The President Lied about Risks to His Safety!

[bordelond]

*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
**One more time: who gives a flip if Fleischer got it confused on the morning of 9/11? But by a few days later, he should have been able to start getting this straightened out. That’s his job. If he’d said on, say, 9/14, that it wasn’t clear where the report of a threat to AF1 had come from on the morning of 9/11, and that it wasn’t clear whether there had been a threat or not, then no one would have held it against him. But maintaining that such a threat existed until practically proven that it didn’t, for two weeks afterward…that was totally unnecessary. **

Mmmmmm … nah. There’s nothing there. I don’t see where Fleischer kept this stance up for two weeks, for starters.

But even if he had, the gaffe is unbelievably minor. It’s just not worth my sweat. So what, I say?

[Oblong]

Well someone has to find something negative to say about a guy who’s approval rating is at historic records.

[Squink]

I don’t see where Fleischer kept this stance up for two weeks

Here you go:
Sept 26, White House Drops Claim of Threat to Bush
So they maintained the story for 15 days, and only withdrew it under pressure.

[bordelond]

Squink, towards the end of the article you cite:

The CBS Evening News reported Tuesday that the call “simply never happened,” and said White House staffers "apparently misunderstood comments made by their security detail."

(my bold)

I can forgive them a simple misunderstanding. Why would even the staunchest Democrat hold Bush’s team’s feet to the fire over something so trivial?

BTW, Tejota, the OP did, in fact, argue that Bush should have gone back to the White House, at least indirectly:

originally posted by Ariadne
Bush’s actions were an embarassing contrast to that, and people began to rightly critize him for his scared rabbit run across the country.

If Ariadne’s not saying, in so many words, that SHE thinks Bush should have gone to the White House, what is she saying in her OP?

[Squink]

I can forgive them a simple misunderstanding. Why would even the staunchest Democrat hold Bush’s team’s feet to the fire over something so trivial?

I also can forgive them a simple misunderstanding. People needed to act on the available information. It’s not their fault that it sucked. Of course, the secret service people, or whoever, got the “credible threat” rumor rolling need to be cashiered for wasting the presidents time during a national crisis. The inability of the White House to find a record of the call, complete with secret code words, that resulted in the presidents transcontinental jaunt is equally disturbing. There’s nothing inherently partisan about wondering what factors were behind the president’s ten hour disappearance. Even Fleischer et. al. seemed to think it needed some explanation. In the event, I’d prefer something better than “it was all a big comedy of errors” but that doesn’t seem likely for a variety of reasons.

[Tejota]

*Originally posted by bordelond *
**Squink, towards the end of the article you cite:
BTW, Tejota, the OP did, in fact, argue that Bush should have gone back to the White House, at least indirectly:

originally posted by Ariadne
Bush’s actions were an embarassing contrast to that, and people began to rightly critize him for his scared rabbit run across the country.

If Ariadne’s not saying, in so many words, that SHE thinks Bush should have gone to the White House, what is she saying in her OP? **

She is saying that he should have done something different than what he did. There are an infinite variety of things he could have done that are neither going back to the White House nor what he actually did.

While many people have said that his behavior on Tues wasn’t very Presidential, The only people who are saying that he had only two choices: (either do what he did or or go back to the White House) are those taking potshots at Strawmen.

tj

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Tejota *

*Originally posted by bordelond *
**Squink, towards the end of the article you cite:
BTW, Tejota, the OP did, in fact, argue that Bush should have gone back to the White House, at least indirectly:

originally posted by Ariadne
Bush’s actions were an embarassing contrast to that, and people began to rightly critize him for his scared rabbit run across the country.

If Ariadne’s not saying, in so many words, that SHE thinks Bush should have gone to the White House, what is she saying in her OP? **

She is saying that he should have done something different than what he did. There are an infinite variety of things he could have done that are neither going back to the White House nor what he actually did.

But if you look at the context, it is quite clear that the OP is saying that he should have gone to Washington:

In my mind, there was a picture of the King and Queen of Englad touring the rubble of a section of Buckingham Palace during WW2, and yet vowing to stay in London with their subjects. Bush’s actions were an embarassing contrast to that,

So, we have:
The Queen of England stayed in the capital.
Bush’s actions were a contrast to that, i.e. he did not go to the capital.
The contrast was embarrasing. IOW, the fact that he did not go to Washington was bad.

So unless you think that the OP is a sack filled with straw, attacking the position that Bush should have gone to Washington is not attacking a straw man.