Road Rage Incident - Did I do the right thing?

Tom Sherman wrote:

Bush II could have simply said that events were happening that needed
his attention, and left the classroom - I doubt the children would have
panicked. He could have at least been in the loop, even if would not
have changed anything.

The message he sent by NOT jumping up and running out is MUCH more
powerful... his confidence in the system that's in place to deal with
these things was evident. The fact the terrorists didn't see him
panic is what's important.

I do not criticize the decision to move Bush II to a "safe location" on
9-11-2001 - I likely would have made the same decision. What I object to
was the lie that there were indications of an attack on Bush II in order
to make him look more heroic. Why not tell the truth; "We were not sure
of the situation, so we moved the president to a military base where he
would be safe and have access to the information he needed to address
the crisis"? But then everything with Rove is spin and image creating to
distract from reality.

AIR, there was a report to that effect for a very short time, and it
was shortly corrected. So what? You are making a mountain out of a
mole hill.

And I will stick to my point - if Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry
had been in the exact same situation as Bush II on 9-11-2001 and had
done the exact same thing, they would have been virtually crucified for it.

Only by hopeless partisan hacks.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tom Sherman wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

"Running off and hiding" was precisely what the Secret Service was
supposed to do - at least until the scope of the issues were known. I
think what really gets your goat is that he did a really good job of
handling the aftermath (reaching the highest approval rating of any
president on record). Must be hard for you to swallow, huh?...

Mass hysteria in the face of a perceived crisis is not a new phenomenon.
Ask the failed Austrian painter/bitter WW1 veteran.

Well, FINALLY.

Nazi, Hitler, Helmet, Gun...
I declare this thread is done.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tom Sherman wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote:

None of the above sources are willing to challenge the myths of
“American Exceptionalism”, “free market infallibility” and the “level
playing field”.

There really isn't enough of a market for that kind of thing for them
to register on the www.drudgereport.com site, ya' know... ;-)

But thanks for the chuckle (NY Times and Yahoo, "right of center"...
heh heh heh - center of what? Howard Dean's belly button?).

Mr. Hickey needs to read some foreign and non-corporate owned news sources.

Mr. Sherman needs to actually go to www.drudgereport.com it seems, to
dispell yet another of his misperceptions, which are legion.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tom Sherman wrote:


Mr. Hickey needs to read some foreign and non-corporate owned news
sources.


Agreed. I've found that the Toronto Star is usually a good source.
The Straits Times is totally government controlled (singapore) but it
offers a good perspective. I also like to see what La Repubblica and
Corrierre Della Sera have to say, but those aren't for everyone (as
they are not in english). Reuters and the BBC have pretty good
coverage too.

I dont trust much from our own country. The St. Petersburg Times is
probably the best newspaper in America for independent journalism.
Well, that's a pretty uneducated opinion, and I'd be willing to believe
that there are better... but generally speaking, their journalists are
more trustworthy than others.

Tom Sherman wrote:
MJR wrote:

...
If Bill
Clinton had ignored warnings of terrorist suicide hijackings and
sat


around listening to children reading "My Pet Goat" instead of

ordering

the Air Force to intercept the hijacked airliners, the Republicans

and

the media would have called for his impeachment on the basis of
cowardice and incompetence.

Why is it that it seems every Democrat in the world thinks the
government is frozen in its tracks and unable to do anything
without
direct orders from the POTUS? Can't interpret intelligence info
without him doing it... can't react to terrorist acts without him
directly directing it... does that even make a little sense?



I actually (gasp) need to side with Hickey here. The president is
mostly an actor, and Rove and Cheney were not frozen in their
tracks on
Sept. 11. GWB wasn't supposed to know what to do. You'd have
frozen
up too.

That being said, he is an actor playing a role. I would have hoped
that he could have played the role better.

Then again... perhaps his thought was that he didnt want to panic
the
kids. I dunno... but I think that the criticism of him for sitting
there reading "my pet goat" for seven minutes is a little shrill
and a
little mislaid. Yes, he is an idiot. But, I won't blame him for
any
harm that came to the country during those seven minutes....

Bush II could have simply said that events were happening that needed

his attention, and left the classroom - I doubt the children would
have
panicked. He could have at least been in the loop, even if would not
have changed anything.

I do not criticize the decision to move Bush II to a "safe location"
on
9-11-2001 - I likely would have made the same decision. What I object
to
was the lie that there were indications of an attack on Bush II in
order
to make him look more heroic. Why not tell the truth; "We were not
sure
of the situation, so we moved the president to a military base where
he
would be safe and have access to the information he needed to address

the crisis"? But then everything with Rove is spin and image creating
to
distract from reality.

And I will stick to my point - if Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John
Kerry
had been in the exact same situation as Bush II on 9-11-2001 and had
done the exact same thing, they would have been virtually crucified
for it.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)


Honestly, I presumed that the reason they hid Bush on 9-11 was
precisely because that is what is done in these situations. "Protect
the Eagle" is the order of the day.

So... I dont know if Clinton or anyone else would have been crucified
for being rushed to safety. Tom, you're kicking the ever-loving-****
out of Hickey by being a lot more independently minded. But, I think
on this point, you might be a little off. Everyone wants the president
kept safe, no matter who he is.

Well, to be honest, I wouldn't push him out of the way of an oncoming
train, but you know what I mean.

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...

You caused its disappearance by canceling but AFAIK,

I didn't cancel the post.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

On 17 Mar 2005 04:31:15 -0800, "MJR" wrote:




Hickey, again, you're so ****ing stupid that I am no longer worried
about your views. You'll eventually walk into an open manhole and
perish and we'll all be better off.


MJR, thank you, I read the above and laughed out loud. I'm still
smiling. Whether or not it is accurate, doesn't matter, at the moment.
Hopefully, like lemmings the rest of the true believers will follow
him in;-)

And yes, I'm still smiling.


Life is Good!
Jeff

Tom Sherman wrote:

Mr. Hickey needs to read some foreign and non-corporate owned news
sources.

Mr. Sherman needs to stop using that annoying, third-person argument style.

Reminds Mr. Sornson of those endless Bill Z./Guy threads!

("Bill's gettin' upSET!" -- G. Costanza)

Little Meow wrote:

A spam cancelbot malfunctioned and issued cancels willy nilly.

My vote for sentence of the day!

On 17 Mar 2005 06:18:12 -0800, "MJR" wrote:





And I will stick to my point - if Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John
Kerry
had been in the exact same situation as Bush II on 9-11-2001 and had
done the exact same thing, they would have been virtually crucified
for it.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)


Honestly, I presumed that the reason they hid Bush on 9-11 was
precisely because that is what is done in these situations. "Protect
the Eagle" is the order of the day.

So... I dont know if Clinton or anyone else would have been crucified
for being rushed to safety. Tom, you're kicking the ever-loving-****
out of Hickey by being a lot more independently minded. But, I think
on this point, you might be a little off. Everyone wants the president
kept safe, no matter who he is.

Well, to be honest, I wouldn't push him out of the way of an oncoming
train, but you know what I mean.

Hi, I think Tom is talking about the time spent in the classroom,
looking confused.

How dumb must you be, that you can't excuse yourself from a group of
kids, because you are afraid that you will upset them. "Kids something
needs my immediate attention. I will come back and visit with you very
soon. It was nice meeting you all."

It seems to me that the above statement would have worked fine. On and
before 9-11-2001, nobody, especially those kids had no reason to fear
any major disaster. Maybe now, it would call for a bit more
sensitivity, but it didn't then.

Taking the president, any president, to a safe location just makes
sense. I don't think that would have been the issue. I do agree with
Tom about the classroom.


Life is Good!
Jeff