Okay, so Bush was there because of 9/11. It’s not that the government knew about 9/11 in advance and got POTUS out of the area. It’s that the government gets hundreds/thousands of threats a day, and that one was credible enough they got Bush out of town just to be safe. Then, when it happened, Bush didn’t react because he was in a classroom full of kids and he did not want to upset them.
I’m not saying Bush was a saint, he wasn’t, but a couple things he did weren’t as bad as people think. That’s what that was. As for the “you don’t get fooled again” quote, he knew if he said “shame on me,” the Democrats would use the sound byte, and he was correct. So he course corrected. Made himself look like an idiot to prevent his opposition from making him look worse.
Still a bad guy, but let’s be fair, especially with information we’ve learned since.
Blame him all you want for things he did, but trying to keep calm in that situation?
If he had jumped up and left the room asap or maybe said a few words to end that event quickly and GTFO, he’d probably been criticized, too. Probably something about not being professional or whatever.
Why are you bringing all that up? I’m going to be annoyed at the situation whether or not the US government knew or was responsible for 9/11. Jumping to his defense seems the kind of thing a glowie would do.
Because I think context matters. And I think I’m too Boomer to know what a glowie is. I can guess. Like I said, I don’t like the guy, but for context, I don’t like any presidents (or politicians). None of them give a shit about things you or I care about — they just say they do to get votes. What they all care about is getting set for life.
You’re the one that brought up Bush and his reaction. If you can’t understand why someone would act like nothing was wrong in a room full of young schoolchildren, then you’re sure as hell not mentally prepared to make serious claims that someone’s a government plant.
I brought up Bush’s reaction as an example of leadership failure, to highlight how tone-deaf it is for leaders to act indifferent in a crisis, regardless of the reason. And it’s ironic you’re resorting to ad hominem attacks about my intelligence when that’s the weakest form of argument.
So, you still don’t understand why it wouldn’t be appropriate to react strongly in a room full of kids is what you’re saying.
It’s not an ad hominem when calling out your inability to comprehend the reason for that is the entire point to my comment. It highlights a severe deficiency in your social awareness at the bare minimum, which doesn’t reflect well on your ability to discern the motives of other people online.
Fine, let’s put that aside. In your eyes, what would have been an appropriate response for Bush to take in that situation? This ought to be entertaining.
Okay, so Bush was there because of 9/11. It’s not that the government knew about 9/11 in advance and got POTUS out of the area. It’s that the government gets hundreds/thousands of threats a day, and that one was credible enough they got Bush out of town just to be safe. Then, when it happened, Bush didn’t react because he was in a classroom full of kids and he did not want to upset them.
I’m not saying Bush was a saint, he wasn’t, but a couple things he did weren’t as bad as people think. That’s what that was. As for the “you don’t get fooled again” quote, he knew if he said “shame on me,” the Democrats would use the sound byte, and he was correct. So he course corrected. Made himself look like an idiot to prevent his opposition from making him look worse.
Still a bad guy, but let’s be fair, especially with information we’ve learned since.
Blame him all you want for things he did, but trying to keep calm in that situation?
If he had jumped up and left the room asap or maybe said a few words to end that event quickly and GTFO, he’d probably been criticized, too. Probably something about not being professional or whatever.
Why are you bringing all that up? I’m going to be annoyed at the situation whether or not the US government knew or was responsible for 9/11. Jumping to his defense seems the kind of thing a glowie would do.
Because I think context matters. And I think I’m too Boomer to know what a glowie is. I can guess. Like I said, I don’t like the guy, but for context, I don’t like any presidents (or politicians). None of them give a shit about things you or I care about — they just say they do to get votes. What they all care about is getting set for life.
You’re the one that brought up Bush and his reaction. If you can’t understand why someone would act like nothing was wrong in a room full of young schoolchildren, then you’re sure as hell not mentally prepared to make serious claims that someone’s a government plant.
I brought up Bush’s reaction as an example of leadership failure, to highlight how tone-deaf it is for leaders to act indifferent in a crisis, regardless of the reason. And it’s ironic you’re resorting to ad hominem attacks about my intelligence when that’s the weakest form of argument.
So, you still don’t understand why it wouldn’t be appropriate to react strongly in a room full of kids is what you’re saying.
It’s not an ad hominem when calling out your inability to comprehend the reason for that is the entire point to my comment. It highlights a severe deficiency in your social awareness at the bare minimum, which doesn’t reflect well on your ability to discern the motives of other people online.
Fine, let’s put that aside. In your eyes, what would have been an appropriate response for Bush to take in that situation? This ought to be entertaining.
What’s a glowie
In less terminally online terms: “I think they’re a member of a US intelligence agency doing some vaguely psyop thing, not a normal poster”