Will Bush Be Blamed?

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Armen Tanzerian
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 07:43 PM

From Bush's press conference of yesterday:

And this is a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. Now, this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient.

Whether the American media picked up on it or not, the word will have much more resonance in Europe and Britain, as McGrath has already demonstrated. In any case, when the whole thrust of the American message is that this is not a religious ussue (Bush visited a mosque today), it seems an incredibly dumb reference, and one that Islamic terror factions could use to engender sympathy.

But I think most of us here in the States are simply watching to see what the national leadership does. If they can rise to this enormous challenge with a carefully-planned offensive that actually works, we will forgive them some flubbed lines.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 07:20 PM

Still nit-picking I see McGrath. As I said in another thread where you brought up the issue of the word, "crusade", I really don't think the Arabs are going to like us anymore or any less because of Bush's use of the word. I guess if they object to it we will be hearing about it on the news. So far, I've heard nothing.

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 06:46 PM

M.Ted. No problemo.

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 04:40 PM

Loopy,

I am sorry for lambasting you--when I get upset, I tend to go overboard, and this has been a bad week. We have family who live near the WTC--my sister-in-law's husband was missing for a while--he was trapped in the street below, and barely escaped the collapse--and, if not for a Dr.s app't, she would have been in the bldg--my wife and several family members knew Father Mike (the NYFD chaplin)--and several close friends have family members and co-workers missing--

Troll,

Loopy tends to wind up and run off, which, as I see above, is a habit that he is aware of, rather than an indication of sociopathic tendencies--I was talking about comments that he has made in other threads that annoyed me. When I get wound up, I tend to unload stuff I've saved up, not necessarily germaine to the immediated discussion, possibly in a manner similar to the way that Loopy does--He acquits himself of my concerns, both admirably and directly in the ATTACK ON ARAB AMERICANS MUST STOP THREAD--

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 04:36 PM

Deserving isn't anything to do with it. Stupid is.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 04:21 PM

Naw. She deserved it. Stuck-up little snob.

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 04:19 PM

A long time ago kendall, but comparable in stupidity.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: kendall
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 04:05 PM

Isn't it awful what they did to Marie Antoinnette?

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 03:59 PM

Today George Bush declared in so many words that this is "a crusade against evildoers".

Crusade. Just think for a moment what that word means to Arab and to Muslims generally.

Only two explanations. The first would be that either George Bush, or whoever put those words into his mouth, is actually trying to alienate Muslims and make it harder for them to support whatever America does.

The other is that he is so monumentally stupid that he is a danger to all of us, and he is out of control.

In either case he is doing the one thing that the terrorists of last Tuesday must have hoped he would do. Saying that has very likely cost the lives of some Americans in the weeks and months ahead.

This isn't about politics. Oh yes, I don't like Bush, and I've always been astonished that so many people seem to find him likeable, and I don't like his politics either, but that's not the point.

I am certain that, if I had been an American and had voted for Bush, and if I admired his politics, and liked him enormously as a person, I would feel no different about it. Angry, scared, and betrayed. If I employed someone who made a grotesque mistake like that in a life and death situation like this, I would sack him or her immediately.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 02:38 PM

Loopy, you are hardly the "lone dissenting opinion" on the forum. There are more of us than you realize.
My "blind pig' reference was not aimed at you but rather at the assumption that someone with whom you disagree must, of necessity, always be wrong. It's up to each of us to check the facts every time, especially if we find ourselves in disagreement with the posters point of view.
Again, sorry if you thought it was aimed at you.
It wasn't

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 02:21 PM

I do question, however, the "blind pig finding acorns" implication, suggesting that my opinions are less valid because they are voiced less often in this forum. Admittedly, I tend to be more vociferous and long-winded in my posts than most; I often have to, since I usually end up addressing several points at once, figuring that they will never be questioned by anyone else. I'm not perfect, far from it in fact. But as the lone dissenting opinion in this forum when it comes to politics, I do the best I can.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 02:10 PM

I thank you Troll, for your latest post. You took a very even-handed approach to calm the discussion MTed and I had begun. Our debate over political philosophy and false-labellings of racism can continue at a later time when politics actually matters. For anyone that cares, I added my two cents to the "Attacks on Arab-Americans Must Stop!" thread.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 10:03 PM

Sorry MTed, but you don't come off as the soul of tolerance and understanding for the other guy's point of view either.
I just reviewed the enitre thread and found only one post where Loopy stated an opinion and I found nothing that could be classed as class/race OR religious bigotry. He did put several statements of his opinions in quotation marks; eg....You'd all be saying;"That moron Bush..." Many people use this device with varying degrees of sucess. This hardly constitutes, in my view, a reason to abolish free speech. It DOES constitute a shining example of the logic fallacy; argumentum ad hominem; discredit the man and you discredit his argument.
Just because a man is wrong much of the time, it does not mean that he is wrong all of the time. Even a blind pig will find an acorn if he roots long enough.
Loopy's other long post was mostly an answer to YOUR post and,in my opinion he acquited himself fairly well.
You have, in the past, posted some reasonably intelligent ideas. Go get some rest. Name calling serves no good purpose and alienates everyone.
Loopy, cool the rhetoric. Feelings are running high right now. You can make your points in a less vehement way and still get them across.
Keep this up and one of you is going to say something you'll regret. Apologizing is not an easy thing to do and crow tastes awful.
As I know all too well.

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 09:49 PM

I don't like Bush, but luckily with our system of government, Congressional leaders, Cabinet officers, military leaders and others all have a voice and certainly contribute to any actions he may call for.The terrorists must be stopped, but they are only a symptom of the situation that exists because of the unfeeling actions of the western world. This has been addressed on several threads. This one is about blaming Bush. He is merely the last of a series of leaders who have approved stupid policies over many years that have earned the United States the emnity of millions of people. Leaders of the major European nations are equally at fault but luckily for them they have a lower profile.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,chip2447
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 09:12 PM

Sorry, if I'm repeating, but I haven't had time to read the entire thread.
I heard a timeline of one of the "suspects" earlier today. He was living in the US and taking flying lessons and refresher training on flight sims in early 2000...
This had been planned long before.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:58 PM

I had the honour of a couple of beers with our local (Caerphilly) Member of Pariament tonight, Wayne David. He was hot foot from the Emrgancy Commons debate.

Not much that I can add that is not covered in the public prints - but the aceptance is, there but...! went part of central London.

At our Labour Party meeting tonite a 3 minutes silence was held.

Loopy S - some of our members work in Tower Blocks, as well as "Tower". Many of our members fly as passengers.

I have no doubt that from what Wayne said, both inside and outside the meeting, that the resolve of H M Government is to ensure that those responsible will be brought to justice - possibly sumary justice - but justice.

And that the "carpet" bombing of Afghanistan villages will not be succesful in that aim.

Gareth

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:28 PM

I just had a look through that discussion thread in the Guardian I gave a link to. In spite of everything I thionk we do this kind of thing a lot better - largely thanks to Max's website design.

PMs perhaps, M Ted and Loopy?

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:23 PM

Here's the problem. Bin Laden's following grew during the Gulf War because many of the Arab people were convinced that the US was only protecting the oil interests and did not care about them. The ruling faction of the Arab Republic has been despotic, autocratic and neglectful of it's people. Many are quite poor. Not everyone is a sheik. These people were iniated into a perversion of the Muslim religion because they thought it would help them. This is why there is a terrorist network in thirty countries headed by Bin Laden today.

When Bin Laden went to Afghanistan, he brought many Arab followers with him . Our culpability (lack of concern for many of the poor people in the so-called Third World) will have to be looked at if there is to be any cessation of this ungodly terror.

Trying to stop terrorism by bombing countries is like trying to smash a fly with a steamhammer.

The development of alternative energy sources being explored would have reduced our addiction for oil. This might have stopped the need for a Gulf War. This might have circumvented the problem of the alienation of the poor Arab community. How did Bush Sr. (the oilman from Odessa Texas) stand on the issue of protecting oil?

Frank

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:23 PM

Guest, I so desperately wish you had identified yourself, because I so wholeheartedly agree with you and I hate to agree with anonymous guests. I'm going to just assume that you are, indeed, a guest.

Greg: the Secret Service evidently doesn't agree with you.

Kendall: yeah, but would you vote for your new boss next time around?

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:15 PM

Loopy,

I really have a hard time taking your political views very seriously-they are an incoherent mishmosh of catchphrases and political babble--they generally add up to nothing, and I pretty much take them that way. The thing that I do take seriously is the offhanded class/race.and religious bigotry that you try to pass off as enlightened opinion. There are a lot of things that you have said in the Mudcat forum that mark you not as a conservative, not as a libertarian, but as a prejudiced and spiteful hatemonger--

Your rant above is typical--you put words in peoples mouths and attack them for things that no one has said but you-- In my day I've come across racists, bigots and hatemongers from all parts of the spectrum, from the Sparticists on the left to the John Birch Society on the right, and your text comes from their books--

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:10 PM

I don't think the suggestion is cowardice, it's more perhaps that he isn't his own man. That when the security experts say no, as they always must tend to, he didn't have the confidence to overule them.

If that's true it mightn't be wholly a bad thing. I once read a book about riving by an experienced teacher. He said the the strongest reprimand he ever gavce pupils was to ask them to pull ove rto the side of the road and say "You are driving with a degree of confidence that your present level of ability does not justify."

I'd hate to see Bush driving with a degree of confidence his present level of ability does not justify. So maybe we should be grateful if he is maybe a bit diffident at times.

Here is an article about all this from today's Guardian - and here is a lengthy current discussion on their website - on whether he's up to the job

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 05:15 PM

There is a difference between symbolism and acts of stupidity that could leave a nation without its leader in a time of crisis. I can't recall a president ignoring such SOP during a crisis of this magnitude.

The logic I am hearing here is like accusing Colin Powell of cowardice just because he did not march at the head of the ground troops in Desert Storm.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Armen Tanzerian
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 04:54 PM

The Secret Service does not and cannot tell any president what to do, and their advice has been respectfully declined or ignored several times in the past. I believe there was an instance of this right after Reagan's shooting. George W. Bush could have easily said "Thanks for your input. Now get me a fighter escort, we're going back to Washington." Reagan or Clinton, very sharp politicians who thought for themselves, would have immediately understood the symbolism.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 04:41 PM

Ah, M.Ted, you certainly pointed out all the errors in my post with that one-line zinger, didn't you? Do you use that one on other occasions when you've been left with no verbal ammo to use upon being presented with fact? I guess it's much easier to say that my words should be banned than to actually point out where they're wrong...I'd guess that you can't, because you know I speak the truth about several on this message board who will attack anything and everything that isn't in line with a 100% leftist (or "centrist" as it is known to leftists) way of thinking, regardless of whether thousands of Americans lay missing in the rubble after multiple terrorist attacks as they're typing their smug little opinions and observations about our leader.

If you'll keep in mind that I'm not entirely right wing, M.Ted, you'll understand me and my words better. If I were a true right winger, I'd be all for shoving religion, Christianity in particular, down everyone's throats, which I'm not. I'd be all for quarrantining AIDS patients on one end of an island somewhere, but I'm not (interestingly, that's exactly what Cuba does, but I digress). I'd be for allowing capitalism to pave the way for penalty-free pollution, clear-cutting, and other environmental abuses, but I'm not. I'd be for locking up non-violent drug offenders, but I'm not...If my assigning political labels to their cheap shots caused them to be offended, then let us consider this debate a draw, and return to the real issues at hand. If Bush comes up soft on the terrorists or shows the first real signs of cowardice, I will be the first person to take issue with him. If someone will remind me later, I have actually composed a rather interesting pair of lists I came up with that point out the major flaws in both major parties' ways of thinking, but I'll save that for another time in which politics is worth discussing. In the meantime, please understand that my earlier post is in response only to those who have yet to understand the necesssity in everyone putting aside the petty differences to unite in the common goal of winning the first war of this milennieum in quick fashion, with as few non-terrorist casualties as we can manage.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,Get Real
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 04:36 PM

Sorry Bush-Bashers but what he did was textbook SOP. Instead of wasting your time arguing the point, why don't you just call a local office of the Secret Service and ask them. That should shut you up....

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 04:22 PM

Spaw:

A plan to hit Air Force One with a 757, either on the ground or in the air, is about as likely to succeed as the missile shield defense fantasy.

Or as our friends across the pond might say:"Pull the other one, its got bells on."

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,Common sense
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 03:32 PM

Formula: The state of Israel + U.S. aid = permanent resentment and attacks by radical Islamic states.

Any U.S. President who assumes that the state of Israel has the right to exist and then acts accordingly is going to draw the wrath of militants or opportunists who use the Palestinian situation to further their own agendas. A series of humiliating defeats by a small number of Israelis is something that many Arabs will never forget. This is a no brainer folks, either we withdraw support for Israel or we simply accept the fact that some friendships are rather costly.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 02:57 PM

some people don't seem to realize that there are times when the Secret TELLS the president where to go and when it's been deemed safe again. Bush showed no cowardice...and I have no doubts about his genuine concern and compassion for the victims...I just would rather not trust his decision making process and his image as 'leader' and comforter in these times! As much as I was appalled with Mayor Guiliani in the past...HE has been the public figure to look up to in all this...Bush would do well to study him....

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 02:43 PM

Loopy Sanchez is one of the most persuasive arguements against freedom of speech that Right Wing has ever come up with--

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 02:30 PM

It's all academic, you're stuck with him anyway, as I said. As MTed said, so long as he is aware of his limitations and works within them, there could be advantages. Someone once said that the trouble with peopl who feel comfortable being war leaders is that they can be a bit too comfortable with it and look around for wars to be comfiortable in.

Whereas Bush looks very clearly like someone who is more comfortable when there's no war around. I hope he gets to be comfortable again as soon as possible.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 01:48 PM

I am a vocal critic of Bush's stand on the environment, labor, tax cuts -- you name it.

But I think he should have gone to NORAD (the defence bunker deep under the ground somewhere in the midwest) and waited it out. Taking the long way home, as he did, was far from foolish but a well-thought-out precaution. I understand his returning when he did, and think it was a noble gesture, but dangerous. Thankfully, it didn't prove disastrous.

I see nothing to criticize so far in what he has done since 9/11.

Alex

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 01:43 PM

Oi ... LoopyS

Not all of us pinko lefties in the UK take that attitude ! (See previous post)

Gareth

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 11:24 AM

It's sad that people can't hide their political prejudice at a time like this. Admit it, most of you would be criticizing Bush regardless of what he did during the hours following the attacks. I guarantee you that if he'd been at the White House within minutes after the first two planes were crashed, you'd all be saying "That moron Bush is leader of the free world and doesn't have any more sense than to fly back to what could be the next target on the terrorists' list!"
But since he chose instead to Move to two secure military installations during the time at which all remaining planes in the air were being diverted to the closest available airports, and didn't return to Washington until late that afternoon, you choose to essentially call him a coward.
I sense a lot of European socialists who just still can't quite hide their prejudices at a time of crisis for our nation. They still have to insert jabs about Bush "reading the right words from his cue cards", etc... It's almost as if someone will have to take time out to slap them silly, shout "Gore lost, we're at war, and you'll have plenty of time to ridicule Bush after we have the heads of the terrorists responsible for these actions." If not one single Democrat in congress has stepped foward to criticize the President during this time, I'd think that's the least I could expect from a message board full of left-wing folkies. Guess I was wrong. Shame on me...

Now, I openly invite everyone to go ahead and further prove my point for me by flaming me for the next day or two. I won't expect too many from the Euro-catters... they'll likely be busy trying to figure out where to spend the 50 BILLION DOLLARS America just handed out to keep their economies stabilized.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 11:09 AM

In some ways, it may be good that Bush is not very eloquent or dynamic, because it means that we don't expect it from him--Our American public figures tend to be preoccupied with projecting image, appearance, and noble sentiments--Once they have got the 10 or 15 seconds of air time, and everyone has decided that they conveyed whatever was appropriate, they go on to something else.

Bush is wooden and unexpressive, and not very good at thinking on his feet. He must realize that it isn't possible for him to "spin" his way through difficult situations, and that he can't rely on his own impulses--Perhaps this is a good thing, because in a lot of ways, we got to where we are because our politicians talked too much, and acted too fast--

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 11:07 AM

In your dreams, bucko. In your dreams.

troll ***Coming Nurse!***

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 10:49 AM

Yeah troll, just after you cut my grass.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 10:46 AM

Bush is not to be blamed, but the attitude that he has displayed since taking office is truly at the heart of what happened on Tuesday. The belief that America can and should act based solely on it's own interests, as if what takes place in other parts of the world cannot touch us, has earned us the sort of enmity that led to Tuesday's acts of terror.

We cannot afford to let this lesson slip away amid our horror, and sorrow, and awakened patriotism. We are - and always have been - just one more part of the world. When we refuse to even acknowledge the suffering in other parts of the world added to, if not caused, by our pursuit of "the good life", we should not expect empathy from those who face terrorism on some scale every day of their lives. When we let hubris (overweaning pride) become our nation's public face, we are daring the gods (and devils) to respond.

Blaming Bush (or Clinton, or Reagan, or whoever)achieves nothing. It simply gives us a convenient way to avoid facing the fact that our leaders reflect us. All we've wanted for decades was cheap oil and a booming economy - and not to be bothered by the taudry details of how what we consume effects the rest of the world. As great as this country is - and I still feel that there is none better - this cultural myopia is a serious flaw in our character. If any good comes out of this, let it be that we begin to work toward becoming the nation that we imagine ourselves to be.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 10:23 AM

'Spaw, does this mean I can still borrow your lawn mower?

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 10:20 AM

Got to agree with McGrath, DougR - I've seen plenty commentators expressing unease about the way Bush comes across. I don't care much for Powell myself, but he is so obviously the better man that it's embarrassing. Likewise the NY mayor. But if a guy can get to be president just because of who his daddy was, that's the risk you take.

He's winning international support, rightly, but that's because he's reading the right prompt cards. But there's no question of him being given carte blanche, by Britain or the rest of Europe, if only because of disquiet at his sheer lack of experience. Ok, it's not his fault he's only been in office eight months, but it's sure as hell his own fault that he was a drunken lout for most of his adult life.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 08:39 AM

As you say Doug, "Bush is boss", you're stuck with him, we're stuck with, got to manage with him, and hope he comes through.

But, for all the polls, which of course will always rally in support of the man in the hot seat at a time like this, I can't help thinking most Rpublicans must wish they'd put a different Republican in this terrible position of responsibility. Including I suspect George Bush most of all.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 08:35 AM

Hey....troll? Sorry my friend....I just got a bit nutsy there and you were in the line of fire. I should have simply said that perhaps we can agree to disagree as friends often do.

And speaking of disagree.......I find it really incredible that this attack would have been so well planned and yet would have picked Air Force one as a target. Reports coming in seem to believe that is indeed the case, or at least something along those lines. The Capitol Building, the White House....both are recognizable targets, as was the Pentagon (which may have been a secondary)......It's one thing to fly a big jet into a large building, but to try to either intercept or hit AF1, even on the ground in hopes of killing the President? If that was the case and the planning, then it was there worst idea and out of character with the rest of this attack...........just an opinion,

Spaw

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 08:26 AM

Skeptic. You're being logical again.
I'm gonna tell Mom.

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Skeptic
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 08:16 AM

Troll,

And the CIA, through Pakistan, funded and trained bin Laden. George Sr. made the point that the reality of foreign policy is that sometimes you have to deal with people you don't like. A little damage control maybe?

There is and will be plenty of blame to go around. None of it overly constructive. W has the responsibility. Whether he carries that out directly or through skillful delegation, as HST said, the buck truly stops in the Oval Office. What becomes the benchmark are results.

As to Mr. Boortz: So what? George Sr never did strike at him and was also , as I recall, around when the CIA was shoveling money at him. (And at Saddam come to that). Reagan refused to acknowledge on his watch that Saddam was practicing genocide against the Kurds and actively supressed evidence of same. (Which had to send a confused message to certain groups in the mid-east).

BTW, hs anyone heard or seen any comment from Saudi Arabia in the news?

Regards

John

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: kendall
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 07:43 AM

Doug, if they would guarantee me that position, I would promise not to piss on the shrubbery again!

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 01:27 AM

Oh, and Kendall, I just assumed you didn't dump on "W" because you are bucking for an Ambassadorship to some exotic country in the Southwest Pacific. Someplace where the ladies wear grass skirts, nothing on top, and you would dine nightly on roast suckling pig with all the fixins.

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 01:20 AM

Peg: had the President been in the Situation Room he would have been in the White House, not the Pentagon (or perhaps I'm confused about your post).

Troll: don't pick on Peg. She has a beautiful voice.

As to GWB not flying directly to D.C. from Florida, the job of the Secret Service is to protect the president. Evidently they felt it was too dangerous for him to return directly to Washington. According to reports I have heard, the SS wanted him to go to a bunker somewhere here in the West. He over-ruled them and insisted that he return to Washington. Sometimes one's personal animosity for a public figure (my weakness was Clinton) gets in the way of common sense, I think.

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 01:03 AM

They should have known he was there. It was common knowledge.
I don't think the situation room is on the side they hit. Anyone?
Hitting the White House would have had great symbolic value. I can't believe that they would have squandered a plane on the off chance that he would be in the oval office. The level of their coordination and intelligence (info) would indicate otherwise.

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Peg
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 12:11 AM

Troll; I suppose anything is possible. But I believe the Pentagon was targeted to be hit an hour after the first jet crash because it was thought the President would be in the situation room at that time...and the thwarted attack on the White House itself would perhaps be in hopes the President would make an address from the Oval Office.

I have a feeling if these terrorists knew the president was going to be in Sarasota Florida they would have hit that, too...not because they hate George Bush but because assassinating the President would be just their style... like destroying the White House.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 12:06 AM

You have your opinion,'Spaw and I have mine.
Nowhere in my posts did I mention that Bush had said anything about EITHER of the Clintons so I'm not sure why you saw fit to include that tidbit in your rebutal.

Peg. Have you considered that the terrorists thought that Airforce One would fly straight to Washington when the news of the WTC was given to the President. Why else did the last plane fly nearly to Cleveland before turning back if not to arrive at Washington just as the Presidents plane got there. Why risk getting shot down by waiting if the White House was the real target. It would make much more sense to hit it at the same time as the Pentagon.
My opinion, of course.
You are entitled to yours.

troll

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Peg
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 11:44 PM

I don't blame the guy for what happened.

I do think it is a shame that he flew from bunker to bunker during the first twelve hours of the crisis. I do not believe for a second that Air Force One was targeted; I think that tidbit was fabricated to explain why the president was flying around like a chickenshit. Clearly the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was headed for Washington, but the White House is a much more likely target than the presidential jet...

I also wish he would offer more leadership along humanitarian lines. He needs to speak definitively and swiftly to the American people about the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim violence that is occurring. He needs to declare that this is unacceptable. I have not heard him do so, though his dad did make some comments about it this morning.