On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence

How important is President Bush's seven-minute pause after he was alerted that America was under attack on September 11? Does the video image, shown uncut in the Michael Moore film "Fahrenheit 9/11," portray Bush as indecisive or projecting strength and calm?

Post staff writer Joel Achenbach discussed President Bush's initial response, the seven-minute image and his article On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Joel Achenbach: Greetings everyone. Today we're talking about the infamous 7 minutes after Bush learned of the second plane striking the WTC; feel free to expand the conversation in any direction. Please read the story we ran Saturday in the Style section. This chat has been put together somewhat at the last minute in part because of the strong response of many readers, which i'll discuss in a moment. The story, fyi, was pegged to the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and the release Thursday by the 9/11 Commission staff of a tick-tock report on the response to the attacks, called Improvising a Homeland Defense. The report notes that Bush told the Commission that he didn't move after hearing the news, and continued to listen to the schoolkids read, because he wanted to project calm and strength. Moreover, no decisions were made immediately afterward, other than to work on the statement that Bush would make the country. The critics say that this shows an excessive concern with image and that swifter action might have saved lives. Let me know what you think. Partisan ranting is permissible but I hope we hear it from all sides, including the anarcho-syndicalists.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I saw the "Seven Minute Silence" and was astounded. I understand not wanting to upset and scare a group of children, but after the second plane you would have thought he would have gotten the message. The expression on his face also gave the appearance that he didn't quite understand what was being said to him.
And more importantly, seven minutes is a long time. Why didn't his staff tell him to get up?

Joel Achenbach: did you see the Moore documentary? I haven't (it doesnt hit theaters until friday), and relied on the accounts of others, almost all of which cite that element of the film as the most powerful. It's interesting that you say he didn't grasp what was being said. I hadn't heard that thesis. I have heard people say that Card couldn't have had time in the brief moment when he leaned over to say everything he purportedly said (i.e., a second plane has hit the WTC...America is under attack). And of course there are all the conspiracy theories. that he knew. that it was an excuse to start another war. got a call to that effect this morning and found it unpersuasive.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Achenbach, thanks for an interesting article. I am in no way a supporter of President Bush, but I find it unreasonable to fault him for being -- and looking -- stunned at the news of the 9/11 attacks. Who among us wasn't? His claim to the 9/11 Commission that he purposefully wanted to project "strength and calm" may be risible, but I can't blame the man for being shocked. More interesting, I think, would be an analysis of the image the President projects in public moments such as the all-too-infrequent press conferences he's given. Often his expression wavers between a blank, uninterested stare and a pursed-lipped smirk. What does that say about our Chief Executive?

Joel Achenbach: In the story I tried to make the point that this is a rare thing, to see a president's reaction to shocking news. Maybe its NOT a surprise that he looked shocked and stunned. But you may have read the remarks by douglas brinkley: that its hard to believe he just sat there. and that you measure a person's character in a crisis. I dont know what i'd do in that situation. Most of us dont live and think and work on camera. off-camera, in my home, i raced out the door and drove as fast as i could toward the pentagon.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: As far as I am concerned President Bush's reaction and failure to heed Tenet and Clarke's warnings amounts to negligence. His absurd reaction of invading Iraq borders on criminal dereliction of duty. Abu Ghraib conjurs war criminal status. Stew on that.

Joel Achenbach: How would you deal with this alleged war criminal, then. Turn him over to an international tribunal? Trial in The Hague?

_______________________

Ithaca, N.Y.: You called Bush the "spiritual leader" of our nation. Whatever do you mean by that? He isn't the "spiritual leader" of anybody I know.

Joel Achenbach: I'm glad you asked. I got a raft of angry emails about the end of my story, specifically the graph referring to Bush as the "spiritual leader." I couldnt tell from the emails if people had read the entire story or just that graph. In retrospect I might have phrased things slightly differently (earlier in the piece there's a discussion of the conflated roles of a president, and "spiritual leader" wasn't mean to be taken literally any more than when i referred to him as a "monarch"). Deadline journalism is not a leisurely business in which we chew over our words at great length. that said, I think that giving Bush is props in that one graphs was was necessary for balance. The story was, up to that point, largely critical (I thought -- making an assessment on the fly, as we do in this business), and had some powerful statements from reputable presidential historians. Dallek and Brinkley came strong with their comments. I didn't really have anyone summarizing what Bush did right. I think what I wrote is true. Some people were aghast that I said it was courageous of him to go out in front of a baseball stadium and throw out the first ball. I think that's a fair word, though. Remember how jittery we all we then, how no one knew what would happen next, and you can believe he had on body armor that night.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Joel, regarding whether Kennedy slept through the Cuban missile crisis: I've seen repeated statements by Pierre Salinger to the effect that Kennedy heard of the missiles while on a campaign trip and told Salinger to tell the press corps he had a cold and would be returning to Washington. Salinger new something was up and Kennedy acknowledged it to him. Which account is correct?

Joel Achenbach: It may be that both are correct. According to sally bedell smith (her new book is Grace and Power, about the kennedy white house), Kennedy asked Bundy to write a memo explaining why bundy didn't tell Kennedy about the missiles the night JFK got back from campaigning. I wonder if theer was some subsequent event in which Salinger lied on JFK's behalf, because for a week or so, JFK kept up appearances and didn't let anyone know that we were on the brink of a war. He even hosted dinner parties and went out to dinner.

_______________________

California St NW, Washington, D.C.: Hi,

I have had two questions regarding this "Seven Minutes Issue" since it came to light.

1. Bush et all didn't want to upset the llittle kids -- did they not think up to 50,000 victims could be more dire than 30 crying kids?

2. Where was the ever-present Secret Service? Why didn't they hussle him to safety somewhere? Lord knows they treat John Q. Public on the street like we are criminals for walking down a D.C. street.

Thanks.

Joel Achenbach: In Bush's defense, he couldn't have imagined the carnage that was taking place in New York. No one could have. Even when one tower fell in front of Peter Jenning's eyes Jennings didn't realize what he was seeing, it was so unbelievable. That said, although Greenstein in the story talks about the danger of Bush upsetting the kids, that's not the issue and no one has said that's the issue. The real point is that Bush suddenly was told something, was sitting there on camera in teh middle of a photo op with kids, and didn't know what to do. To many of us it may seem obvious: You get up and find out what's happening and start giving orders. This is why Moore's movie is powerful. It's why we wrote a story about this moment and tried to explore it and think it through. Maybe Bush's instincts betrayed him. Maybe he was thinking, "I should have been commissioner of baseball." But it's easy for us to say what we would have done when we weren't there and aren't likely to ever be in such a situation.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I agree with the previous poster -- I am no Bush supporter either, however, I think that Moore's focus on this aspect of the president's reaction is really out of line. So he sat there for seven minutes and we got it all on tape. Big deal. What is far more important to me as a voter is what he did before and after those seven minutes. Those things, to me, speak volumes about his leadership (or, in my opinion, lack thereof). But I don't think it's fair to fault any person for such a thing as sitting in silence for seven minutes in the face of the 9/11 attacks, particularly when that person is the one who knew he would ultimately decide how we responded. Unfortunately, it seems to me like Mr. Moore may have gravitated toward the sensational again (recall his interview with the aging and confused head of the NRA -- who seemed to hardly be able to be held accountable for remembering to breathe -- in "Bowling for Columbine") while not treating the more substantive problems of Bush's time in office.

Joel Achenbach: Very interesting comment, and one i hope other people respond to. American politics has a way of seizing on minutia and quirky images rather than on the major policy matters. Our own Tina Brown made the point the other day in her column that some people who saw the Moore movie didn't understand why he focused so much on shadowy matters involving Bush-Saudi connections when his very public policies, the things he BRAGS about, are what could motivate many people to vote him out of office.

_______________________

Joel Achenbach: A quick follow up: Polemicists like Moore bug me, because as you know my own work is nuanced and balanced to the point of almost vanishing entirely into the murk of moderation. But remember that the GOP is awfully good at this game too: Didn't Dukakis get whacked over the pledge of allegiance and willie horton?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I don't know about the 7 minute pause, but what is up with the Attorney General being told not to fly commercial aircraft during the summer and fall of 2001? And that top Pentagon officials cancelled their flights on Sept 10th and 11th?

Joel Achenbach: I dont know the details of that but you might want to avoid that favorite fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc. even if top pentagon officials canceled flights on those days it might not be because they had prior knowledge, for example.

_______________________

Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: Joel -

The Bush-haters will use anything and everything to demean and defile him. I think the American people are more concerned with what has been done since then -- toppling of two terrorist regimes, the war has been taken to the terrorists.

I found your piece pretty balanced -- you did include one person who acknowledged the difficulty of the President being amongst small children -- but not entirely. I just think all the reaction to it has to be taken into a "hindsight is 20/20" context. Did anyone know exactly what was happening that morning? Could anything have been done? We know now that yes, possibly. But was it all crystal clear that morning? Heck no.

Joel Achenbach: Will a Bush-hater respond to this? Particularly the "defile" part? About my story being balanced or not balanced: I did try. I am not working for one side or the other. Balance can be taken too far in some circumstances but on deadline when you're making the sausage it's not always an easy calculation.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Just remember the only thing we know for certain is that the President did not react for seven minutes. The "why" part could be true or just the "right" answer his avisers can come up with. If we were being attacked by another country and there was "more to come" after the second twin towers crash, seven minutes could have made all the difference in the world. Please comment! Thank you.

Joel Achenbach: I think he DID react. He reacted by making a decision not to move. I havent seen the video but he's clearly agitated, and we've all seen the dazed stare on his face when he hears the news initially.
You say seven minutes could have made a difference: Having read Improvising a Homeland Defense, it's hard to see how Bush single-handedly could have rendered orderly an incredibly chaotic response. There WAS a quasi=commander in chief who was calling the shots, in teh form of Dick Cheney, in the White House bunker, but we now know that the military pilots from Langley never got the order to shoot down planes and the pilots from Andrews (acting on orders from the Secret Service, which is outside the military chain of command) had no idea they were supposed to protect the capital from hijacked airliners, and the FAA was utterly confused. The heroes of the day were mid-level managers who took the initiative to bring down every plane in the country even without waiting for HQ to give the order.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Re: Dukakis -- Or, for that matter, what about more recent political history: Howard Dean and "the scream" which somehow proved that he was unstable and given to wild swings of emotion? It proved nothing but that he was having a good night politically and let it out in an inappropriate manner. If I had a nickle for every time a politician has done something inappropriate... well, you know how that cliche ends.

Joel Achenbach: Right, Dean and the Scream. One yowl and he's toast. Of course it didn't help that he finished a distant 3rd pre-scream.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: What was Clinton's immediate reaction to the first World Trade Center bombing? The attacks on our embassies in Africa or the USS Cole? Are any of these discussed in Clinton's new book?
Furthermore, with Cheney and Rice in D.C. (his two closest advisors) it seems reasonable that Fliesher and other aides would worry about communicating a response rather than try to coordinate FAA and Pentagon activities. If Bush had been with Rice or Sen. Graham of Florida or some foreign policy advisor at the time he was informed he would have acted differently but his immediate response seems to be based on the luck of the draw of what aides came to the elementary school with him.

Joel Achenbach: In the story (which i'm sure you've carefully read) we make the point that other presidents werent on camera and their reactions weren't captured when informed of a crisis (for example, FDR and pearl harbor). In Bush's case, he did converse with Cheney and Rice and a couple of others right after leaving the schoolkids but instead of staying on the line and being an executive he worked on a statement to the country, one which, as i dimly recall, he said we were under attack (which we knew already) and that this wouldn't stand (sounding like his Dad). Then he let the Secret Service and Cheney et al persuade him that he should fly to Louisiana and Nebraska. That's a tough call, and Dallek, the historian, thinks LBJ would never have let his aides get the better of him there -- LBJ flew to DC on nov. 22, 1963 despite similar fears that there might be more violence.

_______________________

Helena, Mont.: What I found most interesting about the seven minutes is that Bush only got up at the urging of an aide. That's incredible. I wonder how long he would have sat there if the aide hadn't intervened.

Joel Achenbach: He would have sat at least to the end of the book My Pet Goat that the kids were reading

_______________________

Demarest, N.J.: Joel,

A Journalism 101 question. You said in an earlier reply that, as you began writing your piece the material you had was heavily critical of Bush. So you worked hard to include to dig up material that put his actions in a good light. As an aside let me just say I found your final piece to be almost apologetic on Bush's behalf.

Here's my question: If you find that your Rolodex of experts responds to an issue the same way (in this case, critical of Bush), is it "balanced" to try to beef up the other side, or does it fog the issue? Would an article, say, giving equal time to the flat-earth and round-earth theories be "balanced" or simply dumb? If you spoke with people whose judgment you trust, and they weren't all partisan Democrats, and they all found fault with Bush's actions on Sept. 11, isn't their agreement part of the story?

Joel Achenbach: I had two authors criticizing Bush and two defending him, actually. In writing up the story, near the end, I felt I needed a graph giving him props for his good moments after 9/11. Greenstein has an entire chapter of a book discussing Bush's rough first day and subsequent pulling of himself together (how's that for clear writing). Brinkley, very critical of Bush the first day, said he though Bush rallied the next day and performed better. I think MOST people agree that Bush gave an excellent speech to Congress. Being fair is not about trying to make every story come out a wash, but if you do a piece about Bush's reaction to 9/11 it's not fair to cut off the narrative right before he starts to pull himself together.

_______________________

Psychobabble: "Was I balanced or was I not balanced?" Oy. I feel like I'm reading Hamlet or a Getler column, or, worse, President Clinton's new book! Lets call it a good column and move on to what's important -- the substance.

Joel Achenbach: I always get stuck on the sound-and-fury signifying nothing.

_______________________

Bush- "hater" here: I would characterize myself as more of an "America Lover" than a "Bush Hater" but here we go.

I don't understand how the country could get into a tizzy about Clinton having an AFFAIR.. whereas Bush's reponse (or non-response, was it Cheney that made the call?) to 9/11, his lying about severity of the situation with Iraq and the WMD, his environmental record, and his putting his own spin about who deserves rights at the contradiction of the Constitution can go by without the blink of an eye.

If Clinton had done the same thing conservatives would've slammed him. It's one thing to be partisan (there are other things Clinton did that were not stellar, affair aside) and it's another thing to be blind!; Where's the line here? When does Bush become accountable?

There has to be a middle road here!; His immediate reaction is one thing (Moore is losing credibility when he goes towards the sensational) but his long-term response is another.

How damaging will this movie be to Bush's campaign anyway? It seems people are blind to the negatives, or deeply focused on them.

Joel Achenbach: I read this weekend that most Americans still think the war in Iraq should have been fought. It's something to ponder: After all the revelations about bad intelligence, no WMD, poorly executed plan, all the casualties, etc., most Americans still give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I know the numbers are always squishy and you might get a different result from the next poll depending on what question you ask; but Moore's film is probably not going to drive voters to Kerry. Most people have made up their mind, havent they?

_______________________

Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: I guess I qualify not so much as a "Bush-hater" but "let's throw the guy out before more damage is done" person. But frankly, there's an awful lot of low-hanging fruit available to anyone who wants to "demean and defile." Let's just focus on the kids in his 9/11 photo op. Wasn't it pretty clear that planes hitting the World Trade Center constituted a major threat? Why would the president (obviously a target, right?) continue to sit with those young children, making them targets as well?

Joel Achenbach: He wasn't thinking it through like that, though. He was stunned. He was confused.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: To use a sports metaphor, it is absolutely unacceptable for Bush to be stunned at the news of the 9/11 attacks. He is the "coach" of America's team and should have a play for every eventuality, including a nuclear attack. It's called leadership, people. A coach can't sit on the bench and think while the clock ticks down.

Joel Achenbach: He was thinking of punting, I bet.

_______________________

Moore's bias: The issue I have with the seven minutes is that it will now be seen bookended by two hours of Michael Moore bias. Bowling for Columbine is riddled with half-truths and lies through editing.

Joel Achenbach: Dont tell me his work isnt balanced.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I did read your article on Saturday and thought it was very fair and intersting, even educational.... can you explain more about what FDR's reaction was? You wrote something like 'FDR worried about the effect on his Presidency' can you gives more details? At some level, he must have realized America was now in WWII like it or not.

Joel Achenbach: What i was told by one of the historians is that two custodial workers on the White House staff saw FDR holding his head in his hands and saying somethign like, "my presidency is ruined." I wasnt more specific because it was so third-hand.

_______________________

Bush Hater, USA: This seven-minute hoopla just confirms that Bush is a moron who can't make a decision on his own. The 9/11 continues to confirm this for us, just read the notes. And those Bush supporters who speak of his "leadership" are even scarier than Bush.

Bush belongs in front of the Hague.

Thanks for the diatribe opportunity.

Joel Achenbach: Need some Bush defenders. This is becoming an echo chamber.

_______________________

Woodbridge, Va.: The tape that is being discussed now was also mentioned in alternative news sources for a quite a while. In fact just about everything I read now adays in the main stream press, including the NY Times "scoop" on Abu Graib, I have already read about in alternative news sources. I think the main stream media is doing a very poor job of informing the public. I suppose Michael Moore will be vilified for showing Bush in such a poor light, but I say don't kill the messenger.

Joel Achenbach: A good reminder to diversify your information portfolio.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I was working in a government building on 9/11. At the time there was a closed meeting of officials from other states in the US, other countries as well as our departmental director. I interrupted the meeting, pulled the people from NYC and informed them of the situation and then told the director of the department. After that I assisted in calling the necessary people to begin evacuating our floor.

I was 6 months out of college. And 23.

I'm not likening my simple tasks to the President of the United States' extreme responsibility for our country, but I what I can't believe is that he did nothing.

He could have excused himself and calmly left. Mobilized. There's a time to think about image, but at a time of war you have to act. Put feelings and emotions aside and act.

I waited until I was in my car in traffic trying to get home. Then I bawled.

Joel Achenbach: An INTERN could have done better than Bush, is what you're saying.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I am not a Bush supporter, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on those seven minutes. However, I am not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the rest of the day. I remember feeling abandoned by the Bush administration the entire day. I recall wondering where they were hiding out. I'm also no Giuliani fan but he managed to rise to the occasion in my view.

Joel Achenbach: Rudy was certainly the hero of the day. Bush wanted to come back to DC but he caved to pressure. He DID come back that night and addressed the nation, but was kind of shaky, in the opinion of a number of "opinion leaders."

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: Do you have the greatest job in Journalism? You seem to be able to write about anything you want, take book leave, host random chats, etc. I am impressed by your artistic scope and freedom. How did it come about?

Joel Achenbach: Being the conscience of my generation is harder than it looks.

_______________________

Clemson, SC: It's obvious that Michael Moore is as stupid and uniformed as he appears to be in every interview I have ever seen (saw?) of him. The first rule of crisis management is to gather information as quickly as possible, to form a basis for action. Obviously in seven minutes Bush had no info, so what was he supposed to do? Run around the room screaming obscenities? I mean, come on here, this is a joke.

The 9/11 Commission showed the confusion, which by the way is very normal for an event of this magnitude. You can train for years, but when it really happens, especially when it is something completely unexpected, the adrenaline takes over. If it was that bad at the working level, how were they supposed to get info up the chain of command to the Pres?

Moore is a partisan hack, who really doesn't make very good movies anyway, but he does have a good rep with the liberals who run Hollywood.

I'm sorry, please pardon my vitriol, I am a Bush fan, but I am also in Emergency Services, so I do know a thing or two about these types of situations. Maybe we dropped the ball in stopping it, but what happened on that day is entirely normal, so this thing about Bush is totally ridiculuous.

Joel Achenbach: Thanks for the comments. fyi, i urge everyone interested in this to go to our site and download the Commission reports of last week. Improvising a Homeland Defense shows what this reader is talking about: total confusion and chaos.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: So for Nixon it will always be the 18 minute gap on the tape, and for Bush it will be the 7 minutes of blank mind during "My Pet Goat" as the Sept. 11 attacks continued.

Those lost minutes didn't change much in the end, but their emptiness reveals the substance of both presidents.

Joel Achenbach: Maybe we can call it the Seven Minute Gape.

_______________________

Texas: This has been much discussed, but I'd be curious to hear your take on it. Why does Bush polarize people so? Partly it's his controversial policies. But it's not just that.

Take me, for instance. Although a moderate tending to liberal, there are any number of conservatives that I like (or at least respect). Dole, Bush Sr., McCain, Hatch, Reagan. And so on. But I intensely disliked Bush from the first time I laid eyes on him. I couldn't stand him when he was governor of my state (and by most accounts he was a reasonable, consensus-building governor).

I'm trying to understand my own reaction. And, apparently, a whole lot of other people are my situation. Any ideas what's going on?

Joel Achenbach: I wonder if its because he's not exactly a self-made man and seems to have decided to run for president about the time he was already leading in the polls. there are people who sense that at the Bush Family dinner table he's only about the 5th or 6th most intelligent person there. But maybe that's mean of me to say. will slap myself.

_______________________

Anonymous: Look, the President isn't some American Idol contestant who's being berated for singing slightly off key. The decisions he makes in times of crisis can have an effect on whether or not people LIVE or DIE. I'm sorry if it seems overly harsh, but he should have done better. Thank God Bin Laden decided against a 10 plane attack or think how many Americans might have died because Mr. Bush decided to finish that bed time story.

Joel Achenbach: yes, his decisions CAN in theory make a difference, but the Commission report leads me to think that he would have been unable to change the outcome that morning.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I am sure some of the Bush-Haters 'so called America Lovers' scoffed at Bush's comment halfway through your article about "we at war and someones going to have to pay' I for one was comforted by this. I only wish Clinton had the same reaction to the first World Trade Center bombing, the African embassy bombings, Kholbar Towers bombing or USS Cole attack. Perhaps if Clinton had reacted like this, Bush could have finished reading 'My Pet Goat' because the problem would have already been fixed, instead of Clinton leaving it for Bush to clean up.

Joel Achenbach: One of the historians made the point, though, that his response was entirely in the category of retaliation (or vengeance, really) rather than expressing any compassion for the thousands of people trapped in burning buildings. Just throwing that out there as chum to the sharks.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: My main problem with the seven minute tape is that it seems to me it speaks volumes about leadership. I know when I was hit with the 9/11 news I was rocked back on my heels, but I'm not the President. Any good policy analyst can take time and come to a good solution -- but in a crisis situation I want my leaders to be acting quickly and decisively despite the horror that may be going on.

Bush's first thought should have been to find out more and work to help save American lives. Spending any time worrying about image when you don't know anything about the situation or what you could be doing is not what I want in my leaders.

Unfortunately... this isn't really a test we can apply to candidates pre-election.

Joel Achenbach: Although one good thing about the arduous campaign is that it usually teases out the qualities of a candidate under fire. but you're right, there's nothing quite like this particular test.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Wow, does every article in your paper have to be critical of Bush? This happened almost three years ago and has been reported on quite a bit since then. I realize it's an election year, but isn't there another candidate whose every action we can obsess over in our short breaks from scrutinizing Bush?

Joel Achenbach: You mean Nader?

_______________________

Anonymous: Thanks for your piece. Although it pains me as a Deaniac to say it, I have no problem with what the President did on 9/11/01. The President of the United States is not a "first-responder," and principals often muck things up by interjecting themselves into emergent crisis situations. As for going to Omaha, there is no doubt that that was the right decision -- both for his personal seciruty (the Secret Service's beat) and for national security (Card's, Cheney's and Rice's beat). We spent an awful lot of money in the Cold War developing Air Force One as a sutainable, survivable command post and working up contingency plans involving using military bases as alternative National Command Authority sites. Consolidating the National Command Authority back in Washington that morning would have violated fundamental principles of national security doctrine.

Joel Achenbach: This comment is entirely too reasoned and informed for this live online discussion. In the future, please leave the rest of us alone, ok buddy?

_______________________

Emeryville, Calif.: Hi,

The spotlight has been exclusively on Pres. Bush's 7-minute "lapse". Given that Sec. Rumsfeld was bypassed in the chain of command on 9/11, do you forsee any further illumination of his commendable, but probably inappropriate, actions as a stretcher bearer on the Pentagon lawn?

Thanks

Joel Achenbach: I can tell its time to wrap up a chat when I stare at a question for 2 minutes and cant quite figure out what its asking. I think the answer to this question is no. Or maybe. anyway, thanks to everyone for joining in. We were balanced today, and judicious. We'll never let it happen again. cheers, joel

_______________________