1
   

Sarasota Principal Defends Bush

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 08:01 am
You don't need minutes of a meeting to decide that it is illogical not to believe the President wasn't informed even if not directly by Clarke. Besides, Moore says "the administration," not Bush and the security checks I went through to get a top secret clearance when I worked on the stealth bomber didn't take a couple of days. Of course, it's possible to pass it off as just another intelligence failure and if they can take one questioned meeting beetween Sadaam's government and al-Queda, I see no reason not to suppose it could have been an intelligence failure.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 09:11 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Apparently I am. You have been arguing that action is preferable to inaction, not that appropriate action is preferable to inappropriate inaction. Who could argue with the latter? Might as well assert that appropriate inaction is preferable to inappropriate action. Hell, an appropriate carrot is preferable to an inappropriate turnip.

My apologies for the apparent confusion. As I thought was fairly evident from my remarks, I asserted my belief that action, in that particular instance, was appropriate. My usage, therefore, of "appropriate" and "inappropriate" as labels to describe "action" and "inaction" in this context was, admittedly, redundant. I'll assume that is what caused you to jump to the erroneous conclusion that I had been inconsistent.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Once again you offer a specious argument. In each of the examples given it is quite easy to conjecture as to what these individuals would specifically do (you overestimate your ignorance), and each of these situations clearly demand action and not simply the appearence of action. Each of these situations require an immediate response from the person cited.

And you know this because...?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
What is the immediate response required of a president when a terrorist flies a plane into the WTC? Take the nation to Defcon 2? Declare martial law? Call the fire department?

Well, since I have already admitted that I don't know what a president should do in that situation, I'm puzzled as to why you continue to press the point. What I have argued, in contrast, is that Bush should have done something in preference to doing nothing. What that "something" is, however, I leave up to the good judgment of the president. I will only add that Bush eventually did act, which leaves open the question: if it was appropriate to take action at minute seven, why was it not appropriate to take that same action at minute one? And if it was appropriate to act at minute one, was the delay in acting until minute seven appropriate?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
joe wrote:
In any event, after seven minutes elapsed it is evident that the president did finally do something. The question then, is: if acting after the lapse of seven minutes was appropriate, was the seven minutes of inaction appropriate?

A reasonable question, but not rhetorical as you would have it.

I did not mean it to be a rhetorical question.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I've not seen the film yet, but apparently it can't answer your question anymore than can you.

And yet you seem to be able to answer that question -- or, at least, you seem to suggest that there is a good answer for it. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to criticize others for their lack of specific recommendations. Given my admitted limitations in this regard (I have no more been the president than I have been a nuclear plant technician or an airplane pilot), I'm curious as to your qualifications to provide specific recommendations for presidential action in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. Do you speak from some experience, or are you merely displaying an unthinking reflexive response to criticism of the president?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 10:16 am
BillW hit the nail on the head.

I never said Clarke didn't make the decision. It is quite obvious that he did. It was a mistake on his part.

Nevertheless, it's GW's fault for actions that are initiated by his senior staff. There are two options:

1. He didn't know about the Bin Laden families leaving, which means his advisors didn't tell him they made the decision.

or

2. He did know, and let them go anyways.

Either way, he is still responsible - either responsible for letting them go, or responsible for appointing staff who didn't do their job correctly. Quit appealing to extremes - obviously Bush is not responsible for EVERYTHING that happens with the gov't, but either he has no control over his senior staff (who are allowed to make important decisions, and not report to him on them, AT ALL) or he knew what was going on, and let them leave anyways. I suppose the fact that his family has business ties with the Bin Laden family wouldn't have anything to do with that decision, nah.

Quote:
Well, Piff, if you have the minutes to that meeting, I will certainly give it my attention--otherwise, why disbelieve Clarke's OWN ADMISSION?

Do you accuse him of lying?


Let me ask you, if Bush had a meeting with the Saudi ambassador, and they DIDN'T talk about the Bin Laden family, would you consider that to be a problem? Once again, we are in a bind: either they DID talk about it, and GW approved of what went on, or they DIDN'T, and he was criminally negligent for doing so.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 11:50 am
Not only that; but, he publicly lauds over the staff and their actions - tacit approval; therefore, acceptance of responsibility and accountability.....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 12:09 pm
Quote:
That has been my point all along Sofia. The principal was there. She saw what was happening--ALL of what was happening--and didn't focus only on the president reading to school children. She judges his demeanor and behavior appropriate. Those who weren't there pluck this and that out of it and speculate when they have no clue what Bush's staffers said to him or what he responded.


Pardon me if I don't take the words of an elementary school principal as gospel when I am trying to decide if the leader of the strongest country in the world is making poor decisions or not.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 12:15 pm
Sofia,

"She (the principal) judges his demeanor and behavior appropriate."

This sounds to me like,

"She is plucking this and that out of it and speculate when she has no clue what Bush's staffers said to him or what he responded to."

Then again, maybe you are just putting words in my mouth.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 12:24 pm
She didn't see anything that isn't recorded in that seven minutes and like the rest of us would not have been debriefed by the Secret Service. Or was she? What does anyone one think she might have been told to say? What is her political affiliation? Seeing is believing in this case and it has nothing to do with what decisions were being made behind the scenes. It's the ridiculous stoney expression and silliness that just naturally comes out of the scene. Moore has congratulated Bush for providing nearly every laugh in the film.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 12:33 am
Joe From Chicago

This is growing tiresome.

Clearly you have made the argument that action was preferable to inaction. This, despite the fact that you refuse to specify what action might have been more beneficial than inaction under the circumstances.

Thus one can only assume that you, in general, prefer action to inaction. Fine and dandy for you, but entirely immaterial to this issue.

Your entire argument can be reduced to action is better than inaction.

As simplistic an argument as this is, it hardly deserves all of the superfluous blather you seem compelled to add to it.

This exchange has run aground.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 06:37 am
About Bin Laden family and the film.

I can see why they let them go out of the country. The country just learned that Bin Laden was behind the biggest attack against America since the Pearl Habor. Naturally they would have been targets for people seeking revenge on their own.

On the other hand, it is normal in such situations to ask the family members of the suspect questions concerning the suspect.

I really think the explanation has to do with just the saftey of Bin Laden's family members rather than any connections between Bush and whatever is implied. But I think this was a mistake to put their safety ahead of learning anything they could from them in connection with 9/11.


I think joefromchicago point was something like the following:


As for seven minutes. As (acting) President of the United States George Bush should have been in the position of knowing what action he should have taken rather than sitting there mulling over it for seven minutes. If the reason that he sat there for seven minutes was because he didn't want to alarm anyone as has been suggested on this thread, then when he did get up after the seven minutes were through; what changed to make his getting up not so alraming to the children and others in the room?

Just because people can't always comprehend what they read does not mean that the author is at fault.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 07:47 am
revel wrote:
Just because people can't always comprehend what they read does not mean that the author is at fault.


This ought to be displayed in 36 pt. type at the top of every page here . . . although it likely would not sink in with those most in need of such wisdom . . .
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 08:26 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Joe From Chicago

This is growing tiresome.

Clearly you have made the argument that action was preferable to inaction. This, despite the fact that you refuse to specify what action might have been more beneficial than inaction under the circumstances.

Thus one can only assume that you, in general, prefer action to inaction. Fine and dandy for you, but entirely immaterial to this issue.

Your entire argument can be reduced to action is better than inaction.

As simplistic an argument as this is, it hardly deserves all of the superfluous blather you seem compelled to add to it.

This exchange has run aground.


<waving bye-bye>
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 08:29 am
I think a poster has run aground. Splat.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 08:31 am
McGentrix wrote:
I wonder if she would have felt that way if Bill Clinton was raping her for those seven minutes?
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 08:32 am
Quote:
Your entire argument can be reduced to action is better than inaction.

As simplistic an argument as this is, it hardly deserves all of the superfluous blather you seem compelled to add to it.


Gee, the Bush War has now been boiled down to this - good point Cool
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 08:35 am
Wilso wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I wonder if she would have felt that way if Bill Clinton was raping her for those seven minutes?
Rolling Eyes


Wilso, you have to understand that McG is enamored with Bill's penis - he will have it carved on his gravestone Razz
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 08:44 am
With the words "Here Rests a Good Piece"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 09:37 am
I am on vacation. Leave me out of this until I get back.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 09:54 am
You mean you weren't always "on vacation?" Very Happy
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 10:05 am
One of the best lines in F-911 was when he said "I wonder what the reaction would have been if Clinton had flown Timothy McVeigh's family out of the country after the Oklahoma city bombing?"

It cracked me up. Judging from the reaction of the other people in the theater, it had the same effect on them.

I often like to think of what Conservatives would say if it was a Democratic president that has done all the nonsense that Bush has pulled. Particularly with certain issues, like his being bumped ahead of all those other soldiers to get into the National Guard in order to avoid serving in 'Nam, and taking the focus off Osama.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 10:07 am
McG...we feel your pain. Rest a while.
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 09:22:12