I can’t help but notice a couple of real-world parallels to stuff that was in “West Wing.”
WEST WING WORLD: In the flashback sequences where Bartlett was running for the presidency, his (soon to be fired) advisors kept urging him to refer to “my opponent.” The reasoning was, Why keep mentioning the name of the guy he’s running against? Why give him the publicity? Bartlett rejected the advice, maintaining that it would make it seem as if he couldn’t remember the guy’s name. That it would make him look “dotty.”
REAL WORLD: Bush constantly refers to Kerry as “my opponent” rather than by name. Either he doesn’t care if it makes him look dotty, doesn’t want to give Kerry additional publicity, or he really can’t remember Kerry’s name.
WEST WING WORLD: Bartlett’s second term opponent, the Bush-esque Governor Ritchie, wanted to minimize the number of debates. Bartlett wanted anywhere from three to five, Ritchie wanted no more than two (and eventually got it down to one).
REAL WORLD: Where Kerry wants as many debates as possible, with a minimum of three, the Ritchie-esque Bush wants no more than two, and technically hasn’t agreed to any. Whether they get it down to one has yet to be seen.
PAD
• 
It’s typical of the incumbent to want to limit debates – for the reason Bartlett’s advisor’s state: limit exposure and limit “equal” treatment.
My favorite West Wing parallel is from Josh when Leo asked him to go see Governor Barlett speak:
[B]REAL WORLD: Bush constantly refers to Kerry as “my opponent” rather than by name. Either he doesn’t care if it makes him look dotty, doesn’t want to give Kerry additional publicity, or he really can’t remember Kerry’s name.[/B]
I’m sure he has a vague idea what Kerry’s name is, but his advisors are likely terrified he’ll manage to mispronounce it six ways from Sunday.
West Wing: Everyone thinks Bartlett screwed up by saying his opponent is stupid (my words, his were more eloquent) when they thought the camera and sound had been shut off, but weren’t. Bartlett knew it all the time and it was a deliberate ploy to get the idea out there.
Real World: A few months ago Kerry was “overheard” talking to his confidantes saying something to the effect of “These guys are such crooks …” I’ve never seen it referred to except during the next news cycle and then it died. I thought it was also deliberate. “The West Wing Gambit”, if you will.
Here’s one of those “funny you should mention that” moments. I did notice Bush referring to Kerry as “my opponent”, and it was because of that West Wing episode. On the other hand, let’s face it – Kerry is no Bartlett. Then again, who is? How truly sad is it that the best and most inspiring politicians of our age are all fictional characters?
Adam,
You repeat the words of my wife, my work colleagues, and everyone that I’ve heard comment about the show.
How true! How wise!
Tom
Man, I was thinking about the “debate” parallel just yesterday!
If only Kerry could produce really good Aaron Sorkin dialog, I’d _pray_ that they drop down to one debate!
Peter,
Re: Number of Debates
President Clinton in his 1996 re-election campaign used the same tactics and ended up only doing two debates. The incumbent has every right to do what they think is best. Unless you are going to condemn Clinton for doing the same thing (which I seriously doubt you will), find something else to hate Bush about.
During the last election, I remember Bush was reluctant to debate. Clinton may have wanted only two debates, but there is a huge difference between “can and won’t” and “can’t and won’t”. Im not making any claims about his intelligence, but I’d like to see it come through in more candid scenarios than in pre-scripted speeches. Most of Bush’s non-scripted media events are busts.
“Real World: A few months ago Kerry was “overheard” talking to his confidantes saying something to the effect of “These guys are such crooks …” I’ve never seen it referred to except during the next news cycle and then it died. I thought it was also deliberate. “The West Wing Gambit”, if you will.”
Yeah, now that you mention it, I recall having the same thought. That Kerry accidentally-on-purpose said that.
“Unless you are going to condemn Clinton for doing the same thing (which I seriously doubt you will), find something else to hate Bush about.”
You may want to brush that chip off your shoulder. Either that or haul out actual words I wrote that indicate condemnation or hatred.
I don’t hate Bush. I hate his advisors.
PAD
I find a better parallel to “Wag the Dog”
Actually, I can’t wait till the debates. I know people’s memories get fuzzy, but Bush handled himself just fine 4 years ago. Were they home runs? Nope. But he was up against a man who had 8 years in the White House to prepare for the debate, was riding an incredible economy, and was the VP of a VERY popular president, and he more than held his own.
I think Kerry is a bit more articulate, and intelligent, but Bush speaks to people a little better, and engages the audience more. It will be interesting to see how they play together.
And valid or not, many people believe Kerry to be inconsistant in his viewpoints, and a flip flopper. Bush just has to end every statement with “And what’s your stance today?”, and will gain headway with the viewers…
Jerry
>Most of Bush’s non-scripted media events
>are busts.
Though an exaggeration, there is no doubt that Bush in “media” events is not the master like Clinton or perhaps Reagan. But in personal encounters that are away from the media spotlight, there is a large number of testimonials from a wide range of people of Bush’s ability to connect. Coming from Texas, I have 2 friends who have known Bush and talked to him in numerous settings.
Another example is one reported by a parents at a military graduation (I forget now which one). Clinton would spend perhaps 15 minutes with the top 10 graduates and leave. Bush spent an hour talking to as many as he could. Does that make Bush good and Clinton evil? Of course not. But when you listen to the people who spent time with him, you realize Bush is no puppet. He is not a master orator, but neither is he the stupid idiot some choose to suggest.
Which leads me to PAD’s comments: Interesting thoughts, but ultimately a non issue for most people. I attended Bush’s rally here in Cedar Rapids a week ago. He alternated between saying “Kerry” and “my opponent” (yes, he did say, “my opponent” more). He spoke clearly and articulated things well. (Of course, it was the day after his convention speach, so he had practiced it the night before! His stump speach was probably 75% of what he said at the convention.)
Personally, I think Bush will hold his own at the debate. And if the democratic side continues to implode with false documents, I think Bush won’t have any problem if he just comes out even in a debate.
Jim in Iowa
Peter,
Sorry about accusing you of hating Bush. I’m just use to the “anyone but Bush” crowd being anti-intellectual and blind with hatred. I actually love thoughtful debate, but seldom find a dem who is open minded enough to allow some of their closely held suppositions to be challenged. I actually think the Vice Presidential debate is the one to watch. After watching Lieberman and Cheyney debate I kept thinking we should just make those two president and vice presidient and ditch Gore and Bush. Unfortunately, I feel the democrats have drifted so far to the left that reasonable persons like Lieberman belong more in the Republican party now. The Democrats now actively embrace the black helicopter crowd endorsing conspiracy theories and spew some of the most vicious dripping-with-venom hate speech I wouldn’t want kids to hear. You may or may not be in the “Lieberman” wing of the party, but if your are, that is slowly becoming a lonely place to be.
Case in point:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6195988
At the very least, Bartlett would come up with a better slogan than “W stands for Wrong.”
The Kerry campaign–brought to you by the number 2.
If Only Barlet Was Really Running…
Peter David compares Shrub’s behavior to elements observed on The West Wing. Times like these I long for a real Jed Bartlet. Failing that, Aaron Sorkin should be recruited as a speechwriter….
The Democrats now actively embrace the black helicopter crowd endorsing conspiracy theories and spew some of the most vicious dripping-with-venom hate speech I wouldn’t want kids to hear.
You say this, yet the Repubs certainly aren’t any better.
Not when Cheney is saying “Vote for the other guy, and we’ll get attacked.”
Besides, Cheney has a potty mouth anyways. 😉
Craig Reis said:
“Not when Cheney is saying “Vote for the other guy, and we’ll get attacked.”
Like hëll he did. For some shocking…SHOCKING reason in a non-biased media that would provide forged documents dámņìņg Bush and claim Republicans booed when told Clinton was in the hospital, for some shocking reason, most media only quoted the portion of the speech that suited them. The full quote is as follows (and I’ve seen it punctuated different ways):
Adam Neace,
“How truly sad is it that the best and most inspiring politcians odf our age are all fictional characters?”
No. How truly sad is it that most of us don’t pay attention and just assume that “all politicians are crooks”. Many politicians, from ward leader to township supervisor to the President are worthy of some level of admiration.
If you can’t find a politician you admire, you simply aren’t looking.
Ironic that Hollywood makes billions of dollars framing issues in black-and-white terms. Yet when Bush (or anyone else) shows that same “dramatic” resolve, they’re viewed as a cowboy, and when issues like educaton and the environment are not settled overnight, they start hoping for a fictional character to come to life.
I’m sorry, Charles, I read the full quote, and the media that you so loathe for its alleged biases got it exactly right, while you, seeping bias from every pore, got it exactly wrong.
Cheney’s phrasing could not have been more precise. He put forward a specific “if/then” phrase. “Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we
Peter, are you saying Illinois’ own senatorial candidate, and rising political “rock star”, Barack Obama (whom, after he gave the Democratic Convention keynote speech, as possibly the first African American president, one with the oratorial skills of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, without the personal “baggage” they brought to the table, but I digress …)
… is STUPID?
Just because after having agreed to six debates against Jack “I wanted to go to an ‘avante gard’ club with my then-wife, Jeri” Ryan before Ryan bowed out, but now that former presidential candidate and ambassador, Alan “Ðìçk Cheney’s lesbian daughter is a self hedonist and Jesus Christ wouldn’t vote for Obama” Keyes has moved here from Maryland, he’s changed it to only three?
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. The Illinois Republican party didn’t chose the primary candidate who was second, Jim Oberweis (who is a millionaire owner and founder of Oberweis Dairy, a popular statewide chain of ice cream stores and who entered the race with major name recognition and appeal due to that) because during the primaries he ran some tough anti-illegal immigration ads that drove up his negatives even among Republicans and had reportedly ruffled the feathers of the Administration’s goal of easing up on South American immigration. Months later, the local party chose Keyes who made the comments about Ðìçk Cheney’s daughter the DAY Cheney was suppose to speak at the Republican convention. Oh the irony.
“Peter, are you saying Illinois’ own senatorial candidate, and rising political “rock star”, Barack Obama…. is STUPID?”
I dunno. Am I? Did Obama say he believed that Saddam was behind 9/11? ‘Cause I never brought up matters of stupidity when mentioning the debates.
PAD
“How truly sad is it that the best and most inspiring politicians of our age are all fictional characters?”
Why should that be sad or surprising? Fictional; characters always look better than everyone else because they have writers who get to spend many hours refining their witticisms, while the rest of us have to come up with something off the cuff.
Believe me, if I had PAD or Joss Whedon following me around with pens and post it notes and the ability to freeze time I’d be a regular fountain of Great Comebacks. As is, I’m usually forced to fall back on such classics as “No, YOU suck!”
re Cheney:
The sentance is one that can be interpreted different ways. However, if the intent was asx clear as PAD belives it is strange that the media saw fit to shorten it in a way that removes any and all ambiguity.
Given recent media misrepresentation of quotes by Bush and other republicans and the resulting embarassment they caused (at least to those who value the idea of an honest press) I would hope by now that people have learned there’s no profit in chopping off words. If the point can’t be made with the full quote maybe it’s not really the point you think it is.
Jerome,
The difference between Hollywood and Bush is that they are supposed to entertain and bring stories to life. A leader of our country should look at the whole picture, including the shades of grey, to make an informed decision. Black and white thinking does not allow the most info, therefore the best decisions cannot be made. Your argument does nothing to defend Bush. The stories he tells have resulted in a needless war in Iraq and the deaths of American servicemen. There is nothing ironic about using “black and white” to make poor decisions that affect so many. Hollywood has not sent one serviceman to his or her death.
Now that you’re back from DragonCon, are you ever going to answer my question from about a week or two back?
Here, I’ll repeat my entire post:
First I asked: “Had the Republicans attempted to shut down Moore’s crockumentary, which shows a “reckless disregard for the truth” (as many websites have documented), you would’ve been OK with it?”
Then Peter David said: You mean the way that Jeb Bush pressured Disney into dumping the film lest they suddenly find various tax advantages stripped from them in Florida? Or could you be referring to the way the GOP went after the Reagan biopic and drove it off network TV? Like that? You do realize those films found an audience in spite of GOP interference, not because of lack of it.
That doesn’t answer my question at all. I even worded my questions very carefully as to not attempt to put any words in your mouth.
First, the Reagan biopic did had a “reckless disregard for truth.” It had the Reagans saying lines that they never did say in an effort to paint them in a negative light. Even then, the Republicans in the government did nothing to shut that movie down. CBS folded under pressure of boycotting from customers and adversiters and put it on a pay-only channel instead.
Second, got any proof for the claim that Jeb Bush tried to get Disney to dump F9/11 by threatening legal problems? I’d like to see a link on that. Preferably from somebody NOT Michael Moore.
And finally … if I were to accept your version, which I don’t, here we have two so-called examples of Republicans actively trying to prevent movies they disagree with from being aired. Both movies, without question, show a “reckless disregard for the truth” which you seem to feel is not protected by the First Amendment, as reflected by your earlier comments regarding you being OK with the Democrats trying to prevent TV stations from airing SBV’s political ads by threatening legal action (and this we know to be true, we have the memo on record) and attempting to prevent “Unfit for Command” from being published.
Are you then perfectly OK with the Republicans attempting to shut down the Reagan biopic and Moore’s F9/11? Do you think it is not a First Amendment issue at all?
And if you want me to leave your blog, just say it. Say “Starving Writer, please leave my blog and never come back” and I will do so. Or ban me. It is your weblog to do as you see fit.
There has been a reckless disregard for truth, but the direction it’s coming from is the White House. You may not agree with Moore or the Reagan documentary, but the lies coming from this administration are far more dangerous to us than whatever untruths you think may be coming from a biographical entertainment and a factbased opinion of a movie. We went to war on false info, which has been documented by persons from within this administration. Although they tried to discredit the people who worked for them and were praised until they wrote critical books, that campaign was not wholly successful. Our economy is in shambles and our deficit is outragous. There are many fewer jobs than when they took office. They’ve cut funds for many necessary programs and given tax breaks we can’t afford. They haven’t even mentioned healthcare until the convention, except a medicare prescription bill which will cost more money for drugs than before. While all we hear bout is 9/11. ALL THE TIME. Everything, according to this administration is a result of and the fault of 9/11. Which happened on THEIR WATCH. There are more terrorists in the world today than when they took office. They diverted our attention from the real villain to go after a tyrant who was not a real threat to us. We have neither the resources or the man-power to police the world. They have alienated most of the world in their arrogance to go to war with the wrong enemy. And don’t talk to me about the coalition of the willing. Some of those countries were coerced by threats of withholding aid and most of them have no armies. Half of them sent support in the form of a letter saying so, because they have nothing else. Why do I keep harping on these subjects? I am hoping someone will be able to explain why, in the face of all the evidence, they still support this administration. Why do you believe utterly in a group which has misled us again and again, but think anyone who tells the documented truth has an “agenda”? The only agenda I can see is that people want a president who works for the country instead of special interests, right wing religious fundamentalists, and who has divided the country like no one else in my lifetime.
The more I read Cheney’s speech, the more obvious it is that one can interpret it sevarl ways. Which means that his defenders can’t really complain when folks like PAD take the opportunity to use it against him. (Of course it also means that folks like PAD shouldn’t act too upset when others interpret it differently but that may be expecting too much.).
Even a Cheney foe like Julian Sanchez over at Reason had to admit:
“Much as it pains me to defend Ðìçk Cheney, it seems to me as though his alleged “scare tactics” vis a vis the threat of terror if we make the “wrong choice” on Election Day rest on a straightforward misreading of his statement. Here’s what most of the articles I’ve seen are quoting:
Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.
Here’s the full relevant statement from the transcript:
Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
Most of the reports either omit the rest of the quotation entirely, or append it elsewhere, as though they weren’t part of one long, multi-clause sentence. As I read this, he’s not saying the danger is that if we elect Kerry, then the danger is that we’ll be attacked. He’s saying that if we elect Kerry and we’re attacked, then the danger is that we’ll treat it as a criminal act rather than an act of war. And in context, it’s actually pretty transparent that this is what Cheney intended. So transparent once you look at the full transcript, in fact, that I wonder whether some of the misreading isn’t deliberate, either as a partisan tactic or an attempt to generate a news story.”
So it’s not as though one must be either stupid or just willing to be manipulated.
Personally, I think that’s why so many of us end up on the conservative side–it doesn’t require or encourage us to think of the opposition as necessarily fools or villains.
Starving Writer, I have not responded to you because you are not worth the time to respond to, to ask to leave, or to ban. I believe nothing you say. Not your claims. Not your e-mail apologies. Nothing. And this is why, from Compuserv, as you said you tried to paint me as a bigot to the National Association for the Deaf:
Subject: Re: PAD a bigot? It’s all in the books!
Date: 2/2/01 4:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Starving Writer
Message-id:
Padguy:>>Does it bother you at all that you lied through your teeth?
No. I couldn’t care less about you. So I don’t care that I lied to you or about you.
>>And most of all…does it bother you that you very likely have totally, utterly, completely destroyed any credibility you might have had, or will ever have on this board?
No. I don’t know anybody here personally, you all are anonymous names behind computer screens. No, I don’t care what people here on this board think of me. I’m not here to win friends or fans, I’m here to debate things. Everybody here can hate me, I don’t care.
I lost “credibility” in your eyes the minute I showed myself to not be a mindless lemming, automatically lapping up all your liberal beliefs without questioning them. In your eyes, people who disagree with you don’t have any credibility. So as far as that’s concerned, no, I don’t care.
I’ll come here for as long as it amuses me to do so. And as long as you sprout off idiotic liberal ideals, it’ll amuse me to come here.
And as long as you continue to react like this, I’ll be amused.
“Personally, I think that’s why so many of us end up on the conservative side–it doesn’t require or encourage us to think of the opposition as necessarily fools or villains.”
In that case, you’re welcome to have Starving Writer on your side, who talks about how much he’s amused as I “sprout off idiot liberal ideals.” Which is like spouting off except, y’know…wrong.
PAD
Saying that the Conservative side is less likely to encourage self indulgent assumptions about the other side doesn’t mean that we don’t have lots and lots of creeps. No side can make that boast.
I’ve never liked the “debate by collector cards” approach. “I SEE your Arnold Shwartzenegger and raise you an Alec Baldwin and 2 Jen Anistons”.
But you’re right–those quotes from Starving Writer DO sound like what you read on the extreme liberal sites.
On the “liberal bias in the media” thought…
Is there ANYONE who doesn’t think that if it were BUSH who was quoted in the 911 commission report as having said “You know, it would scare the šhìŧ out of al-Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into the middle of their camp.” there would have been a couple of weeks of stories? Anyone? Beuller?
In that case, you’re welcome to have Starving Writer on your side, who talks about how much he’s amused as I “sprout off idiot liberal ideals.” Which is like spouting off except, y’know…wrong.
Just out of curiosity, PAD, are there like any liberal ideas you disagree with?
The Clinton administration did diddly-squat. I mean, how many terrorist attacks were there? We cut and run from Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down). We refused to take bin Laden when he was offered to us three times by the Sudanese. I mean, what more evidence do we need?
They didn’t take terrorism seriously. Only toward the end of Clinton’s second term did they start talking about it. You can go back and you can find, for example, Clinton probably more hawkish on Saddam than Bush has been, or at least equally so…which I find still interesting that the Democrats want to ignore this and pretend that it never happened, but in doing that, in ignoring it and pretending that Clinton never did that, they’re admitting that they never took terrorism, Saddam, or any of these other world threats seriously.
John Kerry assured us at his convention that “every attack would be met with a swift and appropriate response.” The question is: “What are we going to do prevent those attacks?” and that’s where they won’t do anything.
Kerry wants you to forget about the war on terror. They want you to think it doesn’t exist. They want you to think it’s not serious. They want you to think Bush has caused it by his provocative “swagger.” They are unwilling to accept the reality and the reason is because they know they’re unprepared to deal with it in a powerful or projection-of-power sense. So what Cheney said, to me, may be hardball and it may have smacked you upside the head, but it’s right.
Except… this administration won’t even fully fun homeland security. How is that helping? And besides boasting about 9/11, just exactly what have they done to make us safer? Specifics, please.
Not fun, fund
Except… this administration won’t even fully fun homeland security. How is that helping? And besides boasting about 9/11, just exactly what have they done to make us safer? Specifics, please.
Well, they’ve arrested known terroists and are actively looking for others.
They’ve put pressure on certain countries and groups to disrupt financial support to terrorist groups.
They’re actively engaging them in Iraq.
They’ve pressure countries like Germany, Pakistan and others to actively search for and arrest known terrorists.
They’ve liberated Afghanistan, which was a terrorist haven.
They’ve stepped up security at airports, seaports and other potential terrorist targets.
They’ve instituted the Patriot Act, which while controversial, does give them broader powers to domestically seek out terrorists and stop them.
Have all of these things made you SAFE? Probably not.
Have they made you SAF(ER)? Sure.
– Feb 26 1993: USA, NYC, World Trade Center
– November 1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, U.S. military headquarters
– March 1995: Karachi, Pakistan, U.S. Consulate
– June 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers
– November 1997: Karachi, Pakistan
– June 1998: Lebanon, U.S. Embassy
– August 1998: Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. embassies
– October 2000: The Destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden
I think this Administration has taken steps to assure that we will not have another list like this ten years from now.
EClark: Well, they’ve arrested known terroists and are actively looking for others.
Me: While creating the means to recruit many more with the war. Terrorism is not a fight that will be one by the military. It is a job for Intelligiance and Law Enforcement.
EC: They’ve put pressure on certain countries and groups to disrupt financial support to terrorist groups.
Me: Which is nothing new. Many presidents ahave used this effectively.
EC: They’re actively engaging them in Iraq.
Me: There were no terroists in Iraq, based on reliable intelligence, before the war. They are there now because of this administration.
EC: They’ve pressure countries like Germany, Pakistan and others to actively search for and arrest known terrorists.
Me: As Europe has been the target of terrorism for a very long time and most of the countries have traditionally been allies, I didn’t realize we had to pressure Germany. Pakistan is probably still harboring terrorists.
EC: They’ve liberated Afghanistan, which was a terrorist haven.
Me: Then promptly forgot about it for Iraq.
EC: They’ve stepped up security at airports, seaports and other potential terrorist targets.
Me: Since we don’t check baggage unless it’s carry on, airport security is a joke. Ninety percent of the containers coming into our ports are not checked.
EC: They’ve instituted the Patriot Act, which while controversial, does give them broader powers to domestically seek out terrorists and stop them.
Me: Broader powers? Or unconstitional ones?
EC: Have all of these things made you SAFE? Probably not.
Have they made you SAF(ER)? Sure.
Me: They have made us less safe by practically recruiting terrorists for us. They haven’t fully funded most of what they propose. They also don’t listen to advice that would protect us if it cost more. To control baggage on planes we could screen them with x-rays and put them in bomb proof containers to assure the plane can stay in the air if something is missed. Think we can”t? Israel has been doing it for years. The airlines don’t want to spend the money, so we aren’t putting this into law. I’m not convinced, yet. Any more specifics?
By the way, there are now unconfirmed reports that North Korea has tested an above ground nuke.
Boy, do I feel safer.
Guess they can’t ignore North Korea for much longer. Oh, and real nukes top fantasy WMD’s any day.
North Korea known for terrorism? North Korea known to house, finance, or support terrorism? No? Then perhaps they resemble the USSR of the 80s. Don’t think China is thrilled with them either. North Korea, while they should be watched, is not as big of a threat as say Iran and their developments of nukes.
Me: They have made us less safe by practically recruiting terrorists for us.
By your rationale then Karen , no matter what we do or would have done, it would have just made the terrorists more determined to kill us. So by even attempting to stop them, we’ve only made them angrier.
Tell me, do you lock your doors and windows at night or are you resigned to the fact that if a thief or rapist really wanted to get into your apartment they will, so you just leave the doors open for them so you won’t piss them off?
With that kind of attitude, short of killing yourself before the terrorists do, I can’t think of anything that would make you feel safe.
Me: Broader powers? Or unconstitional ones?
Really? And which ones would those be?
Having Peter David (hereby called the pot) claiming that I (the kettle) have bias dripping from every pore is amusing in the extreme, especially since all he knows about me is a handful of posts on his board. But that’s ok.
And while I mentioned media bias as an aside, you wanted to make a bigger deal out of it, so I would love to hear your interpretations of the AP article and the CBS documents I mentioned.
We could have stayed in Afghanistan and tried to complete the job. Instead we went to Iraq. Containment was working, just as it worked on the USSR. You remember them? Reagan used containment. He didn’t declare war. Bush also cut funds on the program that was taking care of all the minimally guarded nuclear, chemical and biological material that is still in Russia. Terrorist can fairly easily get their hands on these things if they try. Yes, I lock my doors. I also don’t tell the police to go round up a neighbor I happen not to like if something happens. I let them do their job and bring in the real criminal.
You must know the broad powers of the Patriot act are usurping many of our liberties. These have been well recounted. From being detained without representation to having the government intrude on our library memberships. If I were looking for info on terrorism I would get it off the internet like all the others.
Karen said:
“By the way, there are now unconfirmed reports that North Korea has tested an above ground nuke.
Boy, do I feel safer.
Guess they can’t ignore North Korea for much longer. Oh, and real nukes top fantasy WMD’s any day.”
And if the latest round of uncomfirmed reports indicate that there was no nuclear test, we can expect an apology for the sarcasm?
The CBS documents had fonts from typewriters in use in the 70’s. They are legit. More smoke and mirrors to distract us from the poor economy. Did you know that the recession started in March after Bush had been in office for over 2 months? The economy had been going strong, even though he likes to claim we were already in a recession. The Bureau of Economic Research cites the actual beginning. And Clinton in 8 years he created 22 million jobs. Bush has lost 2.8 million. This administration has failed us in so many ways. I still don’t understand the support for it.
Since it is common knowledge that North Korea is developing nukes, if these reports prove false, then it’s only a matter of time. I’ll tell you what Charles, we can put the sarcasm on delay and you can pull it out when we get confirmed reports.
“Yesterday, another retired Air National Guard officer came forward to attack the network’s credibility. Retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, who was cited by a senior CBS official on Thursday as the network’s “trump card” in verifying the documents, said in an interview that he was “misled” by CBS and believes the documents to be forgeries.”
At the same time, Bush’s critics have been unable to come up with definitive evidence showing that he failed to meet his minimum obligations to the guard after being suspended from flying for failing to take the physical.
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 12, 2004; Page A08
Karen, my advice would not be to put too much faith in these letters. The best–BEST–that can be said about them is that they might have been possibly produced by using the absolute best and most expensive typewriters of the early seventies. However, even THAT is not yet certain and several noted experts have said that it is far more likely that they are forged.
It is also true that one can make a virtual exact copy of the letters on a modern computer.
CBS, meanwhile, has only produced a single expert, who is an expert not in type but in handwriting. He is also on record as having said that you cannot validate a copy of a signature. CBS is also on record as having said that they do not have the originals, so he must have validated a copy of the signature.
The officer that Dan Rather said had validated the letters says that CBS pulled a fast one on him–claiming that they had handwritten letters from the supposed writer. He never saw the letters and having now seen them, believes them to be frauds.
I won’t be stunned into catatonia if they turn out to be real but if I were betting money I think it’s pretty unlikely. If this lousy evidence were against Kerry I doubt you’d give it much credence and you’d be right.
CBS should release the docs for analysis and, if they turn out to be fakes, reveal the identity of the person who attempted to defraud the public. If they don’t there will be those who may suspect (perhaps quite unfairly) that said person was a Kerry operative and it might hurt a campaign that can ill afford it.
What amazes me is how fast the blogosphere was able to provide more and better analysis than the supposed professionals at CBS. Old media is a dinosaur. Time to evolve or die.
Actually Bill, I am don’t really care too much about Bush’s service, or lack thereof. The whole thing is simply distracting us from more important issues. We know he got into the National Guard at a time when wealthy families pulled strings to keep their kids out of Vietnam. We know he failed to show up for a flight physical. He got an honorable discharge. (That would not happen today. I was active duty and I served in the Reserves.) The rules were different then. I would much rather discuss the economy, the environment, education, jobs, the war, healthcare, etc. These are the issues we need to understand to make an informed decision at the polls. I’m tired of all the distractions.
He got an honorable discharge. (That would not happen today. I was active duty and I served in the Reserves.)
That is bunk, he would have. The failure to show up for a physical would not have caused a dishonorable discharge.
I was active duty and reserves also, and I have 2 separate six month lapses in service due to moving. It happens still today. I was honorably discharged.
Any flack about his service is just a waste of time.
He was ordered to take a fight physical and disobeyed that order. He would have had a less than honorable discharge.