The West Wing: Leo and the President arguing

[@oscar007999]

This reminds me of an exchange between Bartlett and CJ in an earlier season. Bartlett: You know that line you’re not supposed to cross with the President? CJ: I’m coming up on it? Bartlett: No. Look behind you

[@SupportTheArts-yo8ox]

Yep. However, the president's relationship with Leo was much different than CJ.

[@MrCCollins1993]

Because it's Leo, Leo didn't cross the line. President Bartlet made his best friend, who he believes is much smarter than himself, his chief adviser. Jed might've been frustrated but he valued Leo's counsel, even when Leo was angry.

[@aeromedical6750]

@2:03 - Holy Shit! The look on Bartlett’s face when he says “Or What?” We cannot comprehend the burden of having to make these kinds of decisions. No matter what action is taken, there is going to be great loss.

[@arbitterm]

That look in Barlett's eyes when Leo tells him what he will "have" to do...

[@Ares99999]

Well, Leo was unusually militant in this scene, he was much more mellow in the first seasons, which in my mind were the best.

[@joemckim1183]

Leo is acting like he's the one in charge. He's an advisor. His job is to give the president the best advice that he possibly can but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what his opinion is since its the presidents job to make the call after hearing him out.

[@TheKyleMark]

That was probably the closest the President got to socking someone in the mouth since his father died.

[@bcdey84]

That “or what” was bone chilling.

[@danieldickson8591]

@@bcdey84 You do not make demands of the most powerful man in the world in his own office. Leo overstepped, badly, and needed to be made aware of what he just said and who he said it to.

[@Dewebje]

That clock ticking added after Leo's burst out is brilliant. I can not so how, but it adds really something to the scene.

[@humbleherald2163]

I definitely agree, though I equally can’t say with total confidence why. Human discourse has a natural rhythm to it, and it’s incredibly complex in how dynamic it can become in its notes and rests, with every microsecond of action and inaction holding meaning in a conversation. Giving the audience of the show a stable time reference (a ticking clock) is simply genius in a way I can’t aptly articulate.

[@teejayventura6758]

It portrayed that the President was running out of time to make his decision.

[@jkrasney1]

Agreed, the sounds of a clock ticking in the background, adds a heightened effectiveness to the scene.

[@honorguardsfencingclub7322]

An excellent choice by the director, but a little too loud, not quite subtle enough.

[@graceskerp]

There's always a Lincoln story. Lincoln and his cabinet were having an intense debate about a critical problem. After everyone had their argument on the table, Lincoln called for an aye/nay vote. All the cabinet voted aye. Lincoln answered, "Seven ayes, one nay. The nays have it." Harry Truman, "The buck stops here."

[@iamravyn6878]

At that point its goodnight cuz you ain't listening. I quit lol

[@chriskelly3481]

Yikes!

[@andrelandry548]

They are talking bout a tank named licoln

[@graceskerp]

@@andrelandry548 They're talking about an Aircraft Carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, CVN-72 and her task force.

[@andrelandry548]

@@graceskerp ok i thought IT was something like that

[@LPJack02]

RIP John Spencer (December 20, 1946 - December 16, 2005), aged 58 You will be remembered as a legend.

[@michaelmuldowney8]

Interesting to compare this scene to a scene from Season 1 when Leo had to talk the President down from over-reacting to the shooting down of an American plane by Libya.

[@maragathm]

That is what I hate about this scene, how they changed Leo's character to be a war hawk. Leo is the pragmatist he would never counsel the president for war because he feels threatened, and his advice doesn't even come from a place of sound judgement but more from panic that he is losing his importance. Leo was never that petty the corner stone of his character is that he serves at the pleasure of the president, he would never raise his voice in the oval office and threaten his boss like a betrayed friend.

[@srkh8966]

Anu this show always did a brilliant job of showing both sides of an issue. The best way to do this scene was to pit Leo against Jed-both men make logical arguments to show how difficult and nuanced national decisions can be.

[@devilpistons1269]

I believe it was Syria that shot down the plane.

[@kevinscottbailey8335]

This is just another example of why Seasons 1-4 (the Sorkin years) are the only "canon" seasons in my heart. Sorkin understood these characters in ways the later writers never did.

[@Rhojin83]

Not to nitpick - well, okay, I am nitpicking - but I think the incident in season 1 involved a helicopter, not a plane, and the attack was orchestrated by Syrians, not Libyans.

[@Peter24601]

This is a great scene because it's a role reversal. In season one, Barlet was angry because someone he knew was killed and he wanted to strike back... Leo was the voice of reason. Now someone Leo knows was killed and he was acting the same way. Bartlet knew this and refused to give in, this time taking Leo's role as the voice of reason.

[@bluejays25]

Exactly. Bartlet knows the bombing is just repeating the same action again and again, and wants to take a chance of a different approach. Leo doesn't see it that way.

[@honorguardsfencingclub7322]

​@@bluejays25 John Spencer often let the warrior in Leo come out; reminding the viewers that he dropped a lot of bombs flying an F-105 in Vietnam.

[@ubercoo]

Not only that, but the whole presidency was Leo's dream. Leo couldn't run because of his alcoholism & pills so he told Bartlett to fake it until you make it, he wrote 'Bartlett for America', and he took charge in the situation room when Bartlett was shot as Rosland & later Toby and Danny calls him out on that. Leo was the teacher & Bartlet the student, which must be reversed eventually.

[@Chris.4345]

Interesting to watch this today

[@interestedobserver-gk3ih]

I think this was an excellent scene because it showed how easily even WH staffers can get caught up in the chaos and how difficult it is for the shot caller [the Pres.] to keep a cool head when under this level of fire and how critical it is to do so. More telling his how necessary is to remind even those closest to him who makes the decision. It shocked Leo because he realized just how far over he crossed the line and was shocked by his own behavior, especially how he is so often the one to pull others back from the brink from making the wrong decision.

[@joshuazollar995]

Brilliant scene that had echoes for the rest of the series. Jed looking at Leo as he walked out...**SPOILER ALERT** but it carried with him. Another reason Jed took Leo's death so hard... A true rift... But friends are always honest with each other and it just was one of those things. They were both right...they were both wrong...

[@wfow1448]

Leo's face shows that he knows he overstepped. That's some seriously great acting.

[@Transitfan93]

I love the chemistry between these 2, the intensity of the argument was off the charts

[@TheNerdForAllSeasons]

That may be the greatest "Or what?" in the history of film and television.

[@angelrios5897]

That agape mouth Mr. McGarry had to Bartlett's "or what", was not simply him realizing how tattered his relationship was with Bartlett, but rather, him additionally realizing he'd reached the limitations of his influence, when run up against the awesome power of the Presidency of the United States.

[@RacerGirl48]

Yeah he was just like "this is my friend acting this way? Seriously?"

[@MrCCollins1993]

I think it was Leo being so certain in the righteousness of and popular support for his position, that he could not fathom how the president could not have the same position. That, and how the stubborn good faith of one man could stand in the way of the righteous fury of the American people.

[@DrownedInExile]

Reached? I'd argue Leo breached his influence and undermined his friend and the POTUS. He "urged" the General Alexander to move the Lincoln battle group into position. While I do think it's wise for the Pres to have all options on the table, Leo is not part of the chain of command. And he should told Bartlet *immediately*, not sat on that until now. Great now the Commander & Chief doesn't even have up to date info on where his own fleets are. Good job Leo!

[@shades1718]

that was the coldest "or what" i have ever heard in my life.

[@alexhortdog95]

shades1718 straight up G moment

[@colinmerritt7645]

You don't tell the POTUS he HAS to do something, even if you are his best friend

[@joemckim1183]

@@colinmerritt7645 Leo is so used to everyone else around the White House doing what he tells them to do and he's not used to there being someone else above him who can call his bluff.

[@johnsmith9804]

@@joemckim1183 I don't see this. He always respects Bartlet throughout the show, never calling him "Jed" except once in a really emotional moment for the both of them. He knows the chain of command. I think this was just poor writing. This was S6E2 or S6E1. Sorkin left the show at the end of season 4 and the conflict between these two was super manufactured and uncharacteristic of these characters. It was a poorly conceived plan to create drama instead of writing a good story. Also, the line itself is pretty sad. The most powerful man in the world doesn't need to condescend to his best friend in a petty "or what." He doesn't need to say anything. He does or does not do what he wants, when he wants, within the confines of the Constitution.

[@siddmic]

@@johnsmith9804 I think that was the point of the “or what”. It was a reminder that sitting behind that desk carries with it the awesom responsibility. The impact and the legacy of those decisions and nobody, but nobody is going to hold a gun to his head and tell him he HAS to do anything.

[@larryduncan4071]

"We don't always know how it ends." A great truth, justly spoken.

[@Bitemis]

"Don't consider authorizing a massive commitment of troops and throwing in our lot with torturers and panderers, leaders without principle and soldiers without conviction; no clear mission, and no end in sight." - Leo McGarry

[@johnsmith9804]

Thank you. This scene always disturbed me.

[@larrysmith2638]

Leo had a blind spot when it came to Israel.

[@gabrielabagala]

Yes, and then Santos is left with a gigantic crowd of soldiers who don't know what they're doing or when they're going to return, in the midst of Chinese and Russian troops...

[@bobpage6597]

1:48.......I loved this little bit. You have Leo putting INTENSE pressure on the President to act, "The Lincoln will be in position in a few hours and then you are going to HAVE TO give the go ahead for the bombings!" Regardless of all the pressure, the decision is the President's alone! Bartlet's 'Or what?!" was the perfect response, reminding Leo for the moment just WHO has the authority in the moment of crisis. Leo's jaw drop and pause is the moment he realises "Shit, if the President refuses there's nothing I can physically do beyond resign!" basically!

[@Dabhach1]

Unlike Hollywood, I have no belief whatsoever in the inevitability of American goodness, but this scene is very well done. You DO NOT tell the boss what he HAS to do.

[@MisterPunisher22]

Of course you tell the boss what he has to do. That’s why he gets paid. What do you think advisers do?

[@Dabhach1]

@@MisterPunisher22 They advise. They don't demand.

[@gabrielabagala]

@@MisterPunisher22 The advisers are paid for saying ""In this situation what I would do if I were you is xxx". The one who gives the order is the boss, and he is also the person who then takes responsibility.

[@michaelmorton5698]

"You know that line you're never supposed to cross with the President?" -President Josiah Bartlet to CJ Cregg

[@boydstephensmithjr]

CJ: I'm nearing it? Pres. Bartlet: Oh, no! Look behind you!

[@RacerGirl48]

He respected her though. She was able to calm him when the reporter confronted Zoey on campus at school. He wanted to get the press in the room and chew them out. CJ told him he does and the whole incident gets blown out of proportion. Not to mention Gina took care of it by shoving the reporter into a wall

[@michaelmorton5698]

@@RacerGirl48 Wouldn't be the first time CJ had to calm Bartlet about reporters talking to his kids. Remember when Ellie called Danny Cannon and gave a statement? Jed thought it had been the other way around and had ordered CJ to cancel Danny's White House creds. Then CJ corrected his misinterpretation.

[@Dysan72]

@@michaelmorton5698 There's a reason why Leo's list of replacements for Chief of Staff was only one name long.

[@jeffreywalton479]

Others have commented on the ticking of the clock and how it adds to the scene at its most tense; it is the proverbial pin-drop.

[@Maxx61]

I think some fans are getting it wrong here when they write Sorkin would not have written Leo like this. Let us recall that this is a two-term relationship and the stress of these constant decisions about right vs. wrong are beginning to weigh heavily on both men. The clock ticking is symbolic of this. Each tick is another moment passed. Another crisis. Another decision. If you look at two-term Presidents, they always seem to have aged a lifetime between that first inauguration and the final walk to Marine One. I think the tension on display here is absolutely perfect and the precursor to what we all know occurred following Leo's heartbreaking resignation.

[@shuttlecrossing1433]

Leo has just lost Fitzwallace and is watching his metaphorical son seek peace in a situation they think they can't possibly get peace in. He sees his Jed, his son, as an idiot and a coward, hiding behind diplomacy as a form of hiding from his problems. Leo is wrong, but in the moment his emotions win and I've always thought it made sense. Good characters aren't perfect, they're people.

[@areeklamthong]

It was scenes like this that made the show so compelling.

[@intrestedinallthings]

There is something about that ticking clock that makes this scene so much more dire.

[@Legba85]

That's a clock on their friendship; Leo's time in the White House and his health. I hated this story arc.

[@samsung3254]

The sound of impending doom! A decision he is being forced to make. The time for sitting on the fence is running out! 😕

[@imcallingjapan2178]

This is the complete inversal of the "proportional response" scene in the situation room. In this case, Bartlett points out that a proportional response doesn't have virtue, not because it's woefully inadequate and won't change anything, but because it is entirely playing into the enemy's hands and will yield only further asnd escalating violent response for an uncertain amount of time into the future.

[@rogerdsmith]

That “proportional response” nonsense kept the US in Vietnam at least five years longer than we should have been there. Blame it on Robert McNamara for that disaster of a policy.

[@RacerGirl48]

Loved that episode! President Bartlett: what is the virtue of a proportional response? Fitzwallace: it isn't virtuous Mr President it's all there is

[@DonCorleone87]

Leo was my favorite character on the show hands down. The fact that he was the only one who consistently kept Bartlet in check throughout the show was so amusing

[@MistrDamige]

I loved the way CJ called him to heel when the president wanted to berate the press over a journalist jumping out at zoe in search of an interview

[@huth1701]

Toby called out Bartlet on the MS scandal.

[@RacerGirl48]

@@MistrDamige yeah he found out about a drug arrest at a party so he decided to try to catch Zoe at school only to be thrown into the wall by Gina

[@penboyasgod6103]

He *wasn't the only one* --- C.J. Gregg also kept him "in line."

[@moimeself1088]

Aren't you forgetting Toby? And even CJ when it was called for. Hell, even Josh sometimes challenged him. Literally the only one who never stood up to him even once was Sam. Leo was just the only one who got away with raising his voice.

[@cald1421]

This is a great full circle. In the first season Bartlett was for overwhelming military force and hated the proportional reaction but he was talked into it. Now he hates the proportional reaction but this time he is on the opposite end hoping for peace above all else

[@patrick42h]

I hate this. It's like watching your dads argue.

[@SinkyYT]

You have more than one dad?

[@marcusgreen983]

@@SinkyYT it's not uncommon

[@danendrahartawan9268]

Except one of the dad is a pro israel hawk

[@cald1421]

@@marcusgreen983 yes it is

[@cald1421]

They’re not gae

[@Michael-kd1ho]

"We don't always know how it ends." From a Vietnam veteran, no less.

[@gabrielabagala]

then don´t advise so sure to proceed...

[@MarcusLeepapi]

I miss this show..

[@carlrosa1130]

Marcus LeeP I so agree with you. The greatest show ever. Actually taught me a lot.

[@MarcusLeepapi]

Yes, thanks..

[@zrrumyrrr6809]

Same

[@andygrimshaw7464]

I always like the "or what" line there's a coldness in the delivery

[@davidstumpfl5889]

The actors did a great job... you can tell that this is after Aaron Sorkin left the show though.

[@DaveMcG]

WE DON'T ALWAYS KNOW HOW IT ENDS so good

[@Legba85]

"................thank you, mr. President......." If that isn't an indirect way to call someone a motherfucker, I don't know what is.

[@cuzndupre2822]

Happens every day now. Shame it has no effect.

[@vdoggydogg3922]

President Bartlet rarely pulled rank like he did right there. He knew it was a conversation ender.

[@Croupier]

"Or what?" meaning "I'm still Commander-in-Chief. I'm still in charge. We will do what I say, now get the fuck out my face!"

[@almostfm]

+Croupier The unspoken response by Leo is "Or, I hand in my immediate resignation". I remember hearing somewhere (it may have been on one of the WW DVD extras) that if the stakes are high enough, a CoS or other senior advisers need to be prepared to walk into the Oval Office and essentially say "Mr. President, if you don't take this advise, it's obvious I no longer have your trust, and I'll be leaving."

[@Ares99999]

+William Smith The problem? In this case, Bartlett managed to do what he set out to do.

[@Ares99999]

+almostfm And the president replies. "I accept your resignation." And good riddance to the idiot who leaves like that. Leo was in the wrong here.

[@Ares99999]

+William Smith I don't see Bartlett as driving Leo into the heart attack. You are responsible for your own health. Leo DROVE HIMSELF into that one. I was appalled at the utter lack of trust Leo had for Bartlett, getting angry over the fact that the president wanted to exhaust every possible avenue before resorting to violence. Completely disbelieving in the chance of peace happening (it did), and then being against the entire thing even after it worked, for the superficial reason that Bartlett is involving America in this conflict (which Bartlett, finally pushed beyond the bounds of his patience, explodes that they're ALREADY involved). Leo really degraded into a rather inflexible warhawk, which is very different from the moderate, don't-jump-the-gun Leo from the early seasons.

[@brettzforeman]

Spoilers! * * * The way that played out, though, it far more resembled a firing which could have gone a lot more smoothly, to put it gently.

[@jaycee6390]

The beats and pauses by first Leo; 'We dont always know...how ..it ends' President Bartlett: '...........Or what?' Could both have been so easily contrite or nakedly obvious choices in the hands of lesser tacticians. Instead it was near PERFECT. Two masters of the craft seamlessly playing off each other. I'd bet a dollar to a donut there were very few takes, if any..

[@RoivonPC]

Masterful scene by two titans of acting.

[@johnsmith9804]

Two titans of acting, in a poorly written scene.

[@FabledGentleman]

@@johnsmith9804 So true

[@ubercoo]

This is great character development. Up to this point Leo was always the one guiding Bartlett & I can point to Season 1 episode 3 where Leo calls out Bartlett for wanting to use the military as the arm of the lord. Leo was the one who always wanted to be the President but couldn't because of his past alcohol & drug problems. That's why he needed a more righteous man to run & came to Bartlett to run. Leo told Bartlett to fake it until you make it. After years of being the President Bartlett is finally able to be the President and overtake the power dynamic away from Leo. Leo himself, also became more hardened over the years in the white house to take the position Bartlett had in Season 1. The student becomes the teacher & vice verse.

[@whyiaskyou]

one of the good things about scenes like thses is that both sides have good arguments leo's right because the terrorists blew up a convoy of government officials and will continue to do so and so must be stopped Bartlet's right because the retaliation strikes would only lead to a worse situation

[@Kristian.B.Kristiansen]

People say Leo acted out of character or badly compared to earlier seasons, but there is a fuck ton of difference between invading with troops on the ground, as Jed was ready to do in season 1, and conducting precise bombing of select targets, as Leo and everybody wants to do this time. Leo is being a realist, Jed is hoping for more.

[@thepunditspundit1776]

Most of you talking about how Leo would never act like this are missing the point. Early Leo was the ultimate thinker because it was early in the presidency. Outside of a retaliation bombing, all they had to deal with was a Supreme Court battle, the President in a bike accident, and the staff’s inability to get out of their own way. Those are stresses in their own right, but nothing out of the ordinary. Then, in no particular order... 1. President gets shot, which technically put Leo in charge since the President never signed the papers putting Hoynes in charge. 2. Zoey gets kidnapped, forcing the invocation of the 25th amendment, and Leo to work with the enemy since Hoynes was out, and the next person up was the Republican speaker of the house. 3. Leo has a heart attack, which ages him rapidly(And boy it aged John Spencer). 4. Constant fighting with his addictions. 5. A surprise second term no one expected, including Jed’s wife. And more and more. Leo was still intelligent and had his self control, but it became a pressure cooker after a while. The way he started to act later was very realistic. And it all reminded me of later MASH. People whine and cry that it became “too political”, when it was more like the surgeons were worn out by three years(in TV time) of 48 hours at a time of surgery, death, despair, and walking on eggshells that they could step on a landmine at anytime. The slapstick comedy was used to forget the hell around them, but when it keeps coming, the laughter stops. It’s realistic

[@yao052]

Jacob Christner I think he was also personally invested which made him not objective. Remember in this storyline, a plane was shot down and the Israeli ambassador who was a good friend of Leo died in it, hours after he gave Leo an award (Star of David I think). That plus the fact that Fitzwallace also dying during the fact finding mission in Palestine.

[@Baffled_King]

Well, the heart attack happened after this. Leo was no longer chief of staff post heart attack. And while Abby and Jed made a deal for one term, no one else had any clue. In fact, it was Hoynes making moves to run that uncovered the whole MS thing. So Leo was expecting a second term. For me, I think the explanation comes down to simple humanity. Fitz was a good friend, a longtime ally and they were fellow soldiers too. Leo wanted revenge (justice in his mind). No one is perfect and in those early days of grief, you want a target for your anger.

[@darkgable85]

I agree.... You can't always be in control in a position that takes a lot of pressure

[@hutch3703]

It all goes back to Zoey’s kidnapping. He believes it was his fault because he approved the assassination of Sharif. It wasn’t about a proportional response, it was about protecting his family from fallout of his decisions.

[@mobiz711]

That's like watching your parents have a fight.

[@JustSomeCanadianGuy]

Leo was the guy talking Bartlett out of killing people in season 1. So this doesn’t make sense to me. “You think ratcheting up the body count is gonna make things better?”

[@carmeloanthony6424]

Eleventy Won Or, as the person above suggests, his personal motivations may have changed. No one is an idealist all of the time.

[@Mark-xh8md]

Yeah, as I said above: Leo wanted a sissy appeaser back in S1. And now that he's got one, he's not happy either? Well, make up ya mind, will ya, Leo, old boy?

[@LuisMartinez-rw2lj]

Do you not remember Leo was ready to go to war with Qumar in season 4 after his friend the foreign minister died in a plane?

[@larrysmith2638]

Leo had a blind spot when it came to Israel.

[@belloutdoors5217]

@@Mark-xh8md Gerald!!

[@briane5706]

It seems that after Aaron Sorkin left, the writing of both Toby and Leo became the total opposite of Sorkin’s creation. Maybe the years in office would change people in that way. IMHO it is poor writing.

[@briane5706]

It was Leo that talked Bartlett down from military action that was over the top :- kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHXTqop6gbSWm9E I agree that the writing of Leo’s and Toby’s characters suffered after Sorkin’s departure. This scene is opposite to Civius Romany’s and would not have been written by Sorkin.

[@jeremybaumeister8983]

That right there was an acting class.

[@cubswin3838]

I wonder how much Leo was affected from the Israeli defense minister's plane being shot down in season 4. Then, add in Fitzwallace dying. It got to him I think.

[@dd2977]

Loudest clock ever

[@Cross316]

I think this is a brilliant scene showing that Leo while always dedicating his time, energy and health to Bartlet Administration, had always been a man of conviction and that regardless of his love of Bartlet that he stood by his principles to urge action. There are times in all friendships where disagreements unravel the bonds. And to think these 2 principled men would not at one time or another disagree vehemently is being naïve. This was a brilliant scene in a season that showed recovery from Season 5. And marked a true transition. Leo was always the better choice to be President and Bartlet admitted that as much. And it shows in this scene why Leo was always better at running the country.

[@zoneoperator]

Leo just casually tacking on Iran to the list of bombing targets, like that isn't a massive foreign policy overreach.

[@jeremytang5116]

Leo should have resigned there and then

[@Elthenar]

Why? He fucked up and he knew it instantly. While he had strong feelings on the subject, you do not tell that president he MUST do something while yelling at him. Especially someone as hardheaded as Bartlett.

[@mdaniels6311]

I always felt this was inconsistent as in earlier episodes Leo said he serves at the pleasure of the president. Here, he is violating his own principle. It didn’t make sense for him to do that and was not online with previous episodes…

[@Dewebje]

I've seen this scène a lot. But now i realise that Leo should have start screaming 2 or 3 seconds earlier. Don't know why, but it could have worked. Although, the fact that he waits shows Leo's respect to Bartlett which is also good.

[@Dewebje]

And now I have seen it again and think 'was there any other moment Leo was so mad at the president? And how brilliant was the reaction of Bartlet afterwards, and Leo on that. Just brilliant acting.

[@DM-wu9jk]

This show was soo freaking good

[@Tigerman1138]

Jesus! I don’t remember this episode! I remember Leo talking him down say “It’s what our fathers would want.” This is the inverse of that scene.

[@larrysmith2638]

Like I said to another person, Leo had a blind spot when it came to Israel.

[@PhoenixFires]

​@@larrysmith2638Leo suggested proportional response. Bomb 4 military targets, if they rebuild then bomb them again. In this case, Leo is suggesting some sort of proportional response again and Bartlett just outright says "No, let's roll over and die." The American people would rightfully want such a useless president out of office

[@blimy01maynard30]

Barlet learned about a "proportional response" and where does it end when he was lectured by Fitzwallace in season 1 or 2. He doesn't want Fitzwallace's death to be another continuation of the escalating violence in the region. He doesn't want that to be Fitzwallace's legacy.

[@corkyvanderhaven3391]

Kids in govt class would be better served watching Aaron Sorkin

[@staleydu1]

Kids in government class would be better served reading the constitution. Understanding why the founders did certain things. From state legislators electing US senators to the electoral college. We think we are smarter than them. We are wrong.

[@PhoenixFires]

​@@staleydu170% of humans are definitively more well-read and educated than the founding fathers ever were. That's just the nature of evolution and having more knowledge and time to think and philosophize. The founding fathers would drop dead, useless, if they saw the modern world. They simply wouldn't have the capability to figure out how to apply legislature to the modern world's standards, just as Hammurabi was unfit to rule over America 1776.

[@staleydu1]

@@PhoenixFires that my friend, is the biggest pile of horse manure I’ve ever read

[@ChrisGWGreen]

So much for the "proportional response"

[@RacerGirl48]

Yeah darn Fitzwallace! When President Bartlett wants to blow them off the face of the earth with the fury of God's own thunder Fitzwallace tells him he'll have doled out $5000 worth of punishment for a $50 crime.

[@ChrisGWGreen]

@@RacerGirl48 good knowledge fellow KZbin binger 🤪

[@BTURNER1961]

Everyone is writing about the inconsistency in 'positions' in a much earlier episode. Well guess what. politics is not always about consistency because there are so many intangibles out there that impact decision-making. they are not the same people they were then. The 'who' and the 'when' that got killed is different and thus a little more or less personal with one than the other, and the external stressors on each differs. Those who say this is not realistic, have not figured out the human element in matters of like this. This is actually nothing but realistic - as it was before.

[@SinkyYT]

It's funny how in this scene the president isn't keen on doing anything but in season one he wants to blow a country off the map because one of his friends was killed.

[@yao052]

Well, its called experience. The longer you hold the job, the more you learn not to take things personally and be emotional.

[@XBradTC]

Thank you,. Mr. President.

[@noregretcoyote1808]

Poor John Spencer, he looks so ill here...

[@Lovelylizzette]

Was this just before he died? He does look ill.

[@cmcjss]

intense

[@zacharias7284]

The two best scenes in the entire series may very well be this and Toby ridiculing the president. Both scenes in which somebody stood up to Bartlet. John Spencer just perfectly delivers that explosive line: "WE DON'T ALWAYS KNOW HOW IT ENDS!" And Richard Schiff slowly builds up over the course of a classic Sorkin monologue before launching into a rage: "The National Security Advisor and Secretary of State didn't know who they were taking their orders from! I wasn't in the Situation Room that night but I'll bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that it was Leo... WHO NO ONE ELECTED! For 90 minutes that night there was a coup d'etat in this country!"

[@xyPERSON]

You say that as if Bartlett was some bully who needed to be stood up to. Bartlett was the president and a good leader who like many good leaders made decisions not everyone would agree with but at the end of the day the buck stopped with him. Whether or not Leo and Toby were right is irrelevant because Bartlett was still their boss and whatever he instructed them to do it was their job to do it.

[@PhoenixFires]

​@@xyPERSONWrong, the American government serves the law of the land. Anyone trying to break it is unfit for office. Bartlett is saying "Let's lay down and die." while everyone in America screams otherwise. In the beginning of the show he wanted overwhelming military action to crush all enemies into submission forever. He was wrong both times.

[@mrs.teresalowe9483]

... and to think that a few episodes after this, we lost Leo... :'(

[@TomalakGeretkal]

and by "a few" you mean 36

[@karendeaton9297]

What did Bartlett end up doing.

[@woohooboy]

He was able to broker a deal that brought the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiation table. However it also saw a fracture in Bartlett's relationship with Leo who handed in his resignation as CoS.

[@DrownedInExile]

Leo was WAY out of line here. While I do think it's wise for the President to have all options on the table, Leo is not part of the chain of command. I don't care how much military background he has. At bare minimum he should have told Jed he urged General Alexander to move the Lincoln battle group into position. By keeping that to himself, he undermined the President. And don't even get me started on him presuming to give his boss orders!

[@Ares99999]

Doesn't even matter if he was right or wrong politically or socially. Leo handled that badly.

[@808INFantry11X]

I thought this was very professional on both accounts but the President in this case was trying to shoot for a pipe dream one that in this case was cashing checks he wasn't prepared to pay for. He wanted peace in the Middle East so bad he couldn't see he was the only one in the room who really wanted it. I mean i loved Bartlett this was one of the few times where I wanted to yell at him to because he was ignoring the feelings and perceptions of those who lived in the region.

[@Ares99999]

@@808INFantry11X So, when you're the only one in the room who wants peace, in your mind you should just give up on how you think and go with the bloodthirsty majority. Nice thinking.

[@808INFantry11X]

@@Ares99999 im sorry you can't force peace it always ends up as disaster for trying it that way. Luckily for WW2 the Axis powers were just as eager to end the war as the Allies. War termination is one of hardest things to do in the world today. The hard part us trying to foster the idea for peace but it only works when both people want the fighting to stop and that seldom is the case today.

[@808INFantry11X]

@@Ares99999 you got listen to the people on the ground the people who have worked with the people in question and the people intimately know the cultures. I'm sorry you think you can just come in tell people to hold hands and make peace just because you want it you have no idea what the others want. In the case of this episode I had to have disagreed with Bartlet because he was trying to dictate terms to Both Palestine and Israel and wasn't listen to either and thats a recipe for disaster.

[@Ares99999]

Wow, but you are angry. You hate peace-driven people that much, eh?

[@rogerw3818]

"... or, what?"

[@michaelreece2966]

You can see in this clip just how sick John Spencer was.

[@evillink1]

How about that episode where the Colombian guerrillas shot down an American helicopter, and Leo had to talk Bartlett out of invading Colombia? This seems off.

[@CzolgoszWorkinMan]

this office inculcates sociopaths

[@UltimaKeyMaster]

"Killing Palestinians isn't going to make us feel safer." Good fucking Nostradamus, does that ring true now more than ever.

[@rumblequixote8841]

Or what? goddam right.

[@bluesboy25000]

This is a harsh seen to watch.

[@Tinkermeg27]

Now I feel like candy.

[@brettzforeman]

Leo doesn't really live up to his reputation in-show. He's portrayed as a campaign genius, and he stares down some major characters, but a lot of characters' greatest achievements require telling him to shove it up his ass. He's persistently wrong about a lot of things, but characters' reasons for trusting or listening to him are mostly attributed to achievements prior to the Barlett administration. Furthermore, all but one of Bartlett's worst scandals are Leo's fault - the assassination, Leo's history of drug use, and how his hasty firing of Josh predicates a budget shutdown when an opposition-led Congress merely perceives this capitulation as weakness and tries to shake down the President going into an election cycle. Sorkin's hazy understanding of how campaigns and government work might allow for a lot of snappy dialogue, and as a campaign professional I'm perfectly happy to watch and enjoy a show that is about as much about politics as "Scrubs" is about medicine. However, judging Leo on his merits as a political professional, he only pulls his weight briefly - as a candidate - but is more liability than asset as a White House staff manager.

[@Mark-xh8md]

All the doctors I know who know the show have consistently said that Scrubs is by far the most accurate depiction of the medical profession.

[@nikolatesla5553]

Wow, do I disagree. Sorkin had at his disposal prominent advisors from multiple administrations. Also, Leo wasn't the cause of all Bartlett's problems. Did he make mistakes,? Absolutely, but he's human. One could hardly blame Leo for the few that he made. It was Leo, who chose Josh as well as Toby and CJ. Without Leo, Bartlett most certainly would never been elected President.

[@chrissegee]

Bartlet being bartlet

[@enemywithin1295]

Why do you let your girlfriend buy so much stuff? WE DON'T ALWAYS KNOW HOW IT SPENDS

[@ajdimick4740]

This show while still barely watchable deteriorated quite bit the last 3 seasons.

[@FabledGentleman]

It was season 5 and the beginning of season 6 that was the worst. But it picks up again by mid season 6. Though it never becomes as great again as the first four seasons.

[@bt10ant]

Sorkin would have never gone down this plot road. Show became different after he left.

[@Elthenar]

Yes, but not always worse. There was a lot of good stuff in the post Sorkin years. Maybe it wasn't as good as when he was there but it was still a top notch show without him. It speaks to how strong the cast and the rest of the writing crew were, and how strong Sorkin's original vision was. I am a "voted for Reagan" conservative and I believe that, for what that's worth

[@pxglee]

I do not agree with Leo, Bartlet is right. How does it end? What is the exit strategy?

[@PhoenixFires]

What was the exit strategy of WW2? Technically it was "Give in to Japan" that he went for

[@schwei56]

To Leo’s “WE DON’T ALWAYS KNOW HOW IT ENDS!” I would shout back, “PRECISELY! JUST SO!” I would then quietly add: “This president has lost all fear of letting the future have the benefit of the doubt.” The real 39th POTUS, Jimmy Carter, chose a path of peace, even though it led to both Israeli and Egyptian leaders to sacrifice their lives . . . we remember.

[@jaykay3468]

Hello I've seen it

[@haybarnvideo]

Bartlett was right. Overreacting to Palestine would be stupid.

[@gerardhunt1890]

Barlett was always afraid to use the military.

[@alexanderg1935]

Total nonsense. Completely contradicts 'A Proportional Response' which was one of the earliest episodes of Season 1. Sorkin left and the show got hijacked by hacks. Acting is still superb though.

[@TheTurksMusic]

Hate this scene, its very out of character compared to the previous 5 years

[@kdmdlo]

Leo's health was in decline, as was his judgement in this case.

[@rd2783]

I agree with TurksMusic, this scene doesn't make sense and the show turned into typical NBC crap after Sorkin left.

[@alestorcrowley]

This scene may have still happened w Sorkin but it'd been better written than this

[@JesusMargarito]

Great show but I think they over played the non-diegetic music a little too much.

[@Ohm_mega]

When genocide is your only exit strategy, you are not on the right side, even though you can guarantee being on the winning side.

[@gmgayu6746]

Mr Bartlet was right about over reacting. As a Southern Asian, I've always felt the foreign policy of the US is unnecessarily over reaching, over doing that puts it's citizens n Army under attack all the time. Be it Iraq, Lebanon, Palestinian, Afghan... US blunders r now a headache to countries like mine.

[@kerriethompson2073]

As an American I agree with you. The United States Government has been overreacting for time now and it's got to stop!

[@PhoenixFires]

Because the day we stop playing superpower and become like every other nation and let everyone play by their own rules there's this thing that always happens. Its called a world war.

[@mikepenalosa2345]

Es

[@-youngish]

This is where the show really went off the rails and became a soap opera. Horrid writing. Melodrama. None of it remotely real. God John Wells is just the worst. Totally ruined this show.

[@chang-kp9sp]

I agree with president . If no one or side stop , retaliation would go forever. I do not think US have responsibility to protect some citizen travel to troublesome countries despite of warning from government. They are just getting what they deserve.

[@basketanand]

Man, I know they're right, but man, are Americans a weird bunch. A 20 year war in the middle of nowhere that sparks a 3rd generation of counter-counter insurgents that bankrupts their nation, and not knowing how it ends, seems perfectly natural in that office. I look back on the history of a border we, India, share with two nations that hate us to our guts politically and are armed with nuclear missiles at our doorstep, China and Pakistan, and we've had wars, and the life of a Kashmiri isn't pretty, but we have never, ever entered a war without knowing when it ends. Maybe we went on battles, and I'm open to being corrected on this whole statement, but we never, ever, went into a war not knowing what we were getting into or when we were getting out. Whether it be the Chinese we lost in the 60s, the effective draws or small wins over Pakistan in the 60s, the liberation of Bangladesh in the 70s, Kargil in the 90s, we never entered a war not knowing when we're getting out. Now it's true, war, war is not easy. It's not simple. It's complicated. You sometimes go in not knowing what's going to happen, because you have to, for defence. But for that to be considered normal, accepted thinking, modus operandi almost, is utmostly absurd and weird. For all the unknown unknowns and known unknowns of war, India never went into one not knowing when we're getting out

[@selectland1]

It may be cultural. India also chose not to retaliate for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Frankly, many countries would have retaliated for that type of attack.

[@basketanand]

Select Land Services Yes, and thank god for that. Thank god that we did not hold a nation accountable for the act of 5 of its citizens. Thank god we didn't enter a 20 year war with no end in sight, that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of the poor among our youth, for no one knew what purpose then, and no one knows what purpose now. Thank god we didn't bankrupt our nation and develop a 3rd generation of militants placing more targets on our back, killing more civilians and putting the nation at risk. Thank god we didn't barter our credibility on the international stage by killing the values we said we held in pursuance of a lie, and further a lie that had nothing to do with the incident in the first place, and a lie that was only in place to benefit those who told it and their personal financial interests of oil, and not the nation. Thank god that when we felt that bloodlust, we may be an imperfect nation, but at that stage, that calmer heads prevailed. Thank god in our case it was cultural; but why do you assume in your case it was not?

[@selectland1]

@@basketanand I didn't assume it wasn't cultural in our case and I'm not making a judgment as to which position is right or wrong (you obviously have your opinion and I respect that). My own feelings are that certain actions demand a response. Not every military response needs to consist of full war and/or invasions, there are a range of responses. To me it seems that India made no response at all, other than to perhaps purchase some new patrol boats and setup a new anti terror unit. There are many benefits to avoiding war and you list them well. Thee are also risks to forgoing an attempt to establish deterrence against future acts and being perceived as unable or unwilling to respond, if and when the need arises. Your statement that these were the acts of 5 people is naive and reflects an intellectually false premise in your statement.

[@PhoenixFires]

The difference between India and the US is that the US runs everything and is soft. It has the power to destroy everyone, but our people don't want that. So we laze about in gentle wars for a few decades and sob ovee a couple thousand dead soldiers over several decades. That's our limit to what we can stomach with all our might.