Apparently George w. bush was tempering and burnishing his nerves of steel when he was hiding after the 9/11 attacks instead of immediately addressing the American people from the steps of the Capital which is what any true leader would have done.

Warm and sunny, with a 100% chance of tax cuts!

President Bush had strong nerves. -- Fred Barnes

Actually, President Bush had a lot of nerve.

One of the problems with the Barneses of the world, a problem that should be self-evident to them but isn't, is that they put so much emphasis on being decisive and so little on being right. In those cases when Bush was strong and decisive, he made judgments that were enormously, horribly wrong. That renders his decisiveness completely irrelevant. And yet Barnes seems to think it's more important to be decisive than to be right.

Instead of reacting, he read a children's book for several minutes

I have to quibble with this one a little. Bush has consistently reacted to crises by pretending nothing is wrong. It was a deliberate reaction on 9/11, as it was after Katrina, and with the economy, and with the increased violence in Iraq, and even with the shoe hurler a few weeks ago. It was bad judgment, but Bush saw his job for eight years as primarily portraying an image of strength or compassion or whatever the moment called for.

74 hours to go!

in the right wing looney world, up is down and black is white ...

it really is extraordinary how someone with a brain can think such thoughts, though I've long wondered if with people like Barnes and Limbaugh they bullshit away simply because it pays the bills, and that in private they laugh contemptuously at the idiots who believe what they say publicly

President Clinton, who passed up a chance to eliminate Osama bin Laden

Is Barnes under the delusion that George Bush eliminated OSL? Or does Bush just get credit for trying?

Fred Barnes is clinical.

In fact, wasn't it Bush who passed up the chance to get bin Laden in those mountains? Hmm...

Bush saw his job for eight years as primarily portraying an image of strength or compassion or whatever the moment called for.

The way I remember it, George Bush completely disappeared for days after the attack - flying from Florida to Nebraska to who knows where else in an apparent fear that the terrorists had overrun the capital.

That's why Rudy Giuliani his reputation as a hero of the 9/11. He was the face of the government immediately after 9/11 while Bush and Cheney were hiding in their bunkers.

Barnes is a far-right wing hack and everyone knows it. The problem is that media focus has shifted so far to the right. The Washington Monthly, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias and other are in fact right of center, or at least what should be right of center. Why are we talking about Barnes and his ilk and never left-wing loonies? We are going to wake up some morning and find out it has become the United States of Citibank and wondering what Barnes has to say about that.

Oh cool, a Democratic president. Now we get to falsely equate support for the leader with support for the country itself. If Fred Barnes doesn't love America then he should leave and go somewhere more to his liking.

Hey Barnes! DENIAL is a river in Egypt.

>"...extraordinary how someone with a brain can think such thoughts..."

Do some reading on RWA [Right Wing Authoritarian]personality type. It will all start to make sense.

The bumbling Clark Kent was Superman and the Man of Steel was Clark Kent...

The problem with Barnes claim is that the American people have determined just the opposite about Obama after the economic collapse in September. It was McCain who proved himself to be a basket-case in time of a crisis.

George Bush completely disappeared for days after the attack -

After flying to Louisiana and toward Nebraska, Bush insisted on flying back to DC, again for the purpose of showing he wasn't afraid. Within a day or two he reopened the NYSE - same reason. And it was only three days later (9/14) that he had his bullhorn photo op at the WTC site.

I would argue that Giuliani's manufactured reputation was more effective because walking down the streets with a mask, going to funerals, refusing charity from a Saudi sheik, and calling for more baseball, were more effective symbols than merely demanding to sleep in your own bed. But both Bush and Giuliani were acting deliberately.

The Washington Monthly, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias and other are in fact right of center, or at least what should be right of center.

How so? I can't speak for Klein and Y, and from what I've read of them, I don't think they are "left" in any meaningful sense and I've certainly thought Steve can be wrong, but "liberal" seems pretty apt. That is, if you knew a single thing about liberalism and how its been defined since the New Deal. If you want to whine about how the American Left isn't as left as the European Left (but ironically, way more liberal than the Chinese Left -- discuss), then there's nothing to stop you. It's true.

Why are we talking about Barnes and his ilk and never left-wing loonies? And this is just perplexing. What are you talking about and to whom are you referring? Cockburn? Hitchens?

After that, the "left wing loonies" start at people like Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman and a few others — and I think they don't get enough airtime ESPECIALLY compared to assholes like Fred Barnes, and I think they are mostly right. Hell, I find a fair amount of agreement between, say, Steve AND Amy Goodman.

And at any rate, if you want to define me; a single-payer advocating, Obama-supporting, terribly disappointed in Democratic Leadership voting, anti-war aiming, civil liberty embracing type "center" or "center-right", it's your choice.

But without a specific critique of specific stances and people, you really kind of have to have a point to do so.

What an incoherent observe

I really must defend the President - When, he was sharing my rabbit hole in Nebraska on 9/11, he appeared to be very collected. Kept muttering, "Saddam, you MFer".

Tora Bora, Mr Barnes, Tora Bora.

Not surprisingly, almost every moron, sap or dolt I have ever known have been some of the most decisive people I have ever met.

-GSD

I love the Republican conventional wisdom that being "willing to make people angry" is a sign of strong character. If infuriating the American public is the measure of a president, Bush truly will be remembered as the greatest president of all time.

Jay B. Perhaps is was an incoherent observe, and the wrong thread. It was a rant - At this point what we consider the right has no coherent world view, yet we must engage them in debate. What that means in practice is sites like Washington Monthly puts up posts which point out what idiots Barnes and the like are then we commenters pat ourselves on the back and all explain why we agree. I suppose it is necessary. As for left wing loonies,people on the left who's views are as illogical as Barnes' are not heard from.

Obama is not a people-pleaser. Just ask any blogger still awaiting the Obama outreach.....

Unbelievable. Not that I would expect Fred to have taken Richard Clarke's account of Clinton's efforts to catch or kill bin Laden seriously. "Against All Enemies" not only detailed the effort, problems and decisions, Clarke underscores that the security budget was the ONLY one that grew during the push to balance the budget. He cited this recently in support of Leon Panetta for CIA.

Clarke also detailed the SS control of Bush's moves after the strike. He does not explain why they let him stay in the classroom and the school when the attacks had a high probability of terrorism and Bush's location was well known.

As for the rest of it. Ludicrous, unsubstantiated fear mongering. Even worse were the titles of other articles on the side. Build a bigger navy because the Chinese are? Does the guy know how big the navy is? The USS GHW Bush is 22 stories. Fred does the usual Carter, Clinton and general diplomacy bashing. One aircraft carrier has as many people on it as serve in the entire State Department.

I am not at all sure Carter was as surprised as Fred describes him in the setbacks of foreign policy. Had Reagan made more effort there instead of his erratic moves, progress might have happened. Reagan withdrew troops from Lebanon after the attack and did not handle other situations with nerves of steel. He did illegally invade Grenada to establish himself as willing to use military force against very small enemies.

If we look at the reluctance to use diplomacy in Iraq because it would take too long, and look at how far we have gotten in 6 years with an illegal war and occupation, this strikes me as the perfect summation;

Anything war can do, peace can do better.

"President Clinton, who passed up a chance to eliminate Osama bin Laden..."

This gibberish RightWing propaganda was utterly destroyed by the '9/11 Commission' years ago. After examining all the evidence, they stated:

"WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/staff_statement_5.pdf

Leave it to the American RightWing to prop up a false story like a dead body in a 'Weekend with Bernie' movie.

fred barnes: "President Bush had strong nerves. President Clinton, who passed up a chance to eliminate Osama bin Laden, did not."

even if it were true..about clinton..

bush didn't do anything....

BEFORE 9-11...

barnes like so many conservatives always say that clinton was horrible at fighting terror...

yet..

they can't name one thing bush did to change that BEFORE 9-11...

not even one...

ouch

Why shore, legend has it that President AWOL was real brave, so long as there weren't any fearsome wild horses in the same pasture as he was.

Barnes is as hacktackular as usual. Bush may be decisive but he also frequently exercised extremely poor judgment. I trust Obama will use his well-developed critical thinking abilities and will make good decisions much more often than he will make bad decisions. We don't need a president who plays loose-and-fast with decision-making. Most decisions don't need to be rushed.

Barnes is a hack, but like Rove he's going after this real hard. Why? Because Bush is the FIRST President I can remember that was so obviously afraid and out of control for the critical points of his Presidency.

Just remember almost everything these guys say is the exact opposite of reality. Then things start to make a lot of sense. Bush decisive? How? By being too stupid and stubborn to admit when he's screwed up? Any two year old has that act down and hopefully they grow out of it. Made hard decisions? When? Like demanding a draft to fight his wars? Watching (like ever other President) as a close family member went away to fight and serve their country? Demanding that taxes have to be raised during a time of war rather than lowered? Sure, he sent people off to fight and die, but he just claimed it was necessary even when it wasn't. Strong nerves? Or didn't give a f%^k, and phoned it in most of the time. The man took more vacation than any other President in history. Worked hard? How? He didn't like to read long memos, didn't keep long hours. And on 911, the man was obviously sitting there frozen without a freaking clue what to do.

Bottom line, Bush isn't ANY of those things that Barnes claims.

Tora Bora bitches!

A relatively unknown black man with a wife and small kids runs for president, defeats or co-opts an the most powerful people in the country who were arrayed against him, and we don't know for sure if he's got strong nerves?

Obama is a people pleaser, a trait not normally associated with nerves of steel.

I first accepted Obama as a viable candidate for my vote(along with Richardson and Dodd) when I heard he'd told the NEA (teachers' union) that he favored merit pay. The NEA has ALWAYS opposed merit pay.

This is not the work of a people pleaser. This is a guy with nerves of titanium.

Similarly, he told UAW workers that Detroit was making crappy cars and it wasn't foreign competitions fault.

Nerve? Hell yeah! Maybe the most I've ever seen!