How pathetically dumb does a US President have to be to sit there like a zombie after being told that?

Question

the biggest attack that the United States has ever known has just taken place. For us Brits, Fahrenheit 911 is on MONDAY 10TH SEPTEMBER on Channel 4

Answer 1

Hey, "My Pet Goat" is one of the most suspenseful novels of our time...

Answer 2

I assume you are talking about the President reading to some school children.
IMO it was absolutely the right thing to do. There were other people getting more information and not much would have been accomplished by panicking and scaring a bunch of small children. I think his calm reaction was what I would want to see in a leader not someone who would have started to panic.

As for the movie it is edited and spliced together to make things that may have happened look like something that didn't. The picture on the front is a good example of what the movie is. The picture of Moore and the picture of the president are real . . . . but that they were there holding hands is not. That is the way the entire movie is put together.

Also note in the credits that the movie was funded by the terrorist group Hezbollah, who are also promoting the film in the United Arab Emirates . Don't you wonder why a terrorist group would want to support a Bush bashing movie?

(People (like you) should get some common sense.)

Answer 3

You liberals are frightening. If you can't comprehend remaining cool and thoughtful immediately after receiving shocking news, we don't need you anywhere near the button.

For years now this question has been posed in a negative manner. That can only lead me to believe that had the attack taken place under the command of a liberal president, we would have seen nuclear annihilation or at the very least a president jumping up, screaming and hiding beneath a childs desk crying out, "make it go away!".

Answer 4

So what would you have done. Leapt up and decided what? This is absolutely in no defence of Bush but I fail to see that the episode of Bush reading just after the attack means that he is a bad president. He was told to sit there whilst the security forces and the military (those competent to come up with something) tried to decide what to do. There was absolutely NOTHING he could have done.

Why is every single one of your questions so devoid of thought and insight?

Answer 5

Hello, Would you rather have seen him running about in sheer panic, He took the news as he should have done shock,anger, disbelieve, like many of us. Pathetically dumb was the animals who did the horrendous murders.

Answer 6

Yeah...you're right. He should have stood up in front of all the five and six year olds, ripped off his suit to reveal his Rambo outfit and pulled out his semi-automatic. Hey...he should have even fired a couple of rounds off into the ceiling...the kids would have gotten a kick out of that...hey and maybe even yelled "Kids...we're under attack..take cover!!" And then jumped in his fighter jet and flown to.....oh wait...at that point they didn't even know who was behind it. Just because you don't like our President doesn't mean that you have to sit around and come up with such pathetically dumb questions that at this point really doesn't even matter anymore. And by the way...congratulations on Channel 4 showing Fahrenheit 911....glad to know.

Answer 7

You are a Bushophobe who would be critical of anything Bush would have done, and no intelligent person is fooled by you. Keep saying Bush is stupid. You liberals aren't good for much, but you are good for a joke here...

Answer 8

OK so you are taking Micheal Moores word as the absolute and defining truth

you can make a movie say anything you want it to it is called editing you don't show the parts that you don't like you cut them out
so it could have a pinch of truth and truck load of BS and you wouldn't know unless you did your own research

but do you expect from a guy who thinks Cuba is better than the USA

Answer 9

Note the irony of this question...accusing Bush of not reacting with a group of children who the last thing they needed was to have the s**t scared out of them needlessly. Then, when Bush reacts and does what he believes is in the best interest of America (right or not he felt Iraq was in our best interests to resolve) you accuse him of reacting. Which do you want?

If you don't believe in the war, that's fine. But not believing in it because one of your own isn't running the show is ignorant.

Answer 10

So the first plane hit, and was considered to be an accident. The 2nd one hits, what was suppose to happen exactly? Jump up and scream "We're under attack"! and freak children out? Jump in a jet plane and check each and everyone of the thousands of planes flying that day? Stand guard in Washington D.C. with a rifle? Monday morning quarterbacking knowing which planes were hijacked is easy. No one knew what planes were hijacked, that's why they were all grounded.

So, what exactly do you think should have been done? "Something" is the usual response, cause everyone that criticises Bush for thinking over the situation in that classroom have no clue or coherent thought when it comes to what should have been done. Just an amazing belief that somehow "they coulda done better".

Answer 11

He just had to wait until someone, anyone, could tell him what to do. Not dumb, just totally totally incompetent.

He didn't have to freak out, a qualified person could have said sorry kids, I have some president business to take care of but we'll meet again another time or some such thing.

Instead he sat there, paralyzed with fear? uncertainty? whatever; it was it was, as someone else has said, totally pathetic. Maybe that's why he reacted later with such violence and bluster, to overcompensate for looking like an indecisive wimp at first.