You Take The High Road...

And I'll be John Kerry, who said:

"I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush.

In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity. Let's respect one another. And let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.

My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place."

before he said:

"First of all, had I been reading to children, and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had business that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it."

Tim Blair is suitably savage.

UPDATE: Having been reminded that Sen. Kerry was simply answering a question, I must express my delight that he has ended his boycott of hypothetical questions, at least about the past; now, if only we can get him to focus on the future...

We are also disappointed to learn that Mr. Kleiman considers "Give 'em Hell" to be somehow consistent with taking the high road. Give 'em four more years, I say! And I will echo the Senator in saying, "Let's respect one another".

Finally, George Stephanopolous was fascinating on this subject.

UPDATE: The WaPo lets Teresa slap Kerry silly.

MORE: My Bad! Kerry has answered the question (linked above) of whether he would have taken out Saddam if he knew then what we know now: "You bet we might have".

Oh, you think I'm cheating - a more complete quote is ""You bet we might have, after we exhausted [U.N.-led inspections] and found that [Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein] wasn't complying and so on and so forth". And yada, yada, and a little bit of this, and a little bit of that, and maybe I can talk him to death and then bore his heirs...

Comments

[capt joe]

This must be the same john Kerry that said he was unable to think or do anything from the first plane until one hit the pentagon. That's 40 mins.

Kerry is parroting Moores talking points.

[Dimmy Karras]

Kerry was directly answering a question from a reporter about what he would have done had he been in the classroom, as Bush was. It's not a political attack simply to answer a question about what you would do in a certain situation, without referring to your opponent.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"It's not a political attack simply to answer a question about what you would do in a certain situation, without referring to your opponent."

Yes it is.

If he had any class, and wished to avoid attacking, he could have answered that in any number of ways.

Otherwise, as an example, if a reporter asked President Bush if his opponent was a 'wife-swapping athiest syphillitic bastard who deserved to hang' and the President answered 'yes'. Would YOU consider that an attack? Or just answering a reporter's question?

No double-standards please. It's hard enough following Kerry's zig-zags.

[ed]

Or, perhaps more to the point, with this example:

"Mr. President. If you were commanding a SWIFT boat in Vietnam during the month of December in 1968 and another boat in your unit hit a mine, would you immediately run away so fast that a member of your crew fell off the boat? Would you run away leaving that stricken boat to fend for itself and it's crew to survive however best they may at the tender mercies of the vicious VietCong? Would you be so cowardly?"

Well? Is it an attack? Or just answering a question?

[alan in louisville]

I think I'm gonna stop following the Kerry stories. I almost got whip-lash on that last 180 degree turn.

[Tim]

It's reasonably obvious Kerry gets away with it because he knows the mainstream news media isn't going to call him on it, ever. And since (presumably) swing voters still pay attention to mainstream news media, it's very likely to be an effective campaign tactic.

Last time around, the mainstream news media did a reasonably credible job of calling Al Gore on his numerous fibs, mistatements of fact, fabrications and lies. The mainstream news media is profoundly unhappy with that result (as it didn't succeed in stopping Bush from becoming President), so they're going to take a different tack this time.

It will pay off for them until, of course, the dirty bomb goes off in Manhattan. Then they'll regret it.

[Jay]

I'm no Kerry fan, but I would hardly call that quote a low-road attack.

He actually said what he would DO, rather than just complaining.

[Jake]

Wow, you must be wearing waffle-colored glasses. Flip-flops everywhere.

Nice to see another out-of-touch Republican has drunk the Kool-Aid.

[vdibart]

Dear Talking Point Devotees:

Could someone please explain to me how those statements contradict each other? The 2nd statement does none of the following (as requested in the 1st): build angry division, disrespect diversity, disrespect W., misuse the Constitution.

I guess the strongest case could be made for disrespecting Bush, but I'm not convinced. Did he say "You are a fool for what you did?". He said what he would do differently. Hard to argue that it's disrespect.

[vdibart]

"if a reporter asked President Bush if his opponent..."

Actually, that would be the reporter attacking the President by proxy. I realize this trick might be a little hard to distinguish if you find Fox News to be "fair and balanced."

[Greg]

Or, perhaps more to the point, with this example:

"Mr. President. If you were commanding a SWIFT boat in Vietnam during the month of December in 1968 and another boat in your unit hit a mine, would you immediately run away so fast that a member of your crew fell off the boat? Would you run away leaving that stricken boat to fend for itself and it's crew to survive however best they may at the tender mercies of the vicious VietCong? Would you be so cowardly?"

Well? Is it an attack? Or just answering a question?

----

Of course that's an attack. Why? because 1) it has nothing to do with being President. 2) it has the word cowardly in it, implying that his opponent is a coward, hence, name-calling, and 3) no one knows what really happened in those swamps except for the people who were there. However, we all saw on tv how long it took the President to act like a President.

So, you think it's an attack if Kerry says how he would handle the job he's running for differently? That's rich.

I will give Bush credit though, he is telling the truth that he's coming up with new ways to hur the American people all the time.

That was an attack, but I'm not running for office.

[Crank]

Maybe he wasn't talking about Bush. He didn't mention him by name.

[McGehee]

I wouldn't vote for a flip-flopping, rich-widow-marrying-for-her-inherited-money, Secret-Service-agent-namecalling jackass who thinks just because he won medals in a war more than 30 years ago that the world owes him the presidency.

Was I talking about Kerry? I didn't mention him by name.

[Cliffie]

Interesting. Whereas Kerry and co. were paralyzed for 40 minutes, Bush had grasped the situation and the appropriate response in 8. And without upsetting the kids.

Even more interesting ... anti-authority types - which is how Dick Parsons, the chairman of Time Warner, characterizes his liberal journalists - tend to have lower IQs ... See John Ray's "Anti-authoritarianism: An Indicator of Pathology."

Non-sequitur? It depends ... most Bush-haters seem to be in this mode these days.

The mysteries of life ...

[Bill]

I actually was in front of a college freshman history class an hour after the planes hit. As they filed into the room, shell shocked, I sat patiently waiting--until about 5 or 10 minutes after the class was scheduled to begin. I was speechless. I had no idea what to say. Fortunatly, my students bailed me out after I admitted that "I have no idea what's going on." Anyone who mocks, or feigns superiority to, someone in front of kids on 9/11 who sat in startled silence for a few minutes has no shame.

[Brian]

A few things.

"Show pony. How would Kerry have "attended to it"? Thrown his medals at the remaining hijacked aircraft? Testified before Congress? Hugged Max Cleland?"

I know this is from the other guy's blog, but I'm going to comment on it here. It's almost laughable that someone considers this an intelligent, reasoned response.

As for Kerry's supposed hypocritical inactivity, well, okay, it's slightly hypocritical. But remember, he wasn't the leader of the fucking free world. Kerry was a senator and was not in a position of leadership. He also didn't sit there in front of a group of children. He was with his other senators.

[Sean]

Let's see if the kindler and gentler John Kerry could have come up with a different answer: "Any answer I give would have the benefit of hindsight. I cannot say how I would respond to an unprecedent attack on our nation other than to say I would do the best I could and hope I would not make the situation worse by acting rashly and guessing without all the facts."

Oh. That's what George W. Bush DID do on 9-11 and there's no political gain to be had in pointing that out.

[vdibart]

"most Bush-haters seem to be in this mode these days."

Fabulous! A entirely new attack on the liberals - they're all dumb because they won't accept W's/Cheney's/Wolfowitz's/Rove's authority. I guess you'd have to lump in all those people around the world who don't exactly admire W either. Once you're done with that, it leaves the right where they are most comfortable - feeling morally superior to everyone else. Isn't there a saying about the person who thinks everyone else is crazy....?

[Scott P]

As I understand it, Pres. Bush was only told that a plane had struck one of the towers. No one, I mean no one, had any idea at that point what was about to happen.

[Brian]

"Oh. That's what George W. Bush DID do on 9-11 and there's no political gain to be had in pointing that out"

Do we know exactly what he was told? Was it something like, "Sir, the nation is under attack"? Or was it something like, "Sir, there is a serious problem"?

[c]

Wow. You Bush apologists are having a real problem dealing with the fact that he's going to go down hard this fall.

I didn't do anything about it when I was told of the (second) plane going into a tower, but _that's not my job_. It is Bush's and he obviously isn't up to it.

Carry on.

[HH]

"But remember, he wasn't the leader of the fucking free world. Kerry was a senator and was not in a position of leadership."

A senator from Massachusetts who was warned about security problems at Logan airport... might have been a good idea if he had taken 40 minutes to check up on that.

[vdibart]

"hope I would not make the situation worse by acting rashly and guessing without all the facts"

No, actually, that's what Bush did with Iraq ;)

[Brian]

"As I understand it, Pres. Bush was only told that a plane had struck one of the towers."

So he was struck cold after only one plane, whereas Kerry was struck cold with his fellow senators after two planes.

[R C Dean]

Get a grip, people. Nothing Bush could have done in those seven minutes would have made the slightest difference. The seven minutes is utterly inconsequential.

The same is true of Kerry's 40 minute paralysis. Neither pause really illustrates anything meaningful about the men involved.

Now, the fact that Kerry is using the seven minute pause highlighted in Moore's movie (nobody cared about it before F'ing 911), that says something about Kerry. And what it says is not especially good.

He was civil in the way he brought it up, though. If the fact that a prevaricating, pompous poser is also civil makes you feel better, well, good on ya.

[Brian]

"A senator from Massachusetts who was warned about security problems at Logan airport... might have been a good idea if he had taken 40 minutes to check up on that."

He was warned, when exactly? Hours beforehand? And what exactly was said to him? Those are two basic questions that your statement glosses over.

[Pat]

Card: Mr. President, we are under attack
President Bush: 'my pet goat is pretty'

[vdibart]

"Nothing Bush could have done in those seven minutes would have made the slightest difference"

Not entirely true. The 9/11 commission points out there was only 15 minutes between the *second* plane hitting the tower and the plane that crashed in Penn taking off. Theoretically that outcome could have changed, but the chances were small and the possible outcomes wouldn't have varied too much I think. Still, I think the spirit of your post is correct.

[David Meyer]

Lets not forget that Cheney had to give shoot-down authoirzation in lieu of Bush. While he was sitting there, Dick Cheney was running the country. Not legal, not what he was elected for.

[Mitchell]

Ya'll just don't realize the restraint Kerry is showing. What he really wanted to say, in re "not sitting there for 8 minutes was"....

"If I, John Kerry had been President on that terrible day, when informed that a plane had struck the WTC, I would have calmly excused myself from the classroom, and immediately scrambled jets to prevent the other 3 hijacked jets from completing their deadly missions. I could have handled the situation much better than Bush because, well, I spent 4 months in Viet Nam, so I just respond better under pressure. By the way, my war of terror would have been much more sensitive than President Bushs' has been. If I had been President, even now, 25 million Iraqis wouldn't be burdened with the hard choices of democracy."

The Republicans are just SOOOO lucky that Kerry is restraining his superior intellect and making a real election out of things. Sheesh.

[Brian]

"Lets not forget that Cheney had to give shoot-down authoirzation in lieu of Bush. While he was sitting there, Dick Cheney was running the country. Not legal, not what he was elected for."

Interestingly enough, an episode or two of "The West Wing" dealt with something like this, after President Bartlet was shot. I think it was "In the Shadow of a Gunmen, Parts I & II."

[Brian]

"The Republicans are just SOOOO lucky that Kerry is restraining his superior intellect and making a real election out of things. Sheesh."

Even Bush doesn't make such stupid statements like the one you created - at least most of the time.

[Mitchell]

Brian, try to wrap your tiny little brain around the following FACTS.

FACT 1. A plane hit the WTC. This was communicated almost immediately to the President. That was all that was known for sure at that time.

FACT 2. Nobody knew for sure it was a terrorist attack at that time. Almost everyone had to have wondered if it were, but nobody at that time had the knowledge to confirm it was a terrorist attack.

FACT 3. This uncertainity would have existed if Clinton had been in office. It had nothing to do with who was President. It had to do with holes in our systems. It was not Bush's fault that these holes existed, any more than it was Clinton's fault.

FACT 4. Kerry would not have had one single bit more information had he been President that day.

So what makes you think he would have done anything differently? Until more information came in, it was simply not possible to confirm that an attack was taking place.

Kerry making statements suggesting that he would have "done something" never get followed up by "and this is what he would have done."

I find it pretty typical that I would mock the candidate and that you mock the person who made the statement. It's so.... liberal. But when you're not smart enough to challenge the statement, I guess the only thing left is to start calling names. Besides, when you're calling names, those pesky facts get ignored.......

I wish you the best, because you celarly aren't there yet, kiddo.

[Brian]

"FACT 4. Kerry would not have had one single bit more information had he been President that day."

With regards to intelligence information prior to the attacks, I am not sure that is true.

"So what makes you think he would have done anything differently? Until more information came in, it was simply not possible to confirm that an attack was taking place."

Nobody was asking Bush to be this omniscent force. It's a matter of what he did to find out what happened.

"I find it pretty typical that I would mock the candidate and that you mock the person who made the statement. It's so.... liberal."

Wow, and then you respond with this: "But when you're not smart enough to challenge the statement, I guess the only thing left is to start calling names."

-----

"But when you're not smart enough to challenge the statement, I guess the only thing left is to start calling names."

I wasn't calling you stupid; I said that your statement was stupid. And it was.

The problem is that you have an indefensible statement. Hypotheticals and irrelevant information don't constitute a reasoned response.

"Besides, when you're calling names, those pesky facts get ignored......."

I'm not ignoring any facts.

[JAL]

You'll be interested to know that on the Editor & Publisher web page ("America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry")yesterday the description of the Kerry interaction at the Unity Convention included this:

"Referring to the moment, now immortalized in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," when Bush refused to leave a group of schoolchildren in Florida for seven minutes after being notified of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center, Kerry told the journalists ...."

Today's version of the story has changed "refused" to "chose" -- a better but still somewhat pejorative nuance. Someone pointed out that it was a bit, umm -- strange, to use the word "refused."

BTW - check out the sponsors of the Unity Convention. http://www.unityjournalists.org/DC2004/sponsors04.html

[Nancy]

You are speaking of our President. A decent man who has done all in his power to protect our Country. Not an easy job. I do not understand why some of you are so angry with him. What has he done to you? I appreciate the job that he has done and am grateful for the fact that we have not been hit again.

[Larry]

"As for Kerry's supposed hypocritical inactivity, well, okay, it's slightly hypocritical. But remember, he wasn't the leader of the fucking free world. Kerry was a senator and was not in a position of leadership."

So? He WANTS to be in a position of leadership. If Bush's immediate reaction at the time reflects badly on him as CIC, why doesn't Kerry's reaction reflect on how he would deal with the same situation as CIC?

[Cris]

Has anyone ever considered that maybe the guy whispering in Bush's ear said
"...but it's going to take us a few minutes to be ready to leave here, so just sit tight."?

[stan]

Nancy, he's done nothing to them. He's been civil, he's worked with them when possible (No Child Left Behind, etc.) and he's lead with conviction. Oh, come to think of it, THAT'S what he's done to them.

It's pure politics. As an example, what did they do when Bush 1, in the spirit of bipartisanship agreed with the Democrat Congress to swallow some tax hikes (and break his pledge) in exchange for budget cuts? They refused to make the cuts they promised and hung him out to dry for agreeing to higher taxes. They're purely political beasts and nothing, nothing good come from forgetting that.

[j.pickens]

John Kerry can't even orchestrate a sit-down at a Wendy's restaurant successfully. What makes anyone think he could run this country better than Bush????

[Trevor Saccucci]

Brian:

You seem to put a premium on quick reactions to unexpected circumstances; you apparently expect that President Bush should have reacted faster and with more focus to the first aircraft striking the WTC.

I first learned about the initial WTC plane crash from a secretary in my office building who had been listening to a radio the morning it happened; my first reaction was that it might well have been a terrible accident. A little later I could see the smoke rising from the Pentagon through the window of one of an office on one of the higher floors of my office building.

I of course figured that terrorism was involved after the second plane crash, but I certainly didn't know who was responsible then.

So, Brian, like I said, you seem to value quick and focussed reactions in the face of surprise disasters. Well, here's a challenge for you, and it dosen't even involve a disaster: I'm going to return to this site in about eight minutes; use all the information you can gather about me in that time, and predict what I'm going to write when I revisit the site.

[Trevor Saccucci]

The sinner plunged, then floated up and stretched out, and the devils underneath the bridge all shouted: "You shouldn't imitate the Holy Face!

The swimming's dofferent here from in the Serchio!
We have our grappling-hooks along with us -
don't show yourself above the pitch, or else!"

-Dante's Inferno (Mark Musa, translator), Canto XXI, lines 46-51.

[BradDad]

Of course Kerry was taking a slam at the President.

1. Kerry knows - and knew - full well that Michael Moore has made fun of the President & pretty much charged him with dereliction of duty for not leaping from his chair & rushing from the room.

2. The whole premise of the question was to let Kerry implicitly agree with Moore's charge by saying he'd have acted immediately.

3. Faced with that question, Kerry had two choices -

One: He could've said "I'm sorry, I'm not going to answer that question because I'm not interested in taking cheap shots at President Bush. This election is about things much more important than whether President Bush sat in that Florida classroom for seven minutes too long - I'm going to talk about those important things."

Two: He could answer the question & say he'd have acted immediately, thereby assuring the questioner - and everyone similarly disposed - that he agrees with Michael Moore.

It's a sign of Kerry's character that he chose the latter.

[Trevor Saccucci]

Interesting. I got no response from Brian in the timeframe I'd specified - and while I started typing in the post at my eight minute deadline, it took me about five minutes to finish and post the comment - and I even made a typo in the process.

There were likely a variety of factors involved in Brian not replying to my challenge.

For starters, it's likely that he wasn't reading the site when I posted my challenge.

Even if he had been, he would have had only eight minutes to scour the web for information about me which he could have used in an attempt to predict what I would write next.

Even if Brian had read my challenge and assiduously scoured the web for eight (or fifteen) minutes - even if he had known me all his life - that information probably wouldn't have allowed him to predict what I would write with any significant specificity or accuracy.

And that leaves out the fact that I could have reacted to Brian's prediction ex post facto, and adjusted my response to ensure that it didn't conform to his expectations.

To any readers who might claim that my challenge to Brian wasn't fair, let me say this: hard cheese.

Life isn't fair. Terrorism isn't fair, and terrorists don't play by Marquis of Queensbury rules, so I didn't either. Terrorists can react to those who react to them, so I was prepared to tailor my response to negate Brian's response to me.

In order to win a game of "How do I Respond?", it helps to remember that the surpiser always has the advantage of being not entirely predictible to the surprisee. Under certain circumstances, depending upon the nature of the surprise, this advantage can be completely insurmountable.

[KMan]

Yes, SuperJohn would have thrown on his cape, called to his trusty sidekick, and flew up to intercept all those bad Islamic terrorists. Then he would have flown backwards around the globe and reversed time, so that the attack would never even have happened.

Actually, who am I kidding? Kerry doesn't even believe that we are at war NOW, much less 2 minutes after the first plane hit.

[Peter]

Moore, and now Kerry, are suggesting that President Bush immediately jump up. To do what? An aircraft crashed into a building. At the time the New York networks, headquartered within walking distance of WTC were reporting conflicting information, it was even broadcast that it was a small private plane.
What makes this downright despicable is that Senator Kerry now travels with a Secret Service detail. He knows how long it takes to change a scheduled move. He knows, or would know if he looked out the window of the limo, how many different law enforcement officers, from different agencies, are involved in something so simple as leaving an event and getting to the airplane.
Had Dubya jumped up and channeled Batman and exclaimed "to the Batplane, Robin!" he would have been standing around with his thumb up his ass waiting for his protective detail to give the word to go.
I was involved in a Presidential visit as a young deputy sheriff. We had a patrol car blocking every street that crossed the route of the motorcade, City Police, Sheriff's office, State Troopers, Feds, hell we had a couple of Game Wardens blocking streets. The Pres went by, we all went on break, the Pres left the event, we were back in place, blocing the streets again. That motorcade didn't move until everyone was in place and an advance car had driven the route.
Tell me that Senator Kerry doesn't know this.
THAT'S why this is a cheap shot.

[Deaconess]

I am SO GLAD you said this. I've been thinking it for a few days and wondering why NO ONE is calling Kerry on it. A week after 'let's be optimists, let's take the high road' he calls Bush supporters 'goons' and does this Mighty Mouse, 'here-I-am-to-save-the-day' nonsense, and his wife talks about a Bush presidency being Hell.

That's some high road.

[Brian]

"If Bush's immediate reaction at the time reflects badly on him as CIC, why doesn't Kerry's reaction reflect on how he would deal with the same situation as CIC?"

It's a matter of what is required, or at least is in theory, of a CIC. He's someone who leads. Kerry wasn't in that position, so he wasn't required to do that on 9/11. He didn't need to give orders about planes or tell cabinent secretaries what to do or order troops to different loctions, or things like that.

It's not the weightiest point, but it's something.

[Brian]

"So, Brian, like I said, you seem to value quick and focussed reactions in the face of surprise disasters. Well, here's a challenge for you, and it dosen't even involve a disaster: I'm going to return to this site in about eight minutes; use all the information you can gather about me in that time, and predict what I'm going to write when I revisit the site."

What in the world are you trying to prove?

[Brian]

"It's a sign of Kerry's character that he chose the latter."

It's more a sign of the nature of politics in our time. But it's probably a mix of both.