Text 8858, 78 rader
Skriven 2006-09-24 10:06:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9355.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <9ur8h25ac3duo0mvoiib1gbq1e0bsr0eof@4ax.com>
@REPLY:
<m5k3h2ln2kncl361i2e2eiv3ajodfd6cu5@4ax.com><86SdnUjGE9w6lY_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com><0001HW.C137FDAA024C5B74F02845

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:30:54 -0700, Rob Perkins <rperkins@usa.net>
wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>To be *fair*, the "aimless wanderings" were security measures long in 
>>>place to protect the President and the operations center on AF1.
>> 
>> 
>> Doesn't change the fact that Bush gave the impression of someone who
>> /wasn't/ in charge. If he wanted to go back to Washington, why didn't
>> he go back to Washington?
>
>He did. But it didn't matter when.
>
>Sorry, Josh. There's nothing to impugn there. Either the President can 
>use all the wondrous technlology we taxpayers have paid for to keep a 
>President in touch and in charge in an emergency, or he needs to be in 
>Washington to look 'em in the eye and such.
>
>Since it's *true* that AF1 is an airborne White House, connected 
>electronically to all the military and emergency-services parts of 
>government necessary for a President to do his job (not to mention other 
>non-essential bits of tech in that airplane), he didn't need to go back 
>to Washington.
>
>And as long as the threat profile was unknown, the correct answer for 
>*any* president is to stay airborne and stay in command from the air.

That doesn't, unfortunately, fit the description of what happened that
day, even Bush's own description. He did not act like a man in charge,
never mind a president. He acted like a scared, confused schoolchild.

>> Often. But the point is that the words and ideas were not Bush's. He
>> can scarcely utter a sentence.
>
>No argument from me on that. I can't stand to listen to him any longer. 
>I only lasted 30 seconds into that last speech.

What last speech?

>>>No. We're not living in Soviet Russia, which was a crushing tyranny with 
>>>deep economic and ecologic problems. We're far from living in *that*.
>> 
>> 
>> As I hope we will continue to be -- which is why I am so disheartened
>> by the de facto castration of our formerly free and spirited press.
>
>Your scope is constrained, because the blogosphere is *not* constrained 
>and is as free and spirited as Woodward and his pal back in the Nixon days.

But that isn't where people get their news, nor should it be. The idea
is to have a reasonably impartial but aggressive press -- something
that voters can count on for the information they need to make
informed decisions, because in the absence of knowledge democracy
means nothing. Blogs neither have neither the journalistic  resources
nor the standards to do that. At best, they're gadflies, at worst
they're partisan smear sheets.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
                                                                               
                                       
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)