Is McCain as shallow as George W. Bush?

[JK2000]

Right, thank you for clarifying that you think that the President of the United States only has a "fax machine and a cell phone" at his disposal when he's not in Washington, D.C. Congratulations on your spectacular ignorance. That hole you're in? Keep digging, you'll be out in no time.

 

You're right, he probably has a desktop computer too. Maybe even DSL.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Well, you didn't bother to provide a sensible response to any of the posts pointing out your misconception about a POTUS taking "vacation", or the ones pointing out that provoking Russia wouldn't be a very smart idea, or the ones pointing out that you are contradicting yourself calling for severe repercussions and 'diplomacy' at the same time, so I'm not too sure what you expect at this point.

 

The only 'hating' here seems to be your pathological obsession with everything and anything done by Bush.

I mentioned POTUS vacation once, along with supporting a major trading partner, working from the ranch, supporting US athletes, etc. - that only described choices he had made. Then it hilariously turned into a discussion what technologies were available where, how they were being used, and the productivity of telecommuting, amongst others.

 

When someone says to me, ok, what would you do different in this case, and I'm not an expert, I'm going to offer a range of possibilities, that some might or might not work, some might have more merit or 'less bad' than others. Pretty obviously those and other choices get vetted, and potentially tossed aside as not feasible, or ridiculous consequences. At least I'm offering some alternatives when I criticize him.

 

And, if someone says, well that won't work because of x, it's all good. Maybe I'll learn something that I didn't know....

 

Instead you combine everything together, and then assume it's all inclusive.

 

Provoking the bear is probably not a good strategy, but there's not going to be much you can do that doesn't provoke them. I'm guessing every thing we (and others) might do involves major trade offs over how much we provoke them vs benefits and risks. They're majorly pissed off about the Patriot batteries in Poland and the radar systems in the Czech. Nobody is suggesting that we shouldn't have done that, are they?

 

The Russians also understand strength, something we didn't show much of.

 

I was surprised, and still am, about how much support people were giving the president over his choices and responses, while so many outlets and opinions were slamming him worldwide.

 

George W. Bush is a hard man to like, and as John Ashcroft (who I've grown to greatly admire) once said, History will not judge this kindly. JA was talking about discussing torture in the white house, but the sentiment rings true.

[jjamie12]

I was surprised, and still am, about how much support people were giving the president over his choices and responses, while so many outlets and opinions were slamming him worldwide.

 

Pointing out that the President of the United States of America is never actually on 'vacation' is not the same thing as 'supporting' President Bush.

 

Pointing out that you seem to have some inconsistencies in your arguments about diplomacy / unilateralism / multi-lateralism is not the same things as 'supporting' President Bush.

 

I've read through this thread and I don't think I read even ONE single quote suggesting that President Bush is doing "...a helluva job, Bushie!"

 

Finally, disagreeing with you is NOT the same thing as 'supporting' President Bush. You don't have to 'support' President Bush in order to see that much of what you are saying is nonsense.

[Ramius]

Defending the indefensible of the lamest of lameduck presidents, this board can truly be a hoot. Public opinion may shift, interest rates might fluctuate, hairstyles change but there is always the constant of the ppp crowds luv of everything Bush. Incredible!

 

Yeah, luv of everything Bush. I cant stand the moron. I've despised him since 2000. But frankly, there are 1,000 reasonable things to criticize him over, and criticizing him for being at the olympics is utterly retarded. Its the same as complaining that Charles Manson didnt recycle his old newspapers.

 

And i cant believe there are actually people like faking who believe the fuggin president of the United damn States goes on vacation, and comes back to washington 2 weeks later and asks his advisors, "What happened in the world while i was gone?"

[DC Tom]

Pointing out that the President of the United States of America is never actually on 'vacation' is not the same thing as 'supporting' President Bush.

 

Pointing out that you seem to have some inconsistencies in your arguments about diplomacy / unilateralism / multi-lateralism is not the same things as 'supporting' President Bush.

 

I've read through this thread and I don't think I read even ONE single quote suggesting that President Bush is doing "...a helluva job, Bushie!"

 

Finally, disagreeing with you is NOT the same thing as 'supporting' President Bush. You don't have to 'support' President Bush in order to see that much of what you are saying is nonsense.

 

A most excellent post, sir.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

And i cant believe there are actually people like faking who believe the fuggin president of the United damn States goes on vacation, and comes back to washington 2 weeks later and asks his advisors, "What happened in the world while i was gone?"

Never said or thought that, ever. I actually said it was all about the world's perception of Bush doing his job in China vs. Washington. For the record, I believe he was working the phones, getting intel, expert advice, and probably got information overload while in China. That also was never in question. There's also no argument whatsoever that he's always on the job 24/7, never out of touch. I also strongly believe in the value of telecommuting, something else that may have been misunderstood.

 

But when respected sources like the WSJ say stuff like "President Bush finally condemned Russia's actions on Monday after a weekend of Olympics tourism in Beijing while Georgia burned", it bothers me, as it should you.

[Chilly]

But when respected sources like the WSJ say stuff like "President Bush finally condemned Russia's actions on Monday after a weekend of Olympics tourism in Beijing while Georgia burned", it bothers me, as it should you.

 

I forget, what diplomatic creds did you say the editors at the WSJ have again?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

I forget, what diplomatic creds did you say the editors at the WSJ have again?

2 million subscribers in print and 1 million paid, online pairs of eyeballs. Call it street creds.

[jjamie12]

If you believe this to be true:

For the record, I believe he was working the phones, getting intel, expert advice, and probably got information overload while in China. That also was never in question. There's also no argument whatsoever that he's always on the job 24/7, never out of touch. I also strongly believe in the value of telecommuting, something else that may have been misunderstood.

 

How in the world do you get to this:

 

But when respected sources like the WSJ say stuff like "President Bush finally condemned Russia's actions on Monday after a weekend of Olympics tourism in Beijing while Georgia burned", it bothers me, as it should you.

Instead of:

 

I don't give a damn about this Wall Street Journal article quote and editorial because of how disingenuous and silly this argument is.

 

Finally, how can you possibly use this quote from the Wall Street Journal as evidence that the President wasn't doing his job (in the first place) when you just admitted that you agree that what they are saying is demonstrably false (at worst) and, at best, completely disingenuous?

 

If someone is making up stories about your friend, are you mad at your friend because of his perception issues, or do you reject the source of the stories as being less than honest?

[Chilly]

2 million subscribers in print and 1 million paid, online pairs of eyeballs. Call it street creds.

 

Taking this one step further, then:

 

Does the Wall Street Journal have an incentive to try to get our public officials to publicly react to actions sooner?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

If you believe this to be true:

 

 

How in the world do you get to this:

 

 

Instead of:

 

"I don't give a damn about this Wall Street Journal article quote and editorial because of how disingenuous and silly this argument is."

 

Finally, how can you possibly use this quote from the Wall Street Journal as evidence that the President wasn't doing his job (in the first place) when you just admitted that you agree that what they are saying is demonstrably false (at worst) and, at best, completely disingenuous?

 

If someone is making up stories about your friend, are you mad at your friend because of his perception issues, or do you reject the source of the stories as being less than honest?

as I've said about 5 times, my issue is with the choices he made - whether that meant staying at the Olympics, sending others instead of getting visibly involved, showing the US as weak instead of as a leader, as well making lame statements to the press.

 

Getting briefed and making decisions in secure conference calls isn't the same as standing up and being visibly in charge, while the world watches a crisis unfold.

 

I don't think the WSJ was false or disingenuous; they were saying "what in the hell was he doing in Beijing once the Russian tanks came through the Roki Tunnel?"

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Taking this one step further, then:

 

Does the Wall Street Journal have an incentive to try to get our public officials to publicly react to actions sooner?

So this about selling newspapers and little to do with their opinion of his leadership? You're entitled to your opinion as always.

[Chilly]

So this about selling newspapers and little to do with their opinion of his leadership? You're entitled to your opinion as always.

 

The media always gets pissy when they perceive people aren't reacting fast enough for them to pump out news on it.

[DC Tom]

as I've said about 5 times, my issue is with the choices he made - whether that meant staying at the Olympic, sending others instead of getting visibly involved, showing the US as weak instead of as a leader, as well making lame statements to the press.

 

Getting briefed and making decisions in secure conference calls isn't the same as standing up and being visibly in charge, while the world watches a crisis unfold.

 

I don't think the WSJ was false or disingenuous; they were saying "what in the hell was he doing in Beijing once the Russian tanks came through the Roki Tunnel?"

 

And if he had immediately condemned the Russian invasion without getting briefed or coordinating with world leaders, you'd be bitching that he acted precipitously. Simple fact is, you're not discussing policy, you're just discussing how much you hate Bush.

 

Never mind that, off the top of my head, I can think of three excellent policy reasons NOT to make that big a deal out of it (not exacerbating tension even more, anticipating a strong reaction to the Poland deal; appearing to minimize Russian importance by not jumping every time the Russian bear roars and delegating direct responsibility to the cabinet level; the aforementioned coordinating with foreign nations, maintaining goodwill with Europe and Central Asia by not making precipitous policy statements without their input.) It could very well be responsible - even intelligent - foreign policy we're seeing here...

 

...but no, he must be a total idiot for remaining calm in a "world" (sic) crisis and not immediately screaming "Sancho, my armor!" and running for Air Force One.

[DC Tom]

So this about selling newspapers and little to do with their opinion of his leadership? You're entitled to your opinion as always.

 

Is this a joke? Never mind the rest of the media...do you have any idea who now owns the Journal?

[PastaJoe]

And if he had immediately condemned the Russian invasion without getting briefed or coordinating with world leaders, you'd be bitching that he acted precipitously. Simple fact is, you're not discussing policy, you're just discussing how much you hate Bush.

 

Never mind that, off the top of my head, I can think of three excellent policy reasons NOT to make that big a deal out of it (not exacerbating tension even more, anticipating a strong reaction to the Poland deal; appearing to minimize Russian importance by not jumping every time the Russian bear roars and delegating direct responsibility to the cabinet level; the aforementioned coordinating with foreign nations, maintaining goodwill with Europe and Central Asia by not making precipitous policy statements without their input.) It could very well be responsible - even intelligent - foreign policy we're seeing here...

 

...but no, he must be a total idiot for remaining calm in a "world" (sic) crisis and not immediately screaming "Sancho, my armor!" and running for Air Force One.

 

In this instance I thought the Bush administration's initial reaction was measured and appropriate, with the assumption that they would be doing the tough talk behind the scenes so as not to publicly embarrass Russia. But McCain's reaction was too impulsive and showed a troubling lack of diplomatic skill.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

And if he had immediately condemned the Russian invasion without getting briefed or coordinating with world leaders, you'd be bitching that he acted precipitously. Simple fact is, you're not discussing policy, you're just discussing how much you hate Bush.

 

Never mind that, off the top of my head, I can think of three excellent policy reasons NOT to make that big a deal out of it (not exacerbating tension even more, anticipating a strong reaction to the Poland deal; appearing to minimize Russian importance by not jumping every time the Russian bear roars and delegating direct responsibility to the cabinet level; the aforementioned coordinating with foreign nations, maintaining goodwill with Europe and Central Asia by not making precipitous policy statements without their input.) It could very well be responsible - even intelligent - foreign policy we're seeing here...

 

...but no, he must be a total idiot for remaining calm in a "world" (sic) crisis and not immediately screaming "Sancho, my armor!" and running for Air Force One.

Of course he would have been briefed and coordinated with world leaders. That's just intuitively obvious.

 

I understand your arguments about not making a big deal about it. I don't happen to agree, because I think history will show this as a watershed moment and a monumental change in the world order as Russia flexes its muscles.

 

If he ran for Air Force 1, landed, and showed leadership, the free world would be cheering him, myself included.

[Chilly]

I understand your arguments about not making a big deal about it. I don't happen to agree, because I think history will show this as a watershed moment and a monumental change in the world order as Russia flexes its muscles.

 

Been reading Russian propoganda much?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Is this a joke? Never mind the rest of the media...do you have any idea who now owns the Journal?

Rupert Murdoch, not some liberal half wit.

[jjamie12]

Getting briefed and making decisions in secure conference calls isn't the same as standing up and being visibly in charge, while the world watches a crisis unfold.

But sometimes, this is exactly the correct way to handle things (I have no idea if this was the best course of action to take). Do you honestly think that they didn't consider him leaving Beijing and stand up and scream at Russia and tell them to leave? Why do you assume that they were diddling around?

 

Oh, that's right... You are concerned about the 'perception' that they were diddling around. Perceptions that you yourself have admitted are not true and, let's be honest, are nonsense.

 

I don't think the WSJ was false or disingenuous; they were saying "what in the hell was he doing in Beijing once the Russian tanks came through the Roki Tunnel?"

An argument that, as its logical base, presumes that the President of the United States wasn't doing anything during his time in China... a position that you, yourself, presume to be a false.

 

Edit: Wow... Wait a few minutes and someone else makes your point for you.