Sarasota Principal Defends Bush

Thats OK cause thats not actually the case most of us have been making, as I already pointed out in my previous post.

Of course the President couldnt have caught the bad guys or saved those people in the WTC in those seven minutes.

That does not mean he couldnt have been of more use than he was reading a story to those children.

Again with the black and white thing.

Do I ("keep alluding to" that)?

What's "interesting" in it, to me, is that I find it surprising that the WH staff, Cabinet, intel agencies - whoever had to be instantly formulating and deciding on emergency responses to what was happening, right then - apparently did not think that the President would have anything crucially helpful or necessary to contribute.

Most likely because everyone has their positions and duties in a scenario like this--and most likely the #1 thing for the President to do is remain alive.

Our country was under attack. Most people would think--absent hindsight, that the President may be in danger. It is a top priority in destabilizing a country...Kill the President...

He would likely be the OBJECT of US defense plans during an attack against the country--not one who is expected to man a response. The Secret Service and DoD swing into action, yes?

Most likely because everyone has their positions and duties in a scenario like this--and most likely the #1 thing for the President to do is remain alive.

Our country was under attack. Most people would think--absent hindsight, that the President may be in danger. It is a top priority in destabilizing a country...Kill the President...

He would likely be the OBJECT of US defense plans during an attack against the country--not one who is expected to man a response.

He could have done any number of different things in those seven minutes. For honest criticism of what he did do to stick, there has to be at least an assertion of the substantive impact of alternative actions, not simply what might have looked more presidential to some.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

He could have done any number of different things in those seven minutes. For honest criticism of what he did do to stick, there has to be at least an assertion of the substantive impact of alternative actions, not simply what might have looked more presidential to some.

<shrugs> I already have asserted that I don't think any specific action of the President in those seven minutes could directly have led to the rescue of any of the thousands who died in the WTC or the capture of the perpetrators or anything that drastic.

I do, however, think that at a moment when your country comes under attack, you can expect your President to imediately go there where he can most optimally safeguard his country's interests. (Sorry for the awkwardly rhetorical wording).

Now I can see how you can disagree about what that optimum place for the President to be in is. Sofia asserts the overriding need for him to be safe - his killers might be underway, right then. You can also assert the need, like I did before, for him to be accessible to staff, Cabinet etc - so that, if crucial information comes in, a Presidential authorisation is needed or his advice is requested by those formulating the immediate response, you dont need some aide to be waving a sign from the back of the class or something.

Personally, I dont see why he could not be both. And in that classroom, he was neither. Bit of a ****-up, I'd say. WIth hindsight you can say, well, it didnt make any difference in the end - everybody who ended up dying (in the WTC) would have died anyway, and no further attackers came flying in, so no major harm was done - but that relativation by hindsight doesnt make the original set-up any more responsible, in view of all that could well have happened or be needed.

And we are talking about a "documentary" in which anything Bush does or says will be viewed in the worst possible light.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

And we are talking about a "documentary" in which anything Bush does or says will be viewed in the worst possible light.

Which part of the documentary's representation of those seven minutes do you dispute?

(Sincere question)

Sincere answer: I don't dispute any of it, but surely you don't believe that Moore embarked upon this project with an objective point of view

It will also be interesting to see what Moore turns to should Kerry be elected.

Why should he play fair?

That resounds.

Cheap shots are wrong, and useless. Bush wears make-up before TV interviews? Oh! That gets the Republicans where it hurts! He was crass enough to continue golfing, after a mini-press conference on a golf course?---OUCH! Please stop! Bush is accused of allowing Saudis to leave the US, when it is a matter of record that R. Clarke takes credit for it? Well, whats so important about the truth, anyway? It appealed to some red-faced liberals. That's really all that matters...

A lying, fake documentary doesn't do much for your doormat status.

But sometimes those who are out to make a negative point, still happen to make one that makes sense.

So the fact alone that Moore was out to make Bush look bad, does not say much about whether Bush did or did not do the right thing in those seven minutes. Thats up to us to decide - he's just the one that has us talking about it.

Whether "The film was intended as a hit job" and was hardly a Frontline piece, hasnt really got anything to do with what I was saying about that in the post you were replying to. Hell, I havent even seen the movie yet.

He'll probly turn against Kerry. For example if Kerry doesnt get America out of Iraq. Still ample possibilities for Moore to be the populist, then ...