# GWB's Strangely Passive Presidency **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 14, 2004, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972 "2004-04-14T15:01:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/41 "2004-04-15T11:52:40Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Frankly, I don’t know what this means. Truer words, etc. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/42 "2004-04-15T11:58:04Z")
It’s spreading, **'luce**. Despite the best efforts of our scientists, despite the generous donations of so many citizens who give when their local volunteer comes to their doorstep, C.D. is gaining. And in some cases, it looks terminal. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/43 "2004-04-15T13:25:54Z")
Ahoy Minty! Am I correct in assuming that “C.D.” stands for Conservative Dementia? And as for you RTFirefly and Voyager who are so commendably carrying on with the work of our Lord, may I suggest that you join me in ignoring our rather hysterical friend, Starving Artist? From where I sit, only the most irredeemable wing nut would give this joker the slightest bit of credence by this point. Like the fanatically self-deluded everywhere, he will NEVER admit any sort of fault or acknowledge any piece of reality that goes against him. Because his responses have gotten to be so absurdly shrill and self-contradictory, the simple reality is that you’ve already won the debate. There’s no point in further exhausting yourselves, especially since he’s done at least 50% of your work for you. So relax, smile and take pleasure in your accomplishments. You’ve earned it. Oh, and Starving Artist, you’ve earned what you’ve got too. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/44 "2004-04-15T13:35:55Z")
> [@braintree](#): > > Am I correct in assuming that “C.D.” stands for Conservative Dementia? No. It’s “cognitive dissonance”: > [@](#): > > [Cognitive Dissonance](http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm) > > Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become “open” to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners’ current beliefs and “reality”. > > Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go “over the top”, leading to two interesting side-effects for learning: > > - if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget’s terms. > > - if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been “had”, or “conned”. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/45 "2004-04-15T13:56:22Z")
Before I read this thread, I read the current critque of THE APPRENTICE over in Cafe Society, and I’m amused at some of the parallels. Bush/Kwame is getting reamed out for being a hands-off leader, who blandly accepts the clueless incompentence of underlings (Condi/Omarosa is the most succinct, though not the most accurate, parallel here) and is supposed to be fired soon for allowing jerks to ruin his record. If the press conference had run immediately following the latest episode, I think this would a universal perception. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/46 "2004-04-15T14:28:55Z")
**Desmo** - thanks for providing the definition of “cognitive dissonance”. The term gets tossed around a lot, and while I’d absorbed a general sense of its meaning, this makes it a lot more clear. **braintree** - I’m on board with that plan. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/47 "2004-04-15T14:30:18Z")
Dear Desmostylus, Why must you ruin my beautiful mind with the unctious poison of factual information? C.D. stands for Conservative Dementia and anyone who disagrees is merely gunning for me out of partisan hatred of the most naked order. I know that’s true because that’s what my imagination tells me. ---
**Author:** ![notquitekarpov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@notquitekarpov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notquitekarpov)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/48 "2004-04-15T14:35:01Z")
\*\*Staving Artist \*\* 0 \*\*Rest of the Sentinent World \*\* 3 85 minute hattrick: Voyager. FA enquiry taking video evidence after the final whistle. Staving Artist - just one example of your seperation from reality - the idea of Clinton having been offered the head of OBL, let alone having declined it, has been debunked so many time it is incredible you have not come across it. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248355&highlight=clinton+sudan+osama](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248355&highlight=clinton+sudan+osama) Oh, of course, CD kicking in, I forgot… ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/49 "2004-04-15T15:08:34Z")
[You’ve gotta read it.](http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/) It certainly shows why delegating is more than just handing jobs off to subordinates, then waiting indefinitely until they report back. > [@](#): > > In an otherwise dry day of hearings before the 9/11 commission, one brief bit of dialogue set off a sudden flash of clarity on the basic question of how our government let disaster happen. > > The revelation came this morning, when CIA Director George Tenet was on the stand. Timothy Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked him when he first found out about the report from the FBI’s Minnesota field office that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747. Tenet replied that he was briefed about the case on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001. > > Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, “I was not in briefings at this time.” Bush, he noted, “was on vacation.” He added that he didn’t see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. “You never talked with him?” Roemer asked. “No,” Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, “on leave.” _ **Aaaaaaaaaagggggghhhhh!!!** _ > [@](#): > > Bush got back after Labor Day. That first day, Sept. 4, was when the “Principals Committee”—consisting of his Cabinet heads—met in the White House to discuss terrorism. As Dick Clarke has since complained, and Condi Rice and others have acknowledged, it was the first time Bush’s principals held a meeting on the subject. > > This morning, Roemer asked Tenet if he brought up the Moussaoui briefing at that meeting. No, Tenet replied. “It wasn’t the appropriate place.” Roemer didn’t follow up and ask, “Why not? Where was the appropriate place?” Perhaps he was too stunned. He sure looked it. Slap me silly and call me Condi. I’m stunned, too. The piece also has some stuff on the contradictory stories of who ordered up the infamous August 6 PDB, but that’s nothing compared to this. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/50 "2004-04-15T15:26:48Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I’m beginning to doubt my previous assessment of you as an intelligent person. Do you honestly think the military of this country is incapable of handling Afghanistan \*and \* Iraq, and that Bush has therefore let Bin Laden go free in order to concentrate on Iraq? Puh-leese! With a lot less technology and firepower than we have today we defeated Japan and Germany and held the Soviet Union in check for 40 or 50 years. Give me a break! ``` Well if the major issue were TROOPS and not INTELLIGENCE then I would agree with you... but apparently they don't have the resources to even translate intercepts and info they are getting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Not many translators with security clearance... Even superpowers would do a better job concentrating on 1 real target than on 2. Proof is the gradual Taliban ressurgence and Iraqi uprisings. Or do you think its all hunky dory too ? Any way you paint it... Iraq was a clearly a distraction from fighting Terrorism. Especially since Iraq wasn't about terrorism at all. ``` > [@](#): > > So you want the President, conducting a war and engaged with our enemies, in an election year, to walk right into a trap being laid by the media… ``` Engaging enemies... nice... but what enemies ? Al Qaeda or Saddam ? Oil rich countries or poor backwater muslims ? Muslims or real Terrorists ? The same old "fighting the enemy" rhetoric... Bush should be fighting the causes not the syndromes of Terrorism. This fantasy that Bush is being "tough" on terrorists just because there are troops shooting all over the globe is silly. ``` ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/51 "2004-04-15T15:28:09Z")
[9/11 Commission Staff Statement No. 10: Threats and Responses in 2001](http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/52 "2004-04-15T15:38:39Z")
**notquitekarpov** …notquiteconvincing either. Funny thing about the “cites” and proofs offered around here. They usually come from some liberal leaning columnist or apologist. In this case, however, we have a cite that comes from a former member of, as well as a past and present supporter of what is possibly the lyingest administration in this country’s history. I was prepared to acknowledge that you might have been right about this, even though I heard reference to it again on the news just a few days ago…but I’m afraid I don’t have enough confidence in your cite to do so now. **braintree**! Sweetie! You’re back! (Lurkers should refer to post #19.) I see we’ve progressed to the typical part of the discussion where the basic premise of the liberal rebuttal is mere dismissiveness. In the Pit, this would be the time when “moron” or “idiot” or some other invective would become the premise of the rebuttal. I’ve seen no credible challenge to the claims I’ve put forth. No one has challenged my assertion of the synergy between al Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam. No one has challenged my assertion that Iraq could easily have supplied al Qaeda with WMD while playing hide and seek with BlixCo. No one has challenged my assertion that the press and television media, in 9 out of 15 or so questions at the news conference, were asking questions based on the premise that Bush had made \*some \* kind of mistake and was going to admit it? And no one has challenged my assertion that they had (and still have) no idea exactly what these mistakes were. No one has questioned that they were doing so with the deliberate intent of being able to broadcast to the world that Bush had fucked up regarding the war on Iraq, and something which would give the “Great Equivicator,” i.e. John Kerry, the major thrust and talking point of his campaign for the next seven months. No one has challenged my assertion that the U.N., France and Germany would not have acted regardless of \*any \* provocation, such as I described in my previous post. No one has challenged my estimation that with over 70 FBI investigations targeting al Qaeda alone, plus who knows how many others were going on at the same time, Bush could not possibly have ridden herd over all of them simultaneously and given them the daily goosing that has been suggested as the thing he should have done. “Shaking the trees,” I believe it was called. In short, no one has provided any sort of convincing argument regarding the actual substance of my assertions. They’ve either not been addressed at all, or the rebuttal to them was nothing more than some variation of an “is too, is not” comment. Furthermore, I’ll wager there’s not a one of you that wasn’t virulently opposed to Bush prior to this flap and have simply seized upon it in order to futher bolster your own prejudices. So go ahead and assume your dismissive postures if you want, but you’ve offered nothing of substance to counter my claims. If you think you’re going to make me feel diminished or marginalized with your lame and condescending bail-outs, you are quite mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/53 "2004-04-15T15:42:42Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Funny thing about the “cites” and proofs offered around here. They usually come from some liberal leaning columnist or apologist. Its easy to dismiss stuff with the same old “liberals” and “tree huggers” and “Bin Laden lovers” tags. Turn off Fox News yourself… ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/54 "2004-04-15T15:48:37Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I’ve seen no credible challenge to the claims I’ve put forth. No one has challenged my assertion of the synergy between al Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam. > > No one has challenged my assertion that Iraq could easily have supplied al Qaeda with WMD while playing hide and seek with BlixCo. ``` So the new words are "synergy" and "could easily have" ? Assumptions make for weak cases for invasion. The idea of the Saddam & Al Qaeda relationship have been endlessly destroyed here... if you don't bring something solid to say its otherwise your just regurgitating old Bull Shit. The Saudis or the US could have been supplying WMD AQ for that matter... conjecture all you want. It seems Iraq barely had a WMD program going, more of a bluff than a program. That they supplied WMD to AQ, that hated Saddam, is pure republican porn. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/55 "2004-04-15T16:21:39Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > Well if the major issue were TROOPS and not INTELLIGENCE then I would agree with you… but apparently they don’t have the resources to even translate intercepts and info they are getting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Not many translators with security clearance… Even superpowers would do a better job concentrating on 1 real target than on 2. Proof is the gradual Taliban ressurgence and Iraqi uprisings. Or do you think its all hunky dory too ? I think they relatively minor in the overall scope of war and that they are being blown out of proportion for political advantage. > [@Rashak Mani](#): > > Any way you paint it… Iraq was a clearly a distraction from fighting Terrorism. Especially since Iraq wasn’t about terrorism at all. I disagree most heartily. My previous posts explain my views on the synergy between Iraq under Saddam and al Qaeda. > [@Rashak Mani](#): > > Engaging enemies… nice… but what enemies ? Al Qaeda or Saddam ? Oil rich countries or poor backwater muslims ? Muslims or real Terrorists ? Are you serious??? Uh…I would say our enemies are al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, the Arab and/or Muslim extremists who have joined them, and all the other terrorist cells and individuals around the globe who are gunning for us. > [@Rashak Mani](#): > > The same old “fighting the enemy” rhetoric… Bush should be fighting the causes not the syndromes of Terrorism. I have heard it widely espoused that much of the cause of terrorism and unrest in the Middle East is due to most of these countries being underdeveloped, the crushing poverty that most of its inhabitants live under, and dictatorial self-enriching governments. I’d be interested to know what you think Bush should be doing about this, rather than wasting his time fighting those who are faunching at the bit to kill us. > [@Rashak Mani](#): > > This fantasy that Bush is being “tough” on terrorists just because there are troops shooting all over the globe is silly. I personally don’t think Bush is being all that “tough” on terrorists, as a matter of fact. He’s being constrained by the wishes of a divided public, world opinion, and political considerations…all of which only serve to bolster the resolve our enemies (sorry, I know you don’t like that word, but there ya go…). A strong response by a united global community would send a disheartening message to those who believe terrorism is the answer to the problems; wishy-washy flip-flopping by the U.S. populace and the world community only serves to encourage them by making it appear their tactics are a divisive factor against their enemies (that would be us and our allies by the way), and at the very least encourages them to bide their time till the tide changes. What a great way to protect ourselves! ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/56 "2004-04-15T16:25:55Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > So the new words are “synergy” and “could easily have” ? Assumptions make for weak cases for invasion. The idea of the Saddam & Al Qaeda relationship have been endlessly destroyed here… if you don’t bring something solid to say its otherwise your just regurgitating old Bull Shit. > > ``` > The Saudis or the US could have been supplying WMD AQ for that matter... conjecture all you want. It seems Iraq barely had a WMD program going, more of a bluff than a program. That they supplied WMD to AQ, that hated Saddam, is pure republican porn. > > ``` There’s nothing in this entire post that is worthy of comment. ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/57 "2004-04-15T16:31:33Z")
(in response to “The simple observation ‘In retrospect, we probably should have spent a little more time on bin Laden and less on Hussein’ would, I think, kill the issue:”) > [@Starving Artist](#): > > I couldn’t disagree more. The press corp (and many of the posters on these anti-Bush threads) were/are slavering for \*some \* kind of admission of wrongdoing or error. What wrongdoing or error? Not any one in particular, just any kind will do. And contrary to killing the issue, it would ramp up the critisism and attacks on Bush and his policies many times over. It’s all you would read and hear about from the media, and John Kerry would have the major talking point for the rest of his campaign. Assuming there’s something for “BushCo” to “admit” – as opposed to policies of his that certain people disagree with and therefore find fault in – to do so would be foolish in the extreme and would hand to his enemies exactly what it is they want. So, “assuming” there were actually something for him to “admit” to, to do so would be a big (and actual) mistake. You are of course right that the hardliners would not be sated - that, alas, is the way of hardliners of all stripes. Otherwise, it looks like you overacted to my suggestion that they make a very specific response to a specific situation. Turning it into “not any one in particular” mangles my intent. (I’m quite capable of mangling my intent by myself, thank you very much.) The key in my suggestion was beginning it with the phrase “In retrospect.” Hell, when you say that you can excuse damn near anything, because the best course is always more obvious after the fact, and folks will give you the benefit of the doubt for having done the best you could under the circumstances. What bothers me about the present administration is that they seem incapable of doing even a piddling, face-saving, obvious _mea culpa_ like this. What’s their problem? Are they _that_ afraid of being spun? Look at an example from the past, the 2000 campaign, that occasion when Mr. Bush was overheard characterizing a certain reporter or columnist or whatever as an asshole. No problem there - I’ve hung that label on a few folks myself. The remarkable thing was Mr. Bush’s “apology” for this incident. He did _not_ say, “I’m sorry I called So-and-So an asshole.” Instead, he apologized for _being overheard_ calling So-and-So an asshole. Doesn’t this guy have the testosterone-production-facilities to stand by his opinions? I can imagine a guy like Harry Truman in that situation: “You’re right. I did say that fellow was an asshole. And he is.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/58 "2004-04-15T16:43:02Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > No one has challenged my assertion that Iraq could easily have supplied al Qaeda with WMD while playing hide and seek with BlixCo. Gotta admit I check back occasionally for the sheer amusement value. And Condi Rice could have easily supplied me with a blowjob during a ‘nooner’; our offices aren’t all that far apart. > [@](#): > > No one has challenged my estimation that with over 70 FBI investigations targeting al Qaeda alone, plus who knows how many others were going on at the same time, Bush could not possibly have ridden herd over all of them simultaneously and given them the daily goosing that has been suggested as the thing he should have done. “Shaking the trees,” I believe it was called. Any connection between this statement and the one it was rebutting (let alone reality) is purely coincidental. Pass that pipe, dude; I want some of what you’re smoking. ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/59 "2004-04-15T16:49:00Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Furthermore, I’ll wager there’s not a one of you that wasn’t virulently opposed to Bush prior to this flap and have simply seized upon it in order to futher bolster your own prejudices. You lose, sir. My opposition to Mr. Bush and his bunch has never been virulent. Early on (2000 primary) I took his measure as a lightwight and, alas, have not seen anything to overturn that opinion. (Suggestion: don’t project your own personality on others - it perturbs the petunias.) ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972/60 "2004-04-15T17:23:55Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > (in response to “The simple observation ‘In retrospect, we probably should have spent a little more time on bin Laden and less on Hussein’ would, I think, kill the issue:”) > > You are of course right that the hardliners would not be sated - that, alas, is the way of hardliners of all stripes. Otherwise, it looks like you overacted to my suggestion that they make a very specific response to a specific situation. Turning it into “not any one in particular” mangles my intent. I wasn’t speaking of you personally when I made that remark. I was speaking of the print and television media and the people on this board who are rabidly anti-Bush and longing for some admission of error upon which to pillory him. > [@BJMoose](#): > > ((I’m quite capable of mangling my intent by myself, thank you very much.) As am I. 🙂 > [@BJMoose](#): > > (The key in my suggestion was beginning it with the phrase “In retrospect.” Hell, when you say that you can excuse damn near anything, because the best course is always more obvious after the fact, and folks will give you the benefit of the doubt for having done the best you could under the circumstances. I’m not seeing much on this board to indicate that anyone feels the best course was only obvious after the fact. Mostly I’m seeing villification that proactive action wasn’t taken prior to 9/11, and villification that proactive action \*was \* taken afterward. > [@BJMoose](#): > > (What bothers me about the present administration is that they seem incapable of doing even a piddling, face-saving, obvious _mea culpa_ like this. What’s their problem? Are they _that_ afraid of being spun? Yes, I believe they are, given the overwhelming bias of the press and its eagerness to portray him negatively (as was unquestionably the case during the recent news conference), as well as the enormous consequences of the election this fall. The entire course of the “war on terror” will be determined by it. (And to head off any assertions that Kerry has said he would be tough too, what else would you expect him to say? And don’t forget, he’s taken both sides on every major issue. 🙂 I would have no confidence whatsoever in his approach to terrorism.) > [@BJMoose](#): > > (Look at an example from the past, the 2000 campaign, that occasion when Mr. Bush was overheard characterizing a certain reporter or columnist or whatever as an asshole. No problem there - I’ve hung that label on a few folks myself. The remarkable thing was Mr. Bush’s “apology” for this incident. He did _not_ say, “I’m sorry I called So-and-So an asshole.” Instead, he apologized for _being overheard_ calling So-and-So an asshole. Doesn’t this guy have the testosterone-production-facilities to stand by his opinions? I can imagine a guy like Harry Truman in that situation: “You’re right. I did say that fellow was an asshole. And he is.” Your point is very well taken, and I would be very much inclined to agree with you. Bear in mind, though, the tremendous press bias against Republican candidates that didn’t exist in Truman’s day. _Any_ chance to make him look bad would be exploited to the max, and while you and I both could agree that he still would have come off better had the apology been forthright, I think his reticence, if not actually the best thing to have done, is at least understandable given the concerns he had at the time. I’m sure I’ll hear complaints about this “so-called liberal bias by the press,” so I’ll give you just a small example of just one way I’ve seen it play out: Congressperson A, a Democrat, makes an accusation against a Republican president, B. A video of this person making a fiery, indignant speech in front of a cheering crowd is shown, followed by a detailed explanation of Congressperson A’s complaints or accusations by the anchor person. This is aften a one or two minute segment. The anchor then reports something along the line of: “President B denies the allegations and claims his position has been misrepresented.” There’s no inspiring video, no spokesperson other than the anchor him/herself, and it takes all of five seconds. The news agency, if asked, then claims total fairness…it has after all presented both sides of the story. This is just one example of many of the different ways the news media can skew things in the direction they want it to go, and unfortunately it appears Bush is sometimes too cognizant of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gwbs-strangely-passive-presidency/239972.md?page=4)