Reply #77: 2 out of 3 historians agree that Bush's inaction was unforgiveable...

[Cooley Hurd]

From the same WaPo article:

Presidential historian Robert Dallek of Boston University thinks Bush focused too much on appearances, rather than leaping into action.

"It speaks volumes about the preoccupation these politicians have about manipulating image," Dallek said yesterday. Bush should have immediately excused himself and started figuring out what was happening and what he could do. "The way to project calm and strength is to take care of business."

Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at the University of New Orleans, concurs: "I don't understand how one sits there. I just don't. Minutes are an eternity in that sort of situation. . . . A quick presidential decision may save lives."

Brinkley credits Bush with dusting himself off after a rough first day and regaining his composure. And he acknowledges that few presidents have had to endure such a Candid Camera moment. But Brinkley adds, "Character is not defined in good times, when you've been properly briefed, it's defined when you're in a desperate crisis situation."

Presidential scholar Fred Greenstein, a professor emeritus at Princeton, defends Bush's response in the initial minutes.

"It's made a little more complex by being in the presence of little kids," Greenstein said. "It certainly wouldn't present the right message if he turned white, rushed out, and kids started crying."

He rushes out and the kids would start crying???? Sorry but that's just not plausable on any level. Maybe, if he murdered a bunny in front of them, but by merely leaving the room???