1
   

Sarasota Principal Defends Bush

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 09:31 pm
nimh wrote:


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.


Your preferred grey, in this case, is nothing more than vague speculation, fueled by a desire to criticize Bush.

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.

We are talking about 7 minutes, not 7 hours.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 09:34 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 09:37 pm
nimh wrote:
Do I ("keep alluding to" that)?


Yes at least twice that I have seen and possibly thrice, to me it sounds like you are implying that it's "interesting" because they didn't trust him or had some reason to want to avoid his involvement.

Quote:
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.


Why is this interesting? The overwhelming majority of emergencies are precisely what you decribe, with the president only being able to make symbolic statements hours or days afterwards and almost never involve the president acting within 7 minutes.

Can you even compare this to another 7-minute reaction that would help make this seem extraordinary?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 09:41 pm
Sofia wrote:
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?


This is a point I wanted to bring up earlier.

All the people using hindsight do not seem to take this into account.

At that point, the entities who are actually tasked for the 7-minute reactions were not reacting.

If they had known the scope the SS would have been physically hauling him away.

I don't think they did. When they did, they did haul him away (to airforce one) and many people criticize him for that too.

All of these criticisms have one thing in common: they do not in any way allege any tangible difference to the situation except in the vociferant's perception of the involved parties. A perception that I allege would not change much either.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 09:54 pm
Sofia wrote:
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.


Fair enough - but if the assertion is that he was probably left out of the loop, so to say, because it was safer to do so - because the priority would be to first off have him save from those who might well right then be gunning to "kill the President" - would a schoolclass full of children then be the most logical place to keep him in?

I mean, you're suggesting that for all the security apparatus knew, the attacks on the WTC might be followed up any moment with an attack on the President himself - so you leave him in a schoolclass with children?

Doesnt make much sense to me. Thats OK - things were most probably chaotic, panicked and confused - they might well not have made sense. But then one cant argue that everything went perfectly and he did the best he possibly could.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 10:37 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 10:46 pm
I don't believe for a minute he was 'out of the loop'. I think he was advised of a situation. I think he was advised and he consented that he would be further advised as soon as they knew what happened. And I think he trusted his staff to just that. To me that could very well have been the most presidential thing he could do. The witness principal certainly did not think he froze, was unconcerned, or behaved improperly. Those who second guess what was happenening there, when they don't have a clue, are spitting in the wind.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 10:55 pm
All the high-falutin', what could he have done stuff is nonsense and doesn't change the oddity of the situation and the people's right to wonder how he could have just sat there and whether or not that was the right thing to do or if indeed there is something fishy about it.
We can't answer this one here, folks.
But - the thread is about how the principal is defending his actions, and that's worthy of debate. I am sure one factor is that she is star-struck. She has met the president and perhaps that is the biggest thing that ever happened to her. She will be his fan for life. Is her opinion of his inaction important? Probably not any more than ours is.
We are entitled to our opinions, however.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 11:02 pm
Thanks Suzy.

The fact is none of us were there. All we have is even minutes of tape specifically edited to make Bush look as bad as possible in a phony documentary. The principal was there.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 11:20 pm
nimh wrote:
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.


Well you can beat this horse to death all you want nimh, but the fact remains that we are talking about seven minutes during which no conceivable action would have changed anything.

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

If you find this reasonable...

Michael Moore has to hoping Bush wins reelection.

He'll go broke otherwise.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 11:30 pm
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)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 05:31 am
I saw the documentary. He pieced together events or people that I never thought of before watching it. It is odd just how many people from oil companies are involved with the administration and the reconstruction of Iraq. I also didn't know that ties between the saudi regime and the Bush's was so huge.

However what disturbed me most was hearing from the soliders over in Iraq and watching the recruiters go after the poor in America to die for an unnecessary war.

While the documentary is obviously liberal biased, like suzzy said, there wasn't anything false in it. If this documentary was presented on a news show I think it would have been wrong, though fox and other news organizations do it all the time, but it was done by a private citizen who has a message he wants to push. I just left the documentary feeling sad that our country is run by Bush.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 06:51 am
" just left the documentary feeling sad that our country is run by Bush. "

I feel sad about that, too.


Revel, have you been to my AWOL thread yet?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 06:00 pm
nimh wrote:
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 and only through long research came to find GW Bush particulary loathsome.

The film was intended as a hit job.

It's not a Frontline piece.

I have no problem with his making the movie. If an administration could be brought down by a Michael Moore film it would have to be pretty shaky to begin with.

It will be interesting to see who steps up during the next Democratic administration to make a similar hit job film. It will also be interesting to see what Moore turns to should Kerry be elected. I'm almost tempted to vote for Kerry just so that Moore will lose hold of the guerilla status he craves so much.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 06:57 pm
Moore has been accused on TV of not playing fair. his response; Why should I?
Indeed, why should he? The republicans have not been concerned with that, quite obviously, and it's past time to stop being doormats.
Besides, unfair doesn't mean wrong.
And Moore has stated that he looks forward to going after Kerry as well.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 07:19 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 07:22 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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

No I don't.

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.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
It will also be interesting to see what Moore turns to should Kerry be elected.

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 ...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 07:47 pm
Sofia wrote:
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.


Well said Sofia.

Suzy is dishing out one of the latest Liberal myths: Liberals have always been too decent and nice and so have gotten creamed by those nasty unprincipled Republicans. Time for the worm to turn!

The myth is useful in that it provides cover for any and all of the dirty tactics which are, in reality, simply being continued by the Democrats.

To be totally fair, the Republicans are just as guilty of dirty tricks. The difference is that they are not claiming them as a righteous response (at least not yet).

Interesting isn't it how Liberals have no problem with constructing an excuse for playing dirty in politics, but howl to the skies at the notion that we as a nation might play dirty against terrorists.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:02 pm
nimh wrote:


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


I'm sure Moore's point makes sense to any number of people, but that doesn't mean it is accurate.

nimh wrote:
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.


True in the abstract, but to the extent that someone bases his or her conclusion on Moore's presentation of the event, it certainly does. Moore is engaged in propaganda. Left wing propaganda should, for fair minded individuals, have the same unsavory connotation as Right wing propaganda.

nimh wrote:
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.


Perhaps not, but I think I'm entitled to introducing some editorial comment into my responses.

nimh wrote:

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 ...


Moore isn't a populist. An American populist doesn't tour Europe telling Europeans that the American populace are ignorant and greedy.

You're right though, he probably will turn against Kerry...no matter what Kerry does. Moore's entire identity is tied to being an iconoclast, and a self-perceived heroic one at that. It might be sad if he wasn't making so much money and living so large (no pun intended).
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2004 08:31 pm
The fact that the documentary is doing well speaks for itself. It is getting pretty good reviews all things considering.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/23/2021 at 11:13:55