Clinton V. Bush: IT’S ON!

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

And we’re gonna be there.

On February 25, 2010, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are going to square off at Radio City Music Hall in a debate about the issues of the day. And I just bought tickets for Kath and me.

Absolutely cannot wait. Clinton’ll will swat Bush like the intellectual gnat that he is. This will be the Splattin’ in Manhattan.

UPDATED 8:54 PM:  * sigh * Yeah, okay, I just called Ticketmaster and they confirmed it was canceled.  Of course it was; I got tickets for it.

PAD

104 comments on “Clinton V. Bush: IT’S ON!”

  1. No contest on the smarts side, Clinton in a landslide, but I bet you come out thinking Bush did better than you would have ever thought.

    I met him when he owned the Rangers and in person he seemed to be a normal person.

    1. A friend of mine from Peace Corps met Bush when he visited Albania, and she said he was very personable and more intelligent than she expected.

      So, sure, he might surprise us in a debate with Clinton, now that he’s free from electoral politics.

      I still expect Clinton to eat him with too much mayonnaise, however.

  3. Will it be, though?

    I mean, yes, it will be an utter annihilation, sure. But is it possible for Bush to “lose” in this circumstance?

    PAD, I’m reminded of your debate with McFarlane some-odd years ago. You cleaned the floor with him, intellectually, but those who liked McFarlane still walked away going, “Well, I thought Todd did all right for himself…” or “It was nowhere near as bad as I thought it’d be for him” or the like.

    If the standards set by supporters are low enough, and/or the supporters are delusional enough, then it seems no level of acumen on Clinton’s part will register as a win.

    Just a thought.

    1. I suddenly remember a certain political debate last year at the end of which some news agencies supported their candidate by basically pointing out that they were able to speak clearly and in complete sentences.
      .
      Theno

    2. .
      “Well, I thought Todd did all right for himself…”
      .
      Hëll, there were people spinning it to say that Todd won the thing. Hero Illustrated (I believe it was HI) even ran a full page cartoon editorial that critiqued the results as Todd winning for losing because his losing was somehow a noble act for the cause or something.
      .
      Still, that’ll be nothing on the spin this will get from both sides.

  4. *sigh*
    The one good thing Bush ever did was: “President Obama deserves my silence”. Now this? I guess I should have realized it wouldn’t last.

    This will certainly be more civil than if Cheney were involved.

  5. Actually, to be fair Bush has been relatively quiet, if not silent, on current political issues (and a blessed silence that is).

    But that does appear to be a promise he’s kept.

  7. Having not heard of this previously, my rebellious mind didn’t go where you’d like to think it would have. No, not to who will be moderating, where will the questions come from, or any other such reasonable topic. My mind went to the question no one wants answered…or visualized.

    Please tell me they won’t be dressed as Rockettes.

  10. I get the feeling that both candidates will have earpieces so researchers can feed them info. We all know that W makes a great puppet!

  11. To be honest, eh. Maybe it’s not the case, but I can’t shake the feeling both of ’em are doing it for the bucks, and so I wouldn’t expect anything particularly interesting to get said/done.

  12. Annnnnnd….it’s Off!
    .
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/bush-clinton-debate-at-ra_n_345175.html
    .
    UPDATE: The debate between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush has been canceled “because the promoter overhyped it as a death-match faceoff between the men,” according to the New York Post.

    “This event … was supposed to be a discussion between the two former presidents, and has been canceled because it was not being billed as such by an overeager promoter,” a Clinton spokesman said.

      1. TPM and other venues are reporting as well although I can’t tell how much was sourced from the Post initially.

        I’ve also been hearing rumblings about how much larger security bills were looking than promoters expected.

      3. Actually, what Bill initially reported, even before I saw his CNN post, made this make a lot more sense to me. When I read that Bush was going to debate a Rhodes scholar, I couldn’t fathom it. I mean, “What was he thinking?” was my immediate thought. But if it were simply a “discussion”, that’s makes a lot more sense. Granted, Bush wouldn’t do that great in a discussion either, but I can buy the idea of him agreeing to that rather than a debate.

      4. Come to think of it, I might be more interested to see a moderated, civil discussion between Bill Clinton and George Herbert Walker Bush. That’s a discussion that’d be interesting beyond any inclination toward overeager promotional promises…

    1. According to the CNN article I linked to, Clinton spokesperson Matt McKenna said prior to the event’s cancellation that it was intended to be a “moderated discussion” without “fireworks.”

  16. Maybe instead they can get Bush to debate Todd McFarlane.

    That might be kind of interesting, actually. They could argue over whether Spawn should be sent after Saddam Hussein in Hëll.

  17. I appears that this event was cancelled because it was expected to be just the kind of thing PAD wanted it to be. What could Bill Clinton hope to gain from such a “debate”?
    Everyone would expect him to win so he had everything to lose. “Splattin’ in Manhattan” indeed.

  18. It is a real shame this was canceled.I think it would have been an interesting discussion. Clinton and Dole did something similar years ago and it was somewhat refreshing to see both men talk about issues and how they really felt without being in campaign mode.
    I, too, would like to see a Bush 41 and Clinton discussion, especially with the Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall – you know, the event Obama didn’t think was important enough to attend. Hëll, I think even Carter would have gone to that!
    The event was canceled, ironically, because too many people seemed to be buying tickets to see the other guy lose. Shame, really. I have no doubt Bush would have acquitted himself well. It is well worth remembering that part of the reason we are not giving our recollections on the Gore presidency is because Gore, the supposed intellectual could not beat Bush 43 in even one of their three debates.
    I do hope someone resurrects this idea. I think with the right format, it could be quite enlightening.

    1. Please. Expectations for Bush in the debate was so lowered by all the many pundits that unless Bush urinated on the moderator and started humping the podium, he would have been declared to be the winner. The fact that since Clinton’s popularity was in the toilet at the time, Gore decided to steer clear of discussing anything they’d accomplish and talked only about future plans, certainly didn’t help.
      .
      PAD

    2. .
      “It is well worth remembering that part of the reason we are not giving our recollections on the Gore presidency is because Gore, the supposed intellectual could not beat Bush 43 in even one of their three debates.”
      .
      Actually, that’s not true.
      .
      Gore won the first debate. Most people watching it felt that way at the time and just about every focus group and insta-poll group set up by polling groups and news organizations said that Gore won. Gore hit several topics with substantiative arguments while a number of Bush’s points were shredded by even the most cursory fact-chacking.
      .
      But that wacky, left leaning, liberal press spent the next 48 plus hours critiquing not the substantiative points, but rather the body language of the candidates, the makeup that Gore had on and how it looked and Gore’s sighs. Sighs by the way that were not as noticeable on the actually debate as they were when they were isolated and replayed endlessly by the press with the volume levels increased.
      .
      And, apparently, a lot more voters felt Gore did better overall than Bush did since Gore did receive more votes than Bush. Yrah, he lost the electoral college, but the fact remains that more people voted for Gore than voted for Bush and, honestly, I do tend to think that the Florida debacle and the Supreme Court ruling had a bit more to do with the eight years of garbage we had to live with than any of the three debates.

      1. For example – Gallop Poll’s website talking about Presidential debates.
        .
        “In 2000, Al Gore led George W. Bush by 8 percentage points among registered voters right before the first debate (held Oct. 3). Although a Gallup debate-reaction survey that night found debate watchers closely divided in their views of who won (48% said Gore and 41% Bush), the post-debate media spin may have been more favorable to Bush. Gallup polling in the first three days after that debate showed the race tied at 43%.”
        .
        http://www.gallup.com/poll/110674/presidential-debates-rarely-gamechangers.aspx

      2. ABC –
        .
        “The latest ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll shows Gore leading Bush 48 percent to 46 percent — a virtual tie given the survey’s three-point error margin. In an ABCNEWS telephone poll of 491 registered voters who watched the debate, 42 percent said Gore won, 39 percent said Bush was the victor, and 13 percent called it a tie. However, the difference is within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 points.”
        .
        http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=95515&page=4

      3. You do know that bush won Florida right by ever recount regardless of how the votes were counted. To say nothing of the affects of what CBS calling Florida for Gore an hour before poll closed affected turn out.
        Its terrible you still think this lie that the Courts cast the deciding vote is true. Learn your history.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

      4. Re-read it Matt, the post said NOTHING about the election, it was talking about the Debate.

        But as you are apparently a George Bush fan, I can see how you made that mistake 🙂

      5. .
        Matt: “You do know that bush won Florida right by ever recount regardless of how the votes were counted. To say nothing of the affects of what CBS calling Florida for Gore an hour before poll closed affected turn out.
        Its terrible you still think this lie that the Courts cast the deciding vote is true. Learn your history.”
        .
        VS
        .
        The Article Matt Links To: The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.”
        …..
        “The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to “count all the votes.””
        …..
        “Even so, the media ballot review, carried out under rigorous rules far removed from the chaos and partisan heat of the post-election dispute, is unlikely to end the argument over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. The race was so close that it is possible to get different results simply by applying different hypothetical vote-counting methods to the thousands of uncounted ballots.”
        …..
        “In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical ? a statewide recount ? could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.“
        .
        .
        I could keep citing passages from the article, but I think the point is made.
        .
        Matt, you might actually want to read the articles you link to and know what they actually said before claiming that you know what they said and using that mistaken assumption to get smart with people. You’ll look a lot less stupid that way.

      6. Well, one more since I cut one from my prior post.
        .
        .
        From the 4th paragraph on page 1 of the article –
        .
        “But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium’s independent observers did.“
        .
        .
        But, of course, if we had bothered to learn our history and read only the lines in articles that Matt links to (or just take his word for it) we would all know that W. “won Florida right by ever recount regardless of how the votes were counted.”

    3. “it was somewhat refreshing to see both men talk about issues and how they really felt without being in campaign mode.”

      It would be refreshing to hear Clinton speak when he’s not in campaign mode. The only time I heard him speak in person was during his first campaign for the Presidency and it was so obvious that he would say whatever would generate applause in that particular venue even if it conflicted with what he had said days earlier in another venue that he lost both my vote and my respect right there. The same is probably true of most campaigning politicians but I wasn’t going to trust someone who rubbed my face in it.

      1. Matt: You do know that bush won Florida right by ever recount regardless of how the votes were counted. To say nothing of the affects of what CBS calling Florida for Gore an hour before poll closed affected turn out.

        Jerry Chandler: Matt, you might actually want to read the articles you link to and know what they actually said before claiming that you know what they said…
        Luigi Novi: And yet, none of those stories take into account the older, Jewish voters who wanted to vote for Gore but ended up inadvertently voting for Buchanan because of the butterfly ballots, costing Gore up to 8,500 votes.

      2. Actually, Matt’s link takes that into account, Luigi. From the same article he linked to.
        .
        “In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.
        .
        More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium’s final tabulations.”
        .
        The story also related that Gore did not challenge certain votes that would have also given him the lead in the overall count because, amongst the votes of the confused, there was a sizable military vote in there as well. He and his people felt that certain actions would be painted in the press as Gore trying to disenfranchise military votes even if those weren’t actually the votes in question in the districts he might have otherwise challenged.

  19. If, as your post indicates, events for which you buy tickets are always canceled, maybe an intellectual behemoth like yourself shouldn’t have wasted his time buying them in the first place. Or was the thrill of smirking at the “intellectual gnat” who did his best to keep us safe for years just too much for you to resist?

    1. Right…. he only turned most of the world opinion against the US while sending innocent soldiers off to die in a nation that had NOTHING at all to do with 9/11 while pìššìņg all over the Constitution back home.

      Sounds like the same kind of safety the Emperor offered in the Star Wars Trilogy…

    2. No, I never said events I buy tickets for are always canceled, although obviously you’re one of those people where what I say has no relevance to what you assert I said. Then again, being unable to comprehend words or leaping to foolish conclusions would be consistent behavior for a Bushie.
      .
      PAD

      1. UPDATED 8:54 PM: * sigh * Yeah, okay, I just called Ticketmaster and they confirmed it was canceled. Of course it was; I got tickets for it.

        Just taking your words at face value. You’re the professional writer. Maybe you should try to be more clear.

      2. No, you didn’t take my words at face value. Face value would convey my obvious intent: That it was going to be a very hot ticket and it’s just my luck that, having acquired them, they’d be worthless. It had nothing to do with the absurd notion that everything I get tickets to gets canceled, and certainly it had nothing to do with being intellectual, a label I’ve never claimed nor sought nor believed applied.
        .
        There are others hereabouts who have conservative leanings, but they are regular contributors to other threads. They’re even (gasp) fans of my work. You, on the other hand, showed up simply to lob a few insults and pick a few fights. You have an agenda, and taking things at face value is not part of it.
        .
        PAD

  20. He is the story from CBC on the first Bush V Clinton
    ‘Conversation’ that Clinton didn’t chicken out of.
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/29/clinton-bush-conversation-toronto.html

    You say PAD “Bush urinated on the moderator and started humping the podium” Aren’t you part of the group that created said expectation. “Clinton’ll will swat Bush like the intellectual gnat that he is. This will be the Splattin’ in Manhattan.”

    New York is Clintons Home field, Clinton is smart we all know that but if he isn’t willing to walk into an arena where he is favorite with the crowd behind him I’m sorry but that is cowardice. It would be like Ali conceding ‘The Rumble in the Jungle’ before the weigh in because no one expected George Foreman to win. Sure Bush has nothing to lose, but he has nothing to gain in this either. I highly doubt it was his idea considering what a low profile the has kept since leaving office.

    1. Bush (W.) couldn’t have actually lost in a debate with Clinton.

      If Clinton won, then Clinton looks like the schoolyard bully beating up the special-Ed kid.

  21. Peter, your assertion that Bush would have won the debate if he’d simply refrained from “humping the posium” is misplaced. If anybody would have humped the podium it would have been Clinton – and only after it had screamed “No means no!”

    And to Bladestar: eight years later and no massive attacks. That speaks for itself. Sorry, but the ol’ Texas dimwit did good. Let the rest of the world hate us, who cares? Most of the world has always been envious; it’s only a few countries that want us dead – and they’ve always wanted that. Hasn’t changed. And no, I don’t consider the attack at Fort Hood, as terrible as it was, on a scale with the monstrous, strategically planned attacks on 9-11. Sadly, there have been nuts going postal for decades, sometimes for religious beliefs, which I think was probably the motivation in this shooting.

    1. And to Bladestar: eight years later and no massive attacks.
      .
      Oh get over it. 9/11 happened because of our own ignorance and desire for profit over safety.
      .
      Secured cockpit doors were recommended back the 70’s, but the airlines resisted due to cost, and the government never forced the issue.
      .
      9/11 was preventable. And quite frankly, I still wouldn’t trust our government, regardless of who is in charge, to prevent another major attack. IMO, it’s more luck than anything else. It sure as hëll isn’t because Bush was in charge… he who sat mouth agape when 9/11 happened 9 months into his watch.

      1. It wasn’t because Bush was in charge, it was because he spent the last eight years donning a costume and traveling the world fighting evil with nothing but his trusty shield and teenage boy sidekick. Why do you think he was absent from the White House so often? I think we should all thank him for that.

      2. Wow, Craig. That’s really amazing. I thought it happened because of terrorists flying planes into buildings. So, I guess if you get robbed, it’s your own dámņ fault because you didn’t get an alarm system, a watch dog, and you were too greedy buying that overpriced, pretentious plasma TV anyway.

      3. Wow, Craig. That’s really amazing. I thought it happened because of terrorists flying planes into buildings.
        .
        Twist it however the hëll you want to make Bush like a saint, I really don’t give a dámņ. The man fûçkëd everything up that he touched.
        .
        Secured cockpit doors, better security at our airports (which STILL hasn’t been achieved), etc etc, would have prevented 9/11. Instead, in response, we wasted billions and billions of dollars in IRAQ, along with thousands upon thousands of lives. And we are no safer at our airports or in this country, thanks to Bush.
        .
        Either way, I’m done with you, Tim.

      4. Not trying to make Bush look like a saint. Just pointing out how silly and absurd your assertion that 9/11 was our fault.

        Guess I succeeded.

      5. Tim, it’s not saying that it was our fault, it’s saying that there were things that could have been done, were recommended to be done, that weren’t done that could have</I. prevented or minimized the impact of 911.
        .
        Using your analogy…
        .
        You have a habit of leaving your house unlocked when you go out. You live in a fairly isolated area and it has always been safe to do so. Your neighbor comes to you one day and tells you that there's been a group of kids scouting your house and it looks like they're figuring out when you're out and may have noticed that you seem to walk in and out without ever using your keys. He says he thinks they might try to rob you.
        .
        You ignore the warning.
        .
        The next day you walk a few miles down to the local fishing hole and spend a few hours losing earthworms and fattening the fish. You come home and find your front door wide open and your TV, stereo, video collection and various valuable goods relocated to parts unknown.
        .
        Your fault?
        .
        No. It's the fault of the immoral little ratbags that figured they could take what you own just because they wanted it. But you are not without responsibility here since you knew that you had unsafe security habits and, even bigger deal here, you were warned by a neighbor that some kids had been scouting your place for a while with the likely intent of robbing you.
        .
        We knew that there were security measures that were less than par, we knew that we had been repeatedly targeted by the same man and the same group and we knew that the man that had been targeting us for close to a decade was actively looking to attack us again within the general time period of 911.
        .
        Was 911 our fault? No. It was the fault of the ratbags who crashed planes into our buildings. But we certainly did not make it harder for them to do so with years of dragging our feet on airline security measures and by having leaders who felt that a never ending vacation was more important that heading warnings and/or doing their job.

      7. .
        Tim, it’s not saying that it was our fault to point that out. It’s saying that there were things that could have been done, were recommended to be done, that weren’t done that could have prevented or minimized the impact of 911.
        .
        Using your analogy…
        .
        You have a habit of leaving your house unlocked when you go out. You live in a fairly isolated area and it has always been safe to do so. Your neighbor comes to you one day and tells you that there’s been a group of kids scouting your house and it looks like they’re figuring out when you’re out and may have noticed that you seem to walk in and out without ever using your keys. He says he thinks they might try to rob you.
        .
        You ignore the warning.
        .
        The next day you walk a few miles down to the local fishing hole and spend a few hours losing earthworms and fattening the fish. You come home and find your front door wide open and your TV, stereo, video collection and various valuable goods relocated to parts unknown.
        .
        Your fault?
        .
        No. It’s the fault of the immoral little ratbags that figured they could take what you own just because they wanted it. But you are not without responsibility here since you knew that you had unsafe security habits and, even bigger deal here, you were warned by a neighbor that some kids had been scouting your place for a while with the likely intent of robbing you.
        .
        We knew that there were security measures that were less than par, we knew that we had been repeatedly targeted by the same man and the same group and we knew that the man that had been targeting us for close to a decade was actively looking to attack us again within the general time period of 911.
        .
        Was 911 our fault? No. It was the fault of the ratbags who crashed planes into our buildings. But we certainly did not make it harder for them to do so with years of dragging our feet on airline security measures and by having leaders who felt that a never ending vacation was more important that heading warnings and/or doing their job.

      8. Jerry, I might be able to quibble with you over some of the things that you said, but I wouldn’t. I think that if we aren’t on the same page, we’re pretty darn close. However, I was not responding to the point that you are making. I was responding to what Craig said, and he said something entirely different from what you said. He said, “9/11 happened because of our own ignorance and desire for profit over safety.” He started out by blaming coporate America and ended with a typical Bush zing. (How original!!!) Now, if he had said something like, “The terrorists were responsible. They were evil and solely at blame for the innocents who lost their lives that day. If only corporate America had taken some precautions and the government had handled the terrorist threat more proactively, we may have been able to prevent this evil assault from happening,” he may have raised his comments to the level of Monday morning quarterbacking.

      9. Was 911 our fault? No. It was the fault of the ratbags who crashed planes into our buildings. But we certainly did not make it harder for them to do so with years of dragging our feet on airline security measures and by having leaders who felt that a never ending vacation was more important that heading warnings and/or doing their job.
        .
        Lots of people point to the expense of the cockpit door reinforcement as being a major reason, but I still remember the time pre-9/11 when Kath and I were going through airport security and she discovered she had a Leatherman–an all purpose knife–in her jacket pocket that she’d forgotten about. We showed it to the security guy, certain she’d have to leave it behind, and he said, “No, no, you can bring that through. FAA regulations allow any blade two inches or less to be brought on board.”
        .
        And I thought, Wow, that could turn out to bite us on the ášš someday.
        .
        If I, some random citizen, could discern a potential for problems, why couldn’t the FAA?
        .
        PAD

      10. Tim Butler: “I was responding to what Craig said, and he said something entirely different from what you said. He said, “9/11 happened because of our own ignorance and desire for profit over safety.” He started out by blaming coporate America and ended with a typical Bush zing. (How original!!!)”
        .
        I think I was reading your comments’ meaning wrong since I didn’t see Graig’s post in the same way you did. He actually staid several things that made it come across to me that he wasn’t just blaming America for 911, but rather saying the same thing I did with the unlocked door analogy.
        .
        “Secured cockpit doors were recommended back the 70’s, but the airlines resisted due to cost, and the government never forced the issue.”
        .
        “9/11 was preventable. And quite frankly, I still wouldn’t trust our government, regardless of who is in charge, to prevent another major attack. IMO, it’s more luck than anything else. It sure as hëll isn’t because Bush was in charge… he who sat mouth agape when 9/11 happened 9 months into his watch.”
        .
        “Secured cockpit doors, better security at our airports (which STILL hasn’t been achieved), etc etc, would have prevented 9/11. Instead, in response, we wasted billions and billions of dollars in IRAQ, along with thousands upon thousands of lives. And we are no safer at our airports or in this country, thanks to Bush.”
        .
        He was pretty clear that he doesn’t believe that anyone in charge was going to make us 100% safe. I tend to agree with that since we have to stop 100% of the attempts and they only have to be lucky once to hit us. He also pointed out, as did I, that the various powers that be dragged their feet on things for a loooonnnggg time. He pointed out that the recommendations that would have made the pilots more secure and the planes safer have been around since the 70’s.
        .
        Now, as I read that, I pretty much figured that he was including those years that had Carter and the full eight years of Clinton in the years where the government didn’t push hard enough for it. The dig at Bush is somewhat understandable since Bush’s government had the weight of 911 behind them and still dragged their feet about reforms that could have minimized or prevented 911 had they been in place before and would certainly go a long way towards helping to prevent a future incident like that. but, as he pointed out, Bush’s focus was Iraq and, so it sometimes seemed, only Iraq.

    2. “Eight years later and no massive attacks.”
      .
      As opposed to nine months in and one massive attack, which is all that the GOP talking heads would have been focusing on had Gore been in office. Then again, perhaps Gore would have instituted a Department of Homeland Security as Clinton recommended be done prior to 9/11–as opposed to Bush et al who rejected the idea out of hand–and there wouldn’t have even been the one attack.
      .
      Unfortunately we will never know and you, secure in your Fox den, probably will never care.
      .
      PAD

      1. Is that anything like all the liberals blaming Bush for the 9/11 attacks nine months into his term? Sure, I’m positive that some across the aisle would have blamed Gore. I’m positive that that’s the case. Just as the liberal talking heads have blamed Bush.

        As for your second point, why….. oh why….. in the friggin Earth would we expect Bill Clinton to create a Department of Homeland Security when he refused to carry out any reprisals against terrorists after they attacked us? When he completely ignored Richard Clarke’s detailed plan to hunt down and take out Al-Qaeda after the USS Cole was bombed?

      2. .
        Yes, some of the decision to not respond the the Cole bombing (October 12 2000) was Clinton’s.
        .
        From the 911 commision transcripts.
        .
        “MS. RICE: — my understanding is, it was, A, never adopted, and that Ðìçk Clarke himself has said that the military portion of this was not taken up by the Clinton administration. So –“
        .
        Of course, he didn’t have long to work out for a fact who did it and where to strike them before Bush was elected and came into office. But what did Bush want to do? Did Bush want to spring into action and go after those people just three short months after they attacked us?
        .
        According to Dr. Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush’s.
        .
        From the 911 comission transcripts.
        .
        http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing9/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-04-08.htm
        .
        “MR. KERREY: Well, I think it’s an unfortunate figure of speech because I think — especially after the attack on the Cole on the 12th of August — October 2000. It would have been a swatting a fly. It would not have been — we did not need to wait to get a strategic plan. Ðìçk Clarke had in his memo on the 20th of January overt military operations as a — he turned that memo around in 24 hours, Dr. Clarke. There were a lot of plans in place in the Clinton administration, military plans in the Clinton administration. In fact, just since we’re in the mood to declassify stuff, he included in his January 25th memo two appendixes: Appendix A, Strategy for the Elimination of the Jihadist Threat of al Qaeda; Appendix B, Political- Military Plan for al Qaeda.
        .
        So I just — why didn’t we respond to the Cole? Why didn’t we swat that fly?
        .
        MS. RICE: I believe that there is a question of whether or not you respond in a tactical sense or whether you respond in a strategic sense, whether or not you decide that you are going to respond to every attack with minimal use of military force and go after every — on a kind of tit-for-tat basis. By the way, in that memo, Ðìçk Clarke talks about not doing this tit for tat, doing this on a time of our choosing.
        .
        I’m aware, Mr. Kerrey, of a speech that you gave at that time that said that perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein. That’s a strategic view. (Applause.) And we took a strategic view. We didn’t take a tactical view. I mean, it was really — quite frankly I was blown away when I read the speech because it’s a brilliant speech. (Laughter.) It talks about, really, an asymmetric approach.
        .
        MR. KERREY: I presume you read it in the last few days?
        .
        MS. RICE: Oh, no, I read it quite a bit before that. It’s an asymmetric approach. Now, you can decide that every time al Qaeda —
        .
        MR. KERREY: So you’re saying that you didn’t have a military response against the Cole because of my speech? (Laughter.)
        .
        MS. RICE: I’m saying — I’m saying — no.
        .
        MR. KERREY: That had I not given that speech, you would have attacked them?
        .
        MS. RICE: No. I’m just saying that I think it was a brilliant way to think about it. It was a way of thinking about it strategically, not tactically.
        .
        But if I may answer the question that you’ve asked me. The issue of whether to respond or how to respond to the Cole. I think Don Rumsfeld has also talked about this.
        .
        Yes, the Cole had happened. We received, I think, on January 25th the same assessment or roughly the same assessment of who was responsible for the Cole that Sandy Berger talked to you about. It was preliminary. It was not clear. But that was not the reason that we felt that we did not want to, quote, “respond to the Cole.”
        .
        We knew that the options that had been employed by the Clinton administration had been standoff options. The President had — meaning missile strikes, or perhaps bombers would have been possible, long-range bombers, although getting in place the apparatus to use long-range bombers is even a matter of whether you have basing in the region.
        .
        We knew that Osama bin Laden had been, in something that was provided to me, bragging that he was going to withstand any response, and then he was going to emerge and come out stronger. We —
        .
        MR. KERREY: You’re — but you’re figuring this out. You’ve got to give a very long answer. I’ve got —
        .
        MS. RICE: We simply believed that the best approach was to put in place a plan that was going to eliminate this threat, not respond to it, tit-for-tat.
        .
        …
        .
        So… Who decided to not retaliate after the Bombing, Tim?

      3. So now you’re playing “what if” games? Wonderful. The fact is we were attacked. Thousands died. The FBI and CIA weren’t sharing information. Things needed to change. Bush fought back. Killed some bad guys and kept us safe. I’ll take that over anything an Olbermann groupie like yourself “thinks.” Hey, maybe he’ll make Bill O’reilly Worst Person in the World tonight and you’ll have to smoke a cigarette.

        And yes, the GOP would have been angty at Gore. That’s called politics. You might remember the Dems attacked Bush. If you’re reduced to the Alan Colmes tactic of basically saying, “Yeah, but if a Republican did it you’d like it, wou;dn’t ya,” you’re really just a kid hurling insults on a playground.

      4. According to Clarke, he had a plan in front of Clinton days after the Cole was attacked. It called for the hunting down and destruction of Al-Qaeda. Clinton completely ignored it. That was Clarke’s statement on (I believe) 60 Minutes. It is a fact that no reprisal for the bombing of the Cole was carried out by the Clinton Administration. Did Bush respond to the bombing of the Cole? No. Should he have? Maybe. But excusing Clinton, or worse, saying that if only we had followed Clinton’s alledged suggestion for a Department of Homeland Security that could have prevented 9/11 (and thereby shifting blame for 9/11 to Bush) in the context of Clinton’s complete unwillingness to take appropriate action in response to terrorist actions against this nation during his presidency is sheer left wing fantasy. In my opinion.

        The Cole bombing is not the point. The point is that Clinton had opportunities to be tough on terrorists. He wasn’t. The “if only” scenario presented is ridiculous in that context.

      5. <i.I’ll take that over anything an Olbermann groupie like yourself “thinks.”
        .
        Well, thank the gods you’re not in charge then, because who knows how many Iraqs you would lead us into.
        .
        But it’s good to know you’re happy with the results of a war that should’ve never been fought. Again, billions upon billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives wasted.
        .
        Oh, and the guy responsible for 9/11? Not in Iraq. And also not that important, according to Bush.

      6. So, Tim… You want to slag on Clinton (who was only in office three months after the Cole was hit) because he should have done something about it, but Bush (who was in office for eight years) only maybe should have done something about it.
        .
        Okay…
        .
        As for Clinton being tough on terrorists; he actually did do quite a bit. The people who bombed the trade towers back when he just came into office (and notice how in the Conservative spin that it was his fault for being weak on terror even though he had barely been in office when it happened and not Bush Sr.’s while something that happened over a year and a half into Bush Jr.’s presidency is Clinton’s fault as well) were caught, jailed, grilled for information and that information helped lead to to thwarting of several other plots to strike American soil and arrests of terrorists. But, no, because he didn’t send anyone to other countries and holding facilities to waterboard and torture them before releasing them because, whoops, they were innocent or acting on intel that was bogus because, whoops, they said whatever they thought wanted to be heard to get the torture to stop… Well… He just didn’t do anything.
        .
        And, of course, any time he did take any substantial action he was criticized for it and accused of manipulating the media to take the heat off of the news coverage of any given bogus scandal being trumped up that week. So, no, it’s not true that he did nothing.

      7. “So now you’re playing “what if” games? Wonderful.”
        .
        Why not, Howard? That’s what the Bush people do all the time.
        .
        What if there’s a ticking time bomb?
        .
        What if there’s something in that pesky Constitution that keeps us from stopping another terrorist attack?
        .
        What if torture really did work?
        .
        And, of course, my favorite one has been mentioned in this thread. Conservatives love to point to the years after 911 and claim that, see, Bush kept us safe because we weren’t attacked like that again. Thing is, a negative doesn’t prove a positive. The other thing is that under Clinton we stopped and arrested terrorist who were plotting attacks on US soil. More could have been done in the year after Clinton left office, but Bush’s people deprioritized some of the Clinton administrations findings and recommendations.
        .
        So, if you want to assign blame for 911 to a US president, who was in office for over a year and a half before 911 happened and who was it that, by his own administration’s admissions, had a administration that brushed off some of the outgoing administrations findings and recommendations?

      8. Is that anything like all the liberals blaming Bush for the 9/11 attacks nine months into his term
        .
        You’re kidding, right? I mean, you ARE kidding. Liberals and conservatives alike lined up behind Bush. Sure, a handful of people tried to point the finger at Bush, but he had…what? A 96% approval for going into Afghanistan?
        .
        And if you think that the Conservative pundits who basically made it clear that not falling into lockstep with the administration was unpatriotic wouldn’t have been all over Gore fingerpointing, then you are simply kidding yourself.
        .
        PAD

      9. Jerry, Go back and re-read my last paragraph. Again. You’re missing the point. The Cole was not the point. The point was the left wing fantasy that Clinton would have stopped 9/11 if only the Republicans had given him his Office of Homeland Security when he wanted it. The Cole was only evidence that Clinton was asleep at the switch when it came to terrorism.

      10. “You’re kidding, right? I mean, you ARE kidding.”

        The “golden age” of unity lasted for exactly as long as it took for the shock to wear off and for the Left to figure out an angle of attack from which they thought Bush was vulnerable. Yeah, it lasted for a while but not nearly long enough.

        “And if you think that the Conservative pundits who basically made it clear that not falling into lockstep with the administration was unpatriotic wouldn’t have been all over Gore fingerpointing, then you are simply kidding yourself”

        I don’t know why you would say this when I SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN MY POST. I admitted that, “I’m positive that some across the aisle would have blamed Gore. I’m positive that that’s the case. Just as the liberal talking heads have blamed Bush.” And if you don’t think the Democrats wouldn’t do that and more specifically, didn’t do that after 9/11, you are the one who is self-deceived. For crying out loud, the entire Democratic playbook for the last 7 years of the Bush presidency can be summed up like this: “Blame Dubya for everything.” That includes 9/11, everything related to 9/11, the price of tea in China, and Jon & Kate Plus 8. (Hey, the disintegration of their marriage started during the Bush years.)

      11. PAD: “And if you think that the Conservative pundits who basically made it clear that not falling into lockstep with the administration was unpatriotic wouldn’t have been all over Gore fingerpointing, then you are simply kidding yourself.”
        .
        To some degree it’s not even an academic discussion of “What If?” here. We got a glimpse into what the Conservative pundits would have done to Gore back during Clinton’s time in office. Just look at what they said during Kosovo.
        .
        Sean Hannity, who liked to talk about how just disagreeing with Bush about the war was emboldening the enemy and endangering the troops, used to like to make up lies about how badly things were going and tell them on his then growing national radio program, the then new Fox News network and on Rush’s program (the first hour of which was then carried around the globe on Armed Forces Radio) whenever he filled in for Rush. His biggest and favorite whopper for a time there was claiming that Clinton had so destroyed the military while in office that we had run out of bombs and some other ordnance that was vital to our soldiers ability to defend this nation and themselves. So, saying that you disagree with Bush about the need to go into Iraq or about how he was mismanaging the war is unpatriotic, demoralizing the troops, appeasing the enemy, emboldening the enemy and endangering the troops but getting on a radio program that is carried in the war zone and can be listened to by the troops, the enemy and anyone else who wants to tune in and telling lies about how bad we’re doing and saying that, basically, we as a country and our troops abroad were vulnerable to attack is just fine and dandy.
        .
        Rush, who liked to attack critics of Bush and say that you couldn’t separate the troops from the mission, the troops were the mission and these libs criticizing Bush were attacking the troops and hated the troops as well as insulting the character of Iraq and Afghanistan vets who spoke out against Bush’s mismanagement of the war, spent most of the initial Korsovo campaign attacking Clinton, attacking the tactics Clinton wanted the military to use in the initial phase, airing the grievances with Clinton of anyone who called and claimed to be a soldier without any verification that they were and even rebroadcast those calls on other days for anyone who missed the calls showing what “the troops” thought of Clinton and the war.
        .
        Oh, and he also made up lies and rewrote history. One of his favorite drums to bang on was that Clinton so loathed the troops that he, for the first time ever in American history, forced American soldiers to serve under foreign commanders. That statement should have been laughable to anyone who passed a junior high history class, but apparently Rush and a huge majority of his listeners flunked that class.
        .
        When you throw in the garbage that you got from the lesser talkers and the other then Fox News personalities you get a good idea of what it would have looked like. Or you could just look a few months back in time. The Conservative pundits ripped into Obama for not acting to free our hostages from the grips of evil, Somali pirates. Then the pirates were killed and the hostage freed and the talking point became the baseless charge that Obama wouldn’t let the snipers do their jobs. Then, when that was disproved, the diehard Obama haters like Rush changed the narrative yet again to how awful it was that Obama had ordered the shooting of these poor black youths.
        .
        And, of course, that sense of patriotism isn’t stopping them now when the claim that these are Obama’s wars and criticizing him for everything he does or doesn’t do with them.
        .
        So, no, it’s not really a stretch to say that they would have gone after Gore with everything they had based on their own past and present actions.

      12. “And, of course, that sense of patriotism isn’t stopping them now when the claim that these are Obama’s wars and criticizing him for everything he does or doesn’t do with them.”

        To the extent that they are in fact criticising Obama for Iraq and Afghanistan, I agree with you completely Jerry. It’s petty politics.

        Also, I hasten to point out that now that, to a very great degree, Obama has decided to carry forward Bush’s policies on those wars, the Left has by and large lost their voice of criticism. I personally haven’t heard anyone who previously tore Bush a new one for getting us involved over there criticise Obama for keeping us over there.

        Guys, I’ve admitted that the Republicans play politics with these situations. Can we admit that the Democrats do too?

      13. Tim Butler: “Jerry, Go back and re-read my last paragraph. Again. You’re missing the point. The Cole was not the point. The point was the left wing fantasy that Clinton would have stopped 9/11 if only the Republicans had given him his Office of Homeland Security when he wanted it. The Cole was only evidence that Clinton was asleep at the switch when it came to terrorism.”
        .
        There’s no doubt that no one can say for sure that an attack would have been stopped or not or minimized in its scale or not, but it’s outright wrong to say that Clinton was asleep at the switch. It’s a documented fact that the terrorist who launched the 1993 Trade Tower attack were apprehended and that we gathered enough information from them to stop several other plots and arrest other subjects.
        .
        And saying that the Cole was evidence of this is laughable. The Cole was attacked in a foreign port and attacked by local terrorist operatives who had the support and assistance of the Sudanese government. You might as well claim that the Beirut barracks bombing was proof that Reagan was soft on terrorists.
        .
        “The “golden age” of unity lasted for exactly as long as it took for the shock to wear off and for the Left to figure out an angle of attack from which they thought Bush was vulnerable. Yeah, it lasted for a while but not nearly long enough.”
        .
        No. The good will that Bush was given after 911 lasted up until Bush and crew decided that OBL and Afghanistan were afterthoughts and started ramping up the spin machine to justify going after Saddam and going into Iraq. That bogus garbage started eating up his goodwill and justifiably so.

      14. The “golden age” of unity lasted for exactly as long as it took for the shock to wear off and for the Left to figure out an angle of attack from which they thought Bush was vulnerable. Yeah, it lasted for a while but not nearly long enough.
        .
        Oh, please, Tim. Give unto me a break. It lasted until Bush himself frittered it away with a misplaced, ill-advised and deceitful excursion into Iraq. Bush didn’t lose the support because of attacks from the left. He lost it because he was a total dumb ášš who blew through good will like it was tissue paper and listened to all the wrong people giving all the wrong advice. This desperate attempt to deflect responsibility away from Bush and entirely onto those who came to realize that he was brutally using the trust of a shellshocked country to further an agenda that was already in place before he took office is just pathetic.
        .
        PAD

  22. Sigh. I love it when blame for not stopping Al-Qaeda gets pushed back to Clinton by people who are amazingly willing to forgive Bush for shifting from “We will hunt Bin Laden down” to “He’s not a priority”. Or how he completely ignored recommendations for how to deal with the growing terrorist problem because they came from Clinton’s people. If you want to keep playing the retroactive blame-game, let’s go further back, shall we? To the people in charge BEFORE Clinton who armed and trained these guys and created the problem in the first place? Essentially, it’s blaming Clinton for not cleaning up other people’s messes. Of course, any time I bring this point up to a rabid W Apologist, I get told that it’s an “irrelevant fact” because at the time it was “Politically expedient” for us to treat Al-Qaeda as allies.

    Just as amazing are people who asseert that Clinton “Did nothing” to go after terrorists, but back when he DID order air strikes he was constantly accused of “wagging the dog” to distract us from his scandals. The way it was going, even if he successfully bombed Bin laden out of existence, he would have been accused of “manufacturing” a conflict where none existed. Just look at the accumulated media reactions to any military action he took while in office and you can see how this man everyone thinks was adored by the “liberal media” couldn’t catch a break no matter what he did. I mean, come on, best example? He gets intelligence about a military target, bombs it, the opposition claims it was an aspirin factory, and all of a sudden he’s being painted as a buffoon who can’t hit a target with HIM taking the blame rather than the agency whose intelligence he acted on.

    You know what? Clinton wasn’t a perfect president. he wasn’t a perfect man. But I think if he’d simply been allowed to do his job, he might have been better, even if it was just a shade better. I have never in my life seen a man more hounded before and during his time in office. From his nomination onward, there were volleys of mud I had never seen in an election in my lifetime, and it continued non-stop into his presidency with the republicans doing all the could to actively remove the man from office from before day one. And the media did NOT give him a free pass, either. They enjoyed playing up anything even remotely “juicy” for the increased exposure their outlets enjoyed.

    And please don’t try to compare the way the media treated Bush to the way they treated Clinton. Wheras a meal was made of Clinton’s “Drug use”, we were told by Bush’s people that talk of his past DUIs and cocaine use was “off-topic” and amazingly, people backed down from it. Popular opinion on Bush was mixed until the attack, and everyone was willing to get behind him while he talked a good game. But he amazingly squandered all the good will and cooperative spirit he achieved both here and overseas, refusing to work cooperatively with other nations and going his own way. The media routinely backed away from asking Bush tough questions in interviews and debates, something that was commented on with amazing regularity for 8 years, yet nothing was done about it.

    As for “Who cares what other countries think of us?” News flash: You can’t claim to be a “World Leader” without acknowledging the fact that there are other people in the world that your actions affect. I mean, what would happen if a country like Syria suddenly had “intelligence” that we might some day be inclined to attack them, so they decided to strike at us first? After all, Bush’s “Pre-emptive strike” policy was hailed as “correct” by his supporters at the time, so you can bet you’ll care what other countries think of us if they also decide it’s the “correct” policy. Sadly, any time THIS is brought up, it’s painted as “Liberalist, blame America nonsense” when it’s freaking LOGIC. One man’s “Pre-emptive strike” is another man’s “Terrorism”; it just depends on which side of the bomb you’re on.

    I seem to have rambled on a bit. Going to get off my soap-box now, as the idiocy surrounding politics has always made me a bit twitchy.

  23. “Oh, and the guy responsible for 9/11? Not in Iraq. And also not that important, according to Bush.”

    Hopefully we’ll capture Bin Laden, but I don’t know if you’ve heard, he’s difficult to find, has a lot of confederates and knows the terrain pretty well. If we do catch him I hope Obama shows him the same respect Bin Laden showed the people working in the twin towers. But knowing Obama, he’ll probably apologize for accidentally catching him and make sure he gets the full protection our law provides.

    You’re alive now and free to criticize to your heart’s content. Unlike those in the twin towers.

    1. But knowing Obama, he’ll probably apologize for accidentally catching him and make sure he gets the full protection our law provides.
      .
      Yeah, well, at least he’ll have caught him, unlike Bush, who let bin Laden get off scot free. Who said bin Laden was no longer important mere months after the 9/11 attacks. Who put up a punitive effort to find him in Afghanistan, then completely screwed the pooch by taking us to Iraq.
      .
      So, based on your pathetic comments, I can pretty much guess that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, Obama would get no credit for it from you. You’d praise Bush, and then probably bìŧçh some more about Clinton, too. I’m done with you too.

      1. Would I give Obama get credit for catching Bin Laden? It depends on how Obama treated him: like the terrorist he is or as a misunderstood patriot fighting for the rights of his people.

        And you’re done with me? Wow, and here I thought we had a real friendship brewing.

    2. Wow, you are one sick bášŧárd…

      “You’re alive now and free to criticize to your heart’s content. Unlike those in the twin towers.”

      Consider yourself on perma-shroud

    3. Howard: “But knowing Obama, he’ll probably apologize for accidentally catching him and make sure he gets the full protection our law provides.”
      .
      “You’re alive now and free to criticize to your heart’s content. Unlike those in the twin towers.”
      .
      Howard, and I say this in all sincerity, you’re both an a áššhølë and a worthless piece of human garbage.
      .
      Shrouded.

      1. I mean this in all sincerity also. When the facts upset you this much it’s time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

        Maybe it’s time you remembered those who died on that day. Might be unpleasant but this is the real world we’re dealing with, not your liberal butterflies and rainbows.

  24. “And, of course, my favorite one has been mentioned in this thread. Conservatives love to point to the years after 911 and claim that, see, Bush kept us safe because we weren’t attacked like that again. Thing is, a negative doesn’t prove a positive.”

    Cheney wanted the reports released showing the attacks the Bush administration stopped, but Obama wouldn’t allow it. Why show the public that Bush did anything right?

    1. In point of fact, Howard, you have that exactly backward. Every time the Obama administration has tried to declassify something the Bush administration did, Cheney and his lawyers (those he hasn’t shot yet, anyway) sue to stop the process.
      .
      Good job regurgitating the far-right “talking” points, though.

  25. Peter,

    I am a fan of some of your work, which is why I look at this website. But it reached a point where your constant juvenile attacks on a man who, whether you like him or not, tried to keep this country safe became insufferable.

    We get it, you hate Bush. And you started the insults in the first post by calling him an “intellectual gnat.” I was unaware that this website was a dissent free zone. Good to know. Talk to yourselves, people. Apparently that’s what you can handle.

    1. I am a fan of some of your work, which is why I look at this website.
      .
      I’m always suspicious of people who declare that but somehow never bothered to say a single word about anything I’ve written, yet mysteriously show up when politics gets brought up.
      .

      We get it, you hate Bush. And you started the insults in the first post by calling him an “intellectual gnat.”
      .
      He is an intellectual gnat. The point is, I didn’t feel the need to go and say it on boards predominantly inhabited by right leaning individuals.
      .
      I was unaware that this website was a dissent free zone. Good to know. Talk to yourselves, people. Apparently that’s what you can handle.
      .
      Thanks for proving my point about that you’re not remotely interested in giving a fair, or even accurate, reading to anything I say. I explicitly stated that there are plenty of people here who have opposing opinions, and they state them frequently and spiritedly. But they also contribute to other aspects of the board; they’re not here merely to cause trouble and bìŧçh about my dumb old liberal politics. And you twisted that into the falsehood that there is no tolerance here for dissent. That is a lie. It is a demonstrable lie.
      .
      This board stands in stark contrast to many other boards where replies are not allowed at all, or they’re carefully monitored and dissenting opinions are deleted, or people are forced to fill out detailed registration forms and have to receive permission to post. If you want to fine genuine dissent free zones, there are plenty around. Feel free, if you’re so inclined, to go over to one of those and complain about how intolerant they are of dissenting opinions. Oh, wait…you won’t be able to, because you’ll be deleted and/or banned.
      .
      PAD

      1. Okay PAD. Loved your Hulk work. Read the first Sir Apropos. Liked it. Have the others on my shelf. Read the first Knight Life. Liked it. Don’t have the others. Did not finish Howling Mad. Don’t read anything you’re writing now in comic form. Don’t care about the “X” books. Too many. Read “Fallen Angel” compilation 1. Thought it was okay. Read one of your Star Trek TNG books, liked it. Read one of your New Frontier books. Thought it was okay. Read your Spider-Man novelization. Thought it was okay.

        Your first response to my post was to claim that I leapt to foolish conclusions and don’t care about the truth what with me being a “Bushie” and all. This was a game we were playing between the two of us; of course I knew that your buying a ticket would not assure the event would be canceled. And of course I knew that you knew that too. I wrote my first post in the same snotty vein you wrote about Bush. Does this really have to be talked about any longer? We were being snots, the both of us.

        But I was surprised by the anger my dissenting opinion brought forth from your loyal readers. Usually I’m just called a fascist, not a “sick bášŧárd.”

        And if you’d like me to prove my support by leaving comments on other posts please write more about your bowling league. Those have me on the edge of my seat.

      2. Actually, Peter, we are required to fill out a form for permission to post here. Every single time I leave a comment, I have to give you my name and e-mail address. It says it’s required.
        But I guess you were talking about sites where they ask for far more detail than that.

        Getting back to that guy’s original statement that we’ve gone eight years without a major attack, it should be pointed out that we’d gone roughly eight years since a major foreign attack before 2001. (I can’t remember the exact date of the first World Trade Center attack, and I don’t want to look it up right now, but eight years is about right, I think.) So we may very well be right on schedule for the next attack, and Bush didn’t make us safer at all. In fact, since this sample size for international terrorist strikes is so small, we can’t really get an accurate view of the average frequency of attacks. Bush may very well have increased the frequency of terrorist attacks on the US and people just haven’t noticed yet.

        On the issue as to whether better security procedures at airports and on planes would’ve prevented the attacks– it would not. Security measures like those never do much. If it becomes too difficult to hijack a plane, the terrorists will simply do something else to kill thousands of people. There is always an easy method available. (Trains are very easy to destroy, for instance.) The only thing security measures do is increase paranoia in the general population, waste money and time, harass a lot of innocent people, and get everyone used to the idea of living in a police state.

        If you want to prevent international terrorist attacks against the US, the answer is very simple. Stop cozying up to tyrannical governments (eg Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and yes, even Israel– it’s not the worst, but if you’re Palestinian, it’s bad enough), stop invading countries (such as Iraq) for no clear reason, and don’t overthrow popular governments and replace them with brutal reqimes, such as we did with Iran in 1953 (we’re still paying for that).
        The simple truth is that al-Qaida and similar groups sincerely believe they’re fighting the US in self-defence, and while their view is largely based on paranoia and religious fanaticism, there are enough facts to keep them going and to attract more recruits to their cause.

        Okay. Now there should be no more reason for all the hostility between everyone here. You can all hate me now.

  26. Actually, Peter, we are required to fill out a form for permission to post here. Every single time I leave a comment, I have to give you my name and e-mail address. It says it’s required. But I guess you were talking about sites where they ask for far more detail than that.
    .
    I was talking about exactly what I said I was talking about: sites where registration is required (thus providing the opportunity to forbid certain people from posting), and sites where comments are moderated and reviewed and prevented from being posted. My understanding is that the requirement for name and email that appears on this board is part of the Word Press program. Either way, it’s pretty minimal.
    .
    All I’m saying is that it’s tiresome to hear people complaining that I’m restrictive or intolerant when in fact this site is as free and open as I can make it. The fact that they’re allowed to come here and bìŧçh undercuts the very charges they make.
    .
    PAD

    1. Mary, in order to post here, you need to supply a name and an email address. No one checks to make sure the address is valid; no one is required to provide a real name. (Did you think my last name really was “(the other one)”?)
      .
      At many (most?) websites, if you want to leave a comment, you need to register with your real first and last names, your real email address, and sometimes other personal information, and your registry isn’t validated until you receive an email and click through to the site from there.
      .
      This one seems pretty nonrestrictive to me…

    2. I wasn’t trying to complain so much. Are there really so many sites where you have to give more information when you register a comment. I haven’t commented very many places. Name and e-mail are the only requirements I’ve seen. The only difference is most other sites I’ve been to have a memory, but on this one I have to write my name and e-mail every single time. That’s kind of annyoing, but it’s not so bad, and I’m guessing you probably don’t have personal control over it anyway.
      Just forget I brought it up. It was just a spur of the moment sort of comment that sprung to my mind because you’d just mentioned sites that require people to register.
      I actually came looking here just now because I wanted to see what sort of abusive criticism I was getting for all the other things I said. But I guess I didn’t upset people as much as I thought I would. Maybe my views are more popular or acceptable than I realised, at least amoung Peter David fans.

      By the way, the Comics Should Be Good site is running a survey asking for the ten greatest comic-book storylines ever. I still haven’t finished my list yet, but at the moment, it seems there is a good chance The Death Of Jean DeWolff might be my number one. I just thought you might be happy to hear that.

      1. I actually came looking here just now because I wanted to see what sort of abusive criticism I was getting for all the other things I said. But I guess I didn’t upset people as much as I thought I would.Maybe my views are more popular or acceptable than I realised, at least amoung Peter David fans.
        .
        I think you’ll find that it’s not merely views presented, but the manner in which they are presented. People who show up exclusively to lob insults and pick fights usually draw fire…which is, let’s face it, what they’re looking for. Someone who simply wants to express his or her opinion in a reasoned manner doesn’t draw that kind of response.
        .
        PAD

    3. In point of fact I love how easy it is to leave comment here… as opposed to the last system you used…. and definitely in contrast to John Byryne’s system, which is çráppëd by the fact that I cannot recall my password to his message board.

  27. This has been fun but it’s reached the point where our little hate fest is going in circles.

    I actually like some of Peter’s work, but he can also be small and petty. I don’t think he sees this, though.

    I enjoyed reading Mary’s comment because it was calm and well-reasoned, whether or not I agree with everything she said. And I would love to have a nuanced debate on the issues, but despite Peter’s seeming belief that this self-promtion website is the greatest forum for spirited discussion since the First Continental Congress it’s just a site run by a cheap shot artist who doesn’t like it when someone takes a cheap shot back.

    I do admire the site for one thing, though. It’s not many places that would give the opinions of someone called Bladestar the same weight as those of an actual grownup person. Good luck in your battle against the Dark Lord Zog, Bladestar. Let’s just hope it’s not a battle of wits or surely the Chalice of Light for which you’ve long searched will forever reside in Zog’s vile embrace, and our world will be thrust into shadow, despair and degradation (known in common parlance as The Obama Years).

    Take care, everybody. It’s been an interesting way to spend a few hours. And good luck to you all.

  28. “it’s just a site run by a cheap shot artist who doesn’t like it when someone takes a cheap shot back.”

    Which also describes you, so I’m having trouble wrapping my head around that circular logic. Which part do you object to: cheap shots or disliking cheap shots? Because you began this whole argument as an objection to Peter’s cheap shot at Bush, which means you have a problem with cheap shots, and yet you began it (and conducted it, and concluded it) with cheap shots of your own, which means you don’t have a problem with cheap shots.
    .
    You can’t have it both ways.

  29. “Because you began this whole argument as an objection to Peter’s cheap shot at Bush, which means you have a problem with cheap shots, and yet you began it (and conducted it, and concluded it) with cheap shots of your own, which means you don’t have a problem with cheap shots.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ahem.

  30. Well, let’s see… President Clinton’s big successes as President were working with Republican legislative majorities, known as his “Third War” wherein he managed to balance budgets and pass some good, sound policies by not fighting the Legislative Branch. The bulk of the reason for this was Ðìçk Morris, from whom President Clinton received the most advice, whom he trusted most.

    My word variance is damaged here, I know.

    President Clinton got more political mileage by rubber-stamping center-right bills than by fighting balanced budgets, etc., because he enjoyed political success more than he was in for any ideological conflict. I’d say the “Contract With America” and the Clinton Administration deserve approximately equal credit for whatever prosperity came from those policies, to say nothing about whatever positive macroeconomic aftermath sprang from the eighties, the Reagan Administration, and supply-side economics (what did Arthur Laffer call it?)… but I am a political rightist, so of course I would say that.

    President Bush 43 made it his practice to have bills written by Democrats, and to reach across the aisle to Ted Kennedy as often as possible. Democrats held immense legislative power even when they did not have the majority and most of the bills that President Bush passed were spending bills, or bills that meant increased spending or increased government control of stuff… under the Bush Administration the federal government spent more in line with Barack Obama’s inclination than Calvin Coolidge’s. (In many ways President Bush was an activist for the Democrat Party line) and in fact Bush 43 never vetoed a single bill until his second term.

    When the POTUS was naming a building after Ted Kennedy’s brother, the Kennedy family was bad-mouthing the President on the air… many just loved describing the President as a great partisan attack dog divisive creature that suckled from Lady Liberty’s neck. Which is not to say that he was not suckling from Lady Liberty’s neck….

    When the President attempted to push a vaguely rightist policy he lacked the political to be effective in social security reform or act on anyone’s foresight for the mortgage problem.

    When things went to shite President Bush took the blame and responsibility, as is proper. That is was not his fault alone is irrelevant in all ways except that his taking the blame as if he was the only one at fault PREVENTS us from LEARNING ANY LESSONS and now we’re stuck in this dûmbášš partisanship where people blindly assert that our economic problem is because of Conservative governance and that a Republican caused all the horrors by being a good Republican-type Republican.

    So essentially the 42nd President followed the Legislative Branch and benefited and the 43rd President followed the Legislative Branch and got the shaft. Neither of these guys are leaders for any political crusade and neither one of them is one I would look to for a solution to a problem.

    I would rather see a debate between the team mascots for their respective universities than these two guys, both of whom I respect in different ways and for different reasons… but I don’t care how intelligent President Bush is… his domestic policies were crap on stick, and domestic issues are the hot button stuff of today.

    Bill Clinton never completed his “Rhodes Scholarship”, so I fail to see how “Bush debating a Rhodes Scholar” indicates that our 43rd President is out of his depth debating a super-genius of some sort.

    I wonder what a debate between Ðìçk Morris and Karl Rove would look like…

  31. Oh God! Not this again. Just when it was safe to return here, we have W. bashing again. I swear, 20 years from now you people are still going to be talking about this stuff. Let it go. He came, he left, he’s gone. Ah well. It was nice for a while.

    Joe V.

    1. Ya know, if you don’t like it, you have two options:

      1) Don’t read Pete’s blog

      2) Skip the posts that have or mention Bush/Politics in the title, there are plenty of non-pol talk here

    2. Does this qualify as irony considering we’re how many years removed from Clinton and how frequently he’s still bashed?

    3. Oh God! Not this again. Just when it was safe to return here, we have W. bashing again. I swear, 20 years from now you people are still going to be talking about this stuff.
      .
      It wouldn’t surprise me. He was a lousy president on a historical scale. Why wouldn’t he still be discussed? Should “Frost/Nixon” never have been made because, hey, it was thirty years ago, Nixon’s dead and gone, let it go. There’s an entire song in the musical “Annie” dedicated to what a sucky president Herbert Hoover was.
      .
      The sheer amount of crap that this country is still suffering for is monumental. I’m not going out of my way to dump on Bush, but when he winds up in the news, unless it’s because he saved a child from a speeding car, I’m not going to sing his praises.
      .
      PAD

  32. Bladestar,
    Agreed. If more Republicans/conservatives actually had backbone instead of being whiny pûššìëš, they would still be in the majority.

    1. Could be, but I think it was more of a fatigue that set in to the average American voter.

      They got tired of 8 years of “You’re either in full support of everything you do or your a commie traitor!” and “Fear fear fear! Elect us or they’ll be hëll to pay from the terrorists!” (Hmmm…sounds like a form of terrorism to me) fear-mongering the Repubs did during the Bush years, it wore down Americans till all they wanted was some glimmer of hope and a possible silver lining, so Obama’s message resonated with them and at the point, they’d have welcomed almost any change.

Comments are closed.