# Bush Impresses Again **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 12, 2001, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944 "2001-10-12T01:00:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Nacho4Sara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Nacho4Sara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nacho4Sara)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/61 "2001-10-12T17:39:25Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m also amazed by people who were unquestionably anti-Bush 2 months ago who are now, because he’s managed to stand up straight and speak clearly without a teleprompter, seeing him completely differently. How does that work, exactly… we get horribly attacked by terrorists and suddenly his tax cut is peachy? His decision on stem cell was “just right”? Kyoto was cool? He’s not really a tool of the oil industry after all? I doubt this is even worth the effort, but I’ll try anyway. I’m a registered Democrat. I voted for Gore. I liked Gore an awful lot. I was as pissed as the next Democrat when Bush canned the Kyoto Treaty. I don’t like his views on inheritance taxes. I was fighting with folks in my local coffee shop about how Bush was obviously a tool for the oil industry, and most of the bored college coffee drinkers like me agreed. But just because I disagreed with his policies before September 11 doesn’t mean that I can’t agree with him now. I like what he’s doing. After his ineffectual Sept. 11 speeches and hide-and-seek Air Force One game, he got his act (and his cabinet) together and I’ve been impressed with how he is handling this ever since. I thought his speech to Congress was an incredible step forward for him. I like his take-no-prisoners doctrine. Right now, I’m glad he’s leading this country. We’re stuck with Bush for a few more years. I’m not going to spend that time avoiding newspapers, turning a blind eye to Bush’s faults, and keeping silent in the spirit of patriotism. Nor am I going to foolishly harpoon him just because I’m a Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/62 "2001-10-12T17:39:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ned \* > \*\*He gave a reasonably passable speech and answered a few questions with out falling on his face. For those of us with doubts he continues to give little hint that he has any deep understanding of what he is talking about with his continual resort to repetition of platitudes and over used statements. \*\* I thought he spoke rather well, and besides, what do you want? “We will capture OBL on October 23rd at Mustafa’s Cave. There will be two squads of Army Rangers led by Captain Theodore X. (T-Rex) Cavanaugh, and they will approach from the east-south-east at oh-eight-twenty hours. Until then, our target list looks like this: …” I think one of the most important things he can do is to use his speeches to reassure and inspire confidence, and that’s what he’s been trying to do. I, for one, haven’t been greatly impressed by any president’s speeches since Kennedy. (Yes, even Billy C’s speeches made me want to take a shower to wash the oil off. Listen to Ronnie was like stream-of-semi-consciousness connect the dots.) George W. has done just as well as any, and better than some. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/63 "2001-10-12T17:40:39Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Ned For those of us with doubts he continues to give little hint that he has any deep understanding of what he is talking about with his continual resort to repetition of platitudes and over used statements. How people can find this type of performance comforting is beyond me._ Here’s why, Ned. When Bush platitudinously repeats that he will continue the campaign until terrorism is truly overthrown, he seems to mean it. I tend to believe that he won’t let the country quit, and I approve of that policy. OTOH after the USS Cole bombing, Clinton made similar statements, and his speeches were a lot better than Bush’s. But, Clinton didn’t mean the same level of intensity and commitment. There was inadequate follow-through. The result was 6000 dead on Sept. 11. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/64 "2001-10-12T17:58:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nacho4Sara \* > \*\* > I doubt this is even worth the effort, but I’ll try anyway. > > But just because I disagreed with his policies before September 11 doesn’t mean that I can’t agree with him now. I like what he’s doing. Right now, I’m glad he’s leading this country. > > We’re stuck with Bush for a few more years. I’m not going to spend that time avoiding newspapers, turning a blind eye to Bush’s faults, and keeping silent in the spirit of patriotism. Nor am I going to foolishly harpoon him just because I’m a Democrat. \*\* Why is it not worth the effort? What you’ve said above is not that far from what I said myself. I’m glad to hear it. I was just getting worried. stoid ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/65 "2001-10-12T18:08:06Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Stoid \* \*\*3 Clarifications for the reading-impaired: [/quotes] \*\* The insults and indignation as camouflage for ignorance bit is growing old. > [@](#): > > 1. Being “better” at something does not mean you do more of it, it means you are \* better \* at it. Actually I think I’m a better runner than you, probably because I run a lot. It is reasonable to think that skill implies experience, and experience conveys skill. Why is that you beleive Republicans are more skilled wartime leaders than Democrats? > [@](#): > > More skilled and able. How does one acquire skills and abilities? > [@](#): > > More comfortable in the role. I don’t think better means more comfortable. I am very good at some roles that I’m extremely uncomfortable with. > [@](#): > > Note, as someone else pointed out, the fact that apparently 90% of the military votes Republican. That certainly says a lot to me. What is it you think that implies? It’s a moot point anyway since we’re discussing the Country’s leadership, not the political constituency of it’s armed forces. > [@](#): > > 1. Being \* better \* at something is generally perceived by \* most \* people (who aren’t constantly spoiling for a fight, that is) as a \*\* compliment \*\* . If I told you that you were a better liar than me, would you take that as a compliment? What if I said you were a better at misdirection or obfuscation? For that matter who would be pleased to told that they are a better bigot? “Better” isn’t a compliment. Telling someone that they are a bad liar or they care too much isn’t an insult. (Nor am I spoiling for a fight. I’m debating. You leave these gems around, and I respond.) > [@](#): > > Most people approve of this war, yes? Don’t you want the guys who are \* better \* at doing that? I know I do. Why do you think that Republican leadership is better suited to wartime than Democratic. And, if this is true, why do you in another thread say that Bush is the worst “conceivable” President, and in this one suggest your glad we have Republican leadership? > [@](#): > > 1. I hope that people who were not happy with his domestic policies are not going to be swayed into thinking he’s a great president because they like his handling of this crisis. An excellent point. Ideally any success in one area should not excuse failings in another. But I’d disagree a little and state that minor failings can be overlooked in the face of great achievements. > [@](#): > > That was my point. We do not live in a state of perpetual crisis…at least we never have before, let’s hope we don’t start now. > > stoid \*\* I dunno. There’s always a crises. There’s always bad things brewing, and it’s been that way for as long as their been humans. Sometimes we can forget them for a while, or ignore them, but they are still there. Bin Laden’s been around promising doom and acting on it for quite some time. We’ve just ignored it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/66 "2001-10-12T18:13:12Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by december \* \*\* > [@](#): > > There was inadequate follow-through. The result was 6000 dead on Sept. 11. \*\* Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! A transparent attempt to try to pin this on Clinton that just won’t wash. **Everybody** was blindsided on this one. Clinton made the effort with the missile attack, it didn’t work. Have we any reason to believe that if OBL {Piss be on him} **had** been killed, the terrorism would have halted. Nonsense! Did you hear anybody, Algore or Our Leader, say **one word** about beefing up security in the election campaign? We should have seen this coming. We didn’t. But it damn sure isn’t Bill Clinton’s fault. After all, who’s watch was it? Seems to me Our Leader is more plausibly culpable than the guy who **wasn’t** in the Oval Office. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/67 "2001-10-12T18:27:14Z")
Now Boris, you aren’t really saying that George failed and that’s why this happened, are ya? As I pointed out elsewhere, the real blame lies with the nearly-worthless CIA. Under Clinton (after DaddyBush, former CIA head, which is weird) it fell apart. If you are interested in detail, check out the archives of the New Yorker regarding the attacks. Fascinating article. Oh what the hell… [http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?011008fa\_FACT](http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?011008fa_FACT) > [@](#): > > \*\* > Kerrey remains angry about the U.S. policy toward Afghanistan in the years after its defeat of the Soviet Union. “The Cold War was over, and we shut down Afghanistan”—that is, ceased all intelligence operations. “From Bush to Clinton, what happened is one of the most embarrassing American foreign-policy decisions, as bad as Vietnam,” Kerrey said. He cited a botched 1996 C.I.A. plot to overthrow President Saddam Hussein of Iraq: “We also had a half-baked Iraqi operation and sent a signal that we’re not serious.” > > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > > “We’ll never solve the terrorism issue until we reconstitute the D.O.,” a former senior clandestine officer told me. “The first line of defense, and the most crucial line of defense, is human intelligence.” Baer, who was awarded a Career Intelligence Medal after his resignation, in late 1997, said, “You wouldn’t believe how bad it is. What saved the White House on Flight 93”—the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania—“was a bunch of rugby players. Is that what you’re paying thirty billion dollars for?” He was referring to the federal budget for intelligence. He and his colleagues aren’t surprised that the F.B.I. had no warning of the attack. “The bureau is wonderful in solving crimes after they’re committed,” one C.I.A. man said. “But it’s not good at penetration. We’ve got to do it.” > > \*\* tasha ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/68 "2001-10-12T18:44:10Z")
There’s plenty of blame, in hindsight, that can be spread about evenly over the last several administrations, as [Jacob Weisberg in Slate](http://slate.msn.com/code/BallotBox/BallotBox.asp) points out. Face it, almost none of us ever really gave a shit about that part of the world until a month ago, so it’s not all that fair to criticize now. If anything, Weisberg thinks Clinton might have been _too_ obsessed with killing bin Laden to have been effective. He also might have mentioned a certain distraction Clinton had to deal with at the time, and inappropriate domestic criticism of his actions - how many of you critics used the term “Wag the Dog” in 1998, might I inquire? Blaming it all on Clinton is as predictable and simple-minded and useless as blaming it all on Poppy Bush. Anyone here should know better, even if the Wall Street Journal does not. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/69 "2001-10-12T18:49:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Here’s why, Ned. When Bush platitudinously repeats that he will continue the campaign until terrorism is truly overthrown, he seems to mean it. He does seem to think he has a mission from god here. Given the magnitude of this event however not continuing is simply not an option. Whether his efforts are successful will be how he is ultimately judged on his handling. As for Clinton, he didn’t give up and you would be aware of this if you read the odd newspaper. Unless you felt that an invasion of afghanistan was mandated by those events I suggest you reconsider your critique. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/70 "2001-10-12T18:54:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\* > > He also might have mentioned a certain distraction Clinton had to deal with at the time, and inappropriate domestic criticism of his actions - how many of you critics used the term “Wag the Dog” in 1998, might I inquire? > \*\* But don’t you remember, Elvis, it’s ok to let lawsuits go forward while a president is in office! Why should presidents be exempt? They aren’t special! It’s not like distracting a president from his job jeopardizes a whole nation or anything! (I wonder how many people would make the same argument if someone wanted to sue George right now.) I could weep, I tell ya. Wait, I have! stoid ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/71 "2001-10-12T19:22:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Face it, almost none of us ever really gave a shit about that part of the world until a month ago, so it’s not all that fair to criticize now. Au contraire. We’ve cared about that part of the world ever since Henry Ford invented a contraption called the automobile. Face it, we aren’t in the Middle East to promote democracy. We could give a rat’s ass about women’s rights or children’s rights. We’re there because it is in America’s interests that the region is stable and the oil keeps flowly. Cheaply. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/72 "2001-10-12T19:33:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\*Now Boris, you aren’t really saying that George failed and that’s why this happened, are ya? > \*\* Don’t **Scylla** me! You, of all people! No, I’m comparing an absurdity to a slightly lesser absurdity: if you’re gonna use the “it happened on his watch” schtick, Clinton comes out slightly less culpable than Our Leader. Nobody saw this coming. I’m not at all sure that somebody **could** have. However, I **was** stunned to learn that the cockpit doors weren’t secured a **long** time ago. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/73 "2001-10-12T19:47:04Z")
**PunditLisa** : 1. How much oil do you think we get from Afghanistan or _any_ of the 'Stans? Well, Turkmenistan maybe, but how many people could find _that_ on a map? 2. How much of a shit do we give about any of the countries over there that _do_ have oil, other than for their oil? I’m sticking with the point. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/74 "2001-10-12T19:47:34Z")
\*\*\*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* He also might have mentioned a certain distraction Clinton had to deal with at the time, and inappropriate domestic criticism of his actions - how many of you critics used the term “Wag the Dog” in 1998, might I inquire? \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \*But don’t you remember, Elvis, it’s ok to let lawsuits go forward while a president is in office! Why should presidents be exempt? They aren’t special! It’s not like distracting a president from his job jeopardizes a whole nation or anything! (I wonder how many people would make the same argument if someone wanted to sue George right now.) **Elvis, Stoid** , these excuses are pathetic for many reasons: – It’s the President’s responsibility to do his job. If he can’t fulfill all his responsibilities (because of distraction, illness, etc,) it’s his responsibility to find some alternative way that the job gets done. BTW this is equally true of most of us. E.g., my daughter had her gall bladder removed yesterday, and she had to make arrangements for her infant son. She didn’t use the surgery as an excuse to leave him unfed. :eek: – Clinton had the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of State, the CIA, the FBI, the Military, and The Inventor of the Internet available to help. He could have delegated responsibility. – He would have been finished with the Paula Jones lawsuit in no time at all, if he had stuck to the truth. It was his decision to conspire with Monica to commit perjury. – Given the potential embarassment of the Monica business, Clinton was insane to pursue the suit. He should have settled with PJ right away, instead of putting the country through Hell and then paying her demand after all. – Clinton’s the one who created the PJ problem in the first place when he asked her for a BJ. – As for the “Wag the Dog” criticism, I think it was valid. If Clinton had continued a real anti-Terror campaign, the “Wag-the-Dog” criticism would have been proved false. – In any event, we expect (or hope) a President will be thick-skinned enough to do the right thing even in the face of criticism. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/75 "2001-10-12T20:01:41Z")
I’ve been the first person to point to a specific, legitimatge thing that Clinton screwed up: the C.I.A. Elvis just brought up a subject that is a sore spot with me. Clinton’s presidency was hobbled for absolutely no legitimate reason other than blind hatred, from before he was even elected and continuing through every one of the 2,920 days of his presidency. It was an obscene, unforgivable disgrace from beginning to end, and when I say that I am not referring to anything Clinton himself did. But we’ve had this debate before… stoid ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/76 "2001-10-12T20:02:26Z")
The job Clinton, or any President, was or is hired to do by We the People is to run the government. But you’re insisting that he should have set that aside to devote his time instead to responding to a vendetta, as if eliminating one of its pretexts would eliminate that. He, and most of us, knew better than to think the campaign to get him for something would stop. I think perhaps you do too, deep inside. The best way to serve the country, and do the job he was hired to do, was to delegate _that_ stuff instead, to the extent possible. The last thing the majority of We the People wanted him to do was to surrender to the vendetta, and he didn’t. To claim that the “Wag the Dog” yappers (which, not long ago, you denied ever existed) had, as a result, any responsibility for the consequences of distracting Clinton from his job shows an inability to learn and grow. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/77 "2001-10-12T20:37:32Z")
upon re-view of portions of the speech, here’s a couple things I’m distinctly UN-impressed with: a) What is with this “The Evil One” and “The Evildoers”? Who is writing this junk? If a president said that in a movie, the audience would groan out loud. b) When asked something about what Americans will sacrifice, he said “I think Americans are sacrificing right now, standing in long lines in airports…” Wow! The suffering is almost unimaginable! :rolleyes: stoid ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/78 "2001-10-12T21:30:41Z")
Nacho4Sara, It’s people like you and posts like yours that make me proud to be a part of the human race. As a libertarian, I could reel off any number of criticisms of Bush’s conservative agenda. But like you, I think he’s handling the crisis well. My greatest trepidation, at this point, is in wondering whether he will allow his cabinet to fatally wound our civil liberties. At times like these, a libertarian might tend to lean more towards the liberals, in the hopes that they will intercept and brunt any such encroachments. * * * Does anyone know Bush’s stance on liberty? ---
**Author:** ![Nacho4Sara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Nacho4Sara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nacho4Sara)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/79 "2001-10-12T22:13:20Z")
Libertarian, thank you for the compliment. It makes me happy to know people are reading my posts. As for the question of our civil liberties being restricted - that is exactly what worries me the most. If we yield completely to Bush because we all have to be patriotic right now, then it will be awfully easy for him to step on our personal rights. But we may have to give up some of our rights for increased national security. How many? And to what degree? I’m absolutely not sure at all, but I think it’s important that we keep an eye on just how far Bush is re-drawing the line in the dirt. I’m with Bill Mayer on this one; he’s been fighting that we need to keep partisanship alive and kicking from the start. I don’t want to see people using this to further their political agenda. Nor do I want one big sloppy amalgamation for a Congress. We have to find a balance, and I’m trusting that there are enough Democrats in the government to make sure our rights are protected. If not, I will most certainly be vocal about it, whether that makes me un-American or not. Slight hijack: I just finished a really excellent book by David James Barber called The Presidential Character. It deals with some of the issues we’re discussing, classifies past presidents, and gives advice on how to classify future presidents. Right now, I’m pretty sure Bush is active-positive (like Clinton), which Barber argues is the best type of president. researched ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944/80 "2001-10-12T22:18:52Z")
**Wherein Elucidator blatantly ignores the OP for the sake of a cheap joke…** A buddy of mine grew up in the USSR. We were sitting around, drinking and telling lies, when we got on the subject of humor, what kind of jokes did the Russians tell… So this American was talking to this Russian, bragging about how America has “liberty”. The Russian challenged that contention, what does it mean, exactly, “liberty?” “Well” says the American "anytime I like, I can get up on a soap box and criticize American foreign policy " “But, just so!” says the Russian. “I also am at liberty to criticize American foreign policy any time I like!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-impresses-again/86944.md?page=5)