Why would anyone want this job (the presidency?) In the news today it was released that Bush was forced to make the decision as to whether to release the fighters to shoot down any airliner that flew towards Washington and was unresponsive. He gave the order.

What a decision to be faced with in the first months of your presidency! Hardly the decision you expect to have to make when you wake up in the morning and plan to talk to a bunch of schoolkids.

Considering that Bush signed hundreds of execution orders while governor of Texas, and liked to tell jokes about one woman on death row begging him not to kill her (he imitated her pleas mockingly in front of a reporter), I doubt he was overly disturbed by the idea. The man is used to killing.

The man is used to executing people who were found guilty of murdering others. That's not the same thing.

I have never heard him imitating a woman begging him not to kill her. I'm skeptical. For one, that doesn't sound like him, and for another, I doubt inmates found guilty of murder would have a chance to plead with the governor, himself.

Don't belittle this decision. Ultimately, though, his choice is whether to shoot down a plane, potentially saving thousands of lives, or not. If this order had been in effect on Tuesday -- shoot down any unresponsive plane -- the Twin Towers might still be standing.

Does that make it an easy decision? Not in the least.

'I have never heard him imitating a woman begging him not to kill her. I'm skeptical.'

He did; he said it directly to Tucker Carlson, who's a professional journalist; he wrote an article about it. It doesn't really have much to do with the issue at hand, but it happened.

"I have never heard him imitating a woman begging him not to kill her. I'm skeptical."

Don't be.

-Ron

The real link.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2525/talkmagclip.jpg

It will only work if you copy and paste it into your browser.

-Ron

Wow. Okay, I stand (sit) corrected.

To be fair: This person was convicted of double murder; if ever the death penalty is just (and that is neither here nor there, but I support it), it was in this case.

Also -- bear with me here -- this was obviously written by someone with no great love for Bush. The account of his "mocking" this prisoner could be exaggerated. I don't question, necessarily, the fact that the event took place, with Bush telling the tale of a prisoner pleading with him in an interview -- of course she's gonna plead. But, come on -- doesn't it seem feasible that a reporter who doesn't like him anyway might embellish some of the details to make him look worse than he rightfully should? It happens all the time.

I'm not saying that it's inconceivable that the story took place exactly as written; I'm saying that it's far less inconceivable that it was exaggerated, at least a little.

Tucker Carlson's a conservative, for reference; it's highly unlikely he exaggerated it at all. The conservative journalist community didn't expel him like they've done to others when they're said uncomfortable things, which is an indication of the respect level he has.

Copy of talk magazine article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/search-results/daily/nr080999.html

Not that I blame Bush; the Falwellesque christian community suddenly deciding the death penalty is a *bad* thing when applied to one of their own is comical enough I'd do the same thing. This is a perfect example of the sort of thing every one of us does, but we're horrified to see it in people we don't know personally, much less public officials.

Public sphere/private sphere ways we act, and all that. It nearly ran Bush's candidacy off the rails, though.

In the immortal words of Ari Fleisher:

"That's what Presidents do." Governors fry people for the greater good of society, Presidents blow people out of the sky for similar reasons. And if they're chimp-faced mongoloids like Bush, they do so in a state of supreme, Zen-like relaxation, perhaps even while snacking on bull testicles.

(See http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2001/01/11/cheapshots0110/ for confirmation of Bush-family bull testicle consumption. Just imagine, Shrub sittin' round the table, making his twin daughters eat bull balls under the watchful eye of their male role model.)

By the way, this may not be considered an appropriate time to bring this up, but did anyone else notice that Clarence Thomas delivered the eulogy for Solcitor General Ted Olsen's wife (who died in one of the plane crashes)? Note, Ted Olsen was the man who argued Bush's Florida election recount case in front of the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas spoke of Barbara as if she were a long-term personal friend. Conflict of interest, anyone?

"Conflict of interest, anyone? "

And Justice Stephens regularly plays golf with Gore.

"And if they're chimp-faced mongoloids like Bush"

Well, obviously Bush personally pissed in your corn flakes, since you've taken such a biased stance. It's obvious you can't think rationally about the guy.

I don't think even LBJ (who a number of people think may have been behind some real nasty stuff early in his political career) would have lightly taken on the decision to order an airline filled with people shot out of the air.

LBJ definitely would not. He was the man most responsible, after Martin Luther King, Jr., for getting the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Bills passed in the face of Southern hostility and congressional hand-wringing. He agonized over the troops in Vietnam in a way Nixon never did. He started the War on Poverty, a noble if misguided and ultimately ineffective attempt to better the nation and help people.

LBJ was a crude bastard, and a vicious infighting pol sometimes, but he also was a genuine sentimentalist and, dare I say it, something of a romantic.

Bob, you make a good point on LBJ. That guy may have been one of the most complex characters ever in American politics. I've got a couple of LBJ biographies lying around in my basement/library I need to dust off.

Just about any book on LBJ that doesn't complete hate him is hilarious. He dropped his pants to talk about his dick was bigger than any of the Vietnamese, once.

It's no surprise to me that they'd order any rogue planes shot down. Of course you'd have to do that.

What gets me are the damn fools in their private planes who defied the ban and flew anyway. We had one leave from a small St. Louis airport on Wednesday. The idiot was heading for Virginia, too. Couple of F-16s convinced him to land.

Unfortunate side-note to those flying private planes: A Tucson man crashes a plane into a garage of a home. He died at the scene.

http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/10917planecrash.html

Local news was all over it in minutes as well as local law enforecement and the fire department. The FBI was also there to investigate whether or not it was related to last Tuesday's incidents.

"chimp-faced mongoloids like Bush"

Well, someone's a class act!

I'm sorry, that was crass. I didn't mean to insult chimps or mongoloids by comparing them to George.

---

Quote:

Tucker Carlson's a conservative, for reference; it's highly unlikely he exaggerated it at all.

---

' Had it been written in a respectful manner, indicating an appreciation for Bush, and expressing shock over a crass comment, I think it would hold more validity.'

Exactly how many journalists would have a respectful manner of appreciation after hearing a policitian say that?

The Clinton/Reagan-inversion method's pretty useful here. Imagine either one of them said it, along with the commentary from the right and left, respectively.

---

Quote:

Exactly how many journalists would have a respectful manner of appreciation after hearing a policitian say that?

---

I don't think it's impossible; I think it's highly improbable. I was completely obsessed with the last presidential election, and not a single commentator that I'm aware of came forth to attempt to spin it. Fleischer, Bush's go-to-media guy at the time, was the only one to even attempt PR on it.

Here's an interesting analysis of the article in question, and the early Bush candidacy from NR: http://www.nationalreview.com/search-results/daily/nr080999.html

I see. Well, it does say that for some parts, the reporter probably mis-read the President.

Again, I don't know. But, reporters will say and do a lot of things to get attention and to help or hinder a candidate that they support or oppose, respectively.

Anyway, I have no way of knowing, so I'm not going to pick further...

>But, reporters will say and do a lot of things to get attention and to help or hinder a candidate that they support or oppose, respectively.

If Tucker said this happened, I believe him. He is a staunch supporter of many of Bush's ideas and policies and he is always quick to defend the President.

Murph writes:

--

"Again, I don't know. But, reporters will say and do a lot of things to get attention and to help or hinder a candidate that they support or oppose, respectively."

"Anyway, I have no way of knowing, so I'm not going to pick further..."

--

So, basically your policy is to discount as lies any journalism that is unflattering to politicians you admire? I'm sure Bush wishes all Americans were as blindly loyal as yourself.

"So, basically your policy is to discount as lies any journalism that is unflattering to politicians you admire? I'm sure Bush wishes all Americans were as blindly loyal as yourself."

LOL! This from Mister Unbiased! What a frikken hypocrite.

I didn't claim to be unbiased. However, my bias against Bush does not lead me to deny reality whenever it is convenient to my views. To continually dismiss a journalistically reported event -- i.e., Bush's mocking imitation of the pleas for mercy by a woman on death row -- when the subject of that report himself has not denied the truth of that event strikes me as living in a fantasy world.

I didn't say that I denied it...I just said that it wasn't inconceivable. I missed the story the first time around, and at this point in time, what difference does it make, really? He's already been elected.

Likewise, I find it disturbing that based on one report, you assume that Bush is "used to killing." If the story is 100% true, there is still a difference -- the woman on death row was convicted of a double murder. I find it ironic that she would plead for mercy when she gave her victims none. Perhaps Bush found the same irony. But to assume that, because he enforces the death penalty and has no mercy on those found guilty of killing others that he obviously has no heart and therefore "Why should he stress about shooting down a plane with a hundred innocent passengers on it?" is ludicrous.

Has Bush's grief over those killed in this tragedy meant nothing to you? If not, then you do "deny reality whenever it is convenient to your views" which is exactly what you accused me of doing.

Nice.

"Has Bush's grief over those killed in this tragedy meant nothing to you?"

I haven't seen him grieve. I've seen him smirking and acting completely oblivious, with a layer of pseudo-macho rhetoric pasted on top. When he was literally standing on top of a pile of bodies in New York City (addressing the firemen), he was practically joking with the crowd. He was smiling and soliciting cheers while standing on dead people.

Similarly, at the church service, he talked almost entirely of war and how we were going to get even. I didn't see any genuine grief.

Look at footage of Clinton in NYC versus footage of Bush with those firefighters. Clinton is obviously affected by the people around him, while Bush appears aloof. Bush is clueless.

>Perhaps Bush found the same irony.

That may be, but for Bush to mock a prisoner in the manner described by Tucker is simply indefensible.

I'm not saying that it was okay. If it happened as he described -- which it might have, might not -- then yes, that's a very bad thing. I understand why he would be ridiculed for it, and he certainly has brought it on himself.

I have seen Bush grieve. He hasn't shed as many tears publicly as Clinton perhaps would have, but I know that he's affected. (For what it's worth, I was fairly certain that Bush and the firefighter were standing on a platform, but I'm not 100% -- I'm sure you'll tell me that I'm wrong, but...)

At an rate, I'm finished with this discussion. I apologize for every getting involved. Trash Bush all you want -- obviously, he is inhuman, bereft of all feelings. Perhaps I am, too.

Mr. Crap, you have won this debate. Congratulations.

"Clinton is obviously affected by the people around him"

Oh yeah, there's Mr. Sincerity - the greatest actor we've ever had in office (including the professional actor.) Sheesh - you really ARE clueless.

For what it's worth,I think that a lot of Democrats tend to be whiney, snivelling little brats who can't handle not getting their way. We couldn't even impeach Clinton for lying under oath and you're this shaken up over one incident? Maybe you have your priorities backwards. If you're being as rude and disrespectful in posting your opinions, why shouldn't I be, too?

"We couldn't even impeach Clinton"

Actually -- we did impeach Clinton.

Personally I found the thing BullCrap was saying about standing on dead bodies pretty tasteless and horrible. If this "debate" keeps on going, we're going to have people coming up with worse things than what Dubya supposedly said.

Pardon, I meant remove him from office. And I wanted BullCrap to see what it's like to have uneducated, uncaring assumptions made about what he believees. I don't support making statements like he was making about anyone, Clinton included, and believe me when I say I didn't like him. But sometimes to make a point you have to break the rules.

Was Bush standing on a mass grave site or was he not? If he was, how is it outrageous for me to point this out? Bush was standing on a spot where there were hundreds of dead bodies and perhaps even survivors waiting to be saved under the rubble, smirking, smiling, and waving a bullhorn, shouting about how we were going to go kick ass on terrorists. In my opinion, his attitude was unreal. Who wants to hear about how we are going to go kill people when the man boasting as such is literally standing above dead bodies waiting to be recovered? He had no respect for his surroundings. Boasting and warmongering on top of a pile of corpses is sick.

"Actually -- we did impeach Clinton. "

And, in all fairness, and from a guy that isn't particularly liberal about a lot of things, the question he lied about never should have been asked. It was a strictly personal question, and strictly designed with no more purpose than to make the man look bad. I was in Europe when the furor over Clinton's lying about Lewinski was going on, and they all thought we were loons. To them, it was perfectly natural for a man to protect a woman by not divulging anything about their relations. Lying under oath was wrong. But putting that question to him at that time was even more wrong.

So far as Bush goes, I've seen him looking very emotional over the past week. If prior experience is any indicator, the man is no great actor. So I believe him.

Why are you even debating with a person named "Bullcrap," anyway?

---

Quote:

Why are you even debating with a person named "Bullcrap," anyway?

---

'And it wouldn't matter how much I liked the President; he shouldn't be able to get away with lying while under oath, about anything. That's how I feel. It makes a mockery of the American legal system, and that's not something that a President should be allowed to do.

In standard court proceedings, if a question is irrelevant, the defendant doesn't have to answer it -- but that doesn't give him the right the lie.'

However, this wasn't a standard court proceeding. For one thing, it was a civil case. The case was also, in lots of people's opinions, mine included, brought forth strictly for partisan political reasons, 20 years after the fact, with little or no evidence, what evidence existing in the first place conflicting with itself, and approved by an obviously partisan committee that took jurisdiction of the case away from the original judge for no justifiable legal reason.

Clinton lied. However, I consider it an entirely human, and practically expectedd, "failing" to lie about cheating on your wife when backed into a perjury trap in the situation I've detailed.

To drag this back around to the topic so far: would you be horrified when one of your friends screwed up and made a joke about a death row inmate begging for her life? Would you be horrified if the same friend lied about cheating on his wife in court in an unrelated civil case brought specifically to fish for things to prosecute the friend for?

How about the President, for the two above?

There you go: Murph and I respectively providing the two opinions of the case in the U.S. ;0

But, you know Jason, if this "friend" of mine were proven guilty of perjury, you can bet that there would be a stiff punishment.

If the President -- who is supposed to up-hold the law first and foremost, as the very figurehead of our country -- makes the same mistake, being very, VERY aware of law and paid to protect it, the punishment should be more severe, not non-existent.

Anyway, that's how I feel. And I think I'd feel the same way regardless of who the President was.

'But, you know Jason, if this "friend" of mine were proven guilty of perjury, you can bet that there would be a stiff punishment.'

Maybe, maybe not. Perjury in civil cases is apparently prosecuted less than half the time. I can't even imagine a situation where someone would be prosecuted for lying about cheating on their wife. I wouldn't want Reagan in the same situation either, and I loathe the bastard.

I dunno. I think the best way to sum my feelings is this:

It infuriates me when cops speed. (I'm not talking about in uniform, in their car, although if they're not running with lights and sirens on, the law still applies to them, too.) But, everyday, cops speed, by a much greater margin than most of us are likely to. Their logic is a.) I've been trained to drive in high-speed pursuits -- I'm more able to keep control of my vehicle than your average joe, and b.) No one's gonna write me a ticket -- I'm a cop. I hate this. We pay them to uphold the law. They should be more likely to follow it -- even the "little" laws -- than everyday people.

It's so frickin' hypocritical. I hate that.*

*My father-in-law is a cop, so I'm allowed to make statements like this!!

Now, extrapolate this to the Presidency -- the highest office in the land. He should *never* break laws.

As far as the Bush-bashing goes, I though this article by Andrew Sullivan summed up GWB's performance remarkably well.

An excerpt:

"And his emotions have been perfectly in tune with the mass of the country. Some have criticized him for tearing up in the Oval Office while recalling the tragedy. Personally, I found it deeply moving. It was real emotion -- not fake. It undergirded his resolve to fight back. In this, he is the antithesis of Clinton -- a man who used emotion for effect and idled while our national security weakened."

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/18/bush/index.html

Thanks, Bruce. I agree completely.

Clinton just cried when the polls indicated that it was time for him to cry.

I don't need my President to cry. I'll assume that any American was moved the 9/11 events. I don't care how Bush or Clinton feels or felt. I'm interested in what they're going to do or did.

Heh. I was just making a point -- and, for what it's worth, I agree, Mark. Everyone was affected by what happened -- anyone that says someone wasn't is probably only kidding themselves.

The decisions that lie ahead really are tough ones. We'll see what Bush does.

That being said -- Clinton (in my opinion) just told us what he thought we wanted to hear. He was so fake. I don't feel like Bush is like that.

'Now, extrapolate this (police speeding) to the Presidency -- the highest office in the land. He should *never* break laws.'

Should he be held to a higher ethical standard than the rest of the country, or the same? Regular citizens aren't expected to be perfect, especially on fuzzy areas like this.

>I don't feel like Bush is like that.

Every President tells us what we want to hear. That's the nature of the game. You want to hear the truth? Donate a million bucks to the party in power and get a face-to-face meeting.

As for Clinton's impeachment, I agree with Kazz. The questions he had to face should never have been asked. He was hounded for eight years and there was never any evidence to support the "charges" that prompted the investigation to begin with. Clinton often rubbed me wrong way and I disagreed with many of his policy decisions (and I'm a card-carrying member of the Democratic party), but the man didn't deserve the treatment he received.

I think so, yes. As far as laws are concerned. I would like to say that morally, he should be "held to a higher standard," too, but I know that's not realistic, or fair.

But, yes, he should legally be held to a higher standard, because he is trained in the law and paid to uphold it. In essence, he *is* the embodiment of the law.

Maybe it's a bit strong to say that he should never break laws, but only a bit strong. As the figurehead of our country, he should be a thousand times more conscious of the law than the everyday man.

Hmm...That last post was in response to Jason's, not William's, for the record...

I don't know if the questions should have been asked or not. I don't know what evidence they did or didn't have. I do think that the American people have the right to know anything about the President that they desire to know, because he's the symbol of our country to the rest of the world. And, I think that regardless of whether or not the question should have been asked, he has no excuse for lying under oath, and the President, of all people, should know better.

The law's the law -- and he should be more bound to the law then the rest of us, because it *gives* him a job.

"And, I think that regardless of whether or not the question should have been asked, he has no excuse for lying under oath, and the President, of all people, should know better."

I agree, but lying about an embarrassing sex act in a civil suit shouldn't be grounds for removing the President from office. That lawsuit should have been put off until Clinton was out of office.

Anyway, he was impeached and the Senate voted against removing him. It's open and shut at this point. The law was followed.

Under Clinton, we started to pay down the national debt for the first time in decades. It'll be interesting to see if Bush can continue to do that. Even Greenspan advocated going after the debt before making tax cuts.

I suppose you're right; it makes precious little difference, now.

I'm not sure that I agree that it wasn't grounds for removal -- a man who will lie under oath about that is most likely going to lie while not under oath about anything -- I think it was a sign that he couldn't be trusted. (Not that I think that there are very many politicians who can be trusted, but that's no excuse...)

At any rate...There's nothing that can be done about it, now, is there?

What we did learn from the whole Clinton escapade was that we shouldn't have been surprised about the Supreme Court's later Florida decision.

Here we have the highest court in the land claiming, with a straight face, that spurrious politically motivated lawsuits (Judicial Watch) dealing with ancient sexual escapades (Paula Jones) wouldn't affect the President's ability to govern and shouldn't be put off until he leaves office. That left the gates to Hell wide open.

Bush lucked into a war, in some ways, because we know he's got an entire cheerleading squad and a planeload of Bolivian marching powder in his biographical closet. It was only a matter of time before somebody from his past figured out how to pick up some attention from the press and some pocket cash from the political opposition. Just like Paula Jones did.

'But, yes, he should legally be held to a higher standard, because he is trained in the law and paid to uphold it. In essence, he *is* the embodiment of the law.

Maybe it's a bit strong to say that he should never break laws, but only a bit strong. As the figurehead of our country, he should be a thousand times more conscious of the law than the everyday man.'

Final post: He's the President, not Judge Dredd. ;0

I lied: this is actually my last post.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679765204/qid=1001004348/sr=2-1/ref=sr_8_3_1/104-3263736-2376706

I read this a while back. In a large part, the question that shouldn't have been asked (did you sleep with Monica) was asked because sexual harrassment law has gone haywire and come up with a reason to ask it.

It's an interesting book.

I'm not sure which disturbs me more -- Clinton sticking a cigar up Monica's woo-woo, or Bush liking to eat bull testicles. Can't we have a normal President?

Mark Asher wrote "woo-woo" to refer to female genitalia, that disturbs me most of all.

I think that people who put themselves in positions that historically draw a lot of attention, such as politicians and actors, need to realize that their actions, both past and present, will be under a great deal of scrutiny. Like it or not, they know this when they enter the field of politics or acting. They should remember this when they're in office.

"Mark Asher wrote "woo-woo" to refer to female genitalia, that disturbs me most of all."

What's wrong with woo-woo? That's where I like to park my choo-choo.

(I also have a cow-catcher on the front, but don't let my wife know I said that.)

Okay, so, what are we, now -- like, four??

I guess that's one of the results of having kids, huh, Mark?

"need to realize that their actions, both past and present, will be under a great deal of scrutiny."

Like cocaine use or maybe drunk driving, Jenny?

-DormOnkey

"Like cocaine use or maybe drunk driving, Jenny?"

Boo-yah!

Just goes to show that moral self-righteousness really doesn't go over very well in politics.

People in glass houses, stones, all that stuff...

-Tom

Yeah, but being president is like moving into a glass house, then being told you can never leave again. Even ex-presidents would come under sensational headlines if they strayed. Think what would happen if a Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter "hot lesbian love triangle" (almost worth running for office, that)were discovered. It'd probably end up being taught in 10th grade social studies within the next year...

Yes, like cocaine use or maybe drunk driving. I'm not defending any President's actions here. I'm saying that they know before they even throw their hat in the ring that things like this will happen. I have no problem with things like that coming up from any candidate's past. What you and I have to decide is if we can still vote for them in good moral conscience. If you're looking for a fight over whether one President is better than another, you're not going to get it from me.

I hold no actions of any President against them, if the actions are committed before they were in office. It doesn't matter.

Once they're in office, though, like kazz said, they have moved into a glass house, and they need to be keenly aware of that. The whole world is watching their actions, and to every other country, they repesent the US. Thus, every American has reason to judge their actions while they're in office, no matter how personal.

I dunno, it may be selfish, but that seems to be a great American trait. I have to admit I think President Clinton did a good job overall. His political interests and initiatives tended to jibe with mine. I don't think it's any coincidence that a conservative judicial action group with an axe to grind were the guys behind Paula Jones.

It was just another tool to get somebody else in power who has political interests and initiatives that don't jibe with mine.

They suspected there was smearable dirt on The President not directly related to a sexual harrasment suit (notably the first one pursued by these guys - they're generally interested in arguing why sexual harrassment isn't such a big deal). They wanted sworn depositions to get it out into the open. This is standard practice in these cases to establish a pattern of behavior. It also makes for great columns in the Wall Street Journal.

Clinton did what any lawyer would do under the circumstances. He parsed his language to cover his big, dumb, behind. He knew what they were after. Unfortunately he didn't consider how far they were willing to go or how much political power was backing them up from the sidelines.

The President walked right into a worse situation than the one he was facing. Potential perjury charges about Monica Lewinsky.

That's all this was about. It was an attempt to get Clinton and a naive, clumsy, attempt by Clinton to outmaneuver his harrassers. Period. Anything else is rhetoric that's shaped by the political spinning of one side or the other.

And it set a precident that would have bitten Bush too, sooner or later.

"There isn't a historical precedent to put the words in the mouth of the President..."

Sorry to throw that in here, but I always though that was Sting's most awkwardly brilliant lyrics.

(It's from Russians if anyone is curious)
-Andrew

>I hold no actions of any President against them, if the actions are committed before they were in office. It doesn't matter.

Charles Manson for President!