Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11161718192021
Results 401 to 419 of 419
  1. #401  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    I was trying to compliment Bush's team for handling Farenheit better than Kerry is handling the Swift Boaters. I think he's a better politician.
    I did not read your post as a compliment but as presenting some kind of sinister ulterior motive for not reacting. Thanks for setting me straight.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    If you think that Bush has no control over the people who do things in his name, then what does that say about his capacity to lead? If his so-called friends fly off the handle to his detriment, and he doesn't have the political strength to quell them, then how does that make him look as the leader of the free world?
    He may have influence but not necessarily contro. What control he or influence he might have over the hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals can probably only be weilded after the fact. If a bunch of conservatives in Iowa petition there local theaters not to show Moore's movie, President Bush would probably not even know about it until after it happened and would you really expect him to ask them to stop? I don't think so.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    You and I must be reading different newspapers. I saw nothing in the main stream press that suggested that anyone had done a point-by-point debunking of Farenheit. The only thing I read were reviews, and the stories about the banning of commercials. And that small bit about the seven minutes, which Moore quickly answered. Of course, I can't read everything, so I assume I just missed that.
    Main stream press??? Like them or not, to get all sides of an issue you have to read, watch, or listen to media that you might not agree with. Fox, MSNBC, and all the talk radio shows discussed the points of the movie adnauseum for weeks.

    If I had the time I would gather up what is on line for you, but I really do not want to go there.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    And that small bit about the seven minutes, which Moore quickly answered.
    You seem somewhat impressed by the famous 7 minutes. Moore did a great job of taking that video out of context and making that 7 minutes seem stupid and irrersponsible. I was not there but putting myself in that room, trying to empathise with the President in that situation with the kids, the scene to me seems a reasonable response. I see in his expression, much deliberation, and I think anger. Senator Kerry has admitted that he was held speechless for 45 mins. What is most important is what the president did over the next 3 years in response. Personally I thought that was the cheapest of all the shots taken by Moore in his movie. 7 mins? I think I can give him the benefit of the doubt.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Same must be true of the Swift boat ads. Because I've read, heard, and seen lots of news articles everywhere from network news to CNN to The New York Times, to my local papers, suggesting that the Swift Boaters' claims were at least suspicious. Ties to Bush's lawyer, the other guy who resigned, several other veterans who have come forward to discredit some of the guys in the commercial, a check of military records which suggested that many of the men in the commercial hadn't actually "served" with Kerry, in the sense that they served next to him in the boat, but instead were on other boats. The one guy who says he wasn't in Cambodia, but Nixon's own tapes reveal him telling the president he was in Cambodia.
    Suspicous only if you interpret everything read about the vets as suspicous.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Ties to Bush's lawyer and the other guy who resigned
    This is only suspicous if you want it to be. The lawyer was doing what all the lawyers in washington do. They are asked to advise and the vets asked and got advise. The fact that the lawyer also advised the RNC is of no consequence and makes no link. Lawyers giving advise to moveon.org are in the ver same situation and themselves said that was perfectly normal and saw no need for the layer to resign. That "other guy" was a Bush campaign volunteer, asked to leave after it became known he was one of the vets. Hardly an incriminating tie.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    several other veterans who have come forward to discredit some of the guys in the commercial
    I would expect to see more of this, but there are still 65 to 2 who have a different story.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    many of the men in the commercial hadn't actually "served" with Kerry, in the sense that they served next to him in the boat, but instead were on other boats
    Swift Boat squatdrons are much like aviation squadrons. I served in a squadron that had 12 air crews. I commanded a crew of 5 Officers and 6 Enlisted. We worked hard together competing against the other crews to be the best in the squadron. My crew especially the enlisted members thought the world of me as any crew in such close working conditions will of their commander. However, I ate, slept and played with the 60 Officers spread throughout the 12 crews in the squadron. The only true evaluation of my performance in that squadron can come from the other Officers. My crew would be far too biased. A swift boat crew consists of 1 Officer and I believe 5 enlisted. The vets in the adds are the other Officers in the squadron. He has 8 band of brothers. which means that at least 3 of those folks were only on his boat for 2 or less months. Just like my air crew, John Kerry's band of brothers are the least reliable source for his performance as a Naval Officer during those 4 months in Vietnam. I would expect them to stand behind them like they do. The fact that one of them did not and is outspoken about it makes me wonder how Kerry pissed him off. He may have an axe to grind, but it does make me wonder.
  2. #402  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Now, now, you have taken what I wrote out of context.

    I stated "progressive" and then continued on to clearly define what I that meant to me
    Perhaps I should have said that it was a series of videos, in progression from oldest to newest.
    Rewording it does not change it's colors, it is still blatant propaganda



    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    I challenge you to find my quote or exact words where I stated that "because what is in down in black and white constitutes a good reason to make him our president" or any words to that effect.
    I did not say you said that, John Kerry said that by making his Veitnam service the connerstone of his convention.
  3. #403  
    I DID see fahrenheit 911! this is the very reason I brought that topic up!
    fahrenheit is whatever you want to call it ... progressive, etc. but its anti-bush.
    whether bush's advisors did or did not advise him to counter the movie ... the end- all statement here is.... bush did not whine about it.
    I recall an interview bush had I believe with 60 minutes, where he said this is a tough job, and if you can't take the heat, you probably shouldn't be here."
    you know, I wonder if john kerry ever considered that notion.
  4. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #404  
    Thanks, Johnbdh. I knew you'd answer my points well.

    You've given me a lot to think about on this topic.

    I still disagree with you about those seven minutes, though. In an age where nuclear missles can travel across the globe and knock out entire cities, a lot can happen in seven minutes. And if I were in Bush's role, and I had read that PDB about Bin Laden determined to attack in the US, and I was told BEFORE I even entered the school that the first plane had hit, I would have at least wanted to confirm that it was an accident and not an attack before even entering the school. If I had entered, and I was told midway through the presentation that a second plane had hit, I would like to think I'd find a quick and calm way to get out of there and assess the situation. Maybe, and I'm just saying maybe here, if he had reacted at least to the first plane, he could have had the airways shut down and prevented that third plane from hitting the Pentagon. Shoot it out of the sky, if he had to.

    What would have happened at Pearl Harbor if those brave men and women hadn't manned their guns and started shooting back at the Japanese? What if for seven minutes, they just stared blankly and let their anger build? How many more would have died?

    I have no problem with any average civilian who wanted to stare at the TV in awe for as long as he or she wanted to. But the President. The President is supposed to be chosen because he's not the type of guy (or woman) who freezes.

    Would Kerry have frozen? Maybe. But I KNOW Bush froze, so why would I want to let him get an opportunity to freeze again? If your starting pitcher gives up seven runs in one inning, you take him out.

    This is one of the reasons why military experience is a valid indicator of how well a person can handle the role of president. Leaving Kerry out of this for the moment, I'm sure you can see how having been in the midst of battle can help you determine the best course of action quickly and decisively. It's not the only factor, by any means, but it helps to know if someone has been there and how he or she behaved. You wouldn't let someone with no business experience head your corporation (oh wait, Bush did that, too); why would you let someone with no combat experience head your military?

    Put all the spin you want on it, I still think he choked that day. Anger in his face? Fine. But DO SOMETHING. A president needs to act upon emergencies, not ponder them. Some of what he did after was just fine, but his initial reaction I just can't be sympathetic to. Not to mention the fact that he endangered those kids by staying in the room. The president's schedule is fairly well-publicized, and one would assume that he is always a prime target for attack.

    What's going to happen when North Korea Launches a nuclear attack against Japan? Is he going to wait seven minutes before hitting them back, so they can have time to launch against someone else?

    I think it's strange that so many Bush supporters spent months ragging on Al Gore for "claiming to have invented the Internet" (which he didn't) and Clinton for being a horny alduterous fiend (which he was, granted). But then when Bush fails to perform when his country needs him most, at a moment so decisive for a leader, they say "oh well, he's just human, you know? He was thinking about what to do next." Can you see how that looks like people are making excuses, instead of owning up to the truth? Democrats do the same thing, too. Maybe that's why I've always found myself in the middle.

    Why not just say, "Yeah he didn't do too hot that day. But he took the reigns after that and managed to accomplish some good things." Because if Gore had been President that day, and he had sat for seven minutes, you'd better believe that O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh wouldn't have shut up about it yet.

    The seven minutes wasn't the key point in the film for me, by the way. It's just the one that got the most media attention. I found the ties to the Saudis far more disturbing. Just as Cheney's connections with Haliburton have always been a sore spot for me. As Lewis Black put it so well, business and government have always been in bed with each other, but at least before they used to try and hide it.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  5. #405  
    that's a valid point on bush's 7 mins. however, hasn't kerry even admitted to taking a lot of time to decide on important issues because " there are a lot of factors to consider, and that the best solution or answer isn't always the simple or fast solution?" yes, I remember him saying that clearly at the democratic convention - to the world! that would make me tend to believe that if in that same position, kerry himself might have behaved very much the same way as bush- while shocked, trying to consider all the factors of response before taking the fastest or simplest solution.
    does that mean he would have stared off blankly as well? who knows. well the reason he has been labeled a flipflopper is for this reason -weighing many ideas before coming to his final, conclusive answers.
    we will see. if he wins, I am very much looking forward to watching how kerry takes on the job. we will see.
  6. #406  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    ...and I was told BEFORE I even entered the school that the first plane had hit, I would have at least wanted to confirm that it was an accident and not an attack before even entering the school
    At this point there was no reason to believe that it was anything but a horrible accident. I think the president and those around him at the time postulated that the pilot might have had a heart attack and on the TV it was being reported being believed to be a small plane. Given my time zone, I was not out of bed that morning until after the second plane hit so I cannot empathize with the Pres as to what I might have thought. Wish I could, but it seems reasonble to me not to think it was deliberate until the second plane hit.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    ...if he had reacted at least to the first plane, he could have had the airways shut down and prevented that third plane from hitting the Pentagon. Shoot it out of the sky, if he had to.
    Your second guessing here is, through no fault of your own, simplistic and born from a lack of understanding of how decisions are made during a crisis. The President does not make these kinds of decisions. The folks whose job it is to make this kind of decision were making them seconds after the first plane hit and it took them a full hour and a half to make the decision to clear the skies at 9:45... For a better understanding of the process in this particular situation read this excellent account....

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/...earskies_x.htm

    I worked for 8 years in a Command Center who's job it was to react to crisis. I got to watch first hand how the process works. What most folks do not understand is that our government and the branches and departments tasked with the responsibility to safe gaurd our nation and it's citizens, despite what it might look like after the fact, is a remarkably well oiled machine. This machine, during the initial stages of a crisis, runs on it's own. The first strike decision makers are clearly defined at the lowest possible level with the highest possible expertice for the crisis at hand. Unlike in the movies, the President sitting at the Highest level with the least expertice makes the fewest, if any, decisions during the early stages of a crisis. As a crisis progresses decision making slowly creeps upward and the lower level decision makers morph into advisers to higher and higher levels of command. It is a very interesting process and far more complex than I have time for here. Suffice it to say that even if the president had bolted from the room and swung quickly into action ala Harrison Ford, he would not have made any decisions that would have changed the sequence of events except to give emphasize to the decisions of his subordinates as Mineta did after he heard of the decision to clear the skies over an hour after the first plane hit.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    What would have happened at Pearl Harbor if those brave men and women hadn't manned their guns and started shooting back at the Japanese? What if for seven minutes, they just stared blankly and let their anger build? How many more would have died?
    The gunners in Pearl Harbor were the lowest level decision makers with the most expertice at that particular moment in the crisis and even they did not react until the first bomb hit their decks. They watched the planes fly over head in ammusement. If the first plane on 9/11 had hit the school, perhaps I could see your comparison, but even then there would have been nothing to shoot at and no reason to believe it was terrorism.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    The President is supposed to be chosen because he's not the type of guy (or woman) who freezes.

    Would Kerry have frozen? Maybe. But I KNOW Bush froze, so why would I want to let him get an opportunity to freeze again? If your starting pitcher gives up seven runs in one inning, you take him out.
    You use the word "freeze". That conjures up the image of the deer in the headlights, seconds before it is smashed by your car. To me that is not what the President did. What is most important from those leaders at the top levels of command is to be calm and calculating during a crisis. That is how I see President Bush in those early minutes. The worst players in all the crises I handled while in the Command Center were the ones that came in like a bull in a china shop. These guys (admirals and above) often made decisions that they later regretted.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    This is one of the reasons why military experience is a valid indicator of how well a person can handle the role of president. Leaving Kerry out of this for the moment, I'm sure you can see how having been in the midst of battle can help you determine the best course of action quickly and decisively. It's not the only factor, by any means, but it helps to know if someone has been there and how he or she behaved.
    No I do not see that having been in battle can help you determine the best course of action quickly and decisively. In battle how well you react and make decisions is mostly a factor of your training and I believe that anyone, with few exceptions, if dropped into battle with the proper training will perform admirably if not heroically. Reacting and making those decisions from the comfort of an office is the challenge. I have seen more than one war hardened officer who simply could not handle even the day to day problems of his job after returning stateside.

    You said to take Kerry out of the equation, so I am assuming that you are not trying to tell me that his 4 months in Vietnam is an indicator of how he will react and make decisions as the President. I hope not cause I think President Bush's 2 years presiding over 2 wars out trump John Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam.



    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    why would you let someone with no combat experience head your military?
    Given this criteria none of the following presidents should ever have been elected....

    ---Did not see combat
    James Madison
    James Polk
    Millard Fillmore
    Jimmy Carter
    Ronald Reagan
    George W. Bush

    ---Did not serve
    John Adams
    Thomas Jefferson
    John Quincy Adams
    Martin Van Buren
    Grover Cleveland
    William Taft
    Woodrow Wilson
    Warren Harding
    Calvin Coolidge
    Herbert Hoover
    Franklin Roosevelt
    Bill Clinton

    After reading this list I realize we might agree that some of these guys should not have been elected president. Probably not the same ones and certainly not because they never saw combat.
  7. #407  
    Quote Originally Posted by freudov23
    Oregon prosecutor in anti-Kerry ad placed on leave
    [I]OREGON CITY -- A prosecutor who called John Kerry a liar in a political commercial has acknowledged that he lied about an extramarital affair with a secretary.
    Here we goooo. Prepare yourselves, the attacks against the messengers are beginning to fly. I predict that the attacks will be relentless and without conscience, but still no medical records.
  8. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #408  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Here we goooo. Prepare yourselves, the attacks against the messengers are beginning to fly. I predict that the attacks will be relentless and without conscience, but still no medical records.

    Well, yeah. But you had to expect that much. You can't make accusations against a prominent national figure and not expect to be challenged by all kinds of people at all levels of validity. And all of this still serves more to help the Swift Boaters reach their original goal anyway.

    I thought it interesting that Bush went on the record today as feeling that Kerry is not lying, though he still stopped short of denouncing the commercials. Playing it exactly the way he should. Masterful.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  9. #409  
    great point, john, regarding how bulls in the china closet rushed into action without calming themselves and made the most regrettable decisions. vital point!
    would people rather have an irrational, brash move in those 7 mins? or would they feel better with a leader who is maintaining composure and trying to arrive at an appropriate response to a NATIONAL crisis? id say the latter would be my choice.
    a harrison ford action moment would certainly have looked fantastic, but what would that truly have accomplished if an irrational move resulted from it?
    john's comments on the possibilities during the immediate seconds after the accident were right on the money. in fact, many news reporters were heard speculating that this may have been due to a mishap at the pilot seat, rather than to a terrorist attack.
    also, do you think by jumping into an emergency mode bush may have caused significant mass panic in the classroom, spreading like wildfire through the school and out into t
    Last edited by treobk214; 08/27/2004 at 03:57 PM.
  10. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #410  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    At this point there was no reason to believe that it was anything but a horrible accident. I think the president and those around him at the time postulated that the pilot might have had a heart attack and on the TV it was being reported being believed to be a small plane. Given my time zone, I was not out of bed that morning until after the second plane hit so I cannot empathize with the Pres as to what I might have thought. Wish I could, but it seems reasonble to me not to think it was deliberate until the second plane hit.
    I wouldn't go as far as to say there was NO reason to believe it was an attack. But I'll accept the likelihood that his advisors had up until that point, with the information in hand, decided that it was most likely not an attack, and so advised Bush to go on with his schedule. Bush probably had little information of his own at that point.

    I hope they weren't relying on TV reports. I would think they get information from a slightly higher authority than CNN. And a heart attack doesn't really jive, either. But whatever the case may be, they obviously thought it wasn't a terrorist strike, or else they would have cancelled the school event.


    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Your second guessing here is, through no fault of your own, simplistic and born from a lack of understanding of how decisions are made during a crisis. The President does not make these kinds of decisions. The folks whose job it is to make this kind of decision were making them seconds after the first plane hit and it took them a full hour and a half to make the decision to clear the skies at 9:45... For a better understanding of the process in this particular situation read this excellent account....

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/...earskies_x.htm

    I worked for 8 years in a Command Center who's job it was to react to crisis. I got to watch first hand how the process works. What most folks do not understand is that our government and the branches and departments tasked with the responsibility to safe gaurd our nation and it's citizens, despite what it might look like after the fact, is a remarkably well oiled machine. This machine, during the initial stages of a crisis, runs on it's own. The first strike decision makers are clearly defined at the lowest possible level with the highest possible expertice for the crisis at hand. Unlike in the movies, the President sitting at the Highest level with the least expertice makes the fewest, if any, decisions during the early stages of a crisis. As a crisis progresses decision making slowly creeps upward and the lower level decision makers morph into advisers to higher and higher levels of command. It is a very interesting process and far more complex than I have time for here. Suffice it to say that even if the president had bolted from the room and swung quickly into action ala Harrison Ford, he would not have made any decisions that would have changed the sequence of events except to give emphasize to the decisions of his subordinates as Mineta did after he heard of the decision to clear the skies over an hour after the first plane hit.
    Thanks for clarifying this for me. It makes a lot more sense now. Do you think in light of this, that this well-oiled machine performed as well as it could considering the circumstances? I mean, forget about prevention. That's a whole other discussion. Once the planes were taken, I mean, was there any way that the system could have prevented the level of damage we sustained? Did the humans who were making all of these decisions act exactly according to plan, and does that plan need to be revised in any way?

    It seems to me that it worked fairly well, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse.

    To be honest, when I first heard about the plane going down in Pennsylvania, I assumed it had been shot down in order to prevent it from hitting the Capital or White House. That later proved to be false, of course, but I woulnd't have had a problem with it if it hadn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    The gunners in Pearl Harbor were the lowest level decision makers with the most expertice at that particular moment in the crisis and even they did not react until the first bomb hit their decks. They watched the planes fly over head in ammusement. If the first plane on 9/11 had hit the school, perhaps I could see your comparison, but even then there would have been nothing to shoot at and no reason to believe it was terrorism.
    Again, I see your point very clearly, but I'm still not sure of this "no reason to believe its terrorism" idea. After all, there was plenty of intelligence being gathered, plenty of past history of terrrorists hijacking planes, a building (World Trade Center) which had been targeted before, etc.

    The blame, I'll agree, doesn't fall squarely on Bush for this, of course. But some key people in his administration (whom he chose for those positions in many cases) should have been able to put one and one together BEFORE any of this happened. (Once it happened, it would seem, most of this stuff was out of their hands) And I know, Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. But come on. Many people in the intelligence community have said that they were trying to get the administration's attention, and were being waitlisted.


    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    You use the word "freeze". That conjures up the image of the deer in the headlights, seconds before it is smashed by your car. To me that is not what the President did. What is most important from those leaders at the top levels of command is to be calm and calculating during a crisis. That is how I see President Bush in those early minutes. The worst players in all the crises I handled while in the Command Center were the ones that came in like a bull in a china shop. These guys (admirals and above) often made decisions that they later regretted.
    Deer in headlights is exactly what I interpreted from that video. You see something different, of course. The nature of interpretation. We reflect what we already want to believe and project it upon the current event. No way to prove or disprove either one of us. We'll never know what was going on in George's head. No point in arguing about it.

    Bulls in the China shop are just as dangerous, if not more. I wouldn't suggest that Bush should have done a Harrison Ford. But getting out of the building and beginning to gather facts would have been a bit more helpful than listening to "My Pet Goat." After all, he may be out of the decision making in the early stages, but he should want to be kept abreast of what's going on.

    Maybe that's what bothers me about Bush the most. He just seems naturally uncurious. He admits that he never reads the newspaper. He doesn't seem too well versed in his own policies sometimes. (Like when he said that by far the vast majority of his tax cuts would go to those at the bottom of the economic scale.) When he was asked in that NY Times article today about a recent change in environmental policy that had just taken place, he said he was unaware of it.

    He was given one piece of information that day: "Mr. President, we're under attack." Wouldn't your immediate reaction be "Who is doing this? How? What's our next move? Details, details, details." That was my reaction, and I had just been roused from bed by my room mate. I mean, what was he calculating if he hadn't been told what was going on?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    No I do not see that having been in battle can help you determine the best course of action quickly and decisively. In battle how well you react and make decisions is mostly a factor of your training and I believe that anyone, with few exceptions, if dropped into battle with the proper training will perform admirably if not heroically. Reacting and making those decisions from the comfort of an office is the challenge. I have seen more than one war hardened officer who simply could not handle even the day to day problems of his job after returning stateside.
    I don't think I worded my point well in this case. It's not so much that having been in the military would suddenly make you better equipped to make good decisions, though I think, as you said, that proper training in these crises may be very helpful. I just see Bush as someone who has never had to really deal with the kinds of pressures his job demands, and I don't think he always performs well under that pressure. He can't even deal with reporters who ask him tough questions. He gets all confused and starts talking nonsense. It's disheartening to think that he has the final authority to push the button that could end civilization as we know it.

    You're right, of course, that seeing the crisis from the office is quite different from being on the battlefield. But I like to think that someone who has "been there" so to speak on the battlefield has a better chance of seeing the bigger picture from the office. I guess it would depend on the kind of person you are. Not all great war heros make great political leaders. (Grant, as a case in point.) But others have shown that their military experience came in handy when handling wars in their presidencies. (Truman and Eisenhower come to mind.)

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    You said to take Kerry out of the equation, so I am assuming that you are not trying to tell me that his 4 months in Vietnam is an indicator of how he will react and make decisions as the President. I hope not cause I think President Bush's 2 years presiding over 2 wars out trump John Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam.
    That's exactly what I meant. Though I'm not so sure that Bush's performance in the second of those two wars is as solid as you think. Even he admitted to the New York times today that he grossly underestimated the post-war difficulties in Iraq. And I'm not sold on this policy of preemptive strikes on nations, even if they are run by nutball dictators. Get the authority to get the weapons inspectors in there, sure. But let them finish their job before bombing the country back into the Jurrasic period.

    I'll be honest and tell you I have no idea if Kerry can do a better job in Iraq for sure. But I do like his ideas better. I like his approach. On matters other than war, especially.



    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Given this criteria none of the following presidents should ever have been elected....

    ---Did not see combat
    James Madison
    James Polk
    Millard Fillmore
    Jimmy Carter
    Ronald Reagan
    George W. Bush

    ---Did not serve
    John Adams
    Thomas Jefferson
    John Quincy Adams
    Martin Van Buren
    Grover Cleveland
    William Taft
    Woodrow Wilson
    Warren Harding
    Calvin Coolidge
    Herbert Hoover
    Franklin Roosevelt
    Bill Clinton

    After reading this list I realize we might agree that some of these guys should not have been elected president. Probably not the same ones and certainly not because they never saw combat.
    Touche.

    I'm sure we'd agree on some of the same ones, at least.

    We certainly can't blame Roosevelt for not serving, can we?

    I always thought Clinton's draft dodging was his biggest flaw, not his overhyped sex drive. Not because he didn't have combat experience, but because dodging his responsibility showed a major weakness in his character. And that weakness kept showing its colors time and time again.

    But that's all part of modern society, isn't it? We all play the blame game, instead of owning up to our poor decisions. I think that's why Clinton was so damn popular.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  11. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #411  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    would people rather have an irrational, brash move in those 7 mins? or would they feel better with a leader who is maintaining composure and trying to arrive at an appropriate response to a NATIONAL crisis? id say the latter would be my choice.
    But John's point was that arriving at an appropriate response was out of his hands anyway. And why sit there for seven minutes instead of trying to gather information? You can't calculate a calm decision when you have none of the information needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    john's comments on the possibilities during the immediate seconds after the accident were right on the money. in fact, many news reporters were heard speculating that this may have been due to a mishap at the pilot seat, rather than to a terrorist attack.
    A mishap would send a plane that was on course from Boton to LA into a building in NYC? That's one heck of a mishap. News reporters often don't have access to all the information they need. I would like to think that the White House is in contact with some of these crisis management people directly.


    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    also, do you think by jumping into an emergency mode bush may have caused significant mass panic in the classroom, spreading like wildfire through the school and out into t
    There are a million calm ways to get out of a crowded classroom of kids without enciting a riot. Any public school teacher would be happy to show you how it's done.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  12. #412  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Do you think in light of this, that this well-oiled machine performed as well as it could considering the circumstances? I mean, forget about prevention. That's a whole other discussion. Once the planes were taken, I mean, was there any way that the system could have prevented the level of damage we sustained? Did the humans who were making all of these decisions act exactly according to plan, and does that plan need to be revised in any way?

    It seems to me that it worked fairly well, all things considered. It could have been a lot worse.
    I pretty much agree with you, but no matter how much you plan, no matter how much you practice, when the sh** hits the fan, murphies law steps into high gear. The machine can never, and I mean never, perform as well as it could no matter what the circumstance and there are times it performs miserably. Each crisis becomes part of the learning curve. One glaring problem with 9/11 was break down in communication channels between the FAA and our air defense forces. The F-16s that were launched, late, flew out to sea thinking we were under attack from off shore. These are the kinds of things that happen, usually because we do not anticipate the possibilities well enough. People want to place blame when things like this happens, the exact opposite of what should be done. These are lessons learned and the reason contingency plans must constantly be taken off the shelf and redone. Going back to my flying days, the Navy encouraged it's pilots to submit reports of the dumb, stupid, and even negligent things that they did or that they saw around them. Submitting such a report excempted you or anyone involved from any disciplinnary action or consequence. These were published in a magazine every month. They were great reading, often funny, but the number of lives this blameless approach saved is probably countless.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    I always thought Clinton's draft dodging was his biggest flaw, not his overhyped sex drive. Not because he didn't have combat experience, but because dodging his responsibility showed a major weakness in his character. And that weakness kept showing its colors time and time again.
    I personally thought this to be a non issue. If you knew us back then you would think we had taken a course in High School called How to Avoid the draft 101. If we knew anything we all knew what options were open to us and very few did not take advantage as quickly and as long as possible.... Even the ones that later came back as heroes.
  13. #413  
    mr joe im not going to take that tit for tat any further. its going into the ridiculous "yeah but" category which goes on and on and on. waste of time.
    its clear you want to place the blame on bush for all of 9/11 and how inappropriately he reacted to it, so im not standing in your way and fight you on that. you can go right ahead and do that.
    like I said, when and if kerry gets into office, I will be waiting to offer close examination of this man's performance - you can count on that.
  14. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #414  
    bush states that kerry's service was more heroic than his own because kerry was actually there in harm's way. bush also said we should drop these war service arguments and leave them in the past and consider how to lead our country onto the future instead.

    bravo, president bush.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  15. #415  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    bush states that kerry's service was more heroic than his own because kerry was actually there in harm's way. bush also said we should drop these war service arguments and leave them in the past and consider how to lead our country onto the future instead.

    bravo, president bush.
    Boo, President Bush.

    Why couldn't he make this statement when the whole mess started? That would have been something that proved what type of campaign he wanted to run.

    Instead, he let it play for weeks and he still refuses to condemn the ad. At least Senator Kerry denounced the MoveOn.org ad and stated it was wrong.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  16. #416  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Boo, President Bush.

    Why couldn't he make this statement when the whole mess started? That would have been something that proved what type of campaign he wanted to run.

    Instead, he let it play for weeks and he still refuses to condemn the ad. At least Senator Kerry denounced the MoveOn.org ad and stated it was wrong.
    Funny how Kerry hasn't denounced the 60 million dollars spent by 527 organizations in other attack ads against Bush.

    Be honest, both guys are trying to get away with as much negative ads as they can, while still portraying themselves as the side with the positive campaign. There's not much difference between the two on this issue.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  17. #417  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Funny how Kerry hasn't denounced the 60 million dollars spent by 527 organizations in other attack ads against Bush.

    Be honest, both guys are trying to get away with as much negative ads as they can, while still portraying themselves as the side with the positive campaign. There's not much difference between the two on this issue.
    I agree with you wholeheartedly!

    This kind of spending and advertising makes me want to give up on the whole process, but I won't.

    It's too bad the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424, (U.S. 1) 1976 has protected this type of advertisement as free speech. With certain rights, there comes responsibilities. Too bad we don't think that far ahead.
    Last edited by tjd414; 08/30/2004 at 09:28 AM.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  18. #418  
    let's face basic facts here. nothing bush will or can do will ever be good enough for those against him. we can offer all and any evidence we want here. no one is changing any sides. there are so many attacks on bush, yet as heberman eloquently pointed out, there is plenty to be tagged on kerry as well. let's not kid anyone here! results will be in in a few months. right now, bush is in the lead or neck and neck with kerry.
    so that said, kerry better have one heckuva game plan to dissuade voters from their positions. that will be interesting to watch.
  19. #419  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    let's face basic facts here. nothing bush will or can do will ever be good enough for those against him. we can offer all and any evidence we want here. no one is changing any sides. there are so many attacks on bush, yet as heberman eloquently pointed out, there is plenty to be tagged on kerry as well. let's not kid anyone here! results will be in in a few months. right now, bush is in the lead or neck and neck with kerry.
    so that said, kerry better have one heckuva game plan to dissuade voters from their positions. that will be interesting to watch.
    I think you are correct in pointing out that most people have their minds made up. That's probably why there won't be too much movement in the polls after the Republican convention, just like the Democratic convention.

    Not too much any of us will say/write will have any impact on the feelings of others on this board.

    I feel one of the things we, as the voters, need to do is wrestle back the control of things from lobbyists, special interest groups and pac's. With these people in the game, chances are slim that our voices will be heard -- nor will the candidates listen to us.

    We need huge changes in the way our political campaigns are run.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11161718192021

Posting Permissions