John Adams Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Yeah, and again, like my other post suggested there is some gray area between dead and alive. Understanding that requires a bit of compassion I'm afraid. What is the role of government in this situation? Is it supposed to guarantee a 4 BR colonial for flood victims? OR is supposed to cloth, provide medical support, and feed people until they get their own feet under themselves? If anything, it's the later--and if people can't get their feet under themselves, that's where the complainers lie. Imagine if you had been washed out as a result of Katrina. Would you be living jobless in a government trailer 8 months later? I don't have compassion for (most of the) people who are still getting help as a result of Katrina and can't help themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Gas prices at $4 a gallon - media is hyping blame that its all Bush's fault and needs to fix it. Gas prices under $2 a gallon a few months later - not a word in the media That sums up the media coverage of Bush the last 8 years, which is why I don't think he'll be even close to as hated as he is now 50 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Bush apologist. Far right crackpot. Time has passed you by. All hail the new liberal agenda. Ahhhhhh this is an unnecessary and uncalled for DIRECT attack on me. I demand that the government step in immediately and do something. I can't suggest what, but they should do something. My personal dignity has been impugned! Ahhhhhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Gas prices at $4 a gallon - media is hyping blame that its all Bush's fault and needs to fix it. Gas prices under $2 a gallon a few months later - not a word in the media That sums up the media coverage of Bush the last 8 years, which is why I don't think he'll be even close to as hated as he is now 50 years from now. He'll replace Hoover as that future generation's personification of bad times; whenever he's mentioned people will associate his name with bad economic and international decisions, as they continue to pay off the debts left by his policies. Hoover will be forgotten, like people now don't remember Buchanan, who was ineffective in preventing the Civil War. I wonder who people used to personify bad times with before Hoover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Gas prices at $4 a gallon - media is hyping blame that its all Bush's fault and needs to fix it. Gas prices under $2 a gallon a few months later - not a word in the media That sums up the media coverage of Bush the last 8 years, which is why I don't think he'll be even close to as hated as he is now 50 years from now. Naw he'll be lumped in with those forgettable presidents like...ummmm...William Henry Harrison? Millard Fillmore? Warren G. Harding? Bush's legacy is Barack Obama. Depending on how President Obama fares the next 4 years...Bush will either slide totally into infamy if he's not there already or...he may get some positive fallout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There are some things I will defend him on- the criticism he got from the wingnuts about sitting in the classroom on 9/11 was ludicrous. What was he supposed to do? Outrun security to NYC and hold the towers up like he was Atlas? I thought that was a situation that was handled ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There are some things I will defend him on- the criticism he got from the wingnuts about sitting in the classroom on 9/11 was ludicrous. What was he supposed to do? Outrun security to NYC and hold the towers up like he was Atlas? I thought that was a situation that was handled ok. He should have left as soon as he was told there was a crisis. What if he was told there were Russian ICBMs on the way, would he still finish the story? Deer in the headlights moment. Don't take the job if you can't handle it. And his administration's obsession with Iraq instead of al Queda, after the Millinium bombing was stopped and they were warned by the outgoing Clinton administration will forever be on their heads. Bush points out that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Yeah, but what did you do to prevent 9/11? Strike 1, 9/11. Strike 2, Iraq. Strike 3, Katrina. You're out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 He should have left as soon as he was told there was a crisis. What if he was told there were Russian ICBMs on the way, would he still finish the story? Deer in the headlights moment. Don't take the job if you can't handle it. And his administration's obsession with Iraq instead of al Queda, after the Millinium bombing was stopped and they were warned by the outgoing Clinton administration will forever be on their heads. Bush points out that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Yeah, but what did you do to prevent 9/11? Strike 1, 9/11. Strike 2, Iraq. Strike 3, Katrina. You're out! Security obviously wasn't ready for him to leave- if they were, they would have come in and gotten him. He has bumbled his way through 8 years- there is enough to rip him on without going after him for things that he could do nothing about. If he left the classroom, he would have been standing out on the hall. You can replace 9/11 with the economy and Iraq with the whole "War on Terror" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 He should have left as soon as he was told there was a crisis. What if he was told there were Russian ICBMs on the way, would he still finish the story? Deer in the headlights moment. Don't take the job if you can't handle it. Left to go where? The teachers' lounge? How do you know what the security was at that particular moment? How do you know they didn't say "Wait here a few minutes while we find out if the plane has been gassed up yet and if we think it's even safe to go up in the plane and in general more about WTF is going on and where your Nat'l security team is so we can make informed decisions about what's safe and you can decide what you want to do next within those parameters." Such petty criticisms are just beyond stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There are some things I will defend him on- the criticism he got from the wingnuts about sitting in the classroom on 9/11 was ludicrous. What was he supposed to do? Outrun security to NYC and hold the towers up like he was Atlas? I thought that was a situation that was handled ok. Completely disagree on this one. If you're President and you get word, any kind of word, that the country is under some kind of terrorist attack (even if the guy says maybe; we don't really know what the hell is happening)- you leave what you're doing and at the very least pretend to be doing something. Ideally, you'd be making some calls to people and finding out what the heck is going on and what can/is being done to respond. But, you absolutely, absolutely don't just keep on keepin on and pretend nothing is happening. So, some are suggesting security wasn't prepared for him to leave? Seriously? You're going to suggest that the Secret Service doesn't have an exit strategy for every building the President walks into complete with motorcade and aircraft waiting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Completely disagree on this one. If you're President and you get word, any kind of word, that the country is under some kind of terrorist attack (even if the guy says maybe; we don't really know what the hell is happening)- you leave what you're doing and at the very least pretend to be doing something. Ideally, you'd be making some calls to people and finding out what the heck is going on and what can/is being done to respond. But, you absolutely, absolutely don't just keep on keepin on and pretend nothing is happening. So, some are suggesting security wasn't prepared for him to leave? Seriously? You're going to suggest that the Secret Service doesn't have an exit strategy for every building the President walks into complete with motorcade and aircraft waiting? They can't plan for everything- the situation has to be analyzed as to how it fits in to that exit plan. Not to mention that all flights were in the process of being suspended and they had to get t he information to fill him in. Until he was ready with all information, there is a vice president. He would have just been standing out in the hall if he left. This is the same argument as why doesn't the president take the battlefield when we go to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 They can't plan for everything- the situation has to be analyzed as to how it fits in to that exit plan. Not to mention that all flights were in the process of being suspended and they had to get t he information to fill him in. Until he was ready with all information, there is a vice president. He would have just been standing out in the hall if he left. This is the same argument as why doesn't the president take the battlefield when we go to war. We'll have to disagree on this. That situation was handled badly. They had the plan and eventually enacted it - fly around the country on Air Force 1 and eventually land in some nondisclosed location, sequester away and make decisions. Meanwhile, the VP is ushered away to his underground bunker and sequestered away making decisions. But, the last thing you do is remain in a classroom while the country is potentially at war. I see absolutely no reason why he couldn't have politely left the room. Hopped in the motorcade limo to the airport. Then on Airforce 1. All the while on the phone with various members of the joint chiefs, trying to figure out what was happening and what our response may or may not be. Yes, I agree, it may not have accomplished a darn thing. But, it at the very least has the appearance that you're following some plan. Sitting in a classroom, reading a book while planes are crashing into buildings just looks like you're clueless. And, BTW, I don't put all the blame on Bush for this. But, he does shoulder the large amount. What you're suggesting is that the President shouldn't do anything in the moment of crisis until his "handlers" have figured out what's going on and what he should do. However, I would hope that the President could take a little more initiative in such a circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There are some things I will defend him on- the criticism he got from the wingnuts about sitting in the classroom on 9/11 was ludicrous. What was he supposed to do? Outrun security to NYC and hold the towers up like he was Atlas? I thought that was a situation that was handled ok. If you were sitting in your office/cube, whatever and someone came to you and said your wife/mother/brother/whatever has just been shot and is in the hospital, would you just sit there and wait for someone to tell you what to do? Of course you'd be in shock. You weren't expecting anything like that. You might say OMG what do I do? You might leap up ... you might burst into tears... you might say Well I need to talk to the police / hospital, can someone get me the info? What you would NOT do is look around blankly waiting for someone to tell you what to do. There are a many things he could have done that didn't involve crying, screaming, leaping, or bolting. The thing he opted to do was NOTHING which shows an EXTREME lack of leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Such petty criticisms are just beyond stupid. As are ridiculous rationalizations (like maybe Air Force One wasn't gassed up?????) of why GWB didn't immediately react after he was told "America is under attack". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Gas prices at $4 a gallon - media is hyping blame that its all Bush's fault and needs to fix it. Gas prices under $2 a gallon a few months later - not a word in the media That sums up the media coverage of Bush the last 8 years, which is why I don't think he'll be even close to as hated as he is now 50 years from now. Who blamed Bush for high gas prices? I'd like to read those articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 If you were sitting in your office/cube, whatever and someone came to you and said your wife/mother/brother/whatever has just been shot and is in the hospital, would you just sit there and wait for someone to tell you what to do? Of course you'd be in shock. You weren't expecting anything like that. You might say OMG what do I do? You might leap up ... you might burst into tears... you might say Well I need to talk to the police / hospital, can someone get me the info? What you would NOT do is look around blankly waiting for someone to tell you what to do. There are a many things he could have done that didn't involve crying, screaming, leaping, or bolting. The thing he opted to do was NOTHING which shows an EXTREME lack of leadership. Well never fear your boy from Chicago will soon be here. Who ? Why the lying communist fraud himself , Obama. You don't know the first thing about leadership , because you are too needy like the rest of the Tards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 They can't plan for everything- the situation has to be analyzed as to how it fits in to that exit plan. Um, yes they can. It's their f'ing job. Said analysis should have already been done before it was decided months in advance that he was to visit Emma E. Booker Elementary School. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Um, yes they can. It's their f'ing job. Said analysis should have already been done before it was decided months in advance that he was to visit Emma E. Booker Elementary School. They should anticipate that terrorists might fly planes into the World Trade Centers that day? And that all flights would be suspended- determining when they can leave? Why not plan for a 100 foot tall bugbear too........ He deserves criticism for more things than I can name- but IMHO, he was waiting for the call to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 As are ridiculous rationalizations (like maybe Air Force One wasn't gassed up?????) of why GWB didn't immediately react after he was told "America is under attack". I have news for you retards: when America's attacked in the next four years, Obama won't "react" immediately either. Things don't work that way. Never have...FDR didn't jump out of his chair (metaphorically speaking) and leap (again, metaphorically) in to action when told about Pearl Harbor either. There's actually very little for the President to do the moment he's told "America's under attack" other than say "Get me more information." At the point he says that, his options then become very limited: stay where he is and wait until his staff sorts out some of the confusion, or try to sort out the confusion himself. The first choice is almost always the better one, if only because executive interference tends to distract people from their jobs (if the director of the FAA is trying to decide whether to ground all civil aircraft or not, and he's interrupted with "Sir, the President's on line one asking what the hell's happening...", how is the President helping things?), but also because of the completely reasonable observation that that's what staffs are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Um, yes they can. It's their f'ing job. Said analysis should have already been done before it was decided months in advance that he was to visit Emma E. Booker Elementary School. Odds are they did the analysis and came up with a plan beforehand, and followed it that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts