Centerfield

Armchair quarterbacking? Give me a break.

The President of the United States, after having been given repeated warnings both from the previous administration and from his own, sat in a classroom for seven minutes and did nothing following the second plane hitting the WTC and Card telling him that the US was under attack.

Michael Moore is hardly the first person to bring this to light. This issue has been around since 9/11. The fact that the President's excuse for this insanity is that he didn't want to upset the kids is either ineptitude or a severe lack of good judgement. Neither is especially pretty.

It's John Kerry's job to show the differences between himself and Bush. This is clearly one where Kerry believes he would have acted more definitely and carefully.

It seems Mathew that for you Kerry is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he doesn't show the differences between himself and Bush, then you will claim that there is no difference. If he shows the differences..then he is "armchair quarterbacking".

Btw..did you miss me? :)

Does seven minutes in a classroom contemplating how to respond to an unprecendented, horrendous attack on America really mean ANYTHING in this campaign or in the grand scheme of things? Come on lets discuss meaningful issues.
Chris in Phx

Mathew,

Do you think it's 'fair and balanced' to tie Bush's actions on 9/11 to the producer of a movie released in 2004?

It makes a great 'sound bite' for you to repeat, but hardly stands up to scrutiny.

Here's a question for you. If you had been in Bush's shoes on that day, would your reaction likely have been the same as the president's?

I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that most people would envision themselves reacting quite differently.

Chris makes a fair point!

I find this issue disgusting. Nobody knows what happened in that room or why the man did what he did, and nobody can fully say what they would have done in the same situation. I think most American's find this tactic to be dishonest, and I find it intersting that John Kerry has not brought it up until almost a year and half after he began running for President. To me it is a sign of desperation from a man that should be farther ahead than he is, a man that had his time in the spotlight and largely failed, and now he is in trouble, and he knows the other side is up to bat and speaking on it's behalf are men like McCain, Guiliani, and Schwarzenegger. I'd be scared to, if I where John Kerry, and I knew this was my only shot to realize my life's dream, which speaks volumes about the difference between the two candidates in and of itself.

And Erasmus, give me an effing break, you can pass everything off that I say as sound bites and rhetoric but it does not change the fact that those who would resort to use what was probably the scariest seven minutes of the President's first term, that happened to be caught on camera, as a campaign issue are incredibly lame, and incredibly weak.

John Kerry should be ashamed of himself, and he should apologize.

Bush is the President of the United States. It's his job to make solid decisive decisions in a timely manner. On that morning, he failed to do so. Period.

What's disgusting is still supporting this guy after he's failed the American people...and then complaining when being called on it.

Incidentally, John Kerry isn't desperate nor does he need to be. His campaign is on a complete upswing..while Bush continues to falter.

That Bush sat in the classroom for seven minutes is not the issue for me. The issue has been the faulty intelligence, the evidence that the President was focused on Iraq even before 9/11. That the President's grounds for war were in fact nonexistant (See the 9/11 Commission report, and numerous books on the subject by members of the intelligence community). I do not feel that we have a competent man as our President. That is the issue.

Mathew,

Yes, I'm trying to coax to you take less superficial spin-centric approach. It's not working.

Seriously, it's as though you're simply an extension of the GOP echo chamber. Maybe you're not, but I can't tell the difference.

Yes Erasmus,

Because the GOP echo chamber is all about opposing the death penalty, supporting gay marriage, advocating the end of the drug war, or supporting stem cell research... whatever.

I think it is fair to say that according to you, anybody supporting Bush would be as you say, an extension of the GOP echo chamber, but seriously, I am not seeing much from you but an extension of the bush-hating, Howard Dean left.

You talk about the "Howard Dean Left" as if it's a bad thing. In fact it was Howard Dean who got the Democrats off of their laurels to actually offer up an opposition party. These "Bush haters" are individuals in general who sincerely believe that the country is on a very wrong and very dangerous course.

Are all the individuals who don't want Kerry to win just "Kerry haters"? I hightly doubt it. Nor would I insult their intelligence by trying to boil them down to nothing more than an emotion.

How refreshing it would be if the Bush side would show the same manners.

Carla,

I do think the Howard Dean movement was a bad thing... Bad for his party, and it would have been bad for this country.

I would not refer to the DLC, the NDN, Joe Lieberman, or most of those who supported any other of the Democratic primary candidates Bush haters, accept for Al Sharpton's which was completely and utterly consumed by hate. Nor, would I generalize that most of Dean's supporters where hateful people. However, Howard Dean's movement had little to nothing behind it, but hate for Bush, and if Kerry resorts to the same tactics that Dean did, he will suffer the same fate.

I do give Dean credit for being an honest individual. I think he is one of those rare politicians that has the integrity to be himself. A trait that I don't even think George W. Bush possesses.

And for the record.... Howard Dean's campaign was very emotional, and it was not until the Democrats got logical that they saw his message was a loser. The trouble is, I think John Kerry is in the Howard Dean movement, he simply is better at hiding it, or doesn't have the guts to defend it or his record. I guess your right, he is in lose-lose as far as I am concerned. I find his record scary, at the same time I find that he ignores it even more unsettling. If he would tell us who he really is, I would at least respect his candidacy, even if I couldn't bring myself to vote for it.

If you conclude that I'm an extension of Bush-haters, then you must think that disapproval equates to hate (and therefore you hate Kerry), or I'm guilty by association with every other Kerry supporter, some of whom say they hate Bush(?)

To me, hate is based in emotion, not reason. To me, to hate would be to become partly/temporarily inhuman. I can't help but interpret being called a hater as being associated with the worst of humanity: murder, torture, rape, child-abuse.

Maybe that's not what you mean by the term?

The Howard Dean movement was a wake up call to the nation that we are on the wrong course. It showed the Democrats that it was okay to have a spine..to speak out. Some of them came late to the party..like Kerry...but at least they came. The Dean movement was and is our country learning again what it means to have a strong opposition movement in this country. That can only be for the good.

John Kerry IS finally in the Dean movement. And it's about time. This country cannot continue on the course Bush put us on. We'll destroy ourselves. Did you hear about the story today in the Oregonian about how Oregon National Guardsmen were kept from stopping the new Iraqi government from torturing Iraqis? If you missed it..Kev blogged on it here:

http://preemptivekarma.com/2004/08/iraqi-interior-ministry-tortures.html

He was the first in the blogosphere to have the story, I think. (yay, Kev)

This is what Bush's policies have wrought...not to mention a stagnant economy, enviornmental wreckage and a profound loss of respect on the world stage. Kerry (and Dean) want that reversed and intend to put us in that direction.

Does that mean they hate Bush? I doubt it. But they damn sure hate where he's taking us. And so do I.

Dean's campaign was much more than emotion...and Dean was honest and forthright..which is why he was slammed so hard in the media and lied about so vociferously both from within the Dem Party and without. Dean lacks the proper party connections and experience with the media to handle things in such a way as to not put himself in a hole, I'll grant you. But his ideas were right on target. And his stance on the Iraq War (and his observations on the politicization of terrorism) are dead on the mark.

If John Kerry is becoming part of the Dean movement, then God help his campaign because he's going to hit the rocks hard trying to sail into port. Perhaps it's the assessment his campaign has made since the DNC, but I think it will truly undermine his campaign if you're right.

John Kerry's statement in regards to the "7 minutes" is utterly stupid politics. Not only does it remind people of Bush's actions surrounding 9-11 which by a large measure, Americans give Bush high marks, but it also makes Kerry look stupid when Kerry admitted to Larry King a month ago that on Sept 11 he sat around with others shocked and unable to think for 40 minutes.

I strongly disagree. Due to the fact that Kerry is a part of the Dean movement..his campaign is gaining strength. That's one of the ways Kerry has been able to sew up his base and move toward the center...and why Bush is still scrambling with his base.

Dean brought a lot of new blood into the Dem movement..and despite the media characterization..Dean is actually a fairly centrist figure in his policies. Frankly Dean gives Kerry credibility with his base...and his campaign continues to do well in the polls with Dean on the assist.

This cult of Giuliani is absolutely disgusting. He did what he was supposed to do in responce to 9/11. He did what millions of Americans have done in a crisis situation, unlike Bush, he didn't become catatonic. He did what ANY mature adult would do, he remained calm and did what he could. Let him be judged more on what he did before and after. Then you would see the slippery, hypocritical politician that he really is.

Anyone who wants to condemn Bush for 9/11 should be ashamed of themselves. I'm center-left, want Kerry as our next Pres., but feel that HE TOO would have been looking confused for seven minutes.

Taking Bush to task over the 7 minutes is just plain moronic and a cheap shot. There are legitimate issues where people can criticize Bush, but this isn't one of them. This issue seperates the partisan hacks from honest critics.

Yes, many people might picture that they themselves would have acted differently. Many people also picture themselves playing the hero in a hollywood movie style scene..... and those expectations are just about as realistic. Things don't work that way in reality. You want an actual analgous event to compare it to.... look at what happaned at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th 1941. At 6:45 AM the destroyer Ward sank a japanese mini-sub on the approaches to Pearl Harbor....at 7:50 AM when the attack began the base still wasn't on alert. That is reality... by comparison our response on the morning of 9/11 was excellent.

So tell me what exactly was Bush supposed to do during those 7 minutes that was more constructive? The answer according to the 9/11 Commission investigation was nothing.

I think alot of folks have a misconception of what a President is.... he's a policy maker and an administrator. He is NOT Chester Nimitz on the bridge of an aircraft carrier barking out orders during a battle. The President has other people that have the skill sets to do that....it is not a skill set that most Presidents have ever possesed.

The Presidents job during a crisis is to reassure the American people and be available in case one of the crisis management centers needs a decision or an authorization on something and be ready to take a breifing when there is actualy RELIABLE information to be presented. Bush did just that on the morning of 9/11.

If NORAD, FEMA or NSA wanted to speak with the President all they needed to do was get an aide to stick a phone in his ear. The fact that they didn't during those 7 minutes means that they didn't need a decision and didn't have any reliable information to pass at that time.

I think Bush did the right thing by taking those 7 minutes to reassure the people around him. Whether this was a concious decision on his part or he was simply in shock like most of the rest of us, I don't know. Even if it proves to be the latter I cant say that I fault him. I know it took me alot longer then 7 minutes to take in what just happaned that morning....I bet if we put a stopwatch on most of you who are criticizing him about that morning your performance wouldn't be any better.

Chris,

Really great comment from my point of view.