Subject:
|
Re: "gutless" bush?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:43:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
351 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Johann writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > I seem to remember he ran around like a headless chicken? How many bases did
> > > he hide in? How long was it before he spoke to the nation? Rather than
> > > leading your country in a time of need, he chose to hide under his bed. His
> > > own words: ?I was trying to get out of harm's way.?
> > > Give the man a medal!
>
> > Hmm...last time I checked, it is US policy to remove the president from
> > harm's way aka the White House. That doesn't sound like running to me.
> > Perhaps when a threat to national security occurs, we should just have the
> > president step out on the White House lawn and await whatever reprisal happens?
> >
> > I hope the sarcasm wasn't lost on you...
>
> Not lost, but misplaced. No one really thinks that Dubya should have
> leapt to the front lines as soon as danger reared its head (though that
> might have been nice), but he should have addressed the nation much more
> promptly than he did, and he could have done so easily without exposing
> himself to danger or disclosing his location. Instead, Dubya had to wait
> until he was informed of his opinion the matter, and then he had to wait
> until his speechwriters could pen something with words small enough for him
> to read on camera.
>
> Dave!
No, he had to wait until the Secter Service was satisfied that the he was
relatively safe from harm and separated from Cheney.
-Dave J.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
| (...) Evidence, please. The Secret Service is, as I understand it, trained to secure the safety of the president, even if he's appointed rather than elected to the position. I think that should take a maximum of about half an hour. I'm no expert on (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
| (...) I think a lot more of us could benefit from being separated from Cheney... Perhaps he can be placed in a rocketship and sent into space with what -- a 2 hour supply of oxygen? Works for me. Although I guess some kind of "conflict of interests" (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
| (...) All sarcasm is lost on him, but I digress. (...) I think you mean "Secret Service", but there are those that would argue that your statement is equivalent to the one made by Dave! They may seem to have different words but they come out to the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
| (...) Not lost, but misplaced. No one really thinks that Dubya should have leapt to the front lines as soon as danger reared its head (though that might have been nice), but he should have addressed the nation much more promptly than he did, and he (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
65 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
