silence is golden

From a previous discussion about Bush's now-infamous seven minutes of unexplained inaction in response to being told "America is under attack":

I am merely skeptical of the argument that George Bush is unfit to govern because he sat for seven minutes. What was he thinking? Neither you nor anyone else has any clue (it's the problem of other minds, you know). Frankly, I WOULDN'T claim that a general who sat for seven minutes is unfit to lead. Why? Because "fitness" (an incredibly vague concept) doesn't seem to be merely determined by the quickness of response, but the quality of the response....

A general is told "we are under attack," sits there for seven minutes fiddling with his watch, saying nothing, asking no questions, and you would not question his leadership style? I find that hard to believe--especially, say, if you were the adjutant who brought the message. Meditative calm is one thing; slack-jawed astonishment another. (More on this below.)

To stretch the issue beyond the immediate situation (which has been my main concern), let's address the criterion further. In this case, there has been no quality response. Osama bin Laden, for all we know, is at large; his terror networks, though disrupted, have not been contained or destroyed. Our military is stretched thin in a conflict of questionable (if not entirely dubious) value in the "war on terror" (which, like pouring water on an oil fire, has done nothing but spread the flames).

...Why can't the same sort of healthy caution be allowed to a President? If he had exercised nuclear retaliation he surely would have been charged with being a hasty and impulsive decision maker. It seems he's in a lose-lose.

Please watch the film, and see if George Bush's face registers "healthy caution." As to the "lose-lose," note that I'm not calling for a nuclear strike. A leader doesn't have to make an immediate decision; he should, though, as quickly as possible, get an estimate of the situation, see what those under him are doing to resolve the crisis, and, if he can do nothing else, act presidential while the camera is rolling. (See the film to watch Bush put on his "serious" face before delivering a televised speech; it's quite something.)

So the question I asked of you still seems to apply: what SHOULD he have done?

I've already inferred it, I think. Gotten up. Asked a question. Looked concerned. Done anything, really, other than just sit there with a book in his lap. I guess you just have to see the video to understand what I'm talking about. Most simply: he should have left the classroom, explaining (if he felt the need) that duty called him away. I'm sure the children would understand. (After that point, he could, if baffled, ask his advisors what to do, but away from the camera, so the whole world would not know of his bafflement.)

Obviously, Bush may not have known Al-Qaeda were at that moment crashing jetliners into the World Trade Center; he was told, quite simply, "America is under attack," and he sat there as if there was nothing he could do. A coward might seek to run; a fool, to blindly attack. But total inaction?

This is not the only reason he is unfit to govern; maybe that's not the best way to frame it. He is unnecessary to his administration, a figurehead, as his aides' actions show. (The fact that none of them interrupted his seven minute reverie--how else can it be explained?) And, perhaps due to his military inexperience, despite being a self-styled "war president," he is not much like a commander-in-chief.