1
   

Does It Strike Anyone Else That Other Leaders Rush TO the

 
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 02:59 pm
Re: Does It Strike Anyone Else That Other Leaders Rush TO th
squinney wrote:
... bombed areas to assess the situation, speak to the public, calm the country, but that Bush flew here to and yonder like a frightened pup?


I don't know that you can equate the two events. The plane hijacking had a lot more uncertaincy to it with planes missing on radar and uncertaincy about if the attack was over, etc. The subway bombings in London and Madrid were very discrete events. By the time Blair was informed, it was over.

In any event, why do politicians have to hand hold people every time there is a disaster? I remember during the aftermath of a hurricane, everyone was talking about the first President Bush and how he didn't immediately fly down to "inspect the damage". I was a lot happier he was in Washington approving financial assistance. Lots of us can pack sandbags and clean up debris. We pay him to cut red tap. I understand that Blair had to go and I applaude his handling of the bombing situation, but how did he "asses the situation" any better than the hordes of experts on subway design, explosives, medical crises, etc.?

I may have lots of issues with Bush, but this isn't one of them.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 03:07 pm
McGentrix wrote:
When I am wrong, I will admit to it with the same vigor I use to point out when you are, Drewdad.

You abandon the field faster than George Bush on 9/11 when you are shown to be wrong.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 08:55 pm
You can call it hand holding. Others call it leadership. Yes, there was an element of uncertainty after the plane attacks, and I am sure the SS had all sorts of plans to keep the president as safe as possible.

The problem is, we elect a leader because we feel that he will rise above some concerns for personal safety, if the safety or welfare of the country is at stake.

In short, we want our leaders to throw the book on safety procedures away, and show us that he is our leader.

Bush did not do that.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:49 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
You can call it hand holding. Others call it leadership. Yes, there was an element of uncertainty after the plane attacks, and I am sure the SS had all sorts of plans to keep the president as safe as possible.

The problem is, we elect a leader because we feel that he will rise above some concerns for personal safety, if the safety or welfare of the country is at stake.

In short, we want our leaders to throw the book on safety procedures away, and show us that he is our leader.

Bush did not do that.


That seems rather silly. I certainly do not want the President throwing that book away.

Besides, you guys seem to think that the President would have had any say in the matter or that he was some how out of touch while flying around in Air Force One... Is that what you think?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:55 pm
The Shrub is out of touch sitting in the middle of a cabinet meeting.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:52 pm
McGentrix wrote:

That seems rather silly. I certainly do not want the President throwing that book away.

Remember when Reagan got shot, and he got off his hospital bed against doctor's orders and went back to work inthe White House?

He was widely praised and admired for that. We just expect our leaders to put their personal safety second to the job that needs to be done-not listen to the "play it safe" advisors who might be well-meaning, but are not leaders.


McGentrix wrote:
Besides, you guys seem to think that the President would have had any say in the matter

Of course he has a say in the matter. He doesn't have to take orders from the Secret Service-he's their boss. Or he can fire their boss which is pretty much the same thing.

We were looking for a display of leadership, instead we got a display of "play-it-safe". From a guy who soon was to dispatch 175,000 soldiers, mostly 19 to 22 years old, into war.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:11 am
kelticwizard wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

That seems rather silly. I certainly do not want the President throwing that book away.

Remember when Reagan got shot, and he got off his hospital bed against doctor's orders and went back to work inthe White House?

He was widely praised and admired for that. We just expect our leaders to put their personal safety second to the job that needs to be done-not listen to the "play it safe" advisors who might be well-meaning, but are not leaders.


That's being a tough guy, not playing it safe. I guarantee you Reagan was in no more danger in the White House than he was in a hospital.

Quote:
McGentrix wrote:
Besides, you guys seem to think that the President would have had any say in the matter

Of course he has a say in the matter. He doesn't have to take orders from the Secret Service-he's their boss. Or he can fire their boss which is pretty much the same thing.

We were looking for a display of leadership, instead we got a display of "play-it-safe". From a guy who soon was to dispatch 175,000 soldiers, mostly 19 to 22 years old, into war.


No, he does not have a say in the matter. None. Zilch. Nada.

You don't like Bush, and that's ok, you don't have to, but your display of ignorance in this matter only reinforces my belief that your opinion is inconsequential.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:20 am
When Blair announced that he was going to London, he was obviously announcing to the Terrorists that he would be there too. Who knows what could have happened. He still went. This is leadership. That is where people are making the comparison. Whether it is airplanes or any other means of attack is not the issue.

Could you please provide information for on, exactly, has the ultimate say in these matters?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:43 am
So, the Secret Service allowed him to keep reading My Little Pony? Or was it Bush that made that decision?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:50 am
"I wanted to come back to Washington, but the circumstances were such that it was just impossible for the Secret Service or the national security team to clear the way for Air Force One to come back," says Bush.We now know that the threat to Air Force One was part of the "Fog of War," a false alarm. But it had a powerful effect at the time. Some wondered, with the president out of sight, was he still running the government? He hadn't appeared after the attack on Washington.

But Mr. Bush was clearly worried about it. At one point he was overheard saying, "The American people want to know where their dang president is." The staff considered an address to the nation by phone but instead Mr. Bush ordered Air Force One to land somewhere within 30 minutes so he could appear on TV. At 11:45 a.m., they landed at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.


"The resolve of our great nation is being tested," Mr. Bush said to the nation from Barksdale. "But make no mistake, we will show the world that we will pass this test. God bless."

At Barksdale, they believed the situation in Washington was still unsafe. So the plane continued on to Nebraska, to the command center where Mr. Bush would be secure and have all the communications gear he needed to run the government. Aboard Air Force One, Mr. Bush had a job for press secretary Fleischer.

"The president asked me to make sure that I took down everything that was said. I think he wanted to make certain that a record existed," says Fleischer

Fleischer's notes capture Mr. Bush's language, plain and unguarded. To the vice president, he said: "We're at war, Dick, we're going to find out who did this and kick their ass." Another time, Mr. Bush said, "We're not going to have any slap-on-the-wrist crap this time."Source
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:57 am
McGentrix wrote:
I do not believe any of the London Bombers had airplanes aimed at 10 Downing St.

That might have made a difference.


PUT it on the calander. Myself and McG agree on something.

I thought it was a little extreme in the length and flying Cheney all over God's green planet was silly - but the Pentagon was hit and by all accounts no one had a clue what the hell was going on. I don't like the silly cowboy - but I have a feeling a LOT of presidential protocol came into play when the pentagon was struck.

I will buy you a beer McG - I think we both need one after witnessing this miracle. Wink

TTF
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:57 am
Nice excuse there McG..
The President is free to override those decisions any time he wants. He IS the President after all.

Bush didn't take charge. He let others make the decisions. Not the sign of a real leader as others have pointed out here.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:00 am
Read the article I just posted parados. If you do, you will see that you are wrong.

TTF, the next time I drink an Indian Pale Ale, I will toast you...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:18 am
Quote:
"Not me. I made the pledge to myself and to people that I'm not going to forget what happened on Sept. 11. So long as I'm president, we will pursue the killers and bring them to justice. We owe that to those who have lost their lives."


Quote:
"We're at war and somebody has dared attack us and we're going to do something about it,"

Quote:
Fleischer's notes capture Mr. Bush's language, plain and unguarded. To the vice president, he said: "We're at war, Dick, we're going to find out who did this and kick their ass." Another time, Mr. Bush said, "We're not going to have any slap-on-the-wrist crap this time."


Tell me again McG.. why do we have 140,000 trooops in Iraq instead of 140,000 in the mountains of Afghanistan?

Oh.. that's right.. Bush is a "leader." Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:22 am
Is that what you really think the reason is? Laughing

After everything written here and in the press discussing the various reasons we attacked Iraq you have come up with Bush is a "leader."? Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:48 am
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of all of the nation's military and security forces. If he says "take me to the Whitehouse," then it's the Secret Service's duty to take him to the Whitehouse. He chose not to override the Secret Service. To suggest anything else is to assume the President is nothing more than a figure-head.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 08:04 am
McGentrix wrote:
Is that what you really think the reason is? Laughing

After everything written here and in the press discussing the various reasons we attacked Iraq you have come up with Bush is a "leader."? Laughing Laughing Laughing


I can understand your laughter McG since we all know that Bush is not a leader. Yes, we know the various reasons given and we know the lies and deceit...but that is a topic of another thread
0 Replies
 
Zane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 08:11 am
DrewDad wrote:
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of all of the nation's military and security forces. If he says "take me to the Whitehouse," then it's the Secret Service's duty to take him to the Whitehouse. He chose not to override the Secret Service. To suggest anything else is to assume the President is nothing more than a figure-head.


That statement, (a paradox) clarifies the chain of events. Planes hit---Bush notified---Bush, by choice (personal survival, each man for himself!), runs and hides.

Clean, DrewDad.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 08:31 am
Zane wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of all of the nation's military and security forces. If he says "take me to the Whitehouse," then it's the Secret Service's duty to take him to the Whitehouse. He chose not to override the Secret Service. To suggest anything else is to assume the President is nothing more than a figure-head.


That statement, (a paradox) clarifies the chain of events. Planes hit---Bush notified---Bush, by choice (personal survival, each man for himself!), runs and hides.

Clean, DrewDad.


How did you come to this conclusion?
0 Replies
 
Zane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 08:39 am
McGentrix wrote:
Zane wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of all of the nation's military and security forces. If he says "take me to the Whitehouse," then it's the Secret Service's duty to take him to the Whitehouse. He chose not to override the Secret Service. To suggest anything else is to assume the President is nothing more than a figure-head.


That statement, (a paradox) clarifies the chain of events. Planes hit---Bush notified---Bush, by choice (personal survival, each man for himself!), runs and hides.

Clean, DrewDad.


How did you come to this conclusion?


If the Secret Service tells Bush what to do, he is in effect a figurehead (or a puppet, as he is often referred to). If Bush decided on his own to run away and hide, he is a coward. Laughing
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2025 at 11:01:31