has a real point here. You could even take it further and argue that the presence of a non-expert trying to give orders would actually impede the activities of the trained security personel over something like this.

Riding a bike bah! He was trying to finish of that book about goats ;)

Why? He isn't a security expert, and it's not like he can just wave his hand and make the plane change its course. What would he be able to do if he were told? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, besides provide leadership, not much. But it isn't relevant to me. I run a business. I want my staff to call me if they have to evacuate or if the store might be on fire. I might not be able to help evacuate, but I would want to know immediately anyway.

On a personal level I believe his Wife was at the WH. If my wife were in a city under imminent threat I would want to know. The fact she is the First Lady makes it all the the more pertinent.

In fact, I would hope that President Bush had admonished his staff for not promptly informing him for reasons both personal and in the business of leadership. It is simply a better decision to inform the President rather than not to inform the President, even if he says nothing in response to the news and rides off into the sunset on his bike for an hour-long ride...

...or retires somewhere for some leisurely reading. :D

[ 05-14-2005, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Spurious little post over a non-issue. BFD, Chewie. The anti-Bush crusade is not advanced by nitpicking.

Was Bush in danger -- in a park in Maryland? Nope. Did evacuation proceedures work? Yep. Do we need the Godhead's oversight every time a soldier goes to the latrine? No.

B-F-D.

Dude, my tone would have been much different if these posts were part of an anti-Bush campaign. If it is such a non-issue- why even reply and why not challenge my second post where I laid out what I think are some good reasons why the President should insist on being informed?

And what exactly does B-F-D mean?

BFD = Big Frikkin Deal

Your points were:
And I told you why I disagreed. I don't see why you're pretending I ignored this.

I don't really think we want a president that's bothered with every Cesna that goes astray. If a project I was working on looked like it may be seeing a problem, I wouldn't call the boss until I knew enough to at least discuss a detail or two.

There is a reason the government has a structure. As I said, I don't want to have to run the info up to the top for approval every time a solier takes a leak. It's inefficient. He knew of this non-event within an hour.

It's not that you expect too much of him -- though that's true (and I wonder how a leader YOU would pick would live up under such scrutiny). But, it's that you expect the useless and senseless of him.

In this case, I see the system as working to address a possible threat -- and working perfectly. Why fix what ain't broken.

Now, don't you wish you'd spent your time complaining about something real? --- LIKE OUR PORTS?

That's Okay TL. I think your disagreeance is just fine [img]smile.gif[/img] BTW, what you quoted aren't my points, but points taken from the newspaper editorial- which I found interesting and worth posting about but didn't neccessarily agree with 100%.

If you look carefully, I made other points not mentioned in the article about the First Lady being in the threat area and the general principle that a leader should be informed of whats going on whether they can do something about the situation or not.

But I half-agree with you that this is a minor issue. 45 minutes is a long time, but considering the danger passed and the evacuation went off with out a hitch all that is left is the principles of the matter. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Now we can complain about port security...