Kerry froze for 40 minutes.

[DKW 86 7,499]

Kerry froze for 40 minutes on 9-11, In his own words...

Hypocrite Kerry 'Couldn't Think' for 40 Minutes on 9/11

John Kerry is getting his comeuppance for his snotty comments about President Bush's actions on 9/11.

Here's what the Massachusetts Democrat said July 8 when Larry King asked where he was on 9/11, according to CNN's own transcript:

'Nobody Could Think'

"I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting - we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation."

How appropriate that Kerry lumps himself in with fellow leftist do-nothing non-thinkers such as Boxer, Daschle and Reid.

Thanks to the several readers today who sent us this fascinating bit from Blog for Bush: "the second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m., and the plane hit the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m. By Kerry's own words, he and his fellow senators sat there for forty minutes, realizing 'nobody could think.'"

[Ranger12 46]

Yeah, I heard that today also. I thought that was quite hypocritical of him.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Hmmmm comments? Al? Texas? Is it even a LITTLE bit hypocritical?

[TexasTiger 13,285]

Hmmmm comments? Al? Texas? Is it even a LITTLE bit hypocritical?

What do you want a Senator to do? Command the Air Force to shoot a plane down? He was not getting the information that the commander-in-chief would be getting. He had no particular responsibility in regard to the crisis at hand that I'm aware of. Like most of us, my mind may have been racing, but to what purpose? Most of us were helpless to do a whole lot. That doesn't mean that if I had been President, with that responsiblity and that level of connection to information and decision-making that I would not have gotten up calmly, but immediately and begin conferring with my chief aides. What if jets had been scrambled earlier? What if people in the people in the towers had been told to get the hell out, that other planes were hijacked? You haven't heard me go on incessantly actually blaming Bush for 9/11. That said, this notion that you can't question the response of the President is absurd.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Cooooommmmmeeeee on. This is the same as calling bush a liar for sending us to war based on the same intellingence kerry saw when he voted to send us to war.

I get it...I get it...kerry is accountable for absolutley NOTHING. And Bush is at fault for everything.

[TexasTiger 13,285]

Cooooommmmmeeeee on. This is the same as calling bush a liar for sending us to war based on the same intellingence kerry saw when he voted to send us to war.

I get it...I get it...kerry is accountable for absolutley NOTHING. And Bush is at fault for everything.

Bama Grad, I don't really want to insult you. I'd rather have a decent conversation, but this is the kind of response that leads me to respond in such a way that you find offensive. What are you saying? Critique my point if you want, but at least respond directly to something I've specifically said and say why you think that specific thing it is stupid or hypocritical or whatever. Then it is easier for me to provide you with a meaningful response instead of just poking you in the eye.

[tiger88 934]

Well in fairness to bg you didn't really respond to what he directly asked you. Isn't it at least a little hypocritical to point the finger at Bush for not acting fast enough when he acknowledged that for 40 minutes, afa the people in his group were concerned, "nobody could think"?!

If you had answered that question honestly I don't think bg's response would have been anything like it was. It is irrelevant who had what responsibilities. Yes bush's responsibility level was higher and it is possible that his slow action was more costly. However how in the world can you charge someone acted slowly in incompetence or whatever when you yourself acknowledge that for 40 minutes you couldn't think after suffering through the exact same situation that the person that you are criticizing did?

If that isn't hypocrisy then what the hell is?

[BamaGrad03 0]

my point was that yet again...you admit that kerry acted in the same manner as bush given the same situation (similar to calling bush a liar based on the same intellingence kerry saw)....yet you continue to bash bush and kerry gets by blameless.

i thought that was obvious.

[TexasTiger 13,285]

Well in fairness to bg you didn't really respond to what he directly asked you. Isn't it at least a little hypocritical to point the finger at Bush for not acting fast enough when he acknowledged that for 40 minutes, afa the people in his group were concerned, "nobody could think"?!

If you had answered that question honestly I don't think bg's response would have been anything like it was. It is irrelevant who had what responsibilities. Yes bush's responsibility level was higher and it is possible that his slow action was more costly. However how in the world can you charge someone acted slowly in incompetence or whatever when you yourself acknowledge that for 40 minutes you couldn't think after suffering through the exact same situation that the person that you are criticizing did?

If that isn't hypocrisy then what the hell is?

If you honestly think circumstances are irrelevant then there is little else to say.

I doubt Kerry really meant he truly couldn't think for 40 minutes. The man had to respond quickly under fire, and from every credible report, including the evaluations of those who now slime him, he acted decisively when needed.

[TexasTiger 13,285]

my point was that yet again...you admit that kerry acted in the same manner as bush given the same situation (similar to calling bush a liar based on the same intellingence kerry saw)....yet you continue to bash bush and kerry gets by blameless.

i thought that was obvious.

Okay, I guess I will insult you. If you really think they were in the same situation on 9/11 that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I guess I was in the same situation, too. Me and Dubya, in the exact same situation on 9/11.

You continue to bash Kerry ad nauseum and Bush goes blameless.

[tiger88 934]

Well in fairness to bg you didn't really respond to what he directly asked you. Isn't it at least a little hypocritical to point the finger at Bush for not acting fast enough when he acknowledged that for 40 minutes, afa the people in his group were concerned, "nobody could think"?!

If you had answered that question honestly I don't think bg's response would have been anything like it was. It is irrelevant who had what responsibilities. Yes bush's responsibility level was higher and it is possible that his slow action was more costly. However how in the world can you charge someone acted slowly in incompetence or whatever when you yourself acknowledge that for 40 minutes you couldn't think after suffering through the exact same situation that the person that you are criticizing did?

If that isn't hypocrisy then what the hell is?

If you honestly think circumstances are irrelevant then there is little else to say.

I doubt Kerry really meant he truly couldn't think for 40 minutes. The man had to respond quickly under fire, and from every credible report, including the evaluations of those who now slime him, he acted decisively when needed.

Well I can see that you are infallible in your own mind on this one.

Of course kerry could think you doofus . What he was saying is that his degree of alertness/thinking was greatly affected. The circumstances are irrellevant in determining the hypocrisy only. Like I admitted bush's possible indecision could very well have been more costly than kerry's.

If you don't see the hypocrisy in someone saying that someone else was incompetent for not thinking clearly, when he acknowledges that in the exact same situation he did not think clearly, then you have clearly attained an enlightened level of thinking that others are incapable of .

You then are trying to draw some kind of ridiculous parallel between kerry's vietnam situation and bush's 9/11 situation. Bush obviously at one time showed that he could be cool under fire in that kind of situation or he never would have been allowed to pilot a jet. What is being discussed in this particular thread, until you changed the subject , is how both men reacted on 9/11. Kerry has acknowledged that he was shocked to the point of "I couldn't think for 40 minutes", yet accuses the president of incompetency for not thinking normally under the exact same situation, in the exact same time frame. No hypocrisy there .

[BamaGrad03 0]

I guess Bush should have used his superhuman presidential powers the become 300 feet tall and kill all terrorists with telepathy.

dude get over it. you hate bush...and it spills over into all your arguments.

[TexasTiger 13,285]

I guess Bush should have used his superhuman presidential powers the become 300 feet tall and kill all terrorists with telepathy.

dude get over it. you hate bush...and it spills over into all your arguments.

Dude, you have no arguments. Arguments require some logical ability. You have reactions and bromides.

[TexasTiger 13,285]

Well in fairness to bg you didn't really respond to what he directly asked you. Isn't it at least a little hypocritical to point the finger at Bush for not acting fast enough when he acknowledged that for 40 minutes, afa the people in his group were concerned, "nobody could think"?!

If you had answered that question honestly I don't think bg's response would have been anything like it was. It is irrelevant who had what responsibilities. Yes bush's responsibility level was higher and it is possible that his slow action was more costly. However how in the world can you charge someone acted slowly in incompetence or whatever when you yourself acknowledge that for 40 minutes you couldn't think after suffering through the exact same situation that the person that you are criticizing did?

If that isn't hypocrisy then what the hell is?

If you honestly think circumstances are irrelevant then there is little else to say.

I doubt Kerry really meant he truly couldn't think for 40 minutes. The man had to respond quickly under fire, and from every credible report, including the evaluations of those who now slime him, he acted decisively when needed.

Well I can see that you are infallible in your own mind on this one.

Of course kerry could think you doofus . What he was saying is that his degree of alertness/thinking was greatly affected. The circumstances are irrellevant in determining the hypocrisy only. Like I admitted bush's possible indecision could very well have been more costly than kerry's.

If you don't see the hypocrisy in someone saying that someone else was incompetent for not thinking clearly, when he acknowledges that in the exact same situation he did not think clearly, then you have clearly attained an enlightened level of thinking that others are incapable of .

You then are trying to draw some kind of ridiculous parallel between kerry's vietnam situation and bush's 9/11 situation. Bush obviously at one time showed that he could be cool under fire in that kind of situation or he never would have been allowed to pilot a jet. What is being discussed in this particular thread, until you changed the subject , is how both men reacted on 9/11. Kerry has acknowledged that he was shocked to the point of "I couldn't think for 40 minutes", yet accuses the president of incompetency for not thinking normally under the exact same situation, in the exact same time frame. No hypocrisy there .

First of all, here's the quote:

KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.

What does it mean? Did he see the second plane when it hit? Did he see one of the many playbacks? Think about how people talk sometimes jumping around and not finishing thoughts when recalling an event. Was he saying none of them could even process thought? Or was he about to say something like "nobody could think this would happen", etc.? Everyone I know was surprised. The phrasing is pretty awkward, like conversation often is. He didn't say their alertness was diminished. Do you think Kerry would say that he froze and had diminished thinking on Larry King, even if it were true? Don't his critics say he is too packaged, scripted and calculating to do such a thing? Any fair and reasonable person reading the actual transcript will have to admit, it is not necessarily clear what that awkward phrasing meant.

If you're going to be this demanding from the transcript of a conversation, you have probably never seen a transcript of one of your own conversations. Alot of us sound more like Bush than we may want to admit.

Yesterday Bush said this:

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Did he mean exactly that? Did he mean anything even remotely like what he said? Of course not. None of you guys took that at face value, did you? If not, and you take this to mean what Newsmax is trying to spin it as, aren't you being hypocritical?

In any event, circumstances are huge. If you were to tell me that after you saw the second plane hit that you sat down and stared numbly at the TV, should I conclude you would have a similar response if you were president? Frankly, I wouldn't make that assumption about you, unless I had a context of other experiences that led me to that conclusion. A retired General could have that response, because what the hell else is he gonna do? But as President, you have to engage immediately. There are people in positions to share information with you. There are questions that need to be asked by you. You might not have all the answers immediately at your fingertips, but you have to engage immediately and at least get in the game.

Besides, he didn't bring this up the other day. He was asked a question:

Addressing journalists in the nation's capital, Mr Kerry was asked what he would have done as president the moment he received word of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Mr Bush spent seven minutes listening to The Pet Goat being read at a Florida elementary school after his Chief of Staff, Mr Andrew Card, whispered to him: 'America is under attack.' Television cameras recorded the anxious scene.

Mr Kerry said: 'I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the President of the United States had something that he needed to attend to. And I would have attended to it.'

What is wrong with that response? He didn't claim he could have prevented the third plane from hitting the Pentagon with swifter, smarter action. He didn't say he would know exactly what he should do right away. He simply said he would calmly excuse himself and at least place himself in a position where he could receive information and confer with advisors. If you find "obvious hypocrisy" in that answer, you would have probably found it in anything he might have said.

[bigsixfive 328]

I'm going to have to partially agree with you based on a possible misinterpretation of what was said. Listen up, cause this will probably be the only time I will defend Kerry. His remark, though straightforward, seems to have a demeaning insinuation especially when surrounded by negative statements about Bush as the posted quote is. It is possible that this line was taken out of context. Its obviously been hyped by several media outlets.

Addressing journalists in the nation's capital, Mr Kerry was asked what he would have done as president the moment he received word of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Mr Kerry said: 'I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the President of the United States had something that he needed to attend to. And I would have attended to it.'

That has a little less dramatic and has a lighter tone to it than making a Bush-smear-sandwitch out of the relevant comments.

Addressing journalists in the nation's capital, Mr Kerry was asked what he would have done as president the moment he received word of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Mr Bush spent seven minutes listening to The Pet Goat being read at a Florida elementary school after his Chief of Staff, Mr Andrew Card, whispered to him: 'America is under attack.' Television cameras recorded the anxious scene.

Mr Kerry said: 'I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the President of the United States had something that he needed to attend to. And I would have attended to it.'

Knocking Bush for pausing is outright rediculous. America was attacked for the second time in 140+ years (last that I can recall was the Mexican American War). I know it took a little time for it to sink in with me, longer than 7 minutes I'm sure. I, personally, am glad he took the time to collect his thoughts and react rationally. Who knows what would have happened if he rushed out and started demanding orders. Moscow could have been nuked. I also doubt those 7 minutes would have changed history as well. The bottleneck was in the communication lines, not the president simply being human.

[keoson7 28]

I'm not surprised Kerry and the people he named couldn't think, Heck I'm more surprised he showed up for work one day.

[bigsixfive 328]

I'm not surprised Kerry and the people he named couldn't think, Heck I'm more surprised he showed up for work one day.

Hey, good point. I didn't even catch the fact that he actually worked.

Slightly off topic, but I like how he says he has all these grandeur plans on fixing things, but refuses to tell about them until he gets elected. Isn't that his freaking job as a senator??

[TexasTiger 13,285]

I'm not surprised Kerry and the people he named couldn't think, Heck I'm more surprised he showed up for work one day.

Hey, good point. I didn't even catch the fact that he actually worked.

Slightly off topic, but I like how he says he has all these grandeur plans on fixing things, but refuses to tell about them until he gets elected. Isn't that his freaking job as a senator??

"Refuses to tell"

You asked for it:

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

[bigsixfive 328]

I'm not surprised Kerry and the people he named couldn't think, Heck I'm more surprised he showed up for work one day.

Hey, good point. I didn't even catch the fact that he actually worked.

Slightly off topic, but I like how he says he has all these grandeur plans on fixing things, but refuses to tell about them until he gets elected. Isn't that his freaking job as a senator??

"Refuses to tell"

You asked for it:

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

On Sunday, Kerry told FNS that he could increase international cooperation in Iraq (search), but he refused to give any details on how he would make that arrangement.

"Of course, I'm not going to negotiate, publicly, the hand that I have as president before I'm president.

link

Ok, now I'm regretting sticking up for him. Here it goes.

Today, we face four great challenges above all others - First, to win the global war against terror; Second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; Third, to promote democracy, freedom, and opportunity around the world, starting by winning the peace in Iraq; Fourth, end our dependence on Mideast oil.

Interesting. Thats what Bush is currently doing.

Launch and Lead A New Era Of Alliances.

The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike us. Kerry-Edwards will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its Allies.

Last I checked, Bush is doing this too.

Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats.

Kerry-Edwards will ensure that our forces are fully prepared for the dangerous and vital missions they may face, and that America's military always remains second to none. We must extend our capabilities to better face new threats of terrorism, failed states and homeland defense.

Easy call considering he votes down innovation in the military and intelligence (when he actually votes).

Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal.

The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. Kerry - Edwards will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

Yeah, 15 years of trying to talk Saddam out of power didn't work, but maybe a 16th would have. While you're at it, why don't you send Osama some cookies and kindly ask him to stop hating the US? Diplomacy only goes so far.

The intelligence system will not benefit from Kerry taking office due to the reason previously stated.

Deploy more economic power? You chastize Bush for spending money, but you're all for it when you have the credit card?

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil.

To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment. Kerry-Edwards will create a new energy and conservation trust fund to accelerate the development of innovative technologies, such as more efficient cars and trucks, the development of biofuels, and creating clean, secure, hydrogen-based energy. Kerry-Edwards will also expand the supply of natural gas, assure 20% of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020, and make clean coal part of our energy solution.

Yeah, that sounds good, but its not that easy. Just because technology exists doesn't mean 1) its cheap enough for the general public to afford , 2) that it is reliable enough to be used commercially, 3) that it is safe enough to be used commercially, 4) that it is as efficient as current technology and 5) that it has been proven to have less damaging effects than current technology, both short and long term. Research and development takes time, and he is not qualified to set a hard goal for it. This statement was to nab environmental votes, because there's not much that he can do that again, isnt already being done.

Reward Companies that Create Jobs in America.

The Kerry-Edwards plan will end tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas and use the savings to reduce the corporate tax rate by 5 percent, cutting taxes for 99 percent of corporations. The Kerry-Edwards plan also includes a New Jobs Tax Credit for new hiring in manufacturing, other businesses affected by outsourcing, and small businesses.

Didn't his good buddy push NAFTA through?

Strengthen the Middle Class.

As incomes decline and costs rise, families are having a hard time paying their bills, let alone saving for tomorrow. Health care costs are up by nearly 50 percent, college tuition has increased by 35 percent, and gas prices have skyrocketed. A Kerry-Edwards administration will provide relief to middle class families by cutting taxes and investing in health care and education.

This is a typical political statement 99% of politicians use, its fluff. "Cut taxes, give you more, blah blah blah."

Invest in the Jobs of the Future.

To keep America competitive for the future, a Kerry-Edwards administration will invest in research and technology and provide tax credits to unleash innovation in broadband, energy and small business. They will also provide a tax credit on up to $4,000 for each of four years of college tuition. And they will work for responsible immigration laws that honor America's promise and strengthen America's economy and security.

I still don't believe this guy will vote for new technologies. There is already a tax break for tuition, I believe its 3000 or 3300. I would be satisfied if he removed the number of hoops parents have to jump through to get that break.

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington.

Kerry and Edwards have a record of fiscal discipline that is absent in this administration, and they have promised to live within the budget principles that helped lead this nation to balance the budget. Their plan will cut the deficit in half in four years, increasing economic confidence and keep interest rates from rising.

WHATS THE PLAN??? Wheres this record? What about all this economic deployment?

The healthcare section also spends money on this and that. How are you going to cut the deficit in half, cut taxes, and provide support for everything else?

[AUloggerhead 2,280]

WHATS THE PLAN??? Wheres this record? What about all this economic deployment?

The healthcare section also spends money on this and that. How are you going to cut the deficit in half, cut taxes, and provide support for everything else?

You don't get it, big-6-5. It will happen just because the Dems say it will!