Quote:This is the picuture perfect example of why you have exactly zero credibility in any of your criticisms.  The gist of this is you say, "He should have left immediately and got to work."  "Work doing what?" "I don't know, but he's a moron for not leaving and doing what he should of been."  "What should he have been doing that wasn't already being done?"  "I don't know but I hate the guy so I'm going to say whatever it takes to illustrate that point.":rolleyes:

You appear to be suggesting that a President can do his best work on the toilet if he chooses to, and I don't buy that.

Quote:There was a period of 16 minutes between the time the first plane hit the first tower and when the second tower was hit.  Only in your world is that enough time to make a decision that could prevented the second from happening. :rolleyes:

Read again what I said. Remember, there were more than 2 planes.

Quote:Ideally yes, we would have been able to react quicker.  But you seem, conveniently, to forget that 9/11 was utter CHAOS!  We weren't prepared.  The mechanisms to get the necessary information gathered weren't there or weren't working.  Leaders don't make decisions without information and facts, that's your job.  And in short time Bush spent in that room information was being gathered. 

If we were under attack, as many as so fond are describing 9/11 as, then time was of the essence. Could he have had the other planes shot down - probably not. Should he have spent those 7 minutes gathering as much information as possible as quickly as possible? I'm amazed that you suggest not. You're basically suggesting that if he got information about incoming nuclear missles, he should grab a burger and some fries and get to work later. That's incomprehensibly idiotic. :bang:

Quote:Way to totally contradict yourself.  There were more important things for him to be doing, but you don't know what.  But you really don't place that much emphasis on those 10 or so minutes, you just want to talk about it because you think Bush is a stupid head.:rolleyes:

Would you feel the same if Clinton got the news about the second plane while his knob was being polished by an intern? After all, there's still information gathering to be done by the appropriate parties, and he couldn't yet make any decisions.

Quote:I'm curious, what's it like to be so consumed with hatred toward one human being that all objectivity and ability for rational thought leaves you and is substituted with personal attacks and complete disregard for facts? I'm genuinely interested.

Hey, what do you know, he finally came to the light on President Clinton.

Ah so much idiocy to debunk, so little time.

Schaden I've already concluded you're not worth the effort to try and have a resonable discussion with, so I'll just keep reading your stuff for the chuckles it gives me.

Socko, you clearly are as out to lunch as the rest of these kids.

Quote:O little ray of Niner sunshine, thanks ever so much for coming into our lives and brightening the outlook. With your absolute certainty, you once again show us the wisdom of this administration and those who support it when they say, "How dare you question us?"

Once again you show why reason and logic play no role in the left of today. I don't have a problem with questions, I encourage them as everyone should. But questions driven by hate and personal detest for a person aren't worthy of being taken seriously. No "questions" brought up here by the Bush bashes is based on anything except personal detest for the man. Had it been Clinton sitting there they'd be arguing he was a picture of poise.

Quote:Fire chiefs didn't sit in their station houses for seven minutes after the planes started hitting, telling their boys, "Advise me if this thing looks bad enough, and I'll be down to lead you." Rudy Guiliani didn't just sit in his office. Neither did Pataki. Most Americans who heard what was going on did what we do instinctively -- headed straight to our TVs, radios or computers to find out what was going on.

Let's see here....Fire chiefs were IN NEW YORK and WASHINGTON and could directly help. Guiliani was IN NEW YORK and it was his job to take charge of the disaster in his city. Pataki was IN NEW YORK and it was his responsibility to deal with what was going on in New York. Bush was IN FLORIDA and his responsibility was to determine the scope of the attack and to gather as much information as possible. He couldn't do that alone, nor could he have gotten any more information in that 7 minutes than his advisors were gathering. The Secret Service could also have been telling him to stay put until it was determined it was safe to leave. Who knows, but the fact is those 7 minutes he spent there would not have been ANY DIFFERENT if he had left that moment.

Quote:So no one should question why our commander-in-chief sat there ignorant of what was going as his country was being attacked for seven minutes? Why he was potentially a sitting duck himself and endangering the school full of kids around him?

He was not ignorant of what was going on. He was being given info by his Chief of Staff. And you bring up an interesting question of him potentially being a sitting duck. Would it not have been prudent for the situation there to be absolutely secured for his sake and the kids? Had he rushed out immediately it could have been right into an ambush. Earlier that morning a potential assisnation attempt may have been foiled while he was on his jog at a golf course.

Quote:That's the real problem -- that you and they don't even think their leadership should be subject to this kind of questioning. It's sheer arrogance, un-American, and, to borrow your favorite word, pathetic.

Had I ever said that I would agree. But read my posts again slappy, I never said questions aren't appropriate or necessary. Questions motivated by hate are neither constructive nor helpful.

Try again.

Huskie,

Quote:You appear to be suggesting that a President can do his best work on the toilet if he chooses to, and I don't buy that.

You once again are dodging what he could have been doing in that 7 minutes had he left that wasn't already being done. The most he could do was get info, and people were doing that. It's a simple concept, it doesn't shock me it escapes you.

Quote:Should he have spent those 7 minutes gathering as much information as possible as quickly as possible? I'm amazed that you suggest not.

Show me where I suggested that. You clearly have no concept of how leadership at that level works. The president doesn't gather information himself. His advisors and the experts he has on his staff do that. They funnel him what they find and then he makes a decision. In those seven minutes ample people were trying to gather information. Only you and the rest of these bozos seem to think it would have come more quickly had he been the one making the calls to the FAA, FBI etc. :rolleyes:

Quote:You're basically suggesting that if he got information about incoming nuclear missles, he should grab a burger and some fries and get to work later. That's incomprehensibly idiotic.

Yes it is, which is why I'm not shocked you came up with it. An incoming nuclear missle is vastly different than a hijacked plane. It's alot easier to detect an incoming missle than it is to determine how many planes my have been hijacked, where they are etc. Lame analogy, but at least you're consistent.

Quote:Would you feel the same if Clinton got the news about the second plane while his knob was being polished by an intern? After all, there's still information gathering to be done by the appropriate parties, and he couldn't yet make any decisions.

So you're equating Bush reading to kids to Clinton getting a hummer? I guess it depends, was he in a school full of kids while getting it? :rolleyes:

Pathetic.

Hey,

A new book from a very high source in the CIA is scathing on the president. How many books need to come out til these neocon chickenhawks see the light. It truly is amazing how some of you guys continually defend this misguided and incompetent at best leadership. We had a thread where we questioned people on one thing W has handled well. They couldn't come up with one, AMAZING!

I believe the United States is much better off because Dub stayed with the school kids before he began his flight of fear.

With his typical knee jerk, shoot - from - the - hip decision making he might have ordered all airliners shot down had he not been waiting on someone to tell him what to do.

For a good account of that morning go here...........

<a href='http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html' target='_blank'>Bush 9/11</a>

He did the right thing he just didn't know it.

doh

Dogger Wrote:A new book from a very high source in the CIA is scathing on the president.

Everything that I've read about this book is that it is scathing against the way the war is being run. And also that the president is not to blame. The system is faulty, not the president. I for one am looking forward to reading this book and its advocation os "Sherman-like" tactics.

A question for you SF. Is there any republican you think of as smart or even honest? You think Reagan was an idiot and a crook, you think George W is an idiot and a crook, I have no doubt you think of George senior the same way. I bet you never met one you didnt hate. :D

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Anybody here actually believe the stuff that twinky-king puts out?

I just find it amusing, because he didn't have the brain power to make it out of his freshman year at Michigan.

GTS you're my boy, but the assertion that college is the definer of intellect is below you... that is all.

(I don't have an opinion yet on the film btw, i'll reserve my judgement for when i see it)

Skipuno Wrote:A question for you SF. Is there any republican you think of as smart or even honest? You think Reagan was an idiot and a crook, you think George W is an idiot and a crook, I have no doubt you think of George senior the same way. I bet you never met one you didnt hate. &nbsp; :D

Actually, my last post offered some praise for Bush I.

He was a decent, honorable man. I admire much of the way he handled the Persian Gulf crisis and I admire his courage in starting the difficult job of closing the massive budget deficits Reagan left for him.

Also, I don't believe I've ever called either Bush II or Reagan a crook.

Anyone remember where Clinton was when the trade center was attacked on '93 or why he never visited the site? Just curious.

Micheal Moore is fat

jarr Wrote:Micheal Moore is fat

Ya got that right

^ In stores tomorrow, I believe.

[quote][b]Book: 'Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man'

&nbsp;
A just released book takes on Michael Moore as never before. Its title screams: “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man.

New York Times, Saturday, June 26, 2004:

Quote:OP-ED COLUMNIST

All Hail Moore
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: June 26, 2004

In years past, American liberals have had to settle for intellectual and moral leadership from the likes of John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King Jr. But now, a grander beacon has appeared on the mountaintop, and from sea to shining sea, tens of thousands have joined in the adulation.

So it is worth taking a moment to study the metaphysics of Michael Moore. For Moore is not only a filmmaker; he is a man of ideas, and his work is based on an actual worldview.

Like Hemingway, Moore does his boldest thinking while abroad. For example, it was during an interview with the British paper The Mirror that Moore unfurled what is perhaps the central insight of his oeuvre, that Americans are kind of crappy.

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

It transpires that Europeans are quite excited to hear this supple description of the American mind. And Moore has been kind enough to crisscross the continent, speaking to packed lecture halls, explicating the general vapidity and crassness of his countrymen. "That's why we're smiling all the time," he told a rapturous throng in Munich. "You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

Naturally, the people from the continent that brought us Descartes, Kant and Goethe are fascinated by these insights. Moore's books have sold faster there than at home. No American intellectual is taken so seriously in Europe, save perhaps the great Chomsky.

Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: "You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."

In the days after Sept. 11, while others were disoriented, Moore was able to see clearly: "We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

This leads to Michael Moore's global plan of action. "Don't be like us," he told a crowd in Berlin. "You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave."

In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people lead the world?" Then he began to reflect on things economic. His central insight here is that the American economy, like its people, is pretty crappy, too: "Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."

In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: "The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."

But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win." Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.

So we have our Sartre. And the liberal grandees Arthur Schlesinger, Ted Sorenson, Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer flock to his openings. In Washington, a Senate vote was delayed because so many Democrats wanted to see his movie.

The standards of socially acceptable liberal opinion have shifted. We're a long way from John Dewey.

Perhaps inspired by Moore, I got a fact wrong in my previous column. Bill Clinton did not win the evangelical vote in 1992 and 1996. I had relied on a report that was later corrected.

Michael Moore is the grand canyon of rectal orifices.

People should stop giving so much attention to Moore. It only serves his purposes.

There are plenty of stupid, deluded people around. In a better world, Moore would be homless and on the streets, where he belongs.

If Europe wants the ego boost from a college drop-out, so be it. Hey, if nothing else, our airports don't suddenly collapse.

Europe has come full circle, and has re-entered the dark ages. They are ignorant, and worse, have no idea of even how lost they are.

Moore is the perfect one to lead them.

How many of you have seen the film? Did you know he put up 10,000 dollars for people to find inaccuracies? A lot of people talk about the Saudi's getting out of Dodge, but would they have let McVeigh's family get out of Dodge?