Fair enough, but there is also a lot to be said about a man who will make a decision and stick by it, no matter how unpopular it may be. That's what a leader is. Would you rather have a President who made a decision, but then wavered on it because he was worried about what people would think? Or a President who said, "Screw it, this is what we're going to do and that's final." I would have a lot more confidence in the latter. Being wishy washy about views and ways to handle things will only make your subordinates less confident that we will get the job done (not trying to spark a political debate, but this was a problem John Kerry ran into). Being a leader is a tough job. You have to defer credit while taking all the blame. Sure, being stubborn to admit that you're wrong doesn't make you right. But not doing anything because you're worried about what people may think doesn't make you right either. You have to make a decision, stick with it, and see it through. And like others have said. What could Bush have done had he been notified? He was away from Washington, in a presumably safe location, and if he had been in Washington, they would've just taken him to a safe location anyways. Yes, he should be troubled that he wasn't informed and it is something he should correct immediately. But as it stands, the proper procedures were being put in effect and the threat was taken care of. BUT, I guess this could just be another thing for people to use against President Bush.
Exactly, just like on 9/11, they attack him for not doing anything and if he did do something they would've used that against him also. A no-win situation.
Uh, negative. If he excuses himself from the session with the children, I'd think "gee, what a strong leader we have." The funny thing is, he could have excused himself then we'd have never have seen him for the rest of the day perhaps, and I'd still be thinking the same thing. Sitting there like a dumbass with camera's on him, with that goofy smirk on his face just cemented it for me. But that's just me.
You just made Sourdoughman's point for him. I'm just guessing, of course, but you appear to be one of those who is bitter that Al Gore wasn't able to hijack the election process in 2000 (not that you'd ever admit it, of course). Therefore nothing George Bush can do will be good enough for you. The man can't win with some people...and you've shown yourself to be one of them.
There's a major difference between your decisions being 'unpopular', and them being unequivocally wrong. I think a lot more highly of a leader who actually considers possible opposition and repurcussions to his omnipotent decisions, rather than just wrecklessly imposing them on the rest of the world. So you'd rather have someone who blindly acts on his 'intuition' regardless of the consequences than someone who actually acknowledges his infallibility? In the instances we're talking about, no one is blaming him for not making public opinion his top priority. He blatantly disregared advice from those who knew far more than him. That is idiotic and inexcusable. You know what's even more harmful to subordinate morale? Intolerance to anything even resembling opposition or differing opinion. His 'subordinates' have become merely 'yes men', thus defeating their own niche.
maybe bush was sitting there considering what we should do. i just cant understand the criticism here.
What I was obviously referring to was the sentence right before the one you took out of context. But he didn't, so we can't think it. Instead, we're left with the alternative, what a smirking little moron. It wasn't a "lose-lose situation" for Bush. It was a win-lose. It just went the wrong way for him. He makes no decisions on his own though, so I don't put the blame squarely on him.
Again, with the childish personal attacks. You're becoming more and more impossible to take seriously.
Bush at 1 minute and 4 1/2 minutes after being told two planes hit the WTC (not knowing how many other planes were in the air, heck one could have been aimed at the school he was at, his itternary was public knowledge)