You fault Bush for inaction, fine. Now tell us, chapter and verse, what
action you would have taken....





"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:ntOYc.343037$%_6.76663@attbi_s01...

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
I'm sure you know this syndrome: give a child a toy he/she doesn't
particularly care for. Then try to take that toy away and you will get
an
instant tantrum!

Then take a classroom full of kids who are somewhat scared and confused
by
the day's activity and commotion, and you have the perfect setup. One
little
tantrum would spread through the classroom like wildfire, all in front
of
the TV cameras.

At this point, the only things known were that some airplanes had
crashed
into some buildings, and officials on the scene did not have anymore
information than that. And Bush was sitting there calmly.

If Bush had tried to get up an leave early, the probably result would
have
been a bunch of crying kids. And while newsmen aren't generally
reporters,
under circumstances like these they will ask questions.

Sorry - I don't buy it. "Hey kids, looks like the principal needs to talk
with me. I'll be back in a minute, ok..."
These are little kids. You can tell them just about anything to change
course. And this comes from many, many hours spent in a classroom.

As for the reporters, of course they ask questions - that's their job.
Take
it outside. Invoke your handlers. Take control of the situation.

Imagine you were in the same situation and you heard that your wife was in
a
car accident. Do you wait eight minutes to find out if she was hurt? On
the
way to the hospital? He found out that the country had been attacked!
Aside
from any other responses President Bush had, it is absurd to defend his
inaction as making sure the kids remained calm.

Michael