So Thats why Bush Fainted...

[Texmaster]

Hope its not a repost.

President Bush has a heart arrhythmia called sinus bradycardia that makes him more prone to fainting when he gags or chokes. It's why he passed out January 13 in the highly publicized pretzel incident.

Link

 

[Anubis]

woop de do:disgust:

 

[gopunk]

page was taking too long to load, so can somebody tell me if he knew about this or if this was just discovered? if it was just discovered, then i guess it's a good thing, since they now know to watch out for it...

 

[BDawg]

I still say he passed out because he was trying to bend over and uh...appreciate himself...Just like Dante and Randall discussed on the way to the wake in Clerks.

 

[Texmaster]

<< woop de do:disgust: >>



Sorry I didn't contact you first before posting LOL

 

[Texmaster]

<< page was taking too long to load, so can somebody tell me if he knew about this or if this was just discovered? if it was just discovered, then i guess it's a good thing, since they now know to watch out for it... >>




Looks like they knew but were reluctant to disclose it

 

[Gunbuster]

I wish I could swap bush with the cast and writers of the west wing

 

[Red Dawn]

It's a good thing for Bill Clinton that Monica Lewinsky doesn't have that condition

 

[Texmaster]

<< It's a good thing for Bill Clinton that Monica Lewinsky doesn't have that condition >>



LOL It only took 7 posts before a monica joke.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< I wish I could swap bush with the cast and writers of the west wing >>

Then we'd win Emmy's but lose war's. I'll stick with Bush.

 

[dullard]

<< Then we'd win Emmy's but lose war's. I'll stick with Bush. >>



I'm curious, does anyone know roughly how much control Bush has use in the war? There are two extremes:
1) Bush controls every soldiers move.
2) Bush said attack and let the actual generals make the decisions.

Obviously he isn't exactly at either extreme, however I bet it is closer to #2 (and if that is true, then anyone would have done as well). Does anybody know?

 

[Texmaster]

<< Then we'd win Emmy's but lose war's. I'll stick with Bush. >>



I'm curious, does anyone know roughly how much control Bush has use in the war? There are two extremes:
1) Bush controls every soldiers move.
2) Bush said attack and let the actual generals make the decisions.

Obviously he isn't exactly at either extreme, however I bet it is closer to #2 (and if that is true, then anyone would have done as well). Does anybody know?[/i] >>



Even if you don't trust Bush you can trust the people around him.

 

[dullard]

<< Even if you don't trust Bush you can trust the people around him. >>



I never said I didn't trust Bush. However all I get from the news was that he authorised the attacks. If he didn't get very involved with the attacks, then the choice of president wouldn't have affected the results. But maybe he is doing more behind the scenes that we don't hear much about (planning specific attacks, etc.)?

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< Even if you don't trust Bush you can trust the people around him. >>



I never said I didn't trust Bush. However all I get from the news was that he authorised the attacks. If he didn't get very involved with the attacks, then the choice of president wouldn't have affected the results. But maybe he is doing more behind the scenes that we don't hear much about (planning specific attacks, etc.)? >>



my apologies

I'm sure he has an active role.

 

[dullard]

<< I'm sure he has an active role. >>



Maybe, I just don't know. To me I'd have much more confidence in letting generals with 20+ years of experience make these plans than any president (republican, democrat, or any 3rd party). Maybe I'm being silly, but someone with virtually no military experience is not the type of person I'd want to have much control. I'd much rather have a president stay out of wars and let the experts make the plans. So, I guess that is why I assume Bush doesn't get much into the nitty gritty of the war.

 

[Sid03]

the President (as well as congress) have the final say whether or not we engage in war or pull out. take a look at somalia... highly visual issues happened (downed helicopters, 18 soldiers killed), and clinton pulled us out. i think it was a huge mistake to get involved, only then to run away when the whole mission doesn't go 100% our way. something like that requires complete dedication to see it all the way through. not that i blame clinton wholly, as congress would've voted us to pull out regardless of what clinton said.

but no, bush doesn't call all the shots. he leaves that to the military leadrs. and of course it really does matter who we voted in, because gore would've chosen a completely different cabinet than bush did.

 

[dullard]

<< but no, bush doesn't call all the shots. he leaves that to the military leadrs. and of course it really does matter who we voted in, because gore would've chosen a completely different cabinet than bush did. >>



Again, is it really the cabinet that makes all the military decisions? Does someone in the cabinet say that plane X should bomb site Y? Or is it more the military generals who have been here for 20+ years?

 

[MajesticMoose]

That heart condition was discussed the day after he fainted. It was public knowledge beforehand, IIRC.

m00se

 

[Amused]

<<

<< I wish I could swap bush with the cast and writers of the west wing >>

Then we'd win Emmy's but lose war's. I'll stick with Bush. >>




mmmmm, sticky buuussh.

 

[etech]

What did Clinton do when the embassies and the USS Cole were attacked?

What is that overwhelming sound of silence?



The President makes a difference.

 

[jbod]

Again, is it really the cabinet that makes all the military decisions? Does someone in the cabinet say that plane X should bomb site Y? Or is it more the military generals who have been here for 20+ years?

If I'm not mistaken, it's the Joint Chiefs of Staff who act as liaisons between the Pres. and the theatre generals. Along with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. They would have meetings to discuss the main objective, kill and conquer, set certain boundaries for the generals, and let them have at it.

That would be the smart way to do it, IMHO.

 

[Piano Man]

I bet Cheney is jealous.

 

[GL]

Why aren't they putting a pacemaker in him to increase his heartbeat?

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Obviously he isn't exactly at either extreme, however I bet it is closer to #2 (and if that is true, then anyone would have done as well). Does anybody know? >>


I'll try to answer. You are right to an extent. Without Bush-No Rumsfeld. Without Rumsfeld-no Dick Myers (CJCS). No Gen. Myers- maybe no Gen. Franks, etc and the list goes on as people pick their subordinate commanders, especially at the flag level. The professional soldiers can be counted on to do their job but having confidence in our entire chain of command does matter. We did not have that during the Clinton years and I don't know if we would have had it with a Gore admin. We will probably never know. Bottom line- Bush does matter and so does his entire staff.

 

[timelapse]