Another question concerning the "DC 9/11" movie and Bush being

[Valerie5555]

"Presidential" on September 11,okay, here goes who does everyone think is more "Presidential"


(A) Any certain former SENIOR American diplomat in Tehran (Think as in the video versions of "444 Days To Freedom" or the video on the 20th century that actually commemorated the Iran crisis or the book "MISSION TO IRAN" written by certain former diplomat William Sullivan, who was the AMBASSADOR to Iran at the time.)




(B) Bill Clinton after Sept 11 2001



(C) George Bush after Sept 11 2001


On edit My votes would definitely be for A and B.

[punpirate]

1. Some people have forgotten...

... that Clinton was in Australia when the attacks occurred, and was still in New York sooner than Bush could bring himself to get there.

Clinton gets the vote for concern. He had no political points to make, either, by getting there in a hurry.

When you don't feel the need to analyze every move and every utterance for its implication on votes, you can actually move fairly quickly.

That's why it took Bush most of the summer to come up with a single speech saying to the public, "ante up."

Cheers.

[ComerPerro]

2. Well said

Bush had a ton of time to prepare his remarks.

I think the main reason that it took Bush such a long time to get to New York was because he wanted to see his handywork, but couldn't get through his speech in rehearsals without grinning or laughing.

[Valerie5555]

4. And what's more

he's the CHICKENLIVER IN CHIEF.

[Valerie5555]

3. Bet Bill Clinton could also get top marks for "sang froid" which I

figure is French for the uncanny ability to be "cool as the proverbial cucumber" during a crisis.