The irony with Noonan's commentary is that Bush is, quite literally, not "that guy". Bush is the tough-talking, clowning frat boy from the rich family who always lets you know he's better than you. He's the guy whose Daddy always bailed him out when things got tough. He's the guy who never had to work for a single dollar he earned. He a spoiled, pampered, screw-up who trusts his "gut" more than the facts and has a sense of entitlement so large it almost can't be comprehended.

How do we know? When the U.S. was under attack, he kept reading a children's book rather than rushing to save "Sally," and then flew off to a secret location rather than back to the place of trouble. When Hurricane Katrina hit, he decided not to cut his vacation short, flew over the site, and then gave a tone-deaf speech from the empty heart of the disaster several days later. Because he would rather "win" against Congress than extend healthcare on a program that works and is supported by a huge majority of Americans and the Congress.

The irony is that Edwards worked like hell for everything he has, and Bush never got his hands dirty except when he "clears brush." And vapid, pampered idiots like Noonan continue to state the opposite.

Kitt already pointed out the fact about Andrew Card notifying the President during the reading of that children's book, so I don't need to address it.

With regard to going back to Washington, Bush's image--as Greenwald has pointed out quite often--is that he is a he-man, take-charge type. What kind of he-man leader runs for cover and lets Dick Cheney order a plane blown out of the air with SAMs? Further, last I checked, the Secret Service works for the President, not the other way around.

Your country has just been attacked. Where do you want your Leader: at least heading back in the general direction of Washington, or cowering at an air field in Montana, or wherever he ended up? How is that leadership?

Bush is "brave" enough to go to war zones--actual war zones--on foreign soil for photo ops with the troops and a Thanksgiving dinner. But after an attack on native soil? Not so much.

I'm sorry, Mona, but I couldn't disagree more. I don't think the only two options were screaming and waving arms, and sitting there. How about calmly getting up, telling the teacher than an emergency had intervened, apologizing to the kids, and getting moving? The full communications system of Air Force One are useless if you're sitting in an Elementary School classroom.

Or ask yourself this: would Reagan have sat there? Or Einsenhower? Or Truman? Or hell, even Nixon? Seems unlikely.

And finally, while yes, I was using hyperbole to some extent, it seems to me the very opposite of leadership to fly in the opposite direction and leave your underlings in Washington in charge. (For the love of Pete, folks; you really prefer Cheney and Rumsfeld in that situation? Really? I thought the President was supposed to be C-in-C.)

Hell, he could have issued an Executive Order to ground all air traffic, gotten some fighter jet support, and just stayed in the air until he had a grip on the situation. Or go to one of those many "bunkers around the country" that are in Florida, and take charge from there. Plenty of options. Anything but running away. What kind of signal does that send to the country, for heaven's sake?

And as for "taking five," some crises don't work that way. I mean, come on, you can't really believe that?

And Anonymous: I don't debate with folks who stay anonymous. I mean, there's my name, right at the bottom of my letter. Why the need to be anonymous?

What I'm confused about is where Joe Conason stands with regards to the candidates for President. Aside from his clear dislike of Rudy Guiliani (four broadsides in November alone), Conason's position is . . . well, I just don't understand it.

His last two articles, if I can be reductionist about it, boil down to "Obama would make a bad candidate because he's black, and the Republicans would jump all over that," and "Obama's been shirking on his Senate foreign policy duties." But in July, Conason seemed to like Obama's foreign policy positions. Has Obama missed so many opportunities between July and now that Conason became outraged? Or is something else going on?

Not to mention Conason's silence on the other candidates. He's spoken about Huckabee and Romney, but what about Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or Ron Paul or Chris Dodd and his lonely filibuster stand against FISA?

These are not rhetorical questions; I just wish Conason would come out and said what he thought of all the candidates. The long bashing of Rudy and the current focus on Obama leaves some pretty big holes, and I wish he would fill them in.

Um, I'm not pissed off; I'm confused. Which was, ya know, the title of my post. How you translate that into "pissed off" escapes me.

And even if you inaccurately include me in the "pissed off" category, your count is wrong; with me it's actually six of eight; discounting me, it's five of eight. And how you can view something like mcsnee's letter as showing he or she is "pissed off" seems a bit of a stretch. (Heck, I would argue that rebecalouise's letter qualifies more in the "disappointed" than "pissed off" category.)

Sorry to be pedantic; it's a failing I have.