What other way could've George Bush handled 9/11 ?

1. 51

   dkk312posted 12 years ago

   Many people criticized George Bush for his handling of 9/11 and the aftermath.
   His non-reaction once he was told while in the school to his decision to not let this ever happen and take the fighting to them. He may have made bad decisions but at the time he probably felt it was the right thing to do for a nation that was angry,hurting and in disbelief. A lot of the criticism is on what he did but not much on what he should have done. I just do not see any other president handling the worst act of war/terrorism since Pearl Harbor any different than George Bush did. How would have Clinton,Obama or Reagan handled it? I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It's really hard to imagine Clinton, Reagan, Obama or Bush Sr. being in a classroom reading "The Pet Goat" when 9/11 happened.
      And I guess Bush was overcompensating for his delayed reaction in that classroom by rushing to invade the wrong country.
      
      It's a good topic, especially with the new Bush piece that tells his "version" of events.
      Bring on the conspiracy theorists and anti-conspiracy theorists!

      replyreport
      1. 61

         uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         So on September 11th you were totally unaffected by the attacks on the WTC?  Is GWB not allowed to be shocked by a catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States?  Was there a clear picture of what was happening?  I remember, quite vividly, listening to the radio as the news story evolved that morning.  At first it was thought to be a small, private plane.  How long before sufficient information was available to act?  What was GWB to do from an elementary school in Florida, put on his super suit?  Laura Bush's project was literacy, is the President reading to a classroom of children a good image to promote literacy? 
         
         When we see clearly things always look different than when we look through a red, white and blue "O."

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He could've figuratively punched Islam in the nose for the unAmerican political activism that it is, instead of allowing it to have protected minority status.  That possibly would've also prevented the placement of a Muslim activist in the highest seat in the land.
      
      But I can't fault him, really, for caving in to political correctness.  It's practically impossible to do everything right when you're already under heavy attack by the domestic liberal agenda.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Long live the domestic liberal agenda! Keeps idiot rightwing politicians from becoming Dark Age tyrants (much to the chagrin of Christianists, apparently).

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks livelonger for that vivid illustration of how the Left immediately attacks the Right for being bold enough to take a stand.  You do run swiftly, I'll give ya that.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I will always call tyrannical and bigoted statements for what they are, even if you misrepresent them as simply being "bold."
               
               Thankfully, attitudes like yours are going the way of the dinosaur (which, I'm sad to say, were not the contemporaries of early humans!).
               
               

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Hmm....just when I was being a vewwy good girl and refraining from Bible thumping, on not just one, but multiple, threads!  Drat  

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I think the Dominionists confuse religion and politics a lot. Kind of exactly what Jesus preached against, but since when do the Dominionists care what that liberal thought?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I've never pondered the definition of "Dominionists", so I dunno what you're referring to.   But personally I don't give much thought as to what liberal thought entails,  except for its far-reaching influence on the impressionable and helpless.

                        replyreport
            2. 61

               Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               It's been a liberal tradition since 1941.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Indeed?
                  And currently doing "the anointed one" quite proud I see.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     No, see there was this European right winger who...
                     
                     Never mind, I think Rod Parsley is on..

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Don't let me keep you then!  I'd still be watchin' Parsley currently too, if he had stuck to the wonderful basics instead of going off onto more popular tangents.  Would you like me to order some of his older sermons and ship 'em to ya?  Good stuff.  He had a powerful anointing from the Lord.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I'll say he did!
                           
                           I thought he must have been struck by lightning as well!

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Faith healing comes in handy when servicing a transmission.

                              replyreport
      2. 77

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Protected minority status you mean like that Constitutional Amendment that guarantees Freedom of Religion? That kind of protected status?
         I thought conservatives were all about the sanctity of the Constitution....
         
         As to political correctness, George W. Bush can't even pronounce it! And even if he could, he would never, ever do anything that is PC. If he tried, Cheney would have his testicles in a vise grip within nanoseconds.

         replyreport
      3. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Unlike you, Bush understood that 99.9999999999% of Muslims did not attack us.  Christianity would not seem so evil if some logic and compassion was occasionally added to the hateful rhetoric.
         
         Obama is not a Muslim.  You are lying yet again.  Doesn't one of your commandments sort of frown on that.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Ok,  Just thinking about what I am about to write made me puke in my mouth a little, I agree with most of your point in this posting.

            replyreport
   3. 61

      Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He could've changed the banner to "Mission will take a decade or so"

      replyreport
2. 59

   VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 years ago

   Instead of debating on alternative ways for George Bush on 9/11, we may discuss why he invaded Iraq and Afganistan. The main perpetrators travelled from USA to Pakistan enroute to Afganistan and hid themselves in the mountain caves. So, Afganistan.
   Why Iraq? When America becomes militarily active in the area, the only strong muslim Arab nation in the neighbourhood was Iraq. As far as muslims and Arabs are concerned, they wont start a war single-handed. Others will automatically join the fight. So, without waiting for Iraq to act, Bush may have hit them on their head. All for good.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, he was a strong leader, that's for sure.  And apparently used to full advantage his military knowledge or availability for the good of America's defense and protection. 
      I'd say he did the best he could under those conditions and circumstances.  Better than his predecessor or his successor could've or would've done!

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If by strong you mean bull-headed and egotistical beyond all reason, yes.
         Military knowledge? Surely you jest.
         Does the term "chicken hawk" mean anything?
         Look it up. You'll see pics of the Bush war-mongering cabinet.
         Not Colin Powell, tho. Poor sacrificial lamb.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Another reason, aside from Sadaam being a major B*st*rd, Iran represents the greatest threat in the region.  Unlike the Iraqi Army, the Persian Army is the real deal.  With Turkey, the Gulf States and Afghanistan ostensibly in the American camp, Iran is surrounded.  It is an encircling move and much sharper, from a strategery stand point than Bush critics would believe.

      replyreport
3. 0

   wongomowaleposted 12 years ago

   He could've been more honest about it. His administration had prior knowledge that the attack was going to happen, but they didn’t take it as seriously as they should, then Condoleezza Rice lied about the report.

   replyreport
4. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 12 years ago

   I think Dubya stated it best when he said, "They misunderestimated me!"

   replyreport
   1. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Misunderestimate is a good word when used tongue in cheek to describe ones detractors.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Are you positive?  His detractor's failure to underestimate him was a good thing for Dubya? 

         replyreport
         1. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Apparently the nature of the word escapes some.  Mis-construe is a real word - mis-underestimate is a constructed word - has more to do with how one underestimates not that one does not underestimate.  It is convenient, for some, to continue to misunderestimate GWB, ego preservation being an important human characteristic.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               In other words, you voted for him. 

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  And there is the definition of misunderestimate.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Is that a no? 

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        So let us consider the alternatives.  Al "it was only a matter of time before I snapped" Gore or John "yes I am an elitist snot, but can I get me a huntin' license here" Kerry?  Misunderestimate is the word.  Yes and no are insufficiently complex.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           A simple yes would have sufficed.  I wasn't going to embarrass you you by asking if you voted for him twice. 

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Still not getting the misunderestimating but if you voted for John Kerry, perhaps a better word would be misoverestimating.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 We do know thousands of our young people died and our treasury raped to kill perhaps 100's of thousands of Iraqis and destroyed their infrastructure to boot.  Do you assume either of the other choices you could have made would have attacked a country not associated with 911? 
                                 
                                 Neither of them had anything to do with Haliburton.  I certainly hope you weren't in favor of Palin as Vice President.  No, I don't want to know! 

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Halliburton?  Wow, cliche much?  I may be misoverestimating you.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Say anything but don't answer questions?  I don't blame you. 

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          Democrats are funny, like Paulniacs and other nuts - they all have vast conspiracy touch stones.  Halliburton, CFR, Bilderbergers, Free Masons, etc....  Some notions do not deserve consideration.

                                          report