If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it make a sound?
If the main media don't cover a pro-Bush event/item does it make a sound?

AWW: I'll bet plenty of small-town newspapers in OH (and much of the country, even) will report this. And that's what really matters...

I actually found my curmudgonly old eyes welling up at this.

Then a student knocked on the door and I had to put my game face back on.

I'll be impressed when he shows up at a funeral for one of the hundreds of soldiers he's gotten killed, or when he shows up in a ward to visit some of the thousands his policies have seriously wounded or maimed.

This, this is pathos on the cheap.

Absurd slander, Mr. Copold. Scroll down only a few stories to 'Jogged Memories.' The President visits wounded soldiers quite often. Presidents don't go to individual funerals, however. Never have, as a general rule.

Derek:

Do you think maybe the President should have sat Ashley down for a good chat on root causes?

Lovely story.

Oh, great Brian, he showed up for a cheesecake jog. I'm hardly impressed. How 'bout putting in an appearance at a ward at Bethesda? How 'bout taking some time off the campaign to attend a memorial service at a flag-draped coffin, you know, the ones he tried to hide from the press? (As did Clinton, most shamefully, too). I guess those scenes just wouldn't make for good press.

Peter,

He doesn't have to explain root causes. He just ought to give a little more time to those he helped kill with his monumental incompetence.

Actually, I'll take some of my words back, Brian. He did show up in 2002 at a hospital for Afghanistan, before that war went into the sh*t. He has not done so for the Iraqi veterans to my knowledge.

Derek, he visits wounded soldiers all the time, including at Bethesada:
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/8_03/national_news/21283-1.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/apr03/132905.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/18/bush/
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/12/MNGM463OM11.DTL
And that was from roughly 3 minutes of googling. Are you incredibly uninformed, or just dishonest?

If he went to a funeral, he'd be attacked (rightly) for politicizing it.

Mr. Copold: Google is a wonderful thing. I see Timothy beat me to a list of citations, though.

Derek --

Factual issues aside (how many commiserations he has had in public or private that you ignore or are not aware of), the biggest issue I had with your first comment is that there is a difference between civilians killed by terrorism and soldiers killed in action. The formers are victims, the latter (current Left dogma notwithstanding) are not. Victims deserve commiseration, soldiers validation that their lives and their deaths had meaning.

Your second post makes it clear you believe they are both victims; and from your opinions I have no doubt you would care more embarassing the President than helping him make sure that our soldiers' accomplishments are better understood and approciated and that their deaths have meaning.

I'll plead guilty to having been ignorant of these visits.

I apologize to all on that count, including President Bush.

However, the claim of "politicizing" funerals is hogwash, as he clearly doesn't mind politicizing 9/11. He could certainly show up at Dover and see a few of the anonymous caskets as they come in.

I don't believe our Mr. Copold would approve of anything President Bush does. He's the sort who, if Dubya announced that the Sun had risen in the East, would immediately claim that it couldn't possibly have happened that way, or if it did, it was a prearranged photo-op.

I was dubious about President Bush at first; he seemed a little light intellectually, and political dynasties have scared me since John Quincy Adams. But he's been as good as his word on everything (including things on which I disagreed with him, but a promise is a promise), has been a capable and effective war leader, and time after time has displayed sincerity and humanity under conditions that did not support the claim of a PR ploy.

Character comes first. Bush in 2004.

Hey Derek,

I did a quick search on Westnews and found that Bush visited wounded Iraq and Afghanistand veterans on:

March 19, 2004 (somewhere in D.C. for the 1 year anniversary of the war)
Decemeber 19, 2003 (at Walter Reed)
November 28, 2003 (in Iraq)

This search took about a minute and these were the from the first ten articles, I didn't bother to look any further.

That's probably not enough for you. Then again, I'm not sure anything will satisfy you.

MG,

The soldiers died because of his policies, that makes him responsible. It doesn't necessarily make them victims. Of course, technically, he's also responsible for 9/11 as it happened on his watch, but he refused to fire anyone on that score.

As to Bush embarassing himself, he does that just fine on his own without my help. My main concern is that we leave this sh*tpile with the least amount of American deaths possible and start constructing a realistic foreign policy built around defending our country, not trying to proselytize the rest of the world with guns based on some neocon theology.

Chuck,

The only thing that'll satisfy me is our troops getting the hell out of that sh*thole and washing our hands of the region. If the lunatics there want to kill themselves for a pile of rocks that ain't worth the water it takes to piss on it, let'em. It ain't worth the lives of perfectly good Americans.

Derek: Boy, good thing those lunatics are only going to kill themselves. Imagine if they got it into their heads to attack New York and Washington!

Francis,

I strongly supported Bush in 2000, and stuck with him up to Afghanistan, which was a righteous war.

I turned against, however, him because he's betrayed every conservative principle. He's launched an imperial war in Iraq, which had zip to do with 9/11, when he promised a more humble foreign policy. He's increased non-defense government spending more than the Democrats, including pumping up the NEA and the Education Department. He's offered amnesty, not once but twice, to lawbreaking illegal aliens. And he's created a new Leviathan agency with unprecedented police powers.

I mean really, with Republicans like Bush, who needs Democrats?

John,

The only reason those lunatics attacked New York and Washington is that our immigration laws under this and the previous president have been looser than size XXXL t-shirt on Kate Moss.

We're starting a collection so that Derek can go back on his meds.

Derek: The 'only reason'? You cannot possibly believe that. Imigration policies could be deemed a contributing factor. But what brought down the WTC were the hoorrible acts of very determined, evil men with hatred for you and me in their hearts did that, sir.

Taranto at OpinionJournal adds this line to the story:

'Faulkner later said: "I'm a pretty cynical and jaded guy at this point in my life. But this was the real deal. I was really impressed. It was genuine and from the heart." '

Obviously, John, they don't like us. The point is, they wouldn't be able to do anything about their hate if they would have been prevented from coming here in the first place. They lived and studied here for months with nary a question mark raised.

Actually, OJ, considering the delusions you push here, maybe you should consider cutting back on your "meds."

John:

Derek, who is justifiably dubious about government effectiveness, nonetheless imagines he could make our border impermeable and not limit freedom to any significant degree. And that these suicidal psychos would have then given up. The Easter bunny whispered it all in his ear.

Of course, technically, he's also responsible for 9/11 as it happened on his watch, but he refused to fire anyone on that score.

Of course, technically, I hold the terrorists who planned and executed 9/11 responsible for 9/11.

pchuck:

No, no, no, if you hold them responsible you empower them. If you hold yourself responsible you maintain the delusion that you control them. It's very important to many people to do so.

And, I suppose, we can thank Santa Clause for giving you the idea that we can control everyone everywhere all the time by democratizing the world at the point of a bayonet.

Defending our borders is far more realistic.

Well, obviously, chuck, their responsible for their actions. I never denied that. You're creating a strawman argument. However, protecting our borders is the responsibility of the federal government, and specifically the president of the United States.

If a murder could have been prevented by some cop not spending all his time guarding the Dunkin' Donuts, don't you think the mayor should think about firing him? It doesn't mean the cop committed the crime, but he was negligent. Obviously someone was asleep on 9/11. If not the President, then it was one of his underlings, yet no one has been called to account. Doesn't that bother you a bit?

You bet, General Maginot....

Actually, the Maginot Line did its job just fine. The problem was that the French didn't finish the job and extend it to the Channel. Had they done so, instead of relying on Belgian and Dutch neutrality, the history of World War II would have been quite different.

The alternatives for 'defending' our country:

1) prostrate ourselves and placate the Islamic world

2) fry Mecca & Medina

3) close our borders

4) slow and steady fight against terror, with no immediate results, and lots of carping

Choose one (maybe two).

There are murders every day and no one gets fired. You can't stop every crime. You try to change the climate that breeds crime. Think of Iraq as robust broken window policing.

Jim,

We should opt for number three, if not immediately, as a goal to attain within this decade.

Obviously, you can't stop every crime, but rather big ones with glaring examples of negligence deserve to be addressed. 9/11 is one such example.

"The Maginot Line did a fine job" nothing more really need be said.

Security worked exactly as well on 9-11 as at the Maginot line. After all, they didn't get guns on board. You just can never win on defense.

Of course nothing more need be said. If the Maginot Line had extended to the Channel, the Blitzkrieg would have shattered. I'm right. The Germans knew it, too, which is why they were forced to flank it. Switzerland had an equivalent defense, except they covered all their borders and so Hitler was forced to leave them alone.

They all overstayed their visas and were never followed up. They shouldn't have been in the country at all, let alone getting onto planes. Immigration dropped the ball.

There are almost 300 million people here--how are going to track them all at all times? Implants?

Well, letting in more people higgeldy-piggeldy is hardly the answer, Orrin. At any rate, these 19 came in through the front door and were filed in our system. Yet nobody seems to have followed up on them.

So they'd have attacked on 9-11-2000--big deal?

Yeah, whatever.

Hear from Ted rall latelty Derek?

What a nice story. I cry easily, so of course I was sitting here at my computer with tears running down my face.

No one mentioned the expression on the Presidents face. If that's not pain near to tears then I'm beyond interpretating emotional response. Photo Op? I don't think so. That's just a pained human expression of deep compassion. Good Lord the crap this man has to take from ...

Y'all shouldn't pick on Derek for being a nativist. Nativism is a venerable and benignly ineffectual American tradition. Rather, pick on him for: a faux naive model of terrorism, in which the terrorists just happened on a plan that found its way through our defenses, rather than crafting a plan to take advantage of the unavoidable weaknesses of our defenses; and pretending that the realm of possibility includes a policy of prohibiting middle class foreigners from paying to attend school here (a policy not even the USSR adopted) along with perfect enforcement of visa laws.

Surely the DHS is a response to the laxness in security and miscommunication between different government departments which contributed to 9/11?

And the Maginot Line didn't achieve what it was set out to accomplish: protect France from invasion. In that sense it's a failure even if the blame is more fairly placed on France's poor attempts at defense via conventional means.

Finally I don't see how closing borders will prevent attacks on America if the enemy's still out there, stil able to infiltrate whatever defences America puts up and able to freely attack American interests, assets and citizens abroad.

For example how would closing borders have prevented terrorists from attacking a Planet Hollywood restaurant in South Africa?

Ali --

The beauty of the argument is two-fold: it argues that we can and should hermetically seal ourselves off from the rest of the world, which all Americans find attractive; and, as it will never be tried, it can never be disproven.

Hey, genecis, [Self-Sodomize]*.

I spent my time in the service. Don't compare me to that slimeball.

[Editor's Note: Derek, your increasingly lunatic ravings are amusing, but the profanity isn't. Kindly cease. OJ]

David,

We could certainly screen those who come here, and there were a number of large visible red flags hovering over these "gentlemen." Further, it's not a matter of not having a "perfect" system of visa regulation, but having one at all. We simply don't enforce the already too lax immigration laws we have in this country.

As for nativism, that's a strawman. I'm not saying we shouldn't ever have immigration, only that it needs to be tightened rationally. And actually a very restrictive policy was more than effect during the middle of this century. We kept our immigration rates rational and during that time the country moved to unprecedented unity. It beats the multicultural hellholes we're creating these days by letting everybody and their third aunt in.

Ali,

The failure of the Maginot Line was in it's incompleteness, not its conception. That's the point. Switzerland had an effective Maginot Line and warded off invasion.

Closing our borders would obviously not be 100% effective, as no measure is, but, conjoined with a serious hunt for Bin Laden, it would sure more doable and more preventitive than going into every country in the Middle East and making more and more enemies, which is what we are doing now.

David,

Pursuing our own interests has been done, and its been done quite successfully. We did it during the 19th century, and the Swiss have done it quite well for centuries themselves. Obviously, we can't imitate these models perfectly, due to geography and other constraints, but it is a workable model and worthy goal to aim for.

the Swiss? Aim high!

That's right. In this world it doesn't get much better than that.

chocolate and the cuckoo clock and us to guarantee their safety.

The failure of the Maginot Line was in it's incompleteness, not its conception.

The Maginot Line also failed because it was a First World War strategy. The Germans went beyond that with their new style of warfare. To think that a completed Maginot Line would have save France is a bit too narrow-minded.

The Swiss have always guaranteed their own safety by maintaining a vigourous defense and minding their own business. Indeed, we're in a better position to be more Swiss than the Swiss themselves.

No, the Maginot Line was suited to World War II. It could blunt a lightning attack, which was exactly what the Germans relied on for success. Had it been completed, France would not have fallen because it could have marshalled its armed forces, which alone were more than what the Germans had. It would have also allowed British forces time and space to manuever and marshal.

So if France were more like Fort Eben Emael, then the Germans would not have conquered them?

And Hitler would have just had to forget about war.

The Swiss defense was collaboration.

Mr Copold,

Even if OBL is found and dealt with, wouldn't he just be eventually replaced by someone of the same views and motivations?

Isn't what Bush doing by trying to shove the Arab world at least a little way in the direction of freedom and democracy somewhat more of a long-term response to the problem?

Sure it would help if the US hadn't supported unpopular Arab governments for decades but Bush has got to deal with the situation as it is now.

It is no doubt a neo-con fantasy to believe that we can bring democracy to the world at gunpoint, but I would laugh with joy to have Kim Jung Il wiggling on my bayonet, even if NKo doesn't become democratic.

Michael:

Gunpoint is a rather minor part of the globalization process, all of which is American cultural imperialism.

oj:

The Swiss defense was *not* collaboration, anymore than US tropps engaged in routine war crimes in Vietnam. And the source of the lies is the same. The Swiss have been roundly and thoroughly slandered by the Left ever since WWII, just like we have.