So what’s wrong with you, just you, finding the middle balance all by your selfses? I’d like to know. Also it smacks mildly of bad sportsmanship to say “get it together” to a group of people who are savoring defeat. Y’all.

By k_sra on Nov 9, 2004

Thanks, Joel, I hadn’t seen things in quite this light before. A blue state gets bombed because of the policies of a red state president, but because there are more red states than blue they have no power to keep this from happening again. I don’t blame them for wanting to secede.

By Worldgineer on Nov 9, 2004

Instead of flying over, why don’t the whiners go around. Stop flooding our brilliant blue skies with their jet exhaust. Go around via Cuba and talk super-lefty Castro into releasing the independent librarians who are now three years into their 20 year sentences. Go around via “O,Canada” and find out what a whoopy cushion for Kerry really sounds like. (Speaking of Worldgineer…)

By dabuheebly on Nov 9, 2004

k_sra, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “finding the middle balance all by your selfses.” The point I’m making is that since the 2000 election, the democratic party has become increasingly radicalized, and it’s hurting them as a party of influence in American politics. Example, support for gay marriage is almost a litmus test for any Democratic candidate (or at least he or she must have no opposition to it). But this view is out of track with the majority of the voting public by margins much bigger than the margin Bush enjoyed.

As for sportsmanship, who said this was a sport? How do you conclude I’m gloating when I’m asking the Democrats to do what’s necessary to survive? I don’t fancy a one-party system, but by taking fringe positions such as opposing the ban on partial birth abortion, the DNC is dooming themselves to obscurity. This isn’t a good thing for the American political system.

Worldgineer, please explain to me how George Bush’s “red state” policies caused 9/11? (I assume you’re referring to 9/11 since that’s the only time in recent history that a blue state has been bombed. Watch the chronology: Bush attacked Afganistan and Iraq after 9/11/2001.) What fantastic model of terrorist psychology are you using to conclude that it wasn’t Bill Clinton’s policy of ignoring terrorist attacks which emboldened the terrorists to perpetrate further attacks?

Do you honestly believe that these Muslim extremists are merely using the only means available to them to tell the US to “back off a bit?” Do you even listen to their fatwahs? Do you pay any attention to their agenda whatsoever?

There is only one way to respond to anyone who attempts to use murder of civilians as a negotiating technique: you must interrupt their ability to commit murder. Clinton passed up on his chances: in Mogudishu, in Kenya, in the Sudan, in the World Trade Center in 1993 and in Yemen (the USS Cole). Radical Islam was credibly able to make the claim that attacking the US would not result in any significant consequences. Bush’s policy is to do what is necessary to stop terrorists from committing acts of terror. I was not going to be so arrogant as to claim this piece of schoolyard wisdom as a “red state” policy, but if the blue states don’t want it, so be it.

By Joel on Nov 10, 2004

I was referring to the Bush team’s inability to detect or prevent 911. To cover this up they went around and bombed a bunch of countries saying that this will help prevent terror, all the while missing the person they say is responsible. I will give the Bush team credit for convincing the red states that despite the fact that they are the ones that messed up in the first place they are somehow the best team to keep us safe.

By Worldgineer on Nov 15, 2004

//I was referring to the Bush team’s inability to detect or prevent 911.//Well, World, I’ll give you this much: up until 9/11, Bush’s policy toward terrorism was identical to Bill Clinton’s policy. It even had many of the same players at the state department and CIA. And it was an ineffective policy. The only kudo Bush gets from me is that as of 9/11 he changed his policy to reflect the radical circumstance of some 3000 innocent Americans being slaughtered on our own soil.

//To cover this up they went around and bombed a bunch of countries saying that this will help prevent terror…//Correction: To cover this up they went around and bombed and invaded two countries, toppled their Islamo-fascist governments, and setup democratic governments, and spent tons of money on rebuilding and restoring of basic services (many of which the Iraqi’s hadn’t had for years under Sadaam).

//…all the while missing the person they say is responsible.//This is a canard. Nobody seriously believes that killing or capturing OBL will make Al Qaeda fall like a house of cards. Look on the bright side. We’ve denied him his cushy Afganistan cave. And we’ve killed and captured lots and lots of terrorists.

//I will give the Bush team credit for convincing the red states that despite the fact that they are the ones that messed up in the first place they are somehow the best team to keep us safe.//This isn’t a conflict that can be solved purely with defensive moves. Think for a minute what it would take to “detect or prevent 9/11″ as you put it. We’d have to up the level of invasion of privacy to the point that we’d know all about what goes on in the radical mosques of Europe. We’d have to cease being a nation of immigrants because we’d have to lock our borders up tight as a drum. There would have to be vastly increased scrutiny of Arabs and other largely Muslim ethnicities. They would have more trouble getting onto an airplane than ever. We’d have to have intelligence services that actually infiltrated terrorist groups and did business with unsavory people instead of just flying over and taking some sattlite pictures (thank-you Bill Clinton). We’d have to remove the information barrier between the FBI and our intelligence agencies (thanks again, Bill). Even with all of that, we wouldn’t be guarranteed to be safe. There’s no such thing as a guarrantee against a 9/11-scale terrorist attack.

We must step up security in a way that doesn’t curtail our civil liberties (a victory for the terrorists), but we also must go after terrorist groups so forcefully that they can’t even hide behind sympathetic governments. Detection and prevention of this problem cannot stop at our borders. This is a global problem.

By Joel on Nov 16, 2004

Cute little arguement there. Clinton had screwed up policies, but don’t blame Bush because his policies were the same. Nobody asked to put Clinton back in office - New York wanted someone other than Bush, the person who screwed this up the first time.

By Worldgineer on Nov 16, 2004

What are you talking about? The first time the World Trade Center was bombed was under Bill Clinton’s administration, in 1993. He did nothing. He carefully referred to it as a “disaster” (as if it were a blown gas main, or a flooded river) instead of calling it what it was: a terrorist attack that killed 20 people right there in New York City.

I never said “don’t blame Bush because his policies were the same.” I said give Bush some credit that after the first terrorist attack on American soil during his watch, he shifted his policy. That’s more than you can say for Bill Clinton. Attack after attack (see comment above) made absolutely no difference in Clinton’s policy regarding terrorism.

What’s “cute” is your “cake and eat it too” mindset regarding Bush. On the one hand, you seem to be blaming Bush for what he didn’t do to prevent terrorism before 9/11, and on the other, you seem to be angry that he has fought terrorism vigorously since then. Which shall it be? Shall we fight terrorism or not?

By Joel on Nov 16, 2004

(scrolls up a few comments)//Well, World, I’ll give you this much: up until 9/11, Bush’s policy toward terrorism was identical to Bill Clinton’s policy.//

//I said give Bush some credit that after the first terrorist attack on American soil during his watch, he shifted his policy.//

So you’re saying he didn’t know about the attack that happened while Clinton was in office? Why is it good that he changed his policy after the second attack happened? Wouldn’t it have been better before, if Clinton was such a fool for not changing policy, to not have an identical policy? Do you really think Clinton wouldn’t have changed policy after 911, or are you just clinging to your same old hero worship?

By Worldgineer on Nov 16, 2004

//Wouldn’t it have been better [if Bush had changed his policy before 9/11]?//

Do you remember what it was like before 9/11? Can you seriously envision any president creating a new cabinet position for homeland security, backing the Patriot Act, stepping up searches of Arabs at the airport and putting boots on the ground in Afganistan before 9/11 occurred? This wasn’t simply a matter of presidential mettle, it was a question of the will of the American people. Its tragic that it takes calamity to make us prepare for calamity, but there it is.

//Do you really think Clinton wouldn’t have changed policy after 911?//

We’ll never know. My own skepticism about the Clinton administration certainly led me to vote otherwise. It was Clinton who put up the information barrier between the FBI and our intelligence agencies. He might have changed his policy if he’d been president after 9/11, but I don’t like his policies in the era before 9/11, so I personally wouldn’t trust him. I’m sure he would’ve made some great speeches. I’m not at all sure he’d have been in Afganistan two months later.

//…or are you just clinging to your same old hero worship?//

Don’t mistake my intent here. I don’t endorce the war on terrorism just because its what my “hero” is doing. I approve of Bush in as much as I believe he has taken some good steps with regard to the war on terrorism. Could another president have done as well or better? Possibly, but I certainly don’t believe Kerry could have, and I don’t believe Clinton would have either. So given my choices, I forsook my usual Nader vote and went with W.

By Joel on Nov 16, 2004

My point is: How can you criticise Clinton, saying //The first time the World Trade Center was bombed was under Bill Clinton’s administration, in 1993. He did nothing.//, then defending Bush’s inaction (the [the world was a different place then] section)? The answer is that you have a clear double standard in place.

By Worldgineer on Nov 16, 2004

Not at all. Clinton had the wrong policy before and after the bombing in ‘93. Bush had the wrong policy before, and the right policy after the attack in ‘01.

By Joel on Nov 18, 2004