Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > September > 11 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USHow does angry conversation end?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Five year ago this morning, I was at a Metro Atlanta Red Cross planning conference, seated near the front, ready to make a presentation that was minutes away. The giant screen before us went to CNN. We sat there, with the rest of America, and watched in horror as the plane hit the Twin Tower.
A few people left the room. I continued to watch the screen. Minutes passed. The scene of destruction, and the second plane, marked this moment, just as the JFK assassination had decades earlier, as one America would never forget. The planning conference halted. I rose and saw a nearly empty room behind me.
Another image, days later, from a blood-donation center where Metro Atlantans had gathered by the hundreds to do one of the few things they could think of that might help the suffering. In particular, I remember a young college-age woman whose thin, frail, underweight body struck me as having no blood to spare, standing in line to offer her blood.
That feeling lingered for weeks. Everybody wanted to do good. For weeks and maybe for as long as four or five months, partisanship stood aside. But then something happened. The sniping returned, and with it the finger-pointing and the bitterness of the 2000 presidential election. It returned and now has grown to the point where everybody talks and nobody listens.
I’ll admit it. Often I read other commentators whose views I know well and say dismissively: “Yea, yea, Bush bad. No WMD. So get out of Iraq and elect Democrats.” For me, the test is whether they ever supported the war on terror or whether they saw it as 9/11 police action that diverted attention and resources from efforts to build the welfare state.
For the left and the right, these questions on the 5th anniversary: How does this angry conversation end? How does the debate move beyond the Bush-lied vs. stay-the-course exchange? And what have we learned about ourselves and our nation in the five years since that awful morning? By the way, where were you then?
Comments
By Mid-South Philosopher
September 11, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
He remains free!
In some cave or hideaway in Afghanistan or, more likely, in the lawless region of Pakistan, Usama bin-Laden, the murderer of the innocent, remains at-large.
Periodically, he and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, taunt the United States and the western world with audio and (as late as today) video messages. Usama’s age is beginning to show, and I can only hope that the ravages of arthritis, kidney failure, and other maladies that come with the passage of birthdays have attacked his body.
He suffers not from heart disease. One must have a heart before it can be diseased!
In the days after September 11, 2001, I was angry. I was filled with hatred and blood lust. The desire for vengeance was almost overpowering. I dreamed of exacting revenge from the Islamist dung. I imagined the delight of introducing Usama to an experience somewhere between “Apache” justice and “Inquisition” questioning techniques. How satisfying it would be to coax him into death as the experienced lover draws the virgin into the height of passion at an agonizing snail’s pace.
All of that is passed now. Neither Usama nor his minion, al-Zawahiri, are worth my hate. They are but counterfeit human beings…at best, low class Neanderthals. When they are captured, they merit swift, summary execution. To dwell upon thoughts of evil against them, only serves to destroy our own psyches.
Much remains to be done. Regardless of our political persuasions, one thing is certain. The “Islamist fanatics” (the noun “Islamist” being used as an adjective) are bent upon our destruction. We will contend with that for the remainder of our lives. We must not “cut and run” in the fray, but once committed to combat, we must not “show mercy” until the enemy’s ability to strike back is utterly destroyed. It will be a daunting task for Presidents of whatever party in the decades to come, but the alternative is to submit to seventh century Islam. For freedom loving people, that is NOT an option.
For al-Qaida, the most effective punishment that can be inflicted upon them is that, as they are captured or killed, their bodies be destroyed in the presences of swine (it is a Muslim superstition, so why not make use of it) and their names blotted out, so that neither trace nor remembrance may remain among humankind of such vile and impudent dogs.
As for Usama, I doubt not that a fourth seat has been prepared in the lowest region of Hell. Cassius, Brutus, and Judas await his arrival. It is my hope that he is not delayed in his journey.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this
Good morning, all, great questions today, Jim, and my compliments to MidSouth, @@, Jeff Sherwood (whose work I have not previously seen), and Larry Stanley (also unknown to me) for brilliant essays over the weekend.
The angry conversation is unlikely to end – much as it did not in the 1970s – until the angry ones are totally defeated by their worst enemy. In the 1970s, of course, that was Ronald Reagan, whose 1980 victory first frustrated, then totally unhinged the left. Reagan’s defeat of communism shut them up for about 10 years, the most peaceful 10 years of my life. (I do not ignore the magnificent works by Lady Thatcher and Pope John Paul here – Reagan always gets sole blame within the US left for destruction of their icon.) The corollary to my theory is that the debate will never move beyond the Left’s new Great Lie (i.e., “Bush lied” – anyone with a reasonable comprehension of the definition knows better) until the end of the war on terrorism, probably 50 years hence. As to what we have learned, we now know there are more leftists in America opposed to the war in Iraq than there are Iraqis opposed to the war in Iraq. There are more leftists in America opposed to the war in Iraq than there are Iranians opposed to the war in Iraq. The brilliant Dorothy Rabinowitz had a great quote over the weekend: “…It is true that there is always a Churchill quote. ‘The malice of the wicked is reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous.’ “And who are the virtuous in our time? The American Civil Liberties Union and all its minions, and everyone who has contributed to the idea that a proper focus on people entering our country that selects is somehow a terrible violation, and everything else that has tied American security and our boundaries. You know, on 9/11, two of the hijackers entered, one without a photograph, and why was he allowed to enter? Because he was a Middle Easterner, and people were worried. So we ask for eye on the ball. That is it.”
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this
One other note, the brilliant Christopher Hitchens - whose work reminds me for the world of our friend TFTT - has a great essay today, mildly chastizing our national myopia. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008926
By Jim Wooten
September 11, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this
Morning Philosopher, jbmlaw and others to come. I too enjoyed the weekend postings, but since it was a weekend to celebrate a 39th wedding anniversary, my attentions were occupied elsewhere. Trust you all had a good one. (And yes, Hitchens and TFTT do have similar styles, both very energetic and entertaining.)
By Harold
September 11, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this
Al Qaeda: 3,000 American deaths, once.
Motor vehicles: 42,000+ American deaths EVERY YEAR.
Our priorities are grossly misplaced: You are in far more danger from your car than from Osamba Bin Laden.
And we can really just add the Al Qaeda caused deaths to the car total.
Al Qaeda is a branch of our “private motor vehicles on public roads” transportation system, no better or worse than the DOT.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this
Congratulations, 39 years is extraordinary today. Mrs. jbmlaw will tell everyone that, of our 29 years, she has had 10 of the best years of her life!
By Van
September 11, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this
I had just gotten to work, settling in for just another day at work. After a bit, I noticed that the noise level in the office had dropped to almost a low murmur. Standing up, I looked around and swa nearly everyone in the breakroom. People were spilling into the hallway.
When I got into the breakroom, I saw the imagages, the horror. I was shocked, numbed.
Latter that day, I was angry, mad wanting the people responsible to die a slow and horror filled death.
After 5 years we have learned much about a little know but growing so-called religion. Were most religions we know teach love and understanding, - do unto other as you would have them treat you. This is a common thread in most major religion. one stands out as being just the opposite. It believes it is okay to kill people if they have a different religion. The believe it is okay to lie as long as their heart does not waver. They believe that it is okay to force people to convert to their religion at the point of a gun.
We know who did it, we know they will try it again, we know what they want and they do not negotiate.
Today, I am not angry, I am resolved. If I was 30 years younger, I would enlist - again.
If there is a candidate that does not want to make it difficult for these slime balls, I will not vote for them. I will vote, regardless of party affiliation, for the candidate that will make it difficult for the cowards to live. Does it matter which country they come from - no, is Iraq part of the war on terror, yes, do I want UBL captured, no, I want him dead. Do I want terrorists captured, no, just dead.
By Mid-South Philosopher
September 11, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this
Harold,
Your analogy is well-taken.
In both instances…bin-Laden’s assaults and automobile fatalities…our success depends upon how “WE” “meet” the challenges and “handle” the situations. If we “drive” defensively, there is a greater probability that we will arrive safely. If we “act” defensively there is a greater probability that we will prevent future attacks. There is no sure-fire guarantee in either event, but the statistics are more in our favor.
By Harold
September 11, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this
If any ‘Merican really wants to honor those who died on 9/11/2001, he should park his car and start taking the bus. Oh but that is different and inconvenient. Instead we shall perform this tacky annual roadside memorial on a national scale. “Oh we are all so sorry about those people who died, but not actually sorry enough to take any personal action to prevent future deaths.” The government is killing lots of people on our behalf, so they must be fixing the problem. Right? Harold says they are addressing the symptoms with their bullets and bombs, but not the problem.
By Mid-South Philosopher
September 11, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
A “tip of the topper” to “Mrs.” Jim. She must be a “saint!” LOL!
By Harold
September 11, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this
Gracias, Mid-South.
However, Harold dislikes “defensive driving.”
Harold would prefer “cooperative driving.” When drivers cooperate, nobody crashes and EVERYONE arrives earlier.
“Defensive driving” education is the root cause of our road rage “epidemic.” Harold prefers to call it a “result,” though, not an “epidemic.”
By sct
September 11, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this
The problem is Bush was driving drunk again and he careened off the road and smashed into Iraq.
By Harold
September 11, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
For war validation purposes, it is not allowed to mention Iraq without an “and Afghanistan.”
Bush smashed his car into “Iraq and Afghanistan.”
By Sacred Zero
September 11, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
I watched The Today Show in bed on 911. The second plane hit. Some commentator said it “seemed deliberate”. Bryant Gumbel asked, “Why do you say that?”
Then Katie Courik started the, “This is just like a movie” mantra that she repeated over and over for days. (and weeks).
When Bush spoke later, I derived comfort from his aplomb. “Make no mistake, we will bring the terrorists, and those that harbor the terrorists, to justice”. His voice rang straight and firm. At last someone was making sense. He seemed like Lincoln himself. I knew the right man was in the white house. In my stupor, I saw a beautiful president.
I was so unable to grasp 911, that for hours and hours that day, I assumed the planes were empty and had been stolen from those jet graveyards you see on tv, and somehow refitted and flown.
I still cant believe how those 911 widows are profiting from and enjoying their husband’s deaths. Ann Coulter needs to speak at the sacred Ground Zero today.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
Yes Jim,
Elect Democrats for accountability.
Plain and simple.
CBS 9/11 documentary last night was the best documentary I have ever seen. Two brothers with cameras filming with the firefighters. One was inside the tower when the other collapsed and outside close to the last collapsed tower. Amazing.
No spin and no political bs .
We were united with the rest of the world until w decided to invade Iraq. OBL and the people responsible for the 9/11 attack are free and able to do it again.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
September 11, 2001 where was I? Stumbling out of bed about 9:00am, extremely groggy from a weekend where I had seen more than my fair share of the Makers Mark, and three days of one helluva pity party. I had been laid off by the company I was with the Friday morning before, and had been told the company was going Chapter 11. Stock options worthless. 401K decimated. Severance? Very little. This had been my first job in sales management after a pretty successful sales career the previous 7 years. Needless to say I was dejected and wondering what my next move would be. Probably another sales gig. In this economy? Oh boy.
But everythign changed that mornign when I flipped on the TV. I sat in the kitchen in disbelief and cried as I watched those towers fall. The firemens faces. Unreal. I began calling my family to see if they were watching, which they of course were. None of us could talk. We jsut sat there o the phone and watched. And cried.
What happened over the next twelve months changed the course of my life. The patriotism and courage and never die attitude that we saw throughout the country, in government, on the streets, changed me in ways I cant even explain. Those events are what gave me the courage to start my company, and be my own boss. No fear. Even in the midst of a horrible economic downturn (that would get MUCH worse before it got better) I was pig headed and sure of myself. We saw some tough times but it worked out and we made it through it. (Just as the President promised us the morning of Sept 11).
Its sad to see the state of the country today. How our leaders went from singing together on the steps of Congress to under cutting thier opponents at every opportunity. From praising our President for his toughness and courage to slandering him publically and even on foreign soil for those same characteristics.
The only way this sickening behavior from the left will end is with a Bush impeachment. Make no mistake, its revenge they are after freinds. Revenge for Clinton. Revenge for Gore in Florida. Revenge by any means.
Im not overly concerned with the leftist anti-Bush mongers because in my opinion this handful of p** are not signifigant enough to matter in the grand scheme of history. The American voters are smarter than that.
By Watta Load
September 11, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
I had just gone to the cafe in my office building and noticed the television there…there was smoke coming out of one of the World Trade centers…the first plane had just attacked. I was nauseated the rest of the day as those events played out.
I fully supported the president invading Afghanistan and when we destroyed the Taliban I was just waiting for us to get Bin Laden..and I wanted him dead also. I couldn’t believe the few people who were against this invasion…damn peaceniks I thought.
And then a little over a year later we are going into Iraq…I mean what the hell man!! I didn’t get it…didn’t support it…and fully believe it’s been a huge mistake that admittedly we can’t just walk away from now.
Iran hangs teenagers..Saudi Arabia just banned puppies…there are plenty of other countries more in need of democracy than Iraq was. The US took it’s eye off the ball.
I believe we should fight terrorism in the Middle East but I’ll never agree that invading Iraq was anything but a mistake…if people like Jim Wooten and George Bush continue to drone “just stay the course” and not admit that the present course sucks…then the angry conversation will not end.
By Jim Wooten
September 11, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
A wonderful story, Realist. Thanks.
By Harold
September 11, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
Be Vigilant! Duck and Cover!
By The Way
September 11, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
Yes, Realisp, that was an absorbing account.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
Realist, you are correct on all but one issue - impeachment would not satisfy the modern day Robespierres. That would only feed the frenzy.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
WattaLoad, we understand your view, that this all should have been over three years ago, and the Muslims would now love us. We just think you are wrong.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
On this somber day, let’s not forget the unsung heroes of the War on Tare, those women of the Woo-ten KKKlan and the Order of the Yellow Stripe, women like tftt, Realist, and Markanus who, despite their cowardice and hatred for humankind, faithfully blog for their President until their fat little fingers hurt. They festoon their SUVs and bicycles with yellow ribbons, showing the troops every day just how much they care.
What these ladies lack in intestinal fortitude and spine, they make up for in their angry typing.
If only the terrorists could read the stirring words of the many cowardly chickenhawk women of the Woo-ten KKKlan and the Order of the Yellow Stripe, I’m sure they would run back to their caves.
Anyhow, girls, I salute you today.
By Dana
September 11, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
I had been at work for an hour - someone started shouting, we all ran into our briefing room to see CNN on three screens. I can feel the hair raising on my neck as I remember, realizing there were tears running down my face, hearing everyone in the room cry out when we saw the second plane. My personal horror, when I heard later that a plane hit the pentagon, where my brother was for training.
How will this end? I have no good ideas, but I know the “blame game” and the insistance of the wingers to continue polarizing this country will only damage us more. It’s well past time to stop pointing fingers, to start working together and find real solutions. Alas, I fear too many people in this country are sheep, and follow blindly the loudest voices.
By Watta Load
September 11, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
jbm,
WattaLoad, we understand your view, that this all should have been over three years ago, and the Muslims would now love us.
How in the hell did you get that from my post?
See…this is part of the problem…any criticism of your point of view is met with distortion.
I voted for Bush in 2000, yet I personally believe he’s blown it since we invaded Iraq…but if I express my point of view, people like Realist say I just want revenge for Clinton.
I hated Clinton…doesn’t mean I can’t think Bush is an idiot…which I do.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
Dana @ 9:35, I feel your pain but you only wring your hands. What is the real solution? Appeasement, or total annihilation of the enemy? Or, the course currently pursued, attempting to win the hearts and minds of the Moslems via good works, rebuilding the infrastructure?
By MClark
September 11, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
You are completely off base with your contention that the anger will end only when “the angry ones” are defeated by their worst enemy. The anger will end when we realize we are all Americans and we need to find common ground and return to sensibility. The finger pointing and politics of destruction must come to an end or the anger will never end. The worst enemy you speak of are the ones who perpetuate the division.
Yours and others defense of the despicable language and abuse of the foul TFTT is a perfect example. I am a moderate soul longing for the time when a discussion could be had without the nastiness or the current climate. I have never bad-mouthed the President and support a number of his proposals. I have upbraided and chastised the left and the right equally here and would continue to do so.
What do I get for trying to join a conversation and debate? Among other things I have called DemoNcrat (which I am not), DemoNcrap, liberal moron (I am certainly not either) and to cap it all off had my service in Vietnam called fake. Why? Because I had a different opinion and one that has never been particularly left leaning. It’s just not Right enough. .
But I kept coming back. Why? I’m retired and I thought it would be fun to join a blog at my local paper and I honestly believed that others would see TFTT for the abusive bully it really is. But in recent days it has become fashionable to laud the most despicable poster here as some sort of great thinker, a skilled political satirist. (To compare TFTT to Hitchens is an offense, not only to Hitchens but to everyone who came here to enjoy a little political banter only to be smeared and attacked by this one poster. And the life of me I can never remember seeing the word verminious liberal in a Guardian column.)
Now I see Mr. Wooten has joined the TFTT love fest and that is my cue to leave. I realize that such abuse occurs on sites like this, but to see it officially sanctioned and encouraged by someone I somewhat respect like JW is more than I can stand.
As long as the nasty tactics and name calling of those like TFTT are not only tolerated (as they should be) but encouraged (as they should never be) the anger will not end.
So the next time you wonder where the anger comes from look here. When you begin to wonder when it will end, the answer is when we as Americans join together to condemn rather than laud the Frankens, Coulters, Rhodes, Malloys, and Limbaughs of the world.
So, Good Riddance to me.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
WattaLoad @ 9:38, I don’t mean to hurt your feelings. You say you supported deposing the Taliban, then you oppose Iraq. You say you support fighting terrorists, but you don’t specify what you want to do.
The Bush strategy is sound - eliminate the government most likely to be the next generation’s problem, rather than waiting for the problem to become imminent. (Which the unhinged left always misreports, as “already imminent.”)
Eliminating the terrorists’ largest safe haven in the middle east had a nice set of ripple effects - Ghadaffi’s reformation (even if less than complete), Pakistan’s more consistent efforts against terrorism, the rebellion in Lebanon against the Syrian occupation (followed by the Israeli destruction of the Hezbollah). By reolocating from Saudi to Iraq, we are able to eliminate a broad aggravation within the middle east (our “occupation” of their holy land.) Even women are getting the vote in various places in the middle east, unimaginable 10 years ago.
This you call “The US took it’s eye off the ball…I’ll never agree that invading Iraq was anything but a mistake…if people like Jim Wooten and George Bush continue to drone “just stay the course” and not admit that the present course sucks…” You are not in touch with all that has happened.
By Watta Load
September 11, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Well said MClark
To Jim Wooten..if you ask the question you should read the answers…Do you want to just preach to your choir or have a blog with reasonable debate?
Rein in TFTT…he adds nothing.
If you prefer to have his type of blog then don’t delude yourself that you are contributing anything substantial with this blog…
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
MClark, I don’t call you names. I dispute your policies, and I almost always give you my support for my position. If you listen to those who call names, you may be distracted. I ignore those on your side who lob mud, and suggest you embrace my practice.
I regret that you have not learned how to read my friend TFTT - there is much more there than mere retribution against the mud throwers. TFTT has a stylish use of language, and there is almost always substance in the post, not mere spewing. But if TFTT hurts your feelings, ignore TFTT. Address the issues, carry yourself with class.
By Dana
September 11, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Hmm - JBM - I am alot of things, not all of them good, but a handwringer I am NOT!
As I have stated before, I do not believe we can just pull out of the middle east. I don’t think the course we are on is going to be effective long term. I am frustrated that we dumped soldiers on the ground with inadequate supplies, weaponry, training or backup. I do not know the truth about what was known prior to 9/11, and what choices were made. (neither does anyone on this blog) However, I find it hard to believe that our intel was that freaking bad. I think we were arrogant, and we paid the price that day. Do I think we need to fight a war on terrorism? Yes, yes I do. No quarter. But I am on the ground in Atlanta GA. I am not, nor have I ever been, in the middle east. I can Monday Morning quarterback this along with the rest of you. I am a mid-level managager in the business world with a better than average understanding of the military and combat. However, there is much more to this than some simple comments on a blog will be able to even remotely address. I have real concerns about what I see as a reversal of freedom in the country so many have died for. And I know I will hear that it is for security, to which I reply POPPYCOCK. If our government is so cavalier here, why are they not blazing harder in the warzone? Why are our politicians still pulling in fat paychecks while our soldiers fight (for them, for you, for all of us) with less than they need? Why is the “war effort” still being run by a group who has made so many poor decisons?
Oh, never fear, I have much more to say. However I also have to work, so you’ll see me off and on today -
By Van
September 11, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
MClark ,
So one person, TFTT, has made you want to leave. Your in my age bracket, why should one person put you off. You served, where’s your backbone, if you disagree with someone, it is just that, you have differnt opinions and thoughts, but to push you away from expressing yourself - what a shame.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
MClark, I think if you read beyond the name calling and witty retorts (and they are retorts, he rarely hands out what hasnt already been given) you will find he actually does have a point for the most part and many times its quite thoughful and sometimes brilliant.
What I mean to say is that he isnt just a troll here only to inflame other requlars and cause problems with the same ad hominem post day in day out. There are plenty here other than TFTT you could have referenced (ie. getalife, redneck alqueda) as causing you distress other than TFTT. Now why is that? Could you possibly lean a little more left than you want to admit? :)
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
My wife and I were actually in England, the night before we’d watched the English football team I support beat a lesser team in Lancashire in the League Cup knock out competition and (unknowingly) as the attacks occured we’d left the bed and breakfast we’d stayed in and been driving up the motorway to the Lake District in Cumbria, not listening to the radio. Wandering around Ambleside mid morning I heard a lady in the post office say something about planes flying into buildings but had no idea what she meant.
We found out about the attack later that afternoon when I turned on Radio Five Live as we drove back to Yorkshire through the rather bleak yet picturesque Yorkshire Dales National Park. Suddenly it became an eerie drive, almost in silence. Wondering what the future might bring whilst struggling to process the varying accounts and huge numbers of innocent folks who had been murdered for no reason.
The political reality of the new geopolitical situation - left v right - was sharply brought home as we arrived at my old school chums’ home in Halifax. He started ranting about how Bush was now going to start WW3. He is way to the left of Blair. Naturally I contemptuously rejected this nonsense. His wife is just as left wing but was more concerned with the victims. I recall we watched some MSNBC coverage on their cable system as Fox News was not available in the UK back then.
Our flight back to Atlanta was the following week, after planes were allowed back in the air. Amazingly we were not delayed at all as thousands had been and security was tight but not too intrusive. Having a green card worked like magic after I was asked why I was flying to the US and my wife being American made everything easier. Other non-Americans without suitable papers had a harder time.
Some where I still have copies of The Daily Telegraph and The Times from the day after. I still vividly recall our President with a bullhorn defiantly and proudly standing in the debris of ground zero, with the chaps from the NYFD and NYPD, speaking for us all.
Like everything in life - no matter how emotional, how malevolent or unjustified -the immediacy of even an event like 9/11 always fades. We must not forget. Its not a cliche to say it was an attack on all of us. And we all know how things have gone since then. Its up to our leaders to determine how the response continues.
Thus far, even with the mistakes - some honest, some poor judgment, some inevitably engendered by the fog of war - overall the successes far outweigh the failures. For me Bush still speaks for us all in this increasingly vital endeavour. Those who have cynically politicised 9/11 and the war on terror and the inevitable liberation of Iraq have got it hopelessly wrong.
The least I and others of like mind can do is astutely point out the dangers of nuclear age appeasement and viscerally obsessing over the political fate of a twice elected president you might not have voted for. Bush, Howard and Blair are the Churchills of their day. We are extraordinarily lucky to have them and their vision.
History judges appeasers very harshly … the leftist cut and run crowd need judging very harshly and its my honour and privilege to particpate in that noble duty!!
By getalife
September 11, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
Enough with the spin_
Just another failure.
By Watta Load
September 11, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
jbm
The Bush strategy is sound - eliminate the government most likely to be the next generation’s problem
So we’ve already done that…now what? Those elections sure added a lot of stability didn’t they? And what is that going on over there in Afghanistan now…oops…those tricky taliban towel heads are back.
Much of the other things you mention are a confusion of cause and effect.
And this gem…Eliminate a broad aggravation? Are you serious? This hasn’t happened and it’s not going to?
As far as TFTT use of language…”you moron” is really stylish…give me a break!
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Now MClark and Watta, don’t let tftt’s sophomoric silliness get you down. She has no life, and once she awakes from her night shift on Metropolitan Avenue, she comes on line here and spews her nonsense, but if you spent your night working the mean streets of the ATL you’d be a little cranky too.
Annie Woo-ten and Jbm are in thrall with her, evidently they don’t know how to use a thesaurus to take their common every day gibberish and make it sound more like hi-falutin gibberish. Since tftt is doing it, it must be easy.
After 20 years of hate radio in this culture, gals like tftt come online to imitate their heroes, Seanie-poo Hannity, Lush RimJawb, Tranny Annie Coulter and the like. It sure is sickening to see how many people think and react to life like these animals, but the nice thing about open blogs is their stupidity and ignorance does not have to go unchallenged,.. they can’t hang up the phone on you like the hosts do on hate radio.
In 51 years, I’ve never hit a woman, but in tftt, or Realist’s, or Markanus’s case I’d probably make an exception. These slithering slippery cowards are just so much dead fish-smellin’ pond scum.
By JoeD
September 11, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
What a bunch of pomposity from jmblaw. “The angry conversation won’t end until the angry ones are defeated by their own worst enemy.” What the hell does that mean? “We now know that there are more leftists in America opposed to the war in Iraq than Iranians opposed to the war in Iraq”. Sounds like a phony fact, and one that adds nothing to the debate. Where do you come up with this stuff? This country was extraordinarily united after 9/11 and rightfully so. We needed to work together to challenge the threat to our country. Unfortunately, those in power (i.e Bush and his Minions) felt they were the only ones who knew what was best for this country. The slaps at the patriotism of anyone who challenged the decrees from on high began quickly. Then someone decided Iraq was the place to invade, and any objection to the war brought more criticism. The era of unity got destroyed that way. The debate has move beyond “Bush Lied” to “Doesn’t anyone in this administration know how to run a war?’ But it is much more convenient to carp on “Bush Lied” and “Cut and Run” than it is to actually address the problems that our military faces in Iraq and the fact that our young men and women continue to die, things continue to get worse and no one is doing anything to fix the problems. Meanwhile, the president and the secretary of defense continue to try to create rationales for our behavior, looking backward to CTA, instead of ahead to how to get things moving forward. The series of speeches going on now are no more than apologia for a failed policy. Despite Mr. wooten’s unbelievably glib attempts to paint Mr. bush as a statesman who has given us a political manifesto for our time, the fact remains that he is trying desperately to come up with some reationale that will justify the re-election of the GOP in November. (Jim, do you get paid by the GOP to rehash their press releases, or do you just print them as is?) We need to get off the why and get down to the here and now and figure out how to make things better for our brave young men and women. A little civil debate on that point would be nice from both sides.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
those tricky taliban towel heads are back
Exactly. Thats why we are still in the region kicking thier collective asses in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks for pointing that out wattaload.
By Van
September 11, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda,
“After 20 years of hate radio in this culture”. Hate Radio??? Never heard any, not from Rush, Sean, Herman Cain or Mike Savage.
Please define what you call hate radio and give examples please, I am very curious.
By Redneck Convert
September 11, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
Well, I’m sorry to say I missed most of the action of 9/11/2001 because I had ate some bad chili the night before at Billy Bob’s and was in the outhouse a lot. It was rough, because the missus had the same problum and we just have a one-holer.
Anyhow, the way to end all the arguing is to just shoot the libruls. They keep making fun of Bush and claim he didn’t have any real military service. My buddy Jim Earl says the reason we can’t trace the military service is because Bush was on a secret mission and it couldn’t be shown.
I say if we can’t get at people that attack us, let’s just pick out some country and attack it. Last time it was Iraq. Next time, I say let’s go after those panty-waste Canadians. They are closer than Iraq and we could probably take Toronto in two or three days.
Anyway, I got a huge 5 x 10 foot flag to put on the top of my pickup to show I’m behind Bush and the Iraq war. And I say to the libruls just shut up. The next time NSA comes up with an anti-terrist program, I hope it’s arresting all libruls and putting them in the slammer. It’s the amerikkkan way.
By MClark
September 11, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I realize you have never called me names. I have no problem with disagreement, but the level to which it rises here is beyond the pale. As for substance, that is lost among the nastiness of the language, pure and simple.
And yes, one person can suck the fun out of a situation, and let’s face it; this is about enjoyment for some of us. I know that my one voice is not going to change any policy in DC, but I would love to be able to express my true feelings without being called scum, moron, or any other of a host of names. It’s not enjoyable to try and debate while someone stands on the sidelines tossing invectives at you. If this were my job then it wouldn’t bother me, but its not.
And the spew that issues does not hurt my feelings, but it does completely take the fun out this. IT is not funny, cute, or stylish to continually hurl insults.
As for why I didn’t go after getalife or redneck alqueda, that’s easy. They have never attacked me. I disagree with them plenty but not once has either of them called me scum, trash, or any other of your pal TFTT’s favorite terms. Is what they do part of the problem? Absolutely! But no one rises to the level of TFTT. No one.
Finally, from a political POV, the right is often accused of being bullies. I personally don’t stereotype all of the right that way but now I hope you see why some do. The TFTT’s of the world do nothing but hurt conservatism.
By The Way
September 11, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
A moment of silence for TimefortheTrott’s and Realisp’s own personal ground zero: (o)
Kudos to those two synchronized sphyncters for their stream-of-consciousness accounts of 911.
We are all better people for reading them, and it’s a far, far better thing we do than we have ever done to do the undone deeds of the doddering doers, cause if we didn’t do, then we cant be doers, and if we cant be doers, then the undone deeds we did dont get done.
By Lee
September 11, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Interestingly Jim’s article is titled “How Does Angry Conversation End?” Without fail after a few posts this becomes a free for all with a half dozen people exchanging insults. Can you not give it a rest for one day?
By JoeD
September 11, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
The TFTT’s of the world do nothing but hurt the cause of civil discourse as well, no matter how “energetic and entertaining” it may be to those it is not directed at.
By Watta Load
September 11, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Gee Realist…I bet those those folks that got blowed up in Afghanistan would have loved it if we kicked the Taliban’s a$$ BEFORE their last bomb…
By Van
September 11, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
So far this morning, several of us gave our views on what happened 5 years ago, some are still stirring the pot and making it personal or political.
The question is how are we going to end this period of our lives.
To the fire bomb throwers, get back on topic.
Since no negotiated peace has lasted, and since these goat lovers do not want to negotiate, how do we finish the job. Do we crawl back into our hole and close the cover, do we do as little as possible to not upset the cowards or do we step it up and clean house. Lets hear from both sides, pratical solutions, no politics, not fire bombs.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Kudos to those two synchronized sphyncters for their stream-of-consciousness accounts of 911.
Thanks Way, for probably the best line ever on the Woo-ten KKKlan blog. Still LOL.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Kudos to those two synchronized sphyncters for their stream-of-consciousness accounts of 911.
Thanks Way, for probably the best line ever on the Woo-ten KKKlan blog. Still LOL.
By Dana
September 11, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
My GOD people, is TFTT ALL YOU CAN TALK ABOUT? Move to another blog!
By Realist
September 11, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
I beleive the blog is entitled “thinking right” is it not.
Those of you unhappy with the bullyish right know where the door is.
I mean Ive never even been in a liberal blog. Why would I. Maybe you guys should ask yourselves why you are in this blog in the first place.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
We are here to point out the obvious failures like this realfake:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
On this day, we should demand justice and not allow w to pardon OBL.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Ooooh our girl Realist is getting whiny - somebody must have pulled her pigtail.
<smirk>
By Realist
September 11, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
No true rednecks, its your boys getting mighty whiny this morning. I mean come on. Threatening to leave the blog over us mean old nasty bullyish right? Give me a freakin break. Grow a pair and get in the fight or hit the door. Either way, we dont give a f*** what you do!!
By Dana
September 11, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Realist - I read this blog with the hopes of some intelligent debate - and because even though I frequently disagree with half the views in here, I DO care to hear them. Upon occasion, we DO have intelligent debates, and while I have not changed my view, I have learned some things reading. But then, for once I am not who you are irritated with.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Ease your two-handed grip on the coffee cup Dana and take a deep breath. Its all going to be OK I promise.
smirk
By Dana
September 11, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
LMAO! Ah, you are so funny realist!
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
You’re right, Realist, this blog is muy importante.
Your President thanks you for all the personal courage you’ve shown here, girlfriend.
As a member of the Order of the Yellow Stripe, your stripe burns brightest of all, except maybe Markanus’s.
hehehehohoho
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
WOW …
on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 the resident lefties take up almost half the blog whining about yours truly - even before I’ve posted a bloody word.
Whilst such attention is mighty flattering and I am suitably humbled it is with rising disgust that I note that your moral fascist thoughts are not with the innocent (mostly American) victims of 9/11 but an unassuming English conservative who earnestly strives to bring a semblance of sardonic wit and erudition to blogging.
Such moral fascism by such blatant control freak moral fascists is quite despicable - and extremely revealing of their collective inability to silence one whose comedic effectivness is clearly irking their fragile shrill egos.
Its extremely telling that only I am singled out for such hilarious and fabulously entertaining attention. The power of the written blog word clearly is far greater than I ever assumed.
Supposedly grown adults who are unable to either ignore ONE BLOGGER or partake in the cut and thrust of ideas and (sharp) banter do not make good role models for those lurking and considering contributing.
They also end up looking like defeated beaten smurfs who can only resort to cowardly cyber spite instead of manfully or in rednekkks’ case ‘dykishly’ mounting an actual intellectual or comedic challenge - assuming the IGNORE HIM COMPLETELY PLOY AINT WORKING!!
I am still LMFAO as I type this and of course I offer an unostentatious heartfelt note of thanks to those who defended both free speech and yours truly this morning.
I guess (using the local parlance) that the more effective you are the more moral fascist like abuse and opprobium you get.
I am almost deliriously happy to assert that after much malice aforethought I am now utterly convinced that “verminous liberal” is the nearest thing you can get to a political truism these days. The Grauniad as its historically called in Private Eye is missing out on a fine aphorism.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
We need to get off the why and get down to the here and now and figure out how to make things better for our brave young men and women. A little civil debate on that point would be nice from both sides.
Bush’s policy is to remain in the middle east and stay the course. The enemy is still engaging our troops. They have not surrendered, nor shall we. My thoughts are that more force is needed, not less, though I admit I may not be aware of all the elements and risks involved in doing so that may make that difficult. So JoeD and others, honestly debate why we should abandon Pres. Bushs policy. Explain why and how we should walk away from a war that is not finished, and leave the enemy behind to continue thier destruction and possibly allow them to take over a weak fledgling government in Iraq. Explain how we justify to US soldiers and thier families that thier lives were given in vain and that we accomplished little or nothing. I personally dont see how we could do anything BUT stay the course. BTW, the peace process the dems might have us beleive is the answer is being played out right now with Iran and we see how well THAT is going dont we.
By deegee
September 11, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
The TFTTs of this world make me run from any issue they may support. I have always been a great champion of Israel and their tenacious defense of their country against their neighbors. TFTT even made me question that.
By Van
September 11, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
time for the truth,
It is the lefts way of distraction. On topics they do not want to debate, they throw up a Potemkin village.
Personally, to end this ugly conversation with terrorist, we should adopt General Pershing’s method.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
IT is not funny, cute, or stylish to continually hurl insults.
OH YES IT IS YOU PATHETIC MORAL FASCIST!!
stop obsessing over your conservative betters!!
to allow anyone on a blog to bypass your critical factor to this extent is criminally stupid and verminously liberal of you!!
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
I was at work listening to my radio (The Morning X on 99X) and they started talking about a plane hitting the WTC, and it progressed from there. I was horrified. I am now, and was then a grown adult man, and I cried every day for at least a week. I didn’t lose anyone I knew in any of the attacks, but I did feel violated in a way I had never known prior to that day. I have voted Democratically since I was able to vote. I do not consider myself a “liberal”, I feel more at home in the center. I believe in sound fiscal policies, but I don’t believe in the ultra conservative social beliefs. So often I agree with Republicans like John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, but disagree with Democrats like Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and the McKinney’s of the world. On that day when George W. Bush stood at ground zero with those firefighters and said he’d get those who had done these vile acts, I was right there with him, political parties be damned. I’m still there, I did not move. But my president moved away from me, choosing to enter Iraq while Osam bin Laden is still out there, making tapes, mocking us, recruiting more young Muslims to do more vile acts. We can all argue about whether bin Laden has any operational impact anymore, but what cannot be argued is his philosophical and spiritual impact on the radical, militant Islamic movement. Every day he breathes is an insult to the people who were injured in 1993 at the WTC, to those who died in the embassy bombings, or the USS Cole, the WTC collapses, the Pentagon, Flight 93, the nightclub in Indonesia, the train bombings in Spain and London. I think what most Americans, GOP or Democrat or Independent, are angry about is that the job in Afghanistan was not finished before we went to Iraq, and to this day is still not finished, despite the reins being handed to NATO. And every day we are told that leaving Iraq would send a terrible message to the terrorists, that we are weak and not up to the fight. Well, what does leaving Afghanistan unfinished and Osama bin Laden free say about us? Mr. President, I’m still standing on that pile of rubble with those firefighters, willing to fight and destroy those who attacked us. Why did you leave us all there? Please come back.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Colonel Beauregard T. Realist weighs in on the subject of military strategery. Her military experience is almost as extensive as the Chickenhawk-in-Chief’s.
As a Kappa Alpha Order sorority sister she often dressed up in Confederate cavalry uniforms.
<HUGE smirk>
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
I have always been a great champion of Israel and their tenacious defense of their country against their neighbors. TFTT even made me question that
HA HA HA HA HA HA TOO FREAKING FUNNY LOVE
that’s how brainless the left are - to even think such drivel is bad enough - to ACTUALLY post it is unbelievable!!
the power of one man’s blogging … christ you’d think I was superman or something!!
By Van
September 11, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
deegee,
If TFTT can sway your opinion of Israel, think how the peaceniks influence our enemies and demoralize our allies.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
*By Watta Load
September 11, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Gee Realist…I bet those those folks that got blowed up in Afghanistan would have loved it if we kicked the Taliban’s a$$ BEFORE their last bomb…*
OK watta, lets say a firefight occurs between US forces and Taliban insurgents. Taliban takes heavy losses, but a handful of insurgents escape into the mountains. Those who escape, lay down weapons and taliban regalia and go back to living among the Afghanis. They slowly and secretly re-organize, re-group, re-arm, and come back to fight another day. This is the enemy we are facing wattalaod. They live among the people we are trying to protect. Do you not see that?
By Haiku
September 11, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Disgusted am I
At how you honor the dead
Read your words and hurl
By JoeD
September 11, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Realist: thank you for addressing something of substance. Stay the course to me is just doing the same old thing, while nothing changes. I do not profess to be a military man, and do not all the ins and outs either. I don’t think it is fair to use the argument that because some have lost their lives, we cannot address how to change things or the deaths will have been in vain. Losing this war or letting it plod on as we are now with more and more deaths doesn’t do justify to the sacrifices already made, either. I don’t disagree that more force may be the answer. Step it up, get rid of the insurgents, and then get out of there. More troops may be just the ticket. But leaving the armed forces in limbo, with nothing different, just creates more casualties and no progress. Instead of focusing on the opponents of the war, the secretary of defense ought to be worrying about what assets, be it manpower, or weapons, or strategy, that will make our troops safer and help get us out of there sooner. Because that’s the bottom, for all of us as Americans, to get the troops home safely as soon as possible with the best possible result in Iraq. History will decide if W was wrong or right in invading Iraq, but it doesn’t take a historian to say right now that his administration’s handling has been mediocre at best and criminally deficient at worst. TFTT, thanks for proving the point.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
moron Clark
your unremitting obsessive bollux about yours truly this morning is by far the FUNNIEST thing I’ve read on here - keep it coming bubbakins.
one simple FACT for ya - you wont ever see “verminous liberal” in the Guardian - its a far left Israel hating liberal newspaper you pillock!!
By The Doctor is In
September 11, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Patient- Deegee Diagnosis- Weak Constitution Prognosis- Favorable with Treatment Treatment- 3 Hours of Hanity a Day Fox News at bedtime Rush as needed for flare ups
By CBF
September 11, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim! Congrats on the anniversary! My parents had 40 years of pure magic together (would be nearly 60 years if Dad were still alive) so I know that kind of longevity is possible. Good luck! Now everyone reflect on the events we mourn from 5 years ago and let’s remain ever vigilant to enemies both internal and external. Let freedom ring!
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
JoeD @ 10:26 and @ 11:12, you gripe without resolution. What is Joe D’s plan to rid the world of terrorism? As you have read, I support the well-articulated Bush plan, which has been ignored (at best) and often demagogued by the left. We await your plan. Realist @ 10:57 says it better than I.
Dana @ 10:46, I fully agree. We do not want our leftist friends to leave, nor even our middle of the road friends. This blog would be a bore without their input. I suppose our goal is to determine how to push the debate closer to a policy level, and away from the “Bush lied” mentality.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
to all my snivelling moral fascist pinko fans - PLEASE keep it coming … this is funnier than an audience with John Cleese!
By Realist
September 11, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
JoeD, I cant debate you if you wont from the outset admit that things HAVE and ARE changing. I mean come on man, to say nothing is or has changed is just falling prey to the leftist partisan bs.
Just last week we turned over the military defense of Iraq to thier own new military! They have a sovereign brand new government today that was democratically elected. Jesus, do you think that is easy or quickly accomplished?
You see it as nothing changing or happening, I see it as slow but certain progress.
By @@
September 11, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Jim:
Five years ago I was in the classroom with the T.V. on waiting for the children to arrive. I can’t remember which news affiliate I was watching. There certainly was no bias in reporting on that day. Sorry to say that has not held true since.
I saw the damage the first plane had done and the confusion of what had happened. I began to pray that it was not what I had anticipated for years. With the second plane, I knew it was exactly what I had anticipated. I had been following the subtle attention given to Bin Laden for years preceeding this attack and knew it had just been a matter of time.
After work, I went to my church, kneeled at the chancellor rail and spent 45 minutes in prayer. That’s something that I’ve never done before. I knew that the world had changed forever and I needed comfort in that knowledge.
The angry conversation was born of the radical sixties. An unrealistic utopian ideology that needs to be vanquished. I mentioned this over at Luckovich’s blog. A reality that needs to be accepted by the radical left is that Utopia & Mankind cannot exist within the same vessel. They simply contradict one another. Idealism is a blind mindset that ignores the evil Bin Ladens of this world.
What have I learned about our nation? We can become the victims of the mindset I mentioned from within our own country, or we will allow it to happen from outside. It’s a shame the radical left fails to see this and holds onto their unrealistic visions.
Sorry, I wish I had better news for you Jim.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
the power of one man’s blogging … christ you’d think I was superman or something!
Maybe Wonder Woman.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Amusing, TFTT’s articulate and reasoned post @ 10:02 is condemned in intemperate language by Wattaload @ 10:18, MClark @ 10:30, The Way @ 10:30, and JoeD @ 10:34.
Dana @ 10:39 - not a fan of TFTT - is embarrassed for you all. You fulfill the stereotype of the left, condemning the person rather than the ideas. Why not re-read TFTT’s 10:02 before you go on the warpath?
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
Van
beter than a Potemkin Village would be a one year forced re-education camp in Cuba for them.
Realist
its obvious all the lefties on here have already visited the vetinary for the snip
jbm
note how on 9/11 they cant even leave Bush alone for one day and remember the dead … its quite pathetic
in all honesty before I saw all this crap about lil ol inoffensive me on here I was going to forgo the usual pleasures of baiting them today …
By getalife
September 11, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
“US president Bush on Thursday cautiously endorsed a truce between Gen Musharraf and pro-Taliban militants in Pakistan even as terrorist violence soared ….”
We can do better than this crap with real leadership.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
@@ @ 11:20, well-said.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
I hear ya truth. It just reminds me that now more than ever we must be vigilant and fight the utopian ideology @@ speaks of. He is so right. This is what Hannity means, and I truly think he speaks from his heart, when he says we MUST fight this because life as we know it hangs in the balance.
By Watta Load
September 11, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Come on JBM..stop that crap…none of us are that stupid.
No one is going to condemn a thought out post that is relevant and doesn’t insult anyone…geez. You know that’s not the typical sludge that the insect posts.
Frankly I don’t read it’s drivel anymore anyway…
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Angry conversation will end when real conversation begins. Unfortunately, the conversation has been one-sided since 9/11 - only the President has articulated a plan, admittedly long-term beyond his administration, to isolate the terrorists, and to chase them wherever they may hide.
We do not know yet what the left would do; all we see is sniping at the President’s plan. We challenge all of you on the left, show us your plan. And be prepared for my sniping thereafter, because I will rip your program to shreds. The President has the only viable plan.
By ernie logman
September 11, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
If the President had been on the ball and done his constitutional duty to defend the United States, none of this discussion would be going on
But since CLINTON didn’t do anything about terror, we are having this discussion
By Shocked, just shocked
September 11, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
I’m shocked that any of you still read any of TFTT’s posts. I see that name and scroll down.
As to ending the angry dialogue, first stop attacking each other (left and right are guilty of this), agree that everyone wants what’s best for the country (we just disagree on what that is), listen to each other until we find common ground and build on that. (you will note, I didn’t say talk to each other — listen. You’ll learn more that way). That’s all I have to say on the matter. Have a good day. God Bless.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
To all you cons today - so you prayed, so you cried.
Why won’t you fight?
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
@@,
I’m not a hippie, hell I wasn’t born until 1976. I say that so you won’t think I’m from that era when I ask you how you can criticize people for hoping for a world without violence? I mean isn’t President Bush’s call for democracies in the middle east along the same lines as wanting a utopian society in the world?
I think a person can hope for a better world AND acknowledge there are evil people in the world that need to be dealt with. But you’re trying to paint people who hate violence as condoning people like bin Laden, and I think that notions like that are what contribute to the “angry conversation” that Wooten is talking about. Republicans haven’t cornered the market on anger about 9-11, just as Democrats haven’t cornered the market on compassion for their fellow man.
THERE IS A MIDDLE IN THE WORLD, AND MOST PEOPLE LIVE THERE, BUT THEIR VOICE ISN’T HEARD OVER THE VOICES OF THE EXTREME LEFT AND RIGHT.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Realist
this is not just a few ad hoc terrorist disgruntled groups hurling a few bombs - this is at least 3 years into the next global conflict and the lefties are so blind and bloated with Bush hatred that they simply will NOT see it … because then the GOP and Bush win.
jbm
they dont want to see mate - they are using me as the lightning rod for all that is wrong with their blogging experience on here, which essentially is that conservatives fight back and dont pull their punches as Bush so often does!!
By Realist
September 11, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
wattalaod, I notice you chose not to address my reply to your post at 10:36 regarding why we are fighting small pockets of Taliban in Afghanistan. Did I help you understand how it is nearly impossile to eradicate them all when they deploy such tactics?
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Middle America @ 11:36, we await your plan to eliminate terrorism.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
beter than a Potemkin Village would be a one year forced re-education camp in Cuba for them.
Spoken like a true facsist. They should deport you with that kind of talk, definitly not American.
Wanker.
By harold
September 11, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Harold got home after an early morning history exam. Harold is not sure why he went back home instead of on to work like he normally would.
Harold’s wife Harriet (Yes, TFTT, wife, who ever said gays can’t marry in Georgia??) was at home getting ready for the day and heard the news and had turned on the TV.
The first tower was already hit by the time Harold became aware of the goings on. Harold watched on TV as the 2nd got hit and both fell.
Harold never did make it to work that day, which was just as well since work was cancelled and everybody got sent home. Harriet had to go on to work as hers was not cancelled.
Harold had another class that night which was not cancelled and the perfessor pretended nothing had happened and lectured as normal although he was himself in the group of nobody who was listening to him.
Harold remembers being terrified that the Muslim dude, Haque, in the class that night was going to kill all of us, but eventually Harold became friends with Haque. Turned out he is a good guy who Harold probably never would have known if it weren’t for 9/11.
Harold also remembers that the aeroplanes that were constantly flying over the school become a little more than just loud and annoying for weeks afterwards.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
Why won’t you fight?
That is easy, they are cowards just running their ignorant mouths.
Hell, they are typing under their beds they are so scared of the big, bad Muslims.
Pitiful.
By Harold
September 11, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Harold says Bush has been quite successful in Iraq.
That is, if you disregard his claim of being in Iraq for the War on Terror and look at his true movties.
Bush is there in a military campaign to retain power for the USA. Iraq needed to be made a mess of. It was. That’s a 100% successful venture. A stable middle east with control of the oil supply threatens the USA. An unstable middle east is better as long as the oil flows.
The insurgents in Iraq are not true terrorists. The insurgents are Iraqis who want the crusading invaders out and are employing terrorism as their weapon of choice after seeing it demostrated by Osamba Bin Laden as both successful and without penalty.
If the Iraqi insurgents are to be called terrorists, then so are the American founding fathers who fought from the cover of the trees against the lined up British fish in a barrel. You use what works. If the other guy has a bigger stick, you have to use your smaller stick more intelligently in a way that a big stick can’t hit. That is all.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
I think a person can hope for a better world AND acknowledge there are evil people in the world that need to be dealt with. But you’re trying to paint people who hate violence as condoning people like bin Laden,.
Are they not being dealt with NOW? And do you not admit that the only way to deal with someone whos only means or tool is violence is WITH violence?
If you have come up with some new theory that supports laying down arms and disbanding of military units world wide, we need to hear it. I thought throughout the course of history some damn intelligent men have concluded that war is a tool of democracy and a nessecary evil. You disagree?
By Georgia Gal
September 11, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Five years ago this morning, we were in our mountain get away. One of the things we enjoy is no tv up there. My hubby was on the front porch rescreening windows and I was working in the kitchen half listening to the radio on in the back ground. Suddenly I became aware of the news guy on the radio talking about a plane crashing in New York, one crashing in Washington, and yet a third plane missing. A chill ran through me and I walked to the front door and told my husband “something bad is going on this country!” After he came in and listened to the radio for a few minutes his only comment was “those bastards!” Five years later it is mind boggling to observe how split this country has become when we were so united the first few months after 9/11. That day there was not a place in Franklin, NC where you could eat lunch or dinner. Everything in town closed down. I have to wonder would that happen today? I don’t always agree with Bill O’Reilly but his column today has definitely caused me to think. O’Reilly said “According to polls in the 1930s, as many as 80 percent of Americans were against confronting Hitler at that time.” I remember that several times through the years I have read more than one writer allude to Roosevelt manuvering events to lead up to Pearl Harbor in order to get us into the war. Several times I have tried to imagine why he would have done such a thing. Now I wonder is that what it would take for this country to reunite again or instead of uniting would simply split even further, perhaps even into a state of civil war?
By Markus
September 11, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
What’s got the left’s nightgowns in a static wad this morning beyond the usual bedwetting? Anyway…
Where was I? On my way to work and listening to the radio. At first they said a “small plane” hit one of the WTC towers. Then it was a commuter plane, then an airliner. By the time I got to work, I went to the workout room where about thirty of us were crammed watching CNN live. Then we all watched in utter disbelief as the second plane hit. We all immediately knew then without uttering a word to each other that it was islamofascist terrorism. They got us good. Evil bastards. Then we watched in horror as people started jumping. Groups of people all holding hands. Coworkers obviously. Men in suits doing a head dive. Those “thud” sounds we were hearing from ground reporting we knew were bodies. Then the first tower fell, then the second. Then news of the Pentagon, and then news of a crash in a PA field. From that point I don’t recall much. I made myself think this was one hell of a bad dream. I do specifically remember seeing that Taliban leader say that his group was not responsible for the events and thinking, “Sure. You’ll be getting a knock on the door soon, pal.”
The next morning was the most somber commute I have ever been in. After 24 hours, the shock factor was over and now it was disbelief that this could actually have happened to us. Looking around at people next to me sipping coffee, watching their dead-ahead glare and red brake lights of the car in front of them reflecting on their faces was surreal. No horns. No rude gestures. No hands thrown up in anger. No over-caffeinated hotshot driver jumping from lane to lane and going nowhere. We were all just one big mass moving in unison and wondering what we were doing with our lives after watching 3,000 lose theirs on live TV.
Yes, this nation was united, for a while. Any attack on our soil will unite us. It wasn’t long before we hit the Taliban and got them on the run. Soon Iraq was into the picture because the UN couldn’t manage to enforce 17 of their own resolutions, with democratic leaders like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Florida senator Bob Graham saying things like this “lie:”
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
It wasn’t long after when the conspiracy quacks, most of them liberals, started saying that Bush had 9/11 created so we could go to the Middle East for war and ultimately oil. Cindy McKinney was one of the first loonbats out of the cave, and it costed her her congressional seat… for a while at least until Majette’s head got a little too big and went for a failed Senate seat. Quacks like this are nothing new. There are quacks to this day that believe we allowed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor so we could justify going to war with them. That’s the typical derangement of being a liberal though: they can’t make up their minds what side of an issue they stand for. So, if we sit back and do nothing, we are “allowing” it to happen to justify going to war (or as in the case with modern loonbats, Bush “never did enough to prevent it”). If we pre-empt something from happening, we are “rushing to war.” It’s like dealing with a child who wants to argue with you just for the sake of argument, no matter what the topic. Nowhere did Bush ever say that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. That was and is nothing but a cooked-up lie by the left.
So here we are today. Liberals have proven that they think America itself was responsible for 9/11 happening. (some thinking this way through our policies, others as radical as saying Bush concocted the entire thing). At every turn Bush tries to capture foreign terrorists and hold them for interrogation. At every turn liberals scream bloody murder about it and say we have no right to capture and hold these people under the Geneva Convention (which of course ONLY protects those in uniform representing a nation… but don’t let that little fact get in the way of over-estrogen-filled terrorist-appeasing liberalism).
At every turn Democrats have done everything to thwart Bush’s war on islamofanaticism. The reason of course is to render him incompetent so they can get power back. The enemy is listening. What a sick mindset one must have to jeopardize US interests all for spite of lost elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004. We’ve seen how the left likes to handle threat issues. Either we let things happen to us and then cry to ourselves that it’s our own fault, or we let things happen to us and hope that it won’t happen again like Spain and now Britain apparently. According to liberals, if we rise up against those that want us destroyed, we are “just scared” of them… boo! After all, it’s just a fluke thing, that pesky islamoterrorism. Everyone knows that there was no Islamic terrorism in the world until that day in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. We can’t fight these islamofascist bastards because we might create more of them. If there’s only a few of them and they take potshot hits every now and then, it’s ok. It’s only an international criminal problem. Is that the kind of leadership mentality this nation needs at this time? I don’t think so.
By JoeD
September 11, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Congratulations on buying the party line, jbm. What is this well-articulated plan? At the risk of sounding petty, nothing in six years has been “well-articulated” by this administration. Other than self righteous moral smugness, of course. I must leave now, and I have to admit (what a surprise) that I don’t have all the answers. I know, a guy on a blog on a newspaper website doesn’t have all the answers. It just doesn’t seem to me that staying the course is working. If it were, why would Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as more than 60% of the general public be clamoring for some better, something different?
By Realist
September 11, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
The insurgents are Iraqis who want the crusading invaders out and are employing terrorism as their weapon of choice after seeing it demostrated by Osamba Bin Laden as both successful and without penalty.
Sure thing Harold. Because everyone knows that with all the military presence, everyday ordinary Iraqi’s have access to tons of explosives, timers, detonators, meeting places to plan and coordinate attacks, automobiles, etc. You are drinking too much of the conspiracy kool aid sir.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Spoken like a true facsist. They should deport you with that kind of talk, definitly not American.
SNIGGER SMIRK SNIGGER HA HA HA HA
hissy fit of the day thus far - maggot brain!!
By getalife
September 11, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
“Actually, the strategy of the terrorists is to sow terror. I thought that was self-explanatory.
And if sowing terror is their goal, this administration has made the terrorists’ strategy a resounding success. We, as a nation, have evolved from Patrick Henry’s inspirational, “Give me liberty or give me death!”, to Bush’s “Give me your liberties or you’ll die.” We have even color-coded our fear.
But ironically, not in New York, where its people have refused to be cowed into perpetual, submissive fear, no matter how much this administration wants to use their day of trauma to cow them (along the rest of the country) into panicked submission.”
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
First you have to cut off the head, i.e. Osama bin Laden. And to do that we need a larger prescence in Afghanistan, not of NATO troops, but highly trained and motivated U.S. troops, and we need a much more robust committment from Pakistan to move their forces into the northern region of Pakistan near the Afghan border. Basically we need them to drive the Taliban and al-Queda forces towards Afghanistan, so that our forces can destroy them. As we all know Pakistan will not allow us to enter their soil. Once we’ve done that, we need to continue to track down terrorist cells using all types of surveillance and tracking tools, letting the world know that they cannot hide. But we also need to change the perception of the US in the minds of the Islamic world. I find it amusing that Americans think that the people in the middle east should just know better, and know that Americans are good. A lot of these people have no source of information other than their local mosque. So if all your news is presented thru that prism, you’re going to have a skewed perception of America. (You’d think Republicans would understand this above everyone else, since they believe Americans are always getting their news thru a skewed prism of the “liberal media.”) We need to show the Muslim world that we are good, not thru our words, but thru our actions. Whatever that might be, I’m not sure. If I knew all the answers, I wouldn’t be sitting here blogging on the ajc.com.
So what’s your answers? You seem anxious to criticize me, or at least ask me a question with a tone. And “I’m right and you’re wrong” will not suffice as an answer. Also, “Kill them all, let God sort them out” will not be accepted as a solution.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
BTW lies,
You never answerd me.
Are you a legal immigrant?
By Harold
September 11, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Harold says Conspiracy Kool-aid tastes much better than the Red or Blue Kool-aid, especially after a little smoke, if you know what Harold means…
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Senor maggot brain …
do not ask theeees again senor or my peeeples will spit in your tacos tonite!!
By MClark
September 11, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
TFTT weighs in and proves my contention for me.
I love being right. I guess I’m just not Right enough.
As for being my better, on your best day, in the best of all possible worlds you would never be my better. I have the ability to discuss a topic, disagree with another, learn from an adversary, and never once stoop to the level of calling them an epithet. Do that one entire day and you might be my equal. But never my better.
And jmblaw, I long ago stopped reading TFTT so there is no way I could be accused of using intemperate language to criticize anything it would have to say. But keep defending it jmblaw. Shows the kind of person you really are as well.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
December 7, 1946. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan defeated, occupied for over a year.
September 11, 2006. Osama celebrates 5 years of freedom in the safe haven of Pakistan.
Bush’s response? “The War on Tare is hard work”.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Watch out lies, they can track you down by your IP address.
At some point, they may decide to prosecute illegals.
By Haiku
September 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Those who died that day
Don’t have to hear your hate lies
So bless’d are deaf ears
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Realist,
You’re trying to put words in my mouth. I didn’t say we should ask the terrorists to “play nice” and lay down their weapons. I want bin Laden, and his operatives dead. Let me spell that out so you don’t misunderstand me. D-E-A-D.
I’m not going to feel ashamed for wanting the world to be a better place, with no violence, no matter what you try to say about me. But our government has a history of getting into places for selfish reasons that end up making enemies. That’s part of what I’m trying to say, we need to show people our country is good, not just say it. Iraq is the perfect example. We didn’t have to go in, we chose to. The rest of the world doesn’t understand why. And because the rest of the world isn’t necessarily able to get all the information, an ignorance breeds hate. Hate breeds violence, and the cycle is renewed.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
blah blah blah MClark. Anyway, didnt you limp out the door two hours ago?
If you are going to stick around, I suppose I need to add you to the list of posters who I skip without reading.
By Watta Load
September 11, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Realist,
I typed out a response and soon realized that our opinions are so different about this that my response would lead nowhere.
I think we should have stayed in Afghanistan longer.
Middle America’s post pretty much sum up my opinion…
But I’m leaving while the debate is still slightly civil.
By Joe T
September 11, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
It’s all vanity! Wake up America was the sermon title at my church yesterday. We need to do this more than anything! Just wake up! Be a solution to the problems not the cause of them. Try to understand the most important from the less important, and you can’t do this if your asleep, so hopefully our country will WAKE UP BEFOR IT’S TO LATE.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
December 7, 1946. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan defeated, occupied for over a year.
September 11, 2006. Osama celebrates 5 years of freedom in the safe haven of Pakistan.
Bush’s response? “The War on Tare is hard work”.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
smug moron Clark
see how easy and how much fun it is to wind the likes of you moral fascists up … I guess your bile is now all but exhausted.
I note you even use my “it” designation - so you have learned something from the master (goad goad)
(BOOOOOOOM … smug moron Clark’s head explodes in supreme hissy fit - N.B. a figurative suggestion only)
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Middle America @ 11:52, nice try, but Bush has already degraded Al Q such that it is a nonentity. And OBL is in Pakistan, so ramping up in Afghanistan would be a total waste. Regrettably you do not control the Pakistan military; shall we invade Pakistan? By “all kinds of surveillance and tracking tools,” I assume you omit the intellgence that has proven most useful so far - “harsh” questioning. Would you chase terrorists into Iraq, or Iran, to ensure the world would know that the terrorists cannot hide? How does that differ from Bush’s isolate and chase policy?
By change the perceptions of Islamic people, do you mean to make them fear us, or is to be a Kumbawa program you articulate. Bush’s military is already conducting a “Hearts and Minds” campaign, rebuilding the infrastructure; would you abolish that? By fixing the prism, shall we nuke the mosques?
So far you articulate nothing Bush is not already doing, except that you would abandon Iraq (I guess - cannot tell from your post) in order to ramp up in Afghanistan. I sense that will do little to cure Iran’s support for the Hezbollah.
On the other hand, a truly free-Iraq affects all around it. Why not just win there?
By MClark
September 11, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Since I can’t beat them, this old man has decided to join them. No more reasoned comments. Just s** from the sidelines.
F*** you Realist.
By Brian Curtis
September 11, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Wooten: I think we could have a productive conversation, instead of pointless sniping, if we started actually fighting terrorism instead of pretending that the Iraq mess defines the only possible approach.
There are smarter ways to go about fighting terrorism, but the current Bush regime can’t admit they’ve made mistakes. That prevents productive discussions from going forward, leaving us with the idiotic black-or-white arguments of “If you don’t support the Iraq invasion and everything else Bush has done, you want terrorists tromping through Atlanta and women in burkas!”
This is inane and counterproductive. But the neocons are going to have to swallow their pride and admit they made mistakes before we can discuss better, smarter approaches to fighting terrorism.
By Not Again
September 11, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
On the other hand, a truly free-Iraq affects all around it. Why not just win there?
Saigon, 1975
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Watch out lies, they can track you down by your IP address. At some point, they may decide to prosecute illegals
bring it on maggot brain - tell you what bubbaturd - ring up the INS from your secure mental hospital ward phone and tell them about me!!
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
MClark @ 11:57, my friend TFTT does not need my defense - rather like Montenegro offering to defend the USA - but you are correct, that I do define myself by those I defend. Including you.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
Oh please, fakelaw.
The wars and not getting OBL and his gang have increased more people to join the terrorists
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
Since I can’t beat them, this old man has decided to join them. No more reasoned comments. Just s* from the sidelines.*
F* you Realist.
now we see the real nature of smug moral fascist Clark … beaten in debate it just becomes personally abusive!!
where’s my abuse Clark?? - you simpering effete wimpy wanker? this is disgusting racial discrimination against the English!! you ignorant racist bigot!! huge smirk
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis @ 12:08, we breathlessly await your program to eliminate terrorism in the world. Be ready for return fire, however.
The only mistake neoconservatives - that is, Jewish conservatives who awakened - have made is believing there is a left cognizant of the risks we all face. So, on behalf of all neocons everywhere, we acknowledge that we screwed up in relying on the good faith of the left.
Now, let’s see your plan.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Not again @ 12:08 makes the most brilliant point of the day. The left’s Congressional abandonment of South Vietnam in 1975 left more than 2,000,000 dead within the six years thereafter. This is the same blood bath we face in the middle east, should we again allow the left to set policy.
By Jim's a Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Jim,
How do you expect to find a civilized tone when even as you ask for one, you still get in a tired jab at those who think differently from you: “For me, the test is whether they ever supported the war on terror or whether they saw it as 9/11 police action that diverted attention and resources from efforts to build the welfare state”.
The fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration lied it’s way into this mess - thousands of lives, billions of dollars and an unimaginable amount of goodwill have been completely wasted.
At a time when the entire world was empathetic to our situation and ready to look to us for leadership, a failed businessman with no real leadership credentials who won his post on the most narrow of margins via a stunning breach of voting rights took the low road of near-term corporate interest and invaded a country for no reason other than political expediancy. Whether or not someone supported “the war on terror” at the beginning is besides the point, and attempts to make it so don’t amount to much more than school yard bullying techniques.
Until the GOP admits to becoming the very thing that it has so self-righeteously chastised so many others for being over the years, the calls of hypocricy will continue. Until commentators such as yourself are able to rise above the tired, petty rhetoric generated by pollsters such as Frank Luntz and agents of the devil such as Herr Rove, the country will continue to be divided. Until corporate America is bloced from arranging elections and writing our laws, this country will never be able to set a course for moderated growth and stable governance.
The repercussions of Bush’s lies will be long and enduring. And they won’t just happen in the realm of American politics.
By Markus
September 11, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
For those of you out there wondering what was censored in ABC’s 9/11 docudrama, here’s clue#1:
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/PriorKnowledge/Clintonletbinladen.htm
Clue #2 is in a book written by Clintoon’s former nuclear code briefcase:
http://www.nrbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C6153
By Janine
September 11, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
I remember having to commit to memory parts of Eisenhower’s speech in 1952 regarding the Korean War and just before his trip to attempt a truce. It occurs to me that his works could easily be repeated today with a few modifications….“The biggest fact about the Korean [replace with IRAQ ] war is this: It was never inevitable, it was never inescapable, no fantastic fiat of history decreed that little South Korea [Replace with IRAQ ]-in the summer of 1950[ replace with 2001 ]-would fatally tempt Communist aggressors [replace with AL QUAIDA } as their easiest victim. No demonic destiny decreed that America had to be bled this way in order to keep South Korea free and to keep freedom itself-self-respecting. We are not mute prisoners of history. That is a doctrine for totalitarians, it is no creed for free men.”
By Joe
September 11, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
I lost something that I may never get back on 9-11, tolerance. Each time I pass by a mosque thats close to my house I can’t help but think of the America I grew up in where these foreign looking structures were not part of our landscape. I look at Muslims with suspect and silently wish for them all to collectively leave our country. I will not address an obvious Muslim in public with any type of friendly gesture. Yes, I screctly hate all of them. I was not always this way.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
A Marine’s view on Iraq
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
September 11, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Greetings from the Valley of the Sun. The Arizona Republic has about 6 pages of 9/11 sob stories, maybe Realist can send hers out here.
I leave you Woo-ten KKKlanners to your mutual self-indulgent whining and moaning, folks. I am reminded of an old Cat Steven’s song - “oooh baby, baby it’s a wild world - hard to get by just upon a smile girl.”
Good luck, you witless hatefilled fools. I’m off for a walk in the desert before it gets too hot.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
JaSSD @ 12:18, you offer no plan. We breathlessly await your plan to eliminate terrorism in the world. Be prepared for return fire.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
JaSSD @ 12:18, you must rise above the Great Lie. It seemingly preoccupies your life, a cancer grown from a widely-reported fallacy.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Joe
hating them all aint right and is not good for you - being collectively suspicious is perfectly reasonable given that they (collectively) and no one else constitute the enemy, and its never wise to let your guard down. But there are mohammedans who are not very religious and who pose no threat. Clearly the majority of mohammedans in the US/EU are not actively seeking to kill/bomb the west. Its the unremitting religious brainwashing in their media/mosques/culture that is the problem. Eradicating the fanatics and their sympathisers is the way forward. Unfortunately the ACLU nazis and their ilk even object to that!
By Bluer
September 11, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
We are heading towards an ultimate civil war. The huge perception gap about the fundamental nature of this country and its future direction domestically as well as internationally is not going to be bridged. It is only going to get wider. Choose your side wisely, and, sorry, the political, social, and moral differences are too great to find any middle-ground.
By the way, I’m not advocating it. Just predicting it.
Have a nice life.
By SusieHomeMaker
September 11, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Question: How can we defeat the misinformed zealots bent on destruction in another county if we can’t even defeat the home grown ones here in our own? Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim or Al Quedea, but he, and his ilk, are still bent on the destruction of the U.S. and its constitution with as much zealotry as the worst Al Queada operative.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
rednekkkks … whatever you do please DO NOT step on a sidewinder or diamond back!! smirk
and please call the Border Patrol if you see any freeloading illegals slithering into the state.
make sure you take no water with you as well!!
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Susie @ 12:31, McVeigh was sui generis. Al Q is not.
By Van
September 11, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
SusieHomeMaker
Timothy McVeigh, is dead and his ilk are to follow. That is how we defeat the misinformed zealots bent on destruction in another county.
Death to those that want us dead.
McVeigh’s purpose in life was different than the camel chasers, his was revenge, the goat lovers just want us dead because we do not worship the way the want us to.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Bluer @ 12:30 raises a valid issue: should we (a) tolerate, or (b) encourage secession?
I think it is fair and true to note that NYC and the Peoples Republic of California are unhappy with their lack of influence over the Bush Administration. I think it is equally valid to note that there is almost no other part of the country that would want NYC or California to have any meaningful influence over either domestic or foreign policy. So, should we consider a divorce? I think it is worth discussion.
By Markus
September 11, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Susie-
“…another country if we can’t even defeat the home grown ones here in our own? Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim or Al Quedea, but he, and his ilk, are still bent on the destruction of the U.S. and its constitution with as much zealotry as the worst Al Queada operative.”
I’ve read some idiotic statements before here, but that has to rank at or near the top. “He and his ilk?” How many McVeighs are out there saying we convert to their cause or we die?
On a side note, I find it interesting that the kook fringe left never questioned about a government conspiracy when McVeigh and Nichols bombed the Oklahoma City fed building. Was that because Clintoon was in office or because McVeigh and Nichols were white males?
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
Middle America @ 11:52, nice try, but Bush has already degraded Al Q such that it is a nonentity. So Mission Accomplished right? So why are we even arguing, if the job is done? And OBL is in Pakistan, so ramping up in Afghanistan would be a total waste. Regrettably you do not control the Pakistan military; shall we invade Pakistan? * I’d say the guy who initiated and helped pull off the 9-11 attacks is pretty damn important. That’s like saying we don’t need to electrify Ted Bundy because we took his knife away. And if given a choice of invading Iraq or Pakistan, I’d choose Pakistan. Musharrif is not a democratically elected president. He took power in a military coup, much like Hussein. But the difference is Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, plus every major terrorist connected with al Queda has traveled thru Pakistan at one point or another. So I’d say they haven’t been the best at stopping terrorist movements. *By “all kinds of surveillance and tracking tools,” I assume you omit the intellgence that has proven most useful so far - “harsh” questioning. * It has been proven that “harsh” interrogation tactics often result in false information, rather than actual useful intelligence. If someone hooked a car battery up to your junk, you’d confess to the JFK assassination if you thought they’d stop cooking your nuts. One example is one detainee claimed al Queda had ties to Saddam, and that helped in the rationale to go to war. That information turned out to be false. *Would you chase terrorists into Iraq, or Iran, to ensure the world would know that the terrorists cannot hide? How does that differ from Bush’s isolate and chase policy? Terrorists followed us into Iraq, not the other way around. By change the perceptions of Islamic people, do you mean to make them fear us, or is to be a Kumbawa program you articulate. Bush’s military is already conducting a “Hearts and Minds” campaign, rebuilding the infrastructure; would you abolish that? By fixing the prism, shall we nuke the mosques? We already have the largest military in the world. It isn’t making them fear us. Bush just recently published his “Hearts and Minds” ideas. I applaud it. But nothing in the previous 4 years has shown me that the administration has understood this, until now. So far you articulate nothing Bush is not already doing, except that you would abandon Iraq (I guess - cannot tell from your post) in order to ramp up in Afghanistan. I sense that will do little to cure Iran’s support for the Hezbollah. If we are going to keep on the same path and strategy as we have now, I think we should leave Iraq. But if we are serious about making a difference there, we need to show it in what we do on the ground. 130,000 troops is not enough to adequately police an area and population the size of Iraq. That’s why I’m angry about Iraq. We split our focus and forces. We needed to finish the job in Afghanistan before we tackled something as monumental as Iraq. George W.’s father and Colin Powell understood how complicated and difficult Iraq would be, so why am I unpatriotic or stupid to think the same way?
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
jbm
you left out the marxist state of Mass and the child molestors leftist paradise of VT.
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
sorry, the formatting didn’t work right on that last post
By Janine
September 11, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Mr. W. I think that at least in part, angry conversation has been supported, encouraged by talk radio. For an interesting take on this “angry conversation” you mention,and how it might end, take a look at Waves of Rancor: Tuning in the Radical Right authored by Robert L. Hilliard; Michael C. Keith. Given your political leanings,I wouldn’t think that you would automatically pick up a book with this title. However, since you mentioned that you recognize your inclination to dismiss notions that do not coincide with your own, maybe you would find some value in this book.
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Middle America @ 11:52, nice try, but Bush has already degraded Al Q such that it is a nonentity. So Mission Accomplished right? So why are we even arguing, if the job is done?
*And OBL is in Pakistan, so ramping up in Afghanistan would be a total waste. Regrettably you do not control the Pakistan military; shall we invade Pakistan? * I’d say the guy who initiated and helped pull off the 9-11 attacks is pretty damn important. That’s like saying we don’t need to electrify Ted Bundy because we took his knife away. And if given a choice of invading Iraq or Pakistan, I’d choose Pakistan. Musharrif is not a democratically elected president. He took power in a military coup, much like Hussein. But the difference is Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, plus every major terrorist connected with al Queda has traveled thru Pakistan at one point or another. So I’d say they haven’t been the best at stopping terrorist movements.
*By “all kinds of surveillance and tracking tools,” I assume you omit the intellgence that has proven most useful so far - “harsh” questioning. * It has been proven that “harsh” interrogation tactics often result in false information, rather than actual useful intelligence. If someone hooked a car battery up to your junk, you’d confess to the JFK assassination if you thought they’d stop cooking your nuts. One example is one detainee claimed al Queda had ties to Saddam, and that helped in the rationale to go to war. That information turned out to be false.
Would you chase terrorists into Iraq, or Iran, to ensure the world would know that the terrorists cannot hide? How does that differ from Bush’s isolate and chase policy? Terrorists followed us into Iraq, not the other way around.
By change the perceptions of Islamic people, do you mean to make them fear us, or is to be a Kumbawa program you articulate. Bush’s military is already conducting a “Hearts and Minds” campaign, rebuilding the infrastructure; would you abolish that? By fixing the prism, shall we nuke the mosques? We already have the largest military in the world. It isn’t making them fear us. Bush just recently published his “Hearts and Minds” ideas. I applaud it. But nothing in the previous 4 years has shown me that the administration has understood this, until now.
So far you articulate nothing Bush is not already doing, except that you would abandon Iraq (I guess - cannot tell from your post) in order to ramp up in Afghanistan. I sense that will do little to cure Iran’s support for the Hezbollah. If we are going to keep on the same path and strategy as we have now, I think we should leave Iraq. But if we are serious about making a difference there, we need to show it in what we do on the ground. 130,000 troops is not enough to adequately police an area and population the size of Iraq. That’s why I’m angry about Iraq. We split our focus and forces. We needed to finish the job in Afghanistan before we tackled something as monumental as Iraq. George W.’s father and Colin Powell understood how complicated and difficult Iraq would be, so why am I unpatriotic or stupid to think the same way?
By Van
September 11, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Middle America,
Just how do we win the hearts and minds of the radical’s when their base for negotiating is we die?
When Hamas burns down a YMCA in the West bank territory? When the Fox reporter and camera man were forced at gun point to convert to Islam?
You can’t. When good negotiates with evil, evil will win.
By JoeD
September 11, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
Jim’s a Short sighted Dummy, Great point that most of us missed. Jim’s always taking pot shots, even as he decries the loss of civility. And his comment again ignores the fact that the GOP has been in charge of all aspects of the federal government since before 9/11. If any building of the welfare state has been going on, it’s by the party in power. The Democrats do not at this time control any of the branches of the federal government, Jim. the only welfare being paid out these days are to fat cats and corporations. Equating liberals with welfare and communism will surely not end the angry exchange.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
How can we defeat the misinformed zealots bent on destruction in another county if we can’t even defeat the home grown ones here in our own? Timothy McVeigh
Timothy McVeigh has been executed along with some of his cohorts has he not suzi-coffee cluthcher? And to that end, he is dead no thanks to the lefty anti-death penalty crowd. I swear you people talk out of both sides of your mouths coming and going!!!
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Van,
I didn’t say win the hearts and minds of the “radicals”. The only people who will ever defeat radical Islamic extremists is moderate Muslims. the hearts and minds I’m talking about are the ones of moderate Muslims.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
The conversation ends when they admit Iraq is a failure and there is some accountability in government.
The world is waiting
By Sara
September 11, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
Poor attention starved Rednekk didn’t receive half the attention he thought he deserved in this first post so he added that he is in the desert of AZ to his second post hoping to garner more attention. Rednekk, we have other things on our minds today besides your pathetic need for attention. Cat Stevens? Who listens to him these days to even know your quote? Cat Stevens? You were mildly entertaining at one point, now you’re old and tired and you try waaaaay to hard for attention, your fifteen minutes are up my dear. He’ll want to respond to someone on here soon, but he’ll have to wait a few hours in order to keep up with the charade that he travels. He’s sitting in a rent house on Boulevard.
By Spaceman109
September 11, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
hi everyone,
first of all, mclark, i am with you on the matter of time for the truth….if all he can do is engage in name-calling and pointless babble, he should be severly reined in…but do not let posters such as that drive you away….just do what is sensible and ignore rubbish posts like that.
i am not sure when the anger will end since each side is totally and unshakeably convinced that they are right and that god is on their side…geez, that sort of conduct makes us as americans look like the radical muslims.
in reply to dana’s question: Why is the “war effort” still being run by a group who has made so many poor decisons?
my response to dana is to say that we have leaders who just will not honestly admit that decisions of theirs have turned out badly….they think that to change anything now would be flip-flopping….a truly strong leader would be able to analyze recent events and change the approach accordingly….but oops, that would require too much thought.
and by the way…..now that our troops have been in iraq for nearly 3.5 years…..i wonder if anyone recalls how we were smugly told that said troops would be out of iraq before the end of 2003? i wonder if anyone recalls how we were confidently told that iraqi reconstruction would be paid for with profits from the sale of iraqi oil? big oooooooooooooops on both by leaders who were sold a bill of goods by that iraqi con artist ahmad chalabi.
By @@
September 11, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Middle America:
Cut off the head? Osama? It’s in the head of radical Islam. Makes no difference. It has been given birth in the Mosques.
Your ideology was given birth in this country’s institutes of academia, rife with liberalism. A product of the radical sixties.
No difference really. Middle Eastern radicals seek death. U.S. radicals seek peace. Contradictory ideals. Both should be vanquished, but I don’t see it happening in Islamofacism. Our survival would be served if you could let yours go when we are at war with a barbaric enemy.
Nothing wrong with peace. The only place you can have it is within yourself. Go for it.
By Bluer
September 11, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
jmblaw, I didn’t say anything about secession. I said civil war - “a war between political factions or regions within the same country”, as the dictionary calls it. Not another war over the rights of sections to secede from the whole. Rather, a war over the heart soul of the country. A war over the very nature of what we are and where we are going. A war whose wounds the victor is not going to heal with a few years of reconstruction. Maybe, “civil” is not the word to describe it.
By Jim's a Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw,
I hesitate to respond to someone who evidently has no other purpose than to post on this site, but here goes…
Terrorism is an attention and fear generating technique used by disenfranchised people to aggravate those in power and elevate themselves politically in the eyes of their sympathizers. It is not a strategy of win/lose, but rather withdrawl…did the IRA want to take over England?
Given the amount of readily available destructive technology 1st world countries have exported to 3rd world countries in the name of profit, “winning the war on terror” is not anywhere close to a practical goal.
One 13 year old kid with an RPG on a street corner is a terrorist. How can we defeat that?
My plan would be to encourage free market economic systems that would at least give that kid the opportunity to have a life. People with jobs and families and a future don’t grow up to be terrorists because they value life. People who’s families have been killed, who do not have running water and who sleep on the bare earth do.
My plan would include spending billions of dollars on locating and securing all the uranium that we let loose on the world. It would not include spending billions of dollars on fraudulent US contractors supposedly rebuilding the destruction that we caused.
My plan would include spending billions of dollars on the salaries of the regular working grunts in our military, coast guard and national guard, not the politically connected contractors that Duke Cunningham was bowing to. Better pay equals more enlistees…wee need boots on the ground not missile defense systems.
My plan would be to get out of the Middle East and allow their economies to develop according to market rules without antagonizing them with such enlightened phrases as “bring it on”.
Finally, my plan would be to hunt down bring to justice Osama Bin Laden.
Your plan is to flail randomly at everything you see that you don’t understand, and then to defend your viewpoint with deragtory language in the face of damning evidence to the contrary.
That’s brilliant.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
the fanatical mohammedans intimidate and kill moderate mohammedans too - invariably they are often much even easier for the fanatics to get at than westerners. the moderates are invariably scared to stand up to them, which is why there aren’t too many very loud campaigns comdemning fantaicism, just the occaisional statem,ent her wand there paying lip service to ‘tolerance’. moderates are often threatened if they do take a stand - and the moderates usually dont have much in the way of incentives to take stand either. you’re asking moderate mohammedans to deliberately put themselves in harms way - needlessly. most mohammedans are cowards and culturally/politically their history proves this time and again when it comes to “doing the right thing”.
moderate types like middle america whilst well meaning are part of the problem … you cannot ever negotiate with them from a position of weakness - the Israelis learnt this decades ago and modfied their policies accordingly.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
JoeD et.al,
Are you implying that because the republicans have enjoyed the majority in both houses and held the oval office, that they have carte blanche with regard to policy, especially domestic policy, which has more blockaides and barriers in place than a downhill ski course? You are blissfully unaware of the ACLU, SCLC, NAACP, leftist media spin, etc all of which hinders the efforts of our leaders?
You complain and b*** about not catching killers like McVeigh but when we catch them you guys protest and march to try to keep them alive, so that some puny ponytailed lawyer can get him released on a technicality so that he can build a bigger bomb next time?
You guys are walking contridictions and double talkers. The entire leftist party has no platform other than pandering to the political moment and double talk and flip flopping.
Your party mascot is appropriate as a jackass, but could easily be a slimy backwards crawling crawfish!!
By Haiku
September 11, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Hearts and minds are lost
Your hate fills the empty space
And pollutes the air
By Curious Observer
September 11, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
For me, the test is whether they ever supported the war on terror or whether they saw it as a 9/11 police action that diverted attention and resources from efforts to build the welfare state.
If you removed your head from between your hips, Wooten, and objectively examined your words, perhaps you would get a hint about why polite political discourse is now impossible. But then, you are far, far too polite ever to resort to cheap political shots at the opposition, aren’t you?
By Bemused Humanist
September 11, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten:
Have you considered that perhaps now the nation’s fissures run too deep? That perhaps the viciousness of the rhetoric (“liar,” “traitor,” “nazi,” et. al.) that has become de rigueur not just on the fringe but increasingly in the mainstream is wounding the nation’s soul beyond repair? It saddens me that that the level of personal insult and hatred evinced on this blog is merely illustrative of the how terribly divided the country is and will continue to be no matter who wins the election this year…. or next year … or ten years from now.
Should the nation begin exploring the possibility of peaceful separation?
By Dana
September 11, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Ah Middle America!!! VERY well stated!!!
Van - winning the hearts and minds is such a basic concept in ANY war planned by ANY person with ANY understanding of combat, that is totally blows my mind that it took 4 freaking YEARS for the esteemed Mr. Bush to think of it!
If we had been doing that (mind you, many of the INDIVIDUAL soldiers have been) then we wouldn’t have so many NEWLY staunch anti americans in Iraq. We came in, shut down their police, and in large the Iraqi army, and then we just left them there - no job, no way to live, no anything! So what did they do, just “volunteer” to help? No darlin - they JOINED THE OPPOSITION! Take away a man’s way to feed his family, and you lose them. Don’t kid yourself, I fully believe that Hussein is and was a horrible dictator, and should have been removed. (For the sake of argument I will ignore who put him in power to begin with, and lost control of him.) There are plenty of Iraqi’s who are currently fighting American’s who believe the same thing.
There is way to much to say to get it all in one post. I’m angry that you don’t see it, because I just can’t understand HOW you can’t - I know that the majority of posters here are reasonably, and in may cases, extremely intelligent. Yet, some of you still keep spewing the same nonsense. We can despise, and PROTEST the way the war is being fought and still be strong in our desire to rid the world of terrorists and keep our country safe and strong. We want the same thing, we simply want it done in what we see is the better way to acccomplish the goal!
By Realist
September 11, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
did the IRA want to take over England
England was not “take-able”. Iraq is.
One 13 year old kid with an RPG on a street corner is a terrorist. How can we defeat that?
With a well trained sniper.
And regarding your “plan”, exactly how is it that you sit down and engage in talks with a group who would use the opportunity to meet with you to detonate the bomb they are wearing on their chest in the name of Allah. You just dont get it. Your thinking is extremely naive.
By Van
September 11, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Middle America,
Sorry I disagree, where do you think they recruit from, the ranks of the moderates.
If you want to win the hearts and minds of the moderates, show them the result of being a radical. The terrorists are not criminals, they are blood thirsty terrorists, treat them the same way. They do not get American style justice, the receive militry style justice, a firing squad and fried bacon. Personally, the fewer prisoners the better. I say give them the same chance to live as they give our captured servicemen and women. Fight fire with fire.
By Amanda
September 11, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
One 13 year old kid with an RPG on a street corner is a terrorist. How can we defeat that?
Wiretaps would be a good start. ;)
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
JaSSD @ 1:05, while your free market solution is the correct long term cure, and is the one that Bush endeavors to implement, you overlook the fact of dictatorships currently in control, and most of those dictatorships are the funding source for the terrorists. (Bush knows that, and that is why he had an effective intelligence program for international banking until the NYTimes exposed it.)
Your program covers all that Mr. Bush is doing now, except your program does not provide a path toward your end. What is your path? Capitalism and freedom, regrettably, do not arise spontaneously (not even in the US) but are born from armed conflict. Please describe, with specificity, how free markets will arise in the Middle East without the US Army.
By Another Cheerleader for Bush
September 11, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
This could be a somber day for us cheerleaders… but not this girl - hey yay rah team!
Realist, tftt, jbm, markanus - come on girls no more crying - go team go! Wave those pom poms! Shake those moneymakers!
Spirit!
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Should the nation begin exploring the possibility of peaceful separation?
yes … the lefties can have the earthquake zone of Kalifornia, Oregon and Wash plus Alaska and the island paradise of Puerto Rico … we’ll have the rest.
Realist
I think the demoNcrat mascot should be either a treasonous cockroach which they now amusingly have as the demented elected leader of the DNC or a yellowbellied appeasing snake like Fiengold. just a thought - like.
By Jim's Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
This is my last post on this.
Realist, I agree with you. That’s why I don’t plan on engaging them at all. I’d get out. What’s there to negotiate? It’s their country, they can run it the way they want. Why does America have to be involved?
What happened to all those Republicans who were going apesh*t over American’s tangential involvement in the Balkans…
By Shooter
September 11, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Not very many of us have a good source of info other than the ax grinders in the media.To assume that you are informed well enough to spout most of the BS in this blog as though it were fact displays the level of your ignorance for all to see.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
You lefties are getting your collective asses handed to you in here today, and not in a name calling contest but in a true debate of logic and fact.
Its only going to get worse for you guys after tonights address. Dont think this “dumb” president doesnt know how to reach into the hearts of possible swing voters and “right” the ship. Watch him do it and then go to be defeated leftist!!
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
Middle America @ 12:44, your logic flaw is that you equate Al Q with terrorism. Al Q is a mere subset. Another such subset is Hezbollah. Another such subset is Hamas. Your program is not comprehensive, but assumes terrorism ends with OBL’s death; I think you missed something there.
You err on your assumption of the inefficacy of the “harsh” questioning. Well documented in the last week, by Bush and by the WSJ. We understand the left would do no more with captured terrorists than play patty-cake; that does not inspire confidence.
You side-stepped my best point: would you chase terrorists into Iran or Iraq? I think you would not. That is a fundamental flaw in your plan.
You plan for locating the “lost uranium we have unleashed on the world” is silly. Iran is manufacturing their own, or perhaps you have not heard that. Further Niger sells it, but Joe Wilson promises the bad guys are not trying to buy there. I know that is good enough for you.
I agree with your strategy on paying the mililtary what they are worth; that is called the “volunteer” army. Don’t look now, but democrats proposed reinstituting the draft. (Sorry, Jim W, I think the draft is a bad idea.)
You misrepresent my plan, which is merely to isolate the terrorists, and to chase them down and kill them. Bush is doing that. He said it will take a long time; I say it will take 50 years. Do you disagree with anything I propose?
By JoeD
September 11, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Well, realist, I realize that asking the majority party to enact laws and adminster policies that stand up to the Constitution and the laws and traditions of our land is a tall order, but yes, I do beleive they have carte blanche. Problem is that they can’t agree on what should be done, other than cut taxes and scare people. They do have carte blanche, but they stand around and whine about how the interest groups and the mean lefties are making them obey the constitution. Grow up. If they had a policy that would effective and within the constitution (which I think the GOP still recognizes), then enact it. But don’t complain if it doesn’t meet constitutional muster. I seem to recall that Timothy McVeigh was caught the same day as the OKC bombing. He was tried and executed for his crimes. I know of no responsible Democratic leader who whined and tried to keep him from being executed. There were certainly people who tried to prevent his execution, as they would any execution as a matter of principle for them, but don’t try to paint all of us with that broad brush. I for one was very happy when the FBI caught him and the Clinton Justice Department convicted him.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Why does America have to be involved?
Because like W said, if we dont fight them over there, we will have to fight them here. The failure to either believe or understand that is where the argument lies. We believe there is a very real threat by pulling out, you dont. Good thing W is the “decider” huh.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
only a complete moron would even pose a question like did the ira fenian scum want to take over England?
NO they didn’t!! debating ignorant lefties like this idiot is pointless - they dont even know the basics of history. the fenians were simply attempting to impose a socialist cuban style state which no one in ireland - north or south wanted … their racist terrorism, which also had the ultimate aim of a complete withdrawal of any UK influence in any part of Ireland was also in part a political smoke screen for their thuggish criminality and protection rackets.
By Jim's A Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Sorry…I lied…this is the last post,
Jbmlaw…last time I checked Viet Nam was a fully functioning capitalist economy. No US troops.
I’d do it kinda like that.
And BTW, Saddam wasn’t funding Bin Laden.
Oh…almost forgot. Saddam didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction either.
Oh…almost forgot this one…under 40 percent of this country, which is a Democracy and depends on the “will of the people” don’t want us there.
Oh…jeez, I’m sorry…keep forgetting…Bin Laden is a free man. Right now. He’s out there. Where are we?
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
@@,
My ideolgy? I am not a hippie. I’m simply stating that a person can be adverse to violence, and yet still want our country to catch and kill those who attacked us. But you keep hearing what you want to hear.
Middle Eastern radicals seek death. U.S. radicals seek peace. Contradictory ideals. Both should be vanquished
People who want peace should be vanquished? First of all, put down the King Arthur book, come back to modern language. I didn’t realize that people who loved peace need to be:
1 : to overcome in battle : subdue completely 2 : to defeat in a conflict or contest 3 : to gain mastery over (an emotion, passion, or temptation)
Anyway. I said it above and I’ll say it again. The only people who will ever defeat radical Islamic extremists, are moderate Muslims. Until moderate Muslims speak up and move to quiet the voice of radicals, the radicals will continue to be a problem. Otherwise the U.S. will have to keep fighting this battle. We’re fighting the symptoms, not the cause. I want NO Americans to die so I try to talk about ways we can get to that point. But it seems all you guys don’t mind letting Americans die, as long as some “towel head” dies too. We’re never going to kill every Muslim alive, so you might want to start thinking about how we get to the point where the next generation of Muslims doesn’t hate us.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Exactly truth. Not to mention the fact that England was well able to defend herself. Her sovereignty was never in doubt. That cant be said for Iraq.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
“What happened to all those Republicans who were going apesh*t over American’s tangential involvement in the Balkans…”
Those hypocrites are the corrupt, war mongering cowards now.
It would be funny if it were a game but it is reality.
They choose to ignore reality.
They send others into a civil war.
Their failed neocon mindset is insane and they must be held accountable.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
JaSSD @ 1:32, you deceptively suggest that Vietnam (and could as well similarly affirm China) renounced communism with no outside influence. After 25 years of the withering effects of collectivism, they returned to the system all had seen in South Vietnam. Not a spontaneous shift, but a rebirth. The Middle East would have to see a birth, in order to have a similar rebirth. (China learned from its attempt to absorb Hong Kong.)
You employ a half truth in citing that Saddam was not funding OBL. You do not affirm that Saddam was not funding terrorism, and you do not affirm that Saddam was not funding a WMD program. We do not tolerate half-truths employed to deceive.
As to your affirmation that 40% of the country does not want to do the right thing in Iraq, I assume that is true, just as 98% of us don’t want to pay taxes. So what? We have elections. Nothing has changed since 2004, except the shrillness on the left.
By Jim's a Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
Well, I’m just a big fibber about not posting any more…winding you guys up is way funner than work.
What’s the relationship between Iraq and terrorism again? I seem to recall Dick “fire at will” Cheney telling Tim Russert yesterday that there wansn’t any.
Do you guys have some info that Mr. Cheney isn’t privy to?
And with regards to the IRA…correct…the IRA did have multiple reasons for carrying out it’s agenda. But none of them included taking over England.
Same with Bin Laden & the fundamentalists…they don’t want to take us over - heck, they couldn’t. They just want us to aggrivate us. As far as real threats go, terrorism doesn’t even register…by my count 100 times more Americans were killed last year in auto accidents than have ever been killed by terrorists. But we’re not waging war on bad drivers now are we?
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Middle America @ 1:33, @@ was perhaps interpreting the Churchill quote that I opened the blog today: The malice of the wicked is reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous.
I affirm that the opposite of peace is not war, but is freedom. You can always surrender your freedom and obtain a sort of peace. You will always surrender your peace to retain freedom, because there are always people out there who wish to take away your freedom.
How much of your freedom will you surrender. I submit, if there is another attack on the US, you will probably give up much more. I will not.
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
Half of your post is stuff I never said. You must have tried to answer two people at once, and didn’t separate the two.
Torture not only is immoral and illegal, but is ineffective. You can try to twist that into me being weak all you want, but it just isn’t so. The test is, would you mind if the Soviet Union were doing these things to a US soldier? You can bet that if we throw away our morality in this matter, that any US soldier will pay for it someday. If we don’t have the moral high ground, then they’ve won already.
As to the question about chasing terrorists into Iran or Iraq. You didn’t seem too interested in following Osama bin Laden into Pakistan. So when you admit we should kill or capture him no matter where he is, then I’ll admit I’d follow terrorists into Iran or Iraq.
By GOP Pack of Jackals
September 11, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
The whining hyenas and jackals of the GOP will dig up the bones of the dead and gnaw on them today.
They will squat and pee on the tombs of the dead as they mark their territory.
By The Way
September 11, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Realisp and TimefortheTurd deserve credit for their one-two punch defense of our great president Bush and his Iraq War. They are motivated to heal this nation’s wounds and assuage the criticism, (real tag-team tincture swabs).
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
I am not willing to surrender any of my freedom. My freedom is my big f*ck you to Osama and his murderers. Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
By Realist
September 11, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Our goal is to ensure that the Iraqi government can defend herself. After that, your scenario of allowing things to play out will happen. Makes sense to me.
By Jim's a Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw….
Finally…something I can work with. I thought it was just the Democrats who had that Mothering instinct.
Good to see that you know what’s best for everyone and are willing to spend our money on it.
Oh…and what about that tax reform that the GOP has been crying about since 1994, speaking of good governace. It’s been, what, 12 years now of Republican anti-tax leadership? Any reform of the IRS code?
Nah.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Middle America @ 1:44, where did you get the idea that torture is going on? Only “harsh” interrogation, and that seemingly has foiled dozens of plots in the past four years.
By the way, our forces wear uniforms and we are signatories to the Geneva convention. Surely you do not affirm that OBL ever signed. Head-chopping sounds like that is outside permissible activity. Do you affirm that we are chopping off heads?
By The Way
September 11, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Law brings up Churchill? Churchill considered Iraq his greatest mistake. Law, if you’re not going to open up a history book, you hack, then STFU.
For the Right to bring up Churchill in this debate shows what uneducated and ignorant Lip-Sphyncs they truly are.
Here’s a cookie, Law: (o)
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
JaSSD, are you signing on to the Fair Tax proposal? Welcome.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
other than the use of terrorism there is NO parallel whatever between the fenian ira and the towel heads … the fenians were naturally wholly obsessed with n. ireland and it was more sectarian than ‘confessional’ as the fenians were hardly good altar boys beloved by the church.
the towel heads are a ‘confessional’ beast do not just want to “aggrivate us”, they want to do as much harm politically/economically and physically as they can - the fenians were just trying to intimidate us Brits into withdrawing - a wholly different agenda. terrorism works by instilling fear and/or making folks and companies change their ways … their terrorism has managed to effect major changes all over the west. including to US and UK and EU laws, security, foreign policy etc … IT IS UTTERLY MORONIC to suggest As far as real threats go, terrorism doesn’t even register…
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Way, we understand you think Churchill was an appeaser and a leftist. You are not persuasive. Some of us remember Churchill.
By Eyes Open
September 11, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
What would happen if a large segment of the world’s Catholics suddenly became militant, violent, and suicidal in a long-term goal to force the rest of us to turn Catholic or die otherwise? What would everyone think if cardinals, bishops, and priests praised and supported these efforts? What if Catholic schools taught the need for the overthrow of other religions and non-Catholic countries? Would anyone be surprised that the Pope and his orthodox counterparts were working towards the same end, even if they had some basic differences amongst themselves. Would anyone be mislabeling the militant Catholics as “terrorists” as if they were nothing more than a band of loosely affiliated of road-rage perpetrators? Would anyone be insisting that these “terrorists” are were not representative of the “peaceful” teachings of Catholicism? Would anyone be admonishing us to practice tolerance and not confuse Catholicism with other Christian sects?
Hell no. The secular world would turn on Catholics and the rest of the world’s Christians in a heartbeat. So why are so many of you blind to the danger that militant Islamism poses to the world? Why is there no hesitation to mouth off about the dangers of invoking the name of Jesus in a public place, but no such compulsion to call to task the one world religion that currently sends its own out with bombs strapped to their bodies? Could it be that deep down inside you sympathize with what they trying to achieve - a world united under one banner, one philosophy, one way of thinking? You couldn’t unite the world under socialism so you feel a little kinship with the next movement that comes along? Just remember these guys play for keeps.
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
It’s a slippery slope. You cite terrorists chopping off heads as a justification for using torture. But that’s what is supposed to separate us from them, the fact that we value life, and do not believe in using underhanded means to interrogate prisoners. If the CIA was not using questionable means to gain the information from prisoners in the secret prisons, then why were these prisoners being held abroad, in unknown places, away from the public eye? The US wasn’t afraid to let the world know they were holding prisoners at GITMO, so why were these particular prisoners not transferred to GITMO after they were arrested? It has been documented that US interrogators were using tactics such as water borting (holding prisoners head under water) because they didn’t define it as torture, but I’d say depriving someone of air is not humane. And I’d be superpissed if anyone was doing that to a US soldier or citizen. True, these people are not signatories to the Geneva convention, but again, what separates us from them is our value of life. We have to maintain our higher standard.
By Jim's a Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
Tftt,
Funny thing is, what we’re talking about is terrorism, and how to defeat it.
And statistically, it doesn’t register. How many people have been killed in America by terrorists? 4,500? That sucks, but smoking kills more people every day and does more damage to our economy.
And jeez…when the ceo’s of those tobacco companies put their hands on the bibles and lied to congress, nobody even did a thing.
Why give so much credit to people who wipe their arse with their hands when we’re doing such a better job of killing ourselves?
By Georgia Gal
September 11, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Sara, I found Redneck’s quoting Cat Stevens to be quite enlightening. I have at times wondered about Redneck but all questions have now been answered since his hero (Stevens) no longer goes by that name but has adopted a muslim name and the last time I heard anything about him he was banned from this country.
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
Explain the FairTax plan to me. I’m being completely serious. I want to know more about it. In the spirit of Jim Wooten’s blog above, (even though he didn’t really reach out and say he’s been part of the angry conversation) I want to show that I’m not a partisan, that I am willing to be convinced.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
Eyes wide open, I think you are on to something. Good post.
By Barbara
September 11, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
Good afternoon everyone. I was in the office on this day 5 years ago. At that time I had a private office and kept “holed up” a lot of the time (too much work). I noticed a difference in the noise level coming from the general work area, and so I came out. People were all standing around talking about the first tower being hit. I remember the same as one other poster said. First, they said it was a small plane, then a commuter plane. I don’t think there was even speculation that it was intentional until the second plane hit. And I think I even remember when the last plane was “out of touch” but before it went down. They were already counting the missing planes and trying to get them all on the ground.
Anyway, I went back into my office and shut the door and cried. Then prayed. Then cried some more. I cried intermittently for days after.
One thing that did give me some comfort though, was how this country seemed to pull together. Everyone hung flags, and all seemed so much more polite and friendly than in years past. It seemed everyone was proud to be an American then. Fire trucks flew large American flags on poles or on the back of the trucks. Offices and buildings posted flags everywhere. You couldn’t turn around without seeing flags everywhere. I thought “What a great nation. It is a shame that it took such a tragedy to bring us back together.”
Well, I think it may have been a week later, at the most, when someone took issue with having to ride in a fire truck with the flag being flown. (Anybody else remember that?) And low and behold, that particular station was pressured into removing that flag. That’s how long the pride in being an American lasted. About a week, in my recollection.
That brings me to the final thought of my post. Many of you today have attacked TFTT. Yes, he goes to far (you know you do, but I still love you!). Yes, he is quick-witted and has great command of the language so his insults are hard to top. However, he represents the true spirit of an American in my opinion. He came over here from another country, and gives his alliance to this one. He calls himself an American. He has posted of his pride and enjoyment, not only of this country, but also of the south in particular. Our alliance should be to this country. Not just because we are born here, but because we want to be here. He wants to be here, and has expressed his alliance. If only some people who were actually born here would show the same respect for this country, we’d be much better off. We should welcome all legal immigrants, but we should expect them to pledge an allegiance to this country. TFTT does that. I would rather be associated with him than someone who tears down the great name and meaning of this country that I love.
By brian
September 11, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
@eyes open 2:10pm
“What would happen if a large segment of the world’s Catholics suddenly became militant, violent, and suicidal in a long-term goal to force the rest of us to turn Catholic or die otherwise. The secular world would turn on Catholics and the rest of the world’s Christians in a heartbeat. Could it be that deep down inside you sympathize with what they trying to achieve - a world united under one banner, one philosophy, one way of thinking? You couldn’t unite the world under socialism so you feel a little kinship with the next movement that comes along?”
That is precisely it. Nailed it you did. The irony is that only anti Christianity is apparently tolerated here. Anything anti-else and you are a bigot. The gobalist libs want a one world equality, especially at our expense. Any cause with these people that weakens America in the global arena is a good cause to them. All you have to do is listen to them to understand the origins of their light and it’s intended destination.
By MClark
September 11, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
*By time for the truth
Since I can’t beat them, this old man has decided to join them. No more reasoned comments. Just s** from the sidelines.
F*** you Realist.
now we see the real nature of smug moral fascist Clark … beaten in debate it just becomes personally abusive!!
where’s my abuse Clark?? - you simpering effete wimpy wanker? this is disgusting racial discrimination against the English!! you ignorant racist bigot!! huge smirk*
If you really think that I posted that then your ignorance truly knows no bounds. It must have been someone’s idea of a joke. But them your ignorance truly does not have boundaries so I’m not sure why I said that.
You say I was beaten in debate today, but I don’t recall debating anyone on any subject. But then again truth, while part of your name, has never seemed to get in your way.
Speaking of Debate: Since you constantly whine about no one debating your “substantive posts” and as you are my intellectual better, why not debate me on some date in the future. Your subject, your choice.
Two ground rules: Not one hint of spew, invective, or name calling. Just a debate on a real topic using real facts (not opinion masquerading as fact.) And no making up words (there is still no such thing as a moral fascist, no matter how many times you repeat it.)
So there it is. Your chance to make me look like an a* without your arsenal of hate rhetoric.
Got the stones, mate?
By Harold
September 11, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
angry converstion ends with an n, but normally has an a in there somewhere! hehehe! sorry
By CJ
September 11, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
To Mr. Wooten’s original question - How does the angry conversation end? Many of these comments indicate that we have a long way to go. I have a thought…albeit not an original one - let’s try to be “intellectually honest”.
For example, in Mr. Wooten’s post today, he wrote that he has a test for considering the opinions of others that has to do with whether the person or persons complain about resources being diverted from the “welfare state” to carrying out the war on terror.
For those of us who believe in the benefits of institutions that most of us take for granted (such as the EPA, CDC, FEMA, Dept. of Agriculture, OSHA, FDIC, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, FAA, US Dept. of Transportation, Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, National Park Service, funding for public education, funding for police and firefighters), grouping all government institutions under the umbrella of “welfare state” seems to be a misrepresentation of the views of many. By grouping all non-military government activity under the “welfare state” umbrella, I can’t help but think that Mr. Wooten is trying to lead his readers to believe that all their taxes go directly to welfare queens, and that the rest of us receive no benefit from government services. If Mr. Wooten and others believe that such institutions should be reduced or eliminated then he should specifically address the institutions he doesn’t like and make arguments to persuade. But misrepresenting my views and the views of others - by being intellectually dishonest with labels such as “welfare state” - is, in my opinion, likely to generate animosity.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
The kids think w leaked
By getalife
September 11, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
“intellectually honest”?
Not on this blog.
By Joe
September 11, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
A mere two weeks ago the mid term elections looked (surprisingly) good for the democrats. I was scared. After reading the nonesense posted here from who I assume are voting adults, it is obvious why a democratic take over in Congress is not happening this time. Nope not gonna happen. Sit down and talk with the terrorist? How cute.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Middle America @ 2:10, you continue to affirm the the US tortures terrorists. I disagree; you use that false assertion to support your view that we should not be in Iraq, or some similar position. Would you concede that, if there is no torture, that our policies are appropriate and effective?
As to Fair Tax, I’m glad you asked. My representative is John Linder, and he has written a short book explaining the idea. To give you an over-simplification, we would move from a income tax system to either a value-added tax system or a national sales tax. (Linder’s plan is more like the latter, but there is little economic distinction between the two.)
The economic flaw with the income tax: a hypothetical 20% tax on income has detrimental effects on accumulation of wealth, Adam Smith’s uncontradicted measure of economic improvement. All income is used one of two ways, consumption or savings. A 20% tax on income = (a 20% tax on consumption) + (a 20% tax on savings.) By switching to a consumption-based tax, you allow each to control the level of his tax via his spending. Those who are the biggest consumers pay the most tax.
Linder calculates that a 23% tax on the final sale of a new product would be sufficient to offset all other nominal Federal tax revenues. The change in tax would also have a mildly stimulative effect - elimination of the corporate income tax, less expenditure for tax compliance throughout the economy, abolition of 90% of the IRS government jobs - so the actual effect on revenues would be slightly higher.
Not exactly on target with the topics for the day, but it is a terribly interesting idea.
By Harold
September 11, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
The Christiands and the Jews have nucular bombs and stuff, so if they started blowing up cars alongside the road everyone would be surprised.
However, if they blew up abortion clinics or olympic parks or hell even houses nobody would be surprised at all.
By Jim
September 11, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
WW2 took 3 years and 5 months. The war in Iraq is passed that time frame. To question the War Rummy and Cheney call us confused, traitors & non patriotic Americans.
To vote for any incumbent to Congress with the state of the country is BEYOND STUPID!
By Realist
September 11, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
I think we liked you better when you were telling us to f -off MClurk. Btw, nobody this side of San Francisco uses the term “stones” anymore ok mate.
By Curious Observer
September 11, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Middle America,
The Fair Tax plan is very simple. We would replace the federal income tax with a sales tax on consumed goods and services. There would be no more taxes on income of any kind—corporation income, interest income, dividends, stock sale profits, etc. Instead, you would pay taxes on any goods and services you buy. The less of your income you spend, the bigger your tax break would be.
Of course, those with high incomes would probably have only a small portion of total income subject to this tax. They can sock away thousands tax-free in savings, stock purchases, etc. Those with low incomes probably spend 95% of what they make and thus would have a much higher portion of their incomes subject to taxes.
Think of it as a sort of reverse Robin Hood—in this case, take from the poor and give to the rich. The sheriff wins, and the merry band loses big-time. But then, according to TFTT, Realist, Markus, etc., poor people are scum anyway.
By Van
September 11, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Jim’s a Short Sighted Dummy,
Big difference between smoking and terrorism - one you do to yourself, the other you have no choice about.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
CJ @ 2:42, your catalogue is a good start. All of those non-military agencies are welfare programs; none is essential for good life in the United States.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
5 Years later.
By Georgia Gal
September 11, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Barbara, thanks ever so much for saying so eloquently what I have wanted to say to TFTT’s critics. I usually just read and enjoy the comments on this blog with comment but it seems today has been my day to speak up. I have read all the criticisms of TFTT today and the majority were before he had even logged in. I too admire his love and concern for this country which is so evident in his posts. I agree he sometimes goes out of bounds with some of his replies but most of the time I am proud to have him as a fellow resident of this great country! I just couldn’t come up with the words to defend him. As usual you were able to come up with the right words! By the way, I am also proud of the way you usually make your patriotism known!
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Jim @ 2:49, the war against international communism began in earnest in 1946, and continued until 1990 - 44 years. We have a way to go in the war on terrorism.
By harold
September 11, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
“Big difference between smoking and terrorism - one you do to yourself, the other you have no choice about.”
If we did not do terrorism to ourselves, why exactly was pretty much everybody sure it was the islamoterrorists before there was any evidence?
If you poke a pig with a sharp stick 24 times an day for 8 years and then wake up one day with a pig bite, yes you do tend to suspect that pig.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Wow Ga. gal,
You can make out that drivel lies post everyday?
I am impressed.
lies is an illegal immigrant and not a real American.
You must be for amnesty for the illegals.
By The Fireman
September 11, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Some of the finest, most well staffed and well equipped fire departments in this country are actually fire “districts” where members (ie. homeowners, business owners) pay dues based on property size and value. The department has a board with elected members. It operates very much like a company and is a proven very sucessful model. Taxes aren’t the answer to every solution CJ.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Curious @ 2:51, you opposition to aggregate wealth accumulation by our society is noted. We also note the roaring success in those countries that pursue punitive tax policies.
My perception is that people do not resent those who accumulate wealth, but do resent those who ostentatious exhibit it. Thus, Sam Walton, driver of an old pickup truck, was never an object of disdain in his life time. In contrast, (pick any Hollywood star who lived big and wound up in bankruptcy court) is always despised.
Those who accumulate wealth provide jobs, create the charitable foundations that do the most good, and generate the lendable funds that financial intermediaries access to nurture growing businesses. Not a bad thing at all.
By Roger Sturtevant
September 11, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Barbara,
RE: TFTT
Isn’t the point that going too far is what starts this angry conversation in the first place? I am a dyed in the wool conservative, voted for W twice, would vote for him again if I could. But as I lurk here daily I see the cause I hold so dear debased by the nonsense that comes out of the mouth of abusive people like the one complained about. Our job as conservatives, IMHO, is to show others the righteousness of our cause, to help them see that a conservative America is a better America. That job is made all but impossible by people such as TFTT.
Look at Cynthia McKinney and her ilk. They make it easy to point out the faults and foibles of the left and do the same sort of disservice to the left as our abusive elements. (My Machiavellian side wishes she had been re-elected.) I’m not saying we should back down from a fight, I never have and I never will. But I go into that fight educated, prepared and armed with facts to stand behind my arguments. That is how conservatives will win.
As for the left that go too far, I encourage them at every opportunity. The more of an a* they make of themselves, the worse their entire movement looks. Their arrogance makes it easier to show people the fallacy of the left. But there is a time when we should chastise our own.
Almost half of Americans are not with us. They will never listen to us if we screech insults into their face, no matter how much great wisdom our other words may contain. Once we alienate them with the insults, they stop listening.
But the fact is that they are Americans and I believe a sensible argument will, at worst, show them the passion of our beliefs while at best will convince them of the correctness of our world view. The great divide created by the TFTT’s of the movement make that task extremely difficult if not impossible.
Conservatives like TFTT do more harm than good and are too arrogant to see that.
By MClark
September 11, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
So now Realist alludes to me being gay.
Nice.
Anybody else need to ask how the angry conversation starts and how it will end?
By Realist
September 11, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Roger, So we SHOULDNT call liberals Macaca then?
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Roger, if hypothetically TFTT only responds to the vacuous name-callers (and does not initiate) and makes them pay a public penalty for misbehavior, is that so bad?
TFTT is not perfect, and we disagree on occasion, but TFTT is useful to the movement. Some people do not wish to think; TFTT compels them.
By brian
September 11, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
@curious observer 2:51PM:
Either you have not read about the Fair Tax, or the book that’s out by Linder and Boortz, or you have only heard what the uniformed left has told you. Your comments about how the poor and lower income folks are handled are well laid out and addressed there. I suggest you pick up a copy of the book and read it or visit this website before speaking of something which you obviously have no clue about beyond leftist rhetoric like so many other Dem political hacks against it: fairtax.org
By getalife
September 11, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
See it is not hard to admit Iraq is a mistake
A step in the right direction to have an honest debate on how to fix it.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
according to TFTT, Realist, Markus, etc., poor people are scum anyway
WHAT??? pinko observer has been at the magic mushroom pizzas again … look lets clear this up once and forever, liberals and appeasers are scum … poor folks are just poor folks. and it depends what you mean by poor as well. but if they’re poor and appeasers then they’re scum - GOT IT NOW??
moron Clark
you spend several hours on here being personally abusive, with NO provocation from me until after I read your bollux. BTW I could care less - I was LMFAO at all of it … knowing I’d managed to effortlessly achieve such a munificent multi moron reaction was indeed reward enough. You then expect us to believe that you didn’t write that filthy disgusting horrid and beastly post that really badly upset everyone on here to Realist.
you then get all anal and uppity “about debating” - all I was doing was gently goading you - just like you did me. It seems its OK if you do it to me but NOT if I hand it back!! that’s moral fascism!!
This is JUST a blog matey - its utterly disposable entertainment - regardless of whether serious or flippant content is involved. You take all this way too personally … the comments by who ever it was about your military service way back are just sharp banter … yet you continue to act like its criminal libel.
YOU DONT EVER TELL ME HOW TO DEBATE/POST - just as I dont tell you … I dont object anyway, I just get even … smirk … that’s the huge difference between us - I am rather ironically way more liberal in my attitude there than you are!!
A debate on here is not contrived or done by grand appointment etc - it just happens!! you are clearly an anal control freak!!
now go back to telling Realist to make a sexual departure … that was actually quite a funny post!! see some of us can larrrrf about such stuff without getting uppity!!
By Old Man
September 11, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
My hate for Usama bin-Laden and his followers has no bounds. I would love to personally end this man’s life and all of his followers. I understand the quotation about vengeance and digging two graves before starting the quest and have no problem with accepting its consequences. As for how we get past the Bush lied/stay the course, I’m not sure we can. The President and his staff were on duty when this happened. He was in charge and responded appropriately at first. We were attacked as cruelly on 9/11 as we were at Pearl Harbor. The Taliban were convinced we would do nothing. I remember they wanted American school children to send letters to Usama so he could explain why he did it. I was so proud of the President then! He responded with minimal troops and overwhelming air power. It was successful, but not overwhelmingly so. I would have preferred sending in troops and killing everything in sight, but his way saved American lives and I kept quiet.
Then he lost sight of the goal and went off into Iraq because Sadaam was evil. Who cares? Bin-Laden killed Americans. Sadaam killed his own people. Let them rise up in revolt. He was their problem – not mine. You never start a fight and then in the middle of that fight pick another one with someone else. We have no idea where Usama is. Al Quida is still active and wishes us harm and death. The president screwed up. Ford of Ford Motor Company screwed up his family’s business and had to step down. When the boss screws up, the board of directors should fire him and put in someone else to succeed. The “conservatives” still believe he is doing a good job. We “liberals” (code word for anyone who disagrees with them) don’t speak the same language, nor see the world in the same light, and we have no common ground for discussion.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Roger you arrogant patronising control freak go play with your todger!!
By Realist
September 11, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
MClurk, I said nothing of you being gay. Do you equate the mention of SF with being gay? That is a terrible way to stereotype an entire city becuase of the acts of a few isnt it.
I said “this side of San Francisco” because it is a western city and anything “this side” of it would be practically the whole country. You assumed the gay part and Im utterly appauled as should be your brethren in here.
Now you ow me an apology you bumbling homo.
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I am not saying that every prisoner that the US has held, has been tortured. Nor am I suggesting that our interrogators have used batteries to the genitals, or anything that vile that people might associate with torture. What I’m saying is the line between interrogation and torture was purposely blurry and undefined. I know I won’t convince you, so I suggest you look it up, but water borting (partially drowning) was used, even at GITMO, where the public knew prisoners were held. If it was okay there where public scrutiny was destined to surface, then in secret and unknown locations, what was acceptable there? I don’t consider laying prisoners on top of each other naked as torture, like at Abu Ghraib. But it sure as hell was stupid, and unproductive. What I’m trying to convey is we are better than that, or at least I thought we were. John McCain should be the authority, as a serviceman who suffered torture in Vietnam. If he isn’t on board with a particular tactic, then we shouldn’t use it. Period.
Not sure your point about Iraq and torture. I didn’t say anything connecting the two. I don’t agree with Iraq because we didn’t finish Afghanistan, not because I didn’t want Saddam out of power. But since we’re there, couldn’t we have at least been as smart now as we were in 1990? All we did was force Hussein back from Kuwait and we had 500,000 troops prepared to fight it out. In the current conflict, we cut that force by 75%. Sure the military folded within a short time, but we didn’t mobilize 500,000 in 1990 simply to whip the Iraqi army. We needed them to secure the country if we decided to take Saddam down. All I’m saying is, finish Afghanistan and put the proper force and effort into Iraq, now that we’re there.
Thanks for the FairTax breakdown.
By Roger Sturtevant
September 11, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
We are going to have to disagree on this. I believe the TFTT’s of the movement are a cancer that, if not checked, drive more people away and make it difficult to convince others of the correctness of our mindset.
Conservatives are smeared continually by the left as ignorant redneck bullies who shout down those who disagree. This nonsense plays right into that. We should be capable of making people think with the value of out ideas and by forcing them to see past the bias played out in the media daily. The moment we resort to insults we lose not only the battle but we take one more step (person) closer to losing the war.
No one has ever been berated or insulted into agreeing with anyone else. It is conservative reason and logic that will win the day. The TFTT’s of the movement make it impossible for people to hear that reason and logic.
By Barbara
September 11, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Hi Georgia Gal. Thanks for the kind words. I am having a really bad day today and your nice words made me feel a little better. Thank you.
Roger, I understand your concern. I feel that way about Christians in the public light. (Remember Dion Sanders’ preaching, yet his misbehaviour? I thought “Boy! He sure does make us look bad!”) So I know what you mean. But I think in large part TFTT is just responding to those who go after him. He might be more effective without all the bashing, but he doesn’t start it. And in the end, I’d rather have him, in all his testy-ness, than someone who doesn’t love and defend the values of this country.
By Jim's a Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw @ 2:57…
And we won that war w/o ever having to invade a country, and hardly anyone died.
Am I to understand that a rag-tag bunch of 3rd world rabble-rousers are going to take more money and more lives to defeat than the Soviet Union?
And so what if it took Viet Nam 25 odd years to come around to a market economy. They did it, and they did it on thier own terms.
And John Linder can write all the books he wants to write. Until the GOP introduces, debates and passes legislation reforming the tax code, all that talk is so much air.
Who are ya’ll kidding?
Googly moogly if the Democrats were pulling half the stuff that the GOP is Rush would blow out his voice box.
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw, question on FairTax:
Are essential items like food staples taxed at the same consumption rate as say a sports car in this plan?
By Realist
September 11, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Speaking for myself Rog, I have the ability to maintain composure and calmly debate the topics if I chose, but its so much more fun to step on thier throats sometimes you know?
By MClark
September 11, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
So the answer is no then TFTT?
Typical coward.
You can yell and scream and whine and b***, but debate without your only tools….thats too scary.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
JaSSD @ 3:24, you deceptively suggest there were no wars in the war against communism. South Korea, South Vietnam, Greece, Domincan Republic, Nicaragua, Grenada, the valiant freedom fighters at the Bay of Pigs, and those who revenged the Mayaguez in Cambodian waters will be pleased to hear that there were no deaths.
The war on terrorism will be long and hard, and you falsely imagine that it can be won if contained on a single battlefield in Afghanistan. We will be fighting this war in my grandchildren’s generation, an in more than a dozen countries before we win.
By Reece
September 11, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
It seems the most important thing I’ve learned here today is that the most egregious person on here IS NOT AN AMERICAN!!! time for the truth=time to STFU
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Middle America @ 3:27, yes, with a caveat. There is a subsistance subsidy available to all. Thus, instead of the indirect government subsidy now in the marketplace, you will have a fixed and controllable direct subsidy.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
Reece @ 3:36, if that is all you learned, you did not learn truly. Suggest more research.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
He fits the definition of American by my standards anyday. Much moreso than does Coward Dean or Michael Fatass Moore.
At least he doenst insist on being called an British-American, thereby lessening his affiliation and loyalty to this country as does about half of our entire population (african-americans, mexican-americans).
Now GFY Reecie.
By Van
September 11, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Dana, Re: Your 01:13 PM posts,
The average grunt knows how to win the hearts and minds of the civilians better than most politicians.
As with all things, when a politican gets involved, it goes south.
The good news is we are winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population. Our on the ground intel has producted tons of data, this is how we have been able to pick up or blow up terrorists leaders, usually the #2 guy, why it isn’t the #1 guy, beats me.
If the majority of the population does support the allies, then we have made progress.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
In my 3:34 post, I negligently omitted the killing fields of Cambodia, 1977-1980. Two million dead.
By JoeD
September 11, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Why can’t we have both, someone who loves and defends the values of this country and does it in a civil and appropriate fashion?
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
I’m a little scared. I think I’m liking the idea. I found the website fairtax.org. So what’s the catch? Or in other words, what are the critics saying about it?
By Reece
September 11, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
JumbledBrainMonkeyLaw @3:40 Awwww, did I hurt your feelings about your ‘lil immigrant buddy?
By Monarch Hames
September 11, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
There can not be civil discourse until there are civil equalities and priveledges for all. Until the under priveledged are not forced to fight wars for the priveleged because they are hungary. Until everyone shares equally the benefits and wealth of the land.
By Roger Sturtevant
September 11, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Realist,
You are right, It is fun stepping on throats at times and at times some on the left deserve it. But the continual drumbeat of this nonsense does hurt the movement. And I believe this is a war for the hearts and minds of Americans that we cannot afford to lose. That’s why the assertions that “this is just a blog” do not hold water. Any chance we have to show others the way should not be squandered.
Am I naïve enough to think a reasoned conservative voice will convert anyone here? No. But I do believe in planting seeds, in laying the groundwork that others can follow up on later. And those seeds can either be positive or negative.
I’m no control freak regardless what the abusive may say. Quite the contrary, I believe in the free-market of ideas. But when someone is hurting the cause I believe in so fervently I’ll be damned if I am going to sit on my hands and let them do it. The left are no real threat to us, their ideas will reveal their folly as time goes by. The real threat, as always, comes from within and in this case it is embodied in posters like TFTT.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Middle, Monarch just answered your question.
By Jim's a Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw…
In all those conflicts…how many Americans were killed? I’m drawing a blank on that.
I recall that GW has estimated several weeks ago that we’ve killed 30,000 Iraquis though. Is killing them until they think like us a good plan? Or will it just breed more hate and more violence.
I’m thinking it will do the latter.
By Reece
September 11, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
JoeD,
This is why: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2350564,00.html
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
And Middle, the best thing about the Fair Tax, you don’t have to be a conservative to support it. It has no redistributive element, which disappoints some on the left, but most of the real wealth redistribution is through programs other than the income tax anyway. Fair Tax limits its scope to “how the funds are raised” and does nothing to cut back the welfare state.
By Jim's a Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
Jmblaw…
And also, I keep forgetting to ask…when did the GOP decide that America was now the UN…taking up the torch for all the little guys around the world?
When did we become the international police?
By BW
September 11, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
We have asked ourselves where did the hand-holding, the hugs and flags, the horn honking, post 9-11…. where did it all go. For a few short weeks we were almost a unified nation, brothers and sisters in our grief. You petty megalomaniac armchair politicans horny for attention blog hijackers with your ” I know more than you do…” rhetoric are glaring examples of why it all ended. Pack up your toys and go the hell home, none of you know more than the average person standing to your left or your right; you’re all stupid and egotistical enough to believe that you do. Grow up.
By The Way
September 11, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
Your reference to killing fields is the non sequitur of the decade, law. Your leap-frog-of-logic act, when coupled with the hand-to-cheek coordination of Realisp, (and dont forget to throw in the grip that timefortheturd has), reveals a collective spooning of intersecting socket faceplates of premise to which no liberal could stand up, (nor would he want to).
The country’s tools of liberty are in good hands with you three. Kudos.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
JaSSD, while we agree on the number of Iraqi dead, I think we disagree on who is killing them. Interlopers, terrorists from Jordan and Pakistan and Syria and Iran, are killing more than their share there. The Iraqi people know that, too.
By JoeD
September 11, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Reece, Thanks for the link, but I wasn’t referring to our president. I think the discourse needs to be civil, and we can defend our values and our opinions and our differences without insulting each other. That’s all I was referring to. there are nuts and loons on both sides, and ugly people as well, but they don’t add anything to the mix. A civil discourse will.
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Way, we realize you don’t believe there was a war on Communism between 1946 and 1990, nor that people died in that war. I can’t help that deficiency in your belief. But it is a nonsequitur only if you believe the war on terrorism is limited to one country or one club, and is not a world-wide threat. I believe the latter.
By Middle America
September 11, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
Gotta go.
Good night and good luck.
By Reece
September 11, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Ya’know, I don’t come here to post anything that’s reasonable, well written, sense driven or even to make suggestions of my point of view. I long since decided that the only thing that this utterly unmoderated blog deserves is my rhetoric of dislike for fools and cowards.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
wodger the todger is some kind of moronic troll … no one in their right mind would sit and write such utter patronising shiite as that and actually post it. wodger the todger is not even a credible/good troll!!
bad troll wodger the todger!!
moron Clark
I’ve lost all my respect for you now you’ve gutlessly withdrawn that post to Realist. Its the only time you’ve ever been “normal” on here.
like I said you’re an anal control freak and NO ONE dictates on here how anyone debates.
By Jim's a Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw,
The President said that we’ve killed that many.
The interlopers that you refer to are there becasue we’ve created the condition that allows them in. Saddam would have never allowed that.
And I didn’t see your estimate of how many Americans were killed by terrorists in Cambodia and Grenada either. What was that number?
Oh…and the world police thing. When did we decide that we were that?
By Realist
September 11, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
Shut up TFTT! If you arent careful, McClurk is going to take his toys and go home. But wait…….we dont play with the easy bake oven anyway, so let him go!!
By Reece
September 11, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
TFTT=Not an American
By MClark
September 11, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Bob…Weave….Dodge….
It’s obvious that you are afraid of me and it appears that your own are turning on you so I can see why you’d afraid…buts it’s OK. I’m just an old man. No need to be scared.
By brian
September 11, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Glad you spoke your mind Reece. Now I’ll know who to also ignore in the future. What’s your purpose of being here again? Talk about wasting time in animosity of others that think differently than you..oh well, it’s your time, and raised blood pressure. As tftt said, lefties here take this blog way way too seriously and what right wingers say about lefties is akin to a Christian insulting Islam. It’s just not that important at the end of the day folks. The more I hang here, the more I now see why some on the right are saying being a lib is like a religion to them..it is their religion.
By Haiku
September 11, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Hearts and minds you’ve lost
When you only show us yours
Dark and black with hate
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
reece you san fransicko poof I am actually an American … I have my naturalisation certificate and 10 year USA passport to prove it!!
moron Clark
watching you dance like this is freaking hilarious!!
By TNT ND65
September 11, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Jim,
You almost had me. I was ready to agree with you for the first time, and then you couldn’t resist your partisanship gibes of “For me, the test is whether they ever supported the war on terror or whether they saw it as 9/11 police action that diverted attention and resources from efforts to build the welfare state.” You had a chance to actually live up to your words, and you blew it!!
May all who suffered from the 9/11 tragedies find peace in their own hearts, and may our military and first responders be safe!
By Roger Sturtevant
September 11, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
wodger the todger is some kind of moronic troll … no one in their right mind would sit and write such utter patronising shiite as that and actually post it. wodger the todger is not even a credible/good troll!! bad troll wodger the todger!!
I’m not even sure what the above means but can my fellow conservatives honestly believe that this kind of nonsense helps us achieve our goals?
I’m not trying to be patronizing to anyone, but we need to wake up and see that this a battle we can actually win but only IF we are willing to take our own to task and cut away the fat that slows us down. This poster, which I refuse to address directly, is exactly the sort of fat that impedes our progress and could sway the balance the other way.
Look at the poll numbers guys. Even if we don’t want to accept them, the truth is that we are in difficult times as conservatives. The left and the media have succeeded in convincing almost half of the country that we are wrong. We have much work to do if we are going to regain the ground we have lost. We need to bring our own house into order if we are going to show our fellow Americans the value of our message.
By Southern Democrat
September 11, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Wow. I am amazed at the level of hostility on this blog today, on September 11th of all days.
Today, I have listened to “Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning” by Newnan’s own Alan Jackson a few times and reflected on its message. As Jackson sings, on 9/11/01, I was “teaching a class full of innocent children” while frantically trying to contact: 1.) my wife who was driving into NYC via the Holland Tunnel; 2.) my Dad, who had flown into Reagan National Airport and whose taxi drove by the Pentagon 9 minutes before it was hit; and 3.) my brother-in-law who was in the Navy, stationed in Sandy Hook, NJ. I lived in NYC from 2002-2005 and have talked with hundreds of people who worked in the WTC and WFC and am always moved by their stories.
I remember how nice it was for us all to be united. I hope we will get back there; I think we can. No politics for me today, ladies and gentlemen, this day belongs to our country, not to our petty arguments.
As AJ concludes, “Faith, hope, and love are some good things He gave us… and the greatest is Love.”
By Felicia
September 11, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten, I hope for unity, but I doubt we’ll ever move beyond the division. Although I think the sixties may have contributed, the most recent intrusion on our cohesive populace occurred during the 2000 election. Gore created a chasm that has yet to be closed. That was six years ago and still, the left claim that the election was stolen although evidence has proven otherwise.
Now I understand that they want to do away with the electoral college. The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up the system for voting. The popular vote would set up a system of mob rule in our nation, and that’s exactly what Mexico’s Obrador is looking to provoke right now, a revolution against an established government duly elected.
I have little opportunity to comment here, but read often when I’m able. Sometimes I’m days behind on the site. For those who want to kill the messenger rather than the message, I would point that I have seen other harmless posters much like me who have been immediately attacked by the left. I’m amazed how quick they are to attack someone with whom they’re not familiar. I really don’t think it matters what a conservative says. What matters to them is that they simply want to shut us up. We’ve been the silent majority too long. They’ll have to listen to what we say and if there are those who deliver it in rather strong terms, it’s probably because we’ve been idle for too long. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Inertia.
By MClark
September 11, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Me dance?
I called you out, remember. Called you out for a simple debate and all you had to do was to drop your usualy nastiness and use facts alone.
But either you’re not man enough or that’s too scary for you, so you start the insult tap dance.
So dance little one, dance.
By Cal
September 11, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Where was I? I was asleep much like the Clinton Administration while the war was unfolding.
Thanks Willie & incompetents. I’ll always remember 9/11.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
But either you’re not man enough or that’s too scary for you, so you start the insult tap dance
any one who gets this unhinged by a few amusing witty posts on a blog probably has a history of stalking and obsessive behaviour.
tell Realist you’re very sorry for withdrawing that hilarious post and I might debate you very soon!!
see how galling it is when folks make puerile demands??
By Realist
September 11, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Felicia, Welcome and please dont be a stranger. Excellent post. I reguarly refer to the Florida debacle with Gore as a huge thorn in the side of dems which they cant let go. The impeachment was another black eye which they feel they deserve a reckoning.
Thanks for weighing in. Dont be a stranger!
By Van
September 11, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Felicia,
Nicely said.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
McClung, I have to be honest, you are kind of dancing like a puppet. Albeit a gay puppet.
By Van
September 11, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
And I would like to think that this whole situation, 5 years ago, could have been avoided, if only Clinton has the brass to pull the trigger and taken out UBL before 9/11.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
“After 9/11 the whole world supported us and we went into Afghanistan…the Afghanistan people wanted us there. So what did we do? We sent 8 or 10 thousand, 11 thousand, eventually 20,000 troops there and had 150 in Iraq. In other words, we said to Osama we think getting rid of Saddam is seven times more important than dealing with you.” - President Bill Clinton
By Jim's a Short Sighted Dummy
September 11, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Cal @ 4.35…
If I’m not mistaken Clinton tried to take Bin Laden out with a missle strike, and all the GOP could muster was that sad wag the dog story … maybe if the GOP had applauded that action and encouraged El Presidente to be more aggressif instead of continuing to focus on his personal fobiles, then things would have been different.
But sadly, the GOP was much more interested in dragging the man and the country through the mud.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
The smoking gun
Yeah, blame Clinton is all you got. Too bad w will be blamed for all problems in the future.
By Van
September 11, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Jim’s a Short Sighted Dummy,
Do you mean the missle strike on the empty training camp or the aspirin factory.
By @@
September 11, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Middle America:
I never said that the pursuit of peace was not a noble cause, you just need to pursue it where it’s possible. Good things are going on in Iraq which will win the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslims who DO exist there.
This will seem like a strange analogy but here goes.
I once owned a horse that was stubborn and greenbroke. Useless for riding. I had never broken a horse in my life, but I’m always up for adventure. I took that horse to a deep creek on the property, bridled her up and sat her into submission after 45 minutes of near drowning for both of us. Her instinct forced her to keep her head above water and my tight leg grip was dependant on that instinct for survival. She remained stubborn, but at least she was useful for riding. People aren’t much different from the animal kingdom in my opinion.
Jim: I hesitate to tell you this, but “conversation” is misspelled at the top of your column. The only reason I hesitate is because you appear to have an adorable overbite and I have a “thang” for overbites. Is is just the picture, or am I right?
By Amanda
September 11, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
But he will not be impeached getadick. And history will judge him much more kindly, watch and see.
By MClark
September 11, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
But see TFTT, that’s the point. I don’t find insults witty or funny. I don’t see them as winding someone up or gentle fun. They just get in the way of real debate.
But since you are too afraid to really debate, you wouldn’t understand that.
So keep dodging and weaving. But bear this in mind. You were called out today and you were too afraid to answer the bell. And no insult will change that fact.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
It is called the law of opposites Felecia
By CJ
September 11, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
To The Fireman - Please note that I didn’t say that taxes are the solution to every problem. My point was that we can work to stop being angry at one another by trying not to mischaracterize the views of others. It isn’t accurate to describe the FAA, or the SEC, or money allocated by Homeland Security to first responders (including firefighters) as “welfare”. Therefore, if one wants to debate the merits of such programs and how they should be paid for - then such an argument should be made on the merits. Saying that anybody who believes in the value of such programs supports a “welfare state” is, in my opinion, being intellectually dishonest. If Mr. Wooten wants to discuss how best to fund the local fire department – then he should do so without informing his readers that those who disagree with him support a “welfare state”. Such mischaracterizations have a tendency to make the people whose views he’s mischaracterizing angry (A side note: “Dues” based on property size and value sounds a lot like “taxes” to me).
By getalife
September 11, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
Really Amanda?
By MClark
September 11, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Realist,
Please notice that you are being ignored. If you can’t do better than gay jokes then just stop talking.
By Realist
September 11, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
Nice post @@. You know, voltage works as well as water. The police dept has figured this out nicely.
By Van
September 11, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
geta - I need a life -
Thats right, if Clinton had done his job instead of Monica, UBl would have been dead, maybe even before the two embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, or our shameful retreat from Somalia.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
hopefully the long term injured 9/11 firefighters and cops etc wont get lost in the shuffle after all the emotion dies down - their position has been addressed but still needs pressure to ensure that they are not ignored or short changed medically.
By Cal
September 11, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Shortsighted Dummy; A good president doesn’t allow himself to be distracted from national security concerns. You radicals haven’t distracted Bush thank God although you’ve tried hard enough.
By America
September 11, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Jim it’s self-righteous people like yourself that are holding America back. Take a seat.
By MrLiberty
September 11, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Here’s how the angry conversation begins:
9-11 was a crime of enormous proportions. It should have been addressed as a crime but it was not. The crime scene was bulldozed away and sent to China for recycling. All evidence of who actually perpetrated these acts was destroyed. We have been forced to believe the government and we know they are not believable.
We attacked a sovereign nation because they would not turn over someone we refused to present evidence about and to this day do not have enough evidence against to even charge (yes, the FBI does not have enough evidence to charge Bin Laden with 9-11). We killed thousands of innocent Afghans. We were planning on invading their country before 9-11 already because they wouldn’t cooperate with the Shell pipeline deal. Whose attack was pre-emptive? Having not found Osama we invaded another sovereign nation with no ties to 9-11. We destroyed their infrastructure, killed over 100,000 people (on top of the 1.5 million our sanctions killed in the 90s) and now this country is on the brink of civil war.
We have a man who was elected president, that has seized control of our country and is daily challenging someone to stop him. He has committed untold war crimes and may very well have been involved in the events of 9-11.
Our foreign policy of meddling, stationing troups in the middle east and unilateral support for Israel are the reasons behind all acts of terrorism that have been launched against us, yet the bulk of the idiots in this country continue to think that our freedoms actually have anything to do with the motivation.
This conversation will end either with the absolute destruction of this empire or the awakening of the idiots who currently fail to realize that the US government is the most dangerous terrorist organization on the planet. Every minute the US continues with its current foreign policy it puts everyone in this country at greater risk. The civilized people of this world already know this. We americans are too arrogant to believe.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
moron Clark
bollocks!!!
and stop hitting on Realist he’s happily married, as am I!
By MClark
September 11, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
More gay jokes.
creative
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
what’s a gay joke - other than you?
By getalife
September 11, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
Van,
I guess you forgot the GOP actions fighting everything Clinton tried to do. He won his war in Kosovo, no thanks to those hypocrites.
By Van
September 11, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
MrLiberty,
Mistake #1, it was not a crime, it was an attack against a country, not an individule or group of individules. Attacking our embassies was not a crime, it was an attack on sovereign US soil. The attack against the USS Cole was not a crime, it was an overt attack against our military - a crime, how simple mined.
By MClark
September 11, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
The Christopher Hitchens of JW’s blog, reduced to gay jokes and innuendos.
I guess that’s what happens when you’re too afraid to actually debate.
By Van
September 11, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this
getalife,
You mean his unsanctioned invasion of a sovereign nation? Gee, that sounds just like the invasion of Iraq, for the same reasons, to take out or conquer a vicious dictator.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this
moron Clark
anal obsessives like you are here for entertainment only!! I’ve yanked your chain all bloody day. you’re the only one cares about any of this … I’m just having more fun - at your expense!!
By Van
September 11, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this
BTW, getasoul,
We are still there, therefore we have not won - left’s definition, not mine.
By MClark
September 11, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this
My goal today was to see how wound up you would get and how many times I could get you to post directly to me.
And the bonus is that I found that you actually fear me, as you should your betters.
So keep it up, every post is a point.
By MClark
September 11, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this
Oh, and I might just point out that outside of calling you a coward I did it without gay jokes, bad puns based on your name or any other of the crutches you need to keep your thoughts straight.
You’ve been had. huge smirk
By getalife
September 11, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this
Nice Van,
You can’t even admit victory for your country. Pathetic.
Lets face facts. W could have went down as a great President but he chose not to. He had us and the world united against terrorism and now look at us. Iraq will be his legacy and this mistake is one of the worst, if not the worst in our history. Deal with it.
By Van
September 11, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this
getabrain,
I answered with the lefts definition, not mine, so buck up.
Your boy, couldn’t pull the trigger and treated attacks against the nation as a crime instead of acts of war. Bush at least had the stones to fight back, instead of running from Somalia with his tail between his legs.
I supportes use of Nato instead of the blowhards at the UN. But, then again, see what happens when you try to help muslims, you get your face slapped and slapped hard.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this
Tell me idiot Van,
How did they stop the attack in England?
If w acted on the PDB memo, how would he have stopped 9/11?
By @@
September 11, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this
I’ve been familiar with you for a long time here. Since you insist on being so mean and hate filled, I’ve got to say this.
What problem do you have with “big government”? Over the weekend you clearly revealed yourself as a socialist/communist/facist. You were supportive of Obrador; supportive of Iran and I had no idea you actually believed the government guilty of blowing up the levees in New Orleans.
I’ve gotta tell you. I’m shocked at what you have become.
By Markus
September 11, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this
In case anyone missed this link earlier about how Clintoon missed out on Osama and why in large part we are where we are today, here’s the link again. It’s the typical twisted sickness of liberalism: they didn’t do anything for eight years against islamofascism OR catpuring Osama for fear of retribution, yet blame Bush’s whopping eight months in office for the entire events leading up to 9/11 (not to mention all those wasted months in Washington when every RAT kept opposing Bush’s cabinet appointments at every turn as retaliation for beating them in the election). It’s a freaking MIRACLE Bush was able to accomplish ANYTHING in his first year of office with those asspirate stalwarts. No wonder the goon tyrant liberals in Washington like Chuckiecheeses Schumer wanted ABC to drop the 9/11 docudrama like nazi censors.
truthonlibpolicy
By @@
September 11, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this
Oops! My 5:30 is addressed to you getalife.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this
How did they stop the attack in England?
by having reasonable suspicion as the triggering mechanism for law enforcement not the probable cause which liberals insist on over here!!
see the Bush admin have kept the towel heads away and still are … sick Willie could have stopped all this by getting bin laden years ago but cared more about sex in the Oval Office!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060911/D8K2NDBO2.html
By Van
September 11, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this
getahalflife,
By hard work. Britian is another country and what works for them would be smashed by the ACLU and the democrats in this country - let keep to the topic.
Clinton missed the boat with UBL, Bush took the attack and responded with - what? an attack against UBL or terrorism as a whole.
By responding to terrorism as a whole, it covers whether the attacks come from frustrated muslims, radical Catholics or skin head punks in Oklahoma City. By treating the attacks in the proper manner, we are able to deal with them. By allowing the thugs in Gitmo POW status, we can keep them there until the war is over, no more being released so you can attack again. As POW’s, being captured on the battlefield in civilian clothes, they can be tried by the military as spys - lets bring on the firing squads, and we can bury them facing down with their mouths stuffed with bacon. Justice would then be served.
By Markus
September 11, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this
Islamogoons at it again on threats. But, according to jackass limpwristed liberal neomarxist terrorist appeasers on this board, we shouldn’t be “scared” of these islamofascists. Why do these bastards always use a pointed finger when talking anyway? Did they touch a pig with it?
theywon’thurtus…verybad
By Markus
September 11, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this
Does the mark on this man’s head look like a sweet spot for a high-powered sniper’s bullet or what? Allah willing.
BLAM!
By jbmlaw
September 11, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this
CJ @ 4:53, SEC is a subsidy to investors, “corporate welfare” if you will. FCC is a subsidy to the flying public. Both of those handled better as user fees than as doles from the public weal.
By DISGUST
September 11, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this
Jim Wooten, no hope for the future is found here! You are as much a proponent of unity as the great “Uniter,” er… “Decider..” or whatever your Flip Flop King calls himself today.
Another day of Americans despising and blaming each other. While loved ones remember and grieve for their dead, the ratings-whore media and narcissistic bloggers continue the dispensing the same vitriolic rhetoric.
Perhaps the best thing is to go ahead and divorce each other, divide, split, and fight to the death for the land we sit on. The more I read your column and blog, the better that idea sounds. Better the well-fed gentlemen should fulfill their fantasies (as stated here today) and step our throats than we should suffer sharing our communities with them for another year. Truly, “love they neighbor” is dead. Congratulations on your success, now bring it on.
By time for the truth
September 11, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this
it looks to me as if he’s had a small fried pork skin tattooed onto his forehead, just as Gorbachev had a coloured map of Afghanistan tatooed onto his head.
By getalife
September 11, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this
Van,
lies answered the question because you are dishonest.
@@,
Your reading comprehension skills are poor. I guess you are talking about that list I posted and there were some I did not agree with but agreed with most. I support honest elections and Mexico did not get that. Your Iran statement is ridiculous and pathetic like the rest of these wingnuts.
Macaca,
Well, same old crap spewed by you.
By Markus
September 11, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this
Will someone tell these Labanese that it was really Hellbollah, NOT Blair, that killed so many of their people and that the UN couldn’t even enforce a resolution for DISARMING of Hellbollah?
deathchant
By Van
September 11, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this
getamanhood,
Nice response, “LIES”, just those empty words, just like you are, empty, no soul, no love for your country, no compassion or feelings for those that died 5 years ago, no remorse for the President that did NOTHING about a known terrorists.
By Markus
September 11, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this
Has anybody ever noticed how it’s always anti-Bush liberals here that b!tch about divisiveness destroying America and it’s all Republicans fault? Yeah, I guess we aren’t supposed to fight back for that FIVE FREAKING YEARS of Bush-hate, Bush-blocking rhetoric from the liberals. Hate speech? Go to democraticunderground.com for that. It comes from the left. We just aren’t putting up with it anymore.
By Jim Wooten
September 11, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this
@@, thanks for the correction on “conversation.” Blurry eyes this morning, I guess. A slight overbite, yes, as the photo suggests.
And Felicia, welcome. Georgia Gal, good to have you back. You’ve been away a spell.
There are, incidentally, a number of folks here whose politics are to the left of mine whose posts are usually thought-provoking. Some of today’s posts were more revealing of who you all are and that’s always helpful in giving perspective to your commentary.
By DISGUST
September 11, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this
Van, what words do you offer to show YOUR soul or love? None. Please, if you ever see me on the street, go ahead and attempt to kill me. Please. That’s what you really are inside. Blood makes you happy, not truth, nor love, nor country. Stop pretending and let it out.
By Markus
September 11, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this
Gotnolife-
I don’t care what you think. You are useless and meaningless to me on this blog. I have no respect for you. I do not want to get along with you. I do not like you or your ilk or what you candyasses stand for. There, I feel better now.
By The Way
September 11, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this
God Bless America.