NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember when the buck stops here was the motto of a president. Ah, the good old days.

Here's a list of Bush Administration Scandals (feel free to add)

See how many scapegoats you can name:
1. 7 minutes of no reaction to a country under attack
2. Katrina disaster in NO
3. Outing of one our spies - Plame
4. Firing of a plethora of attorneys
5. WMDs - Iraq
6. Torture - Iraq
7. Improper equipment - Iraq
8. Declaring victory - Iraq
9. Not enough troops - Iraq
10. No international support - Iraq
11. Losing $9BILLION - Iraq
12. Not completing the war in Afghanistan
13. Not capturing Bin Laden
14. Walter Reed
15. Denying Global Warming
16. Selling ports to arabs
17. Jeff Gannon
18. Indian Gaming
19. Harriett Miers
20. Illegal wiretaps
21. Patriot Act Misuse
22. Arsenic in drinking water
23. Gitmo
24. Shooting a guy in the face
25. No Bid Contracts
26. Memogate
27. Botching the first trial for terrorism after 9/11
28. The Energy Task Force
29. Overpriced Fuel - Iraq
30. 1.8 Billion in undocumented money to contractors
31. Bribes by Halliburton of foreign officials
32. Project Overrun - Halliburton
33. Halliburton doing business with Iran
34. $700 Million earmarked for Afghanistan ends up in Iraq - Iraq
35. $50 Million disbursed without receipts - Iraq
36. Israeli Spy Case
37. Taiwan Document Scandal
38. UN Wiretaps
39. Boeing
40. Medicare Bill Bribe
41. Tom DeLay
42. Medicare Bill Money Amount
43. Medicare Bill Videos
44. Secretly-Paid Pundits
45. Ground Zero/EPA report
46. White House Employees involvement in matters relating to companies they also owned

K, I'm bored. I knew there was a lot of stuff, but, dang, I could write pages more. Some of these are not yet settled or were just ignored so there may be no actual scapegoat, yet. See how many you can guess.

Sources - http://dir.salon.com/ and Bill Maher (yes, we know they aren't unbiased, however, you can research each and every one of these scandals yourself).

<3
:fluffle:

BTW, I believe it was Sumamba Buwhan who established a thread that had a lot of answers/corollary to most of the issues brought up here.

That thread was a lot of fun too. :)

You forgot:

Liberal Media Muslim Leftist Democrat Anti-American Criminal Hispanic Immigrants!

They're to blame for everything else.

You forgot:

Liberal Media Muslim Leftist Democrat Anti-American Criminal Hispanic Immigrants!

They're to blame for everything else.

No, that's the answer to everyone of these, isn't it?

Note: I don't actually know the answer to all of these. I plan on answering myself later.

No, that's the answer to everyone of these, isn't it?

Note: I don't actually know the answer to all of these. I plan on answering myself later.

Yes, they're the ones clearly behind every locked door, just waiting for the right moment to take away our freedoms and install a muslim-atheist theocracy.

They're the real enemies in the War On Terror!

Guantanamo save us!

1. 7 minutes of no reaction to a country under attack

What was Bush supposed to do? Clothe himself in a Superman outfit and heroically divert one of the hijacked planes from its intended target? In a crisis situation, it is [sometimes best to collect all of your thoughts to ensure that you don't commit a rash mistake. Bush stringently adhered to this principle and refused to take action prior to a few minutes of quiet reflection.

2. Katrina disaster in NO

I can see how the mayor of New Orleans is complicit in that disaster, as he refused to call for federal aid when it was necessary. The Bush administration refused to act unilaterally but rather remained true to our system of checks and balances. This was a valiant move, and the correct one.

3. Outing of one our spies - Plame

Who cares? Was anybody injured as a result of this? No. I suspect that the media's foul hand played into this, but the case is still speculative.

4. Firing of a plethora of attorneys

It was a perfectly legal and (as Bolton explained) democratic action. To put it simply: the people voted for Bush, and they got Bush and those who shared his ideology in the executive branch.

5. WMDs - Iraq

Unfortunately, these weapons were shipped to external sources prior to being recovered by the US. It is also possible that they were destroyed.

6. Torture - Iraq

The Bush administration cannot be held accountable for the unlawful decisions that a particular soldier makes. To say that Haditha or Abu Ghraib were the fault of Bush would be absurd.

7. Improper equipment - Iraq

During the direst days of WWII, Russian soldiers were given five bullets and directed to acquire a weapon from a incapacitated comrade. Some were given nothing at all and used as human shields. However, despite all this, they didn't complain. US troops are being given cutting-edge, high-tech equipment but they still bawl their eyes out over it. Those who do are a bunch of ingrates.

8. Declaring victory - Iraq

The mission of routing Saddam's forces and deposing the terrible tyrant was indeed achieved. The operations entered another phase with the advent of the insurgency, true, but the original mission was accomplished. The fuel for this scandal was simply the ignorance of the populace.

9. Not enough troops - Iraq

If we had sent more troops, our presence would have been more resented and the insurgency would have been more potent. We made the correct decision in sending few troops.

10. No international support - Iraq

It's their fault that they didn't support us in our righteous quest to unshackle an enslaved people, servants to every nefarious whim of Saddam.

11. Losing $9BILLION - Iraq

So all US government accountants weren't trained at Harvard. That $9 billion dollars was certainly put to good use, although nobody seems to know what that use was.

12. Not completing the war in Afghanistan

It's an ongoing war. You can't just magically expect to complete a war against a fierce opponent in a matter of weeks. This is the long war.

13. Not capturing Bin Laden

He's dead, so I doubt that it really matters. In any case, the culpability for the failure to apprehend the orchestrator of chaos rests with the US army, not with the Bush administration.

14. Walter Reed

This is a testament to the need for privatization to eliminate the foul stench of bureaucracy. Let's not forget which party is vehemently opposed to such desperately-needed reforms.

15. Denying Global Warming

The administration never denied that the world is, on average, becoming warmer.

16. Selling ports to arabs

Only a xenophobe would turn such a normal business transaction into a scandal. It's not as if all Arabs are terrorists; however, many bigots reviled this deal because they had a grudge against Arabs, so the offer needed to be retracted.

17. Jeff Gannon

The malicious activities of a disturbed individual cannot be blamed on the Bush administration. In the holy name of free speech, the Bush administration allowed a cornucopia of reports to submit their queries; one of these journalists turned out to be deranged. That's life.

Man, that's a long list. I'll respond to the others at another time.

24. Shooting a guy in the face, while illegally hunting.


Fixed. And given the guy actually apologized for "what he had put the Cheney family through", I'm guessing it was the guy.

Fixed. And given the guy actually apologized for "what he had put the Cheney family through", I'm guessing it was the guy.

I don't know that canned hunts are illegal, in fact I'm almost certain (almost) that they are legal, just...you know...lame.

What was Bush supposed to do? Clothe himself in a Superman outfit and heroically divert one of the hijacked planes from its intended target? In a crisis situation, it is [sometimes best to collect all of your thoughts to ensure that you don't commit a rash mistake. Bush stringently adhered to this principle and refused to take action prior to a few minutes of quiet reflection.
If it were just a moment or two I'd agree with you, but seven minutes is too long to just sit there gathering your thoughts in such a situation.



I can see how the mayor of New Orleans is complicit in that disaster, as he refused to call for federal aid when it was necessary. The Bush administration refused to act unilaterally but rather remained true to our system of checks and balances. This was a valiant move, and the correct one.

The Bush Administration acted slowly, sluggishly, and overall poorly to the disaster when New Orleans would have been better off with swift responsive action.


Who cares? Was anybody injured as a result of this? No. I suspect that the media's foul hand played into this, but the case is still speculative.

It is a dangerous precedent to set, and while perhaps there was no direct damage from the revealing of the spy, it is possible there was information that could have been gathered by the spy that would prevent certain incidents. Let's say she was still around when the Iranians were planning to kidnap the British sailors; she might have been able to warn them in time.


It was a perfectly legal and (as Bolton explained) democratic action. To put it simply: the people voted for Bush, and they got Bush and those who shared his ideology in the executive branch.

On this one I'm going to have to agree with you...attorneys are fired all the time by new Presidents.


Unfortunately, these weapons were shipped to external sources prior to being recovered by the US. It is also possible that they were destroyed.

Source and or proof of this claim?


The Bush administration cannot be held accountable for the unlawful decisions that a particular soldier makes. To say that Haditha or Abu Ghraib were the fault of Bush would be absurd.

I am of mixed feelings on this. On one hand the situation never would have occurred had Bush not started the war in Iraq, and on the other hand it was--as far as I know--a series of actions comimitted by a specific group of soldiers and was not ordered from anywhere near as high as the commander in chief.


During the direst days of WWII, Russian soldiers were given five bullets and directed to acquire a weapon from a incapacitated comrade. Some were given nothing at all and used as human shields. However, despite all this, they didn't complain. US troops are being given cutting-edge, high-tech equipment but they still bawl their eyes out over it. Those who do are a bunch of ingrates.

The actions of one country does not excuse the actions of our own. We can equip the soldiers far more adequately than we have been and by not doing so we're risking their lives more than they ought to be risked. It is foolish and disgraceful.


The mission of routing Saddam's forces and deposing the terrible tyrant was indeed achieved. The operations entered another phase with the advent of the insurgency, true, but the original mission was accomplished. The fuel for this scandal was simply the ignorance of the populace.

Bullshit. Bush was declaring the war in Iraq over because he still believed he would be greeted as a liberator.


If we had sent more troops, our presence would have been more resented and the insurgency would have been more potent. We made the correct decision in sending few troops.

Again, bullshit. By sending more troops we might have been able to completely overwhelm Saddam's forces and prevent most of the insurgency from rising up in the first place. Half the problem was an inadequate number of troops to contain the situation.


It's their fault that they didn't support us in our righteous quest to unshackle an enslaved people, servants to every nefarious whim of Saddam.

Ah, yes, our "righeous quest" to "liberate" the Iraqi people. We sure liberated them, what with the civil war going on now. Can't you smell that freedom?


So all US government accountants weren't trained at Harvard. That $9 billion dollars was certainly put to good use, although nobody seems to know what that use was.

Nine billion may be a drop in the bucket on a governmental scale but it's still nine billion dollars. You don't just lose nine billion dollars on a clerical error, not if you expect to keep your job, at least. That nine billion ought to have been found.


It's an ongoing war. You can't just magically expect to complete a war against a fierce opponent in a matter of weeks. This is the long war.

And had we not shifted our focus to an unnecessary war in Iraq there wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a problem. Afghanistan has been handled quite poorly indeed.


He's dead, so I doubt that it really matters. In any case, the culpability for the failure to apprehend the orchestrator of chaos rests with the US army, not with the Bush administration.

Care to prove that claim? And it does rest on Bush's shoulders because he decided to shift the focus to Iraq thus allowing Bin Laden to escape.


This is a testament to the need for privatization to eliminate the foul stench of bureaucracy. Let's not forget which party is vehemently opposed to such desperately-needed reforms.

I actually have no idea what this is about.


The administration never denied that the world is, on average, becoming warmer.

Bush has repeatedly pushed back any and all action on global climate change by saying "we don't have all the science/facts in yet." as an excuse. Furthermore, the administration has attempted to silence proof of global climate change in NASA and other research organizations.


Only a xenophobe would turn such a normal business transaction into a scandal. It's not as if all Arabs are terrorists; however, many bigots reviled this deal because they had a grudge against Arabs, so the offer needed to be retracted.

I don't see what was wrong with selling the ports to Dubai either...it's not as if the U.A.E. was responsible for any sort of action against the U.S.


The malicious activities of a disturbed individual cannot be blamed on the Bush administration. In the holy name of free speech, the Bush administration allowed a cornucopia of reports to submit their queries; one of these journalists turned out to be deranged. That's life.
What are you talking about here? I don't recognize this either.

<3
:fluffle:

BTW, I believe it was Sumamba Buwhan who established a thread that had a lot of answers/corollary to most of the issues brought up here.

That thread was a lot of fun too. :)

Well that one died quite quickly because it was too hard to keep up with all of the crap the Bush Administration was doing.

What was Bush supposed to do? Clothe himself in a Superman outfit and heroically divert one of the hijacked planes from its intended target? In a crisis situation, it is [sometimes best to collect all of your thoughts to ensure that you don't commit a rash mistake. Bush stringently adhered to this principle and refused to take action prior to a few minutes of quiet reflection.

Yes, because they only options that Presidents have is to either become Superman or sit there.

In a crisis situation the first thing you do is stand up, go to where you can speak frankly, and find out as much information as you can. He didn't know what kind of attack it was, or whether it was ongoing or where it was happening or anything he would need to collect thoughts about.

Meanwhile, now, there is no question that you're trolling. No one. No one can actually suggest he had enough information for quiet reflection to be remotely useful. You suck as a troll.


I can see how the mayor of New Orleans is complicit in that disaster, as he refused to call for federal aid when it was necessary. The Bush administration refused to act unilaterally but rather remained true to our system of checks and balances. This was a valiant move, and the correct one.

Actually, the mayor of NO is not who calls for federal aid, but you knew that didn't you? They were all complicit.

If they did nothing wrong, why the scapegoat? Sorry for the spoilier - Michael Brown.



Who cares? Was anybody injured as a result of this? No. I suspect that the media's foul hand played into this, but the case is still speculative.

Yes. Everyone was injured. We lost part of our network of spies. Plame was put at risk. Our interests were put at risk. And if you'd done it would have been considered treason, but since it was the administration, "meh, who cares?"



It was a perfectly legal and (as Bolton explained) democratic action. To put it simply: the people voted for Bush, and they got Bush and those who shared his ideology in the executive branch.

Legal? Perhaps. Ethical? Absolutely not. There is an expectation that this part of government makes some effort to actually do more than simply sing the party song.

However, like Clinton, they lied about this repeatedly when asked. Start up the trials, boys, because what's good for the goose...


Unfortunately, these weapons were shipped to external sources prior to being recovered by the US. It is also possible that they were destroyed.

The administration admitted their evidence was manufactured. They didn't take the blame of course, but the evidence presented was false.


The Bush administration cannot be held accountable for the unlawful decisions that a particular soldier makes. To say that Haditha or Abu Ghraib were the fault of Bush would be absurd.

Um, who's the Commander-In-Chief? This wasn't just one soldier. Indications of torture have been lobbied by pretty much every prison we've kept 'enemies' in. I guess it's just those crazy soldiers. So much for the conservative support our troops line. What they really mean is "support our troops unless it means accepting accountability for our bad practices."


During the direst days of WWII, Russian soldiers were given five bullets and directed to acquire a weapon from a incapacitated comrade. Some were given nothing at all and used as human shields. However, despite all this, they didn't complain. US troops are being given cutting-edge, high-tech equipment but they still bawl their eyes out over it. Those who do are a bunch of ingrates.

See what I mean. Russia was poor. The US isn't. Sending our troops into battle without proper equipment is unacceptable. Having parents purchasing vests and jackets for their children is absurd and the Bush Administration should bite their tongue the next time they claim to "support the troops"

And given your claims here, I guess this pretty confirms that you're living proof that conservatives don't actually support our troops.

Or perhaps, you're just trolling and being absurd on purpose. Hmmm... I wonder which is more likely.

Gee... you almost tricked me there. Stephen Colbert you are not.


The mission of routing Saddam's forces and deposing the terrible tyrant was indeed achieved. The operations entered another phase with the advent of the insurgency, true, but the original mission was accomplished. The fuel for this scandal was simply the ignorance of the populace.

Um, perhaps you don't know what victory is. Generally, you don't declare victory in a war right before you start having more casualties than ever before.


If we had sent more troops, our presence would have been more resented and the insurgency would have been more potent. We made the correct decision in sending few troops.

The Generals didn't agree and were summarily fired. And now the Bush administration is pushing for more troops when they've been told they were necessary all along.

And wait, what happened to that indomitable spirit of the Iraqi people? Does it disappear when more troops appear?

It's their fault that they didn't support us in our righteous quest to unshackle an enslaved people, servants to every nefarious whim of Saddam.

Ha. Seriously an effective troll should be a little believable.



*snip*

Not for a minute. Again, you're not Colbert so how about you stop pretending and argue what you really believe and drop this nonsense.


Man, that's a long list. I'll respond to the others at another time.

Yeah, that's a long list. Wouldn't be nice if I'd made them up? Good thing I didn't complete it.

Well that one died quite quickly because it was too hard to keep up with all of the crap the Bush Administration was doing.

Yeah, I know. I started it out jokingly and then I just keeping thinking of or finding more and more stuff to list. And very few of those things are tenuous. If I'd have limited the list to only cronyism it would still be like two dozen items.

I hear that.

Add also Mark Foley and his love of young boys was because he was an alcoholic and the Democrats didn't do anything to stop him!

Fixed. And given the guy actually apologized for "what he had put the Cheney family through", I'm guessing it was the guy.

Yeah, that one's my favorite because you wouldn't believe it if it were a movie. He actually said he was sorry that Cheney was forced to deal with shooting him in the face. And it's not like he was healed at the time. The guy goes on camera looking like hell and apologizes for causing the VP to shoot him in the face.

Seriously, at that point, you keep think I think the unwilling audience member of a farce.

Yes, because they only options that Presidents have is to either become Superman or sit there. In a crisis situation the first thing you do is stand up, go to where you can speak frankly, and find out as much information as you can. He didn't know what kind of attack it was, or whether it was ongoing or where it was happening or anything he would need to collect thoughts about.

Only a fool acts impulsively. I do not pretend to know what was racing through our president's mind. All I know is that when someone presents me with a startling piece of news, the shock value temporarily erodes my sense of logic and reasoning. If I had been making decisions in the immediate aftermath of the first attack, I would have made some faulty decisions. Why? Because I would have jumped to conclusions and let my emotions get the better of me. Now, I can't say I'm sure that Bush was aware of this and thus refused to act until he brain was perfectly capable of handling the enormous responsibility placed upon him. However, that's what I think happened; many people don't give Bush enough credit. He may not speak perfect English, but he is wise.

Actually, the mayor of NO is not who calls for federal aid, but you knew that didn't you? They were all complicit.

Can you cite another incident in which FEMA responded prior to the declaration of a state of emergency in US history?

And if you'd done it would have been considered treason, but since it was the administration, "meh, who cares?"

The press was also culpable in this incident. I'm not convinced that the administration had any role in this, but I don't fully recall every aspect of this scandal, and I'd rather not argue from ignorance.

Um, who's the Commander-In-Chief? This wasn't just one soldier. Indications of torture have been lobbied by pretty much every prison we've kept 'enemies' in. I guess it's just those crazy soldiers. So much for the conservative support our troops line. What they really mean is "support our troops unless it means accepting accountability for our bad practices."

Since when do I represent all conservatives. Most will support the troops through thick and thin. I, on the other hand, don't have such an elevated opinion of them. I put the fault with whom it lies -- in this case, the ghastly realities of war and the constant anxiety may have gotten the better of some soldiers, leading them to perform unspeakably sadistic acts. Nonetheless, the Bush administration is not complicit at all in the scandal.

See what I mean. Russia was poor. The US isn't. Sending our troops into battle without proper equipment is unacceptable.

My point was that we're not sending our troops into battle without a rifle. We're giving them high-tech machine guns. Yet they always find something to complain about. Obviously, there are differences between the US and the USSR; however, soldiers should grow accustomed to the fact that they won't be pampered on the battlefield, especially when Democrats loudly complain about the cost of the war.

Stephen Colbert you are not.

Stephen Colbert dabbles in (poor) comedy and satire. I am not attempting to be humorous in the least. I guess I'll take that as a compliment, then.

Not for a minute. Again, you're not Colbert so how about you stop pretending and argue what you really believe and drop this nonsense.

Drats! You caught me. Alright, I'll admit it. I'm really a liberal. I believe that rainbows and puppy dogs will magically appear once we leave Iraq. I want to live in a world where men can frolic in the fields with unicorns and everybody lives happily ever after under a humongous welfare state. Satisfied?

Remember when the buck stops here was the motto of a president. Ah, the good old days.
Yeah, back when people were stupid enough to believe the trash their rulers spouted off about being virtuous and kind.
Or were you trying to imply that Bush is somehow more of a douchebag than the great Imperialists of the "Progressive"-era?

Can you cite another incident in which FEMA responded prior to the declaration of a state of emergency in US history?

Ummm. Governor Blanco declared a state of emergency more than 24 hours before Katrina hit. And while Brownie certainly deserves his share of the blame, he wasn't the guy who really fucked the response up. The man who got away clean from that was Michael Chertoff, head of DHS.

Yeah, back when people were stupid enough to believe the trash their rulers spouted off about being virtuous and kind.
Or were you trying to imply that Bush is somehow more of a douchebag than the great Imperialists of the "Progressive"-era?

He is. Whatever transgressions Truman committed--and I single him out since he was "the buck stops here" guy--they pale in comparison to the shit Bush has pulled.

Ummm. Governor Blanco declared a state of emergency more than 24 hours before Katrina hit.

And when she did so, FEMA responded. However, that doesn't answer my question.

I totally agree with FreedomAndGlory. Bush is just like any leader, he makes mistakes. He is not the best, but he is better than any other leader currently.

I totally agree with FreedomAndGlory. Bush is just like any leader, he makes mistakes. He is not the best, but he is better than any other leader currently.

...what?

How is Bush the best leader currently in the world? No, really, how is he?

And when she did so, FEMA responded. However, that doesn't answer my question.

You insinuated that FEMA responded before the state of emergency. The Nazz showed you were wrong in your assumption. FEMA has never responded before a state of emergency.

And when she did so, FEMA responded. However, that doesn't answer my question.

You couldn't be more wrong. Blanco was yelling for help 24-48 hours before Katrina hit. FEMA didn't respond until more than 72 hours after Katrina hit.

You couldn't be more wrong. Blanco was yelling for help 24-48 hours before Katrina hit. FEMA didn't respond until more than 72 hours after Katrina hit.

So there was up to almost 120 hours before FEMA responded to Blanco's request? What in the bloody FUCK?!

So there was up to almost 120 hours before FEMA responded to Blanco's request? What in the bloody FUCK?!

Pretty much. But if you ask the Bush apologists, it was all her and Nagin's fault, or at the very least, they had most of the blame, but the feds might have done better. Spin that around and it's more accurate--the state and city might have reacted a little better, but the real breakdown was on the federal level, and most of the blame belongs on Michael Chertoff. Brown's hands were tied to some extent because he couldn't get the stuff he needed from DHS.

Pretty much. But if you ask the Bush apologists, it was all her and Nagin's fault, or at the very least, they had most of the blame, but the feds might have done better. Spin that around and it's more accurate--the state and city might have reacted a little better, but the real breakdown was on the federal level, and most of the blame belongs on Michael Chertoff. Brown's hands were tied to some extent because he couldn't get the stuff he needed from DHS.

Well that's no surprise really...this administration has been so incompetent along all lines that it's amazing there's anyone who still supports them at all...but then you've always got the ones who'll buy any propaganda.

*trolling*

Why would anyone care what you have to say as long as you continue to take a piss? Let me know when you want to seriously debate. I'm interested.

Why would anyone care what you have to say as long as you continue to take a piss? Let me know when you want to seriously debate. I'm interested.

Ah, come on, Jocabia, it's MTAE! At least give debating what he says now a try.

Ah, come on, Jocabia, it's MTAE! At least give debating what he says now a try.
Personally I don't care who it is, all I know is that Freedomandstupidity is going on my IGNORE list.

He is. Whatever transgressions Truman committed--and I single him out since he was "the buck stops here" guy--they pale in comparison to the shit Bush has pulled.

Edit to remove my error: Truman wasn't a progressive. I'm fairly certain that Fiddles is reffering to McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft, and co.

What was Bush supposed to do? Clothe himself in a Superman outfit and heroically divert one of the hijacked planes from its intended target? In a crisis situation, it is [sometimes best to collect all of your thoughts to ensure that you don't commit a rash mistake. Bush stringently adhered to this principle and refused to take action prior to a few minutes of quiet reflection.

You're right .. he 'shoulda' been scooped out of said school ...hopped onto the Air Force One and taken to Camp David or some unknown underground bunker safe from attacks. But no.. he was obviously safe ... just sitting in a classroom in a school. If none of them(cia etc..) really didn't know what the hell was going on.. wouldn't it had been wise to get the hell out of a building full of children? Since not having any knowledge of what was happening or about to happen .. he could've very well been a target. But alas .. no .. he was safely sitting in a school.. still sitting minutes after supposed terrorists attacks hit. Still sitting.

If it were just a moment or two I'd agree with you, but seven minutes is too long to just sit there gathering your thoughts in such a situation.
Shouldn't take long at all, considering there'd only be one thought in that skull of his at any one time.

Ah, come on, Jocabia, it's MTAE! At least give debating what he says now a try.

There's nothing to debate. It's all just random crap he pretends someone would believe. What's the point of arguing about a bunch of nonsense? Since he doesn't care enough about his opinion to honestly tell us what it is, why should I?

Shouldn't take long at all, considering there'd only be one thought in that skull of his at any one time.

Okay, that was unnecessary. Bush might not be the most intelligent person on the planet, but let's not attack the man so much as his policies and actions, okay? Let's be better than him.

Jocabia: Well, I like debating him because I think he's funny, and he is...some of what he says is simply absurd, and there's always the amusing backlash against you and The Nazz--but then I laughed at Eve's insults towards you as well, so I'm probably just an equal opportunity humourist.

Did y'all read my post? It does make sense.

About Dubya .. I personally don't feel he has been in charge of much of anything.. I feel he has listened to his 'elders'. Cheney.. Rumsfield , his daddy and whoever else. He didn't and still does not have the knowledge and understanding of world policies etc to make most decisions. I'm not saying his is incapable of making decisions. Surely he has learned a lot since being in office, but I will always feel he was a mouth piece for an agenda. On a personal level he's obviously an alright person.. he has a pretty good sense of humour etc and likes to have a good time. But leading a country or being the 'spokesman' of a country .. no. Stay at home and have fun Dubya. Too late for this though.

Shouldn't take long at all, considering there'd only be one thought in that skull of his at any one time.

Well, quite frankly if he was gathering his thoughts, wouldn't he want to FIRST get some information so he has something to think about? Nope. Instead, sit there ignorant of what is going on, gathering your thoughts.

If this is how he handles an emergency, then he's not a good leader.

Okay, that was unnecessary. Bush might not be the most intelligent person on the planet, but let's not attack the man so much as his policies and actions, okay? Let's be better than him.

Jocabia: Well, I like debating him because I think he's funny, and he is...some of what he says is simply absurd, and there's always the amusing backlash against you and The Nazz--but then I laughed at Eve's insults towards you as well, so I'm probably just an equal opportunity humourist.

I laugh to. Not with them. At them. They're absurd.

And this is about his actions. He sat there... for seven minutes. At a time when he should have been gathering information, he was doing NOTHING. He wasn't thinking about the situation as trolls might claim. Because you can't think about a situation you are ignorant of.

Well, quite frankly if he was gathering his thoughts, wouldn't he want to FIRST get some information so he has something to think about? Nope. Instead, sit there ignorant of what is going on, gathering your thoughts.

If this is how he handles an emergency, then he's not a good leader.

Wouldn't he and his sworn protectors want to get him the heck out of there is my question. Why this didn't happen is telling sign imo.

I laugh to. Not with them. At them. They're absurd.

And this is about his actions. He sat there... for seven minutes. At a time when he should have been gathering information, he was doing NOTHING. He wasn't thinking about the situation as trolls might claim. Because you can't think about a situation you are ignorant of.

Hell, shouldn't have he been scrambling jets to take down the hijacked planes that were still in the air? Or did the Commander-in-Chief somehow not have the ability to order the military around?

Wouldn't he and his sworn protectors want to get him the heck out of there is my question. Why this didn't happen is telling sign imo.

They were trying to. For most people, "Sir, the country is under attack" is enough to incite one to start moving. For GWB, it's a time to site and reflect on the information you DON'T HAVE.

As far as trolls, I find them fun if they are good. Making it so glaringly obvious that it's not even fun to take them seriously ruins the joke. It's like seeing a really lame punchline coming.

And as far as EO, I do laugh. I love it when he gets flustered and just whips out "I don't have a reply to that so it must be a strawman". It's great stuff. I notice he's not here debunking the FIFTY scandals of the Bush administration. Even he can't close his eyes and pretend like this isn't a sad administration.

Did y'all read my post? It does make sense.

About Dubya .. I personally don't feel he has been in charge of much of anything.. I feel he has listened to his 'elders'. Cheney.. Rumsfield , his daddy and whoever else. He didn't and still does not have the knowledge and understanding of world policies etc to make most decisions. I'm not saying his is incapable of making decisions. Surely he has learned a lot since being in office, but I will always feel he was a mouth piece for an agenda. On a personal level he's obviously an alright person.. he has a pretty good sense of humour etc and likes to have a good time. But leading a country or being the 'spokesman' of a country .. no. Stay at home and have fun Dubya. Too late for this though.
I did and I agreed with it, as well as what you say here. Frankly he shouldn't have even been Governor of Texas...I'd almost swear he was propped up just so Cheney and others could get this chance but that would probably be stretching it a bit too far.

I laugh to. Not with them. At them. They're absurd.

And this is about his actions. He sat there... for seven minutes. At a time when he should have been gathering information, he was doing NOTHING. He wasn't thinking about the situation as trolls might claim. Because you can't think about a situation you are ignorant of.

That's what I meant...I don't laugh with them, but at them.

And I know YOU were talking about his actions...I was responding to Dementer Hamster's ad hominem attack against him, not you.

If it were me, the instant I heard of some sort of attack--of ANY sort--I'd order an immediate lockdown of all airpots, bus terminals, train terminals, and so on and scramble jet fighters over the major cities until we know just what was going on, and when I heard about the hijackings I'd have those jets escort those planes away from the towers and the Pentagon unless they were determined to attack then there'd be no question of shooting them down before they impacted. Call it a case of overreacting, but in that position, when there's an attack on the United States of some sort, I don't take chances: I respond quickly and effecitively in a manner that ought to rout most of the probable problems. I'd probably have infantry units prepare to defend major cities from a ground attack as well but that would take a couple hours for them to get into position while the jets would be there in minutes, hence why they have priority.

Hell, shouldn't have he been scrambling jets to take down the hijacked planes that were still in the air? Or did the Commander-in-Chief somehow not have the ability to order the military around?

He didn't know there WERE jets still in the air. At the time he knew NOTHING. Rather than find out, he sat their FROZEN. If one of my commanders had done such a thing at a moment we were being attacked, he would be relieved. Immediately. Freezing up in dire times is the sign of a very dangerous and incompetent leader.

Freezing up in dire times is the sign of a very dangerous and incompetent leader.
Or a sign that he wasn't really in charge in the first place.

Or a sign that he wasn't really in charge in the first place.

He was still Commander in Chief. Truly in charge or no, he was the one who had to act in that situation. I agree with Jocabia...it was disgraceful and disgusting. He ought to have been impeached based on that alone, methinks, if not everything else he's done since.

They were trying to. For most people, "Sir, the country is under attack" is enough to incite one to start moving. For GWB, it's a time to site and reflect on the information you DON'T HAVE.

As far as trolls, I find them fun if they are good. Making it so glaringly obvious that it's not even fun to take them seriously ruins the joke. It's like seeing a really punchline coming.

And as far as EO, I do laugh. I love it when he gets flustered and just whips out "I don't have a reply to that so it must be a strawman". It's great stuff. I notice he's not here debunking the FIFTY scandals of the Bush administration. Even he can't close his eyes and pretend like this isn't a sad administration.

Ok. Not sure who you are talking about with the troll bit. and I guess I'm a bit paranoid, but not guilty. Are you saying that the reason he wasn't immediatly taken out of there was because it was being recorded for TV and it could've caused a nationwide panic? If so, I understand where you are coming from. But, I do not think they would risk the president getting killed.. children getting killed for simply holding off public panic.

Ok. Not sure who you are talking about with the troll bit. and I guess I'm a bit paranoid, but not guilty. Are you saying that the reason he wasn't immediatly taken out of there was because it was being recorded for TV and it could've caused a nationwide panic? If so, I understand where you are coming from. But, I do not think they would risk the president getting killed.. children getting killed for simply holding off public panic.

No, they are not likely going to manhandle the President. It was the job of the President to act. Immediately. He should have been immediately on the way to the plane and gathering everything he could get his hands on in terms of info. It had nothing to do with TV.

So they did what should have reasonably worked. Told him what had happened, we'd been attacked. They reasonably expected that he would be moving. Were I in the situation I'd have likely snatched him up after about a minute. I also probably would have ended my career at that moment. However, there simply is no justifiable reason for sitting there that long. I probably would have thought that something was wrong after that long.