XPost: alt.talk.royalty, alt.gossip.royalty   
   From: bpears@freenet.co.uk   
      
   Jimserac@gmail.com wrote:   
   >I need no other evidence, links or facts and I have NEVER yet heard a   
   >satisfactory explanation of why he acted in this manner at this time -   
   >and until I do, I shall have the most grave misgivings about his   
   >fitness for that high office.   
      
   Your powers of deduction are somewhat suspect to say the least   
   - for one thing, you don't *know* what the aide told Bush. You   
   merely assume, without any evidence whatsoever, that what you   
   saw was Bush being informed of the second aircraft hitting the   
   WTC. It's a common assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.   
   Perhaps he merely received an update about the first attack.   
      
   Even if he was being informed of that second attack, you don't   
   know what else was said. Perhaps he was specifically told to   
   sit tight until arrangements were made for the unexpectedly   
   early return to Air Force 1 - readying escort, clearing route   
   etc.  We just don't know.   
      
   To draw any conclusions from the assumed (but unknown) content of   
   an aides report to the President, let alone to make it the basis   
   of your entire attitude to Bush, is quite illogical.   
      
   --   
   Brian Pears   
   Gateshead, UK   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)