August 07, 2004
MORE FLOPPING FROM MR FLIPPY
First he was in favour of reading the book, and then he was against it:
Sen. John Kerry yesterday said he wouldn't have stuck around to read to children after learning of the September 11 attacks, directly criticizing President Bush's actions that day.
"First of all, had I been reading to children, and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had business that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it."
Show pony. How would Kerry have "attended to it"? Thrown his medals at the remaining hijacked aircraft? Testified before Congress? Hugged Max Cleland? Rudy isn’t impressed:
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani responded, "John Kerry must be frustrated in his campaign if he is armchair quarterbacking based on cues from Michael Moore." Mr. Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" chides the president for remaining with the students instead of leaving immediately upon hearing of the second attack.
Leave aside that if Bush had rushed from the room, possibly leaving the children confused and upset, Moore would have accused him of not projecting strength and calm. Consider instead Moore’s reaction to a dilemma of his own, over which he delayed not a mere seven minutes, but several months:
Filmmaker Michael Moore says he had footage of prisoner abuse in Iraq long before the atrocities captured international attention, but decided to stay quiet until his new movie came out. Now he's questioning that decision.
"I had it months before the story broke on '60 Minutes,' and I really struggled with what to do with it," Moore told the San Francisco Chronicle. "I wanted to come out with it sooner, but I thought I'd be accused of just putting this out for publicity for my movie. That prevented me from making maybe the right decision."
Fraud.
UPDATE. Via comments, John Kerry’s response to September 11:
Sen. Kerry, who criticized President Bush for not rushing out of the Florida classroom for seven minutes, sat paralyzed with his colleagues for a full forty minutes. He is hardly in a position to criticize President Bush for "inaction."
Says one thing, does another. Becoming a theme, isn’t it?
Posted by Tim Blair at August 7, 2004 03:16 AMWill anyone in the major media ask Mr. Moore to provide evidence that "he had it" months ahead of 60 Minutes, et al?
Posted by: Major John at August 7, 2004 at 03:50 AMYeah that seven minutes is a real big deal. For all anyone knows, what was whispered to the President was "A second plane hit the WTC. The military has been notified and Air Force One will be ready to fly in 10 minutes."
Posted by: Ken Summers at August 7, 2004 at 03:51 AM"Fraud" is too kind, Tim. I'd offer alternatives, but that would take far too much bandwidth (and not just because we are discussing Fat Mikey).
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 03:52 AMMailman, in another thread, found Kerry's reaction on 9/11. Excellent post, mailman!
Kerry sat shocked until the Pentagon was attacked, almost 40 minutes. That's a normal, human reaction, for someone not in the heat of action.
Bush sat still for 7 minutes, and then went off on his duties. That's a good reaction time for a leader not directly involved in the action.
MM is fraud (for lack of better invective). Kerry is a flip-flop loser.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 04:02 AMSays one thing, does another. Becoming a theme, isn’t it?
i think the theme would actually be "Says one thing, does another. Then another."
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 7, 2004 at 04:26 AMOr "Says one thing, then says another. Does nothing."
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at August 7, 2004 at 04:32 AMi just want to pull his fucking hair out!!!!!!
or and michael ass moore also.
From the Ponderosa
http://www.vandelay.com/2004/08/blogger-nails-kerry-on-had-i-been.html
In an interview with Larry King on CNN, July 8, 2004, Sen. Kerry was asked where he was the morning of September 11th. Here is part of his response:
Kerry: "...And as I came in [to a meeting in Sen. Daschle's office], 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..."
Kerry states that he cannot think under pressure.
I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush.
In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity. Let's respect one another. And let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.
My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place.
Posted by: Tom Maguire at August 7, 2004 at 05:51 AM
You fools. Shall I connect the dots for you?
For seven minutes - SEVEN MINUTES! - Bush did nothing. And all you can say is, "What was he supposed to do in a scant seven minutes that would have made any difference?"
Hello? What was George Bush doing while John Kerry was saving lives and getting lots of medals in Vietnam? BINGO! He was (allegedly) a fighter pilot! So, why didn't he get into an F-16, scramble, identify the plane heading toward the Pentagon, confirm it was under terrorist control, and shoot it down? Simple - either (A) Bush was never a National Guard fighter pilot as he claims, or (B) Bush had planned to have time to finish the book he was reading to the children, but the Halliburton-paid, Mossad-trained Saudi Air Force pilots who hijacked the planes crashed them ahead of schedule, and Bush was too stupid to ad-lib an appropriately-urgent exit.
Wow! This is easy! I'm gonna make a way-cool movie!
Posted by: Dave S. at August 7, 2004 at 06:09 AMDave, I hope you will remember to invite your friends on this blog to a suitably lavish grand opening celebration. I for one would love to help celebrate your coming of age in Hollywood.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 06:23 AMThe "40 minutes" assertion rests on a fact not yet in evidence - the precise time Kerry saw the second plane hit the WTC. If he saw it on a replay then it could have been much less than 40 minutes. Of course, as a Senator he wouldn't have the same responsibilities and resources available to the President Bush, so it's a rather absurd to compare their reactions anyway, especially since one is documented on film and the other is based on a vague answer to a Larry King question.
Posted by: MaB at August 7, 2004 at 06:59 AM
Hey, the premiere will probably be at Guantanamo, once Ashcroft and his goons get wind of my courageous dissent and crush it! Crush crush crush! I'm a hero! Look at me, look at me!
14 months is a "rush to war."
Seven minutes is a "fatal paralysis."
Jesus, I wouldn't be surprised if Lefties start calling Bush "double-plus-ungood."
Posted by: Dave S. at August 7, 2004 at 07:13 AMMaB, from the CNN transcript:
"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."
Doesn't sound like he watched a replay to me. Nor does it sound vague; note the details of his actions. And this was over 2 years in the past at the time of the interview.
(Do you remember what you were doing when you heard about the attacks on 9/11? I do....and so does Kerry.)
But let's give Kerry the benefit of the doubt that he did, and say he sat in stunned silence for as little as, say, 7 minutes.
So what if he wasn't the President then? He is running for President now, and telling us what he would have done then. By his own words, he "...sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think...".
Don't spin this one. If Bush is to be held accountable for those 7 minutes, so can Kerry. His actions and his words are different. This is yet another flip-flop for him.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 07:14 AMOf course, as a Senator he wouldn't have the same responsibilities and resources available to the President Bush, so it's a rather absurd to compare their reactions anyway
Of course, that level of absurdity did not stop Kerry from attempting to make political hay out of the notion that he would have reacted much better, if only he'd been in GWB's position (as noted by Tim). The fact that he didn't have Bush's responsibilities and still reacted with nothing but a lengthy state of paralysis seems noteworthy to me in that context. It's nothing to condemn him over (most of us probably reacted the same way he did), but his veiled jab at Bush is rather petty, simple as that. And the echoing-Michael-Moore-and-other-moonbats subtext doesn't help.
Posted by: PW at August 7, 2004 at 07:25 AMOh, come on, guys, it's perfectly obvious and consistent what Kerry did: He took bold, decisive action.
Right before be froze in stunned shock.
Or maybe it was a bold, decisive decision to freeze in stunned shock? Yeah, I like that one better... the bold passivity of inactive determination!
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 7, 2004 at 07:35 AMSuper Senatooorrrr!!! should have torn off his regular suit revealing his super senatoooorrr!!! outfit and flew to the floor of the Senate and immediately passed some extremely effective anti-terror legislation, maybe kinda retrospective like the way that superman did in Superman: The Movie!
Cos the kid in the brown underoos sitting thinking about goats up the tree -- you know, the one actually on the Executive Branch at the time -- wasn't up to diddly poop...
Posted by: baker at August 7, 2004 at 07:38 AMAh, baker -- you people are so cute when you think you're being clever.
Tell us all how Kerry's 40 minutes of paralysis was better than Bush's 7 minutes of grace under pressure.
Well, look at little kiddo baker attempting to simultaneously spin Kerry's inaction as a good thing, and Bush's "inaction" as something bad.
(Scare quotes because Bush actually did do something; he finished his reading session in an orderly manner after all. Kerry apparently would have been too shell-shocked for even that, by his own admission.)
Posted by: PW at August 7, 2004 at 07:52 AMBTW baker, most people would be content if Kerry had been responsible for any kind of "effective legislation", at any point in time during his 20-year stay in the Senate. So, trying to be sarcastic about the fact that Kerry didn't go out and enact some tough legislation right after the planes hit the towers seems to be unintentionally funny, given Kerry's backbencher record.
Posted by: PW at August 7, 2004 at 07:57 AM"Of course, as a Senator he wouldn't have the same responsibilities and resources available to the President Bush, so it's a rather absurd to compare their reactions anyway, especially since one is documented on film and the other is based on a vague answer to a Larry King question."
Of course that comparison is exactly what Senator Kerry is asking us to make. *IF* he were President he *would have* done X, Y or Z. (with three years of hindsight)
However the right's criticism of Kerry's after Vietnam record is out of bounds. Because *We weren't* there. We didn't know what he was going through. We didn't live though the commission of war crimes. We can't know how it changed him. If it even did.
Net effect of what we are being asked to understand is Kerry can put himself in other's shoes, but no one else can put themselves in *his* shoes. (after all few could afford them anyway)
Posted by: cannon at August 7, 2004 at 08:01 AMGrace under pressure? Speculating (wildly) that someone OTHER THAN the Cmdr in Chief ordered the military into action? (are you aware of the chain of command? it doesn't get bypassed because the Prez is reading "My Pet Goat") You people are hilarious.
Bush did NOTHING for seven minutes after being told our country was under attack!!! The original plan for 911 was for TEN PLANES. Are you that stupid?!? He wasted crucial time - for NO good reason! Bush was the COMMANDER IN CHIEF and he failed to lead.
If you really think sitting there and reading "My Pet Goat" is appropriate leadership, then you Sirs are truly brainwashed into thinking Bush can do no wrong.
Posted by: hphovercraft at August 7, 2004 at 08:07 AM"Or maybe it was a bold, decisive decision to freeze in stunned shock? Yeah, I like that one better... the bold passivity of inactive determination!"
This must be an example of Kerry's highly nuanced, able-to-see-the-complexities-in-everything mind.
Posted by: SusanS at August 7, 2004 at 08:10 AMI wonder if the Secret Service told him "Hold tight, we're going to make sure it's safe here since we have no idea of the extent of this. We also need some time to ensure Air Force One has an alternate flight plan."
Geez, what am I saying. That would, like, never happen in the real world. Instead, with only this piece of film to guide me, I think I'll read Bush's mind as he sat with the kids in Florida. I believe he was thinking: "When's lunch?"
Now, doesn't that make much more sense? Of COURSE it does!
Posted by: Steve in Houston at August 7, 2004 at 08:13 AMExcellent prose, Mr. Blair! I smirked out loud over "How would Kerry have "attended to it"? Thrown his medals at the remaining hijacked aircraft?"
Posted by: JustSomeGuy at August 7, 2004 at 08:13 AMThe events of 9-11-01 caught caught us living in a fool's paradise. So I can't fault either Bush or Kerry... there were thousands and millions of us who were stunned into inaction by the unspeakable.
But I will fault Kerry for stooping to a Moore-inspired cheapshot, instead of taking the opportunity to behave as graciously as he lectures everyone else to do.
The man has not learned to master himself, and I do not want him practicing at the helm of my country.
Posted by: Dave at August 7, 2004 at 08:16 AMJohn Kerry would at the very least have activated this super secret system!
What did Bush do? Nothing!
Posted by: Walsingham at August 7, 2004 at 08:23 AMhphovercraft said:
"If you really think sitting there and reading "My Pet Goat" is appropriate leadership, then you Sirs are truly brainwashed into thinking Bush can do no wrong."
First -- who said Bush can do no wrong? Anyone here? Please raise your hand....no? Right, then. Bush is human, so he can and does make mistakes. If anyone in this blog thinks otherwise, they be a fool.
But you are going right back to the typical leftoid spin on this -- Bush should have done SOMETHING for 7 minutes! I'm still not sure what, but NEVER EVER sit there with young children in front of cameras and look calm. Gosh, no! Can't have that, can we?
Frankly, you would criticize anything Bush did in those 7 minutes because you hate Bush. It's all about the oil, Halliburton will be running Iraq, and Hitler fits in here someplace -- I'm sure you'll point out anything I've missed.
By the way, did you notice that Kerry did nothing for at least 7 minutes, but sat in stunned silence? Not that's a problem or anything, because he wasn't sitting with children in front of cameras. Perhaps he was collecting his thoughts, or just outraged at the deaths of thousands. And as President, Kerry would have leapt to his feet, and rushed to Air Force 1 to be decisive. Golly, he just said so!
And all Bush did was reassure a group of young and impressionable children. Tsk, tsk, what a poor sense of priorities. He wasn't trying to save your sorry ass, hphovercraft. Kerry would have, right?
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 08:24 AMThe latest employment numbers are out and they are not as high as some had hoped but they have knocked the national unemployment rate down to 5.5%.
Clinton ran for reelection in 1996 with an unemployment rate of 5.6% and he was regarded as a economic whiz kid.
Bush is of course being maligned for this rate today by Kerry.
If Kerry wins, by 2008, 5.5% will look unattainably grand as the economy founders after a series of attacks that the Senator will have no clue on how to respond.
He choked for twenty years in the Senate, backing the wrong horses every time, choked in the Phillipines, choked on 9/11, choked in his first marriage, in his post-war behavior...
Kerry is not presidential material. The Democrats goofed.
Posted by: JDB at August 7, 2004 at 08:24 AMGood grief. Kerry would've stopped reading to the kids before he started reading to 'em again!
Remember, when told of the Pearl Harbor attack FDR said immediately to his aides:
"Start planning forthwith for the following
(1) Invasion of Normandy
(2) Nuking Japan."
Think he wasted 7 minutes you Kook members of the VWRC?
Posted by: TomCom at August 7, 2004 at 08:25 AMOver at Little Green Footballs there is a regular commenter using the handle "Reaganite" who is currently on active duty in the Secret Service. He explained that in attack scenarios, the SS takes control. On 911, Bush was instructed to keep going as normal while the SS set up a perimeter and plotted an alternate route to the airport where they could board Air Force One. They altered the route in case there was an attack planned against the President. These actions are Standard Operating Procedure for SS. Once they were ready, they signaled Bush to wrap up and hustled him out to the airplane. Air Force One is a complete flying command center and it was urgent to get there and get into the air where quickly arranged fighter escorts from Eglin AFB (F-15's IIRC) would rendevous.
Much of this has been documented in the 911 Commission report, IIRC. Most of the delay was necessary to give SS time to set up their altered, emergency quick-departure and call for fighter escorts. Seven minutes strikes me as rather fast considering all that had to be done.
The blather by Kerry is not only cheap and completely unjustified, it also shows that Kerry hasn't paid close attention to the 911 Commission report. Kerry's zero executive experience is leading him astray; he's displaying a complete lack of understanding for security matters. How much on-the-job training is tolerable during wartime?
Posted by: Dean Douthat at August 7, 2004 at 08:27 AMAnd you, sir, have been brainwashed into thinking Bush can do no right.
At least our brainwashing gives us a bit of perspective. At least it doesn't make us hysterical at the thought that someone might have wasted 420 seconds wrapping up a book reading rather than running around like a headless chicken blindly doing whatever else you would rather condemn him for doing.
Posted by: Jason at August 7, 2004 at 08:29 AMOK, folks, one historical footnote. When Stalin was told that Hitler had attacked the Soviet Union, he sat in a funk for (at least) a full day, rising from his seat either at the end of the first day or several days later.
Posted by: Steve at August 7, 2004 at 08:38 AMHovercraft -- you don't have the first clue what you are talking about. Rather quickly there were 16s in the air with orders to shoot down, and within 45 minutes the entire US airspace had been sanitised. The UK was notified and they shut down /their/ airspace, preventing two planes targeted on Westminster from ever taking off.
When you see a 2-star reaching for his pistol you know you're in a bad fight, but generally these sorts of orders do not need to be originated (or even approved) by CIC. It's designed that way.
Arrogant, partisan, ignoramus.
Posted by: OldCIA at August 7, 2004 at 08:39 AMRemember, when told of the Pearl Harbor attack FDR said immediately to his aides:I assume this is a parody, since nuclear weapons didn't even exist at the time. Also, it's worth pointing out that apparently FDR was stunned and useless for some time after Pearl Harbour, probably a lot more than 7 minutes. Posted by: Bill at August 7, 2004 at 08:45 AM"Start planning forthwith for the following
(1) Invasion of Normandy
(2) Nuking Japan."
HP-
Dock the hovercraft and think about what you have written:
"Bush did NOTHING for seven minutes after being told our country was under attack!!!"
You can't be serious. Do you think that in the seven minutes after the second plane confirmed an attack was happening that Bush would have been provided with sufficient information to formulate a coherent plan? Do you think ANYONE in that seven minutes was prepared to give him solid information that he could use? It was SEVEN MINUTES.
"The original plan for 911 was for TEN PLANES."
So what happened to the other six, and how is that seven minutes germane to that?
"Are you that stupid?!?"
Are you that irrational?
"He wasted crucial time - for NO good reason!"
Here's a good reason - he's got his fingers on the button of a nuclear arsenal. Personally, I want a guy in that position to take some time to "check his shit." Reading a story to some kids seems like a good way to check your shit.
"Bush was the COMMANDER IN CHIEF and he failed to lead."
You can't lead without info. Would you have preferred seven minutes of barking meaningless orders to people who know their jobs and are trying to determine what's happening in a chaotic situation? And what disaster resulted from those oh-so-crucial seven minutes?
Grow up. Use your brain.
Posted by: Dave S. at August 7, 2004 at 08:46 AMDidn't it occur to Senator Kerry that the Capitol might be a target? If I had seen crashes One and Two on live TV while sitting inside ONE OF THE HIGHEST VALUE TARGETS ON EARTH, I'd have run for the bomb shelter. Sad that the Army staff folks at the Pentagon didn't get the word.
Posted by: slimedog at August 7, 2004 at 08:51 AM
One more thing - only two things had to be done immediately on 9-11:
1) Shut down the airports
2) Scramble the jets.
You can bet that no order from Bush was needed in those cases. Americans take initiative, and I'm sure every FAA honcho who saw what happened was taking action, and every airbase commander had, at minimum, got his pilots into their cockpits.
Posted by: Dave S. at August 7, 2004 at 08:57 AMMaB, I find the level of hypocrisy fascinating.
One of the tenets that Bush LIED! is that Bush said he remembered seeing the first plane hit the WTC. How could that be?!?? There was no footage of it! Misremembering what he saw, or perhaps saying "saw" as opposed to "heard," not possible. IT MUST BE A LIE!
Yet, when Kerry says that he saw the second plane hit the WTC, but that story is unfortunately indicative of a 40-minute delay? Nope, must've been a replay. COULDN'T BE ANYTHING ELSE! Is it a lie, then? From Kerry? Of course not!
As for what the Prez could have done in SEVEN MINUTES, perhaps some of you are honest enough to actually read the 9-11 Commission report.
The FAA people spent nearly half an hour trying to figure out if they were even supposed to call NORAD. Some of the first fighters were vectored OUT TO SEA (as per SOP). The 113th's fighters were scrambled under the authority of the wing commander (talking to the Secret Service) and given "weapons free" orders while NORAD-controlled fighters were NOT under "weapons free."
This from trained military people, air traffic controllers, folks who LIVE day-to-day w/ the prospect of unthinkable disaster.
Yet, SEN Kerry, and you apparently, KNOW that in seven minutes, Kerry would've gotten everything fixed and ready, or that Bush SHOULD. Whatever you ACTUALLY did that day.
Feh.
Posted by: Dean at August 7, 2004 at 08:58 AMStupid question -- has anyone established what kind of transportation Bush had at that stop? I mean, if he had a helicopter outside, it may have taken seven minutes to pre-flight it, and the Secret Service would NEVER let the President get into a chopper rushed into service.
Or maybe they told him it was 20 minutes to pre-flight Air Force one, and a ten-minute drive to the airport.
Basically, has anyone bothered to find out of the seven minutes MEANT anything?
As others have pointed out, the US has a command structure for a reason; the immediate responses were handled by them, and Bush needed to get his head together and think long-term MUCH MORE than he needed twitch-reflexes.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 7, 2004 at 09:01 AMBy the way, everyone....
Bush was not reading to the children at the time Andrew Card came over and whispered to him. The children were reading TO HIM. He let them finish instead of freaking them out by interrupting them, jumping up and saying something ridiculous like "The President has to go take care of something right now...have your milk and cookies."
I think he did the right thing. And knowing what the Secret Service was doing in the background makes it all make even more sense.
When the first plane hit the WTC, I don't think any of us, including our government officials, realized it was as attack. 7 minutes? First thoughts: well, the buildings were designed to withstand aircraft collision. Happened before. Joy riding pilot off course. Tragic, but you have to expect these things. What, it's a jumbo jet? How'd that happen System error? Pilot heart attack? WTF?!? It wasn't 'til the second jet roared into the WTC that we all realized this was not an accident. And at this point, a certain amount of numbness was an appropriate reaction.
Now, let's hear fro the Moonbats who not only knew immediately that we were under attack, but could've stopped the other 3 planes if only they'd finished their cornflakes a couple of minutes earlier.
The stupid thing is that none of this is new. Not even the Kerry quote from the CNN interview. All of it has been discussed before.
And yet the leftoid moonbats come swooping in to bark and crap all over the place with the same nonsense. To me, it's proof positive that Kerry is not suitable as President -- because all of these cretins support him (since Kerry is not Bush = Hitler, etc, etc, ad nauseum).
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 09:27 AMhphovercraft, I'll wager you've never accomplished anything serious or productive in your life, or you wouldn't mistake "activity" for "work."
both sides need to pipe down.
this discussion is meaningless.
Everyone was stunned on 911.. period
Hah! When 9/11 happened I was busy getting into my superhero outfit and getting ready to pull the jets out of the air with my bare hands.
...Ok, Ok, I was drunk, and trying to feel up a girl. Hey, it was midnight in Australia.
Things Kerry could have done while he couldn’t think for 40 minutes on 9/11.
1. Get his 8mm camera and take pictures of him heroically saving Washington.
2. Order gourmet sandwiches,
3. Call France and warning them about traveling to New York,
4. Place stop losses on his wife’s stock portfolio.
5. Run to his office and saving his medals he threw away.
6. Call for his $35 Gulf Stream jet to come pick him up and take him to his secure ski lodge in Idaho.
7. Volunteer for Swiftboat duty on the Potomac River.
Instead, he just state there and did nothing while thousands of Americans burned.
Pres. Bush's actions on 9/11 were appropriate for the situation. Would someone else have acted differently? Perhaps. However whatever actions, or non-actions, were taken by the president in those 7 mins. wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome. There wasn't anything that needed to be done, in those 7 mins., that required a presidential order. *What* could the president have done during those 7 mins. that wasn't already being done?
If we lived in a dictatorship, or some Communist hell hole, *then* the president would be required to act or nothing would be done at all. The US doesn't stop, nor is it helpless, just because the CIC isn't issuing all the orders. There are others in the chain of command.
As others have pointed out Pres. Bush acted like a true leader. He didn't dash around barking orders because there was no reliable information at the time. He completed his time with the children and didn't frighten them. He allowed his staff to do what they needed to do. Then he left and did what he needed to do.
As far as I can tell, on 9/11 everyone acted as well as they could under the circumstances. Could things have been done better? Probably. But it's easy to say that *after* the fact.
Ordinary people did extraordinary things that day. I think we surprised ourselves at how well everyone worked together under such horrible conditions. We didn't need a president issuing orders to tell us how to act.
This ranting and raving about Bush and the 'seven minutes' is just nonsense and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. We are not children who need to have Daddy President lead us by the hand in everything we do. A president is a leader, not a micro manager. There is a difference.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 7, 2004 at 10:08 AMSo I grab dinner tonight from one of those little chinese take out places (chicken lo-mein, thanks for asking)...and I was thinking, every one of these little places has the exact same menu, with the exact same calendar, and the exact same pictures of the exact same meals hanging over the counter.
Obviously there is some central planning here. Now, I've been in a lot of these takeout places and only one time did I see a non-Chinese person working there. I always see the newspapers written in chinese on a table. Something is going on.
Each city must have a hundred of these places. If each has 8-10 employees that's a lot of workers. I'm pretty sure they are waiting on a signal from the motherland to take over. We'd have no chance.
The threat to the US is not the middle east, or North Korea. It's from China. All through No. 1 Chinese Takeout, and Golden Panda Chinese, and A1 Chinese, etc.
Posted by: Bill in Boston at August 7, 2004 at 10:24 AMSo I'm in the parking lot at the golf course this afternoon and one space over from me there's this guy with this late model Mustang. He's putting away his bag and stuff and I happen to notice this tag hanging from the latch mechanism inside his trunk. It's a glow-in-the-dark tag with a picture of a car with an open trunk, an arrow pointing out, a little running man stick figure and three dots. I've since come to find out that this is a safety feature called the Emergency Trunk Release and that it's there in case you 'accidentally' lock yourself inside the trunk.
Have you ever seen the inside of a Mustang trunk? You couldn't even 'accidentally' lock a kid inside the trunk. (OK, maybe if the kid was sufficiently doped up, but if you had a doped-up kid in the trunk I think the latch would have been the first thing to go. On the other hand, this latch-release thing would have certainly livened up the opening scene of Goodfellas.)
I wonder how Ford came up with the stats necessary to include the Emergency Trunk Release as a safety feature. "Well, we could make side-curtain airbags standard." "No, I think the money's best put into the trunk."
The principal of my Elementary School was "Dr. Newbury". And he demanded respect.
Found out years after I graduated that his Doctorate was on honorary one. From the "Staley School of the Spoken Word".
What a douchebag.
Posted by: Bill in Boston at August 7, 2004 at 10:32 AMTop 5 Least Desirable "Old School" Ways To Die:
1) Burned at the stake. Dying in a fire is one thing as you would more than likely become unconscious first from the smoke/heat. Howvever, a live burning of any type would be ridiculous pain.
2)[The Rack. Slow death by bodily separation. Yeah.
3) Stoned to Death. Yeah and not in a good way. "Throw rocks at me 'til I'm pummeled to bloody unconsciousness? Sure."
4) Drawn and Quartered. Not as painful as D/Q due to the quickness of the act, but still, the thought of being dismembered by horses pulling in 4 different directions ....egads.
5) Maced. Not the spray but the mallet with the spikes. You know it would take a few hard whacks to take you out, and those first one or two hits are bound to sting.
Posted by: Bill in Boston at August 7, 2004 at 10:34 AMSo I'm driving my truck to work this morning, when I feel the need to stop at the local Dunkin Donuts for an iced coffee. Driving along, I'm about 3 or 4 sips into the beverage, enjoying the morning, when something happened that will forever change my life. The cover suddenly jumped off the cup as the cup proceeded to flip upside down pouring the contents out, seemingly all over my lap and the console. However, after the initial shock I was confused to find no liquid on any of my clothing. After a quick further review, there was also no liquid to be found on the car seats or floor. You see, the entire iced coffee, every drop of it flowed directly into the two plastic sealed cupholders within the console. Of course the aforementioned cupholders were just large enough to house a medium iced coffee, but too small to allow me to scoop the contents out with the only tool available - the now empty Dunkin Donuts cup. I was then forced to drive quite defensively, turning was particularly challenging, as to not give gravity an excuse to overflow icey drink onto the seats or myself. That was 7 hours ago. The coffee is still there, I just don't have the heart to remove it. You see, I think all this happened for a reason, I think I may be Jesus. That coupled with the fact that I saw a horse walking on the beach today.
Posted by: Bill in Boston at August 7, 2004 at 10:41 AMAh, Bill! LOL! Thank you. I needed some comedy in the midst of this nonsense.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 10:51 AM
Impaling. I wouldn't want to be impaled.
That thing with a hot poker up your ass would suck, too. Is there a name for that? I bet it's cool. The name, I mean. The poker would suck.
I used to think that defenestration would be horrible, too, until I found out it just meant being chucked out a window. That was about the same time I found out that seppuku meant disemboweling yourself.
If you had asked me before that to choose between seppuku and defenestration, I'd have picked seppuku. Just shows to go ya.
I wouldn't mind hanging if I could get my jerk on, too. I hear that rocks.
That's how INXS's lead singer died, you know!
Posted by: Quentin George at August 7, 2004 at 11:52 AMI dip into the site every now and then and find it has descended from being a reasonably sensible bastion of liberal/libertarian good sense to now become a padded cell with shrieking, backy-chewing trailor-trash ranting about John Kerry, the insignificant Margo Kingston and that phony but equally unimportant Phatty Adams. Not much here resembles the traditional conservative side of Australian politics any more. Most of what goes on here now is a mimeograph of the NRA, Red State bilge pumped out over here every day. What has gone wrong? Most libs in Australia have plenty in common with Kerry and the Dems, particularly on fiscal management. Why just the cheering for W? There are enough of that around and, frankly, with a Google ranking of 53,000, your efforts are hardly likely to affect anything much in the US. Why not a more nuanced view of the world that might include the following?
Bush's goals in Iraq were good and just, but the execution has been unforgivably incompetent. Bush is probably intelligent, but certainly incurious. He's blown a budget surplus in ways that would upset any good market economist.
Kerry seems intelligent and decent. The man is a war hero. He is a distinguished legislator and would probably be a fine president.
Howard has been an excellent PM, and he, more than any other politician understands the Australian electorate. He was dead right on Iraq, East Timor and gun control. And contrary to what Tim might say, the Tampa was an unmitigated disaster for liberals. Why? Because a true liberal/libertarian believes in freedom of the factors of production, including people and their labour. Badgering Afghans, Pakis or whoever they were shouldn't be part of the liberal character, if we're to be consistent with the philosophy.
Latham is a flakey thug and thoroughly untested. His becoming PM could be a calamity of Whitlam proportions.
Posted by: Boston Brahmin at August 7, 2004 at 12:14 PMBoston Brahmin, do you begin all of your postings with ad hominem attacks on the entire readership? Some sort of nuanced manner of winning hearts and minds and respect?
Thanks for your input. I'd go back to mny trailer, if I lived in one and chew some baccy, if I chewed it.
Well, choke and die, fuck you very much.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 7, 2004 at 12:27 PMDear Boston Brahmin:
You write, "Bush's goals in Iraq were good and just, but the execution has been unforgivably incompetent." On the contrary, the execution was excellent, in many ways brilliant. See John Keegan's "The Iraq War" for details. Remember the pre-war jeremiads - about Stalingrad on the Euphrates and the rest of it? None of it happened, in part to good luck, which (as Napoleon reminds us) is the residue of good planning. So, it wasn't perfect; some developments caught the administratio off guard: well, the Battle of the Bulge caught FDR with his pants down, but nobody downplays the brilliance of his victory.
You write: "Bush is probably intelligent, but certainly incurious. He's blown a budget surplus in ways that would upset any good market economist." The budget surplus was hardly blown. Most of it never existed in the first place. The "surplus" consisted of projections based on a wildly inflated stock market (and wildly inflated capital gains revenues). And don't forget, a war broke out in the meantime, which tends to put a crimp in the budget as well.
You write: "Kerry seems intelligent and decent. The man is a war hero. He is a distinguished legislator and would probably be a fine president." Intelligent perhaps, though his writings and speeches do nothing to reinforce that assertion. Decent, I wouldn't know - I've never met the man. Distinguished legislator? Give me a break. Name one major piece of legislation that he's guided through the Senate. As for his voting record, he has a solid record of voting against program, both in intelligence and in the military, that give us any chance of winning this war.
"Probably a fine president"? I doubt it. I would feel better about his fitness to be chief executive if he'd run so much as a hot-dog stand in his life. Experience as a legislator often leaves a person particularly badly prepared to assume executive office - here, the American system differs significantly from the British, and probably to its detrement. When you look at American presidents, you find that nearly all of the successful ones have some sort of executive experience, usually as state governors; the last man to go directly from Congress was the original JFK, the guy who brought us the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the overthrow of President Diem (and our involvement in Vietnam), and the overthrow of the government of Iraq by the Ba'athist Party. Hardly a distinguished record. My guess is that our JFK, would be similarly vascillating between macho fury and pusillanimity.
I hope I'm wrong - it wouldn't be the first time that I've been surprised. Time will tell.
Thanks for the post. Regards ...
Posted by: Brown Line at August 7, 2004 at 12:54 PM"Doesn't sound like he watched a replay to me. Nor does it sound vague; note the details of his actions. And this was over 2 years in the past at the time of the interview."
He doesn't say either way if he saw it live or on a replay, the "details" are far from clear on this point, and the context doesn't favor one explanation over the other - so "40 minutes" is a matter of speculation.
Posted by: MaB at August 7, 2004 at 01:10 PMBecause a true liberal/libertarian believes in freedom of the factors of production, including people and their labour.
Actually, only a minority of self-identified libertarians believe that, in my experience; a free movement of all people to and from anywhere is generally seen as a rather anarcho-capitalist notion. Not to mention that you've got brothers in arms among the far-left believers in transnationalism on that point. Why you expected to find such sentiments on a site that according to you represents "the traditional conservative side of Australian politics", that's rather beyond me. But I guess that's why you threw in that nugget about those being the opinions of "true" liberals and libertarians. Thanks for the Orwellian attempt at redefining terms.
Incidentally, you appear to have missed all the protectionist rhetoric coming from that "fine president" John Kerry and his veep running mate.
And yeah, ditto what Steve said about your introductory remarks. Are you by chance related to "bemused spectator"?
Posted by: PW at August 7, 2004 at 01:18 PMWow! This is easy! I'm gonna make a way-cool movie!
"Independence Day" already had a President jump into a fighter. ;-)
for all the ausies's here,i hope you get to see
the new flick coming,spread the word,and when it
is here and done,tim will know about it from me.
no,i am not a producer on the film. just spreading
the word.
MICHAELMOOREHATESAMERICA.COM
click on filmmakers journey.........
screw john kerry on the 7 fucking whatever.....
MaB said:
"He doesn't say either way if he saw it live or on a replay, the "details" are far from clear on this point, and the context doesn't favor one explanation over the other - so "40 minutes" is a matter of speculation. "
Wow! Nice job of answer deflection! You don't like it, so the analysis is wrong. OK, well, it's clear you aren't going to accept any possibility that Kerry might be have a problem here.
But I will point out that Kerry said he sat in stunned silence. I also conceded you 33 minutes, putting him on the same level as Bush (7 minutes).
It's a small point, but very symbolic. And Kerry wasn't even reading a book to children.
You might think about that for a minute, before you blow it off as well.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 01:30 PMBrown Line: thanks for the civil and considered reply. You are a decent person. On Iraq, I think it is fair to say they relied far too much on charlatans like Chalabi, and vastly underestimated the cost in US lives and $. It might still succeed (I hope it does) but better handling of the first few weeks after the military victory would have improved the chance of that, don't you think?
On the budget surplus - you're wrong. The money was already in the bank, in fact they dabbled with the idea of investing it in the equity market (Skub doesn't know what that is).
On Kerry, I will take your word on it for now, if you promise to think hard and honestly about the guy and what sort of president he might be. I don't think executive experience guarantees success in the presidency. You cite JFK, probably rightly but, equally, I could cite Nixon and Carter (former VP and governor, respectively) as failed presidents, and Truman as a wild success.
Steve Skub-butt: accusing me of an ad hominem attack and then saying "choke and die, fuck you very much" counts as inconsistency in my book. Your spelling errors and swift resort to abuse suggest to me a feeble, troubled mind. Chewing tobacco, fucking your sister, playing the harmonica through your clacker - take your pick. I don't care. But don't pretend you're anything but a yammering clown.
Posted by: Boston Brahmin at August 7, 2004 at 01:36 PMeyes ageein' wif pw un brown line.
eyes got mose a wut thays sayin.Wus thaat bostin fella pickin on me.eyes sure as hale hope nut.who saays only smart folks gotta a rights tu post.I wun some respek ya here.eyes can ave some piniuons toooo ya nose.
PW, I don't know who bemused spectator is. It isn't me. Why would I switch handles?
I take your point on freedom of movement. Hardly anyone supports it these days. Incidentally, isn't it strange that around 100 years ago this wasn't an issue? 60 million people migrated in the few decades until 1923 (when the US began to restrict immigration) and it was largely seen as positive. I guess what I should have said is that liberals should revisit this issue, because freedom of movement should be encouraged by those of us who support all sorts of freedoms, political and economic.
Sure, Kerry is playing populist on econ policy. You are right, and it is nuts. But Bush slapped tariffs on steel imports for political reasons, too. I suppose he did it for the same that Kerry does it now. What do you think?
Posted by: Boston Brahmin at August 7, 2004 at 01:45 PM"Reading a story to kids is a good way to check your shit"
Personally, Dave S.; I just give a sample to the doctor.
I have no doubt Mr. Kerry would have acted immediately during those seven minutes...by having the French ambassador's phone number on speed dial. The French anbassador could immediately inform the President of the United States how and to whom he should apologize insuring no time wasted. Crisis solved with no quaqmire!
Posted by: Jeffe at August 7, 2004 at 02:29 PMStarbucks can kiss my ass.
Whenever I go in there to buy a simple cup of coffee, they expect me to participate in the “Starbucks Experience”. And if I order my coffee “wrong”, I get corrected by some minimum-wage-twit who couldn’t articulate their way home.
They don’t sell their coffees in Small, Medium or Large. NOOOOO! They have some pretentious bullshit names like Tall (which is small), Grande and Venti. WTF? Venti is not even a word – it is a Starbucks word – look closely at the menu, they have the word Venti trademarked! They made up the fucking word! And then they train their staff to not respond to normal words like, “I would like a small cup of coffee.”
They ask me, “You mean a Tall?”
Let me see – I’m looking at three cups: a short one, a medium one and a tall one. I don’t want the tall one, I didn't bring that much money – I want the short fucker! Read my fucking lips: IT IS NOT TALL, IT IS SHORT! Goddamn – no wonder the poor bastards who work at Starbucks are dyslexic.
I can see it now – guys, let’s use the Starbucks method for sizing up our cocks. Here, some poor guy has the shortest one, but we will call it the Long cock. Then someone with a medium-sized cock is now Mondo and the guy with the big honker gets to call it Bando. That's right - Bando. I made up that word and you have to use it or I will ignore you. And every woman/man can take pleasure in knowing that her/his man is at least Long.
And what is with these other Starbucks code words, like “With Room” or “Extra Shot”? How fucking pretentious is that? I even notice Starbucks Snobs in line practicing their order so they can whiz through all the special vernacular so, are you ready for this, they can order a cup of coffee.
I would go on, but I am getting hungry. I’m heading over to the local Wendy's to get my double cheeseburger cooked Animal Style. Later.
Posted by: Bill in Boston at August 7, 2004 at 03:39 PMUpon stepping into the office this morning, I had two different people remind me what day it is. “It’s Friday” they spouted, as if they had just unveiled some hidden truth about life……no shit it’s Friday, believe it or not I have a vague understanding of the passing of time, and keep myself moderately aware of what day in the week it is. But thanks anyway, lest I forgot and had the horrible misfortune of thinking it was Thursday. Could you imagine? The horror.
So what does Friday really mean? Why do people feel the need to tell you what day it is? I don’t recall many occasions where an excited employee nudged me with a pointy elbow to remind that it was, in fact, Tuesday. “Dude, it’s Tuesday, sweet.” Well, the reason is most of us hate our jobs, and Friday is our welcome respite from the soul shitting grind that is the working week. And what do most of us do on a Friday night? Drink. Self-medicate. Salute ourselves for another listless week by flooding our central nervous system with what is essentially poison. Before you think me some finger pointing parade rainer, please know that I love, love the poison.
So we drink, letting our horrid memories of pointless meetings, inane office banter, the sound of the printer spitting out the dead carcasses of our beloved, oxygen giving trees just so everyone in the office can read yet another idiotic memo from the CEO reminding us all of the importance of “hammering the phones” (this ass-clown refuses, refuses to email the memos, declaring that it’s much more “personal” when it’s tangible, in your hand, and you’re reading it. Note to cock-smoke, no one reads them anyway, you’d have a better shot at getting us to look at a feces-smeared scrap of notebook paper and sticking that on our desks, you raging, insufferable, overpaid mental midget.) By the way, why couldn’t someone have told me that the phone would be such a huge part of corporate life? I don’t remember hearing in college “by the way, 89% of you will make a living by incessantly calling uninterested parties via the telephone and trying like holy hell to get them to purchase something you yourself don’t even understand or believe in, enjoy, you’re doing yeoman work!” So, we drink, we drink to wash it all away, to silence the demons that fester in our skulls Monday through Friday, that feed off our collective apathy as we whither away in front of the true idiot box (the computer has officially taken over the T.V as the single most contributing factor in the decline of modern civilization, causing at the very least eye damage, and the worst, total and complete mental breakdowns. If Google’s pop-up blocker didn’t come around, I’d be serving 25 to life right now for some sort of reprehensible crime). So we drink, we drink to forget and to forgive. To forget the past 5 days, and forgive ourselves for what we’re about to do in the next two. To forgive ourselves for not becoming what we always dreamed. To forgive ourselves the rampant complacency that has taken a hold of us as we watch our lives slip away, one company-wide email at a time.
So we drink. Like rabbits fuck, we drink, from close of business to close of bar, we imbibe enough alcohol in one sitting in the vein, fruitless attempt to carve out just a smidgen of fun in an this suddenly barren, bleak, pale existence we call our lives.
Okay, I think I’m getting a bit too depressing. It’s Friday after all, as I was just reminded by Kelly, our sales engineer, as I was typing this. Actually, I should be clearer, she said, “Hey hun, T.G.I.F, right?” I should have replied “L.O.L Kelly, hopefully we both get a little T.L.C tonight, oh, B.T.W, fuck off.”
Kelly’s a nice girl; I should take this out on her.
So we drink. Democrats waiver, we drink; we drink more than Causeway Street smells. We drink more than the T-ride to Chinatown blows. We drink more than Ted Kennedy’s third liver could ever hope to possibly expunge. We drink because we can. We drink because we must.
Now of course, there are some of you out there who like their jobs. A few who dare use the word “love.” But you’re not reading this, because you’re busy doing what you enjoy, not scouring Tim's site for something to rave about.
We drink because Katie, our manager, is so insecure she actually makes breathing awkward.
We drink because Bruce, the VP of being a incredible ass-face (and Biz-Dev) insists upon wearing enough cologne to the point where lighting a match anywhere near him is potentially life threatening.
We drink because Michael, the homophobic advertising guy, gets all red in the face if you call him “Mike.” So of course, we call him Mike often, cutting off the “e” at the end to emphasize the point that we’re really, really enjoying it.
We drink because if we have to endure one more Friday afternoon meeting, we might just projectile vomit in Kevin’s glandular, gnome like face. Just because you don’t have a life doesn’t mean the rest of us want to sit down at 4:45 on a Friday to discuss the company’s direction for Q3. You see Jeff’s left eye twitching? I’d give this meeting another 3 minutes before he reaches across the table and pulls one of your ears off, Kev. The man’s in a custody battle for his children and you’re taking time away from his weekend with them because you’re a selfish, horrible man. And if Kevin does blow, you can bet your ass Mitch, the Northeast sales manager will. I swear that guy starts off cooking some chicken by biting their fucking heads off. Do you hear his unending finger tapping on the faux-marble table? Notice how the pace quickens every few minutes? Well Kev, you’ve got a few more seconds of being a bullshit blowhard until Mitch pulls your heart of your fucking chest.
We drink because there’s no such thing as a good week of work.
We drink because if Jessica doesn’t say, “this is a mission critical decision” at least 4 times a week, it means she was out sick three days. Jessica, it’s an office supply order for Staples, how in HOLY HELL is that mission critical? Do you even know what mission critical means? Do you? You’re the office manager, not the board chairman, the phrase “mission critical” should never, EVER come out of your mouth. It’s a stapler, not a funding request, chill the fuck out.
We drink because there is no such thing as a uni-sex bathroom. It’s a girl’s bathroom people. You wonder why us guys leave the office at least twice to three times a day, not including lunch? It’s because we have to shit, and we can’t very well shit in that veritable Globe Theatre of a restroom, where every sound is amplified ten fold. The one time I just had to go (note to Jessica, now that was a mission critical decision) and simply couldn’t make it to the hotel across the street (those people must have caught on that I’m not staying there, considering they see me every fucking day) I took a shit in the uni-sex bathroom, and what ensued was an anal-philharmonic, led by yours truly, in which the entire office was privy to every fart, grunt, and bowel-related sound effect I had to offer. I felt like taking a bow when I got out, possibly chugging some coffee and going in for an encore. So no, it’s not uni-sex, it’s a girl’s room. You might as well stick a huge tampon on the door with a note reading “No Y Chromosomes allowed.” Oh, and Regina…I salute your utter shamelessness when it comes to shitting. I’ve never, ever seen a women carry the paper under arm when she walks into the bathroom. Bra-fucking-O my girl. Truly, classic stuff.
We drink because we know Ted’s gay, the whole office knows Ted’s gay, Ted’s friends and family know Ted’s gay, and we’re pretty sure at this point Ted must be vaguely aware he’s gay, yet he still insists upon talking about all the “hot ass” he “tags” over the weekend. Note to Ted, it’s not working amigo, when you can recite more show tunes than Nancy, who worked on Broadway in Manhattan for 4 years, well, it’s time to take the jaws of life to that closet door and step out into the world the way you were intended. Thing is Ted, everyone likes you, you’re good people, and coming out won’t change that, it will simply save us from the intensely awkward experience of suffering through one of your bullshit “she was so hot and then we did this and that” stories. How come we never see this girls Ted? How come they never call, never email, and what’s that stain on your shirt? It doesn’t look like mayo.
We drink because we all know that “lunch and learn” really means “this will be the worst lunch you’ll have all week” as we’re forced to share low-rent burrito’s at Chipotle’s and listen to some hired-gun of a sales guy tell us all how we have to “want it” more than the other guy. Hey Chet, this is sales, not rugby, now fuck off.
We drink because Amanda in finance is hot, and Tom in HR thinks he’s going to bang her, and as God in heaven is my witness, if he does I will completely shut down and cry myself to sleep, because Tom in HR is quite possibly a larger d-bag than Kevin, and should he bed Amanda, well, then, nothing is right in the world. We drink because we’re afraid that might happen, and we drink because we’re too afraid to talk to Amanda, save for the pathetic “warm today” comment we threw at her on Tuesday. No shit it’s warm today, she too must come from outside like the rest of us, it’s not as if she wakes up, showers, than steps in her transporter and beams herself to work. She goes outside too, you fuck. And by you, I mean me.
We drink because we’re almost positive Brett and Stu are get stoned at lunch, and we’re pissed they haven’t invited us along yet.
We drink because the last time someone said something funny at work it was completely unintentional, and it revolved around a Freudian slip when Kev, at the end of one of his marathon Friday meetings, was trying to answer Mitch’s constant interjections over our marketing budget but also trying to keep Brian quiet and ended up trying to speak to them both at the same time, calling Mitch “Bitch”. Hilarious. The fact that Kev survived that meeting is a testament to the fact that he’s like a cockroach, and could survive anything. A nuclear holocaust ensues, we’re all dead…and there will be Kevin, holding court in a Friday afternoon meeting with three charred corpses and half a human head, wondering aloud “where everybody is?”
We drink because calling our work weekend in Reno a “retreat” is an oxymoron. It’s not a retreat, it’s an assault, an assault on everything we hold dear ... how DARE you ask me to give up a weekend to go to a conference with the whole company in Reno. I’d rather eat Kevin’s shit. Okay, that’s a little too far. I’d rather throw shit at Kevin. Actually, come to think about, throwing shit at Kevin would be kinda high on my list of things to do over a weekend.
We drink because Shelly has now tried to arrange four different happy hour get togethers and the only one who shows up is Kelly and Mitch, and the only reason Mitch shows up is because he’s a drunk. We drink at some other bar, out of sadness for Shelly. And Mitch.
We drink because the thought of Monday is enough to make us cry.
And finally, we drink because in the end, when it’s all said and done, we have much to celebrate. We are lucky enough to have the luxury of bitching about corporate jobs and cubes and the bullshit office when you consider the state of affairs for most of this planet’s inhabitants, every day a true struggle, food and a roof over their heads never a certainty, but rather something they strive for. We drink because in the end, we’re lucky, spoiled, pampered brats, we know it.
We drink because we can.
We drink because we have to.
Posted by: Bill in Boston at August 7, 2004 at 03:47 PMBoston Brahmin:
On Iraq, I think it is fair to say they ... vastly underestimated the cost in US lives and $.
Actually, there were preparations for thousands of US dead in the initial invasion alone.
What I think was underestimated was the level and/or the duration of insurgency after military victory, and maybe the level of Iranian support for that insurgency. I don't think Bush expected to have to keep troop levels this high for this long.
It might still succeed (I hope it does) but better handling of the first few weeks after the military victory would have improved the chance of that, don't you think?
I don't think better handling was possible given the resources available. It's easy to point out mistakes and miscalculations, but in comparison, the first few weeks after the invasion of Iraq went better than those in the occupations of either Germany or Japan, or for that matter, the South after the Civil War, which was a botched job we're still paying for.
Bush didn't get it perfect, nobody ever has, but as far as occupying a nation goes, I think he's done better than anyone else in history.
Posted by: tom beta 2 at August 7, 2004 at 03:50 PMConsidering I can't very well speak to any of my co-workers on any level resembling human-to-human communication (an example would be this morning, when I asked my boss if she ever got around to getting new head phones for her IPod, and she responded, and I quote "have you finished filing the 03' invoices?"...which created an awkward moment of "did she hear me?", which I finally gave up on and simply, sheepishly, responded "no", and my reward for that answer was a facial expression on her part that seemed more appropriate after hearing "I'm sorry, it's terminal" rather than the realization that those year-old invoices, as mission critical as their filing is, are still, shame of all shames, unfiled) So, with all this in mind,I'm going to apologize to all of you wonderful fellow cube-rats via the comments section here on Tim's site (I should apologize in advance to Tim for wasting his bandwith, but I won't ... although he'll probably ban me from his site) Believe me, if I thought actual "these are real words coming out of my mouth that combine to make a sentence or two which in turn I'm hoping translates into actual communication so therefore you respond in kind, with something pertinent to what I've just said", I'd do it that way, but, per my example above, clearly that's not the case. Oh, and to Susan, in accounts payable, disregard this posting, I'm not sorry for anything I've said and/or done to you. Yes, it was me who changed the "n" and "m" keys on your keyboard, resulting in that one hilarious email you sent out that read something like "Great mews, the mew narketing plam we have inplenetd has beem..." I mean, fucking fantastic Susan. The look on your face when I said "you should really use spell check before you hit send" was priceless. All I got was a breathless "I'm a terrific speller" followed by you wallowing in your cube with the "someone will die for this" look on your face. And yes, I told everyone about it prior to your company-wide email (consider it payback for your meaningless, pointless, "please pay attention to me" emails you send to everyone! I'm not the only one who feels like vomiting every time I see your name in my inbox, so, consider what happened redemption, for everyone, done by me, to you)
Okay, on to the apologies:
Bob, in engineering: Dude, my bad. Honestly, I thought she was just some college buddy, not your girlfriend. When I said to Thomas, in Finance, upon seeing your GF walking into your cube, "you think she had ankles when she was born?" I was not only joking, but also test-driving a really bad pun I had heard early in the week. Seriously, it could have been anyone ... had Mary, from pre-sales, who we all know has a rockin' bod, I would have said the same thing, simply because I wanted to see how the joke tested. Poor, by the way, Thomas barely lifted an eyebrow. Regardless, my bad, no harm intended. Your girlfriend is cute, really.
To Sharon, in HR: First off, what kind of idiot pisses in the HR pool? Me, that's who. I have the gall to joke around with a woman who has access to my HMO, dental, and paychecks? For that reason alone, you should know I meant nothing by my comment last Tuesday. I don't even know where it came from, and it certainly wasn't meant to be mean. You looked nice, I thought I'd be cute with my "hey, I heard green is the new pink, so good for you" comment, regarding your green skirt and off green and white blouse. Honestly, you looked good. But, with my well-earned reputation of being a heartless prick, you assumed I was mocking the green. Honestly though, isn't that what people are saying now in fashion mags, that green is the new pink? And am I the only one who wonders how any color can "be" a new version of another color? Wouldn't pink, in fact, be the new pink? Or at least the old pink? And what's with "black never goes out of style?" Why does black get off so easy? I mean, I agree that black looks good, but still, how the hell do you think that makes yellow feel? Oh, right, they're all just fucking colors ... reminding me of my original point, that one color, as absurd as this may sound, is actually just that color and that color alone. If green really was the new pink, than what's pink? The old blue? You get my point. Regardless, sorry Sharon. My foot, my mouth, they're look college roommates who still live together when they're 34.
To Max, in Biz-Dev: What can I say, the name "Max" is odd to me. I took it too far, my bad.
To Dennis, also in Biz-Dev: We should probably just stop pretending we like each other. It's getting really awkward. I'm sorry for continuing the charade, and I promise I'll stop if you stop.
To Vijay, in Marketing: I know you're not related to the golfer Vijay Singh. I know me saying you are is not only a tad racist (all Fijians are the same, etc) but also just stupid, considering people's relations are not measured by their first names, but rather their last. What can I say, you've got the same first name and look like him. And yes, I admit it, the "he's entering the back nine" joke every time you walk into the bathroom is getting old. (although Carl, also from Marketing as you know, absolutley loves it.)
To Heather, the secretary: I'm just sorry you're married. You're funny, you're sweet, you're witty. Why are you our secretary again? You should be so much more ... like my wife. But you're not. Good for you Steve, she's a great girl. (asshole).
To Mitty, VP of something or other: You don't know this, but I was supposed to be your secret Santa last year, but refused to play along, didn't show to the company party, and thus, you got nothing. Sorry. Keep up the good work. Whatever it is you do.
And finally, to Larry, our CE-motherfucking O: I'm sorry you hired me, i've spent the last 4 hours on espn.com, Instapundit, National Review, Blair's site, back to espn.com, and finally, I nodded off in the bathroom for 10 to 20 minutes. I'm a horrible employee. Horrible.
The slate is clean.
Not much up on what's going on in OZ these days, but very glad your PM (Howard) is a good man, and standing beside us in Iraq. Thank you. Unlike many Americans, I know you were beside us in Vietnam, too - I worked just down the hall from the craziest bunch of Aussies that ever drank beer - a truly great bunch of guys. Thank you for being THERE, too.
As for Bush and Kerry: I'm a Vietnam vet - not just a "Vietnam Era" veteran, but one who served in that steamy, hot, sweaty, and often scary nation. Although I wore a "blue suit" (US Air Force), on at least one occasion I was in a position to be shot at, and forced to shoot back. No Silver Star, no Purple Heart, but definitely the Order of the Puckered Spincter, with clusters.
I was assigned to, and worked for, the 12th Reconnaissance Intelligence Technical Squadron. We did much of the imagery intelligence work for all of Southeast Asia. There wasn't much about the War we didn't see, every day. I was in Vietnam from October, 1970, through October, 1971 - a year "tour". I saw no attrocities. The only attrocity I ever heard about was My Lai, and Lt. Calley. There were many, many stupid things that happened, but no large-scale attrocities, no "rapes, murders, villages destroyed, and animals killed on a daily basis". John Kerry lied. He slandered me and all my fellow soldiers who served. He did it deliberately in order to promote a personal political career and a personal political agenda. I can never, ever vote for him, nor accept him as "just another politician". He is a fraud and a thief. He's stolen my good name, and attempted to steal my honor. He should be hounded from this nation, not allowed to run for its highest office.
As for what happened on 9/11: I, too, was stunned by what happened. When I realized that the two jets striking the Twin Towers in Washington, DC, was just part of what was taking place, I went downstairs to my office, and sent an email to the Pentagon, volunteering to be recalled to active duty (I'm a retired Noncommissioned officer). I am still willing to return to active duty, and to serve, to the best of my ability, in whatever capacity my country might need me. I'm 57 years old, and disabled. I'm pretty sure I'll have to have surgery again on my neck, and another two disks removed and my neck fused at two more levels, but I'll put that off, and go back tomorrow, if I'm called. I'm willing to go to Iraq, or anywhere else my country needs me. I know at least 100 other Viet vets that feel the same way - because we understand that it's not just a war, but our very way of life that's at stake. We think George Bush will work to protect that. We're not sure John Kerry even understands the question.
Posted by: Old Patriot at August 7, 2004 at 04:14 PMTim,
I didn't read this post before I read it. Therefore I didn't know any of it before I didn't. Therefore I ate corn in Aiowa (that's how they spell it, isn't it?) before I didn't. Or if I did, I never spelled it before I ate it, which I also didn't know about. So before you go any further, Tim, just know my VP candidate is a lawyer and he knows how to sue. Sue! I didn't know that before I selected him, but I didn't select him because I voted not to select him before I did.
Just so there's no confusion.... Bush Lied!!!!
I think he lied about corn today. NO!!!! In Vietnam, we were a gang of brothers, not like these bastard coalition members in Iraq. We were a gang. No! No wait! We were a band of brothers. We were a band before Bush lied and made us a band. We were never a gang. Nor were we ever an elitist group led by me. Elitists eating corn? How on earth?
Boston Brahmin:
When members of my family arrived in Boston, the Brahmins tried to deny them employment. But, I don't hold that against anyone as we've done very well since 1899.
I guess with a nick like Boston Brahmin I should expect the prejudice Bostonians have associated with that group. So I'm not too surprised you have judged a group of people on a blog as you have.
You were so nice and complimentary to say:
".. shrieking, backy-chewing trailor-trash ranting about John Kerry, the insignificant Margo Kingston and that phony but equally unimportant Phatty Adams..Most of what goes on here now is a mimeograph of the NRA, Red State bilge pumped out over here every day."
Plenty of non-trailer trash people in Kerry's home state rant about him. It's because we've known the guy for 20 years and realize what a huge mistake it would be for him to be elected president.
I come from a long line of old-style Liberal Democrats. Many in my family were, and are, union members. Some of my relatives volunteered to help JFK (the REAL JFK) get elected locally and nationally. There is not one stereotypical NRA type in my family. (Although members of my family have hunted and do own guns.)
I would be hard pressed to try and put the people who post here into one neat political box. I also don't see anyone spouting any sort of party line, talking points, or parroting any one group. (Except for the trolls.)
There is levity. People poking fun and deflating some of the pompous windbags who think they know so much. Perhaps it's difficult to see the intelligence and reasoning of many posters because of the levity. I suggest you look at the archives.
Intelligent people can be against Kerry. They can also look at Margo and Adams and have quite a good time poking holes in their latest scribblings.
"Why just the cheering for W? There are enough of that around and, frankly, with a Google ranking of 53,000, your efforts are hardly likely to affect anything much in the US."
Why Bush? Bush is imperfect. I don't agree with him on all things and he has made, what appear to me to be, mistakes. However, I'm a ONE ISSUE person this year. First time I've ever been a one issue voter. I want Bush because I don't trust Kerry to handle the War On Terror.
People post to blogs based on ratings? Who knew?
I thought people posted on blogs because the blog was interesting. It never crossed my mind that I could influence the US voting public by posting here. Heck, I never thought to influence the Australian voting public. I just post because it's interesting.
Well, gotta go and chew my 'backy in the trailor park.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 7, 2004 at 04:34 PMBut, but... we all know what he REALLY would have done!
Posted by: Spiny Norman at August 7, 2004 at 04:43 PMOld Patriot, I saw a lot of your kind that day. I work in a VA Hospital, and I saw the eyes of our patients. If someone had offered them a chance to go, no one who saw their faces could have doubted that, to a man, they would have dragged themselves out of bed and gone. In a very fortunate life, I've never seen such a literally deadly serious expression on anyone's face. And they all had it. I salute you, and them.
Posted by: Colin MacDougall at August 7, 2004 at 04:53 PMOld Patriot:
Thank you, and all the others, for your service. It is appreciated.
"John Kerry lied. He slandered me and all my fellow soldiers who served."
I missed Vietnam by about a year (finishing college when it ended). Many of my cousins were in Vietnam. One of them sustained a very bad spinal injury and is in a wheelchair today.
They also dislike Kerry for the same reasons you gave. He painted them all as some sort of monster baby killers. The public spit on the vets when they returned home because of what people like Kerry said happened in Vietnam. I'm not blaming *just* Kerry, but he certainly helped contribute to the public's low opinion of the vets.
It's not surprising to see a group of vets organizing to tell their story of what they observed. How Kerry is not telling the truth, from their observations, about what happened. The Kerry people must be in a panic as to how best to shut these guys up. They won't be shut up though. They have 30-40 years of frustration and anger ready to vent.
It isn't about Bush for them, it's about how they feel Kerry stabbed them all in the back.
Some people don't seem to understand this and believe it's just politics. It isn't politics. It's deep and personal.
It's good these men finally have a chance to tell their side of the story. It's about time the public heard the truth.
I don't any of you have defended Bush. He *did* show his true colors on 9/11. The happiness of a roomful of students is secondary. Perhaps it's not nice that he should bring this up, and perhaps it doesn't jibe with his other comment. It would be hard for anyone to say how they would be different from Bush without saying negative things about him. Aren't conservatives supposed to be in favor of personal achievement? So why support Bush? He's in the top 0.001% of the elite in the US, and he didn't parlay this into any kind of personal success. Would you hire him to run your business? Be honest.
Posted by: Sam Spade at August 7, 2004 at 05:06 PM"So why support Bush? He's in the top 0.001% of the elite in the US, and he didn't parlay this into any kind of personal success. Would you hire him to run your business? Be honest."
I'm not a conservative, but I'll play.
I could substitute Kerry and ask the same question.
As for what Bush has achieved, there is at least one post (above) that has a partial list. It's rather lengthy. I honestly fail to see how Bush can be called a non-achiever.
Post a list of what Kerry has achieved in his 20 years of public service. What legislation has he *personally* championed that is now law?
I would trust Bush any day over Kerry to run my business. (Seriously.)
Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 7, 2004 at 05:18 PMChrist on a crutch, Brahmin, where is your head? Are you supposed to be humorous? You don't know me, you don't know any of us - you hope. So hide yourself behind the anonymity of the internet and snipe and shot and trashtalk all you want. Bet five bucks you're too smart to speak to an actual person the way you post.
Because if you did you'd be picking your teeth out of your own shit.
Which you probably eat when you're not munching on your momma's shit. Ha ha, snort, right back atcha. Having fun yet?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 7, 2004 at 05:54 PMIn a time of a national emergency, such as 9/11, the President is under the direct orders of the SS. In fact if you read the 9/11 report they spell it out quite clearly. Bush was told by the SS to continue with the school kids as SS determined where to go and how to get there; Cheney was essentially picked up and shuffled off to a safe room - literally picked up by SS.
But let Kerry use Mikhail Moore's idiotic points to sway the Bush is Hitler crowd. I'm sure the Midwest and South will be very impressed. Hell now that Kerry has LA, NYC and Boston locked up he might as well stop campaigning.
One other thing: When the 3rd plane hit the Pentagon Rumsfeld ran in to assist the wounded. I believe he even received 2nd degree burns doing so. Kerry was right across the river...what did he do? Does anyone think Kerry wd appoint people such as the character of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice or Powell in his administration? Dean, Biden, Sharpton and McCain, yeah, no doubt, but that is as good as a Kerry cabinet as it is going to get.
Posted by: hen at August 7, 2004 at 10:18 PM"in common with Kerry and the Dems, particularly on fiscal management."
Heh, you haven't actually read mr. K's spending proposals, I reckon? For the record: Clinton's spending record was a function of Deadlock, not of presidential fiscal restraint. Certainly, Deadlock is an argument for electing Kerry, but harldy his policy proposals.
Posted by: Döbeln at August 7, 2004 at 11:10 PMAction vs. Inaction
On 6 June 1944, after General Eisenhower had set into motion the largest invasion in history the previous day, with a single order given, Hitler and Field Marshal Rommel (who was in charge of the German Defenses in France) issued several orders to meet the invasion threat, all of which turned out to be wrong and led to improper actions and, in some cases, inaction on the part of the German Army. This ultimately led to the defeat of the German Reich.
Eisenhower and President Roosevelt issued no orders that day ------- and won.
Posted by: subsunk at August 8, 2004 at 12:17 AMOld Patriot, God bless you and your fellow veterans.
Boston Brahmin:
I don't think executive experience guarantees success in the presidency. You cite JFK, probably rightly but, equally, I could cite Nixon and Carter (former VP and governor, respectively) as failed presidents, and Truman as a wild success.
You're mis-stating the proposition, it actually is: lack of executive experience is a good predictor of failure. The first JFK was given as an example of poor performance by a President whose political experience was limited entirely to the US Senate. Thus two of your counter-examples (Nixon & Carter) are irrelevent and the third actually strengthens the point, Truman had been Vice President.
Posted by: Dean Douthat at August 8, 2004 at 01:14 AMLeft unclear is how Kerry's imagined actions would have changed the course of events During that seven minutes.
Presumably he believes that seven minutes could have been better used in signing a Presidential Proclamation condemning the WTC attacks [in true UN-like fashion], thus preventing Flight 77 from hitting the Pentagon.
Maybe he truly believes an immediate Presidential pardon issued during that critical seven minutes would have altered the mindset of those in control of Flight 93. That the islamofacists would have seen the error of their ways and safely landed the plane, rather than drilling it into the center of Pennslyvainia's rich farmland. Perhaps.
Perhaps we can all expect Kerry to suit up in his "bunny suit" again and endorse this version of Flight 77, or this version. At this point Kerry may be posting here under an assumed name. Anything is possible.
...................... Waiting for the inevitable Kerry version of a Dean scream!
Okay, folks -- this site is going registration-only as soon as I finish setting it up. But until it does, a few words on posting rules:
1. andrea/minnesota: hon, we know about the Michael Moore Hates America movie. Could you please stay on topic?
2. Bill in Boston: your posts have amused many here, but they are getting too long, and needless to say, they are also off topic. There is no reason for you to use another blogger's bandwidth to satisfy your creative impulses when there are so many free website hosts out there. I suggest you go to Google or your favorite search engine and type "free webhosts" or "free blogs" and start looking.
3. Boston Brahmin: you started off by insulting all the commenters here, and then have the gall to complain when you get the same treatment back. That's grounds for being banned from this site even if you hadn't hijacked this thread with the same tedious arguments all the other trolls have used.
4. All you tiny tard-trolls with your "amusing" droppings here, laugh while you can, because your droppings will be disappearing from this site as soon as I have finished my cup of coffee. Oh, and you'll be banned too.
Same here, Old Patriot. Suffice it to say that this 43-year-old man saw right through the BS that the Fondas and Kerrys were spewing out back then. They were able to fool some people, but not as many as they thought.
And Bill in Boston, you have quite a talent there buddy. If you can find a way to host a blog on some corner of your company's website, you could have the equivalent of George Costanza eating a sandwich while having sex while watching TV.
Posted by: Brent at August 8, 2004 at 02:01 AMhere's how FDR reacted to the news of Pearl Harbor being attacked:
"Alonzo Fields [White House butler]: Now, when I went upstairs, they had set up in the bedroom and they were taking communications from what was going on. And Paul Watson came out and he had this message and he says, "Mr. President, the whole damn Navy is gone. What in the hell are we going to do?" And the President and Mr. Hopkins -- he said to Mr. Hopkins, he says, "My God, my God, how did it happen?" He had his head in hands and at his desk like this. He says, "How did it happen?" He says, "Now I'll go down in history disgraced."
there's more HERE.
also included in the link is Rabin's reaction at the onset of the Six Day War.
Since Kerry isn't in the hotseat just yet, maybe he should hedge his bets...
Posted by: Glenn Bowen at August 8, 2004 at 02:22 AMTeresa Kerry knows what to do in a crisis:
Addressing the crowd, Kerry's wife, Teresa, took a swipe at the Bush administration. "You cannot solve problems by throwing stones, and you cannot solve problems by telling lies, and you cannot solve problems by wishing ill to other people," she said. "The only way you solve problems is by holding hands and talking about it, and that's what we want to do in this campaign."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/kerry_questions_bushs_wartime_leadership?mode=PF
Posted by: J F Beck at August 8, 2004 at 03:43 AMDean: I haven't gotten around to reading the McCullough bio of Truman yet, but from what reading I do remember, I'd wager a good part of Truman's self-confidence came from his time as an artillery battery commander during WWI.
A job requiring more comprehensive management skills than commanding a small boat with a crew of only several men. It was a National Guard unit, so I suspect that Truman's command tenure was considerably longer than 4 months.
Sustained military experience in command positions can also be a possible predictor of success in executive positions in politics. The Dems would have done better to go with Wesley Clark, if their grand strategy for winning the election is to go straight at Bush's perceived strength (national security).
(I leave aside Clark's amazing political boffos, like the personal appearance with Michael Moore. Since ex-Prez Carter also did this at the convention I've been inclined to be a little more charitable towards this faux pas by Clark.
If Kerry wins it'll be interesting to see if he feels unconstrained in being much more publicly associated with Moore. What a disheartening spectacle that would be).
Posted by: Paul H. at August 8, 2004 at 05:35 AMPaul, another aspect of commanding a National Guard -- true now, but especially so back in WWI -- is that the unit members all came from the same general area. Literally, within walking distance of the armory.
It's a good bet that most of the soldiers had grown up together, were neighbors, did business with each other, and many were likely related by blood and/or marriage.
Now, imagine taking this unit into battle, where one has to motivate the soldiers into putting themselves into harms way. Yes, they trained for war. But that final step in combat still requires firm leadership to avoid what is technically known as a "charlie foxtrot".
That Truman was able to do this under those conditions speaks well for his leadership and executive abilities.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 8, 2004 at 05:55 AMSometimes the best response to a stupid Kerry quote is another of Kerry's own stupid quotes:
"Sometimes truly courageous leadership means having the courage not to show any leadership."
If Bush hadn't been following SS standard operating procedures during those 7 minutes, he could always claim instead to be exercising Kerry's brand of "truly courageous leadership."
Posted by: Kevin B. at August 8, 2004 at 06:46 AMFrom what I've heard from servicemembers, it is only the insecure and incompetent officer who doesn't allow his subordinates to do their jobs as a situation may require. In emergencies, leadership going off half-cocked is ineffective, sometimes counter-productive and always foolish.
Bush was right to use the few minutes that his staff and security people needed to arrange for his transportation and safe place of command and control for collecting his thoughts. Admittedly, he looked stunned, because a sudden and surreal situation had just befallen the country and his leadership. At least he was secure and smart enough not to pull an alarmist Al "I am in control here" Haig moment.
The best part of all is how genuine Bush's shock was. Not only did it belie the twisted charge that he "knew" about the plot, it reflected how the entire nation felt in those moments. Since then, he seems not to have forgotten those moments, nor what their import is, whereas Kerry and the Dems are back to business as usual. Maybe they should have taken seven minutes to absorb the calamity and its history-altering implications, as did Bush.
Posted by: c at August 8, 2004 at 08:24 AMBravo, c! Bravo! That's an aspect I didn't think of. Well put, indeed. Dave S. phrased it differently, but you say it better.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 8, 2004 at 09:55 AMHow about nobody even answer that comprehensive mish-mash of factoids above, so that "she" will go away? How about no rising to the bait that supporting this war is unAustralian?
Still, what curious logic. How would agreeing with Chirac and part of Europe, the sidelined part, be more "Australian"? Would agreeing with Miranda and her ilk be "independent" thought? How can Tim's incisive commentary be considered "lazy" when Miranda just lists to the left with freshman level talking points? How is Miranda's anti-Americanism anything other than really tired and unclever schtick?
Getting sucked in... I. must. stop...)
[This comment refers to one that has been removed. -- The Management.]
Posted by: Cream Kerry and Latham, too at August 8, 2004 at 12:11 PM