…I respected the hëll out of George W. Bush.
Really. No kidding. When he stated in an interview “I don’t think we can win” the war on terror, I was staggered. Because he was right, and because he was honest, and because he was making a reasoned evaluation of something that anyone with two licks of sense could have told him.
The “let’s declare war on something” mentality reduces complex issues to stark black and white terms that can’t begin to encompass the reality of the situation. And when Bush fessed up that the war on terror was, in essence, no more “winnable” than the war on drugs or the war on poverty, I thought, Wow. Okay. Maybe he’s really learning. Maybe he really is capable of growth in a way that his fixed “stay the course” mentality would make you think he’s not.
And the Democrats went to town comparing terrorism to the Soviet Union which, by the way, self-destructed, and the fall of Communism which, last I checked, is still around. And I thought, “That’s just stupid. This is another of those embarrassed-to-be-a-Democrat moments. How can they pounce on him when he’s so indisputably RIGHT?”
So what happened? Bush flip flopped. Suddenly the war on terrorism IS winnable, yes siree, don’t you believe anything else.
Oh well. Back to status quo.
PAD
• 
“Bill and Jim, no authoritative researchers claim that stem cell research will lead to cures for all diseases. That’s a myth. It’s the opponents on the right who attribute such claims to those who support the research.”
Maybe no authoritative researcher does but such claims get expounded by laymen all the time (look no further than up above, although I think Karen was speaking tongue in cheek). You can find plenty of idiots who even claim that reagan’s alzheimers might have been cured had he only blah blah blah.
It’s not just the right wing
Deano,
I like you, dude. But your broad statement regarding terrorsm is sweeping, slightly misinformed, smplistic and scary, IMO.
First, there is a huge difference between domestic “terrorists” and the Islamic fanatics that want to kill us. The latter have attacked us to various degrees since the hostage crisis in 1979 under Carter. Since then, there have been bombings in Beiruit under Reagan,the Pan Am Flight 103 incident under Reagan, the USS Cole incident, the first World Trade Center bombing under Clinton, the embassy bombings under Clinton, and of course 9/11.
This constant muddying of the issue by bringing up the animals McVeigh and Nichols is political correctness at its worst. It says that A.) the Oklahoma City bombing should somehow be lumped in with groups who are tryng to kill us in the name of Islam and who are organized and have a uniting ideology/religious fundamentalist belief and motve for their actions. I remember some fool saying, “So, why didn’t we invade Ireland after Oklahoma City?” Pure idiocy.
Which brings up the problem – if we do profile Arab men, since 100% of the terrorist attacks from abroad have been Arab men, we are accused of being racist instead of applauded for using common sense.
As for the other groups you mentioned, well, I know many of these group are and currently have been watched carefully by the government. The KKK and black sepratists say some truly disgusting stuff, but I don’t recall either one of them being responsible for a wave of violence in the last quarter-century. And you really have to be careful when you say “take them all down”. Because if you silence these vile individuals for being hateful, who’s next? Christians who believe homosexuality is an abominaton? Leftists who bash Christians? Groups who oppose affirmative action – many of whom are accused of being hateful towards minorities and women? People with radical environmental ideas, who could be lumped in with those who spke trees to hurt those using chainsaws?
You have to be really careful.
On a lighter note – Dude, you really should give Meltzer another shot, as “Identity Crisis” is one of the best mysteries of any drama I have read in years. You obviously had an emotional reaction, which was the point. I mean, PAD killed Jean DeWolff in a brutal fashion, and thought that character was cool and had a lot of potential. Karen Page, Gwen Stacy, Kyle Rayner’s girlfriend Alex (who was stuffed in a refrigerator) and many others have “bit the bullet” in stories, and most of them are remembered as great stories. Heck, the Joker brutalized and crippled Barbara Gordon and The Killing Joke is considered one of the best stories ever, while Gordon’s character as Oracle is far stronger than it ever was as Batgirl. Give IC another chance, man:)
>Which brings up the problem – if we do profile Arab men, since 100% of the terrorist attacks from abroad have been Arab men, we are accused of being racist instead of applauded for using common sense.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Islamics are light-skinned, so the profiling that our government is currently practicing is not only pìššìņg people off, but also largely ineffective.
On 9/11 John kerry was not the President of the US. He did not wield executive authority or possess any control of the US military. Indeed, other than the small senatorial staff, he had no executive authority whatsover. He was, in most respects, just a normal person.
Bush on 9/11 was the leader of the US, the one person would could command the US military. For all we knew, there were several other planes in the air loaded with lunatic suicide bombers. It was absolutely imperative that Bush take action quickly and sitting in a classroom was clearly not a good use of his time. You do not need to believe Moore’s sometimes wild speculations to conclude that Bush’s actions were suspect.
Now, there were a lot of people who were caught off guard on 911, and Bush was not the only or even the worst offender. This sort of lapse is tolerable once, but comparisons to John Kerry are stupid, because Kerry was not the President at that time.
‘we can’t win it, but we can make it so hard that it will have to work and work to hurt people, unlike the Clinton years where they had a dámņëd cakewalk’
Someone must have forgotten to tell Ramzi Yousef and the other 93 WTC bommbers, because they were all arrested and put behind wars. Ditto for Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and the like.
Someone must have forgotten to tell Ramzi Yousef and the other 93 WTC bommbers, because they were all arrested and put behind wars.
Some people say there are no real typos…
BTW, Glenn, does the Preview button not work anymore or am I doing something wrong? I can’t can’t get a preview to show up. All I get is the page I just had with my comments intact, but my personal info missing.
See what happened here is that PAD has spent too much time concentrating of his ideas for What if..? story lines. That’s all this incident was, a wistful what if. In reality it never happened. Come on George W. learn something? That’s about as likely as what if Aunt May became Spider-man. Yep Super powers, surgery and hormone therapy! Scary as Hëll!
Re :Jerome
Okay ,first i didnt say “take em all down”,At least I dont think i did.OOPs just checked ,yeah I did.My point was that domestic terror should have the same attention that the islamic terrorists do.I recall a case a few months ago of a white miltia group that was stockpiling weapons and cyanide bombs but this was not given the same attention as some of the arabic people that have been detained which may be a mechanism of the media more than the respective agencies in charge of these things.
By no means am i advocating internment camps for angry white men.What i am saying though is that we should not be so blinded into only seeing arabic muslims as terrorists.As far as hate groups we all have the right to like and hate whomever we choose as long as the hatred doesnot extend to the physical actions ot the violations of the rights of others.Unfortunately many of these groups are united and do use religion to justify their hatred.My take em all down comment..I was watching the Professional the other day the one seen towards the end where Gary oldman says “GET EVERYONE !!!!”must have stuck. :)IMO profiling may cause you to miss something else going on.
On a somewhat lighter note…I actually thought about the Jean Dewolff story and i did enjoy that and Killing joke.So i guess i am being hypocritical in that aspect.My concern was that was no warning about the content.Which if you read my other posts there was a disagreement between me and a local comic store over SUPREME
POWER and the nudity in that comic.Bottom line SP
was put in a plastic bag,IC wasnt even though SP had a tag about the content.I suppose i won since IC# 3 was in a plastic bag the other day.
I guess to an extent i still read comics to escape all the ugliness of reality and this seemed like a bit much to me.Maybe i will try it maybe i wont.
PAD…
Yeah, I know all that (i.e., why no one has mentioned Osama Bin Laden.) I was sorta playing “devil’s advocate” by throwing it into the discussion, but it does make me angry that no one has the guts to bring him up…on either side.
Speaking of which, a few minutes ago John McCain was asked by Bob Woodward on Larry King Live why most of his fellow politicians haven’t followed his lead in “talking straight from the hip?” (I’m paraphrasing.)
My mom said yesterday that she thinks Bush is going to win the election (I don’t think she’s too happy about that–I know my dad isn’t), and that the 2008 ticket will be Guiliani and McCain…
I must admit that after listening/watching Rudy, I sure wished he was running…
Does seem like Kerry is starting to scramble, doesn’t it? (referring to the rumors of a shake-up in his campaign team.) NOT a good sign two months before the election.
How many of us cringed while the Bush girls were on the podium? Embarrassing. REALLY embarrassing. I felt sorry for them.
Mindy
the republican party will never nominate a pro choice candidate both rudy and mcain are pro choice
they may run but they will never be nominated
John McCain on abortion:
“I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it… As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.”
Don’t know where you got the idea he was otherwise.
Fred,
No, the system currently n place is pìššìņg a lot of people off because the government , under Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has refused to use common sense or enact any procedures at airports that would even gve the whiff of profiling. He has piled on lots of useless regulations that inconvenience the maximum number of passengers, whle, at the same time, makng the planes no safer. The most important thing, according to Mneta, is to prohibit airport screeners from paying any extra attenton to anyone who looked like the last several dozen terrorists to attack an Amercan aircraft, embassy, or military installation. nstead, he inssted that the arlnesgo through the manifestly absurd exercise of strip-searchng little old ladies. THAT pìššëš a lot of people off.
In fact, n one of the more absurd examples, arport security searched Al Gore. Why? To what end? There’s a lot of thngs not to like about Gore, but ‘m pretty sure he’s not a terrorist.
Also, arlines, to avoid gettng sued, are allowng a maxmum of only two Arab men to searched per flight. So taken to an absolute extreme, if three men who literally looked like Al-Sadr, Bin Laden and Kamal Derwish all were boardng the same flight, securty would hesitate to check them all for fear of being sued.
Fnally, I don’t believe ever cited “Dark skin” or “olve skin” n describng crtera to search Arab men. I am quite aware many Arab men and women – just like many of African or talian descent are light-skinned. There are many critera to look at, if you know what to look for.
Mndy,
The Bush girls WERE embarrassing. realze they were pokng fun at themselves, but it got so bad, considered changng the channel. It was painful to watch and hear. And when Jenna said, “We have tried to stay out of the spotlight”, was like “Thank God! I can see why!”
I can’t recall feeling that way before. I’ve gotten angry listening to people like Sharpton, but I can’t recall being so horrified.
Yikes!
Jerome:
>No, the system currently n place is pìššìņg a lot of people off because the government , under Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has refused to use common sense or enact any procedures at airports that would even gve the whiff of profiling.
“..we are accused of being racist instead of applauded for using common sense.?” This was the statement that I was responding to. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.
I agree with this 100%. I have an uncle who had just retired from an administrative position and took a position of security at an airport after 911. I am amazed at the *ahem* training he was given.
>The most important thing, according to Mneta, is to prohibit airport screeners from paying any extra attenton to anyone who looked like the last several dozen terrorists to attack an Amercan aircraft, embassy, or military installation. nstead, he inssted that the arlnesgo through the manifestly absurd exercise of strip-searchng little old ladies. THAT pìššëš a lot of people off.
This is also true.
>In fact, n one of the more absurd examples, arport security searched Al Gore. Why? To what end? There’s a lot of thngs not to like about Gore, but ‘m pretty sure he’s not a terrorist.
I dunno. Many people thought that his plans would have setroyed America.
>Also, arlines, to avoid gettng sued, are allowng a maxmum of only two Arab men to searched per flight. So taken to an absolute extreme, if three men who literally looked like Al-Sadr, Bin Laden and Kamal Derwish all were boardng the same flight, securty would hesitate to check them all for fear of being sued.
Within the first several months after 911, “Arab-lokking” people were pulled aside as well as being subjected to racism by many that they shared a plane with, a campus with, or walked down a street across from. Working and socializing with someone who was born in the U.S. and has parents from the Middle East, I can confirm all of these as fact first hand.
>Fnally, I don’t believe ever cited “Dark skin” or “olve skin” n describng crtera to search Arab men. I am quite aware many Arab men and women – just like many of African or talian descent are light-skinned. There are many critera to look at, if you know what to look for.
True. Unfortunately, most don’t.
Jerome – ” It says that A.) the Oklahoma City bombing should somehow be lumped in with groups who are tryng to kill us in the name of Islam”
As far as the victims were concerned I doubt there’s much difference. Dead is dead.
Dr. Pym – Your comments on minority governments have a certain value, but there are two problems.
1 – the inability of such governments to take decisive, necessary action because it could bring them down in a non-confidence vote
2 – in Canada it could result in the ridiculous scenario playing out where the Bloc Quebecois – whose raison d’etre is the destruction of Canada – being in power. OK, rather unlikely, but mathematically not impossible under minority rules.
If we’re supposed to decide who potential enemies are by using the profile of the 9/11 terrorists, why did we invade Iraq? Remember, 15 of the 19 men involved directly in the attacks were Saudi citizens – by your reasoning, wouldn’t Saudi Arabia have been the logical target?
I like going off-topic. Do you like going off-topic?
1 – the inability of such governments to take decisive, necessary action because it could bring them down in a non-confidence vote
2 – in Canada it could result in the ridiculous scenario playing out where the Bloc Quebecois – whose raison d’etre is the destruction of Canada – being in power. OK, rather unlikely, but mathematically not impossible under minority rules.
1) I don’t have any figures in front of me right now, but I do believe that every European country (except the UK) has a proportional representation system that promotes minority governments. Most of them seem to get along just fine. I think that most of the “decisive, necessary actions” that they’d be prevented from carrying out would be the most extreme, right-or-left-wing ones. Not necessarily the same thing.
2) An interesting point, but despite the Bloc’s resurgence in popularity this year, I don’t think there’s been any serious talk about separatism in some time. Also, there’s a lot to be gained by the French having a clear voice in parliament…something that took me several history, geography, and sociology classes to understand. Thirdly, under a proportional representation system (yes that again), the Bloc would actually have less power.
For example, in this year’s election, the Bloc received 17.5% of the seats in parliament, with only 12.4% of the national vote. Under a PR system, their seat share would be equal to their vote share, thus reducing the power of regionally-based parties such as the Bloc, in favour of parties that promote national interests.
Thanks for your interest.
Or maybe she understands that he kept a cool head, and is not going to criticize him for what was not a tragic decision just because Michael Moore says that we should.
Sitting there with your mouth hanging open is not keeping a “cool head”. It’s looking like an idiot, which is something Bush is masterful at.
Everybody wanted to hold Clinton to a higher standard, yet that isn’t the case with The Bumbling One.
Either way, this is the President. The man should have done *something* other than sitting in a public school classroom knowing that we were under attack.
The problem here is all these politicians and spin doctors haven’t read enough comics….
Otherwise someone would have invoked the phrase “A never-ending battle for…” which is more accurate than “unwinnable” in this context.
(sooner or later EVERYTHING comes back to comics…)
Fred,
One of the most beautiful people I know is a young woman named Zoreh. She is of Iranian descent. She is sharp, intelligent (she’s a lawyer), kind-hearted, hard working and beautiful. I remember one time, shortly after 9/11, at a social event in Philly, this middle-aged woman looked concerned and I asked her why. She asked if Zoreh was “on our side”. I was incredibly hurt, but simply told her yes, and briefly summarized why she had nothing to “fear”. It would have been easy to either A.) Say nothing B.) Call the woman a “racist” and walk away.
But that solves nothing. Racism is based on fear and ignorance. The only way to truly change that is not by enacting laws but trying to change hearts and minds, one at a time, and having the guts to engage people. True victory in something like racism, which is not tangible, can only occur when you take the time to debate people and challenge them about why they feel the way they do, and make THEM realize how wrong they were to feel that way. And that does not and cannot mean that we must overcompensate by enacting insane laws that would allow decent, competent police officers/security people from doing their jobs.
The Star Wolf,
I was of course talking about motivations, coordination of activities and level of frequency of threats.
If “dead is dead” then I guess Mother Nature should be as high up the terrorist list as Osama Bin Laden, snce earthquakes and floods kill thousands of people around the world.
Jerome:
>One of the most beautiful people I know is a young woman named Zoreh. She is of Iranian descent. She is sharp, intelligent (she’s a lawyer), kind-hearted, hard working and beautiful. I remember one time, shortly after 9/11, at a social event in Philly, this middle-aged woman looked concerned and I asked her why. She asked if Zoreh was “on our side”. I was incredibly hurt, but simply told her yes, and briefly summarized why she had nothing to “fear”. It would have been easy to either A.) Say nothing B.) Call the woman a “racist” and walk away.
Agreed.
>But that solves nothing. Racism is based on fear and ignorance.
Agreed.
>The only way to truly change that is not by enacting laws but trying to change hearts and minds, one at a time, and having the guts to engage people. True victory in something like racism, which is not tangible, can only occur when you take the time to debate people and challenge them about why they feel the way they do, and make THEM realize how wrong they were to feel that way.
Agreed… to a point. We can not now nor can we ever dictate morality. It has been attempted in the past with devestating results. What we can do is challenge the thoughts and enforce consequences against behavior. One must never be confused with the other or we are all lost.
>And that does not and cannot mean that we must overcompensate by enacting insane laws that would allow decent, competent police officers/security people from doing their jobs.
True. Although, I’d counter by simply saying that this is a very fine line to walk. Who draws it? You? Me? It is dangerous to subject every white hick with a flannel shirt and a pick-up to investigation simply because that description may match the typical hood-wearing lyncher. Overcompensation goes both ways, afterall.
Again, both sides meet at a very fine line and we must all constantly remind ourselves of that and challenge our oun thinking.
Fred,
Of course it is a fine lne to walk. But if, using your example, a black man was lynched in the South, it would be quite insane to use energy and resources to stop Asians or self-loathing black men (or women)n the name of “fairness” and non-stereotyping . Because history and the officers’ experience have shown that it is VERY likely, if not an absolute certainty, that it IS and angry, uneducated redneck in a pickup truck who committed the act.
As the Arab woman Fedwa Malt-Douglas wrote in The New York Times, on February 6, 2002 in a column titled “Profile Me”, she said she does not blame those who are fearful of people who look like her as much as she does the people who look like her who gave people a genuine reason to be fearful. She says she supports profiling. Why? Because she doesn’t want to die either. That knd of trumps potential hurt feelings.
Jerome:
>Of course it is a fine lne to walk. But if, using your example, a black man was lynched in the South, it would be quite insane to use energy and resources to stop Asians or self-loathing black men (or women)n the name of “fairness” and non-stereotyping . Because history and the officers’ experience have shown that it is VERY likely, if not an absolute certainty, that it IS and angry, uneducated redneck in a pickup truck who committed the act.
As the Arab woman Fedwa Malt-Douglas wrote in The New York Times, on February 6, 2002 in a column titled “Profile Me”, she said she does not blame those who are fearful of people who look like her as much as she does the people who look like her who gave people a genuine reason to be fearful. She says she supports profiling. Why? Because she doesn’t want to die either. That knd of trumps potential hurt feelings.
I’m not arguing the ridiculousness of picking out vice presidents or old Jewish women as potential threat, my concern isn’t even with hurt feelings. I simply don’t think that it is any more effective to profile all Arabs at airports than it would be to profile all white men in a state where lynchings occurred. Not only a waste of resources, but one tends to provoke ill will from people who had none previously. It just makes no practical or moral sense to me. Practical moreso than moral.
Either way, this is the President. The man should have done *something* other than sitting in a public school classroom knowing that we were under attack.
Like what? I mean, I’ve heard every body criticize Bush, and it’s pretty easy with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, but what would you have done THEN at that moment? Considering Bush probably didn’t know anymore at that particular moment than you did.
I mean, come on. Let’s see if you can truly be fair. You’re President. An aide rushes in and tells you that a plane has hjit the World Trade Center. Armed with no more information than that, What would you have done in the intervening seven minutes that would have changed anything?
I remember watching it on tv and it wasn’t until the second plane hit that I even thought something was up.
eclark:
>Either way, this is the President. The man should have done *something* other than sitting in a public school classroom knowing that we were under attack.
Like what? I mean, I’ve heard every body criticize Bush, and it’s pretty easy with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, but what would you have done THEN at that moment? Considering Bush probably didn’t know anymore at that particular moment than you did.
I mean, come on. Let’s see if you can truly be fair. You’re President. An aide rushes in and tells you that a plane has hjit the World Trade Center. Armed with no more information than that, What would you have done in the intervening seven minutes that would have changed anything?
I remember watching it on tv and it wasn’t until the second plane hit that I even thought something was up.
The big difference being that none of us are president and should not be held to the same standards. This is no different than a police officer being placed in a position where he needed to respond when “off duty”. I’m a counselor at a college. I’m expected to respond to certain ciris on campus in a certain manner. I would not expect a student or even another staff member or faculty to respond in the way I am expected to…. I certainly would attempt to dodge my responsibility should I not respond at all.
Faus paus at the very least.
Craig wrote: “Sitting there with your mouth hanging open is not keeping a “cool head”. It’s looking like an idiot, which is something Bush is masterful at.”
Occasionally, my wife, relatives or friends will walk up to me and say, “What’s wrong?” Invariably I say something like, “Huh? What do you mean?” And they’ll respond, “You look really mad.” Yet most of the time in the moments preceding an exchange like this, what’s really going through my mind is something thoughtful or innocuous — something like “Hmmm, I wonder what the creamy filling of a Twinkie is made out of?” or “Is Sirius 20 light years away or 25?”
Thus, when Michael Moore jumps up and down and says, “Look! Look! Bush looks dumb right after he was told about 9-11” I shrug it off with a big “So what?”
Face it, we have no idea exactly what Bush’s aide said to him at that moment, and we have no idea what was REALLY going through Bush’s head. All we can do is assume, and as a wise man once said, “When you ášš-u-me, you might make an ášš of u and me.”
RMaheras:
>Face it, we have no idea exactly what Bush’s aide said to him at that moment, and we have no idea what was REALLY going through Bush’s head. All we can do is assume, and as a wise man once said, “When you ášš-u-me, you might make an ášš of u and me.”
In recent interviews Bush’s aide stated that he said, “America is under attack.”
There is really not a lot of room for misinterpretation there.
I wouldn’t necessarily vote the guy out of office on that moment alone, but….
It’s been a while since I was on the site (or a lot of the net for that matter). It’s nice to see some things never change.
Fred,
1.) “I certainly would attempt to dodge my responsibility should I not respond at all”
Er, I’m pretty sure you meant “I certainly would NOT attempt to dodge my responsiblity”. Right? And F.Y.I.: It’s “Faux” not “Faus”.
2.) Final comment for now on racial profiling:
You see a “moral” problem wth profiling all Arab men at airports or all white men after a lynching. First, neither I nor any reasonable person suggests that. It’s like trying to stop all speeders. But DUI checkpoints are usually set up near bars. That makes sense (although I disagree with the concept itself).As stated, there are many criteria to look at. Is the person behaving suspiciously? Does he or she have a weapon, etc. But when the overwhelming likelihood is that members of a certain group ether committed or might commit an activity, based on prior experience and a pattern of history, it is morally reprehensible to waste time and resources so that said group isn’t “disproportionately” singled out. Last I knew, there weren’t too many black members of the KKK.
Does this terrify you as much as this terrifies me?
Kerry and EU would offer Iran a nuclear deal
Have those people not remembered what happened when Clinton foolishly gave North Korea nuclear material to “rebuild their nuclear reactors”?
Gaah!
Don,
“Why do people want to believe this?” (That the 2000 election is a huge reason the Democrats hate Bush so much”)
Let’s see…
1.) New York Democrats are still pushing for “international monitors” for this election based on 2000.
2.) It is constantly bandied about that “the people didn’t pick Bush, the Supreme Court did”
3.) Last year in Philadelphia, a close mayoral election was turned into a landslide, when the corrupy mayor was shown to be investigated by the federal government for bribes, etc. The rallying cry became “Don’t let Bush and Ashcroft hijack ths election, like they did in Florida”.
4.) An aide to the former mayor of Scranton, said to him on TV a couple of months ago, “We are gong to put John Kerry in the White House and make up for that election which was STOLEN! Stolen!”
5.) Margaret Carlson, on last week’s Capital Gang, when asked about what Kerry could do to avod defeat lke Gore, said, “I don’t know that he lost. He got the most votes.”
6.) Jesse Jackson still talks about “Black disenfranchisement”.
7.) Al Sharpton, in a debate, said the “Republicans are against democracy, citing Florida.
8.) Sharpton again, this year, “Bush says we don’t need a permission slip from the U.N.? Heck, he doesn’t think he needs the most votes to be President.”
9.) Michael Moore, in “Stupid White Men” devotes a lot of the book to Florida 2000, and in a list of world leaders, Has “President” George W. Bush in quotation marks and with an asterisk.
10.) In “F 9/11”, Moore focuses quite a bit of time on Election 2000 and how Gore “really” won the election.
Gee, I have no idea why many people believe Democrats are still angry over Election 2000!
What would you have done in the intervening seven minutes that would have changed anything?
Well, contacting the White House would’ve been a start, but that’s obviously a stretch to expect something so simple to be done.
He’s Commander in Chief for what reason again?
Can’t imagine what Bush would do if somebody dropped a nuke on his ranch in Texas. That might atleast cause him to choke on another pretzel.
Gee, I have no idea why many people believe Democrats are still angry over Election 2000!
Maybe because, all around, it was a poor representation of how things work.
The whole thing was a fiasco from the start, and it’s rather sad that it ended up the way it did, regardless of who wanted what votes recounted.
Probably even worse than that is the fact that, 4 years later, I’m not sure we’ve remedied the situation at all.
Um, Jerome?
The claim made was not that “a lot of Democrats are still angry about 2000.”
The claim was that 2000 is the ONLY reason for the visceral dislike of Bush.
You have not addressed that claim, satisfactorily or otherwise. No one is denying that the 2000 election still leaves substantial scars; that’s not the same, however, as saying that Bush would be much more loved/respected/etc. now if he’d won a more clear-cut victory.
Happy to help.
TWL
too sleepy to get into this other than pedantry
Craig wrote: “Well, contacting the White House would’ve been a start, but that’s obviously a stretch to expect something so simple to be done.”
Hello, Craig, why exactly would he contact the White House? Whenever the President goes anywhere, he takes a virtual city with him.
It is interesting how quick both sides are to read into things. The reality is, we don’t know why. Can we speculate? Sure, if you are willing to admit it is a guess. But if you were honest, you would have to admit you could be wrong.
The reality is most people already have a belief about Bush. Some think he is an idiot. So if he sits there for 7 minutes, it is proof he is an idiot.
Others think he is careful and deliberate. He is not normally given to hysterical extremes (unlike, say, Howard Dean).
I have no idea why he say there. But I think his actions throughout that day and for the next few weeks say a lot more than trying to read into 7 minutes of silence.
Arguments from silence are weak, and this is no exception. At least I don’t have to explain why my candidate voted for the funding for the war in Iraq before he voted against it. There I can use his actual words to tell me how he handles crisis situations.
(For those who dare, go watch the video at http://www.kerryoniraq.com/ — it simply uses Kerry’s own words about the war to demonstrate his lack of clarity and conviction.)
Jim in Iowa
It was more than seven minutes. Bush followed his reading with a 20 minute photo op. Isn’t it nice to have a president who knows his priorities. On being made aware of the second crash, he should have ordered the school vacated at once.
Since everyone seems to know why the Dems are so angry at Bush ( the 200 election, Iraq, blah, blah), maybe someone could tell me why the Republicans are so angry? They have spent an entire convention ripping John Kerry a new áššhølë while barely mentioning the finer points of the incumbent.
I thought the GOP was all about restoring honor and civility to the office and the political process.
I don’t know what conventions you were watching, but nothing has been said, by a Republican, than was said by the Dems at their convention.
While the Dems claimed the high road, they were bashing Bush every step of the way.
KEN:
>I don’t know what conventions you were watching, but nothing has been said, by a Republican, than was said by the Dems at their convention.
>While the Dems claimed the high road, they were bashing Bush every step of the way.
While I watched much of the GOP convention with mild facination, I actually had to stiffle a snicker last night when Cheney made a statement of watching our president respond to issues with humility. While many things may be said for or against the man, I’d never have believed that I’d hear this.
Fred
“So if he sits there for 7 minutes, it is proof he is an idiot. Others think he is careful and deliberate. He is not normally given to hysterical extremes (unlike, say, Howard Dean).”
Seven minutes he could have used to be seven minutes closer to direct contact with a command center which could have been useful if the country really was at war. Or at least to start getting emergency actions started on the spot.
And, somehow, I don’t think a classroom of pre-teens is a great place to start bluntly discussing out loud one of the worst disasters in the nation’s history.
Jim in Iowa:
>(For those who dare, go watch the video at http://www.kerryoniraq.com/ — it simply uses Kerry’s own words about the war to demonstrate his lack of clarity and conviction.)
I did. I want my 13 minutes back. That video is relentlessly dishonest.
To pick just one issue, when Kerry voted for and against the $87,000,000,000, he was voting on DIFFERENT VERSIONS. One was acceptable to him; the other was not. There was never any flip-flopping.
Check the Daily Howler at http://www.dailyhowler.com for more discussion of the 87B and other alleged flip-flops. The rhetoric is quite heavy, but the facts are sound.
Jerome:
>>1.) “I certainly would attempt to dodge my responsibility should I not respond at all”
Er, I’m pretty sure you meant “I certainly would NOT attempt to dodge my responsiblity”. Right? And F.Y.I.: It’s “Faux” not “Faus”.
Yeah, I noticed both errors when I came back to check the board. I was at work and didn’t have time to proof read.
Although, I thought that we had begun to actually discuss points for a moment there, not simply proof reading them.
To pick just one issue, when Kerry voted for and against the $87,000,000,000, he was voting on DIFFERENT VERSIONS.
See, it’s things like this when I flip stations from commercials talking about somebody’s voting record.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – there are many reasons why somebody could be in favor of something, but then not sign the bill.
Things get attached (which is commonplace) that they don’t want, things are changed from the initial approval compared to the final version.
Or, in the case of Iraq, it is decided that invading wasn’t the best thing to do after all.
Yes. And in the irony department, the last major report on it that I read was that Bush would have won under Gore’s recount method, and Gore would have won under Bush’s.
The other thing that’s sad is that (from my layman’s perspective), both the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court ruled badly. The FSC ignored Florida law and election guidelines (which was pointed out by the dissenting Chief Justice) in their decision. I still think to this day that the US Supreme Court – knowing they couldn’t interpret Florida Law and send it back – found a way of interpreting the law so that the outcome is what the FSC should have come up with in the first place. Two wrongs aren’t supposed to make a right, but in this case I think that was the decision.
Agreed. I’m still annoyed that we’ve moved to touchscreens in my district. I can’t request a paper ballot, which I’d prefer. A clear paper trail is a good idea. Optical scanners (the connect-the-bars method) are best, IMHO.
In answer to two subjects brought up above:
1) Regarding Bush’s inactivity for seven minutes and was it an indication of stupidity? Yes, of course it was, if for no other reason than this: It might have occurred to him somewhere in that seven minutes that a photo op with him reading to children was not only an irrelevancy in the face of America being attacked, but was going to make him look spectacularly inept for just sitting there. When someone is called the Commander-in-Chief, you kind of expect him to command. Here’s a politician who, in seven minutes of musing, was unable to come to the independent conclusion that it was, if nothing else, politically bad to appear indecisive in front of cameras recording your every breath.
2) I’m not angry about the 2000 election. I’m just amused by it. Here’s the GOP, the party ostensibly for smaller government. The party that believes states should be able to handle their own affairs. And in a burst of hypocrisy, they sprinted straight to the Supreme Court to get their guy appointed, rather than let the state of Florida handle the matter as it was doing. Thus does an entire administration rest on a stench-ridden foundation of hypocrisy, and GOP pundits have been shoveling BS for so many years that they can’t even smell it.
PAD
Yes, and the Democrats – who historically try to federalize everything – were screaming for State’s rights because they knew the FSC was more left-leaning than the USSC. The hypocrisy was on both houses. What’s the saying about strange bed-fellows?
A clear paper trail is a good idea.
Yes, lot of good that did Florida in 2000. 🙂
PAD: ** I’m not angry about the 2000 election. I’m just amused by it. Here’s the GOP, the party ostensibly for smaller government. The party that believes states should be able to handle their own affairs. And in a burst of hypocrisy, they sprinted straight to the Supreme Court to get their guy appointed, rather than let the state of Florida handle the matter as it was doing. Thus does an entire administration rest on a stench-ridden foundation of hypocrisy, and GOP pundits have been shoveling BS for so many years that they can’t even smell it.**
Again, proves my point. GWB is as far away from a true Republican than he can be. This is the man that created Homeland Security… but refused to fund it, and made the states fund it. This is the man that mandated States follow No Child Left Behind… but refused to fund it. Again, infringing on States rights. This is the man who believes in taking away State’s right to decide on marriage or civil unions of homosexuals, and force an ammendment on them. So much for the power of the individual and states. (oh, and these are only three of the many incidents)
And don’t get me started on his version of Christian values.
Incindenary. Of Course.
Travis
**And don’t get me started on his version of Christian values.**
Gee, I can be an ášš, can’t I? Ignore this, if you will.
Travis
(Yeah, I just know how to offend about everyone)