Bill Maher article/Bush on Larry King

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Bill Maher article/Bush on Larry King
66
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 8:35am
Did anyone know of the 20 minute photo-op AFTER the seven minutes and "My Pet Goat"? Saw Bill on Larry King and he made a great point that's not in his article. There is a guy who's sole job is to tag along with the President with a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist. The briefcase holds the "Big Red Button" that could launch US nuclear missiles should we be attacked. This is to save time in the event of a strike. Bill said "Is Bush the guy we want in charge of those nuclear codes?" He did nothing on 9/11. I say, apparently the guy with the briefcase can be 7 minutes and a photo-op away and still have time to spare.

Also, saw Bush on Larry King last night. The guy can't pass up a chance to say 9/11. Too bad he didn't have anything else to say and Larry was lobbing him softball questions with no real follow-up. Good thing Laura was there too. She made Bush's fumblings less obvious. I think overall this was a warm-up for convention or debates. Very weak interview, but it's nice to see George step out of his safe Republican scripted campiagn spots. Too bad the press can't really press him for real answers.

Bush blew it the morning of 9/11



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/221433p-190107c.html



By BILL MAHER



John Kerry has waded into an issue raised by Michael Moore in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," namely, President Bush's sitting for seven minutes in a Florida classroom after being told "the country is under attack." Republicans are waxing indignant, of course. But the criticism is richly deserved.

The fact that Bush wasted 27 minutes that day - not only the seven minutes reading to kids but 20 more at a photo op afterward - was, in my view, the most outrageous thing a President has done since Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court.

Watergate was outrageous but it still did not carry the possibility of utter devastation, like a President's freezing at the very moment we needed his immediate focus on an attack on the United States.

This is an issue about the ultimate presidential duty, acting in an emergency. If nothing else in Washington is nonpartisan, this should be.

But it is not. Republicans are tying themselves in knots trying to defend Bush's actions that morning. The excuses they put forward are absurd:


He was "gathering his thoughts." This was a moment a President should have imagined a thousand times. There is no time in the nuclear age for a President to sit like Forrest Gump "gathering thoughts" after an attack has begun. Gathering information is what he should have been doing.

From the White House press secretary: "The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening." I agree that gaining a better understanding of what was happening should have been his goal. What I don't get is how that goal was reached by just sitting there instead of getting up and talking to people. Is he a psychic? Was he receiving the information telepathically?

"He didn't want to scare the children." Vice President Cheney has said of Kerry, "The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample reason to doubt the judgment he brings to vital issues of national security." So Kerry's judgment is suspect, but at a moment of national crisis, Bush's judgment was: Better not to scare 20 children momentarily than to react immediately to an attack on the country!

If he had just said, "Hey, kids, gotta go do some President business - be good to your moms and dads, bye!" my guess is the kids would have survived.

I cannot see how someone who considers himself a conservative can defend George Bush's inaction. Conservatives pride themselves on being clear-eyed and decisive. They don't do nuance, and they respect toughness.

But Bush choked at the most important moment a President could have. We're lucky Al Qaeda had done its worst by the time he pulled himself away from the photo op. Next time, it might not be that way.

Maher is the host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher."



Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Mon, 08-23-2004 - 3:28pm
Thanks. Doesn't explain to me why someone would vote for Bush, but I'm more comfortable with you under the "Indepedent" label. I don't see Kerry the way you do, but I also haven't been so closely watching all the political dance - live too close to the action (DC area). I don't think Gephardt could've beaten Bush. I also think that once in office he wouldn't have been able to do much - I liken him to Carter - nice guy, smart, willingness to do good but not able to "get it done".

I realize Kerry's not perfect but to me no politician is and no non-politician could get anything done (need to know the system, or how to play the game). I think he's an onion - lots of layers, no straight black and white. I like someone that studies the issue before making up their mind and someone who is willing to change their mind if new information is presented. I have a hard time understanding people who think everything is black and white and you must always "stay the course". Times change, people change, intelligence changes. The only issue I have is if they spend all their time collecting info and can't make a decision. I don't see that as Kerry's problem. His problem is that we're still 70 days away from Election day and everyone wants to know everything about him now. He doesn't want or need to tip his hand while the match continues. Bush is doing a good job banging himself up all by himself. I understand Bush is going to try and tarnish Kerry's Environmental history. Pretty bad that Bush keeps playing to his own weaknesses - is Bush trying to highlight them? Most people recognize that Kerry picks up girlfriends at Earth Day rallies. :-)

Can you imagine what it must be like when James Carville and Mary Matilin discuss politics? I wonder if they even try to talk politics at home. It'll be interesting to see which way the kids vote. They're book was pretty good, but you wonder if they believe what they say or if they're just good spin doctors. If they can find common ground there's hope for all of us that we can soon put this polarization behind us and come together regardless of who wins.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Mon, 08-23-2004 - 3:44pm
I'd argue that the support was for the President of the United States to retaliate. I don't think we really knew that Bush sat there for seven minutes until the analysis of events occurred. I certainly wasn't aware of it until Fahrenheit 9/11. The media certainly wasn't going to report it after 9/11, and in fact never reported it. The late night talk shows couldnt' make jokes about Bush for weeks after 9/11. The country supported and understood that attacking Afghanistan was the right thing to do. It's like your little brother who you can't stand. You can beat on him all you want to but if the kid next door starts hitting him you'll defend your lil brother. We can despise Bush all we want to but when our country is under attack you rally to the President. The President can be Elmer Fudd, but you support him. After the initial attack is overcome and the response issued, I think it's just as patriotic to question what was done and when to further the debate and become better prepared for the next time.

Something this weekend about Guiliani and what he did on that day, but I'm pretty sure he was active and not letting his staff handle everything? His city was under attack.

Maybe we're not Monday-morning quarterbacks, we're more trying to say "hey, if Bush can sit there for seven minutes, tell me why you think he's the only one who can fight the war on terror".

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 08-23-2004 - 4:25pm
Where did that rant come from?

When have I attacked Bush on his handling of the terrorism issue. I actually think he has done the right thing in taking the fight to the terrorists, and to the countries that support them.

I think that the after action handling in Iraq has been poorly planned, but we cannot do anything about that now.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 08-23-2004 - 4:28pm
I thought Carter was a decent and honest man, that was just overwhelmed by being President. He was in office at a bad time, and just seemed lost, if that is the correct word.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Carville / Matlin houselhold, although they both say that they have a great marriage, and try to keep politics out of the home as much as possible.

I agree that Gephardt probably wouldnt beat Bush, but he is a decent and honorable man, and that seems to be lacking in politics today. It is a shame that he is not going to be in office any longer after this year. I dont mind being in disagreement with someone as long as they are honest and willing to discuss issues like Gephardt seems to be (I could be way off base).

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Mon, 08-23-2004 - 5:10pm
Yes we can do something about it. We can vote Bush out. He got us into this mess & has no idea of what to do next, other than throwing billions of dollars at contractors.


< I think that the after action handling in Iraq has been poorly planned, but we cannot do anything about that now.>

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2004
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 7:46am
Good heavens, you're not using Farenheit 9/11 as your main source of news on this, are you? You do realize that even Michael Moore admitted that his piece is incredibly biased.

Actually, the media showed the videotape of him in front of the classroom MANY times ON 9/11 and during the aftermath, and all of them made it clear that he did not immediately get up after his aide whispered in his ear. Nobody made a deal about it until election time rolled around, because it was Bush's performance after the seven minutes that mattered. Again, what is it that he could have done during that seven minutes that would have changed the course of 9/11 or its aftermath? And if Bush's seven minutes disqualifies him from running the war on terror, how on Earth could anyone even think of voting for Kerry, who admitted that he couldn't think for 40 minutes? Yes, yes, I know that he wasn't the CIC, but how do we know that he won't go brain dead again if another crisis occurs?

Second, Bush did not let his staff handle "everything." The Bush staff's main function after the second plane hit was to gather information, and that's what they were doing. I urge you to read the book "Fighting Back" by Bill Sammon, who gives a very detailed account of what exactly it was that Bush DID do that day, and he by no means sat there while his staff did everything. And you don't really think that Guiliani did everything personally himself, do you? Guiliani's staff did an enormous amount of work in NYC on 9/11. That's what staffs are for.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2004
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 7:48am
My post wasn't in response to you, actually - you were just the last post in the thread at the time, and I wanted to address all the anti-Bushies in general, so I just posted off of yours. Sorry about the confusion!
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2004
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 7:58am
And who owns HBO?
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 10:02am
First, I'm just admitting where I saw the footage. I don't recall the networks showing the "deer in the headlights", so I'm just being honest about where I saw it. If it makes you feel any better I was Pro-Kerry before Fahrenheit 9/11. And to note, I wasn't really all that involved in politics choosing like most people to have some, albeit low, level of trust in our politicians.

I'm fairly confident that Kerry won't zone out when he's in command because he's shown that in the past - during Vietnam, saving a Repub Senator's life, and of course most importantly - fishing out of the pool the family hamster! Being one of many Senators he had the luxury of just being human and taking in all that the rest of America was - glued to our TV's watching in horror.

I didn't mean to imply that Bush or Guiliani's staff handled everything or nothing. If your house is on fire are you going to continue to sit there for 7 minutes? OK maybe Bush wasn't in immediate danger so this isn't a good analogy. How about if you see that your neighbors house is on fire, are you going to sit there for 7 minutes? Or if the house next door is on fire and the firemen are already there, are you still going to sit there? No you're going to go offer your support/help. You may not know exactly what you can do to help but you're going to see if you're needed. Yes, the firemen (respective "staffs") may have everything under control, but you're going to pitch in in a crisis. Even if you only make the firemen coffee and console your neighbor you're doing something!

And again, staff are great and it's important to delegate but when the chips are down or a crisis is at hand, it's the boss who makes the decisions. I've been in places where the boss is just a figurehead and the staff made the decisions, but I'd kind of like to think that's not the case with the President of the United States.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 10:18am
Oh....gotcha.

Pages