I have a question for you Bush defenders. If Bush had responded to the news by taking a nap, would you still be defending him? After all, the President couldn’t have done anything anyway. :rolleyes:
One could argue he was getting needed rest so as to best confront the storm of activity that awaited him upon his return to Washington. They could then cite fifteen peer-reviewed, scientific studies demonstrating the negative impact of sleep deprivation on mental and physical performance.
Really, one could argue almost anything, in the absence of facts and/or direct testimony relating to the President’s actions at any given moment.
C’mon, be reasonable. I don’t defend everything the President does. I just think criticism of these seven minutes is laughable, and started this thread to show just how laughable it all is.
Of course they would. Anyone who can defend the President of the United States sitting glassy-eyed seven minutes after two airplanes crashed into the SAME skyscraper is beyond help.
Once was, perhaps, happenstance. Twice was enemy action. That Bush appears to be waiting for a third strike is inexcusable.
No. Care to explain how a nap and what happened are the same thing?
Again, he talked with his National security people before, was informed during, and talked again to them after. 7 minutes, people. Arguably not the best decision in the world, but surely not evidence of profound malfeasance either. And almost more surely not worth the sort of emotional attachment you guys are giving it.
The point, which you and pervert still don’t seem to get (or pretend that you don’t) is not that any action he could have made would have made a difference in how things turned out. It is that he did not attempt to find out what was going on. He just assumed something was being done (to be charitable).
If you remember, there was a case where this did have an impact. When he got the famous August memo, he assumed that the FBI and CIA were on the case. They were not. They certainly should have been, but it is the President’s job to show his reports what is really important. By blowing off the report, he showed that it wasn’t to him.
And it’s not over. I’d be sure terrorism is being given enough attend if there was more focus on catching Osama (it might be too late now.) But who knows what important intelligence reports on North Korea are being blown off?
However, if you’d wish to argue that the best place Bush could be for those seven minutes being read to, so he didn’t screw anything up, I might agree with you.
Sigh! I know better than to get dragged back in… I know better… I know better…
The bolding is mine. It seems to me that you just harpooned your own argument. 
Sticks and stones, Love. I think you switched to Pit material there at best. You have exactly zero idea of what you speak in regards to any poster’s patriotism.
That’s already been explained several times. Should we will wait for you to catch up?
Ahem… subtract that “will” in that sentence. :smack:
There sure are times an edit feature would be nice.
I see. 3,000 people are dying while the president sits on his ass and you think that’s laughable.
You still support the Vietnam war even though 56,000 Americans died to say nothing of the millions of Vietnamese.
You’re angry at John Kerry for throwing ribbons and keeping his medals but not the fact that almost 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq because of a war founded on a lie or the aforementioned 56,000 Americans killed in Vietnam.
Oh yes, Mr. Moto. Let’s be reasonable. Ha, ha, ha.
If I wrote what I was thinking now, I’d be kicked off the Straight Dope message boards forever.
I will say, Mr. Moto, that I don’t think you started this thread as a joke. I think you were perfectly serious but, now that the whole thing has blown up in your face, you’re now trying to pretend otherwise.
But if you honestly believe that trivializing the President’s egregious inaction while thousands of Americans were dying in terror and pain at the hands of our enemies by making a joke out of it is appropriate behavior, I think you would do well to consider how that might look in the eyes of people who don’t share your extremely peculiar sense of humor.
Oh? How, exactly?
Perhaps you don’t live in this country, but for years Republicans have been acting like they own patriotism. Their actions and words show otherwise. Calling their hypocricy on it is a perfectly legitimate issue.
Why don’t you just tell me?
But the point you keep ignoring is that this is not true, and to the degree that it is accurate, it is only so for 7 minutes. Again, conversations with National Security peopel before, information updated during, and conversations after his 7 minutes in the classroom. In hindsight not really the best use of his time. At the time, however, not at all unreasonable.
But you see, this is funny. If your position were this and no other, I’d laugh and you’d have laughed at the OP. However, I suspect that you and others actually think that the president’s actions that day amount to some vast incompetence. This is simply not the case.
They don’t amount to vast incompetence, they are indicative of vast incompetence.
When he has plenty of time to review and deliberate, to check and double-check his sources of information, and form a prudent strategy, he is capable of *much * more vast incompetence. It is the circumstances that dictate the degree of the incompetence he manifests.
Praise the Leader!
Reread the bolded section in what I quoted. It wasn’t taken out of context. I included the surrounding text. What’s not to understand?
I don’t really care what you think about the Republican leaders or their patriotism. However, this board is supposed to be a civil place to debate issues. Bringing up the patriotism of the posters is petty, ignorant, and… well… rude. You couldn’t possibly know. It’s kind of like yelling louder or typing in caps. It doesn’t make your point more valid.
It’s more fun this way.
Rouge Ranger, if you refuse to answer my challenges to explain yourself, I see no reason to respect your opinion. If you have a point, tell me what it is or stop wasting my time.
Of course if you don’t tell me what it is, then it makes it all but impossible for me to rebut it.
I presume that that’s your strategy.
And, Pervert, I’d like to suggest that when you’re roasted alive or otherwise terrorized and killed, 7 minutes is a very long time.
Off for the night.
Ok. So lets say he takes a 7 minute “cat nap”.
If you don’t think 7 minutes is a long time, get a stop watch. Sit on a stool. Then say to yourself, “A second airplane has hit the World Trade Center. America in under attack.” Start the stopwatch. Stare at the stopwatch for seven minutes. Then leave the room.
If you ignored the last two sentences in the post you quoted, it would probably look that way.
See, now this is funny. Wrong, but funny.
Still not the same thing. Try and put it this way. Lets say he knows the attacks happen and still calls the school to make an appointment. Not that he was there already, but that he decides to go there only after learning of the attacks.
Context, friend. The perception of the passage of time is all about context. Try your little experiment, and then try watching the stop watch while riding a roller coaster. You’ll experience them differently.
RogueRacer, you might need to retry your argument. The quote feature puts all of the quoted text in italics. If you choose to italicize the portion you wished to “bold”, then it will not look different than the surrounding text. You have to use the bold codes.
Earlier on the thread you were compared to a defense lawyer for your ability to rationalize everything away. If I were the “prosecution” in this case I’d wheel out two television sets. One showing President Bush in the classroom and the other showing the CNN footage that was playing at that exact same time. I’d show the paniced people screaming on the streets juxtaposed with Bush listening to a childrens story.
Then I’d rest my case.
I’d be confident that I’d win. The jury is the 100 million voters of this country, and there’s no need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt or even by clear and convincing evidence. All that’s needed is to convince a majority of them that Bush is not a good President and someone else will do a better job.
If I had all 100 million of them as a captive audience, not even Johnny Cochrane with the Chewbacca Defense could beat me.
What was your point exactly with this post? Let’s see. You try to get a hasty reaction by twisting my user name? golf clap Please. Is that what your argument is reduced to? I’m not surprised though. Your posts have been seeded with innuendo and insults. At this point having a battle of wits with you seems rather like taking a chainsaw to a sapling. What fun is that?
I will get to the root of the matter though. I have stated my opinions quite clearly in past posts. To sum up:
[ul]
[li]The 7 minutes have no bearing on the destruction caused by terrorists on 9/11[/li][li]Neither do Kerry’s 40 minutes, which was the point of the initial post since you missed it[/li][li]Bush’s approval rating in the months after the 9/11 tragedy was overwhelmingly high[/li][li]By focusing on the 7 minutes, it is distracting people from the real issues of the election, which should be what is important[/li]
[/ul]
Enjoy!
I have been reading the Republican justifications for Dubya’s 7 minute freezeup with much amusement and amazement. Amused that they actually think anyone will buy their arguments, and amazed that they keep coming back and making the same illogical arguments again and again. All I really can say is that I am now quite glad that GWB never actually commanded men in Vietnam because they would have all come home in body bags.