hmmm, lets see. We were being attacked. I am sure the whitehouse nor the Pentagon knew a whole hell of alot when another attack would occur. So I think there was pretty good reason for President Bush to be in the skies because if something happens to him, then the country would go into more chaos then what they were already experiencing.

The country was going nuts when President Kennedy was assassinated. Like it or not, when it comes to the President's safety, he often doesn't have a whole hell of alot to say. The secret service will swish him away faster then you can blink. Sure he is the President and can say, NO, but the SS's job is to protect him. They are there to take a bullet for him, so I am sure there were plenty of people telling him that he CAN'T go back to the whitehouse or whatnot.


and by the way. Why in the hell would the President go back to the Whitehouse immediately following the attacks when the Whitehouse itself was a damn target.

Cmon now, use some logic.

Didn't you listen to the convention? The reason to re-elect George is that he is "brave" and a "leader". Are you saying George can't face danger? Are you saying he's the kind of guy who would check the "don't go overseas" box when signing up for the National Guard. Isn't George a "take charge" leader? The secret service answers to the President, not the other way around right? Are you saying that on 9-11 the secret service was the leader of the country?

It's all about his personal character, right? To question George's personal integrity and brave leadership on the day of 9-11, when that is the MAIN reason we need to re-elect him, seems unpatriotic.

If you are saying George relied on a "sensitive" response to his personal safety on 9-11, than what IS this "strong leadership" they keep talking about? You sound like he did just what any other President would have done. Isn't George "special"? Isn't he the macho man we all need right now?

There is nothing special about George Bush. He is a typical president like all the other ones before him. He makes mistakes, he makes bad decisions and has many character flaws. However, with that being said, he is still in a better position to continue leading this country against terrorism then John Kerry would. John Kerry scares me, because honestly, if he is elected president, he is going to pull everyone out of iraq (which isn't a bad thing) except I don't think he has the balls to stand up to terrorist or anyone wanting to do this country harm. Bush might have isolated us from certain countries, but at least he stuck to his guns and held his finger up high for countries that don't like us to go fuck themselves.

"Your either with us or your with the terrorists."

Thats strong language, and though it might be a little to direct for my tastes, I would rather have a president do that then hold hands with enemies and sing Kumbaya.

Of course the SS were NOT running the country. George has the final say, but shit, give the man a break. The pentagon was attacked, WTC was attacked, the whitehouse was a target and there were rumors that Airforce 1 was a target, so I don't find it wrong that he wasn't standing on the Whitehouse Lawn giving a speech to the American People.

In fact, I think most people understand the danger our country was in and understood why the President couldn't be making any public appearances due to his safety. I am not raggin on you or your post, I was just taken aback by the bluntness you used in doing it when I don't think any of us, even as Americans (I assume your an American)can even start to compare what we would have done if we were in his position.

Example:

Michael Moore did his big stance on the 7 minutes President Bush was hanging around in the classroom before getting up out of there.

I was at a college golf tournament that morning and we all were just staring in astonishment at the TV as the events unfolded. We sat there for 30 minutes tops bewildered.

The president had his reasons for not jumping up immediately.

Don't have the link of where I read this information, but its being said that on 9/11 John Kerry sat in bewilderment for 30 minutes as the events unfolded. I am not sure if John has come out and attacked Bush on the 7 minute deal, but its a little unfair the way some people attack ones character so easily without being in their shoes.

When they make a good decision, rarely does the public say, "Oh that was great. Good job to person A"

Thats how the media works. There is nothing but negative shit on tv anymore. There are lots of good things that happen all around us all the time, but they don't get reported.

In politics, it seems easier to criticize then to congratulate, and that goes for both parties.

The secret service answers to the President

Most of the time, yes, but when it comes to his own safety, no. The president is their responsibility, and if they have to put him into hiding that's exactly what they do - with or without his blessing. What they do has no effect on his ability to lead the country. He has at his disposal - at all times of the day, I might add - everything he needs to run this country (which is what makes the cries of Bush taking time "off" in Crawford so funny. He's as much at work there as he his in the Whitehouse.) It would have been EXTREMELY irresponsible for Bush to have gone back to Washington DC on Sept. 11, not having any idea what was going on with regards to more attacks. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

This is the same BS anti-Bush people pull about the "seven minutes at school" thing. What don't you understand about security? Bush is alerted of the attacks by his security people, who then secure the immediate area, prep Air Force One, his limos, and security vehicles, and clear a route to the airport. All of this takes time - were they to rush him out they would not only make a scene but they would also put the lives of everyone in the immediate area at risk. But it's always easier to overlook reality if it simplifies arguments you have against the man, isn't it?

I admit I am exaggerating a bit for effect, I was reacting to the whole Republican Convention which was all about what a great leader Bush is. My point is that his reaction to 9-11 was NOT great leadership. It was average leadership. What do you honestly think John Kerry would have done in his place?

What I really don't understand is this idea that attacking Iraq was good because it was a blow against someone in the Middle East, that whether it was related to the Islamic fundamentalist who attacked us was irrelevant.

My question is, do all Middle Eastern countries look alike to you? Can't you tell the diffence between them?

If a black guy mugged you, would a justifed response be just to go out and shoot any other black guy you came across? Talk about your "soft bigotry". The Middle East is a big area. Closing your eyes and shooting wildly in the general direction of a terrorist is NOT really a blow against terrorism. It's a sign that you are a raving idiot who shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects.

Just because Bush can't do "nuance" doesn't mean we have to dumb down our national understanding of the world to his level. America can do better.

And it is interesting that during this whole debate about fighting wars, people forget that EVERYBODY pretty much supported (and STILL supports) attacking Afghanistan. So we already attacked a country that really DID have connections to the terrorists. Was attacking Iraq just for those terrorists with short attention spans? Or to distract Americans with short attention spans from what the admistrations real goals were, the concentration of wealth in America.

I agree with you, Big Time Patriot.

("I would rather have a president do that then hold hands with enemies and sing Kumbaya")

Bryan, are you insinuating that John Kerry is holding hands with enemies? Because I don't remember that actually happening, or that Kerry said that he would do that.
I do remember seeing ol' Rummy shaking hands with ol' Saddam, but that was years ago.
As for ol' GWB saying that "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists," that's not strong language, but the same old bullshit we all heard before, kinda like such old chestnuts as "America: love it or leave it." It doesn't prove anything, but it's just what idiots say to get out of an argument.
Keeping on flying up there, ol' Georgie boy. There's nothing to see down here but us humans.

It was average leadership. What do you honestly think John Kerry would have done in his place?

Actually, Kerry later told a reporter that he had been in with other Senators for a meeting when the TV starting reporting the attack. He said that they were all so shocked they couldn't do anything for about 40 minutes. They just sat for 40 minutes and did nothing.

David Flanagan

So what did Kerry actually do? As luck would have it we know in Kerry's own words.

KERRY"I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation."

And the entire group of supposedly intelligent adults sat for 40 minutes unable to think. What had just happened? At this point the second tower was hit and this illustrious group knew we had been attacked, it wasn't an accident, and they may have been a target themselves, yet they sat there, stunned and apparently couldn't think clearly enough to even make the slightest attempt to move to a safer place in the event the Capital was the next target.

Now what if Kerry was president then, with the added pressure of the entire nation on his shoulders?

And just like every post you have read it is full of ad-hominem attacks and zero points about your apparent man, Kerry.

So here is your chance. What in the last 19 years of Senate service has Kerry done that is equal to or surpasses his peers in the Senate with the same length of service. What is his signature piece of legislation?

Bush did nothing right after the attacks, and the comments here say 'well Kerry did nothing either'?

What, as a Senator, could he have done? A lot of Americans, millions of them, did nothing. But they aren't commander in chief.

Typicial

BCB has to add his normal trash. Another that practice's the "defense of Kerry by diversion."

Answer the question I asked. What has been Kerry's signature peice of legislation? What possible difference has he made while spending 19 years in the Senate.

I'm more than willing to listen.

And to use your, and Kerry's logic, and your statement:

What, as a Senator, could he have done? A lot of Americans, millions of them, did nothing. But they aren't commander in chief.

I already said what he could have done, in 40 minutes he could have gone to a place of safely but was too stunned to think.

How do you explain your arguement as quoted above? Relate that to Kerry's speech he gave at midnight after Bush's speech. What did Kerry say, that he couldn't be criticized by Cheney because Cheney didn't serve in the Military.

Is that a valid statement? Or is it correct that anyone that didn't serve forfits their right to be critical? If so, there are many more non-vets (and thousands that went to Canada) than there are veterans of military service.

If Clinton is critical, (Best wishes on his surgery) of Bush and Cheney will Kerry and those that support Kerry's statement disavow Clintons criticism?

Doubtful, in fact near impossible.

BTW, I almost forgot... Push this Red Button

defense by diversion? So you're obsessed with what a Senator should have done on 9/11 and don't care that the Commander in Chief did the same thing? How odd.

Answer the question I asked. What has been Kerry's signature peice of legislation? What possible difference has he made while spending 19 years in the Senate.

I didn't realize the question was directed to me. I don't know what you mean by signature piece of legislation.

I know he was instrumental in exposing Republican corruption in the Iran-Contra scandal. He has been at the forefront in the global fight against AIDS. He was one of the leading Senators to stop the Bush/Cheney plan to drill in the Artic Wildlife Refuge.

He's chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs and worked closely with McCain to find out what happened to missing Vietnam Vets. Which illustrates to me that Vietnam vets for Bush are purely partisan propaganda fodder, because Bush didn't do squat for or in Vietnam. He's the ranking Democrat on the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, making him a leading expert on that region, including North Korea.

You ask in the same paragraph as signature piece, what difference he has made. To me, he's made a lot of difference, all positive. But I don't know what a signature piece means per se, so no, I can't answer your question.

I did a search on google for 'signature piece' and came up with an article that said Bush's signature piece of education legislation was No Child Left Behind.

Unfortunately that signature piece, has caused teachers across America to cry out in disgust. It's an abysmal failure. Bush has no signature piece when it comes to the environment, civil rights, poverty, the war on drugs, or anything else. I don't understand why one guy having a signature piece is so important to you, when the guy you care about doesn't have one single good one.

How do you explain your arguement as quoted above?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Relate that to Kerry's speech he gave at midnight after Bush's speech.

I was asleep. I didn't hear it. Just in case anybody isn't clear, I'm not an activist. I don't spend ALL my free time blogging politics. I have a family, I have a life. I'm not politically active (other than voting). I don't do extensive research.

I am a voter though, and I have an opinion, and I'll speak my opinion knowing that with half of America Republican and half of America Democrat, then half of the people will find what I say to be 'trash'. But the same could be said for anybody speaking, I'm sure that half of the voters out there find anything you say to be trash as well.

The important thing is that at the end of the day, and in spite of all the work you've done blogging your rants against Kerry, my vote is just as equal as your vote. Hell, I might throw a dart at the voting machine and it has just as much validity as yours, regardless of how much time you spent blogging anti-Kerry stuff.

BTW, I almost forgot.... Pull this finger.

(my computer is on mute, all I saw was a warning about a loud sound, then I left).

Hmmm, what was George Bush doing 19 years ago while John Kerry was already a US Senator? Oh yeah, George had ALMOST finished his alcoholic drinking career, only a year or so later he finally decided to become a recovering alcoholic and not an active one. (We can assume that he quit drugs at the same time, but he of course has been a little less than clear on this point).

So there is your test of accomplishment, 19 years ago Kerry was already representing Americans, 19 years ago George hadn't accomplished much at all except being bailed out of multiple business failures while drinking like a fish.

So by your definition if you are an alcoholic (recovering or otherwise), your not suitable for elective office. That's some defense of Kerry. Wonder how many in the Senate or House of Rep's fit that description? You can start with Ted Kennedy who actually killed someone in the process of being a drunkard. Do you also call him unfit for office?

As for the cocaine non-sense that has been debunked long ago, why continue to push it?

And to use your quote above: "I don't do extensive research," that may be part of your problem. So I will help you out and lay it all out for you.

You correctly point out Kerry's position on the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs so lets look at what he has done as head of this committee.

Here is the text of the Vietnam Human Rights Act surely you would agree that it would be a good thing for most involved. Why did Kerry, in 2002, stop the bill from coming to a vote on the Senate floor? And as you can see here a lot of Vietnamese were pissed at the time.

Why as of July this year has it not been voted on in the Senate? As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA one would think Kerry would make all possible efforts to see this passed. Yet, he hasn't done dog squat. In fact in reading this story it shows Kerry covered up many facts regarding the POW/MIA issue. And in the process destroyed evidence along with fellow committee member Sen. John McCain.

While I would love to continue this I suggest a little Google action on your part. You may just find why Kerry supported trade relations with Vietnam be normalized. HINT: He has a cousin, Stuart Forbes, that gained a $900 million dollar contract with Hanoi.

To get back to the original point, here's an "interesting" account of Bush's day on 9/11.

The man actually claims to have watched the first plane hit the first tower *live* on tv. That's funny, because only the second plane was shown live on tv. The tape of the first plane wasn't discovered until after 9/11, yet our president seems to remember watching it before going into the classroom to read to those kids that very morning as it happened.

Re: BRAVERY UNDER FIRE

Bryan: "...There is nothing special about George Bush. He is a typical president like all the other ones before him."

Read up on a guy named George Washington.

From post 7: "Bryan, are you insinuating that John Kerry is holding hands with enemies? Because I don't remember that actually happening, or that Kerry said that he would do that."

How about when he illegally met with the North Vietnamese in Paris and negotiated with them?

While I would love to continue this I suggest a little Google action on your part. You may just find why Kerry supported trade relations with Vietnam be normalized. HINT: He has a cousin, Stuart Forbes, that gained a $900 million dollar contract with Hanoi.

While I would love to have the hours to spend googling all the presidential candidates entire life history, I do find that other things take priority in my life. I get my news from the media, not from scouring online libraries.

Your adminstrations deals with Halliburton, with the energy industry, Bush's deals with the oil industry, all global deals, involving the lives of American soldiers, and worth billions upon billions don't bug you at all, so what is your point.

Oh gee, your going to fall back on the "no time defense." Why am I not surprised.

As for the media it is questionable in the last year if they can still be a reliable source without constant checking of their "facts."

Question, do you believe the recent (Friday) AP report that Bush was loudly boo'd during his campaign stop in West Allis Wis? A report that was carried in over 30 of the nations newspapers including the Boston Globe, NYT and WaPo.

Sorry to say after four or five revisions of that story AP finally relented and admitted their reporter was "misinformed," (or lied) it never happened.

Halliburton? Nothing has been proved, unless you don't abide by the innocent til proven guilty concept. Until a court case is bought and a conviction is rendered that is a non-issue. Besides it has been debunked, along with Michael Moore and his Dungumentary. But if your really interesed in the origination of the Halliburton scandal you have to look at Pres. Clinton who started the no-bid contracts with Halliburton and KBR and they were continued into the Bush admin.

As long as we are on the big oil topic, Kerry has among his biggest contributors very large oil money donors. Among them John A. Harris IV heir to the Standard Oil fortune ($1,224,000 to 527 groups), Anne Getty Earhart, Granddaughter of J. Paul Getty. She inherited $400 million when Texaco bought Getty Oil ($1,000,000 to 527 groups).

Add to that Peter B. Lewis who heads Progressive Corp, has given over $14,000,000 to 527's. [Progressive is the third largest auto insurer in the US. Any guess's why he is backing an anti-tort reform candidate?]

Big money?, Halliburton? Surely you jest. And Kerry has his g-string all in a bunch over a half a mil spent by the Swift Boat Vets. Money that was spent in only three states at the time he, or surrogates, attempted to have the book pulled from bookshelves of Amazon and Barnes and Noble via a threatening letter. Of these 22 anti-Bush books published in the last year how many authors has Bush or his people threatened with a lawsuit? ZERO By contrast Kerry whines like a little baby because someone says something bad about his record. A record he refuses to talk about, except the 4 1/2 months in Vietnam that the world hears on a daily basis.

BHW: The only thing interesting about that article is the fact it hasn't been picked up by any other news outlet. As biased as the NYT, LAT, and the WaPO are isn't it puzzleing that they wouldn't run with the same article. For that matter why hasn't it shown up in a Moveon.org ad?

Kind of tells you something about validity of the peice doesn't it.

Some mentioned No Child Left Behind Act, here are the facts.

According to the Education Policy ClearingHouse all teachers aren't complaining about NCLB. The NCLB act although a Federal mandate it is left up to the States to conform to its provisions. At present only 27 States have made significant progress towards implimenting the program. That makes it hardly possible for "all teachers" to be against the NCLB act when they haven't operated under the full program.

According to the Center on Education Policy the act has lacked funding, but funding has increased by 41%. A not insignificant increase considering the act was signed a scant 4 months after 9/11.(Jan. 8, 2002) A a far cry from the bloviating heard from Kerry, Edwards and their surrogates.

Oh gee, your going to fall back on the "no time defense." Why am I not surprised

Oh gee, Marc, why is it you think everybody has the time you do. What time I do have, I choose to spend on things I find important to me. Your rabid, drooling quest to find chinks in Kerry's armor just isn't what I feel passionate about, I guess.

I'm a Democrat, Marc. My family is Democrat. Our friends, maybe 80% of our coworkers, almost all our acquaintances are Democrats or some other liberal group. We were born and raised in the middle class with middle class Democratic values. I'm not going to abandon my party just because some guy on the web has a bone to pick.

My sister is a school teacher, she teaches in the midwest. Her classroom for about 5 years has been a trailer in the school parking lot. She often buys the supplies for her kids out of her own pocket. When she tells me how horrible No Child is, I'm going to give that more weight than some guy who likes to google.

My family both immediate and extended have always benefitted under a Democratic president, we have always faced hardship under a Republican president. I am going to give this more value than some guy who can google a report that Bush has lowered unemployment a half a percentage point.

Now do you see why I don't bother googling like you do? I vote based on the world around me, not some online pdf file.

Personally, the choice in this house was Wesley Clark. My own personal choice was Wesley or Dean. The Democratic party picked Kerry. So we stand behind Kerry. The platform he is pushing available on his site, is a Democratic platform that pushes Democratic ideology. So we will be voting for Kerry this election. I've already stated that I believe Bush is going to win the election anyway. Go google something.

BCB Whoever said anyone wanted to change your vote? You made specific charges about Kerry and Bush I offered another view and supporting evidence. I will say this, judging by your statement"
Now do you see why I don't bother googling like you do? I vote based on the world around me, not some online pdf file."

The world around you? Sounds very limiting. Wouldn't that be more appropriate to electing a State Representive who most directly impacts your local enviroment asnd not someone who impacts not only the US as a whole but other countries?

You so easily dismiss a "PDF" file. A file of a study that is not produced by Bush or Kerry and the distortions they put out, but one of the largest and prestigious orginizations that study education nationwide. Strange.

You have mentioned previously you get and apparently make decisions based on what you read in the media. I offer you this:

As widely reported by the NYT and other media, in his midnight rally after the close of the Republican National Convention, Sen. Kerry

lashed back at President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney tonight, saying that he would not remain quiet while his patriotism was being questioned by men who had not served in Vietnam and who had "misled the nation into Iraq.''

"We all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican Convention,'' Mr. Kerry said in excerpts of remarks, issued by his campaign, that he was to make later tonight in Ohio. "For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief,'' Mr. Kerry said. "Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.''

Asked if he believed Kerry, who was decorated for bravery but later became a prominent opponent of the Vietnam war, had lied about his service, Bush said, "I think Sen. Kerry served admirably, and he ought to be proud of his record."

The president's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it.

"Cheney Calls Kerry Unfit," read the big, front-page headline over a story in Thursday's Postabout attacks on the Democratic challenger at the Republican convention in speeches by Vice President Cheney and Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia.

"Unfit" is a powerful, personally damning word; it has become even more explosive in the past several weeks because it is in the title of a best-selling book, "Unfit For Command" by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi. The book is the cornerstone of a nationwide effort by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to challenge Sen. John F. Kerry's war record.

The problem is that Cheney never used the word "unfit." Yet the headline can be seen as reinforcing the Swift boat challengers' attack. The headline writer no doubt drew inspiration from the first paragraph of the story by reporter John F. Harris, who wrote that Cheney "reached back decades" into Kerry's life, "arguing in taunting language that the Democratic presidential nominee has demonstrated through his public statements and votes that he is unfit to be commander in chief in an age of terrorism."

You could draw that conclusion from listening to what Cheney did say. But that, in my view and those of some readers, was a poor choice of words and headline. The headline went beyond what Cheney said and then spread the characterization across the front page.

Marc, excellent work. google on.

Here is the problem with "parties". They make their decisions based on what is best for the party, not what is best for the country.

If it can get them more votes, they will approve of it. Republicans and democrats alike. That is what is shitty and that is why I am an independent. True, I favor Bush in this election, and I don't always agree with him on all his stances, but I feel he will be a better leader then Kerry come the next 4 years. Still, both parties spew out lie and lie and their intentions aren't really to help the poor.

You really think George W and John Kerry give a flying fuck about someone who makes $30,000 as a combined family income while they sit in their $50 million + homes/lifestyles. No they don't.

Kerry is all worried about taxes and how the rich get more tax breaks.

Newflash, the top 2% wealthiest americans pay something like 70% of the taxes. They deserve a tax break IMO. Kerry said in his speech he would raise taxes for the rich and bring it down for the poor. John Kerry doesn't pay taxes. If he does, its only on the 120 grand he makes or whatever and no on the $50 million homes he has across the country. John Kerry doesn't earn wealth, he married into and has wealth, so he doesn't make a dick of taxes.

Newsflash.

If you are a politician/senator for 1 term, you get salary for LIFE.