No, we don’t need another 9/11
Stu Bykofsky at the Philly Daily News wrote a provocative column yesterday that garnered some buzz: “To save America, we need another 9/11.”
It begins:
ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I’m thinking another 9/11 would help America.
What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?
A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically – thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq – that we have forgotten who the enemy is.
It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O’Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.
And it ends:
America’s fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago’s Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.
Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America’s righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
The unity brought by such an attack sadly won’t last forever.
The first 9/11 proved that.
I met Bykofsky several years ago. He’s a veteran newsie and all-around great guy, but I think this column was as tone-deaf as Steve Levitt’s whimsical Think Like a Terrorist blog post at the NYTimes. He wants more Americans murdered on American soil to “sew us back together?”
We don’t need healing. We need the half of the country that doesn’t believe we are under threat from global jihad to wake up and smell the suicide bomb smoke.
The answer isn’t to pray for another mass terrorist attack. The answer is to educate the sheeple about our enemies, name them, shame them, fight them overseas, and fight them and their apologists with every fiber of our collective being here at home.
“Let it be?”
What the hell happened to “Let’s Roll?” It has been reduced to a gag line in the latest Tom Toles cartoon.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Pajamas Media
- Lamentabili Sane » Blog Archive » Ideological Terrorists
- America’s fabric | FishDeck
- Neocon News » The enemy worth fighting?
- Another 9/11? « The Sophistry
- JammieWearingFool
- Ed Driscoll.com
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Would another 9-11 unite us against terrorism?
- What Does John Gibson Mean By “Wake America Up”? « ChenZhen’s Chamber
- Neocon News » Another 9/11? Put down Patton and win this war.
- JABbering Stooge :: And when the band plays “Hail to the Chief,” they point the cannon at you.* :: August :: 2007
- suicide bomb
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: 9/11
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Stop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeySister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itWeekly Standard
» McAuliffe, and Rudy, and Ford, Oh My!
We don’t need another 9/11.
But, sadly, I don’t think 9/11 was enough to wake us up.
Agreed
Did you not watch the truther video? There was no “let’s roll”. That plane landed in Boston and the people were taken into a double secret hanger and have not been heard from. That was part of the cover-up of that brilliant BushCo plan to take over the world starting with Iraq.
I sure wish I just made all of that up – humph.
Hear, Hear. Couldn’t agree more.
Although “overseas” is a little vague. Can we not invade Iran? Pretty please?
Even if we are attacked again (God forbid), the liberal media would immediatley blame Bush and Iraq (look how quick they started blaming Iraq for the bridge collapse). It would just further polarize us rather than bring us together.
If another attack is going to bring us together, it will have to wait until GW is no longer president.
But by then we will either have an appeasing socialist liberal in the white house, or we will have the liberal media and the left wing blogs complaining that the republicans stole the election again by tampering with the voting machines.
Either way, an another attack won’t bring us together.
What would happen after another attack:
1.) It’s Bush’s fault – he stirred up a hornet’s nest.
2.) It’s a Rovian conspiracy in order to help the GOP in 2008
3.) It’s proof that ‘fighting them over there’ is a joke ( this one is already being discussed here on these boards )
4.) We need to impeach
5.) We need to leave Iraq – maybe even Afghanistan – and leave the Islamist / Muslim people alone. If we do that, they’ll leave us alone.
While I agree we don’t need more Americans murdered, but I also agree with him that it seems the only way to wake up this half of the country to the problem and issue of the terrorist now.
That has been tried and reality and facts don’t matter to these people.
Everyday we hear about attacks and capture of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and yet everyday we hear people saying we need to get out of Iraq to fight terrorist. How to you “educate” people who ignore the facts and reality?
While I think it is sad, I believe Mr. Bykofsky correct for people like Sen. Obama and all others who continue to state we need to get out of Iraq to go fight terrorist instead.
Can we just let them continue to kill our soldiers without interruption – pretty please?
/maximum sarc off
http://www.newt.org/forum/topic.asp?fi=20000001&catid=30000001&ti=400003031
Great pics for you to enjoy. God bless our troops.
Actually, I agree with this.
Why invade, when we can give them exactly what they want…
I mean, what’s wrong with giving them nuclear weapons?
Ok, my method of delivery might not be what they had in mind, but honestly an ICBM is the fastest way to ship them…
Ditto.
I do understand the line of thought, that desperation to get back to 9/12/01 unity…sometimes it might be the first thought that comes to mind, but certainly not the best, or even logical.
And also sign up at http://www.deportthemnow.com!!
How’s this for a bumper sticker: It’s the Jihad stupid!!!!!
This should be in our foreign policy statement.
You could make it a t-shirt too – but you’d never get on a plane with it…
Thats one reason of several my vote was cast for that insensitive brain donor lgm yesterday…To many people have forgotten and it is just down right wrong.
Quite the conundrum, isn’t it?
On one hand, once doesn’t seem to have been quite enough. Although Pearl Harbor was sufficient to galvanize the “Greatest Generation,” 9/11 hasn’t had the same effect. It did for a while; but now what, about a third of the population believes it was an inside job?
On the other hand, “ironic” doesn’t quite capture the essence of contemplating the argument for a repeat application.
I’m with Waltere in #4 above. Half of this country will never rally behind George W. Bush now or in the future. They’re the same people who say today that he’s trampling civil rights and creating a fascist state with things like the Patriot Act or NSA monitoring of terrorist communications; but after the next big attack, they’ll do a 180 and complain that “George Bush didn’t do enough to make America safe!”
As long as George Bush is in front of them, it’s going to be impossible to get such people to focus their attention on what they consider to be any lesser evil.
Sure you could. You’d just have to put it on a monkey!
Saying we need another 9/11 is pretty bone-headed, I’ll give you that. However, I strongly agree with the underlying point that we need to stop all this childish bickering and in-fighting. And frankly, comments like “we need half the country to wake up” don’t help.
Look, for the most part, we’re all good people. The overwhelming majority of Americans want what they think is best for the country – we just disagree on what the best things are. People like Bill O’Reilly calling half the country America haters is an extremely unnecessary diversion; it’s divisive and patently false. Rather than debating the real issues, we have sunk to a petty battle where whoever shouts the loudest or can find the nastiest blog comments from the “opposing” side wins. Well guess what, gang – we’re all on the same team, and if we’re going to get anywhere in this war, we need to learn to work together.
And for the record, it is possible to love America and grasp the seriousness of the enemy we face and still disagree with the war in Iraq. These are not mutually exclusive traits.
“You’d just have to put it on a monkey!”
Nice one – LOL.
Huggy – I agree that disagreement on Iraq doesn’t automatically qualify you as an America ‘hater’. I also agree with much of your post about what are mostly becoming political talking points.
The problem with this whole situation is the differentiation between a real-world, life and death, security issue and politics.
It seems as though so many issues have strayed from one arena to the other.
Go post that comment on any of these idiot liberal blogs and see what they tell you. They will tell you that there is no way that they are on the “same team” as Chimpy McHallibushco. They will tell you that they are on the team with the innocent goathearders held without trial at Club Gitmo, they are never on the team of Cheney robbing us of our rights, they are never on the team of soldiers who terrorize women and children in the dark of night, they cannot be on the team of Abu Graib torturers, ect. ect. ect.
That is what they will tell you. Now, who is the problem here, I ask?
I do not know about this Byofsky fellow, so I want to read other stuff before I judge him in a vacuum. If he feels that American’s won’t get it until we get hit again, that is fine. Colonel Hunt has been saying that for years, and titled his book after it.
If he is saying we should have another 9/11 so that it will unite us, aka saying this would be positive because the unity supercedes the tragedy, then I would completely agree with Ms. Malkin.
Ms. Malkin has never been one to cherry pick information, but it boggles my mind that (if she is not accidentally taking the remarks out of context) somebody could write such stupidity and be given a column.
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/until-san-francisco-gets-bombed-they-will-not-understand-anything/
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/colonel-david-hunt-the-jfk-plot-they-still-just-dont-get-it/
Respectfully,
eric
P.S. I infiltrated the Edwards campaign last night and attended his rally. For those who worry about him…you should. Further details in 2-3 hours.
No we DO Not need another 9/11. Yet remember that our intelligence needs to be 100% correct all the time. These Islamo Psychos only need to be right once. Don’t think these psychotics are not trying to breach our defence mechanisms in place. The other half of the country needs to walk up, stop being like sheep to the slaughter.
If someone thinks we need another 9/11 they have brain damage and should be set in front a a tv to watch the murders of the innocent victims of the world trade center until they finally get it.
Where is this united fighting spirit today? It is absent, and whom may we hold responsible for that? President Bush, some would say. But I disagree entirely. The President has not changed the aims of our country in this war. It is the opportunistic politicians on the left that have bailed out on the C-n-C for their own gain in poll surveys. What a bunch of contemptable turncoats these people are.
What divides us as a country is that some are just wrong. Should those who are wrong be accomodated for the sake of unity, sacrificing what’s right? I say no. Call them out, challenge their conscience, and demand that they come to the cause that our troops are engaged in. It’s not our fault that we are divided, that division was put in place for the shallowest of reasons, and it turns my stomach.
I’d love this as I’ve been pissed at them since 1978 but that’s beside the point. A couple things here:
1. I’m not sure we have enough to take each target we’d like to hit out.
2. We’d have to deal with the relatives later within the boarders of our “friends”.
3. We have entirely too many people that are secular relativists and have no concept of what “those people” want and are capable of doing.
I don’t know if it did, even for awhile. I don’t think the American Left was ever truly united with us in this cause. Isn’t part of their orthodoxy that the US deserves whatever it gets because of our “capitalist, imperialist” foreign policy? I think, but I’m not certain, that ANSWER was formed almost immediately in the wake of 9/11 in order to slowly, slowly resist the forces of patriotism, and attempt to discredit any response to that attack. In the very early days post 9/11, they just couldn’t come out in the open. Given enough time, they have become emboldened in their anti-Americanism.
Can’t we just have another 9/12, that period of time when the country was united, instead? Seems like the thing to do would be to wish for that, and not the event that perciptated that.
I’d love to think educating people on the danger of Islamic terrorism would solve the issue and unite us against the jihadists.
But lets be realistic, if 911 and all the documented events since then aren’t enough then I just don’t think it’s possible.
Do I want to see another 911?
Hell no, but if the truth that’s out there isn’t enough to unite us, then I don’t know what will.
A lot of the post 9-11 unity may have been over-estimated due to the fact that the media, for the short period between 9-11 and the Iraq invasion, stopped being a mouthpiece for the left as they are now.
Once that wore off – the MSM went back to regurgitating liberal talking points and suddenly this ‘unity’ disappeared.
What do we “need”? Perhaps constant publicly televised photos and videos of the beheadings that they engage in. The same with the Iranian mass-hangings and deaths-by-stoning. If the American leftist morons who sit smugly (and safely) here in the United States were forced to watch the actions of “those people,” it would become rather difficult to continue to proclaim the moral equivalence between our culture and theirs.
But, I suppose if I really had my wish, I simply ship the leftists to the Middle East (not including Israel) so that they could practice all of self-righteous posturing there. We could place bets in Las Vegas for how long they would last.
I agree with most of your points about the difficulties of an operation against the Iranians. This one, however, I must take issue with.
We have enough, trust me. The U.S. Air Force can handle any target list in Iran, it’s up to our intelligence community to compile the list. That is where the problem here lies. Assume that a thourough target list were compiled, and then read up on this:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82
Factsheets : B-2 Spirit : B-2 Spirit
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=81
Factsheets : B-1B Lancer : B-1B Lancer
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=83
Factsheets : B-52 Stratofortress : B-52 Stratofortress
Then there is the U.S. Navy:
Nimitz class CVN fleet
Virginia class attack submarine fleet
Ballistic Nuclear Missle Submarine Fleet
Destroyer (DDG) fleet
Amphibious Assault Fleet
When we know what to hit, we can hit it real hard, non stop.
Notice that our “overstretched” ground forces are largely absent from this list, aside from the Marines on the Amphibious Assault fleet. We can handle the Iranians, if we decide we have to.
What can begin to get America together, somewhat, would be for the MSM to begin to treat news in a balanced way. It has taken nearly 60 years for the MSM to be shown and proven as biased left because today we have the Internet and those of us who care about honesty and decency will do our research into the varying opinions, facts and research and make our decisions. Not only the MSM, but also the television and movie people…if you pay close attention, and I do, small bits of anti American or BDS slip into dialogue throughout everything on the airwaves. I just don’t know if we have enough time to reverse what’s been done quickly enough to avoid another, more horrible event or events.
Don’t hold your breath on that one, sharinlite. Do you think that Keith Uberjerk is ever going to present anything in a balanced way? I do not. We have to rely on the new media to do that.
It Would “Take”, Not We “Need”
I don’t believe Bykofsky actually meant that we “need” another 9-11 but that it would _take_ another 9-11 to bring the skeptical around, which I ruefully concur with. There’s just too much dribbling hate for individuals and mud and bile being slung around to get-even with another to see the real enemy here. We have people watering down our security apparatus and measures just because they hate one man or believe another mass attack or nuclear event is science fiction. I see it in my own family and neighbors; Bin Laden is just an updated Al Capone who instead of mowing down bystanders with Tommy guns is using airplanes, and we can use law enforcement means to hang him too. That so many in this country swear that if we just left the Middle East lock, stock and barrel (and threw Israel to the wolves to boot) that the terrorists — and Islamism — would leave us well enough alone. That even drilling Anwar and the Gulf and oil shale and going full atomic energy and being 100% self-sufficient would seal our families safety over here. My grandfather recalled being at a Long Island stump speech where Charles Lindberg sang the same song in 1940. The Islamists don’t hate us because of Bush (remember ‘93 anyone?) — they hate us because we are infidels, and of who we are, since before Lawrence of Arabia. No one likes seeing your own being maimed or killed, but too many have forgotten that it takes gallons not ounces of blood to secure freedom. It’s not cheap and it’s not quick or clean and the healing pain can last for years, as witness our own Civil War. If we don’t pay that price now, we and our children will pay very dearly later — and curse us for our actions.
Yes, Bykofsky sounded over the top, but really, what would it take for ALL of America to see that there’s a real peril out there and act accordingly?
James Greenidge
Queens NY
What happened to the unity after 9/11? President Bush told us to go about business as usual and leave the terror fighting to the professionals, like it was not our war. Such a posture comes too close for comfort to the saying, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” The deadening of our unified fighting spirit followed suit.
I’m not sure that a catastrophic attack on the homeland is what would be required to galvanize the American people. Any attack would of course be horrible, but say a repeat of Kenya-Tanzania embassy bombings, or some other attack on American interests overseas would re-energize enough of the fence sitters to marginalize the leftist idiots out of relevance. Even another attack on an ally of ours, like Australia or Britain or Germany. Any bold move by AQ anywhere would have that effect on most reasonable people.
AQ attacking the Vatican is one of the things I’ve been halfway expecting for a long time. If they pulled that off, some would have to get on board. Events always outrun rhetoric.
The enemy gets a vote.
I find myself drawing the same conclusion as Mr. Greenidge above. Bykofsky was not hoping for another 9/11, only lamenting that it may be the only thing capable of waking up the sleeping half of the country… in other words, those suffering from BDS.
I think his thoughts are eerily similiar to something Newt Gingrich just said regarding the prospect of us not getting serious enough until we loose an American city. Newt said that all these calls about violating civil liberties will pale in comparison to what everyone will be required to give up in the event we do loose a city. He too, is afraid the government will not wake up until it is too late.
Newt is right about that. If there is a nuclear detonation in an American port, we will lose tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Americans in the blink of an eye. Then the fallout will spread, and tens of thousands more will die of radiation poisoning. The economic damage will make 9-11-01 look like child’s play. Then what will become of our civil liberties? We will be a nation under martial law for real, the Patriot Act will be tossed aside for far more draconian measures, and they would be necessary. Then we will be living a nightmare that no one could have imagined ten years ago. Then we may have to launch our own nuclear holocost in response. Isn’t that a future worth preventing?
Those still asleep on terrorism are too busy hating Bush, our military and our country. Only when San Francisco, Berekley and Seattle have terrorism hit them, will they see the error of their ways. Unlike those people, who support troops killing their officers and the killing of Bush,etc., rational minds don’t wish the same on those haters.
Well said.
I’m afraid it’s people like you, my friend. And yes, people like you are on both sides of the political divide in this country, I’m not denying that. However, your post demonstrates my point far more eloquently than I ever could have. I tip my hat to you!
I know it’s much easier to oversimplify people to nothing more than charicatures than it is to try and understand where the “other” is coming from, but reality is never that simple. When you flippantly disregard beliefs other than yours as anti-American, your selling us all short. Your opinions may be different than mine, but they can both be valid, for different reasons – this is possible.
Take for example the war in Iraq. My opinion on Iraq is the same today as it was 4 years ago – it is unwise to invade a sovereign nation without international support, without an exit strategy, without an understanding of how to build a democracy in a country that has never known true freedom, where deep ethnic and religious rifts have existed for centuries. And even to this very day, after everything that we have witnessed in Iraq, my beliefs are still casually dismissed with the wave of a hand as unpatriotic and anti-American. This is as offensive to me today as it was 4 years ago. Perhaps if views like mine had been given actual consideration way back in ‘03, we could have spared a few thousand American lives, and a potentially crushing humiliation on the world stage.
However, your side has a point as well – we took down a murderous tyrant, surely that can never be a bad thing. And we flexed our military might in a way that sends a message to the enemy that we’re not afraid to take a stand if we feel threatened. I can accept those opinions as valid and worthwhile, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree that invading Iraq was ultimately in our country’s best interest. See how that works?
Shouting at each other from the extremes does *nothing* to help unite our country against our common enemy, which is what we so desperately need right now. I think we can all agree that the war on terror is a new kind of war we’ve never faced before. It’s going to take time and a few mis-steps before we figure out the best way to wage it. But one thing is certain – we will never win this war until we learn how to work with each other, and both sides of the political divide need to do that.
That’s from the good Captain Ed.
As promised, by report from inside the Edwards campaign last night. He did not mention 9/11 at all, but he wants to unify the country somehow.
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/inside-the-edwards-campaign-aka-the-flat-earth-society/
Respectfully,
eric
I never said you were anti-american. I’m referring to the elected Democrats who were all for the war when it suited them, then did a 180 when that suited them. That makes me sick. If you don’t think Operation Iraqi Freedom was such a great idea, that’s fine. You were not in Congress voting for the operation and talking tough on TV, taking credit for what our troops did, then stabbing them in the back when it was politically expedient for your party. These Democrats were, and they should be held to account. So, the “problem” is not people like me or you, it’s those jerk politicians who only care about their poll numbers, troops and mission be damned. Like Jack Murtha. Like Dick Durbin. Like Hillary Clinton. Like Rockerfeller. Those are the targets of my venom, and they deserve it.
Prior to Americas entry into WWII there was a fruitless debate similar to what we are experiencing in this country today. December 7th, 1941 is what finally ended that debate, not the merits of one side’s arguments over the others.
Sadly, 9/11 did not wake this country up, as it should have. We have been asleep too long and our people have grown too soft. Those of us for whom 9/11 was a sufficient cause to destroy the Jihad are in the ever diminishing minority and while we can continue to argue and persuade until we’re blue in the face, we will be wasting our time with our fellow squishy Americans. History suggests that it will take some catalyst to unite us behind the cause of our own survival and unfortunately, 9/11 was not sufficient to the task.
My view is that although Americans have grown very soft, a strong leader could have rallied the country to greatness once again, but unfortunately that was not the case. The opportunity has been lost and cannot be regained.
Stu Bykofsky’s statement that, “we need another 9/11”, is qualified with, “If it is to be, then let it be.”
He is not calling for another 9/11 if there otherwise would not be one, he’s saying that if it’s going to happen anyway, better now than later.
Do you need another 9/11?
I do not.
Click on the Tim Sumner link at the very end of Michelle’s article, and it takes you to the 911familiesforamerica.org site.
There is only one comment posted there regarding this subject, and I would like to respectfully suggest that everyone goes there to leave a comment in support of the families.
I agree with that statement in principle, but then we must examine exactly who should compromise what. If you think that for my side to work with your side, victory in Iraq should be sacrificed for “unity”, then you are wrong. Unity in defeat is worthless to me. That may not be what you are saying, but others have been saying that for a long time. If you want to win this war, then great. You are not the problem that I’m concerned about. It’s the people out there who are trying to convince Americans that their own nation is the real enemy, they are never going to support victory in Iraq or anywhere else. They are beyond reason. You don’t sound like one of those people. Maybe if it turns out that you’ve been wrong about Iraq and the President was right, you will admit that. If the reverse is true, then I will admit that. It’s just not the time to quit, not yet. It’s not hopeless over there, it’s just been real difficult, and some of those difficulties have been self-inflicted. The overall mission is on track to make a real difference for our security, and the Iraqis, and maybe even the Iranians eventually.
Regardless of how anyone felt about the initial decision to topple Saddam, or mistakes that were made afterwards, we are committed to this cause as a nation, and we should see it through. Because this is a battle in the larger war, and if we pull out it will be a disaster that will make its way back here sooner or later. That is a fact. There is another enemy out there too, and that is the Iranian regime, the fountain of Islamic terror in the region. We have them surrounded, and they are hoping they can run us off, and fill the vacuum left behind. We cannot allow that to happen. This goes way beyond Iraq, strategically speaking.
The last line of that Churchill speech I cited above is appropriate here, I think.
I see a lot of folks commenting here who don’t seem to understand what Bykofsky is saying.
He’s saying, quite accurately, that many Americans don’t yet feel this is ‘their’ fight. And that, since these people won’t be convinced by the words and actions of their own fellow citizens (that is, us), the only way they will be convinced is by enemy action.
So, the question is this: would we in fact be better off if Al Qaeda or similar scum managed to pull off another attack, or two, or three, potentially a lot bigger than 9/11? At what point does the greater part of the American public decide the terms ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and ‘genocide’ aren’t so unpalatable as living under indefinite siege, and decide to bend its government to that will?
A good assessment of what the topic author meant; the concern of some of us is that the Left has so anathematized George Bush that if they believed in God, they’d believe Bush is the Anti-Christ.
The paradox is that only a Democrat president could lead a long-term, united American war effort, but Democrats since the 1960s haven’t had the stomach to fight (except in very limited ways, and in places where no Amiercan national interest is promoted).
Once the military is committed, Republicans will, by and large, support the pursuit of victory no matter who is in charge. Unfortunately, as we are witnessing in Congress, many Democrats don’t feel the same way.
To them, Iraq is “Mr. Bush’s war,” and the only thing they’re interested in is making sure that it never becomes “America’s war” – even if that means becoming accessories to American defeat.
This is why, at least as long as there is a Republican in the White House, a second or even a third 9/11 won’t have any long-term unifying effect here… for the only people in the world that Democrats are committed to waging “total war” against are Republicans.
HuggyBear still thinks hand-holding kumbayah-singing will bring the world together. As far as I can remember, we didn’t have much choice whether to invade Iraq or not. We either stood up to Saddam’s refusal to get inspected or we didn’t. Now that we’re in there, we need to finish the job. Not supporting the effort in Iraq IS NOT supporting the country, unless you think backing down to Saddam was a better idea.
Ben Franklin: “We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.”
I don’t know for a fact, but I think after 9-11 someone like Gen. Patton would have secured the southern border.
Chertoff, and Condi are CFR open border fools, and I pray it does not cost us another 9-11.
When Sir Winston gave that amazing speech to the House of Commons (see #23 above) London was being bombed all to hell, the city was going to or had been evacuated and the PM ordered any citizens remaining were to be armed to defend themselves. It’s unthinkable that a situation like that would happen on American soil. Many thanks to our Armed Forces for protecting this great Nation.
We don’t need another 9/11, but I fear the way the Democrat party is acting, we will get one.
What we need is a Democrat party with a brain.
“Another 9/11″ would just fuel the Bush Derangement Syndrome because it “proves” he’s not protecting us. It would also fuel the “Truthers” because they’ll say Bush arranged it in an attempt to get the country to approve his dictatorship.
Words have meaning. If he meant it would take another 9/11, why didn’t he say it? But, I understand his point.
It seems I read something this morning (when I read Bykofsky’s piece) that stated AQ probably isn’t dumb enough to attack us again. VDH, maybe. However, some of you may be right… it will be all Bush’s fault if we are attacked.
I understand what he’s saying and at points of particular bemusement have even thought it myself. In clearer thought, though, I don’t think another 9/11 would reunite our country in the same way that we were on 9/12. I agree with other commenters that such a thing is particularly impossible while W is still POTUS.
Another 9/11 might accomplish something, though… it could convince the USA that we really are in a war against terror. Whether it’s our fault or, correctly, the fault of a bunch of crazed Islamofascists, it would become much harder to deny that we are in fact at war.
That potential accomplishment is hardly worthwhile, though. Half of our country would want to surrender all our wonderful freedoms to the enemy at the first opportunity just to be done with said war.
I’d prefer sticking with hoping and praying that we don’t get hit again and praying for our troops trying to fight this war with only half of their deserved support.
#15-Reglus;
It wouldn’t matter to the democons which Republican or Conservative was in the White House or Congress. They would still find an execuse to blame them.
Sadly, we had 6 terrorist attacks under comrade Bill (yeah I know 5, but I partially hold him responsible for 9/11) and not a sustained response at all.
“Long live the fighters!”
Will it take a unified America to win the war against Islamic fascism?
Nope. All it will take is for the US make an official declaration of war on specific nations when their aggression warrants such a declaration. A Syrian attack on Israel is a good example of something that might trigger an official declaration of war.
Why is the official declaration of war what it will take? Because it gives the Office of the President of the United States sweeping powers to legislate the American economy into a mode of production referred to as “ a war footing”.
The war effort at home in WWII wasn’t borne out of the goodness of American hearts. The sacrifices people made were made because laws were passed making certain forms of consumption and political association *ILLEGAL*. Rationing and curfews out here on the west coast were the law. Lights out at a certain hour out of fear of Japanese air attacks. Limited wages were paid to ship builders to control costs so the ships could get built quickly for immediate deployment- aircraft, vehicles, etc. as well. Steel, concrete, copper and other precious metals were not readily available for civilian use: priority went to the government’s priorities. Citizens both volunteered for war and they were drafted for war. The morality debates about killing and violence and peace were going on- but the war was law.
As far as international support was concerned, the French were being crushed by the Nazis. America’s entry into the war wasn’t up for debate. The Chinese weren’t upset about America’s entry into the war- Japan was raping the civilian population at will. Russia? The children of the slaughtered Russian armies of WW1 were on the slaughter block 19 years after the Bolshevik Revolution. Did they care the US declared war on Germany and Japan? They hardly knew their own names, to use a figure of speech.
This Nation is known as a sleeping giant. The question is at what point will the US martial what is left of its industrial base, spend some of its gold, and pass laws to build a standing army with a specific mission to kill the Islamic Fascist enemy and destroy the governments of Iran, Syria, and Libya to signal the end of theocratic militancy in the Middle East?
That action will not be based on some absurd popular consensus. Some of us will get it and go with it, do our share and then some. Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, and the rest of the elites in Hollywood probably will not. And they will seal their fate in history despite their fame and their pet hobby horse engagements for “world peace” or “making a difference in the life of a child”.
They will remain non-interventionist in their political views. But what are those when thousands of us are dying? Not much. What meaning will their views have to the maimed and broken? Not much.
And as for the politicians- what relevance will Bill Clinton or his wife Hillary and their daughter Chelsea have once this Nation finally goes into all out war? The pictures of the USS Cole, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the US embassy bombing- these pictures will have a whole different meaning to the public than they do now or did when the attacks occurred. THAT family will be dismissed as the posers they have always been- and they will be prosecuted for their many crimes. The idiots the Clintons depended on not to judge them will be losing loved ones for crimes the Clinton’s committed while in office (Kosovo Anyone?).
It won’t take an attack on American soil to put the country on an all out war footing. Keep an eye on what the Kurds and the Israelites do. Recent funding cuts (probably cut in principle only) to Israel have put pressure on the Israelites to fend for themselves. The timetable has been sped up supposedly because the US had to ship $800 million worth of improved armor to Baghdad. Mmmm-hmm. Sure.
The conflagration is upon us. The Nation is distracted by the arbitrary “Petraeus Report” coming up in September about the surge. Three carrier battle groups in the Gulf Region are a signal to me that there is more in the wind here than whether or not this “unpopular war” will continue.
So this article isn’t considered intellectual exercise that was condemned yesterday?
DK-
No.
From Reuters, Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:47PM EDT
NY police receive “unverified radiological threat”
The islamic death cultists are always listening, learning, plotting. Their defeat must be total and unconditional.
Re: bear1909 #60
Well stated.
Palani- Thanks. And double thanks for the Reuters tip about the radiation alert. Tick tock.
Mark Steyn never disappoints.
I nominate San Fransico.
SFO or Berkeley are low on their list.
Too many snotty little Lefties here with deep pockets donating to HAMAS and Hezbollah. Too much adoration for CODE PINK and Company.
My money is on a flyover country state, major metro area chemical plant or nuclear plant. Less flash but highly lethal killing power- slow killing power beyond the intial event.
And disorienting to all the survivors because so few of the major population centers will feel any connection to it, so “it wasn’t so bad”. Destructive, lethal, costly, but not significant enough for the “Toad in the boiling water” to mind the heat it has become accustomed to.
On August 10th, 2007 at 1:40 pm, jamesgreenidge said:
It Would “Take”, Not We “Need”
James Greenidge
Queens NY
Excellent, meaningful and a deep correction. Thank you, Jim (hope Jim is ok with you).