🚀 go-pugleaf

D. A. Tsenuf <DA@Tsenuf.com> wrote:

> <YEE HA!> wrote in message 
> news:4183710e$0$78439$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
> >
> >>And according to idiots like you, WHAT EXACTLY should Bush have been doing
> >>while his staff was getting more data for him ?
> >>Run around like Chicken Little and scream "The sky is falling.  The sky is
> >>falling. ...."   ?
> >
> > By law he is the commander in chief. He is supposed to command. There
> > are trillions of things the commander in chief is supposed to do during
> > an attack. There is one thing not on the list: do nothing.  That is
> > exaclty what the lip biting imbecile did while 3000 people were being
> > incinerated.
> >
> 
> Couple of points for the morons of the world
> 
> 1)    "Doing nothing" is doing something...
>             Just like zero is a number and has a value
>         Doing nothing can be useful
>         To make it simple for you, think in terms of bread beaking, you sit
> around and wait for the bread to rise or to bake. There is nothing to do but
> sit and wait "doing nothing"...
>         In the same way, whyile his people are gathering the data, the
> commander-in-chief is most probably "doing nothing" in that context for the
> simple reason that he has no data to go on to "do something".
> 
> 2)    The people in the front lines are the one who are supposed to "do
> something" during the actual attack.
>        That is the job of FRONT-LINE people like the police, fire-fighters,
> EMTs, soldiers, etc.
>         They are responsible for doing something at the scene.
>         A commander-in-chief is NOT supposed to be micro-managing them by
> looking over their shoulder and telling them what to do.
>         That is the job of their immediate supevisors
> 
> 3)    A commander-in-chief is a big picture role. In other words a strategy
> and NOT a tactical role.
> 
> 4)    Considering that:
>         a)    Bush was quite a distance away from New York, Washington and
> the Pennsylvania countryside, there was little that Bush could do to get
> there in time to do anything while the "3000 people were being incinerated"
> as you put it.
>         b)    Even if he was on the scene, his role is not to rush to the
> frontline and pull people out of the wreckage (again strategy vs tactical)
>         c)    There are more highly trained people on the scene to worry
> about the immediate issue and possibilities of preventin, IF POSSIBLE,
> having "3000 people were being incinerated".
>         Your expecations and what Bush should have done only demonstrate
> that you are an ignorant idiot who is clueless about reality.
> 
> 
> > Osama Bin Laden said this about it:
> >
> > "We had agreed with the general emir, Mohamed Atta, that he would
> > carry out all the attacks within 20 minutes, before Bush and his
> > administration would be able to react," said bin Laden, referring to
> > the hijackers' leader. "It never occurred to us that the
> > commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of
> > his citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone."
> >
> > He continued, "It appeared to him [Bush] that a little girl talking
> > about her goat and its butting was more important than the airplanes
> > and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the
> > required period to carry out the operations, thank God."
> >
> 
> Wow !
>     I am impressed
> You are truly a moron.
>     And you are definitely not worth any more of my time
> 
> <plonk>

Try:

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

John Kerry's initial reaction to 9/11:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/6/92357.shtml

M. Clark