Michael Wise wrote:

I said I have not in the past paid
particular attention as to when presidents pay business visits to NYC.
Bush stood out by his conspicuous avoidance of it (as well as
California)...at least until it suited him to mug for the camera with
real heroes at Ground Zero.

So because Bush, during his first 8 months, did not visit NYC, he should have
not visted after 9/11? That's a joke and you know it. Had Bush failed to show
up, you would have taken issue with this. Furthermore, you cannot provide any
evidence that every other President visited NYC within their first 8 months in
office. So...as far as you know, Bush's actions, in regards to visiting NYC are
no different than any other President. This is the sad, typical unfairness I
spoke about earlier.

I have not not now nor have I ever claimed that Bush (or any other US
president, for that matter) has any blame for what happened on 9/11...so
you can pack your straw man up.

No, you didn't claim he was responsible, but had Bush, during his first 8
months in office visited NYC and San Fran, you would have complained about his
lack of activity at the White House. As it stands now, you are complaining
about his lack of travel to NYC (within his 1st 8 months) without any proof
that any other President has done that.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"