Ten Years After 9/11, George W. Bush Is Still Wrong
Almost ten years ago, President George W. Bush was reading to school children when an aide whispered into his ear that America was under attack. He didn’t move. For seven minutes, he continued reading My Pet Goat to the kids.
In an interview set to air on the National Geographic Channel later this month, Mr. Bush offers his lengthiest explanation yet for his delayed reaction:
“I immediately focused on the children…I made the decision not to jump up immediately and leave the classroom. I didn’t want to rattle the kids. I wanted to project a sense of calm. I had been in enough crises to know that the first thing a leader has to do is to project calm.”
President Bush was wrong then, and he’s wrong now.
Chief of Staff Andy Card enters the frame, informs President Bush that “America is under attack” at the 5:03 mark in the video.
For evidence, one need only look to the contrast offered by New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose instinctual reaction was to demonstrate a sense of control by donning a gas mask and walking the charred streets of Manhattan. That is what the public expects from leaders in crisis – not an artificial sense of calm for calmness sake. Mr. Giuliani did not appear “calm” that day, but the public rewarded his heroic performance nonetheless.
President Bush also ignored the fact that the image of him reading a children’s book to school children would be shown in a television split screen – so as the left side of the screen showed the World Trade Center ablaze, the right side of the screen showed a seemingly disengaged and oblivious American leader.
Mr. Bush’s rationale offers a false choice: remain seated so as not to scare children, or stand up and scare the hell out of ‘em. An easier solution would have been to calmly stand up and say:
“Children, I’m sorry, but I’ve just been told I need to deal with some Presidential business. It’s been wonderful meeting you, and thank you listening so nicely.”
Had he done so, he would have been briefed a full six minutes and 50 seconds earlier about the stunning (and ongoing) terrorist attack.
Mr. Bush is right that few crises benefit from having a panicked leader. But he should have prioritized projecting an indelible image of a leadership, not a false image of calmness.
What do you think? Do you agree with my perspective, or have I gotten it all wrong? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.
You Might Enjoy: Seven Things To Do When The Media Gets It Wrong
You Might Enjoy: Five Tactics Reporters Use To Intimidate You
Share this article
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Email
In essence you are correct but i suspect Mr Bush did not actually comprehend what was happening and essentially he froze. At this point a lot of good training might have got him through by going onto autopilot but how would you train for something like that. I suspect that Giuliani reacted better and more instinctively because it was his constituents under attack and therefore he had a direct connection that would carry him through.
And what would President Bush have been able to do with that extra six minutes and fifty seconds? Would he have been able to stop the attacks? Saved any more lives? I seriously doubt it. His defense for projecting calm is sensible. He not only managed to maintain his composure in a classroom full of little people, he also showed his ability to face a storm with a sense of calm. What a ridiculous reason to criticize someone. What would you have done differently? And how could you ever say that you would’ve been able to do a better job in the face of a terrible national crisis?
I’m not sure where I said I could do a better job in the face of a terrible national crisis?
Your argument seems to suggest that projecting a false sense of calm is more important than getting information. Leadership (especially leadership in crisis) is about making the most informed decisions as quickly as possible. If the President didn’t have information, he couldn’t have succeeded in that goal.
You may remember that the White House quickly decided to shoot down any passenger planes that weren’t responding to Air Traffic Controllers. Had there been other planes planning to attack, making that decision sooner could have helped. Sorry, but a passionate plea for the rightness of having a dearth of information is never going to fly with me.
I do appreciate your comment, though, and am glad you weighed in.
Brad
I think you are dead wrong. Bush was right. What was done is done and one must always look Presidential, not only for the people you lead , but as a show of strength to our enemies as well. The world is full of armchair and monday morning quarterbacks of which you are one of them.He acted exactly the way a LEADER should have.
Steve,
Thanks for your comment. I suppose our disagreement comes down to what “looks” presidential. Imagine if the President had stood up after being told, “America is under attack” and calmly said, “Children, I have to go deal with some presidential business now. I enjoyed meeting you.” Would that not have looked presidential, but also have had the added benefit of giving him critical information six minutes before he received it?
I take your point that perceptions matter — they do. But you’ve offered a false choice. He could have had the appearance of strong leadership that you craved AND the critical information he needed to act minutes sooner.
Best wishes,
Brad
On 9/11/01, I was 18 years old, living in Manhattan and attending my first week of college classes. Having had no formal communication training at that time, I remember thinking on that day that we had a leader in Mayor Giuliani but not in our president. I gained an extreme respect for Giuliani that day and in the following days, and regardless of politics, that remains with me. 10 years later, as a professional communicator, I now understand why I had those feelings for both of them, and it is precisely for the reasons you’ve outlined with this post and their polar opposite responses to the American people. Thank you for sharing.
Correct me if I am wrong but did not the gentleman who informed the President Bush that a plane crashed into the WTC, not that we were under attack?. At this point as far as I can gather the people in the know did not know what was going on. The 9/11 attacks remind s me of a line from the book Goldfinger and I belive I have it correct 1st time hapenstance 2nd time accident third time enemy action well we went from two to three after the second plane. Having served my country for nearly ten years in the military I my self have acted on info that was either incomplete or at times wrong so I on one hand can see why the then President reacted as he did
James,
President Bush was informed of the first attack before he began his event at the elementary school. The man in his ear, Chief of Staff Andy Card, whispered to him, “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.” You can read a fascinating interview with Mr. Card about that day here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32782623/ns/us_news-9_11_eight_years_later/t/he-told-bush-america-under-attack/#.ULd5Poa3UgQ. Thanks for reading!
Best wishes,
Brad
I hate to admit it, but Brad is correct. Pres. Bush should have stood up and informed the children that he had a Presidential task to take care of. The children would have accepted this explanation.
We now know that President Bush should have gone to fundraisers aftter the planes crashed. That’s what a true leader does where there is a crisis. Go immediately to fund raisers and crack jokes. That’s true leadership.
William,
Presidents of both parties attend fundraisers during troubling world events (massive events like 9/11 aside). I’d submit that that’s a symptom of our sick campaign financing system, not the individual politician.
Wrong Jeanne, if Bush left early, no matter what explanation He gave, the classroom would have fallen into chaos because they just lost a once in a lifetime event to meet the US president, they’ll start whining, crying, and throwing stuff around and at the end of the day, complaining to their parents about how the president left them for no good reason. People need to realize kids are very sensitive and will get angry when things dont go their way, gotta be very considerate and think thinga through before doing anything.