To All You Liberals Out There

[Guest kitkat]

Over the past few weeks, you folks have been trumpeting a charge directed at George W. Bush that he spent seven whole minutes continuing to read a story to a group of children on September 11, 2001, after he'd heard about that second plane crashing into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

Does it matter that, at the time, there was nothing he could have done about the attacks? Of course it doesn't. No, that swine Bush actually continued reading instead of leaping into action like Superman and single-handedly saving our nation from imminent peril! Why, he should have been impeached that second... right?

Well guys and gals, it's time to slide down the big bright beam of light from that magical spacecraft you're on, back down to planet earth for just a moment. The mother ship will be waiting for you after I'm finished commenting, I promise.

You see, as much as you may hate to admit it, President Bush wasn't derelict in his duty on that fateful day in September nearly three years ago. As a matter of fact, he was actually fulfilling his duty when those vicious terrorists attacked us, and his reaction upon hearing the initial news was to remain calm and await further information. He continued reading to those young people because there was no reason for him to immediately stop doing what he was there to do. Behaving like some panicky housewife with a mouse under her chair would have accomplished nothing except to frighten those kids unnecessarily, and rattle everyone else around him.

Now, you may not believe that visiting a school is a very important thing for the president to be doing in the first place, but I can think of a lot worse things he could have been up to at the time. After all, he could have been cheating on his wife with some bubble-headed bimbo, but he wasn't. He could have been testifying before a court of law about a sexual harassment complaint lodged against him, and committing perjury, but he wasn't. He could have been embarrassing this country in any number of ways, but he wasn't. No, he was simply reading a story to some little kids, and he continued to do so even under tremendously difficult circumstances. That's called maintaining one's composure.

Indeed, that may not matter to people like yourselves when you think about what makes a person presidential, but ask yourself this, is the way George Bush reacted in that classroom on 9/11 less or more presidential than saying that war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were the rule and not the exception? That's what John Kerry did in 1971... and, just in case you didn't know it, that contention wasn't true.

Here's an example of something that is true. During the '72 Olympic Games, as Rudy Giuliani pointed out at the Republican National Convention on Monday night, 11 Israeli athletes and trainers died during the siege by Palestinian terrorists of the Olympic village in Munich, Germany. What's also true is that less than two months after capturing three of those terrorists, the German government let them go following a Lufthansa jet hijacking. The hijackers had demanded the release of the three murderous scumbags in custody after taking over the airplane, and the Germans capitulated.

It seems that, back then, caving into the demands of Middle Eastern terrorists actually was, as Giuliani said, "the rule, not the exception," unlike Kerry's reprehensible Vietnam war crimes claim. By the way, you can thank George W. Bush that it is no longer the rule, at least in the United States.

But what's all this stuff about the Olympics got to do with what President Bush was doing on September 11 you ask? Well, nothing really, I just wanted to illustrate a point, which is that what you wish was the truth and what actually IS the truth are two different things.

Tell me, can you see the difference between Kerry's version of certain events surrounding the Vietnam War and Giuliani's version of the terrorist events which took place during the Olympics in Germany? Here's a clue, one version was fiction and one was R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. Of course, I wouldn't expect John Kerry to know much about that whole Munich terrorism thing in 1972. At the time he was too busy admitting to the very war crimes he had accused his fellow soldiers of committing the year before.

Be that as it may, I hope you are now able to appreciate that some of the things you've been told are true, really aren't, and that other things you don't believe, are true no matter how much you may wish they weren't... like the fact that George Bush reacted exactly as he should have on 9/11, with calmness and equanimity.

Now, I don't want to detain you any longer, I know you have a long trip ahead of you back to whatever fantasy world you're currently living on. Just do me one little favor before you go. The next time you decide to come back and visit us earthlings, try to keep what I've written above in mind... especially if you intend to vote here.

I thank you for your time, and don't forget to say hi to Michael Moore for me.

By Edward L. Daley - The owner of The Daley Times-Post

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/

[Guest shiloh357]

Wow!! Excellent post! Daley got 'em between the eyes with that one. Thanks, Kitkat

[truseek]

Does it matter that, at the time, there was nothing he could have done about the attacks?

Getting some fighters into the air would've been a good start, as apparently our air defence systems are manned by utter incompetents.

You see, as much as you may hate to admit it, President Bush wasn't derelict in his duty on that fateful day in September nearly three years ago. As a matter of fact, he was actually fulfilling his duty when those vicious terrorists attacked us

Yes, his duty to the NWO

If this means his duty of president (and thusly Commander in Chief), that is obvious fallacy. Our armed forces failed us on 9/11, they failed us while our Commander in Chief was busy reading a story to some children. In what way is reading a children's story fulfilling his duty as Commander in Chief?

[Guest charlie]

Good post Truseek.

But what's all this stuff about the Olympics got to do with what President Bush was doing on September 11 you ask? Well, nothing really, I just wanted to illustrate a point, which is that what you wish was the truth and what actually IS the truth are two different things.

Was anyone else reminded of the 1980 olympics while watching the summer olympics this year? Jimmy Carter boycotted that one in support of Afghanistan (terrorists included) who we are at war with now.....I think....we are still fighting there aren't we?

That article is rather condescending. It implies that anyone who doesn't "go along" with the President is a space cadet liberal. I'm not a liberal; I'm a conservative republican who no longer has a party. Really, I didn't leave the republican party the republican party left me.

At this point I could care less about the 7 minutes; I'm much more concerned with the President's actions after 9/11.

Edited September 11, 2004 by charlie

[Qun Mang]

The liberals are still complaining about those seven minutes? Well, fairly or unfairly every single thing any president does gets scrutinized. I think much of what kitkat says rings very true. It is said that hindsight is 20/20 and today's breed of liberals seem to expect that Bush should have been able to act no less than a god (no offense intended to our one true God, hence the lower case g) in this and other matters. He is as human as the rest of us. He makes mistakes. Yes, he even sins, though I am at sharp disagreement with those who say he is not one of God's children and just a big liar. You and I may not know him personally, but I have the word of godly men who have been around Bush who testify where his heart is, including that of my own pastor.

And charlie, that statement about Afghanistan is really unfair. Why do you think our President was sided with the Muslims in Afghanistan? Could it be because the Soviet Union had just invaded their country perhaps? News flash: since the mid 20th century (until the collapse of the Soviet Union?) we have had a policy to condemn and contain Communism. Yes bin Laden was among those fighting for Afghanistan, but so what? We didn't know he was going to take on a crusade against the United States and it would be unfair to suggest that we should have (not that you said or even believe this, just so I'm clear that I'm not putting words into your mouth).

And today, isn't Afganistan run by their own government? Okay, I'm as much in the dark as you, but here is an interesting article from March that I found in an internet search.

[Guest charlie]

I believe that non-intervention in other countries affairs is overall the best thing for my country the United States of America. While you can look back and make an excuse for helping bin Laden and Afghanistan the fact remains that we helped to arm the terrorists we are now fighting with modern weapons and expertise with which to hurt us. Not being able to see into the future is a very GOOD reason not to intervene into situations that are on the other side of the world. Look at a globe if you have one, Afghanistan is literally on the opposite side of the world from us.

Yugoslavia was 10 yrs ago as was the first WTC bombing. Why did we take the Muslim side there? I'll admit that I don't know who was in the right and who was in the wrong but after the Muslim attack on the WTC in 1993 it seems to me it would have been in our best interest there not to intervene at all; not to take sides at all.

I see nothing wrong with churches and private organizations doing charity work in these places for all the parties involved though.

Edited September 11, 2004 by charlie

[Guest yod]

I believe that non-intervention in other countries affairs is overall the best thing for my country the United States of America.

And I believe that non-intervention in foreign affairs by "other" countries is overall the best thing for my country, the USA

Then there is reality.

[Guest charlie]

And I believe that non-intervention in foreign affairs by "other" countries is overall the best thing for my country, the USA

Then there is reality.

The reality is that there are foreign lobbiests making the rounds on captitol hill while taxpaying Americans are too busy working to go to capitol hill and lobby on OUR behalf.

Foreign lobbiests should be NOT be allowed to lobby OUR leaders on behalf of THEIR country's best interests; our leaders should be so busy working for US that they don't have time to lend foreign lobbiests an ear in the first place.

This is a travesty! I wonder how much of our troubles can be traced back to allowing foreign lobbiests to intervene in OUR business HERE at home.

Edited September 11, 2004 by charlie

[Guest yod]

We are not a self-sustaining island though

There is a remedy for dissatisfaction called "voting". Not everyone is going to be pleased but it is the best governmental system in the world so far.

When we, the people, elect someone to represent us then we need to allow them to do the best they can with the information they are given.

Since we can not know everything they know, our only option is to give them another term or send them home based on the will of we, the people.

Bush is going to get 4 more years based on the overwhelming approval of Americans....and because there is no appealing alternative either.

We have to let elected officials (and those appointed by them) do their job.....which includes dealing with external situations and internal debates about other nations.

[georgesbluegirl]

Yeah, I'm going to go with truseek and charlie...that article was all over the place, and there was no clear point. It certainly didn't change my mind.

And we are certainly still in Afghanistan. My cousin is over there now, and everyone seems to have forgotten that there are still troops there!