How much vacation time does Bush take?

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: charrison
No president is ever on vacation. Out of the whitehouse maybe, but not on vacation.

Exactly.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Until the Clintons purchased their home in NY, they hadn't actually owned a home for decades.

They didn't buy it it was provided for them.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: rickn
it took Bush 4 days to find a phone after that Tsunami and call other world leaders. Thank god we didn't get nuked.

Odious tsunami politics

Published December 31, 2004

"What they're actually doing is using dead people to make cheap points." That's how the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan described some partisans' use of this week's deadly Indian Ocean tsunami to promote various and sundry political agendas. We think it about describes the exploitation of the tragedy by the United Nations' Jan Egeland with his "stingy" remark and the New York Times' criticism of the United States.

It being Christmastime, most world leaders were on vacation when the tsunami hit. Kofi Annan was just arriving back in New York late Wednesday. By Thursday morning he still hadn't met with U.N. humanitarian relief point man Jan Egeland --the man in charge of tsunami relief. President Bush was in Crawford, Texas, until yesterday. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was vacationing in Egypt. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was away, too. That's to be expected. World leaders should be judged by the job they do -- not by how fast they can turn to a camera.

But that didn't much matter to the New York Times, where selective outrage is the rule. In an editorial entitled "Are We Stingy? Yes," the Times singled out President Bush for a gratuitous snarl. "President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia," the piece read.



We'd like to ask the Times writers: Where was the outrage over the other vacationers? It's an absurdity to criticize these others over it, but by the Times' logic, one should. Mr. Annan's absence should be especially offensive to the New York Times, since in principle he is in charge of the entire relief operation. But it wasn't. The reason: that's not a means to bludgeon the president. So the Times avoided it.

The truth is, the New York Times and Mr. Egeland are political opportunists of the highest order. They gleefully seized upon tragedy to promote a political agenda. They're not alone: Global-warming theorists, debt-relief enthusiasts and others have been doing the same. It's a disservice to the truth and a shameful commentary on their attitude towards the dead.


www.washingtontimes.com

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: rickn
it took Bush 4 days to find a phone after that Tsunami and call other world leaders. Thank god we didn't get nuked.

Odious tsunami politics

Published December 31, 2004

"What they're actually doing is using dead people to make cheap points." That's how the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan described some partisans' use of this week's deadly Indian Ocean tsunami to promote various and sundry political agendas. We think it about describes the exploitation of the tragedy by the United Nations' Jan Egeland with his "stingy" remark and the New York Times' criticism of the United States.

It being Christmastime, most world leaders were on vacation when the tsunami hit. Kofi Annan was just arriving back in New York late Wednesday. By Thursday morning he still hadn't met with U.N. humanitarian relief point man Jan Egeland --the man in charge of tsunami relief. President Bush was in Crawford, Texas, until yesterday. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was vacationing in Egypt. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was away, too. That's to be expected. World leaders should be judged by the job they do -- not by how fast they can turn to a camera.

But that didn't much matter to the New York Times, where selective outrage is the rule. In an editorial entitled "Are We Stingy? Yes," the Times singled out President Bush for a gratuitous snarl. "President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia," the piece read.



We'd like to ask the Times writers: Where was the outrage over the other vacationers? It's an absurdity to criticize these others over it, but by the Times' logic, one should. Mr. Annan's absence should be especially offensive to the New York Times, since in principle he is in charge of the entire relief operation. But it wasn't. The reason: that's not a means to bludgeon the president. So the Times avoided it.

The truth is, the New York Times and Mr. Egeland are political opportunists of the highest order. They gleefully seized upon tragedy to promote a political agenda. They're not alone: Global-warming theorists, debt-relief enthusiasts and others have been doing the same. It's a disservice to the truth and a shameful commentary on their attitude towards the dead.


www.washingtontimes.com

Well, maybe that is the case. But in the case of 9/11, he's caught on video waiting atleast 15mins before he realizes that something was wrong. Bush is not exactly the brightest bumpkin out of dog patch

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Until the Clintons purchased their home in NY, they hadn't actually owned a home for decades.

They didn't buy it it was provided for them.

So was Ronald Reagen's mansion, whats your point?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: rickn
it took Bush 4 days to find a phone after that Tsunami and call other world leaders. Thank god we didn't get nuked.

Odious tsunami politics

Published December 31, 2004

"What they're actually doing is using dead people to make cheap points." That's how the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan described some partisans' use of this week's deadly Indian Ocean tsunami to promote various and sundry political agendas. We think it about describes the exploitation of the tragedy by the United Nations' Jan Egeland with his "stingy" remark and the New York Times' criticism of the United States.

It being Christmastime, most world leaders were on vacation when the tsunami hit. Kofi Annan was just arriving back in New York late Wednesday. By Thursday morning he still hadn't met with U.N. humanitarian relief point man Jan Egeland --the man in charge of tsunami relief. President Bush was in Crawford, Texas, until yesterday. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was vacationing in Egypt. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was away, too. That's to be expected. World leaders should be judged by the job they do -- not by how fast they can turn to a camera.

But that didn't much matter to the New York Times, where selective outrage is the rule. In an editorial entitled "Are We Stingy? Yes," the Times singled out President Bush for a gratuitous snarl. "President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia," the piece read.



We'd like to ask the Times writers: Where was the outrage over the other vacationers? It's an absurdity to criticize these others over it, but by the Times' logic, one should. Mr. Annan's absence should be especially offensive to the New York Times, since in principle he is in charge of the entire relief operation. But it wasn't. The reason: that's not a means to bludgeon the president. So the Times avoided it.

The truth is, the New York Times and Mr. Egeland are political opportunists of the highest order. They gleefully seized upon tragedy to promote a political agenda. They're not alone: Global-warming theorists, debt-relief enthusiasts and others have been doing the same. It's a disservice to the truth and a shameful commentary on their attitude towards the dead.


www.washingtontimes.com

Ah yes, the respectably unbiased Washington Times :roll:

Maybe I'm the only one who was watching Fox news when they first put up an incorrect figure for France's contribution to the victims (a mistake, they later claimed) and then made snide comments about France. This wasn't some opinion people, it was news people on national television.

I think we can agree that a lot of people took this opportunity to blast their opponents, in very poor taste I might add. But let's not pretend it's a one sided thing.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: rickn
it took Bush 4 days to find a phone after that Tsunami and call other world leaders. Thank god we didn't get nuked.

Odious tsunami politics

Published December 31, 2004

"What they're actually doing is using dead people to make cheap points." That's how the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan described some partisans' use of this week's deadly Indian Ocean tsunami to promote various and sundry political agendas. We think it about describes the exploitation of the tragedy by the United Nations' Jan Egeland with his "stingy" remark and the New York Times' criticism of the United States.

It being Christmastime, most world leaders were on vacation when the tsunami hit. Kofi Annan was just arriving back in New York late Wednesday. By Thursday morning he still hadn't met with U.N. humanitarian relief point man Jan Egeland --the man in charge of tsunami relief. President Bush was in Crawford, Texas, until yesterday. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was vacationing in Egypt. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was away, too. That's to be expected. World leaders should be judged by the job they do -- not by how fast they can turn to a camera.

But that didn't much matter to the New York Times, where selective outrage is the rule. In an editorial entitled "Are We Stingy? Yes," the Times singled out President Bush for a gratuitous snarl. "President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia," the piece read.



We'd like to ask the Times writers: Where was the outrage over the other vacationers? It's an absurdity to criticize these others over it, but by the Times' logic, one should. Mr. Annan's absence should be especially offensive to the New York Times, since in principle he is in charge of the entire relief operation. But it wasn't. The reason: that's not a means to bludgeon the president. So the Times avoided it.

The truth is, the New York Times and Mr. Egeland are political opportunists of the highest order. They gleefully seized upon tragedy to promote a political agenda. They're not alone: Global-warming theorists, debt-relief enthusiasts and others have been doing the same. It's a disservice to the truth and a shameful commentary on their attitude towards the dead.


www.washingtontimes.com

Well, maybe that is the case. But in the case of 9/11, he's caught on video waiting atleast 15mins before he realizes that something was wrong. Bush is not exactly the brightest bumpkin out of dog patch

Hmm maybe you are seeing a different video. Last time i checked he was at a school reading to some kids when someone came and interupted him. THen we heard him camly explain to the kids that something very bad happened and was escorted off.

WHat video are you watching!?!?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: rickn
it took Bush 4 days to find a phone after that Tsunami and call other world leaders. Thank god we didn't get nuked.

Odious tsunami politics

Published December 31, 2004

"What they're actually doing is using dead people to make cheap points." That's how the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan described some partisans' use of this week's deadly Indian Ocean tsunami to promote various and sundry political agendas. We think it about describes the exploitation of the tragedy by the United Nations' Jan Egeland with his "stingy" remark and the New York Times' criticism of the United States.

It being Christmastime, most world leaders were on vacation when the tsunami hit. Kofi Annan was just arriving back in New York late Wednesday. By Thursday morning he still hadn't met with U.N. humanitarian relief point man Jan Egeland --the man in charge of tsunami relief. President Bush was in Crawford, Texas, until yesterday. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was vacationing in Egypt. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was away, too. That's to be expected. World leaders should be judged by the job they do -- not by how fast they can turn to a camera.

But that didn't much matter to the New York Times, where selective outrage is the rule. In an editorial entitled "Are We Stingy? Yes," the Times singled out President Bush for a gratuitous snarl. "President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia," the piece read.



We'd like to ask the Times writers: Where was the outrage over the other vacationers? It's an absurdity to criticize these others over it, but by the Times' logic, one should. Mr. Annan's absence should be especially offensive to the New York Times, since in principle he is in charge of the entire relief operation. But it wasn't. The reason: that's not a means to bludgeon the president. So the Times avoided it.

The truth is, the New York Times and Mr. Egeland are political opportunists of the highest order. They gleefully seized upon tragedy to promote a political agenda. They're not alone: Global-warming theorists, debt-relief enthusiasts and others have been doing the same. It's a disservice to the truth and a shameful commentary on their attitude towards the dead.


www.washingtontimes.com

Well, maybe that is the case. But in the case of 9/11, he's caught on video waiting atleast 15mins before he realizes that something was wrong. Bush is not exactly the brightest bumpkin out of dog patch

Hmm maybe you are seeing a different video. Last time i checked he was at a school reading to some kids when someone came and interupted him. THen we heard him camly explain to the kids that something very bad happened and was escorted off.

WHat video are you watching!?!?

You forgot the 6+ minutes of looking stunned between hearing the news and responding.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Ok well i dont recall seeing that but if that did indeed happen do this:

Put yourself in Bush's shoes. You are speaking to a classroom full of Elementary school kids. You find out that the country has been attacked and thousands of people have just lost there life. What in the hell would you do?? Get up and run off leaving the kids worried? Or perhaps just shrug it off.

I mean you have to understand the grief that must have penetrated him at that moment. He is president, the big guy, and thousands of people have died give him a second to think and absorb it. It cant have been easy.

Maybe you should think before you criticize people and/or their actions.

-Kevin

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok well i dont recall seeing that but if that did indeed happen do this:

Put yourself in Bush's shoes. You are speaking to a classroom full of Elementary school kids. You find out that the country has been attacked and thousands of people have just lost there life. What in the hell would you do?? Get up and run off leaving the kids worried? Or perhaps just shrug it off.

I mean you have to understand the grief that must have penetrated him at that moment. He is president, the big guy, and thousands of people have died give him a second to think and absorb it. It cant have been easy.

Maybe you should think before you criticize people and/or their actions.

-Kevin

First thing first, your grammar needs work. Second, all Bush needed to say was, "I'm sorry, kids, but I have to deal with something important. It was great meeting your class and I hope you continue your educations." There. Simple. When news like that hits a person, it's either fight or flight. Bush chose to run away from the problem, and this is not a good trait to have in a leader. The situation needs to be dealt with before more lives are sacrificed.

Maybe you should think before blindly following a leader and justifying all his actions.

 

[rickn]

Second, all Bush needed to say was, "I'm sorry, kids, but I have to deal with something important. It was great meeting your class and I hope you continue your educations."

of course that is what a normal person would do, but Bush evidently needs a script writer to talk to 5yr olds.

 

[lozina]

hell with my two week vacation i'm still "on call"- checking my e-mail every night and even one time I had to remotele deploy an application. Wow guess I don't really get vacations either

 

[Martin]

damn lazy liberals and their lack of worth ethic!

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok well i dont recall seeing that but if that did indeed happen do this:

Put yourself in Bush's shoes. You are speaking to a classroom full of Elementary school kids. You find out that the country has been attacked and thousands of people have just lost there life. What in the hell would you do?? Get up and run off leaving the kids worried? Or perhaps just shrug it off.

I mean you have to understand the grief that must have penetrated him at that moment. He is president, the big guy, and thousands of people have died give him a second to think and absorb it. It cant have been easy.

Maybe you should think before you criticize people and/or their actions.

-Kevin

First thing first, your grammar needs work. Second, all Bush needed to say was, "I'm sorry, kids, but I have to deal with something important. It was great meeting your class and I hope you continue your educations." There. Simple. When news like that hits a person, it's either fight or flight. Bush chose to run away from the problem, and this is not a good trait to have in a leader. The situation needs to be dealt with before more lives are sacrificed.

Maybe you should think before blindly following a leader and justifying all his actions.

You are bringing grammar up in my post what kind of lame excuse is that!!?

Second Bush didn't choose "flight". When something of that magnitude happens in our nation our president is kept in an undisclosed location (most likely on Air Force One). He didn't choose that. If you listened to Dick Cheney once he described Secret Service Operatives when the attack happened. He said that he was in his office and 3 of them walked in and said Mr. VIce President there has been an emergency. Then in the interview he says i didn't walk they just sort of "levitate" you to where you are going.

Secondly think, just think like i said before. If Thousands of people lost your lives andyou are the person in charge of where they live (per se) do you really think you would calmly just get up say that and walk off. Personally i would take a second breather knowing that thousands of people are no longer with us. THere has been an attack under my watch and now i have to fix it. At that moment i think he knew the meaning of "the weight of the world on your shoulders".

Looks like the situation was dealt with as they grounded all air traffic immediately. And put our armed forces on full alert and scrambled some fighters to patrol the skies. We dealt with the situation the best anyone possibly could have. WHat would you have us do? Just randomly nuke a country?

I am not blindly following a leader. YOu are so ready to criticize him you dont stop to think of his motives, to think of the magnitude of some of the things that happened to him, you just jump to conclusions.

-Kevin

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok well i dont recall seeing that but if that did indeed happen do this:

Put yourself in Bush's shoes. You are speaking to a classroom full of Elementary school kids. You find out that the country has been attacked and thousands of people have just lost there life. What in the hell would you do?? Get up and run off leaving the kids worried? Or perhaps just shrug it off.

I mean you have to understand the grief that must have penetrated him at that moment. He is president, the big guy, and thousands of people have died give him a second to think and absorb it. It cant have been easy.

Maybe you should think before you criticize people and/or their actions.

-Kevin

First thing first, your grammar needs work. Second, all Bush needed to say was, "I'm sorry, kids, but I have to deal with something important. It was great meeting your class and I hope you continue your educations." There. Simple. When news like that hits a person, it's either fight or flight. Bush chose to run away from the problem, and this is not a good trait to have in a leader. The situation needs to be dealt with before more lives are sacrificed.

Maybe you should think before blindly following a leader and justifying all his actions.

You are bringing grammar up in my post what kind of lame excuse is that!!?

Second Bush didn't choose "flight". When something of that magnitude happens in our nation our president is kept in an undisclosed location (most likely on Air Force One). He didn't choose that. If you listened to Dick Cheney once he described Secret Service Operatives when the attack happened. He said that he was in his office and 3 of them walked in and said Mr. VIce President there has been an emergency. Then in the interview he says i didn't walk they just sort of "levitate" you to where you are going.

Secondly think, just think like i said before. If Thousands of people lost your lives andyou are the person in charge of where they live (per se) do you really think you would calmly just get up say that and walk off. Personally i would take a second breather knowing that thousands of people are no longer with us. THere has been an attack under my watch and now i have to fix it. At that moment i think he knew the meaning of "the weight of the world on your shoulders".

Looks like the situation was dealt with as they grounded all air traffic immediately. And put our armed forces on full alert and scrambled some fighters to patrol the skies. We dealt with the situation the best anyone possibly could have. WHat would you have us do? Just randomly nuke a country?

I am not blindly following a leader. YOu are so ready to criticize him you dont stop to think of his motives, to think of the magnitude of some of the things that happened to him, you just jump to conclusions.

-Kevin

Nice post, but I think you hit the nail on the head with the "You didn't stop to think!" part. Actually, "You don't think!" would have described the libe audience nicely!

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok well i dont recall seeing that but if that did indeed happen do this:

Put yourself in Bush's shoes. You are speaking to a classroom full of Elementary school kids. You find out that the country has been attacked and thousands of people have just lost there life. What in the hell would you do?? Get up and run off leaving the kids worried? Or perhaps just shrug it off.

I mean you have to understand the grief that must have penetrated him at that moment. He is president, the big guy, and thousands of people have died give him a second to think and absorb it. It cant have been easy.

Maybe you should think before you criticize people and/or their actions.

-Kevin

First thing first, your grammar needs work. Second, all Bush needed to say was, "I'm sorry, kids, but I have to deal with something important. It was great meeting your class and I hope you continue your educations." There. Simple. When news like that hits a person, it's either fight or flight. Bush chose to run away from the problem, and this is not a good trait to have in a leader. The situation needs to be dealt with before more lives are sacrificed.

Maybe you should think before blindly following a leader and justifying all his actions.

YOu are so ready to criticize him you dont stop to think of his motives
-Kevin

His motives were pretty clear, he didn't want to leave because he would have missed the photo op. Fact is this. He was told something major had happened, any intelligent person would have excused themselves to try and find out more information. Any intelligent person knows that planes don't go flying into 110-story buildings on a regular basis, and would have excused themselves to try find out more. Every minute he sat there dumbfounded, he put himself in danger, and the presidency of this country in danger. One of his SS people should have dragged him to the safety of a presidential vehicle. He certainly could have found out more information from that vehicle than he could inside an elementary school. Anyways, we've argued this subject ad nauseum, and TBH everyone has made up their own mind, it's really kinda silly to be arguing it again. It's over, we can't change anything. I guess all we can hope of is that if the next time a 'situation' arises and he's reading to 5yr olds, he will use better judgement and kindly excuse himself and find safety

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok well i dont recall seeing that but if that did indeed happen do this:

Put yourself in Bush's shoes. You are speaking to a classroom full of Elementary school kids. You find out that the country has been attacked and thousands of people have just lost there life. What in the hell would you do?? Get up and run off leaving the kids worried? Or perhaps just shrug it off.

I mean you have to understand the grief that must have penetrated him at that moment. He is president, the big guy, and thousands of people have died give him a second to think and absorb it. It cant have been easy.

Maybe you should think before you criticize people and/or their actions.

-Kevin

First thing first, your grammar needs work. Second, all Bush needed to say was, "I'm sorry, kids, but I have to deal with something important. It was great meeting your class and I hope you continue your educations." There. Simple. When news like that hits a person, it's either fight or flight. Bush chose to run away from the problem, and this is not a good trait to have in a leader. The situation needs to be dealt with before more lives are sacrificed.

Maybe you should think before blindly following a leader and justifying all his actions.

You are bringing grammar up in my post what kind of lame excuse is that!!?

Second Bush didn't choose "flight". When something of that magnitude happens in our nation our president is kept in an undisclosed location (most likely on Air Force One). He didn't choose that. If you listened to Dick Cheney once he described Secret Service Operatives when the attack happened. He said that he was in his office and 3 of them walked in and said Mr. VIce President there has been an emergency. Then in the interview he says i didn't walk they just sort of "levitate" you to where you are going.

Secondly think, just think like i said before. If Thousands of people lost your lives andyou are the person in charge of where they live (per se) do you really think you would calmly just get up say that and walk off. Personally i would take a second breather knowing that thousands of people are no longer with us. THere has been an attack under my watch and now i have to fix it. At that moment i think he knew the meaning of "the weight of the world on your shoulders".

Looks like the situation was dealt with as they grounded all air traffic immediately. And put our armed forces on full alert and scrambled some fighters to patrol the skies. We dealt with the situation the best anyone possibly could have. WHat would you have us do? Just randomly nuke a country?

I am not blindly following a leader. YOu are so ready to criticize him you dont stop to think of his motives, to think of the magnitude of some of the things that happened to him, you just jump to conclusions.

-Kevin

Nice post, but I think you hit the nail on the head with the "You didn't stop to think!" part. Actually, "You don't think!" would have described the libe audience nicely!

Here's another for your collection. You should have quite a collection with your outstanding and informative posts here. Congratuations.

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok well i dont recall seeing that but if that did indeed happen do this:

Put yourself in Bush's shoes. You are speaking to a classroom full of Elementary school kids. You find out that the country has been attacked and thousands of people have just lost there life. What in the hell would you do?? Get up and run off leaving the kids worried? Or perhaps just shrug it off.

I mean you have to understand the grief that must have penetrated him at that moment. He is president, the big guy, and thousands of people have died give him a second to think and absorb it. It cant have been easy.

Maybe you should think before you criticize people and/or their actions.

-Kevin

First thing first, your grammar needs work. Second, all Bush needed to say was, "I'm sorry, kids, but I have to deal with something important. It was great meeting your class and I hope you continue your educations." There. Simple. When news like that hits a person, it's either fight or flight. Bush chose to run away from the problem, and this is not a good trait to have in a leader. The situation needs to be dealt with before more lives are sacrificed.

Maybe you should think before blindly following a leader and justifying all his actions.

You are bringing grammar up in my post what kind of lame excuse is that!!?

Second Bush didn't choose "flight". When something of that magnitude happens in our nation our president is kept in an undisclosed location (most likely on Air Force One). He didn't choose that. If you listened to Dick Cheney once he described Secret Service Operatives when the attack happened. He said that he was in his office and 3 of them walked in and said Mr. VIce President there has been an emergency. Then in the interview he says i didn't walk they just sort of "levitate" you to where you are going.

Secondly think, just think like i said before. If Thousands of people lost your lives andyou are the person in charge of where they live (per se) do you really think you would calmly just get up say that and walk off. Personally i would take a second breather knowing that thousands of people are no longer with us. THere has been an attack under my watch and now i have to fix it. At that moment i think he knew the meaning of "the weight of the world on your shoulders".

Looks like the situation was dealt with as they grounded all air traffic immediately. And put our armed forces on full alert and scrambled some fighters to patrol the skies. We dealt with the situation the best anyone possibly could have. WHat would you have us do? Just randomly nuke a country?

I am not blindly following a leader. YOu are so ready to criticize him you dont stop to think of his motives, to think of the magnitude of some of the things that happened to him, you just jump to conclusions.

-Kevin

Nice post, but I think you hit the nail on the head with the "You didn't stop to think!" part. Actually, "You don't think!" would have described the libe audience nicely!

Here's another for your collection. You should have quite a collection with your outstanding and informative posts here. Congratuations.

:roll:

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: RealityTime

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok well i dont recall seeing that but if that did indeed happen do this:

Put yourself in Bush's shoes. You are speaking to a classroom full of Elementary school kids. You find out that the country has been attacked and thousands of people have just lost there life. What in the hell would you do?? Get up and run off leaving the kids worried? Or perhaps just shrug it off.

I mean you have to understand the grief that must have penetrated him at that moment. He is president, the big guy, and thousands of people have died give him a second to think and absorb it. It cant have been easy.

Maybe you should think before you criticize people and/or their actions.

-Kevin

First thing first, your grammar needs work. Second, all Bush needed to say was, "I'm sorry, kids, but I have to deal with something important. It was great meeting your class and I hope you continue your educations." There. Simple. When news like that hits a person, it's either fight or flight. Bush chose to run away from the problem, and this is not a good trait to have in a leader. The situation needs to be dealt with before more lives are sacrificed.

Maybe you should think before blindly following a leader and justifying all his actions.

You are bringing grammar up in my post what kind of lame excuse is that!!?

Second Bush didn't choose "flight". When something of that magnitude happens in our nation our president is kept in an undisclosed location (most likely on Air Force One). He didn't choose that. If you listened to Dick Cheney once he described Secret Service Operatives when the attack happened. He said that he was in his office and 3 of them walked in and said Mr. VIce President there has been an emergency. Then in the interview he says i didn't walk they just sort of "levitate" you to where you are going.

Secondly think, just think like i said before. If Thousands of people lost your lives andyou are the person in charge of where they live (per se) do you really think you would calmly just get up say that and walk off. Personally i would take a second breather knowing that thousands of people are no longer with us. THere has been an attack under my watch and now i have to fix it. At that moment i think he knew the meaning of "the weight of the world on your shoulders".

Looks like the situation was dealt with as they grounded all air traffic immediately. And put our armed forces on full alert and scrambled some fighters to patrol the skies. We dealt with the situation the best anyone possibly could have. WHat would you have us do? Just randomly nuke a country?

I am not blindly following a leader. YOu are so ready to criticize him you dont stop to think of his motives, to think of the magnitude of some of the things that happened to him, you just jump to conclusions.

-Kevin

Nice post, but I think you hit the nail on the head with the "You didn't stop to think!" part. Actually, "You don't think!" would have described the libe audience nicely!

Here's another for your collection. You should have quite a collection with your outstanding and informative posts here. Congratuations.

:roll:

Yeah, I figured that the posters could form their own opinions of my basic personality without guidence from this turkey.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Condor
Yeah, I figured that the posters could form their own opinions of my basic personality without guidence from this turkey.

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about that.

 

[Gaard]

Gamingphreek - You've mentioned numerous times that Bush was informed of 1000's of lives lost in that infamous whisper. I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions about that...
[*]Are you certain that at that time 1000's of lives had been lost?
[*]Are you certain that he was told that 1000's of lives had been lost at that time? (hint: the gist of the whisper is readily available.)

 

[Gamingphreek]

The fact that numerous lives had been lost would be enough. I am not sure it was 1000's at that point, but nevertheless an attack was made on American soil. So i cannot FACTUALLY answer that question. The best i can say is the fact that America was attacked and numerous lives were lost.

-Kevin

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
The fact that numerous lives had been lost would be enough. I am not sure it was 1000's at that point, but nevertheless an attack was made on American soil. So i cannot FACTUALLY answer that question. The best i can say is the fact that America was attacked and numerous lives were lost.

-Kevin

He got you into a corner, didn't he? Way to mosey your way out of that one. Before you post random drabble, kindly look up your sources. It will help P&N be a smidge less dumb.

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Gamingphreek - You've mentioned numerous times that Bush was informed of 1000's of lives lost in that infamous whisper. I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions about that...
[*]Are you certain that at that time 1000's of lives had been lost?
[*]Are you certain that he was told that 1000's of lives had been lost at that time? (hint: the gist of the whisper is readily available.)

"I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a 'deserter.' What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants."


and he poops his pants.. lol ahaha. thank you, that cracked me up nicely. rofl. bush in depends... rofl.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
The fact that numerous lives had been lost would be enough. I am not sure it was 1000's at that point, but nevertheless an attack was made on American soil. So i cannot FACTUALLY answer that question. The best i can say is the fact that America was attacked and numerous lives were lost.

-Kevin

He got you into a corner, didn't he? Way to mosey your way out of that one. Before you post random drabble, kindly look up your sources. It will help P&N be a smidge less dumb.

No he didn't get me into a corner, nor do i think he was trying to get me into a corner. I unlike most people have done my "homework" and do not post unless i know what im talking about. I also do not believe that i "moseyed" my way out. I admitted my fallacy as i forgot to take time into consideration. I admitted that i cannot FACTUALLY answer his question.

Also unlike you i dont post just to flame someone, maybe you should work on that hmm?

Like i said early you are so eager to criticize people that you do not stop and think for a second.

-Kevin