TLC 911/pres Bush

[firemanpat29]

Did anyone watch the learning channel documentary on
Pres. Bush that aired on 9-11-03 ? It was very positive
and seemed very honest.I would not want to think of how
slick willy or al would have handled them selves. It started
with the way Mr Bush recieved the news while in a room full
of children and went from there. I dont know when they will
air it again but it is worth 2 hrs of your time in my opinion.

[distchief60b]

If it was titled "DC 09/11" or something similar....I watched it.. It was on Showtime/showcase down here...

I have to agree with you.

[backdraft663]

I watched bits and pieces of it, along with the other 9-11 related shows showing last evening. I also have to agree with firemanpat29 post.

[firemanpat29]

Cap. I saw that one too, with actors. the one last night
was filmed live with interviews with Pres Bush

[Weruj1]

I watched it and it was/is amazing to know how intricate the Presidential operation was that day.

[mcaldwell]

Re: TLC 911/pres Bush

Originally posted by firemanpat29
I would not want to think of how slick willy or al would have handled them selves.

C'mon, you're kidding yourself if you think it would have been any different. When have you ever seen a president jump out of his chair and scream "the sky is falling." His staff, the Secret Service, etc, all have systems in place to respond to every conceivable incident, and the president could have hiden in his closet for the first 8 hours and it would have gone down exactly the same. It is the spin doctors that ensure Bush gets credit for "managing" the incident.

As for Dubya's response. I'm far from willing to call it a success right now. Your country (and us by default) may very well be mired in the early stages of an un-winable conflict with no real plan, and after looking at his latest popularity polls, unless Bush figures this thing out pretty quickly he might not be around for a second term to finish what he started.

To sum it up, I'm hoping for the best, but fearing the worst right now.

[DaSharkie]

Your country (and us by default) may very well be mired in the early stages of an un-winable conflict with no real plan

Ah yes, the new Vietnam. Actually, most people seem to understand that the war was not magically over on May 1st when the President spoke. No one ever said it was going to be easy either. Sadly, we will lose many more great men and women, and I humbled by their sacrifice for me, but I feel it is necessary. I sit here on the verge of trying to re-join the military myself, so I do not sit here and armchair quarterback.

What is sad, is that people's attitudes are not well founded. How many hundreds or thousand's of troops were killed after the end of hostilities in World War I, or II? Japanes troops still lived on Guam adn Saipan into the 60's believing the war was still going. If anyone thought that we were just going to walk in, find Saddam on the first day and the country will just fall into line then they are sorely mistaken and dumber than the average dust mite. It can be won, and will be. It will be a long road, but that was told to everyone and we seem to have collectively forgotten that. Again, showing our own stupidity and ignorance.

As for a plan, plans last until the first round is fired, then it's out the window. We took the country in less than a couple of weeks with few casualties, Does everything work well? No. In the North, where the Kurds live, things are actually going wuite well and there has been little violence. The majority of the deaths appear to be happening in a few small areas of the country where loyalty is the strongest. Will it be easy? No, but it will happen. After 30 years of totalitarian rule and oppression, you cannot simply give ideas of democracy or a republic cannot just simply be implanted into 20 or 30 million people on a whim.

after looking at his latest popularity polls, unless Bush figures this thing out pretty quickly he might not be around for a second term to finish what he started

For every poll taht says this, there is one that says otherwise. Polls are al about who sponsors them, because that is all about how the questions are worded. I take polls with a couple hundred grains of salt.

Personally, I am a Republican. The major problem that I have with President Bush is his environmental policies. I am not a radical tree hugger, but I do feel that we need to be protectors of it and the President has recinded many rules and regulations that were not the best thing to do.

The economy is a self correcting mechanism, every ten years, for one reason or another, the bottom falls out and we go through this. It always corrects itself and we prosper again. Presidential policies, other than tax cuts, historically have little bearing on recovery of financial matters. Does it stink to lose a job - yo ubet. I was laid off from a fire department myself so I know from whence I speak. Stop whining, pick up, and drive on. It is not the end of the world.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Re: Re: TLC 911/pres Bush

Originally posted by mcaldwell


C'mon, you're kidding yourself if you think it would have been any different. When have you ever seen a president jump out of his chair and scream "the sky is falling." His staff, the Secret Service, etc, all have systems in place to respond to every conceivable incident, and the president could have hiden in his closet for the first 8 hours and it would have gone down exactly the same. It is the spin doctors that ensure Bush gets credit for "managing" the incident.

As for Dubya's response. I'm far from willing to call it a success right now. Your country (and us by default) may very well be mired in the early stages of an un-winable conflict with no real plan, and after looking at his latest popularity polls, unless Bush figures this thing out pretty quickly he might not be around for a second term to finish what he started.

To sum it up, I'm hoping for the best, but fearing the worst right now.

What we are dealing with here, is a demonstrable lack of knowledge and understanding of the US political situation. This usually results from getting your information off the television in 45 second snippets, instead of researching an issue before one speaks.

Let's look at this post in detail.

1. Clinton is a thief, a rapist and a compulsive liar. His response to the 9/11 attacks would have been one of generating a legacy, not one of what is best for the country. All one would have to look at is his "wag the dog' response to his impeachment and grnd jury appearances to understand how he would have responded. Gore is one of the most wishy-washy, indecisive people in government. This would not only have been about him, but about the people he surrounded himself with. Despite the fact that he spent time in the military (he was a reporter), he is anti-military, as evidenced by his voting record. What would have happened under his watch would have been disastrous. There would have been no beefing up of our defenses, no air cover and no Dept. of Homeland Defense. His administration would have ultimately blamed us for the attacks and our response would have been one of social aid, not one of kicking someone's ***.

2. Pres. Bush is a God-fearing, decent Christian MAN. His response since Day One has been of one of protecting the interests of this country. He has surrounded himself with solid people (Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Tom Ridge, etc). They make decisions that will not necessarily be popular, but will best serve the interests of the people of the US. He is also going to make sure that, not only Al-Queda, but members of terrorist groups worldwide pay a significant price. He is also a comforting force here, as well. Despite the slanted polls sponsored by liberal media outlets, most people feel a sense of security with Pres. Bush at the helm.

3. "...us by default..." Now here's a gem. We have discussed on this board several times the "contributions" of the Canadian government to the war on terror. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I see as the Canadian government contribution is: a) a token military response that was provided unwillingly at best, b) apathy on the part of your government on the issue of domestic security (how much money are you spending up there? how are your immigration policies changing to prevent terrorists to enter? how is your airport security doing?). c) a constant anti-American attitude from your government and from one of your provinces. Did I miss anything? There are many Americans who would be willing to let your government go it alone. Forget the US. We'll pull our military bases out. Pretend we're not here. If it weren't for the US, Canada would be like Iceland.

4. Pres. Bush's poll numbers are down. True. But that is a normal course of events. Prior to next Nov., the economic indicators will continue to improve, the true story about the iraqi's WMD will come out, Hussein and OBL will both be captured or killed and this country will remain as strong as ever. He will win 4 more years.

[jsdobson]

Well said Mr Wendt.

[FireCapt1951retired]

George,

WELL SAID, I completely agree with your assesment.

DaSharkie,

You're absolutely right about the 10 year cycle. The only reason Clinton had an excellent economic boom was the because of the beginning of the Tech Sector within the economy and the .Coms, which most disappeared before 2001 began.

Employment is always the last sector to gain back its losses, so that too will come around.
The Tech sector will begin to pick up now because most companies will have to upgrade their systems now after the Y2K scare. It's been almost 5 years and the systems need upgrading. Then after the upgrading it will slow down.

I got out of the market, March 2000, just before the downslide began and stayed out until now. I went back in when I felt that the market had basically bottomed out. I've been back in since October 2002 and I've done well. The market will get stronger and should stay valued at where it should be and not WAY overvalued as it was in the mid to late 90's.

One question for all of you.

How many people here have ever been called by a pollster. I know that in over 32 years of being a voter, I never have.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

How many people here have ever been called by a pollster. I know that in over 32 years of being a voter, I never have.

I was once, around 1992. The interesting thing was how slanted the questions were towards answers that were favorable towards the Dem candidates. There was also no way to deviate from the stock answers.

I could design a poll which would show the US public with a generally favorable impression of Hitler if I wanted to.

[mcaldwell]

Re: Re: Re: TLC 911/pres Bush

Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
3. "...us by default..." Now here's a gem. We have discussed on this board several times the "contributions" of the Canadian government to the war on terror. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I see as the Canadian government contribution is: a) a token military response that was provided unwillingly at best, b) apathy on the part of your government on the issue of domestic security (how much money are you spending up there? how are your immigration policies changing to prevent terrorists to enter? how is your airport security doing?). c) a constant anti-American attitude from your government and from one of your provinces. Did I miss anything? There are many Americans who would be willing to let your government go it alone. Forget the US. We'll pull our military bases out. Pretend we're not here. If it weren't for the US, Canada would be like Iceland.

OK, I'll deal with the important one first.

You accuse me of lack of knowledge and understanding of the American political situation, well I can clearly accuse you of the same in regards to our Canadian position.

You ask about our contribution to the "war on terror", and I can say with certainty, that as a historical percentage, we have more troops committed to peacekeeping and coalition operations today than ever before in our countries history. We may not be on the front lines, of the "war", but we are indeed in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, and everywhere else we are needed. Our numbers may pale in comparison to the US and Britian, but don't forget you are 10 times our size, and you should be expected to provide the numbers and technology.

As for the "apathy" in regards to homeland security, once again you oversimplify the issue. First I must remind you that the geographical size of our country is much larger than the US, and our population and tax base is miniscule by comparison. It is impossible to provide homeland security at the same scale that your nation does. And secondly, we don't need to. Canada dropped the idea of being a "Big Stick" power decades ago, and as a result we do not walk around with a target on our back. We have chosen the right to invest in social programs, and that is our right just as much as it is yours to build stealth bombers. And having just flew cross country, I assure you our airport security is higher than it has ever been.

You talk about an anti-american attitude, and that statement is clearly false. You have seen a few televised soundbites from idiot politicians, and I have seen the same south of the border. The more accurate statement could be Anti-Bush attitude. And he invited that one shortly after his inauguration when he snubbed Canada and called Mexico the US' most valuable partner. Add to that his unilateral decision to wage war on half the world, and that is what we don't like about him. He was raised a Texan, lived his life in the south and had never even visited most of the northern US states before becoming president. I assure you a visit to Canada would clarify our position on Americans. I see thousands of Americans pass through our resort every year, and they all rave about how well they are received up here.

And you'll pull your bases out?? Just how many bases do you think you have here? You have a small NATO Command presence in a few Canadian bases, and we still maintain a few DEW stations together, but I can assure you, in my military days I visited almost every major base in Canada, and I can count the number of American Serviceman I've met on one hand. There are no countries in the world (besides the US of course) that could mount an intercontinental invasion anymore, so we really aren't concerned about the protection racket you've been selling. Economically, we are a G7 country, and we could do quite well on our own if that is what it came to. The health of the US economy is just as reliant on Canada as Canada's is on the US.

If really want to comment on Canada's place in the world, by all means come on up and see what we are about first. At least read a few Canadian newspapers, because lord knows we Canadians are innundated with your opinion. I've never met an American (in person) who didn't love the place and the people, and lately I've seen more pro-Canadian press in the US media than opinions against.

We've disagreed as nations before, and we'll certainly do it again. That's what being neighbours is all about. At the end of the day we still stand with you as much as our economy, military, and political ideals will allow, and it is unreasonable to expect more.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Here we go...

Here's what's most important to me. I have been to Canada. I love Canada, too. I have friends and professional acquaintances from Nova Scotia to Alberta. My personal experience with Canadians has been completely positive. I have found them to be far more friendly and genuine than most Americans.

My post clearly stated that I was talking about your government. Here are indisputable facts:

1. Your government refused to commit military assets to support the US in the war on terror. The Canadian military that is there, is there on various exchange missions and commitments that pre-dated the war on terror. There isn't one soldier or one plane that is over there because of us.

2. You're right. Your government doesn't HAVE TO provide as much national defense as we do. Because you know we will do it for you. It's like the little kid hiding behind his big brother. It's not impossible to provide the same amount of security. Your government knows that any terrorist entering your country is only headed here, so let us catch him at our border. Your government will continue to spend money on a huge social experiment that is arguably not working.

3. Your government, from the PM down to the woman who called Pres. Bush an "idiot" has clearly and consistently exhibited an anti-US attitude since the war on terror has begun. Maybe they didn't say it when Clinton was Pres. But after all, he is a socialist, too. If 9/11 had happened under his watch (God forbid), the response from the Canadian government would have been exactly the same.

4. Mexico is probably a more important neighbor than Canada. Many of our corporations have plants there. There are many goods we use every day manufactured there. They simply are more important to the US economy.

5. I think if you check a map, Afghanistan and Iraq do not constitute "half the world".

6. I am not talking about just pulling our military bases out (I think our air base in Newfoundland is a teensy-weensy bit bigger than a NATO Command presence). I'm talking about cutting Canada off. Let you go at it alone. The Canadian economy would collapse and your government would begin to build a legacy similar to France's...one of dependence and embarrasment. Face facts, Canada needs the US way more than we need Canada.

7. It is not unreasonable to expect Canada to support our efforts fully and militarily. We provide most of your national defense. It is the least your government could do.

[PAVolunteer]

Wow ... even I've learned to not engage George in a fact-based argument. I thought everyone had learned that by now.

Stay Safe

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by PAVolunteer
Wow ... even I've learned to not engage George in a fact-based argument. I thought everyone had learned that by now.

Stay Safe

YEah, in an emotional, insult based argument, it's 50/50.