Looking Forward, Rather Than Backward, on Another 9-11

posted by John Nichols on 09/11/2008 @ 11:58am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (142)

Subscribe Now

The various speeches, statements, pronouncements and pontifications by the president and the political class arrayed around him on this seventh anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon serve as a reminder that –despite silly suggestions to the contrary – nothing has changed.

George Bush and Dick Cheney were running things on September 11, 2001. And George Bush and Dick Cheney are still in charge on September 11, 2008.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate were ridiculously deferent to Bush and Cheney on September 11, 2001. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate continue to bow to Bush and Cheney on Sept. 11, 2008.

Major media failed to serve as an effective watchdog on the White House on September 11, 2001. Major media still fails to effectively counter or contradict the White House on September 11, 2008.

So cynical and self-serving spin remains the order of this September 11, as they have been the case on every day since September 11, 2001.

Far from everything changing, everything has remained depressingly the same.

So similar, in fact, that it is reasonable to ask whether anyone has learned from the experience of a terrorist attack on American soil.

Indeed, of all the statements made in anticipation of and on this day, few evidenced even the slightest awareness of a need to move forward from the politics of ignorance and fear to something more appropriate to a functional nation seeking to make its place in the world of the 21st century.

The exception is the statement of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a man frequently dismissed by fellow Democrats and the media because of his resolute refusal to join in the flat chorus of complacency.

Kucinich may not have all the answers.

But he is looking forward rather than backward on this September 11th. And that, more than anything else, is what America needs from its so-called leaders.

Says Kucinich:

America must move from the errant, retributive justice of 9/11 to a healing, restorative process of truth and reconciliation.

Before the Congress adjourns, I will bring forth a new proposal for the establishment of a National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, which will have the power to compel testimony and gather official documents to reveal to the American people not only the underlying deception which has divided us, but in that process of truth seeking set our nation on a path of reconciliation.

We suffer in our remembrance of 9/11, because of the terrible loss of innocent lives on that grim day. We also suffer because 9/11 was seized as an opportunity to run a political agenda, which has set America on a course of the destruction of another nation and the destruction of our own Constitution. And we have become less secure as a result of the warped practice of pursing peace through the exercise of pre-emptive military strength.

It is not simply 9/11 that needs to be remembered. We also need to remember the politicization of 9/11 and the polarizing narrative which followed, locking us into endless conflict, a war on terror which has wrought further terror worldwide and which has severely damaged our standing worldwide as an honorable, compassionate nation. As we were all victims of 9/11, so we have become victims of the interpretation of 9/11.

Our government's external response to 9/11 was to attack a nation which did not attack us. Indeed on the first anniversary of 9/11, the Bush Administration issued a well-publicized stern warning to Iraq which was part of a campaign to induce people to believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

The deliberate, systematic connection of Iraq with 9/11 has led America into a philosophical and moral cul-de-sac as over one million Iraqis and over 4155 US soldiers have died in a war which will cost over $3 trillion. Additionally, soldiers from 23 other countries have died in the Iraq war.

We attempt to unite Iraq by further dividing it. We talk about restoring Iraq while taking steps to place control of its vast oil wealth in the hands of US oil giants. And we intend to impose upon the Iraqi people the cost of rebuilding a country which our government ruined, keeping a once prosperous nation lashed to debt and poverty for a long, long time. Iraq has paid for 9/11. We all continue to pay for 9/11.

The heartbreaking loss of the lives and injuries to America troops further binds us to the Administration's illogic of the Iraq war: We remember our troops' sacrifice by demanding more sacrifice; we support our troops by continuing the war.

The dominant color of our new national security since 911 is neither red, white nor blue. Everyday is orange. Everyday reminders of fear of 9/11 become banal... Yet we no longer hear the airport announcements nor see the orange colored warnings because they have commonplace standards in our new national security state, as is the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and a host of invasions of privacy and diminution of civil liberties. The Constitution has been roundly attacked by the very people who took an oath to defend it.

There is a powerful desire across America for change, not necessarily from control by one political party to another, but a change from living with lies to living with truth.

Over two dozen nations, facing peril within and without, deeply divided by politics and war have travelled down a path of restoring civil society through a formal process of reconciliation. At some point within each of those countries it was understood that the way forward is shown through the light of truth. This process is not without pain because it requires a willingness to study evidence to which eyes had been averted and ears had been closed. But in the process of truth and reconciliation, nations found new strength, new resolve, and new commitment.

The South African Truth and Reconciliation enabled that nation to come to grips with its past through a public confessional, bringing forward those who committed crimes and having the power to grant amnesty for full disclosure of crimes against the people. Of course, our path may necessarily be different: High US government officials stand accused in Impeachment petitions of violating national and international law. Our continued existence as a democracy may depend upon how thoroughly we seek the truth. I will call upon the America people to join me in supporting this effort.

The truth can move us forward, as a unified whole, so that we can one day become a re-United States. 9/11 is the day the world changed. It is the day America embraced a metaphor of war. If we are open to truth and reconciliation, we may one day be able, once again, to embrace peace.

Comments (142)

Mr Nichols, I know you (and some others) just can't accept this but....

Dennis Kucinich is almost comletely irrelevant.

His Quixotic stabs at Presidential primaries....his endless attempts at resurrecting a Pelosi-killed impeachment....and his general "hippie-dippie"-sounding proclamations....all play well with the Hard Left....

but leave him ignored by the Democrats, virtually unknown or accepted by the Middle, and a source of endless amusement of the Right.

He's a nice guy....maybe right on some things....but....he's not taken seriously.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:06pm
Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/11/2008 @ 12:06pm

And again, from 1993 (WTC bombing) until 2001, no Al Qaeda attacks in the US....

but HAPP wasn't congratulating THOSE leaders.

(BTW, here's where he (or another) brings up the USS "Cole" and the embassies in Africa...which is fine....as long as we get to bring up London, Madrid, the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, and this little thing called the "Iraqi insurgency"...fair's fair, right HAPP?)

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:21pm
"He's a nice guy....maybe right on some things"

~Maskot

Just some of the most important things.

Other than that, yeah, he's just a loony goofball.

Welcome to America in the year 2008 AD. Please remain seated on the tour bus as we slow down and round the curves here at Dizzyland Amusement Park.

And let me remind you that all of the animals are dangerous.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/11/2008 @ 12:25pm
>>>It is not simply 9/11 that needs to be remembered. We also need to remember the politicization of 9/11 and the polarizing narrative which followed, locking us into endless conflict, a war on terror which has wrought further terror worldwide and which has severely damaged our standing worldwide as an honorable, compassionate nation. As we were all victims of 9/11, so we have become victims of the interpretation of 9/11. <<<

Well said, Dennis!

Posted by Metteyya at 09/11/2008 @ 12:29pm
T&R was accepted in SA because the former apartheid regime was desperate for at least partial redemption, to confess & be absolved. The SA nats were very scared indeed.

The GOP isn't scared, not a whit. They have taken many precautions to ensure that they will not be prosecuted, including legislation providing immunity for prior offenses. W will be handing out further pardons round Xmas as if they were candy canes.

Kucinich is right, T&R is desperately needed, but the GOP has no incentive to agree.

And given that so many Dems are on the pads of the same owners as the GOP, they couldn't care less.

Posted by sloper at 09/11/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:21pm

I see that Kucinich appears quite upset that we invaded a 'sovereign nation' - I guess he means Iraq (and not Afghanistan, which was also sovereign). Apparently, he's upset about one invasion but not another. Hey, the Taliban didn't attack the WTC, did they?

Is Kucinich upset that we took out Saddam? Why, not enough mass graves in the world? Sheesh.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/11/2008 @ 12:25pm

No, KOOL, you can't act like I was "running poor Dennis down"...I was simply stating the facts.

His politics and philosophy are well outside the Mainstream of American politics.

He barely made a blip in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, yet his die-hards kept dreaming of him being Obama's Veep or that he would actually have some impact.

His views don't win over large majorities of people nor even the shadow of an idiocy like the Iraq War, did he gain any influence....ergo, in a democracy, he's essentially irrelevant.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:34pm
Or maybe Kucinich is just upset that with the removal of Saddam, there's a lack of new and interesting torture videos on the market? Who knows?

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:34pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:34pm

You forgot to tell b_koolaid about Kucinich's UFO sightings.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:35pm
Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:29pm

Kucinich is closer to the "side of the angels" than YOU are, PONTI.

We can re-hash the "threat" of Saddam Hussein over and over, but the basic fact is the Taliban provided a safe haven for Al Qaeda and we were right to take them out and the WORLD supported us on that...in fact, (and this will shock your belief system...since it's true but not part of what Rush and O'Reilly tell you), IRAN WAS HELPING US in Afghanistan.

And now, seven years later, Afghanistan, the original and LEGITIMATE target after 9/11, is falling back into chaos or Taliban hands on the watch of George W. Bush.

Or maybe you think we've "won in Afghanistan" too????

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:37pm
PONTIFICUS:

Obviously, you are either woefully ignorant or willfully forgetful of the fact that Saddam Hussein's reign was a direct result of US assistance, both in terms of bringing and keeping him in power, and in terms of training and outfitting his military, conventionally and unconventionally.

The same can be said of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. You know what they say... CIA: We put the USA in Usama.

Do I really need to provide a laundry list of crappy third world dictators to whom we have provided succor, or nascent democratic movements and legitimately elected regimes we have suborned?

You're a joke.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 12:38pm
Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 12:38pm

"Obviously, you are either woefully ignorant or willfully forgetful of the fact that Saddam Hussein's reign was a direct result of US assistance, both in terms of bringing and keeping him in power, and in terms of training and outfitting his military, conventionally and unconventionally. "

Nonsense. Most of Saddam's military was outfitted by the Soviet Union. Look it up, I'll wait here.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:42pm
Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/11/2008 @ 12:40pm

Not a problem with McCain, HAPP.

Until he's elected, maybe...and then "old McCain", "McCain-2000", or "Maverick John" makes a re-appearance and throws guys like you and MAASCH and LVLIB under the bus!

Or do you think Sarah will stop him?

LOL

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:43pm
Well said, Jorcheim.

I generally avoid wasting much time responding to plant life ala the 'ficus.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/11/2008 @ 12:43pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:37pm

We've been over this before, MASK. Your side lost the debate over whether Iraq was a threat or not, or even whether that was the primary issue. Look it up, since your memory seems so short, you'll see that most Americans and their representatives in Congress supported the invasion of Iraq.

Now that Iraq is won, no thanks to you and Obama, troops will be shifted back to Afghanistan and the country pacified once again, as it was prior to Iraq. Or did you forget all about that too?

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:46pm
Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:46pm

Most Americans think the Iraq War was a bad idea.....look it up.

BTW..."the country pacified once again, as it was prior to Iraq."

So you ADMIT that Afghanistan got more violent due to troops being pulled out to go to Iraq??!?!?!?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:52pm
"Your side lost the debate over whether Iraq was a threat or not"

if by "lost," you mean "possessed mountains of credible evidence that hussein was not an imminent threat, nor connected to al qaeda, nor connected to 9.11," then yes, we lost.

pontificus, do you have any idea how marginal your ideas are? what is it like being a fascist?

Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2008 @ 12:57pm
"ergo, in a democracy, he's essentially irrelevant."

~Maskot

In fact, you've got it almost perfectly, wrong.

Dennis' views are much more widespread than is acknowledged by "mainstream" media sources.

In a democracy --in the meaningful use of the term-- it is the viewpoints that are just out of the mainstream, but accurate in terms of a realistic appraisal of the real world, that are the viewpoints that will eventually find their truck if the said democracy is to survive over the long haul.

That said, I believe that the central conundrum in the U.S. is that democracy does not actually live here.

And that may end up posing a real threat to the lives of many here at home in the not so distant future.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/11/2008 @ 12:57pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:52pm

"Most Americans think the Iraq War was a bad idea.....look it up. "

So what? They support it in the first place, as did most (even most of your) politicians. And the reason why they think it was a bad idea is up to debate, although you seem to take it as vindication of your position, it is not necessarily that at all. After all, even a stopped (analog) clock is right twice a day, that doesn't mean we should look to it for the time.

"So you ADMIT that Afghanistan got more violent due to troops being pulled out to go to Iraq??!?!?!?"

No doubt about it, it's tougher to fight two wars than one, and that Afghanistan being on the back burner has been allowed to fester. But that'll be resolved now that we've won in Iraq. Regardless, that's not the overriding factor. There's no doubt in my mind that the world is far better off without Saddam, and that we are, as a nation, far safer.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:57pm
Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2008 @ 12:57pm

"pontificus, do you have any idea how marginal your ideas are? what is it like being a fascist?"

Oh, DARLA, I'll tell you, it's great. Every morning, I get up, look in the mirror, and say 'how ya doin you handsome fascist devil you!'

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 1:00pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/11/2008 @ 12:57pm

KOOL, if Dennis' views are "more widespread"...then why, in the FRIENDLIEST of environments...the Democratic Party Primaries...did he do so poorly?

(Here's where you start making up excuses for DK..."no money" (wrong he had good internet fundraising) or "mocked by the Press" (no excuse, nobody thought Clinton could come back after Jennifer Flowers in 1992) or "he was painted as an extremist" (hmmm?) or "he's not telegenic enough" (and Mike Dukakis was pretty???))

All excuses for the fact that the man's politics...EVEN withing the Democratic Party....are not popular.

But, hey, go ahead...PROVE that Dennis' SPECIFIC ideas are "widespread popular"?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 1:08pm
kill them over there!

Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/11/2008 @ 12:06pm

you have no clue.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 1:14pm
Dennis Kucinich is almost comletely irrelevant.

He's a nice guy....maybe right on some things....but....he's not taken seriously.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:06pm

at your peril.......

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 1:15pm
PONTIFICUS:

I don't deny the Soviet Union helped Iraq a great deal. But since we're doing the whole Encyclopaedia Britannica "look it up dear" bit, you should take your own advice. We, the US, had a hand in two coups in Iraq during the Cold War, including a 1968 putsch that brought Saddam Hussein to power. Then, throughout the 80's, we were providing both conventional weapons and WMD to Hussein. Don't you remember Rummy visiting Iraq back under Reagan? How about the Iran/Iraq War, where we were providing chemical weapons to Iraq for use on Iranians and, GASP, his own people.

I realize you constantly work without benefit of fact or reason, but this is pretty ridiculous, even by your standards.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 1:15pm
Dizzyland Amusement Park.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/11/2008 @ 12:25pm

uh, i think i'm gonna barf.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 1:16pm
Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:57pm

1. "So what?"....thank you Vice-President Cheney. Given the "righteousness" of your cause, PONTI, don't you find it a BIT disconcerting that 70%+ of America thinks it was a bad idea?

And I'd say it's a pretty good validation of the fact that the push for the war, in the wake of 9/11, was more EMOTIONAL than strategically based....which means it was NOT a good rationale for war.

BTW, I don't think there's any "debate" about its unpopularity. It was mishandled by Bush (thus HIS abyssmal approvals) and was sold as a "quick, cheap war" (Cheney promised it would cost "no more than $50 Billion" to Stephanopolous is 2003).

2. "the back burner has been allowed to fester."....so all those American GIs who died in Afghanistan since we went into Iraq were simply victims of being "put on the back burner" by Dubya?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 1:18pm
Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 1:15pm

"I don't deny the Soviet Union helped Iraq a great deal."

You can't. Virtually the entire Iraqi military was Soviet trained and supplied. Perhaps you recall that during the Iraq War we were destroying Soviet military equipment, not American.

"We, the US, had a hand in two coups in Iraq during the Cold War, including a 1968 putsch that brought Saddam Hussein to power. "

Perhaps somewhat true, but so what? The guys he toppled were at least as bad. The US in the Cold War often had to choose between bad and worse, that doesn't mean we were in favor of bad, just that we had a limited number of choices.

"Then, throughout the 80's, we were providing both conventional weapons and WMD to Hussein."

Pure fiction. And even if we did provide them something, it was dwarfed by what the Soviet Union provided.

"Don't you remember Rummy visiting Iraq back under Reagan? "

And? Recall at that time we considered Iran to be a much bigger threat, inasmuch as they had just kidnapped our entire embassy. And that Saddam's mass crimes had not yet started, outside of the normal thuggery present in all regimes in that area.

"How about the Iran/Iraq War, where we were providing chemical weapons to Iraq for use on Iranians and, GASP, his own people."

I think this is a fiction. Provide some proof that we were providing them chemical weapons.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 1:25pm
Miscellaneous rebuttals:

Kucinich said " Before the Congress adjourns, I will bring forth a new proposal for the establishment of a National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation "

Dennis, you are one sick individual. Our country was attacked, and now you are trying to use the occasion to create a leftist hand-wringing and apology commission for all the wrongs you feel America is guilty of.

Kucinich said " Our government's external response to 9/11 was to attack a nation which did not attack us. "

Dennis, we attacked a country whose efforts (led by Saddam) would have led to another, probably worse, September 11.

Kucinich said "And we have become less secure ............"

Dennis, you have no proof of this whatever. It is only your opinion.

Maskdelta said "(BTW, here's where he (or another) brings up the USS "Cole" and the embassies in Africa...which is fine....as long as we get to bring up London, Madrid, the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, and this little thing called the "Iraqi insurgency"...fair's fair, right HAPP?)"

Maskdelta, you forget the USS Cole attack occurred while we were not fighting back against terror. The attacks you named beyond that occurred after we went to war to fight terror. You do have attacks and death during a war. That is what war is. We went to war to fight back so we can stop the terror and the death and the wars. If you do not fight back, the wars and death and misery and human suffering continue, all in the name of "peace"

Maskdelta said "Kucinich is closer to the "side of the angels" than YOU are, PONTI. "

Side of the angels, Maskdelta? Dennis Kucinch is either sick or delusional, and causes people to be demoralized as he blames America rather than the terrorists.

post to be continued

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 1:25pm
Is Kucinich upset that we took out Saddam? Why, not enough mass graves in the world? Sheesh.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:29pm

"WE" took out saddam.

it seems like "you" never went, did you?

and YOU WOULDN'T EVEN PAY FOR IT!

leave that one for the great-grandkids while you go shopping in a debt fuelled frenzy.

"TOOK OUT SADDAM"

sure thing, ponti.

saddam was reagan's favourite.

you, sir, have no scruples.

you, sir, are greedy slime.

enjoy your fannie.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 1:26pm
ready to answer my stats?

or will you run away again?

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 1:27pm
His politics and philosophy are well outside the Mainstream of American politics.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 12:34pm

and look where that's taken you.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 1:28pm
"why did he do so poorly?"

~Maskot

An excellent question.

A book could be written on the subject --a multi-volume book.

I'll cut to the chase.

We live in a country that was tightly locked in a tango with the Soviet Union over the course of several decades.

In that case the partners begin to resemble each other in significant ways.

We enjoyed hearty laughter at the spectacle of the Soviet press with their canned "journalism" and breathless obedience to their Communist Party masters.

But we remained willfully ignorant of the fact that we had three networks shelling out cookie cutter "news" coverage every evening on American TV.

We all assumed that, "We have competition between the networks therefore we must be getting unbiased and hard hitting journalism".

(Sound of Klaxon buzz)

WRONG.

We live in a media universe where the players all know their roles, and where the invisible police tape cordons off the crime scene of American governmental malfeasance.

Kucinich loses for multiple reasons --one being that he looks like a gnome and occasionally says spacey things-- but the most important is that the media controls the message.

And if human beings have one overarching flaw, it is an innate program that renders us mostly helpless when faced with the mass of public opinion.

Too many are incapable of independent thought and action.

Until we find a way to counteract or debug this core program, democracy will always be an endangered species.

But I'm done here for the day Maskot.

More lessons later perhaps.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/11/2008 @ 1:30pm
continued,

jorcheim said "Obviously, you are either woefully ignorant or willfully forgetful of the fact that Saddam Hussein's reign was a direct result of US assistance, "

This has been discussed over and over, jorcheim, as to the support we gave Saddam in earlier years, due to all the other situations in the world - especially the Cold War with the Soviets. That does not in any way change the fact that once Saddam developed into a threat he needed to be dealt with. If he was bad, he was bad. What happened before is a "sunk cost" - it is necessary to deal with situations that come up with regard to the facts at that time, what happened in the past no longer matters. You just do not take an action that needs to be taken because of what happened in the past.

Maskdelta will be saying "you need to provide facts, links, etc, you can not express your opinions or feelings and you can not cite right wing sources to prove right wing ideas and I, Maskdelta am a walking encyclopedia of facts, wisdom and knowledge and all my arguments are truth and fact and prove my points and you have not rebutted what I have said and why do we libs waste our time with someone like you who is not enlighted as we are......truthiness"

Maskdelta, go fly a kite and get a life!

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 1:32pm
ponti-You have had the claim that we won in Iraq debunked and refuted and your repeated claim shows that you are uninformed to an extreme level.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/11/2008 @ 1:36pm
Something for you poor benighted lefties to ponder:

On the seventh anniversary of 9/11 Debra Burlingame, the sister of Capt. Charles F. (Chic) Burlingame 3rd, pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, warns that this event increasingly is being "misremembered" by the American public:

There is a disturbing phenomenon creeping into the public debate about all things 9/11. Increasingly, Sept. 11 is compared to hurricanes, bridge collapses and other mechanical disasters or criminal acts that result in loss of life, with "body count" being the primary factor that keeps it in the top spot of "worst in the nation's history."

Misremembering is as dangerous as forgetting. If we must know one thing, it is that the Sept. 11 attacks were neither a natural disaster, nor the unfortunate result of human error. 9/11 wasn't the catastrophic equivalent of a 3,000-car pileup.

The attacks were not a random act of violence or insanity. They were a deliberate and brutal act of war committed by religious fanatics engaged in Islamic jihad against the United States, all non-Muslim people and any Muslim who wishes to live in a secular society. Worse, the people who perpetrated the attacks have explicitly told us that they are not done.

Sept. 11 is a date that comes and goes once a year, but "9/11" is with us every day. The body count keeps rising - Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid, Beslan, London, Amman.

cont'd

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 1:40pm
We now clearly know that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was part of the holy war against America. When we previously dismissed this as a random attack by crazy men and declared ourselves lucky that "only six lives were lost," we effectively disarmed ourselves. Eight years later, six became 3,000. While the comparison to other "tragedies" may help us cope with what has befallen us, we must resist being glib and intellectually careless.

Our fellow human beings were not "lost" in 1993 or on 9/11. They were torn to pieces. We must not give the enemy any quarter. We must confront the reality of their acts. ---------

If you fools keep talking like you do, the next attack will be nuclear.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 1:41pm
"Dennis, we attacked a country whose efforts (led by Saddam) would have led to another, probably worse, September 11."

key words are "would have led" and "probably". now that we know saddam possessed no weapons, and had no relationship to al qaeda *whatsoever*, it is abundantly clear that bush's decision to invade iraq was the single greatest catastrophe in our nation's history. we are morally and financially bankrupt, bogged down in two civil wars, and they may elect yet another fascist to lead the us.

"Dennis Kucinch is either sick or delusional, and causes people to be demoralized as he blames America rather than the terrorists"

right. because the "terrorists" have no reason to hurt the united states. the united states hasn't done anything that might upset them. in fact, i don't understand why the "terrorists" don't send us cards and flowers every day, for all the wonderful things we have done for them: invaded two countries, killed thousands of innocent people, destroyed cities and infrastructure, propped up wonderful dictators, stole their oil, and continually fund the benign and upstanding state of israel.

Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2008 @ 1:42pm
Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2008 @ 1:42pm

DARLA, put down the bong for a minute and listen. The terrorists do NOT want to kill you because the US won't adopt Universal Health Care. They want to kill you and me because we're not Muslim.

Geez, will anybody educate these folks?

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 1:45pm
I leave with a smile today as I observe both 'ficus and "cheer madness" leaving their transpirational breath marks on the Nation's blog space.

Conserve that moisture "fellas", you might need it later.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/11/2008 @ 1:45pm
"They were torn to pieces"

like these people?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4699077.ece

Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2008 @ 1:46pm
Wow... I guess today just proves how little ever changes around here. We have PONTI and SJCHERMAK taking up positions as historical revisionist and realpolitik apologist, respectively.

PONTI is a lost cause. We all know how batshit, ignorant, and just plain nuts he is.

So onto SJCHERMAK. Saddam and the rest of his Baathist thugs were ALWAYS a threat. The question is, to whom. We made such a big deal about how he was a walking human rights violation, never mentioning the fact that we were his collective handmaiden... correction, we were his sponsors, facilitators, and enablers. No, we did not have to choose between bad and worse throughout the Cold War. That is a false statement. We CHOSE the WORST, period. Let's consider Iran, the most pro-American Arab country, population-wise, then and now. We overthrew a democratically elected regime to install a thug in the form of the Shah. We SHOULD have worked with Mossedegh like adults. Instead, we undermined true democracy 50 years before Bush's ill-fated (and completely bullshit) Crusade for Democracy, or whatever he was calling it. We did the same in Chile, overthrowing Allende (another democratically elected official), opting for yet another thug, Pinochet.

Had these been the only two instances of such behavior, it could potentially be explained away as poor attempts at foreign statecraft (which is a poor decision, indeed). These are far from it, simply the most obviously shining examples in a long line of dirty tricks that are now coming home to roost. As the old adage goes, you reap what you sow. So we have done, so shall we continue to do so long as we behave with the titanic hubris of an imperial cabal.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 1:32pm

What percentage of Muslims do you believe are likely terrorists or terrorists sympathizers?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 1:47pm
PONTIFICUS:

Actually, Bin Laden wanted to kill us because we were in their holiest of holy places. Perhaps you should listen to what he actually said. He has been particularly bald and straightforward with his reasonings for doing what he did.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 1:49pm
"They want to kill you and me because we're not Muslim"

the quote of the day.

Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2008 @ 1:49pm
Hey PONTI,

wouldn't part of "fighting back against terrorists" be....capturing their leaders?

And the leaders of the 1993 WTC bombings were captured....under Clinton's watch.

How's that that "new, improved, just in time for the 2008 election" hunt for bin Laden going? Have we "won it", yet?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 1:50pm
Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 1:47pm

JORCHEIM, it is obvious that you have been so completely indoctrinated into the standard left-wing cant that even presenting to you facts in which you are completely wrong, e.g, that we supplied Iraq with any significant weaponry, is insufficient to shake your faith. I could point out to you the many cases where you are wrong, but you simply glide over them in your grand, overarching thesis that the US is always wrong, and the principal villain in the world, and that anyone who disagrees with this must be either stupid or crazy or both. Should I point out to you that Allende was a Marxist who had seized control of the government and private enterprise, intent on forming a one-party socialist state? And that Pinohet, flawed as he was, ushered in the current state of Chile, which is the most vibrant, prosperous democracy in South America? No, because that would refute your view of the world, I suppose.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 1:55pm
and now ponti,

i'll hold my tongue.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 1:58pm
"Should I point out to you that Allende was a Marxist who had seized control of the government and private enterprise, intent on forming a one-party socialist state? And that Pinohet, flawed as he was, ushered in the current state of Chile, which is the most vibrant, prosperous democracy in South America? No, because that would refute your view of the world, I suppose."

this comes from the same guy who said this:

"it is obvious that you have been so completely indoctrinated into the standard left-wing cant that even presenting to you facts in which you are completely wrong"

so, let me get this straight, because allende was a marxist (he wasn't, but we can discuss that later), the united states had every right to invade chile, remove allende, kill him ON THIS VERY DAY 35 YEARS AGO, kill thousands of others, and replace him with a brutal military dictator?

ponti, i am removing you from my list.....you are an asshole.

Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 1:55pm

Whenever we get into an Iraq thread with PONTI, always like to QUOTE part of a post he made discussing REAGAN support of Iraq, where PONTI was trying to defend our actions in the 1980s.....

"The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power,

"The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims." ------Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/06/2008 @ 09:49am

BLOG | Posted 03/05/2008 @ 4:00pm Comments for "Afghanistan on the Burner"

Note the phrase...."eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq"

For all his talk about about how bad Saddam was, PONTI's heroes in the REAGAN Administration referred to Hussein as...

"the legitmate government of Iraq"

(Hypocrisy is a dish best served cold...to the cook!)

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 2:04pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 1:50pm

"wouldn't part of "fighting back against terrorists" be....capturing their leaders?"

Yep, and unfortunately, Bush has failed to catch or kill Zawahiri and Bin Laden. They're living in some hole in the ground at the end of the Earth, and we can't find them. Fortunately, they've been neutralized, and God willing, we'll get them eventually.

"And the leaders of the 1993 WTC bombings were captured....under Clinton's watch."

Which they should have been. Unfortunately, he didn't kill Bil Laden when he had the chance. This is well-documented in the Clinton-quashed documentary 'Path to 9/11', which you cannot get on video due to Clinton's friends in the entertainment industry.

"How's that that "new, improved, just in time for the 2008 election" hunt for bin Laden going? Have we "won it", yet?"

No, unfortunately. Why do you seem so happy about that?

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 2:04pm
"who had seized control of the government"

yeah, by this crazy thing called an "election".

pinochet, on the other hand, now *he* seized control of the government.

with neo-cons, up is down, left is right, day is night.

Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2008 @ 2:05pm
PONTIFICUS:

Proof, links, (and not Drudge report-type bullshit).

See, I used to be a hard-core red-state Limbaugh-esque Rethuglican. From birth, as a matter of fact.

Then I started reading history. And not just the history you think is so bad, like Chomsky, Polanyi, Parenti, Zinn, et al. I read it all. Hell, of my senior two advisors at Duke University (in the political science program), one was the foremost name in the Neo-Liberal camp, Robert Keohane (no, I'm not talking about liberal v. conservative, you nitwit), and the other, Peter Feaver, crafted Bush's domestic policies vis-a-vis the Iraq War... not exactly flaming leftists by any measure of the term.

So forgive me when I tell you that you are an ignorant fool whose grasp of politics and history run about as rich and deep as a friday night post-Bacchanalian urine pool.

You tell me you can point to examples where I am wrong. Then do so... and bring proof.

See, the claims I make on here can be and are backed up by such sources as the CIA, the FBI, and independent historians of rather wide repute... whereas yours are buttressed by the billowing bluster of bloviating blowhards like Limbaugh, Hannity, "Dr." Laura, Coultergeist, just to name but a few.

And I never once said the US is always wrong. Not once. But I certainly am not going to allow you to lie, distorting history and fact just because you are simply too intellectually craven and dishonest to admit when we fucked up... and that we did so repeatedly, and systematically for a very long time.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 2:06pm
PONTI

1. So "eventually", Bush or McCain will do in 8-9 years what took Clinton just three....capture the leasders of a terrorist attack?....but "Dems are weak on terrorism", right?

2."in the Clinton-quashed documentary 'Path to 9/11', which you cannot get on video due to Clinton's friends in the entertainment industry."

There's a new spin on "9/11 Conspiracy Theories"....LOL. Maybe you should have bought a TiVo to get around their dastardly plot?

3. No, not happy. Not making exucses either....ahem.

BTW, more fun with PONTI...next time you cite a news report and he attacks you for it.....remember this-

"Again, you're arguing with the news report, not me. Try to discern the difference."----Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/02/2007 @ 10:16am

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 2:11pm
hey, chile's current prez is a proud socialist who also "seized control" of her govt through an election....

should we take her out, too?

Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2008 @ 2:12pm
Ponti-Your statement yesterday that there is only one way to be right shows that you have a limited world view and a complete lack of knowledge about human history and humans in general.Humans have tried many different things and some have not turned out well,but other ideas have turned out quite well.The key word there was-"ideas" because more than one has been shown to work well and not just one idea or view,as you claimed.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/11/2008 @ 2:15pm
plant life ala the 'ficus.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/11/2008 @ 12:43pm

that's right, plantificus.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 2:16pm
although,

since he's such a fun guy,

that mushrooms are his realm.

pass the miconazole, por favor.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 2:19pm
Do I really need to provide a laundry list of crappy third world dictators to whom we have provided succor, or nascent democratic movements and legitimately elected regimes we have suborned?

Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 12:38pm

whew, thanks.

i was going to pull up the list.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 2:20pm
Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 2:06pm

"You tell me you can point to examples where I am wrong. Then do so... and bring proof. "

Okay. You're dead wrong that the US supplied Saddam's Iraq with weaponry. Saddam's military was supplied almost exclusively by the Soviet Union and it's ideological surrogates. You want a reference? Try google.com I guess they didn't cover that at Duke University.

You mention Zinn? I picked up his book, and a more worthless piece of nonsense I have ever seen. It's not a history book, it's the Bible of Victimology. Try Paul Johnson for history, if you want to learn something.

"And I never once said the US is always wrong. Not once. But I certainly am not going to allow you to lie, distorting history and fact just because you are simply too intellectually craven and dishonest to admit when we fucked up... and that we did so repeatedly, and systematically for a very long time."

You don't have to say that. It's implicit in everything you write, and perhaps most tellingly, by what you DON'T write.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 2:21pm
Look it up, I'll wait here.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:42pm

The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988. Although most other countries never hesitated to sell military hardware directly to Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States, equally keen to protect its interests in the region, adopted a more subtle approach. Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. According to his 1995 affidavit and other interviews with former Regan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and high-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other Private military companies to do the same:

"The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq." The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified.

anthrax, anybody?

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 2:23pm
Hello pontificus,

You said "Sept. 11 is a date that comes and goes once a year, but "9/11" is with us every day. "

You are right. In my case, I have not been able to tolerate loud noise, especially sudden loud noise, since September 11, 2001.

And on August 3, 2008 a friend and me went shopping in a computer store, J&R Computer World. After we left the store, we walked across the street, through a small church (St. Paul's Chapel) and out the other side. We were then standing across the street from NOTHING. There was nothing there because terrorists took buildings down seven years ago today.

Shopping in a computer store is difficult when there is a large inventory of computer stuff inside the store but there is a low inventory of World Trade Center buildings outside the store. Computers or computer shopping will never be the same again for me.

So your statement is quite true in my case. I did not personally know anybody killed or injured or even at the sites affected by 9/11, but I have never been able to cope with it and it does not seem I ever will.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 2:29pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 2:04pm

MASK, I explained to you at the time, and perhaps I'll try again. But first, let's put aside the thesis, just for a minute, that the US in general, and Reagan in this instance, was a malevolent force responsible for all of the evil done in the world. Okay?

At the time this was written, the US was trying to put an end to the Iran/Iraq War. As you recall, the Iranians were using crowds of unarmed children as shock troops to clear minefields in preparation for ground assaults by regular troops. The Iraqis were using poison gas. There was an effort underway to halt this, and it was being frustrated by Iran's refusal to stop fighting until Saddam was removed. The US, realizing that the Iranians did not have the military resources to accomplish this, considered it an obstacle to a desired peace. Bad and worse, remember?

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 2:31pm
"Dennis Kucinich is almost comletely irrelevant."

Wrong. He is very relevant. He functions to keep a lot of Democrats in the party who might otherwise go elsewhere. I like what he has to say a lot, and you are right that he has little influence in the party, but he is very relevant to keeping the illusion that the Democratic Party represents a whole range of interests.

As to this: "Is Kucinich upset that we took out Saddam? Why, not enough mass graves in the world?" it is almost laughable. Mass graves like those we created or helped create in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Colombia; etc? Since you are no doubt so high minded about justice, do you think all the US leaders who helped out with these crimes should be hanged as well, as they would be if the Nuremberg principles were applied judiciously? Of course not--you operate on different standards than those you apply to others.

Posted by onthehelm at 09/11/2008 @ 2:34pm
So where's Osama? I mean he's a criminal right? Why are were Republicans so hell bent on getting Saddam, someone who has never attacked the US, but in no way seems to care about catching Osama, a man who's organization carried out a terrorist attack on American soil that was responsible for killing 4000 innocent American citizens in 1 day, which is the amount we lost in Iraq 5 years. Why does no one seem to care about catching the real criminal who attacked us? Instead they want to concentrate on Iraq. I want to catch the person who murdered people I know. Not the person who has never done anything to the US.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 2:39pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 2:23pm

"The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. "

Okay, so you don't know whether we transferred anything signficiant to them or not? Good work. See ya later.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 2:41pm
PONTIFICUS:

Hoisted upon your own retard... oops, petard...

Even when proven wrong by Frosty, you remain completely delusional. You said, and I quote:

"Okay. You're dead wrong that the US supplied Saddam's Iraq with weaponry. Saddam's military was supplied almost exclusively by the Soviet Union and it's ideological surrogates. You want a reference? Try google.com I guess they didn't cover that at Duke University."

Yet it is widely accepted (and admitted to by the CIA and the US military) that we did.

So I have a question for the rest of our intrepid bloggers here.

Does anyone now doubt the stupendous heights of stupidity, or the tremendous lows of intellectualism of ours, dumb PONTIFICUS? Speak now, for he desperately needs backup.

In a word, you just got served.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 2:48pm
And here's the wikipedia link, in case anyone else is unsure...

http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 2:51pm
Hello Cccomfo1,

It would be good to catch bin Laden and get revenge for what he did.

As far as future problems, though, I think that the existence of al-Qaeda is not dependent on him anymore. He was the motivator and orginator of it and the fincancial backer, but if he didn't exist now al-Qaeda would continue anyway.

It might even be possible that were he to be captured, or killed in a capture attempt, that his "martyrdom" would stoke up anger in his supporters - worse than now when he personally has been neutralized to some extent.

Saddam, however, was the leader of the Iraqi government, with it's actions under his direction. Thus defeating his regime stopped his efforts completely.

The war and effort to take him out has now caused the current war, with insurgents and terrorists flocking to Iraq. Our going into Iraq may well have brought that circumstance about, but in my opinion it was a circumstance that was going to happen anyway, one way or another.

The terrorists hate us, and it is beyond an American circumstance, because they lash out in situations that have nothing to do with America, at people not Americans.

They killed Anwar Sadat, he was not American.

So the day of reckoning was coming anyway, our effort in Iraq has just brought some elements about sooner.

Saddam had not attacked us, but he was going to do us harm. He was going to remake the WMD. I doubt Saddam himself would have had the nerve to use it against us, but he would have sold it or given it to terror groups who would have had no inhibitions. His actions would have caused us and others great harm.

And I am afraid now a bin Laden capture and trial would turn into a media circus. I can see Ramsey Clark rushing to be his defense attorney.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 2:51pm
Pontificus, which is bad and which is worse: supplying Iraq with weapons and chemical agents during its war with Iran, or supplying Iran with 1500 missiles during its war with Iraq?

Posted by ilovetheusa at 09/11/2008 @ 2:58pm
Hello jorcheim,

You posed a question " So I have a question for the rest of our intrepid bloggers here. Does anyone now doubt the stupendous heights of stupidity, or the tremendous lows of intellectualism of ours, dumb PONTIFICUS? Speak now, for he desperately needs backup. In a word, you just got served."

Uh, jorcheim, I will repeat part of pontificus' post above:

"Sept. 11 is a date that comes and goes once a year, but "9/11" is with us every day. The body count keeps rising - Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid, Beslan, London, Amman. Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 1:40pm "

and part of mine that followed:

"So your statement is quite true in my case. I did not personally know anybody killed or injured or even at the sites affected by 9/11, but I have never been able to cope with it and it does not seem I ever will. Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 2:29pm"

It seems to me like:

1. Pontificus is right. 2. You are wrong. 3. You picked the wrong day to pose your question.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 2:59pm
Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 2:48pm

"In a word, you just got served."

No, I said that if we provided them with anything, it was not significant compared to what the Soviets provided them. And since FROSTY's reference specifically pointed out that the extent of these efforts are not known, my point stands.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 3:00pm
PONTIFICUS:

You are a liar. Use the same sources to which you pointed.

I'm done with you. Your intellectual dishonesty has only grown since I last darkened these metaphorical halls.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 3:04pm
SJCHERMAK:

We have destroyed far more than a a few buildings in our endeavors in others' backyards. SO spare me your feigned PTSD.

I DID lose friends on 9/11, fraternity brothers and classmates. So if you want to get into a pissing contest about who was affected more, go do it elsewhere. So fuck you for trying to one-up our points with your vapid attempt at invoking a national tragedy, a la Rudolph Giuliani.

Honestly, I am surprised we have not been completely beset by people who harbor hate against this nation. We have trampled upon the world, murdering, killing, massacring, and yes, TERRORIZING, for decades now.

No, I do not wish ill of my nation... so before you even attempt to try that bullshit, fuck you, because I know your type.

But if you try to compare what we have lost to what we have wrought on this earth, then you are nothing. We have burned nations to the ground, we have napalmed entire populations into gelatinous semblances of organic goo, we have wiped out entire races... all for our NATIONAL INTEREST.

Well, let me tell you what our national interest is. It is to leave everyone the hell alone and stop sticking our dicks in every piece of tyrannical ass we come across, whether it's former Nazis, warlords, "freedom fighters" or whatever. We need to stop presuming to know what is best for the world and stop taking shits on everyone and everything that doesn't jive with our particular worldview.

There, I'm done. I am not a Hate America First-er, PONTIFICUS, you presumptuous piece of shit. And I hope just for your implying that that you and your family die in a fucking fire... hopefully friendly fire from our own machines of war.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/11/2008 @ 3:14pm
hey planti,

i'm still waiting for your response regarding those stats.

alas........

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 3:17pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 2:51pm

I don't care if Al-Qaeda is dependent on him. We were told they went after Saddam because of connections to 9-11 which were proven false. Why then have they not bothered to find the ACTUAL mastermind. I don't care how you slice it. Going after Saddam instead of getting the person who actually killed 4000 US citizens is bollocks. If I was the family members of one of those 4000 American citizens I would be screaming at the top of my lungs CONSTANTLY to have that man caught. We insist on as harsh an action here for people who kill ONE person yet when some terrorist comes on American land and kills 4000 of our people we let him slide. Republican's always talk tough about terrorism but it is a Republican administration who has let one of the greatest atrocities to have ever been carried out American soil go unpunished. Right now Saddam is laughing in a cave somewhere because he is replaying clips of Cowboy Bush talking tough about catching terrorist yet he got away with the most horrific terrorist attack to date.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 3:19pm
Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 2:31pm

PONTI....simple question (the kind you hate and dodge)...

Did the RONALD REAGAN Administration call Saddam Husein's regime the "legitimate government of Iraq"...or not?

BTW, remember Clinton was supposedly "should have invaded Iraq" (your prescription for fighting terror)....so going back into the past is legitimate.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 3:30pm
SJCHER, your question was even simpler...

What percentage of the world's Muslims do you think, feel, "vibe" are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 3:43pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 3:19pm

You know it's funny, all the neo-cons claim that "Bush will be proven right in years to come"....

but, barring a VERY fortunate event, Bush will leave office with Osama bin Laden, mastermind of 9/11, STILL on the loose...

and he'll NEVER be able to "go back" and catch him, and certainly won't be able to take credit if Obama OR McCain capture or kill OBL.

So "years to come"....the man who led Al Qaeda on 9/11 will have escaped under George W. Bush and THAT WILL be part of Dubya's legacy that CANNOT be spun away.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 4:03pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 3:30pm

You know, MASK, every point of yours always seems to be to point to the US as a villain. Much like JORCHEIM, even though you don't say it explicitly as he does, the overarching thesis seems to be that if something bad happens to us, or to anyone else in the world, it's always our fault.

Thus you have this question, 'did he or did he not call Saddam the rightful government of Iraq', as if that proves something if he did, and we're supposed to ignore time, place and context, because: Gotcha! Rumsfeld called Saddam the righ ful ruler of Iraq! And we may or may not have sold them arms, and they may or may not have been significant compared to what other people sold them, but we did, so that just proves that we're responsible for him! Thus, somehow, the fact that Iraq was problem after 9/11 was our fault!

It's nonsense, of course, outside of the narrative you and people like Jorcheim are trying to sell. And you don't even realize it.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 4:20pm
" But that'll be resolved now that we've won in Iraq. Regardless, that's not the overriding factor. There's no doubt in my mind that the world is far better off without Saddam, and that we are, as a nation, far safer.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 12:57pm | warn this person"

We've won? No provincial elections, no resolution of Kirkuk, no hydrocarbons law, no reconciliation of the Sunnis.

Regarding safety, Hussein had already been defanged and the number of total American casualties in Iraq now as opposed to when he was being contained rather contradicts your safety argument. It isn't surprising that there's no doubt in your mind, doubt requires thought.

"Which they should have been. Unfortunately, he didn't kill Bil Laden when he had the chance. This is well-documented in the Clinton-quashed documentary 'Path to 9/11', which you cannot get on video due to Clinton's friends in the entertainment industry."

Wow, you've gone off the tin-foil hat deep-end with that one. In fact, there had been very limited chances to kill bin-Laden. One of the considerations was to avoid a replay of the Fadlallah fiasco. He was the spiritual leader of Hezbollah. We tried to take him out in the 80s but we not only missed him, we killed a number of bystanders. Incidentally, The Path to 9/11 was a dramatization, not an actual documentary. Even ABC retreated from its original characterization of it as a docudrama based on the 9/11 Report to saying that it was dramatization only partly based on it.

Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2008 @ 4:36pm
"We now clearly know that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was part of the holy war against America. When we previously dismissed this as a random attack by crazy men and declared ourselves lucky that "only six lives were lost," we effectively disarmed ourselves. "

Inaccurate. al-Qaida as a terrorist organization doing the "far jihad" wasn't a going concern in 1993. Ramzi Yusuf worked with the circle of Egyptians surrounding Sheik Rahman. The Clinton administration successfully cracked down on that circle while the Egyptian government was fully motivated to do the same after the Luxor massacre.

Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2008 @ 4:37pm
"Maskdelta, you forget the USS Cole attack occurred while we were not fighting back against terror. The attacks you named beyond that occurred after we went to war to fight terror. You do have attacks and death during a war. That is what war is. "

That is a non-response. The fact is that going into Iraq served as a recruitment boon for Islamists. It took pressure off of the al-Qaida basis in the Afghan-Pakistani borderland, which allowed them to regroup and provide a modicum of training, advice and their imprimature to the terrorists who hit London and Madrid.

"Saddam had not attacked us, but he was going to do us harm. He was going to remake the WMD. I doubt Saddam himself would have had the nerve to use it against us, but he would have sold it or given it to terror groups who would have had no inhibitions. His actions would have caused us and others great harm."

With, as usual, no basis except your unreasoning fear.

Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2008 @ 4:44pm
jorcheim,

You were so busy spewing your sick venom you overlooked I was not conducting a "pissing contest" about the extent to which people were affected by September 11, 2001.

I SIMPLY MENTIONED HOW I WAS AFFECTED.

Read my post again if the bile and rabid foam that comes out of your mouth have not obscured the screen on your computer monitor.

The rest of your bilge, discussing about what you think the United States of America has "wrought upon this earth" is 180 degrees off of the mark.

You forget or refuse to admit:

1. The United States has come to the defense of others far more times, at the cost of American lives, then any other nation in history.

2. The United States has provided far more humanitarian assistance to other nations than any other nation in history. (And libs, don't bother posting in with the Jimmy Carter BS that the Netherlands gives more of it's GDP to foreign aid than the U.S. and so is better- that is gov't donation, but Americans give far and away more in private donation than people in other countries do -wiping out that canard)

3. The United States with a free market economy has brought about more economic development, and technological advancement, than possible from any other nation. The standard of living and life expectancy of people at home and abroad is better because of it.

4. The United States has promoted more freedom and democracy to it's own citizens and others than any other nation in history. The concept of people governing themselves basically started here first. And were people were shut out of the process, the U.S. has worked to correct it's own flaws by our own efforts and thus is the best hope for future improvement.

Even people who are successful in other places, such as Europe, want to be here.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 4:47pm
"And on August 3, 2008 a friend and me went shopping in a computer store, J&R Computer World. After we left the store, we walked across the street, through a small church (St. Paul's Chapel) and out the other side. We were then standing across the street from NOTHING. There was nothing there because terrorists took buildings down seven years ago today.

Shopping in a computer store is difficult when there is a large inventory of computer stuff inside the store but there is a low inventory of World Trade Center buildings outside the store. Computers or computer shopping will never be the same again for me."

You self-pitying little drama queen! Were you anywhere near New York when the attack came? I lived in the city and, from the 59th Street bridge, saw the arch of the smoke plume going from Manhattan into Brooklyn the day of the attack. I was down there the following week and saw National Guards bivouacked in Battery Park, smelled the smoke still in the air and saw the huge gap in the skyline from the Staten Island ferry. You certainly don't see me whining about it.

This speaks volumes about the rationality of your "assessment" of the threat posed by Hussein.

Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2008 @ 4:50pm
Just to put the above in perspective, I was fortunately enough not to have lost anyone in the attack either.

Incidentally, sj, according to Bush, shopping is your patriotic duty.

Slacker!

Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2008 @ 4:55pm
Maskdelta,

You ask "SJCHER, your question was even simpler... What percentage of the world's Muslims do you think, feel, "vibe" are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? "

Maskdelta, I do not know in numerical terms. Way too many are terrorists and way too many more do not speak out against those who are.

This whole thing with fighting terror is a new situation, a new kind of war.

In the past wars between nations or people were basically conducted by standing armies. Way back to colonial times even that was more regimented, with the British suprised by tactics empolyed by the colonial army and soldiers during the American revolution.

The world, at least some of it, is finding it's way as we do battle against those who want to kill us, using terror techniques and mindset that have not been encountered in past history.

You, as a lib, are trying to play a mind game where you will then say we can't do this and that etc, because how do we identify and know who is terrorist and who is not, and libs also scream and say you can't profile Muslims as potential terror suspects, etc.

This is a mindset that in no way helps in dealing with the terror issue, unless the objective is appeasement and surrender by those with a Blame America First mindset, of which many are to be found right here in The Nation blogs.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 4:57pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 4:03pm

All Bush and the neo-cons have shown terrorist is that if you attack America you will not only get to see the American government lash out in pure terror, but you will also get to see your the greatest threat to your terrorist organization in your region eliminated. We HELPED Al Qaeda after they killed 4000 citizens. I guarantee you that right now we are a JOKE to them. They sit in a cave laughing at the big bad cowboys who with all of their technology, all of their troops, all of their money, all of their resource can't even catch a diabetic in a cave. We preach our superiority ESPECIALLY when it comes to military but even though many years have passed since the Russians tried to invade Afghanistan, with far superior technology we STILL can't catch Bin Laden and I am sure as much as our local Republicans like to preach about success in driving Al Qaeda out of Iraq he is sitting laughing at us because he has managed to pull off the biggest slap in the face of America and knows that they have never and probably will never do anything about it.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 4:59pm
Brunowe,

You said "You certainly don't see me whining about it. "

No, you don't. That is because you are too busy whining about all the things you think America, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, corporate America, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc have done wrong. You are too busy whining about the wrong people and blaming the wrong people.

Hopefully you and Maskdelta and the vile jorcheim will get so worked up in a stew here on these blogs on November 4th of this year that you will forget to go and vote.

Right now my vote will have to be used up to cancel one of yours.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 5:03pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 4:59pm

Oh and to expound upon my point we HELPED Al Qaeda by eliminating Saddam, after they killed 4000 American citizens by sacrificing 4000 MORE American lives.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 5:17pm
Right now my vote will have to be used up to cancel one of yours. Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 5:03pm

Why? So we can go back to 4 more years of letting murders and thugs run free while we chase after defanged has-beens? Of giving up when it comes to facing a REAL threat to American security? Of complaining and trying to justify an attack on a nation that had no power while trying to justify NOT going after a terrorist organization because it's too hard?

You Republicans love to say we need to stick it out even if it seems hard but then if you ask Osama is no longer a target you will say because it's too hard. We don't want to get bogged down in the caves. It's too hard to find him. You will make every excuse in the world to not be catching the REAL criminal who is ACTUALLY

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 5:20pm
Right now my vote will have to be used up to cancel one of yours. Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 5:03pm

Why? So we can go back to 4 more years of letting murders and thugs run free while we chase after defanged has-beens? Of giving up when it comes to facing a REAL threat to American security? Of complaining and trying to justify an attack on a nation that had no power while trying to justify NOT going after a terrorist organization because it's too hard?

You Republicans love to say we need to stick it out even if it seems hard but then if you ask Osama is no longer a target you will say because it's too hard. We don't want to get bogged down in the caves. It's too hard to find him. You will make every excuse in the world to not be catching the REAL criminal who is ACTUALLY responsible for killing Americans and who, I GUARANTEE YOU, is looking for a nuclear weapon to take MORE American lives.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 5:21pm
Face Bush and the neo-cons are responsible for HELPING Bin Laden. They took out the biggest threat to him in the region. You helped a known criminal. All so you could complete some wet dream of taking Saddam down to make up for the first time you failed at it. Now you succeeded and taking Saddam down but you failed at taking down the real threat. It's the Gulf War all over again.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 5:25pm
"That is because you are too busy whining about all the things you think America, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, corporate America, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc have done wrong. You are too busy whining about the wrong people and blaming the wrong people."

Actually, I can actually ponder more than one issue. I can talk about going after al-Qaida without having a panic attack about Iraq while at the same time excoriating Bush ham-handed policies.

Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2008 @ 5:33pm
This is what I find truly and completely pathetic by the way. Neo-cons talk tough about war, yet all they want to do is fight the old wars. They want to fight Saddam, Russia, Cuba. They run from the North Koreans. They don't even bother chasing Bin Laden. They are so concerned about sitting around pontificating about the old wars that they don't even notice a new threat when it slaps them across the nose. We had him in our sights and you BACKED DOWN. Like a whimpering puppy unwilling to chase the rabbit into the hole.

You know what I would have done? I wouldn't have sent American troops into those hills. In learning from the Russians I would have pulled back our troops to a perimeter. Then I would have taken every bomb we used on Iraq in our little "Shock and Awe" fireworks display. I would have used every one of those and more to level that entire range. I would have turned that range into a pile of dirt. THAT is how you deal with the terrorist threat. You show anyone who has a sufficient lack of intelligence to attack America that you are willing to move mountains to catch anyone who kills American citizens.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 5:35pm
Hello Cccomfo1,

al-Qaeda is a threat and we will continue to fight al-Qaeda and we will defeat al-Qaeda.

And it would be good to capture bin Laden and bring him to justice.

But even if the day comes when bin Laden is capture, we will have to continue to fight al-Qaeda. It won't end when bin Laden is captured.

By all accounts now, bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, where our military can not go.

bin Laden and al-Qaeda were and are a threat. But Saddam's continued existence was a threat also. Saddam would not cooperate so we could accurately assess where he stood with his weapons, and now after the war, through the Kay report and the recent Pentagon report, we know Saddam was going to re-build his WMD and he seemed to be getting more and more involved in being a troublemaker.

He would have sold or given WMD to terrorists who would have killed some of us with it.

We needed to deal with both threats (Saddam and al-Qaeda) and we have and are dealing with them.

There are many threats right now and the United States is doing the best it can to meet them. This war will take even more turns before it is over, but we will win some day.

Brunowe keeps saying there is no proof Saddam was a threat.

It IS a "non-provable" concept. It was a judgement call, to take out Saddam. The judgement was that leaving him go was riskier than letting him stay. The judgement was that he represented potential for serious harm, a threat too great to take a chance that the threat would not materialize, or that there were other ways to minimize the threat.

It was a judgement that will be argued for a long time, because Saddam is no longer around to find out what would have happened had we not taken him out.

In my opinion, it was the right call.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 5:56pm
To myself and I think many Americans, Republicans will always be the party of capitulators. The people who BACKED DOWN when face with a REAL threat. Not the threat of some ideological difference. No a threat as in someone who attacked America land. Bush is always the Presidential failure. He had the ability to succeed if he had caught Bin Laden. If he had not gone into Iraq and instead actually CAUGHT Bin Laden he would have been viewed as the greatest President of our time. But because he and his party backed down that threat in order to relive some glory moment where they finally get to take down Saddam he will be relegated to history as one of the worst Presidents ever. If history is just the Republicans will be remembered as the party who let the second MAJOR attack on American soil go unanswered.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 5:58pm
By all accounts now, bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, where our military can not go.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 5:56pm

This line destroys your entire argument. Bush, the President you hale as one of the greatest Presidents f our time, said he would follow the terrorists ANYWHERE THEY WENT. McCain said he would follow them to the gates of hell. Bush said that any country that harbors terrorists is any enemy of the US. Now you back down. All of it was exactly what we all knew it was. Tough talk for actions you wouldn't back up. Because when it comes to the TRULY hard fight, the one that requires more than the smallest effort. The one where mistakes like the multitudes of ones made in Iraq will not go unpunished, you run crying to momma.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 6:03pm
bin Laden and al-Qaeda were and are a threat. But Saddam's continued existence was a threat also. Saddam would not cooperate so we could accurately assess where he stood with his weapons, and now after the war, through the Kay report and the recent Pentagon report, we know Saddam was going to re-build his WMD and he seemed to be getting more and more involved in being a troublemaker.

In my opinion, it was the right call. Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 5:56pm

Well then in my opinion your opinion is flawed. You would let free the person who actually committed a crime to catch someone you thought MIGHT be a threat 10 years down the line IF, big if, he managed to reconstitute his program. You do a diservice to the memory of every single person who died on 9/11 every time you try to justify not catching their murderer by saying a non-threat was more important.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 6:09pm
Brunowe,

You talked about "without having a panic attack about Iraq "

You wouldn't have a panic attack about Iraq now - we are winning, and that is because of General Patraeus and George W. Bush.

You would have needed to have a panic attack about Iraq if Saddam had remained in power.

It is said that we caused all of the turmoil in Iraq. The terror groups came to Iraq, and are now being defeated. It is part of the war on terror.

The terror groups (including al-Qaeda) hope to inflict worse harm on us has not been realized. They have been weakened by having gone into Iraq and by fighting with us.

It is said that us being in Iraq has diverted from the real war on terror and the real threat. But that is not true, we have been dealing with part of the threat because the threat came to Iraq, attempting to do us harm. We are now succeeding in doing harm to them, instead.

This does not mean that the whole problem has been solved, there will be more battles to fight in other locations.

But people like Dennis Kucinich use the anniversary of 9/11 to advocate some formal way of taking America to task for what he feels are American wrongs.

He is wrong, because these "American wrongs" were and are actually American efforts to defeat those who would do us and others great harm.

He (Kucinich) is so fixated on a pacifist mentality that he does not see any evil at all, it seems, in the terrorists. Somehow their entire behavior is all determined by us, he seems to think.

This Dennis Kucinich is the same Dennis Kucinich who was mayor of Cleveland when the Cuyahoga River caught fire. A river catching fire! And people here on The Nation are gung-ho about Kuchinich and his beliefs?

Bizzare.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:12pm
"Right now my vote will have to be used up to cancel one of yours.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 5:03pm | warn this person"

You mean you weren't going to vote otherwise? You don't care that much about your country?

Incidentally, unless you live in the same state as one of us, it won't cancel a thing.

"It IS a "non-provable" concept. It was a judgement call, to take out Saddam. The judgement was that leaving him go was riskier than letting him stay. The judgement was that he represented potential for serious harm, a threat too great to take a chance that the threat would not materialize, or that there were other ways to minimize the threat."

"But Saddam's continued existence was a threat also. Saddam would not cooperate so we could accurately assess where he stood with his weapons, and now after the war, through the Kay report and the recent Pentagon report, we know Saddam was going to re-build his WMD and he seemed to be getting more and more involved in being a troublemaker."

Again, this from someone who quakes in his boots in computer stores. In fact, we had extorted his cooperation in 2003 so we could, in fact, have made such an assessment. Further, what the Iraqi Survey Group found were rudimentary "program activities" and that there had been no production in the 90s. Finally, whatever Hussein had aspired to, there was no solid evidence that he had retained any capacity to start anything.

It certainly isn't a non-provable concept. He didn't have the weapons. He didn't have the facilities in play. That was in the process of being proven by Blix.

Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2008 @ 6:15pm
Hello Cccomfo1,

You said "If he had not gone into Iraq and instead actually CAUGHT Bin Laden he would have been viewed as the greatest President of our time"

There is no way!

All I have seen from day one of the Bush presidency is total hatred of the man by the political left.

I am up in age and so I have lived through the presidencies of Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Slick Willie and George W. Bush.

Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, S. Willie, and W. Bush came in for a lot of flak during and after their presidencies, for varying and differing reaaons.

I am too young to remember anything about Eisenhower, or any negativity if there was towards JFK, and it seemed that there was not much angst against Ford or H.W. Bush.

But of the presidents that have caught flak, I just do not remember any of them being skewered and condemned like George W. Bush has been.

Had he captured bin Laden, I believe most of the political left would have still condemned him. And condemned him worse if Saddam had caused big time trouble down the road that could have been stopped.

I think a lot of the left has never gotten over the 2000 election.

The Democrats in congress made no attempt to work with or accept a Bush presidency, then condemn him as a liar for saying he was a uniter and not a divider.

bin Laden's capture would not have changed the Bush hatred that much of the left possesses.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:22pm
"You wouldn't have a panic attack about Iraq now - we are winning, and that is because of General Patraeus and George W. Bush.

Again, with no political solution, it can hardly be said that we are winning anything. Further, much of the reduction in violence was due to factors independent of Petraeus and Bush.

"You would have needed to have a panic attack about Iraq if Saddam had remained in power."

No more than I did during the 1990s. Missile strikes, sanctions and the no-fly zones were wearing him down just fine.

"It is said that we caused all of the turmoil in Iraq. The terror groups came to Iraq, and are now being defeated. It is part of the war on terror."

First, most of the people we have fought in Iraq are and were Iraqis. They didn't have to come to Iraq. That is not part of the war on Islamist militants, that is part of a war in Iraq that was a strategic diversion.

"But that is not true, we have been dealing with part of the threat because the threat came to Iraq, attempting to do us harm. We are now succeeding in doing harm to them, instead." "They have been weakened by having gone into Iraq and by fighting with us."

First, the terrorists were able to recruit people because of us going to Iraq. Also, the terrorists who hit London and Madrid benefitted from advice and training from an al-Qaida that we lessened pressure on to go into Iraq.

Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2008 @ 6:24pm
You wouldn't have a panic attack about Iraq now - we are winning, and that is because of General Patraeus and George W. Bush.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:12pm

PLEASE. Don't even try to paint these people as heros. They are the reason we are STILL in Iraq. They have essentially waged the WORST war EVER. The battleground was the wrong one. The strategy was terrible. The the goals we worthless and non descript. These people are not heros. They are not great men. They got lucky. Plain and simple. And in the time that it took them to figure out what the hell to do in Iraq, since they went into this entirely half cocked with nothing even resembling a plan, they sacrificed 4000 young Americans. They have gotten LUCKY that things are going right. Maybe if they had done this right in the first place we would would not be there 5 years later.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 6:25pm
"we are winning, and that is because of General Patraeus and George W. Bush."

That sentence reads wrong by the way the SJ. I think you meant that "IN SPITE OF General Patraeus and George W. Bush we are managing to win."

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 6:27pm
All I have seen from day one of the Bush presidency is total hatred of the man by the political left.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:22pm

ARE YOU KIDDING ME. Then you haven't been paying attention my friend. After 9/11 Bush had an 86% approval rating. That accounts for 16% of the left.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 6:29pm
Also Cccomfo1,

From your words it appears it would have been OK with you if we had gone into Pakistan, even if the government there didn't approve of us being there.

But I can see a lot of the left going totally beserk at us going into a country militarily with no "approval". The crucification machine would have gotten cranked up big time on that one.

And the war on terror has not been a failure because of the lack of capturing bin Laden.

We have removed Saddam and the threat he posed. We have killed and defeated much of al-Qaeda and all the other insurgents who came pouring into Iraq.

This war is not over, and will not be over for a long time. But I can see that it will be portrayed by much of the left as a defeat for us until the day the left stops talking about it because the terrorism threats stop, and they realize we have won, and thus they have to promote some other thing because the left will have been proven wrong.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:30pm
I rather look backward....

Back to the Obama who promised to get us out of Iraq.....

Not the present day "fight the just war" hawkish Obama....

RALPH!! RALPH!! RALPH!! RALPH!!

Posted by bleedingheart at 09/11/2008 @ 6:33pm
The Democrats in congress made no attempt to work with or accept a Bush presidency, then condemn him as a liar for saying he was a uniter and not a divider.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:22pm

He wasn't a uniter. He was lucky enough to have a majority in Congress when he started his shenanigans. For some reason the Dem's and the left knew something Bush didn't because when I saw the protests I saw people saying that Iraq was not a threat. So I wonder what intelligence they had that Bush didn't? I wonder what intelligence I was looking at the Bush wasn't when I said pre-Iraq invasion that I knew Saddam didn't have any weapons. Why is it I knew what President Bush didn't

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 6:33pm
Hello Cccomfo1,

I don't thing anybody disagrees that we did not handle things the best way after the war.

However, had we gone in and completely dominated the country and got control such that the insurgency might not have taken hold, I can see Katrina Vanden Heuvel, etc, here, Matt Rothschild on The Progressive, Dennis Kucinich in the Senate and on and on absolutely crucifying the U.S. for being dictators and taking over and dominating a country (Iraq) and proclaiming that bringing freedom to Iraq was a lie because we are now dictators, etc.

It would have been damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I think we may have rushed too quick to set up an Iraqi government for the very reason that we did not want to be conquerors and dictators, and unfortunately that may have been too soon.

Also, President Bush's approval ratings went up after 9/11 but I am sure eventually the left would have started going after him again even if we had not gone into Iraq and had captured bin Laden instead.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:37pm
We have removed Saddam and the threat he posed. We have killed and defeated much of al-Qaeda and all the other insurgents who came pouring into Iraq.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:30pm

Are you kidding me. The only thing we did there was kill Saddam. Al Qaeda is not dead. We did not kill an overwhelming number of them. They just realized it was time to pull out and did. They are still alive and well in Pakistan regrouping, rearming and recruiting.

"But I can see that it will be portrayed by much of the left as a defeat for us until the day the left stops talking about it because the terrorism threats stop, and they realize we have won, and thus they have to promote some other thing because the left will have been proven wrong."

This isn't the narration of the left buddy. 70% of America things we need out. 70% of America thinks this war is a failure. So unless 70% of America is "left" then your biased talking points are wrong as is normal for people who don't stop think logically.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 6:37pm
Hi Cccomfo1,

There are Democrats on the public record both before and during the Bush presidency who said Saddam was a threat. Even countries like France who were opposed to military intervention were opposed for other reasons and not because they believed Saddam had no WMD or was not a threat.

A lot of people think the war was a failure - no surprise the way the media has portrayed it.

You don't see anywhere as much media commentary or coverage when things go right in Iraq, only when they go wrong.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:41pm
However, had we gone in and completely dominated the country and got control such that the insurgency might not have taken hold, I can see Katrina Vanden Heuvel, etc, here, Matt Rothschild on The Progressive, Dennis Kucinich in the Senate and on and on absolutely crucifying the U.S. for being dictators and taking over and dominating a country (Iraq) and proclaiming that bringing freedom to Iraq was a lie because we are now dictators, etc.

Also, President Bush's approval ratings went up after 9/11 but I am sure eventually the left would have started going after him again even if we had not gone into Iraq and had captured bin Laden instead. Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:37pm

Again. More and more talking points with less and less logic. Your type is obvious. You try to blame EVERYTHING on the left. Bush acted in spite of what a lot of people in this coutnry thought was good for the country. If you are going to do that you CARRY through you don't half-try. Face it. Your talking points CAN NOT explain away the fact that Bush is a failure. He went into a war half-cocked. He thought he was going to get away with only a half-effort. You can blame it on the left all you want but no one was commanding the troops but Bush. HE is the failure.

So play your blame game. For those of us who can actually look past talking points can see who failed. Bush had everyting working for him after 9/11 and he failed. 60% of the country thought Iraq was a good idea. He failed. Now you are trying to blame everyone but the people responsible just for partisanships sake.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 6:47pm
Hi Cccomfo1, There are Democrats on the public record both before and during the Bush presidency who said Saddam was a threat. Even countries like France who were opposed to military intervention were opposed for other reasons and not because they believed Saddam had no WMD or was not a threat. A lot of people think the war was a failure - no surprise the way the media has portrayed it. You don't see anywhere as much media commentary or coverage when things go right in Iraq, only when they go wrong. Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:41pm

How about the beginning of the Iraq war when Bush could do no wrong? When you never heard any of the bad things happening in Iraq? The reason the media is portraying it negatively is because that's what the people think. The media only tells people what they want to hear. Again you blame everyone but the ones who are fault. I don't care what the Dem's said. I don't care what France thought. The fact is the person you are trying to defend out of nothing but pure partisanship is a failure. He has managed to drag a war that should have taken only 2 years into a debacle that has cost us trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and 5 years and we are told we need to stay in longer. Stop being so partisan and OPEN YOUR EYES. Stop getting your news from talking points. You sound exactly like Rush and every other neo-con I hear. It's like you guys have one mind and can't think logically for yourselves.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 6:50pm
Hello Cccomfo1,

Ultimately, though, George W. Bush did not fail. He persevered and we are now winning in Iraq.

And we stopped Saddam. He would have retained the know-how to rebuild WMD. His own people after they were captured or confessed said that was the plan.

The Pentagon Report indicated that Saddam was still obstructing and evading up until the time of the war. And this comes from a review of the documentation left behind in Iraq that is still in the early stages, and yet it already paints a picture of a troublesome future had Saddam been left in power.

The Middle East will be eventually more stable with Saddam gone. Iraq will be a free and democratic country that has no other free democratic country except Israel. That bodes well for the future as it will propel other countries in the Middle East to follow suit. It will become more difficult for them not to do that.

Ghadfi in Libya gave up his weapons voluntarily. This came as a surprise, the extent of his weapons was not even known yet when he did that.

Obviously, he saw what happened to Saddam and realized that it would be a futile attempt for him to pursue his programs.

So, George W. Bush did not fail. He persevered and he is succeeding.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 6:54pm
Hello Cccomfo1,

Wars do not run according to a schedule or a timetable.

Some of the discussion such as your comment about the how the war should have taken only 2 years comes from a non-political or ideological perspective.

It comes from the fact that due to technology and improvement in standard of living today, everything in life seems more easy and convenient than it ever has been before.

If somebody wants a dinner they do not have to wait an hour or two while it cooks on the stove. Nuke it in the microwave and in 5 minutes you have dinner.

People do not have to wait for anything anymore, they can get it now from stores open 24/7 or if not that, they can order it on the internet and get it the next day.

Even things like cars and appliances are more reliable now than in years gone by.

A lot of the inconveniences in life have been removed. People in this country are not in the mode of being able to withstand a long, drawn out problem. They expect instant, quick solutions.

Unfortunately, when you are in a war with an enemy that means you harm, things do not always work out quick or perfect or accoring to a timetable or script.

In World War II, the battle of the Bulge caught the Allies by surprise. Only back then from what I read of history the media and the population were not then looking for Roosevelt's or Eisenhower's or Patton's head on a platter because of a setback and failure to see it coming.

It just simply doesn't work that way in a war. It is too bad it does not, but it does not. The toughest part is to persevere when the odds are bad and the critics are condemning you.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 7:03pm
Hello RedRiver,

You said above (about the left): "They should be on their knees thanking God that they weren't in tower 1 or 2 or aboard any of the 4 jets used as human missles. But, no they have fingers to point and lives to live no matter how foolishly and ignorantly they choose to do so! "

----------

Just to warn you, stand by for your crucification!

You will be condemned by people such as brunowe and get the f-word thrown at you by jorcheim and who knows what else, for daring to mention 9/11 when commenting on libs, just like I was.

I can handle it, and I bet you can too, but just thought I would warn you it is coming.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 7:09pm
Here is an article from the Weekly Standard (Maskdelta will declare it is not valid to use) that takes apart the arguments made on this website today by the left:

The Other 9/11 Story What has and hasn't happened in the seven years since September 11, 2001.

By Victor Davis Hanson

http://article.nationalreview.com/ ?q=YmFkY2JlNGI2NWZlZjZiN WNhZWNhNTEzZGRkYzE2MmE=

Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 7:23pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 4:57pm

Oh, come on, SJ....you're such an expert otherwise on "how to fight the War on Terror"...

give me a ballpark?

10%?....20%?....25? of Muslims terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.

Put your vibes to work....

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 7:32pm
All of the terrorist's targets are in blue states....

Why should the red states give a fu%@!?

Posted by bleedingheart at 09/11/2008 @ 7:43pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 7:23pm

No, not "not valid"...just that people should realize that it's Hanson and "National Review" and that they have an agenda.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 8:11pm
Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2008 @ 4:36pm

"We've won? No provincial elections, no resolution of Kirkuk, no hydrocarbons law, no reconciliation of the Sunnis."

Yeah, and you know, there aren't any Costco's in Nassiriyah, either. So, we've eliminated the torture chambers, the mass graves, the $25,000 bounty for succesful terrorist attacks, the funding of terrorists throughout the middle east, the avowed purpose of purchasing and using WMD's, prevented the start of any more unprovoked wars such as those on Kuwait and Iran....but it's all been a failure because we just can't get those legislative achievements. I guess we'll never get true peace without justice, eh?

"Regarding safety, Hussein had already been defanged and the number of total American casualties in Iraq now as opposed to when he was being contained rather contradicts your safety argument."

Pure speculation and selective historical amnesia. At the time of the invasion, sanctions were crumbling because children were dying in Iraq, because what the hell did Saddam care about sanctions? Inconvenient facts you fail to remember.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 9:43pm
Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2008 @ 4:36pm

And BRUNOWE, shall we talk about the effectiveness of sanctions under the UN 'Food for graft' program? Gotta love that WORLD COMMUNITY, eh? You know, the one that wants B. Hussein Obama so bad? I say we ship him off to Brussels when we're done with him this November.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 9:48pm
Wow, Kucinich the UFO man. Yes he's probably the most progressive man in America, more progressive than perhaps Ralf Nader (all other politicos, God save me, are sobs).

Posted by HelenDAO at 09/11/2008 @ 9:53pm
Hey, anybody watching the polls? Obama is going down faster than a Clinton White House intern. Virginia? Forget it. PA and MI? In sight!

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 10:04pm
Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 10:04pm

I posted the polls from Polling Report on another thread, PONTI.

McCain up in a few, but still Margin of Error, except for the WILDLY optimistic USA Today poll.

But please, feel free to predict a landslide....please?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 10:06pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/11/2008 @ 7:03pm

Again. You make the mistake of thinking it is George Bush that is the reason for our doing better. If he hadn't have failed to begin with we wouldn't have had to persevere. He went into this war with zero strategy and plan. He faced this in the most haphazard way possible. If he was a CEO and this was a company. He would have been fired by now and he wouldn't be able to get a job anywhere else.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 10:11pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/11/2008 @ 10:11pm

Isn't ironic (of course, more hypocritical) that many of the folks who charge that Obama supporters believe him to be a "Messiah" and infallible and "will lead us to Utopia"....

have that EXACT opinion of Bush...even to the point of claiming his future "resurrection" in the eyes of history?!?!?!?

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 10:34pm
Come on folks, cool off. There's plenty of blame to go around, which is why there won't be any impeachment. No matter how much they shuck and jive now a significant number of Democratic senators and representatives voted to allow the war; they falsely campaigned in 2006 that they would do something to end the war but did nothing. Chief Pelosi quashed any impeachment suggestions on Day One. On the contrary the Democratic majority rolled over and gave GWB what he asked for. There are more troops in Iraq now than before the 2006 elections. Now just imagine these senators and representatives squirming at the testimony. It was easier with Bill Clinton because he alone got the bjs. With Bush a lot of elected representatives - Democrats included- were the ones on their collective knees.

Sample question for Democrats in Congress: "If the war is illegal, why did you vote for continued funding?"

You think these folks want a search for the truth? Hello!

Posted by jsens at 09/11/2008 @ 10:37pm
Hey JORCHEIM, hopefully you've come down off your temper tantrum and brief spasm of Tourette's Syndrome long enough to read this:

"Saddam's weapons came overwhelmingly from the Soviet Union & other Soviet Bloc countries (69% during this period), followed by France (13%) and China (12%) and a string of smaller suppliers. (For example, according to a 1984 SIPRI report, "During 1982-83, Iraq accounted for 40% of total French arms exports.") The figure for the US is 1%."

http://tinyurl.com/28sceg

Of course, I realize that since this information completely contradicts what you believe, you'll immediately pass it off as obvious right wing propaganda. But what the hell.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 10:54pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/11/2008 @ 10:06pm

"But please, feel free to predict a landslide....please?"

I predict a landslide, MASK, just as I did last week, when Obama was ahead. The more the American people see this guy, the worse he will do. Yes, I know you have the MSM on your side, but wait til we get Mr. Gaff-o-matic away from the teleprompter in the debates. Perhaps he'll tell us about visiting all 57 states again. Regardless, my prediction is 54-45 percent popular vote in favor of McCain, 325-215 electoral votes McCain.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 10:58pm
ponti can't wait till it's

"The Planet Earth Of America".

hey, fun guy,

do you know who teodoro obiang nguema mbasogo is?

no googling!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 11:02pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 11:02pm

Hey FROSTY, tell us again how the USA is built on genocide, okay? Please?

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 11:04pm
actually, most of the americas.

if you wish to deny, enjoy.

"The Trail of Tears is generally considered to be one of the most regrettable episodes in American history. To commemorate the event, the U.S. Congress designated the Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail in 1987. It stretches for 2,200 miles (3,540 km) across nine states.

In 2004, Senator Sam Brownback (Republican of Kansas) introduced a joint resolution (Senate Joint Resolution 37) to "offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States" for past "ill-conceived policies" by the United States Government regarding Indian Tribes. The United States Senate has yet to take action on the measure."

<<<>>>

Over more than a century, about 150,000 native Canadian children were sent to boarding schools run by churches and the government to "civilize and Christianize" them.

Expressions of native heritage were outlawed. Many children suffered sexual and psychological abuse and grew up with neither traditional roots nor mainstream footing, their ties to family and community unraveled.

"The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian residential schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language," Harper said.

The apology was billed by the government as a chance to redress a dark chapter in Canadian history and to move forward in reconciliation.

<<<>>>

take a look at the earth under your feet, ponti.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2008 @ 11:47pm
"So, we've eliminated the torture chambers, the mass graves, the $25,000 bounty for succesful terrorist attacks, the funding of terrorists throughout the middle east, the avowed purpose of purchasing and using WMD's, prevented the start of any more unprovoked wars such as those on Kuwait and Iran....but it's all been a failure because we just can't get those legislative achievements. I guess we'll never get true peace without justice, eh?"

It was you guys who promised a democratic Iraq that would serve as a beacon for the Arab world. Instead you've had ethnic cleansing--a million killed and 2-4 million displaced (just forgot about those did you?). Evidently, you have no problem with atrocities against Iraqis as long as it isn't Hussein doing them.

Second, he wasn't funding terrorists throughout the Middle East. He was targeting Iraqi exiles but I don't think you needed to trash the country of Iraq to deal with that.

Likewise, the invasion wasn't necessary to stop him from going into Kuwait or Iran. The sanctions on him did just fine. They also did a good job of shutting down any WMD aspirations he might have had.

Posted by brunowe at 09/12/2008 @ 12:10am
"Pure speculation and selective historical amnesia. At the time of the invasion, sanctions were crumbling because children were dying in Iraq, because what the hell did Saddam care about sanctions? Inconvenient facts you fail to remember.

Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2008 @ 9:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

Despite the graft, the oil-for-food program was working to feed the Iraqi people. Second, the sanctions would've required a UN Security Council vote to go through--requiring our acquiesence. But again, you seem to have no problem with Iraqi children dying as a direct or indirect result of what we set loose.

Posted by brunowe at 09/12/2008 @ 12:13am
The mad scramble at the 11th hour by the Administration to "use all resources to find Osama bin Laden" points out the ONE THING that the SJCHER/PONTI 28% Club know in their hearts (as does Bush and the Admin)....

there are just 100 days or so until Inauguration Day...Obama or McCain.

If Bush leaves office and bin Laden has NOT been captured or definitively killed (i.e. an objetively identifible body...not just a cave with the entrance collapsed and a claim "he was in there")....

then there is NO WAY that this idea of "Bush's Resurrection" (i.e. "He'll be shown to be right, despite his low approvals now, in 'years to come'")...

it can't.

Regardless of what happens in Iraq....Afghanistan will STILL be a mess in January 2009 and in the end...

George W. Bush....7 years, 3 months after 9/11....did NOT capture Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of Al Qaeda.

That'll be the history...and no spinning can delete that off the books!

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/12/2008 @ 09:11am
RALPH!! RALPH!! RALPH!! RALPH!! Posted by bleedingheart at 09/11/2008 @ 6:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Nader is an empty suit, his better days are far behind him.

Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2008 @ 10:23am
Posted by brunowe at 09/12/2008 @ 12:13am

"Despite the graft, the oil-for-food program was working to feed the Iraqi people."

Not according to what I have read.

"Second, the sanctions would've required a UN Security Council vote to go through--requiring our acquiesence. "

I assume you mean 'formally removing' the sanctions. But regardless of whether the US complied with such a resolution and a formal lifting was done, the sanctions were already being actively undermined. Formal lifting of sanctions by the UN has little impact in the real world if they are paper sanctions, and they were rapidly becoming so based on actions of the 'World Community' such as France, Russia, and Germany who at this point were more or less openly flouting them.

"But again, you seem to have no problem with Iraqi children dying as a direct or indirect result of what we set loose."

That's not at all the case. I have a lot of compassion for innocent children. Including, most notably, those in North Korea for the last 10 years who have been dying by the millions of malnutrition. But what do dictators like Saddam and Kim Jon Il care for sanctions? The sanctions had defanged Saddam as far as launching another unprovoked war, but the sanctions were failing and were soon to be defacto, if not actually, lifted. Thus, he once again would be in a position to launch a military campaign, since Russia would sell him as many weapons as he wanted, sanctions or no.

Posted by pontificus at 09/12/2008 @ 10:27am
Hi Maskdelta,

You said "Oh, come on, SJ....you're such an expert otherwise on "how to fight the War on Terror"... give me a ballpark? 10%?....20%?....25? of Muslims terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Put your vibes to work...."

Sorry Maskdelta, there is no purpose to your question other than to play some yet to be determined lib mind game, so I am not going to indulge you. I already said that I don't have a numerical value but I do know that the figure on both issues (Muslim terrorists and Muslim terrorist sympathizers) is too high.

It seems a lot of people know that, except for some people on the left side of the political spectrum.

As long as I am here, I may as well re-visit another issue. The one where Brunowe and jorcheim threw fits because of my comments on September 11.

They overlook that this whole thread began because Dennis Kucinich, is using the 9/11 anniversary as a prop to feature his agenda of blame America first and criminalize/indict/try/convict those he feels are "criminals" - the people who in fact are fighting terror, present terror and also those who would have terrorized us in the future. In other words, saving innocent lives.

Brunowe and jorcheim have no idea how offensive Kucinich's efforts must be to many people, especially many who lost friends or loved ones on 9/11. When they see Kucinich turning the anniversary into an attempt to criminalize those who sought to prevent what happened to their loved ones from happening again to others, that must make their blood boil.

I come to this website often, actually way too often, so nothing I see here surprises me, but to others not familiar with The Nation or Dennis Kucinich, it must be a shock.

Brunowe and jorcheim, in their lib rage, are blind to this.

Posted by sjchermak at 09/12/2008 @ 10:34am
brunowe

good posts as always. but, and I'm guessing here, I think you probably have better things to do than to swat down troglodytes like bridgefig and his ilk.

pearls before swine comes to mind.

Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2008 @ 11:43am
Posted by emile duBois at 09/12/2008 @ 11:43am

Funny, when you're around, the same things come to my mind, only without the pearls.

Posted by pontificus at 09/12/2008 @ 4:25pm
"I already said that I don't have a numerical value but I do know that the figure on both issues (Muslim terrorists and Muslim terrorist sympathizers) is too high."

Ahh!!

Truthiness, to end my day with. "I don't have...but i do know"

Are you serious?

"It seems a lot of people know that, except for some people on the left side of the political spectrum."

...Apparently.

Posted by Malcontent at 09/12/2008 @ 10:22pm