posted on October 11, 2001 09:32:05 PM new
I have not seen or heard a word from him - not on TV or the radio-since the attacks on 9-11. Has anyone else? Maybe I missed it.
Seems really strange to me that we haven't heard anything at all from him.I also thought Bush acted kind of goofy when asked about him at tonights press conference.
posted on October 11, 2001 09:53:34 PM new
I was just thinking that earlier, Rawbunz. So did my husband. I think it is VERY strange that he has not been seen or heard of at all. Very strange.
posted on October 11, 2001 09:58:40 PM new
He was on tv once, the weekend after Sept. 11th, or the weekend after that? He did an interview with someone, can't remember who... But as far as I know, that was his only tv appearance, though supposedly he's shown up in photographs once or twice.
posted on October 11, 2001 10:16:50 PM new
Well, Glad it isn't only me that thinks it's weird.
It does seem like he should have had something to say to the public. Hope he hasn't had another heart attack .
Donny, Did you see him on TV? I haven't even seen a picture of him. Doesn't it seem odd that he hasn't gone to NYC to see the destruction? He could go when Bush isn't there, after all.I know they can't be in the same place at the same time.
posted on October 11, 2001 10:25:37 PM new
Although the official line is that he is being kept gaurdedly away so as to protect the line of ascendency should bush be killed, he's apparently in daily meeting with bush. The white house gets huffy at suggestions that he is running the conduct of things and not bush, but they don't directly deny that possibility.
There's been plenty of interest but little hard info from the white house. His health is said to be fine.
posted on October 11, 2001 11:37:39 PM new
Yup, Rawbunzel, I did see him when he was on tv, "Meet the Press," the Sunday after the 11th, re Krs' link. He looked okay then, his usual self. He didn't say anything especially memorable, about all I can recall is that he took the opportunity to plug the missile defense system.
Oh, it is weird. Every day, someone is telling us that we have to go about our normal business, get on airplanes, go out and shop, go to NYC, we won't be held hostage, that's what the terrorists want, etc. etc. And so where is Cheney? Hiding away in some super-secret protected place. It's safe enough so that we should all just fly around to NYC and shop, to show those terrorists that they can't scare us! But Cheney et. al. obviously think there's something to worry about.
And who do they worry about? Not the president, but Cheney. You'd think if they were so concerned with preserving the head of the government, they'd send Cheney out there and keep the president safe. Nope.
A long time ago, I was sitting around in some guy's living room with a bunch of friends and friends of friends, hanging out. The guy I was sitting next to on the couch, whom I didn't know, spotted someone outside, through the window, approaching the front door. This guy on the couch next to me jumped up from the couch quick as a rabbit and ran through the apt. to hide in the bedroom.
Heck, I didn't know this guy sitting next to me, but as soon as he jumped up, I jumped up too and raced into the bedroom with him. As far as I'm concerned, if someone thinks there's a reason to be hiding from something, well, that's good enough for me.
posted on October 12, 2001 12:37:45 AM new
Yeah. It's "There will be further attacks within the next few days" but "go about your life as you did before--spend, spend, travel and frolic". It's your patriotic duty to die for the economy.
posted on October 12, 2001 01:03:47 AM new
I have to say that I agree with krs that it's like the attitude is - you take the risks because we need the economy perking more than we need you, but from a relative risk view it makes sense. Each of us is statistically unlikely to be a target - where he is very likely to be a target. But you know something? I value my large and well stuffed hide so much I am adverse to even taking a one in 100 million risk if I don't have to. These government and corperate types look at you and say if it costs more than $2.7 million bucks it is cheaper to bury you. Most of us would not trade our life for $3 million like they will in a second. Of course there life is so much more valuable being a big cheese and all cause everything would just fall apart if you had to go down the line of succession right?
posted on October 12, 2001 03:21:23 AM new
My thinking is that Cheney is being kept out of the spotlight simply because Cheney doesn't stutter, doesn't repeat himself over and over again, and doesn't get that really disturbing smirk on his face when he realizes that he just used Syria and serious in the same sentence.
posted on October 12, 2001 06:52:21 AM new
What is it with some of you people? A person speaks at around 9,000 words per hour. I used to speak about 60,000 words in a day. Did I say a few words wrong? yes Did I have a few grammically incorrect sentences? yes. Thankfully, a few know-it-all do-nothings didn't choose to point them out to the world. The talk last night was possibly the most coherent talk we've ever heard. jmho
posted on October 12, 2001 08:41:32 AM newCheney doesn't stutter, doesn't repeat himself over and over again, and doesn't get that really disturbing smirk on his face when he realizes that he just used Syria and serious in the same sentence
posted on October 12, 2001 10:30:35 AM newspend, spend, travel and frolic". It's your patriotic duty to die for the economy....
Yes...keep the stock market healthy...keep Enron happy...
As to bush, he is learning to read pretty well...and taking diction lessons also help...I just wish he would stop regurgitating the same old news, over and over...
posted on October 12, 2001 11:51:00 AM newrgrem: I could live with grammatical error if the man could just be *coherent* when not using a teleprompter. His speech last night was OK, but have a few reporters ask him questions he had to answer without coaching and we were treated to heming & hawing, convoluted backtracking, meandering...and a failure to answer the question half the time.
And when you come right down to it, what would be so wrong about expecting our President--the leader of the most powerful nation in the world--to be able to use correct grammar when he speaks? It really says something about a country that for many it is perfectly fine to be led by a man who sounds like a total moron. What's that old saying? Where there's smoke there's fire...
posted on October 12, 2001 12:14:54 PM new
I wish Bush could be more serious. When a reporter asked him if we should be prepared to make sacrifices, and Bush answered something along the lines of - We already have, we've sacrificed our sense of security, and we have to wait on lines at the airport longer, and he left it at that, that wasn't enough.
He scowls a lot, but he seems to either not understand the seriousness of our situation, or he's downplaying it.
posted on October 12, 2001 12:29:03 PM new
I agree, donny and bunnicula. I felt as though I'd listened to replies a junior high student could have written. And each time I heard "women of cover" I wanted to screech. Maybe I'm ignorant of that description, but it seemed like a speech writer's cheap gimmick when you consider the horrific events some of these women have had to experience.
posted on October 12, 2001 12:55:27 PM new
Well, I can take the heat. Very strange though that I find nobody outside of these boards that dislikes the president so much that they lose all objectivity in looking at what he says. And I favor a bit of thought, hemming and hawing over the fast, easy stream of words that spin off most politicians. Many of you gloried in quoting the NY Times when he was running. Why aren't you quoting it now? Anyway, I'm off for the Legion for some intelligent conversation. .
posted on October 12, 2001 01:16:11 PM newHe scowls a lot, but he seems to either not understand the seriousness of our situation, or he's downplaying it.
Yes! Bush should get before the press and shrek of the dangers. Impose martial law and stress the importance of American's hiding indoors and not trying to lead lives as normal as possible.
As for the words he uses, Bush is walking a tightrope trying not to offend the Muslims in the rest of the world that are being told by Bin Laden that this is a holy war and Bush trying to ease concerns of those same Muslims. Bush's words are carried world wide.
Bush's biggest mistake was using the word "crusade" which he apologies for as soon as he realized what that means to the Muslim nations. A mistake yes, but how many of us use crusade as a common term to represent a 'cause'. I know I've used it in the most generic sense many, many times.
I find it a bit humorous that after Bush gives a speech all that some may have heard is "Bended Knee" or "Women of Cover". I'm the same to a degree I guess, when Bush was making the announcement about initiating the military attacks against Afghanistan you know what had my attention? Kites. If you noticed behind Bush was a window that looked out over the park and I could see a stunt kite at the far left of the screen. It wasn't obvious I guess but I love kites and that caught my attention. It appeared to be a skysail kite (one of my favorites) and the person flying it seemed to be very good.
FWIW I think Bush is doing great and the job before him is VERY difficult.
posted on October 12, 2001 01:21:37 PM newrgem: If his hemming & hawing did indeed have anything to do with "a bit of thought," that would be one thing. However, the fact that he ends up never really answering the questions he hems & haws over shows that it doesn't. Bush is really good at throwing out slogans, but incredibly bad at stringing together cogent thought & sentences. He literally can not function in a coherent way without a teleprompter.
posted on October 12, 2001 01:28:44 PM new
I don't want him to shriek about dangers, but if people ask him about the possibility of making sacrifices, a glib - we already are, we're waiting longer in lines - isn't appropriate.
My understanding of economics is dern near nil, all I know is "guns or butter." But all of us are aware that a war on the scale of WWII required all sorts of sacrifices here and abroad - things were rationed, things like that. That was before my time, but my parents were adults back then, and they told me stuff, plus we've all heard of it ourselves. I'm finding it extremely hard to gibe - we're at war, a war that may last for years, maybe last for a decade, with - so, shop, shop, shop!
I know this is a different kind of war. But it's so different that it's going to be won by frenzied shopping?
posted on October 12, 2001 01:31:38 PM newYou'd think if they were so concerned with preserving the head of the government, they'd send Cheney out there and keep the president safe
And if they did that, you would be complaining that Bush is a coward and he should be very public and show that he is unafraid of terrorist attack possibilities.
posted on October 12, 2001 01:36:39 PM new I'm finding it extremely hard to gibe - we're at war, a war that may last for years, maybe last for a decade, with - so, shop, shop, shop!
What sacrifices do you feel would help? This isn't WW2 where food, rubber, sugar, metals, was needed from the private sector to aid in the war effort. Maybe, just maybe Bush feels that having the economy becoming one of the casualties of the war isn't a good thing. Yes Bush says get on a plane, go see Disneyland, eat out, take a vacation. Those things put money back into the leisure industry of the US and whether you believe it or not they had been seriously impacted by the WTC attack.
posted on October 12, 2001 01:41:22 PM new
Bush wants his cake and eat it too. He wants a recovered economy for his reelection bid and he must keep his "war" alive for the sake of what some Russians called "The Great Game", illustrated in this:
http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/10/11/index.html
It wouldn't surprise me much if someone compiled a map overlay showing that bombing is being done in relatively straight lines across the Afgan desert--it's one way to save on the excavation portion of laying the oil pipeline that's been an US oil supplier's goal for years.
posted on October 12, 2001 01:46:39 PM new
Uaru, our spending might put money back into those industries, but I think people are still too shocked to think of shopping as their main priority. Many people are wondering if they'll keep their jobs and homes. And with vague threats of terrorists lurking around ready to exploit their next opportunity, many folks will just decide to stick closer to home. (By the way, I just put a substantial amount of money into the economy - I had several trees removed, contracted to have a landscape crew put gardenwalks and retaining walls in my yard, paid a lawyer and surveyor to draw up a new plat, and took out a small second mortgage. I've done my share financially for a while.)
posted on October 12, 2001 01:47:11 PM new
"And if they did that, you would be complaining that Bush is a coward and he should be very public and show that he is unafraid of terrorist attack possibilities."
Yes, I would
Maybe it's just me, but I can't see how the goal of protecting the head of the government is served by making sure the vice-president is hidden and protected, and the president is shown in public. (Okay, I'm lying, I can. I think they are protecting the head of the government by hiding Cheney.)
But for goodness sakes, how long is the vice-president going to be hidden and protected? Until this is over? They've said this will take years. Is he going to be hidden away for years? And meanwhile, we're all supposed to go about our normal lives, fly, shop, but be vigilant.
The message that the hiding of Cheney is projecting, and the message that the adminstration is repeating to us about how we're supposed to behave, contradict. We notice.
posted on October 12, 2001 01:58:49 PM new
" "I'm finding it extremely hard to gibe - we're at war, a war that may last for years, maybe last for a decade, with - so, shop, shop, shop!"
What sacrifices do you feel would help? This isn't WW2 where food, rubber, sugar, metals, was needed from the private sector to aid in the war effort."
Okay, that I can understand. So Bush should say that. He can say something like - Our economy is so much stronger now that we can do guns and butter at the same time. Or, he can say - this isn't the material instensive kind of war that WWII was.
When reporters ask him about "sacrifices," the WWII "sacrifices" are probably the kind they're asking about. They're what come to my mind when the reporters ask that question, anyway, because this is what comes to my mind when I think of "wartime sacrifices." But Bush talks about waiting on line longer in airports, he defines this as "sacrifice."
The night my sister was born, there was a wartime blackout in NYC, with the material on the windows and the delivery room lit by lights from emergency generators. I'm not saying he should tell us that it's going to be like "Mrs. Miniver," but he should be able to connect the question with something more substantial than waiting in line at an airport.
posted on October 12, 2001 01:59:29 PM newIt wouldn't surprise me much if someone compiled a map overlay showing that bombing is being done in relatively straight lines across the Afgan desert--it's one way to save on the excavation portion of laying the oil pipeline that's been an US oil supplier's goal for years.
Yup, the oil companies did it.
dateline 1600 twas the work of the devil
dateline 2001 Oil companies have pushed the issue
