I think that was part of it, albeit a small part.
this thread reminds me of a bunch of young troops (or airmen in my case) talking about deploying to iraq or afghanistan for the first time. "man i cant wait to shoot one" or "man if i get in a fire fight im gonna do this or that". knowing damn well they have never been in that position. fact of the matter is that NOBODY in this thread can sit there and dictate how the POTUS should have reacted because they will NEVER in their lives be in that position to have to make such decisions. "oh well he finished a childrens story instead of doing his job blah blah blah". "he looked like a deer in the headlights blah blah blah". really ppl? this happend 10 ing years ago. get over it already!
Can i remind ya'll that bill clinton dropped the ball on taking care of bin laden? after all 1993 WTC was bombed from below, 1995 attack on us military headquarters in Riyadh Saudi Arabia, 1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 US emabssies in Africa, 2000 USS Cole. what happend on w's watch? 9/11. and what else? What the was his response? Getting his sucked? Putting a cigar in an interns snatch? and you idiots wanna criticize Bush?
I would agree.
I think a lot of the spin on his actions in that class were overblown, and rather yucky partisanship. Bush did quite enough stupid/partisan already to ding him for.
The US, and Clinton by extension, was hampered by an intelligence apparatus still geared to watching the USSR's troop movements than for the kinds of intelligence required to fight the likes of Al Qaeda.
Having been part of that intelligence apparatus, albeit a very minor part, I speak of that first hand. We had a LOT of technical gee-whiz bull , but ground spooks was a particular failing that everybody knew about and it was widely discussed and acknowledged by people who were experts in the intel community.
OBL was a priority, and Clinton did expend a fair effort on trying to get him, but it was just not anyone's overriding priority, and your criticism seems to assume it was, which is just not the way it was, if you are old enough to remember.
Agreed. There's just nothing he could've done in that ten minutes that would have changed anything, and those criticizing him for it have no actual evidence he did anything against policy (as evidenced in this thread). Some people may have felt scaring the children further was necessary and stepped out; in the case of one man, even a president, a thousand miles from the nearest terrorist attack, I don't think it really matters what elapsed in those ten minutes. Furthermore, I think those kids' opinions reinforces the merits of his decision.
Whether or not he damaged his image in that classroom is irrelevant, as well. Dude went on to get re-elected. He may be a buffoon but this one doesn't really fall in that category, IMHO.
It's merely a statement of fact with you, pussy.Says the guy who calls people pussy from behind his firewall.
As Manny said, we don't care what those people thought then or what they think now. That's the whole point -- Bush shouldn't have either at that point because at the very worst they would have been confused as to why he had to leave early.I'm sorry those students and their dead teacher don't hate Bush, like you want them to.
I know you are sad Oprah is going off the air, but try to hold it together.
then bill clinton with his lack of action should be criticsized just as much as bush was if not more. he sat on his hands. we have had the planes that could have flown from whiteman to afghanistan to drop bombs and then fly back to the united states have we not? also we did have the abilities back then with the predator as discussed here to provdie "real time" feeds to the CIA we could have easily had bombs on target. imagine the stamp on clintons presidency if he would have killed/captured bin laden? we knew where he was. we've always had the capabilities. clinton dropped the ball at the end and passed it along to dubya. then again its still the "in" thing to bash bush.
It's policy to finish a children's book when the nation is under attack?Why would the kids have been scared? Was it a school for clairvoyants?Some people may have felt scaring the children further was necessary and stepped out; in the case of one man, even a president, a thousand miles from the nearest terrorist attack, I don't think it really matters what elapsed in those ten minutes. I think those kids' opinions reinforces the merits of his decision.
You're doing the same thing those interviewed did by applying hindsight to that situation.
Presidents make mistakes and get reelected.Whether or not he damaged his image in that classroom is irrelevant, as well. Dude went on to get re-elected.
hey chump when you were president and the nation fell under attack what did you do?
hey ferg when you were president and the nation fell under attack what did you do?
im not the one criticizing the man. i cant answer that question because unlike you, i am not qualified nor do i think im qualified. so again; what did u do? u seem to have the qualifications. i would like to know....
You criticized Clinton. How are you qualified to do that?
I would like to know.
how are you qualified to criticize bush? wanna keep playing this game? i did exactly what you people are doing except put the blame a little more where it belongs.... again what actions did you take? also, what i presented are facts. not what i FEEL.
double post
How are you qualified to criticize Clinton?Where you FEEL it belongs, Oprah.i did exactly what you people are doing except put the blame a little more where it belongs....What actions did you take?again what actions did you take?The facts are Bush finished a children's story while America was under attack. Our pointing that out makes you FEEL angry. We can tell.also, what i presented are facts. not what i FEEL.
Irrelevant line of questioning. The burder of proof is on those who claim he did something other than policy. Until you can point out the specifics of what he was supposed to do in that ten minutes, it must be assumed he had nothing to do, at least with the children in mind, and at least for a few minutes.
You should read the article and then ask them if you have any further questions.Why would the kids have been scared?
And what other sight is supposed to be used when referring to events of the past?You're doing the same thing those interviewed did by applying hindsight to that situation.
Do you have anything to say?
Yep. Which means continuing to call him out for a possible minor PR mistake (but not a policy one, til you prove otherwise) is pretty dumb. Additionally, many seem to think he responded to 9/11 pretty well overall, at least initially (pre-Iraq).Presidents make mistakes and get reelected.
The only thing running to the phone would have done is given Moore 8 less minutes (or whatever) of a movie and given partisans less ammo - like you need any more.
no chump pointing out that he finished a childrens story doesnt make me feel angry. however i can tell by what i brought to the argument it did in fact agner you. truth hurts doesnt it? bush finishing that story had what impact on 9/11? answer that one. what exactly could he have accomplished in those 10 minutes that would have made a difference in the grand scheme of things? who could he have called which could provide him with more intel than "two planes just flew into WTC"? what could he have done? what military action could have been taken? why is this even an issue ten years later? the guy handled himself better then any one of us would have im sure. as pointed out by RG the intelligence apparatus was crippled (paraphrasing). so what exactly could he have done to make a difference and stop the attacks?
It's quite relevant. Show me the policy that says calming children who wouldn't be upset anyway is the procedure.
They said they were clueless.You should read the article and then ask them if you have any further questions.
The sight that is honest about what one knew at the time.And what other sight is supposed to be used when referring to events of the past?
I already said it.Do you have anything to say?
I do think he responded well overall -- but making his sitting for 10 minutes out to be heroic is stupid.Yep. Which means continuing to call him out for a possible minor PR mistake (but not a policy one, til you prove otherwise) is pretty dumb. Additionally, many seem to think he responded to 9/11 pretty well overall, at least initially (pre-Iraq).
Again, it was a mistake. We're only going over it because Darrin got all weepy thinking about the possibility of mildly confused kids who admitted they were clueless at the time.The only thing running to the phone would have done is given Moore 8 less minutes (or whatever) of a movie and given partisans less ammo - like you need any more.
My point is simply that there are already counter-terrorist procedures set in place for the first ten minutes (or more) of a major terrorist incident. The president is essentially helpless at this time and must rely on others. Why run to the phone and make it seem as if he's horrified or anxious in front of a bunch of children, especially if the SS has deemed he's safe?
That is one thing I'd like to know more about - whether the SS thought he was actually 100% safe. But I can't seem to find any information relevant to that.
I said myself it may have been a PR mistake. But I don't think it was the wrong decision overall, a questionable one, but one he can't be criticized over "policy" for.
Of course you're angry.Not this truth. The fact you are making such a big deal out of how you FEEL about this speaks volumes.however i can tell by what i brought to the argument it did in fact agner you. truth hurts doesnt it?Who knows? Perhaps several trucks loaded with explosives were headed toward the school right then.bush finishing that story had what impact on 9/11? answer that one. what exactly could he have accomplished in those 10 minutes that would have made a difference in the grand scheme of things?So you FEEL in hindsight nothing at all could have happened in those ten minutes anywhere, including that school.who could he have called which could provide him with more intel than "two planes just flew into WTC"? what could he have done? what military action could have been taken? why is this even an issue ten years later? the guy handled himself better then any one of us would have im sure. as pointed out by RG the intelligence apparatus was crippled (paraphrasing). so what exactly could he have done to make a difference and stop the attacks?
Oprah is so glad you are in touch with your feelings.
If anything, this is a minor mistake in the scheme of things. If you actually look into Bush's policy RE: bin Laden in the months of January to September, you might FEEL that he made much more critical mistakes then.
But you won't.
like what mistakes? january to september of what years? all you are doing is providing me with entertainment my friend. not pissing me off. i find this rather amusing. so what mistakes and what years? what would you have done differently? seeing as how you have all the intel he had im SURE you could make a reasonable decision.
i know why it took 10 minutes.
it took that long for him to digest the fact that he knew he completely ignored the warnings of what would happen........and the attacks that took place were exactly what was expected.
how could he have enough time from january to september to ignore something if barrack obama couldnt make a difference in a year? as stated earlier by RG bin laden wasnt an overriding priority for bill clinton so how would that change from one pres to the next? "hey theres this guy; kinda been a pain in the ass but i wouldnt worry about him".
He was so safe they just decided to put him in the air for a sightseeing tour.
Again, too much is being made of this. Considering what Bush knew that morning (if he could have put the first crash and all his bin Laden briefings and memos together), it could be argued that he should have at least postponed the reading in the first place. I'm only going by what was known at the time -- something others here are not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
