« Why Security Was So Poor On 9/11/2001 | Main | Some Ads Worth Watching »

9/11 Fifty Years Out

Scott Ott of Scrappleface has an interesting satire today titled "ABC Drama Marks 50th Anniversary of 9/11."

(2051-09-11) -- As part of the nation's month-long celebration of the 50th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, ABC television tonight will show an educational drama called 'The Path from 9/11'.


The docudrama recounts the initial resistance to global jihad mounted by the infidels of the former United States of America in the immediate aftermath of the great martyrdom operation.

But then the tide turns in favor of the budding Islamic caliphate (Allah be praised!). As memories of the 2001 attacks fade, world opinion turns against the Great Satan. Then the Great Satan turns on itself, consumed from within by a toxic combination of political ambition and cowardice masquerading as tolerance.

The Path from 9/11: A Triumph of the Will illustrates the righteousness of Usama Bin Laden's cause, and how his unswerving commitment to jihad ensured the establishment of our glorious global Caliphate, upon which today the sun never sets.

The program begins tonight at 7 p.m., right after Chief Justice al-Zawahiri leads Sunset Prayer Live from the National Mosque and just before a very special episode of American Idol.

The Path from 9/11, includes a scholastic study guide for boys, and is required viewing for all subjects of the Islamic Republic of America.

Advanced overnight ratings indicate the show will notch a 100 share and shall win its timeslot.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 9/11 Fifty Years Out:

» rightlinx.com linked with Latest on Democrat 911 Denial

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Source: Mullah Omar in Pakistan

Comments (46)

Oh I'm so scared the Islami... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Oh I'm so scared the Islamist might take over the world with their 13th century technology.

Actually the only way we will lose to them is if our scientific illiterate and factually challenged administration continues to dumb down Americans to the level of the Islamist.

Their (the terrorist) goal is to destroy our society not with weapons but with fear.....their number one instrument is the President of the US of A and a Rush Limbaugh dumbed down 6,000 year old Earth believing populace.

Compare Bush's mantra be afraid...be very very afraid with FDR's ..."the only thing we have to fear.....

Jeez do we ever need some leadership.

Ok muirego. Keep debating ... (Below threshold)

Ok muirego. Keep debating the gender of angels while the barbarians smash down the gates, you byzantine.

1932 Germany couldn't chall... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

1932 Germany couldn't challenge a Boy Scout Troop. Couldn't say the same thing about 1942 Germany.

Ha! Ha! Yes America is goin... (Below threshold)

Ha! Ha! Yes America is going to be conquered by Al Qeada.

You guys really don't understand the situation do you?

"Oh I'm so scared the Islam... (Below threshold)
JB:

"Oh I'm so scared the Islamist might take over the world with their 13th century technology."

Could you try and say something even more idiotic for a cash prize of $50? I don't think you'd be able to.

"Oh I'm so scared the Islam... (Below threshold)
a4g:

"Oh I'm so scared the Islamist might take over the world with their 13th century technology."

Disappointing effort. To accurately mock our conservative bed-wetting, the boxcutter technology they used to slaughter nearly 3000 human beings and cause up to $83 billion in damage to our economy should be placed somewhere in the 2nd century BC with the development of carbonized wootz steel in India.

If you get your dates and facts right, your delightful satire is sure to be more... cutting.

Disappointing effort. To ac... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Disappointing effort. To accurately mock our conservative bed-wetting, the boxcutter technology they used to slaughter nearly 3000 human beings ....

Posted by: a4g

Wow horrible it was but did we almost lose control of our country to them? Our response to their attack has hurt our country many times over what the attack itself did. That's because are administrations strategy is actually more primitive then the 13 th century...these guys are acting like frickin cave man all emotion and no brains.


Hey mun-go they don't have ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey mun-go they don't have anything to fear from the likes of you. The only fear they might have is from falling over you because they cannot get your nose out of their ass. Frigging two-bit cowards. (oh hell I know you make 200K a year and I am a wingnut but you are still nothing but a ASSKISSER). Stick that up your nose-(if you can get it out of the nearest moose-lums ass). Whew!!! now I feel much better. Think I will go mow my yard

<a href="http://www.cato.or... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html

Talk about which administration had their heads in the sand? I found this over at my favorite site blogsforbush:
“In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan..”

That is right; Bush gave the OBL loving Taliban $43-million dollars (our tax dollars at work). Can you say appeasement?

And this just in.S... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

And this just in.

So we aren't fighting in Iraq because of WMD's and we aren't fighting because of 9/11. Hum so why are we fighting there?

Oh yeah because the Republicans feel bad for the Kurds.

Senate Panel Releases Report on Iraq Intelligence

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/09intelcnd.html?hp&ex=1157774400&en=0f631262baeef300&ei=5094&partner=homepage

By DAVID STOUT
Published: September 8, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — The Senate Intelligence Committee said today that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

GOT IT TOOLS? Kool aide drinking Orwellian sheeple characters. You've been fooled again. Your govmint has made complete fools of you..yet again. And I suspect many will still be arguing they know more then the Senate Intel Committee.

Hey mungie that is old news... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey mungie that is old news. tsk tsk.

jhow66:Hey mung... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

jhow66:

Hey mungie that is old news. tsk tsk.

A link between Saddam and bin Laden? Oh, hell no, and no one on this site has ever made such a claim; yeah, that's definitely old news.

P.S. You're an asshole.

Old news? Was 8/21/06 old ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Old news? Was 8/21/06 old news? In “W’s” press conference he was asked if going to the war with Iraq was mistake. He said to image what our world would be like if we left Saddam in power knowing that he had “relations” with a known terrorist:

“…who had relations with Zarqawi.”

Oh I'm so scared the Isl... (Below threshold)
Proud kaffir:

Oh I'm so scared the Islamist might take over the world with their 13th century technology.

Those have to be the most imbecilic words I have ver read. Those 13th century barbarians seemed to have figured out how to use the internet fairly well and they are using the stone age technology to build atomic weapons in Iran.

With their fanatacism, they accomplished something that the Germans and the japaneese nver could: they attacked American cities.

Yet the real danger is BUUUUSH. Simply unbelievable.

It is the nature of the Lef... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

It is the nature of the Left to delude themselves regarding our enemies. While the most classic is Chamberlain with Hitler, the Left of today constantly tries to "equal" his "feat".

Witness good ole Barbara Boxer, who proclaimed a couple months ago "Iran is at least 5 years away from developing an atomic bomb". She was saying this in order to decry the strong stance incrasingly being taken by Bush, et al.

Babs Boxer is SUCH a bigot, that she believes the stoooopid Iranians, using modern computers and precise fabrications techniques...and in possession of the EXACT specifications of an atomic bomb, will take FIVE years to do what WE did in 3 years during World War II. 3 years using #2 pencils...and having to invent everything from scratch!!

Babs message is the message of the Left: "go to sleep...sleep...all is well...there is no threat...sleep"

I'm curious, where would th... (Below threshold)

I'm curious, where would these far left wing fanatics fight the terrorists? I've never heard any of them state where they would fight them. Oh, and if it's not too much, what part of the war on terror do you agree with? We know you're against tracking terrorists phone calls, you're against tracking their money, you're against all forms of interrogation, youi're against profiling. How exactly would you fight this war?

How could a group of ragtag... (Below threshold)
Proud kaffir:

How could a group of ragtag street thugs lead by a short, ill-tempered, failure of an architect ever threaten the world?

In actuality, both OBL and Hitler have laid their plans out for the world to see. OBL actually has an easier path to world conquest than Hitler ever did.

OBL plans to overthrow governments in all Muslim-majority countries and unite them under a single Caliphate, from where he will subjugate the West to form a world Caliphate. As OBL has repeatedly stated, the Muslims hold a strong advantage in that they can control vast oil resources and have four times as many men of military age as the aging and demoralized west. He doesn't even think it will be much of a contest.

The hard part will be taking over the Muslim countries since the US would never allow an al-Qaeda-linked group to take over a country with vast oil resources . That's where 9/11 came in. He doesn't think the West has much of a stomach for blood and hopes to drain the US of it's will to fight. Once the US is out of the Middle East, the Caliphate can be resotred and eventually consume the world.

Oh, Islamo-fascists are so ... (Below threshold)
mattyd:

Oh, Islamo-fascists are so frightening!

Annual U.S. deaths from Islamo-fascism = 500 (est.)

Annual U.S. deaths from Alzheimer's - 66,000.

Oh, please, right-wingers, save us from the globally ostracized, fractured minority of a 1,400 year-old religion! Because we Americans are so weak and vulnerable. We only spend on defense as much as the rest of the world combined. Protect us right-wingers, protect us!


Like Dennis Prager, i'm mor... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

Like Dennis Prager, i'm more interested in clarity than agreement.

Those who disagree with the Bush Administration and comment on this blog have made their position very clear.

Who do you think these folks are going to be voting for, Democrats or Republicans? Why?

Their comments ought to make the choice very clear for this November.

That's OK muirgeo. Keep pu... (Below threshold)
Bob Jones:

That's OK muirgeo. Keep putting your head in the sand. They'll be coming for people like you first.

Who will be the easiest first? Bed wetting, liberal, anti-gun asshats who will still be asking "why do they hate us?" while their throats get cut from ear to ear. F'ing clueless.

Re: Baggi: Their comment... (Below threshold)
mattyd:

Re: Baggi: Their comments ought to make the choice very clear for this November.

Here are some other comments that might help make the choice clear in November:

"I don't know where Bin Laden is and, frankly, I don't think about it much."

"We know where the weapons are. They're in Baghdad, Tikrit..."

"It could take six days, six weeks - I doubt six months"

"Mission accomplished"

"I think we're in the last throws of the insurgency"

and... just for fun...

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees"

Cheers!

Bob Jones - why are you so ... (Below threshold)
mattyd:

Bob Jones - why are you so frightened? Don't you trust the greatest military on earth?

matt, you forget (among tho... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

matt, you forget (among thousands) "It's hard putting food on a family."

They can beat you with 13th... (Below threshold)

They can beat you with 13th century technology if you refuse to fight them, which is exactly what muirgeo is advocating.

Barney - that's a good one!... (Below threshold)
mattyd:

Barney - that's a good one! But I prefer to focus on Bush's idiotic policy statements than just his idiotic slips of the tongue. The latter are a forgivable general stupidity. But the former are more indicative of his lack of character, competence and insight.

Pro Cynic - I disagree. </p... (Below threshold)
mattyd:

Pro Cynic - I disagree.

Muirgeo isn't saying not to fight. He's saying not to fight from a position of fear and stupidity, i.e. like Bush. Rather, we should fight from a position of strength, courage and intelligence - like FDR.

Hey "alfalfa" you are right... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey "alfalfa" you are right -I am a asshole but my is where it suppose to be not like yours that is right under your nose that has a "brown" ring around it.
To "barneygoogle"-if I remember right old Zarqueerie had "relations" with a big old bomb that gave him a real bang.
"mun-go" & mattieyard" can't fight anyone-they can't get off their knees long enough.

Looks like jhow is even mor... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Looks like jhow is even more drunk than usual.

I'm pissed that no one told me with was "beat the crap out of conservatives" day at Whizbang -- sorry i missed the fun.

Oh, and in case you missed ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Oh, and in case you missed it --

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq.

Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that before the war, Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

Saddam told U.S. officials after his capture that he had not cooperated with Osama bin Laden even though he acknowledged that officials in his government had met with the al-Qaida leader, according to FBI summaries cited in the Senate report.

"Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden," Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi leader's top aide, told the FBI.

The report also faults intelligence gathering in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

Yeah, "imagine" it because it isn't true - it was just another fat lie from the fat-head conservatives in Washington.

Goodness! Look at all the p... (Below threshold)

Goodness! Look at all the pro-Saddamites littering this thread with their Left cult talking points!

re: Goodness! Look at al... (Below threshold)
scooterlibby:

re: Goodness! Look at all the pro-Saddamites littering this thread with their Left cult talking points!

Darleen - impressive demagoguery!

It has a certain George Wallace or Joseph McCarthy-ish zealousness without facts. And just a hint of Hitler-esque pseudo-religious moral posturing to demonize your opponent.

Well done.

See, lefties can do demagoguery too. It’s fun!

You all keep telling me the... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

You all keep telling me they attacked us with box cutters.......NO THEY DID NOT!. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, NOTHING to do with Al Queda and NOTHING in the form of WMD.

Iraq distracted us from Afghanistan and has empowered Iran and weakened us and spread us thin. Hope like hell President Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan doesn't take a bullet to the head any day now because that country has a whole lot of hornets that now really hate us and they DO have the bomb..right NOW.

The war on terror will NOT be won with bombing campaigns. It will be won with intel and diplomacy and alternative fuels.

Egypt vs Israel settled with diplomacy

Jordan and Israel....same

Libya and the US .....same

more examples abound.....and many abound of endless war back and forth when people refuse to even try diplomacy.

I picture you guys walking through the woods and when you see a hornets nest near the path ahead you immediately run up to it and start hitting it with your walking stick.
Me I just take a short detour through the woods and everything's fine.

But a bunch of those hornet... (Below threshold)
mantis:

But a bunch of those hornets (well, completely different hornets, but still hornets) are plotting to take over the world and install a hornofascist empire! You can ignore it and wait for your doom, or beat the hell out of that nest now, fighting them at the tree so you don't have to fight them in the driveway. Sure beating the nest will cause all of the hornets to attack you, but you'll kill some of them. Just keep repeating to yourself, I'm winning...I'm winning, and don't you dare leave the area. Ever.

mattyd,Nice meanin... (Below threshold)

mattyd,

Nice meaningless platitudes. Explain how.

Um, muirgeo.1. US-... (Below threshold)

Um, muirgeo.

1. US-Libya was settled withdiplomacy because Libya was scared of us -- because of what we did to Saddam.

2. Your assertion that Saddam had "NOTHING" to do with al Qaida is flat out wrong. They had relations dating back to at least the mid-1990s. Abu Musab al Zarqawi's presence in Iraq pre-dated the US invasion. To believe that Saddam Hussein had extensive ties to every major terrorist group in the Middle east (by his own admission) except for al Qaida is absurd.

3. Your assertion that Iraq had "NOTHING" in the form of WMD is similarly absurd. Aside from the 700 shells we did find, Saddam had the implements to manufacture many,m any more very quickly. Or do you think all the pesticide found in camouflaged bunkers in the desert was just because of an insect problem?

4. Tell me, how effective has diplomacy been on Iran?

Egypt vs Israel settled ... (Below threshold)

Egypt vs Israel settled with diplomacy

Unfuckingbelievable!!!

Were you dropped on your head as a child, or did publik skool teach you social studies instead of history?

It was only settled with diplomacy after Israel kicked Egypts ass in the 1967 Six Day war and occupied the whole Sinai ..... AND it was Anwar Sadat (not Jhimmi Quisling Carter) who made the first moves to open negotiations and that was only after Sadat's ass was kicked in the 1973 Yom Kippur war..which he STARTED along with Syria trying to recapture the Sinai (when Israel started pushing into Egypt, suddenly Egypt wanted a "cease fire" demanded through their Soviet allies -- sounds a lot like Hezbollah's unilateral attack on Israel, eh?).

mantisDoes "1683 V... (Below threshold)

mantis

Does "1683 Vienna" mean anything to you?

KEEEEERIST, does no one study HISTORY anymore?

Pro Cynic,Sure, I'... (Below threshold)
mattyd:

Pro Cynic,

Sure, I'll explain why I think Bush is more-or-less fighting from a position of fear and stupidity.

courage vs. fear -
FDR's "we have nothing to fear..." is an expression of courage to a nation that was ALREADY FRIGHTENED in the face of a massive, mobilized threat. (Ditto for the true confidence Reagan projected)

Bush, on the other hand, seems to want to REMIND people that he thinks they SHOULD feel threatened. He reiterates that they face threats that many citizens themselves no longer SIGNIFICANTLY feel threatened by (given the enormous strength of our nation). Sure, some of these threats are very real, but to use your leadership role to ENCOURAGE people to feel threats they may not feel is, in my opinion, cowardly.

In doing so, it suggest (to me) that HE HIMSELF IS AFRAID. As if he doesn't think the U.S. is worthy of enormous global respect in the battle of "hearts and minds". As if he DOESN'T TRUST that our military can protect us. As if he didn't notice the extrordinary strength and resiliance our nation has consistantly demonstrated in times of struggle. As if the oldest democracy on earth is as fragile as a glass swan. That, in my opinion, is also cowardly.

Now, maybe I SHOULD be as frightened as he seems to be. Maybe I should be as frightened as Rick Santorum seems to be. And Sean Hannity. And everyone else who's adopted the tearm "Islamo-fascism" shortly after learning the difference between a shia and a sunni. But, I'm sorry, I have more confidence in the U.S.A. and I'm not afraid.


Intelligence vs. stupidity

I'm no military expert, but here's my take-

FDR in WWII - brilliant generals, the manhattan project, extrordinary code breakers, national sacrifice and solidarity, victory.

Bush in Iraq - nearly all major arguments in support of the war turn out to be exaggerated, misleading or flat out wrong. "Mission Accomplished". Minimal attention (by many reliable accounts) to post-war reconstruction. "Cobra II" decribes how nearly every major post-invasion decision by Rummy has proven to be, well, a "Fiasco". Haven't read "Fiasco" yet, but I think I know where it's headed. Bush's handling of this has been little short of pathetic.

Yes, this is partly subjective. But in the opinion of this Patriot-Christian, we are being led by a incompetant, abysmally uninsightful, cowardly, non-leader.

Does that help?


I'm no military expert</... (Below threshold)

I'm no military expert

Well, that's obvious...add to it you're no historical expert either if you think WWII was some kind of cakewalk and that FDR made no mistakes

Now why do you think the terms SNAFU and FUBAR arose out of WWII? Hmmm?

I swear, this thread alone is Exhibit A for vouchers!

Does "1683 Vienna" mean ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Does "1683 Vienna" mean anything to you?

KEEEEERIST, does no one study HISTORY anymore?

Sure, it means plenty of things. First, it means you take talking points from Rick Santorum. Second, it apparently means you're worried about keeping Hungary and Tanzania nice and Christian; I hope that works out for you. Third, it means in your sill little holy war mindset you actually believe the Ottomans and terror groups have something in common, besides Muslims. Anyway, if Vienna 1683 is fair game, how about Constantinople 1204? Jerusalem 1099?

I'm curious Darleen, what parallels you see between the Ottomans and Islamists of today. How does the vast empire controlled by the Ottomans compare to all of the land controlled by the Islamists? Oh wait, we captured Afghanistan, so they have nothing but some madrassas in Pakistan and financial support from rich pricks in Saudi Arabia. How about armies? Mehmet sent 130,000 to Vienna. The Islamists sent 19 to New York, there are about 1,000 Al Qaeda in Iraq, and no more than a few thousand worldwide. How about ideology? Despite your assumption I do know my history, and I seem to remember that the Jews fled from the intolerant Christianity of Europe, which persecuted them for centuries and threw them out of Spain and Portugal during the Inquisition. Where did they flee? That's right, to Turkey and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire where they were welcomed. Sure, they had to pay the non-muslim tax, but that was insignificant compared to what they had to endure under Christian rule. I study history, but not the selective history you apparently adhere to.

Anyway, since there is little to no comparison between the Ottomans and the Islamists of today, one wonders what the hell you and Santorum are talking about (in both cases this is nothing new). Keep in mind I'm making a distinction you probably abhor, being on a holy war as you are, between those Wahabists with a deluded desire for world domination and other terrorist groups. Hamas and Hezbollah are not looking to take over the world. Even if they were, they can't even keep control of the lands where they live, let alone take over others.

Anyway, keep fighting your holy war, it suits you. I for one am quite concerned with terrorism because of the destruction and death it causes, because it hurts commerce and makes peaceful relations between some states very difficult. I am not worried about the Muslim horde taking over Vienna, Jerusalem, Boise, or pretty much anywhere (though the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan is worrisome).

As a conservative I STRONLY... (Below threshold)
clearwaterconservative:

As a conservative I STRONLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11” before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative saying this.

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans."

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, "The Path to 9/11" is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

In order:"I don... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

In order:

"I don't know where Bin Laden is and, frankly, I don't think about it much."

It's a battle against terrorism, not against OBL.

"We know where the weapons are. They're in Baghdad, Tikrit..."

That's where intel said they'd be.

"It could take six days, six weeks - I doubt six months"

The military action against Saddam didn't take 6 months. It took much less time than that.

And that, mind you, is precisely what he was referring to.

"Mission accomplished"

Saddam was toppled. By any definition, the mission was accomplished.

"I think we're in the last throws of the insurgency"

Which we are. You do sound A LOT like the 1864 Democratic campaign.

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees"

Which is also correct. Bush was advised of the OVERTOPPING of the levees, but not their breach.

Rather, we should fight from a position of strength, courage and intelligence - like FDR.

You missed the ads where they told people not to talk about the war in public due to fear of spies, eh?

Missed the mass internment of Japanese, Germans, and Italians, eh?

THAT is a position of strength, courage, and intelligence?

You all keep telling me they attacked us with box cutters.......NO THEY DID NOT!. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, NOTHING to do with Al Queda and NOTHING in the form of WMD.

1) Incorrect

2) Explain the sanctuary given to Zarqawi. We'd be fascinated. Also explain the numerous mentions of Zarqawi in the papers from Iraq that the Senate Dems have still not looked at.

3) Also very incorrect.

The war on terror will NOT be won with bombing campaigns. It will be won with intel and diplomacy and alternative fuels.

BWA HA HA HA!

PLEASE, I'm begging you --- run on that.

"Diplomacy". Yeah, that works WONDERS.

Egypt vs Israel settled with diplomacy

You're kidding, right? You missed Israel slapping Egypt around in mulitple wars and us bribing Egypt to stop having Israel slap them around?

Jordan and Israel....same

You really are delusional.

Libya and the US .....same

Khaddafy was scared we'd attack him. He has said as much.

more examples abound.....and many abound of endless war back and forth when people refuse to even try diplomacy.

Let's look at what diplomacy gives us.

World War I.
World War II.
The US Civil War.

No thanks.

FDR's "we have nothing to fear..." is an expression of courage to a nation that was ALREADY FRIGHTENED in the face of a massive, mobilized threat. (Ditto for the true confidence Reagan projected)

It was also referring to the Great Depression and not World War II.

Bush, on the other hand, seems to want to REMIND people that he thinks they SHOULD feel threatened. He reiterates that they face threats that many citizens themselves no longer SIGNIFICANTLY feel threatened by (given the enormous strength of our nation). Sure, some of these threats are very real, but to use your leadership role to ENCOURAGE people to feel threats they may not feel is, in my opinion, cowardly.

FDR censored the press heavily. He told people not to discuss what the troops were doing in public with anybody. He interned people from the same country as our enemies.

If Bush pursued that same "position of strength and courage", you'd wet your pants.

In doing so, it suggest (to me) that HE HIMSELF IS AFRAID. As if he doesn't think the U.S. is worthy of enormous global respect in the battle of "hearts and minds". As if he DOESN'T TRUST that our military can protect us. As if he didn't notice the extrordinary strength and resiliance our nation has consistantly demonstrated in times of struggle.

The left has NO resilience, whatsoever. None. Cut and run at the first sign of trouble.

FDR in WWII - brilliant generals, the manhattan project, extrordinary code breakers, national sacrifice and solidarity, victory.

Press censorship. Interning of possible enemies. Mass government secrets.

You know, the things you bitch about Bush doing.

The only reason you support FDR is that he had a "D" as his party description.

Bush in Iraq - nearly all major arguments in support of the war turn out to be exaggerated, misleading or flat out wrong. "Mission Accomplished". Minimal attention (by many reliable accounts) to post-war reconstruction. "Cobra II" decribes how nearly every major post-invasion decision by Rummy has proven to be, well, a "Fiasco". Haven't read "Fiasco" yet, but I think I know where it's headed. Bush's handling of this has been little short of pathetic.

There were plenty of equally moronic arguments against WW II made by the isolationists.

Which the Dems have now become.

BTW, did you know that FDR never found Hitler? OH MY GOD!!! We failed!!!
-=Mike

mantis:::sigh:::: ... (Below threshold)

mantis

:::sigh:::: Do you engage in pedantry merely to obfuscate or just to be insulting?

Amazingly, as evidenced by this thread, there are a lot of Americans who are so ignorant of history they believe Islamist hate of the West began with the 1948 creation of Israel (and if only Israel ceased to exist, all would be kite flying and pink bunnies).

The struggle between dar ul Islam and dar ul Harb is centuries old.

The Crusades were defensive, even if the "pop" understanding is that was unilateral aggression against "peaceful non-threatening moslems".

We are not engaged in a "holy war", but Islamists believe they are. Read what they write.

And your sophistry with focusing on al Qaeda without acknowledging the whole of Islamist ideology (yes, still a minority of the worldwide moslem community, but still much larger than your debatable claims)... which includes Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, al Asqa MB, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood and numerous other jihadist groups and movements. They are pan-national, loosely affiliated, and fluid in their groupings and regroupings in on-going efforts to isolate and counter them. But they all have the same agenda and goals. The destruction of Israel, the defeat of Western Civilization and the establishment of a world-wide Caliphate and Sharia.

Whether YOU take them seriously or not, they take themselves seriously and the are generationally patient and THEY consider all kafir fair game.

Ramzi Yousef, before settling on bombing the WTC, scouted Jewish neighborhoods in New York City to blow up. We have recently witnessed a moslem going into the Jewish Federation in Seattle explicitly to "kill Jews". Islamists organized and plotting to blow planes out of the sky between Britain and the US have been exposed.

It does not matter to jihadists whether or not they murder women, children or other ordinary citizens going about their daily business. School buses, shopping malls, discos, tourist attractions...anywhere the kafir is in control is fair game.

It does not matter WHAT westerners "do"... it is what we ARE that Islamists fight.

Did Jews flee persecuting Christians? Sure did. Did they have lives of milk and honey under Islamist? No. That's yet another MYTH. Jews (and Christians) were dhimmis. Second class citizens who existed at the pleasure of their moslem overlords...with no rights and subject to bloody slaughter at any perceived slight.

Look at the difference between moslem reaction to the Mohammed cartoons (bloody worldwide rioting) and the reaction of Jews and Christians to the [islamist theocracy] Iranian-sponsored Holocaust "cartoon" exhibit. Didn't you see all those rioting offended Jews and Christians?

And because of that threat of immediate physical violence, you get soft-peddaling, whitewashing of any jihadist actions.

This is appeasement on a daily basis. It is the far-left anti-American muliculturalist chic chickens now roasting with its "But what did WE do to make them hate us?" coupled with the "if only we did X then they'd love us!" X being --

cut off Israel and let it be destroyed
withdraw Americans from anywhere in the ME or any Waqf lands
stop "exporting" sinful American culture
convert to Islam (as "invited" by Iran's Prez Alhamdawhackjob or the Adam the American al Qaeda)

I won't be a dhimmi. I don't care how many fluffy pink bunnies are promised. Islamism with Sharia is as incompatible with human values as far-Left authoritarianism.

mattyd,You're righ... (Below threshold)

mattyd,

You're right. You're no military expert. Nor are you a political one.

1. Warning people of the threat they face, which is what W is doing, to counter others who claim there is no threat is not making people afraid. It is warning them of the threat and mobilizing support to do something about it. FDR was telling people to show no fear in the face of a threat acknowledged by just about everyone. Right now, we have one of the two major political parties who refuses to acknowledge a threat.

Furthermore, I recall W immediately after Sept. 11 telling people to go about their business, because individuals acting on fear would wreck the economy. That's a terrorist goal on the road to a global caliphate, to cower in fear of them.

2. Which bailing on Iraq would have the effect of doing. The "mission accomplished" line was a reference to the removal of Saddam from power. If you want to argue that Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war, I will agree with you. But there has not been one war in human history that wasn't mismanaged or bungled, including World War II. You are not going to have a perfect war. Ever.

The terrorist strategy in Iraq is the same as Vietnam -- stay in the field, while letting their propaganda arm weaken the American political support for the war until the Americans withdraw and the terrorists win. Rinse. Repeat elsewhere. And we have one political party andmost of our media outlets either playing th erole of useful idiots or actively trying to help them.

This is a propaganda war disguised as a military conflict.

Cynic,Wa... (Below threshold)
mattyd:

Cynic,


Warning people of the threat they face, which is what W is doing, to counter others who claim there is no threat is not making people afraid.

I didn't say it's "making people afraid". I have no idea what true effect it's having. I only said that it's cowardly. Which I still believe.


Right now, we have one of the two major political parties who refuses to acknowledge a threat.

I'd like to see the evidence that "one of the two major parties" refuses to acknowledge a threat. Is that in the platform?

However, I will grant that many, many individuals truly believe that the "islamo-fascism" buzz is more a product of cowardice and an underestimation of U.S. strength (in all respects) than of global insight.

That's what I believe. That Rick Santorum and Sean Hannity and most of the posters on this website - are cowards. Again, I wish I were as frightened as you are, but I'm not.


Furthermore, I recall W immediately after Sept. 11 telling people to go about their business,

One of the Presidency's great moments of moral and rhetorical leadership. "Go about your business!"


But there has not been one war in human history that wasn't mismanaged or bungled...

My objection to the Bush-Rummy management of the war is not strategic and logistical.

My objection is on the lack of character and morality of the leadership. This lack is reflected in developments like Abu G, Gitmo, Haditha, cancelling grassroots Iraqi elections, denying access of prisoners to attorneys, disregard for looting, disregard for historic treasures, disregard for body armor of our troops.

Since you seem to be a conservative, I assume you won't object to citizens holding high moral standards for their leaders.

Unless you're one of those hypocritical conservatives who's only bother by immorality when it's committed by liberals.


The terrorist strategy in Iraq is the same as Vietnam -- stay in the field, while letting their propaganda arm weaken the American political support ...

I'll try to stay clear of the propaganda arm of the Iraqi terrorists. However, I'd say GW made their job a lot easier by 1) inadequately planning the recovery 2) being generally incompetent and 3) being significantly misleading in crafting his case for war.

A stronger leader wouldn't have handed it to them so willingly. Bush should work for Al Jazeera.


And we have one political party and most of our media outlets either playing th erole of useful idiots or actively trying to help them.

You seem like an otherwise intelligent person. "Actively trying to help them"? You're stepping into fanatical moron territory here.


Although you and some other here have a few compelling points, I'm very comfortable in the general conclusion that Bush is an incompetent and cowardly non-leader. A profound embarassment to democracy. Certainly the worst president in my lifetime. And given his 35% approval rating, probably the primary catalyst in a new Democratic resurgence.

Thanks for having me at your blog.


Do you engage in pedantr... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Do you engage in pedantry merely to obfuscate or just to be insulting?

Neither, but that is rich coming from someone who cries "does no one study HISTORY anymore".

The struggle between dar ul Islam and dar ul Harb is centuries old.

True, as is the struggle between Catholics and Protestants, but they've mostly abandoned violence. The difference between you and me, presumably, is I believe that Muslims can and eventually will do the same.

The Crusades were defensive, even if the "pop" understanding is that was unilateral aggression against "peaceful non-threatening moslems".

Keep on believing that. I make no claims that Muslim aggression had nothing to do with the Crusades, but spare me your "defensive" tripe. What about the slaughter of Jerusalem in 1099 was defensive? How about the "defensive" Third Crusade, sparked by the Muslim defense the attack on Tiberias by Raynald, who was basically a pirate who raided pretty much everything he saw, including Mecca? Or the fourth, when they forgot about the holy land and ended up attacking the Greeks, fellow Christians, thus solidifying the split between the East and West Churches. Pope John Paul II apoligized for that "defensive" crusade, by the way.

We are not engaged in a "holy war", but Islamists believe they are. Read what they write.

I know what they write, and you sure take the bait, don't you. I refuse to engage in a holy war, you seem to welcome it.

But they all have the same agenda and goals. The destruction of Israel, the defeat of Western Civilization and the establishment of a world-wide Caliphate and Sharia.

Different groups in fact have quite different goals, but I'm sure it's useful for you to conflate them all into one. I'm sure you miss the great enemy of the "Evil Empire", but try as you might to claim so, no such entity exists for us to fight anymore.

Whether YOU take them seriously or not, they take themselves seriously and the are generationally patient and THEY consider all kafir fair game.

Really? Wow, how come this kafir wasn't murdered when he visited the Palestinian territories? How come I've been welcomed by Muslims in Egypt and Lebanon? By your estimation I should be long dead by now.

Did Jews flee persecuting Christians? Sure did. Did they have lives of milk and honey under Islamist? No. That's yet another MYTH.

Not a myth I'm spreading. I merely pointed out they were far better off in Turkey than the rest of Europe.

Islamism with Sharia is as incompatible with human values as far-Left authoritarianism.

We agree on that, however where we disagree is the level of threat such people could possibly achieve. You seem to think there's some possibility of them achieving any of their goals. We are not going to cut off Israel (rightly so), we will not pull out of the Middle East (though lessening our presence there would probably improve things), we will not stop exporting our culture as long as they import it, and I seriously doubt a significant number of people will be converting to Islam. None of these things is even in the realm of possibility. We have military, economic, and technological superiority. The world is a very different place than it was during the time of the battle of Vienna. There are no Islamic armies knocking down the doors of the west, and even if they raise some, which they aren't doing, they would be hopelessly outmatched. What they do have is small, loosely connected groups willing to inflict destruction upon civilians. They are scum, to be sure, and must be aggressively pursued, but they are not the Ottomans. Not even close. When you say "I won't be a dhimmi," that's fine, but do you seriously believe there's any danger of you becoming one?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy