President Bush's "Decision Points"

[elvis]

^ One of the liberals' most absurd talking pointlesses.

In reality (an alien concept to asshole libs), there was nothing whatsoever wrong with the President remaining in that classroom for those extra few minutes.

Bfgrn's talking point is the real FAIL.

Bfrgn would have liked to see him run out of the classroom waving his arms and screaming.....

There are legitimate criticisms of Bush, but this is not one of them.

So...my choices are:

1) The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is told: "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK" ...he sits there like a big fat turd on the lawn while Americans are being slaughtered.

2) The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is told: "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK" ...he run out of the classroom waving his arms and screaming.

I think there is a third option which is somewhere in between those two.

 

[sitarro]

^ One of the liberals' most absurd talking pointlesses.

In reality (an alien concept to asshole libs), there was nothing whatsoever wrong with the President remaining in that classroom for those extra few minutes.

Bfgrn's talking point is the real FAIL.

Bfrgn would have liked to see him run out of the classroom waving his arms and screaming.....

There are legitimate criticisms of Bush, but this is not one of them.

So...my choices are:

1) The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is told: "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK" ...he sits there like a big fat turd on the lawn while Americans are being slaughtered.

2) The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is told: "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK" ...he run out of the classroom waving his arms and screaming.

What should he have done ace? What would have been the correct thing for him to do in your all knowing opinion?

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfrgn would have liked to see him run out of the classroom waving his arms and screaming.....

There are legitimate criticisms of Bush, but this is not one of them.

So...my choices are:

1) The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is told: "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK" ...he sits there like a big fat turd on the lawn while Americans are being slaughtered.

2) The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is told: "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK" ...he run out of the classroom waving his arms and screaming.

What should he have done ace? What would have been the correct thing for him to do in your all knowing opinion?

They're second graders. That would make them 7 years old. They have parents and teachers (adults) who give them directives and directions from the time they get up, to the time their parents tell them 'it's time for bed'.

Bush could have calmly whispered to the teacher that he had an urgent executive matter that required immediate attention, then let her handle informing the children...OR...he could have calmly stood up, asked the teacher if he could interrupt, and tell the children: 'Kids, your president has some 'president things' he has to take care of so I have to leave. I enjoyed my visit and I will come back another day...God bless America...bye

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Test of a Leader
I've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points, not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "Nine Cs of Leadership."

9) The Biggest C is Crisis Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down. On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day, and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero. That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq, a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you,I don't know what will.

Iacocca: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Lee Iacocca

 

[sitarro]

So...my choices are:

1) The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is told: "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK" ...he sits there like a big fat turd on the lawn while Americans are being slaughtered.

2) The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is told: "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK" ...he run out of the classroom waving his arms and screaming.

What should he have done ace? What would have been the correct thing for him to do in your all knowing opinion?

They're second graders. That would make them 7 years old. They have parents and teachers (adults) who give them directives and directions from the time they get up, to the time their parents tell them 'it's time for bed'.

Bush could have calmly whispered to the teacher that he had an urgent executive matter that required immediate attention, then let her handle informing the children...OR...he could have calmly stood up, asked the teacher if he could interrupt, and tell the children: 'Kids, your president has some 'president things' he has to take care of so I have to leave. I enjoyed my visit and I will come back another day...God bless America...bye

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Test of a Leader
I've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points, not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "Nine Cs of Leadership."

9) The Biggest C is Crisis Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down. On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day, and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero. That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq, a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you,I don't know what will.

Iacocca: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Lee Iacocca

So, you're saying jumping up and going to the limo 5 minutes faster would have made a difference? Watch the video I posted, learn something about reality rather than partisan bullshit.
Who could possibly give a shit what Lee Iacocca has to say about anything?

 

[editec]

I'll probably read his book when I find it in the library or in a remainder bin.

You don't have to like the guy or approve of his administration to want to read what he has to say about it.

In fact if you ONLY read material from people who you like and approve of, you're setting yourself up to not understand the world you live in.

 

[JW Frogen]

Indeed, in fact the most important voices you need to hear or read are the ones you are sure you disagree with.

For instance one of my favorite books is Gore Vidal's 'United States'. Political, social and literary essays.

I disagree with almost every aspect of his politics, but he is witty, savagely genius with his prose, has an inside gossipy view of power, and every now and then does make a point about the American imperium that those wielding power would do well to ponder.

I still can't stand Chomsky though, his prose is as dead as I imagine his sex life to be.

 

[editec]

I still can't stand Chomsky though, his prose is as dead as I imagine his sex life to be.

He's no polemicist, I'll grant you that.

Wanna know why?

Because he's so careful to mitigate his statements for accuracy that they become as dry as dust.

We don't want rational speakers or complex problems, we want to reduce complex issues so that we can come to some MORAL decision about them.

Sadly the world isn't in black and white.

Too often serious combatants BOTH have a valid points.

 

[JW Frogen]

My problem with Chomsky is he uses selective omission to make his case, and his case is always the same, America is the proactive source of all problems in the world. (This is far too simplistic, as America is often a re-active power.)

For example, he details America’s violation of Cambodian neutrality during the Vietnam War, and the cost in life that violation induced, but he fails to catalogue, or barely even mentions the fact the North Vietnamese violated that neutrality first, and for years before the US finally and reluctantly responded.

Or his take on WWII, that the Japanese were seeking alternative resources from the lands they attacked, indeed attacked the US in desperation to break the sanctions the US imposed on them, what he fails to detail is the US placed those sanctions on Japan in an attempt to stem her brutal conquest of China without having to go to war. Once again the USA was a re-active, not and imperialist pro active force in that conflict.

Chomsky is a brilliant man with an almost child like view of the world and his villain is always the USA.

 

[JW Frogen]

Having said that, I will repeat, there is value in his critique of American policy, he does reveal often the disastrous or tragic consequences, intended or not.

His strongest case, to my mind, is American foreign policy in Latin America during the Cold War.

 

[editec]

My problem with Chomsky is he uses selective omission to make his case, and his case is always the same, America is the proactive source of all problems in the world. (This is far too simplistic, as America is often a re-active power.)

For example, he details America’s violation of Cambodian neutrality during the Vietnam War, and the cost in life that violation induced, but he fails to catalogue, or barely even mentions the fact the North Vietnamese violated that neutrality first, and for years before the US finally and reluctantly responded.

No post colonial occupation nationwide election was held in Vietnam.

Why?

Had it been done, Ho would have been leader of a unified nation and the VN war would never have happened.

Or his take on WWII, that the Japanese were seeking alternative resources from the lands they attacked, indeed attacked the US in desperation to break the sanctions the US imposed on them, what he fails to detail is the US placed those sanctions on Japan in an attempt to stem her brutal conquest of China without having to go to war. Once again the USA was a re-active, not and imperialist pro active force in that conflict.

The only people actively fighting the Japanese in China at that time were the commies.

Our man Chang was so busy fighting the Commies that, had the USA really be interested in thewarting the Nippon Machine, they'd have supported the Mao.

I'm not blaming the USA for provoking a war, I', kist pointing out that the issue is more complex than merely the USA was doing the right thing and got attacked for it.

Chomsky is a brilliant man with an almost child like view of the world and his villain is always the USA.

I admit that expecting this nation to act out as morally as it claims to is a childlike wish.

But I think you reduce his arguments a tad unfairly. Naturally in an place such as this doing his lifes work justice isn't really possible

His major POV is that the creation and defence of the undeclared (but obvious) American Empire is the key to understanding US foreign policy.

Do you think that POV is without merit?

 

[Sarah G]

Some of the clips I've seen seem humorous so there's that. I'm not sure I'd give him a lot of credit for any accomplishments during his terms.

I see him as a generally nice guy like Reagan. Like Reagan though he doesn't seem like he quite understands what is going on around him.

I might get it.

 

[JW Frogen]

My problem with Chomsky is he uses selective omission to make his case, and his case is always the same, America is the proactive source of all problems in the world. (This is far too simplistic, as America is often a re-active power.)

The complicated history of Vietnam or Japanese Imperialism is a different subject to Chomsky's selective omission of facts that do not support his case that the US is always caused of such conflicts.

But just quickly, Ho Chi Minn probably would have won elections, why: because all political opposition to him in the North hand been silenced or eliminated, all Catholics purged or forced to flee to the South. Indeed, Ho never held a democratic election ever in any territory he controlled. Ever.

Now the regime in the South would have practiced fraud too, so the idea that any real election could be held as demanded under the Geneva Accords was a sham, and the US knew it. In fact in the early 70s South Vietnam did have real elections, North Vietnam never did or has since.

China; your argument proves my point about Chomsky, the US is not the active agent in China, it first wants only to deter Japanese imperialism through sanctions and negotiation, and it is Japan that is driving events with aggression. (To the contrary of Chomsky's argument).

It is true the Communists did gain popularity by being the major force to fight Japan in China, mostly because they did not control urban centers and had developed a strategy of rural fighting the that worked relatively well against the Japanese but that does not validate Chomsky's thesis that the US provoked the war with Japan, to the contrary it proves the opposite, that the US did not want to get bogged down controlling directly controlling territory through direct invasion. The US was taking the path that would most hurt the Japanese while minimizing their control of China.

US choices were not good there; they had to support any group who would oppose Japan while thinking of future communist influence.

Some times your options are not good, but Chomsky's argument is that the US is both controlling and causing events. The history of China in WWII proves just how reactive the US was being.

 

[Liability]

Some of the clips I've seen seem humorous so there's that. I'm not sure I'd give him a lot of credit for any accomplishments during his terms.

I see him as a generally nice guy like Reagan. Like Reagan though he doesn't seem like he quite understands what is going on around him.

I might get it.

Talk about shallow analysis. Sarah just took today's prize!

RECAP of Sarah's alleged thinking: Ohhh my Gaaaawd! I like saw some video clips and like the guy is like a little humorous, so, of course, based on that clear cut evidence, like I came to the conclusion that he couldn't possibly be given much credit for any accomplishments -- and like, uhm, he seems like, you know, like a nice guy sort of like that Reagan guy? Ya know? So, like, I heard that like Reagan didn't really understand what was 'going on around him,' so like, I figure, Bush must not either!

Somebody pat that ditz Sarah on the head already. Please. Give her a Scooby snack. She needs to go out for a good piddle on the lawn.

 

[skookerasbil]

Anybody else reading "Decision Points"?? Im up to about page 200.........doing a leisurely read. The chapter about 9/11 and the days after are fascinating but most interesting is the chapter that speaks the the capture of Al Zawuhari and Sheik Mohammed. I never knew KSM was the guy who slit the throat of Danny Pearl..............

Anyway..........most fascinating was Bush's account of when George Tenet called to ask permission to use waterboarding on KSM. Bush says he paused for a few seconds and immediately thought of the 9/11 victims and the Pearl family.

What was his answer to Tenet???

Thats what he said!!!!!


I shudder to think what would have happened had a limpwrister been aked that same question.................


Anyway..........I could criticize George Bush until the cows come home on many things but in this instance, you get real insight into his mindset following the interrogation of the first scumbag they caught and waterboarded and all the info he gladly forked over...........

 

[Missourian]

Hoping to get a copy for Christmas.

 

[Shooter]

I picked this up the day it came out. Read it in a few days.

Excellent book. You'll be satisfied.

 

[elvis]

threads merged.

 

[Samson]

Some of the clips I've seen seem humorous so there's that. I'm not sure I'd give him a lot of credit for any accomplishments during his terms.

I see him as a generally nice guy like Reagan. Like Reagan though he doesn't seem like he quite understands what is going on around him.

I might get it.

At least we can credit Slickwillie Stainmaker for knowing what was "going on around him."

 

[miller]

Reading a pack of lies from a sociopath would only be done by the brain dead, brainwashed UNITED SUCKERS OF AMERICA.

 

[elvis]

Reading a pack of lies from a sociopath would only be done by the brain dead, brainwashed UNITED SUCKERS OF AMERICA.

You are correct. No one should read your book.