I know the President doesn't read the papers and doesn't like to be told what to do. But it just seems like an affront to millions of people that it took him three days to take a break from clearing brush to talk about what some are calling the worst natural disaster in world history.

One senior Bush aide actually told the Washington Post the President's absence was "kind of freaky." But the rest of them were their smarmy selves -- which included making sarcastic remarks about President Clinton's immediate statements.

One aide said, "Actions speak louder than words" and that the President wanted to be fully briefed before he spoke. Partly true. Mostly bullshit. Sure, it's good to be informed. And I would not have blamed Bush if he didn't want to take questions at an initial appearance. But he could've made a statement immediately, said he was already at work on detailed plans, and would have more to say later.

Why not be the first out of the gate? What possible harm is there, vs. the benefit? How difficult would it have been? Why does he have to appear to be such a colossal prick about anything that doesn't directly affect the United States or its interests?

0 comments. Leave one!