Quote:
Originally posted by prb
onetime2 and Ustwo: So it was too risky for Bush to go to D.C. on 9/11 or to Ground Zero for several days thereafter. And besides, he has more important matters to deal with as POTUS than taking chances for personal political gain.
Uhh, and how is his trip to Iraq different?
Again, I give him credit for travelling to Iraq, just not alot. He's had opportunities before to show his courage and didn't. Courage after long reflection is carefully calculated risk.
|
Ummm again, what is it you want?
Him going to ground zero to early would have been REPREHENSIBLE. It would have been nothing but a photo op and would have gotten in the way of the real work. What would he have learned at GZ that he didn't already know? Nothing. What he would have done is slowed down the real work of trying to rescue any survivors. To even suggest that he should have gone earlier is nothing but Bush bashing for the sake of Bush bashing.
The Iraq visit was done for the morale of the troops and the American people. It made people feel GOOD, it was good for troop morale, it was good for families sitting at home with loved ones in harms way, it was just 'a good thing to do' (tm). When the biggest gripe the left has is that he lied to the press so he could sneak out, you know it must have been the right move. Sure he got good PR for it, but Bush is NOT a PR seeker. He did a lot of things after the Sept 11th attacks with the families of victims in which no cameras were allowed. I think if there is one thing both the left and right should be able to agree on is that Bush is not a camera hound.