« Caption Contest Coming Friday Afternoon | Main | Still Clinging... »

Never Forget -- Eight Years Later

"The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve."

- President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001 Address to the Nation

In the past Republicans have been criticized by Democrats anytime they reminded the country of the attacks of September 11. It is not possible to honor the sacrifice of those who ran into the buildings when everyone else was running out, unless we remember, and remind the country, of what happened that day. It is important not only to remember those who lost their lives on that day, but to remember the kind of insanity and hatred that led the hijackers to murder.

911.jpg

"The people who did this to us are monsters; the people who cheered them have hate-sickened minds. One reason they can cheer is that they know we would never do to them what their heroes did to us, even though we could, a thousand times worse. They know that when we hunt down the monsters, we will try hard not to harm the innocent. Those are the handcuffs we willingly wear, because for all our flaws, we are a decent people." -- Dave Barry.
Whether criticized for it or not, I think it is also important that we remember what it felt like on that day. I was watching the Today Show and saw the second plane hit the tower in real time. I remember shock, disbelief, and sadness, but most of all a vulnerability that did not exist on September 10. That feeling stayed with me for quite some time. I had felt it to a much lesser extent when the WTC was bombed years earlier, but 9/11/01 was, obviously, on a level never before seen in our nation's history. When I heard the announcement that the Pentagon had been hit as well, and then saw video of the gaping hole, my only thought was "we have been attacked and we are at war."

That feeling has faded a good deal over the years since there have been no new attacks on our soil, but we must remember that there are still people in this world who would like nothing better than to see a repeat of 2001. President Bush said "these acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve." I fear the American resolve has been dented a bit. Hopefully taking time today to remember the events of September 11, 2001 will help firm up that resolve.

Over the past few years I have done several 9/11 tributes and memorials -- the preceding two paragraphs were repeated from something I wrote last year on 9/11. Here are links to some of those posts: September 11, 2008, September 11, 2007, September 11, 2006

Update: Links to some of the 9/11 memorials post today: Radio Patriot, the Anchoress, Gerald Vanderleun, Bookworm Room, Don Surber, Blackfive, Noisy Room, Ace, Pierre LeGrand, Ed Morrisey, Uncle Jimbo , Melissa Clouthier and Spirit of America. Also be sure to read Allahpundit's Twitter feed today (updated to a post on HotAir Green Room of all the entries) -- the horror of the day told in 140 character bites. It is very powerful. Also don't miss Chris Muir at Day by Day.

A commenter, Paul in Houston, pointed me to this column from Leonard Pitts from just after 9/11. It reminded me what I felt on that day.

Kevin adds: Don't miss the 9/11 shows on History Channel, especially the one about Rick Rescorla. If you do you can get his incredible story here.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36726.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Never Forget -- Eight Years Later:

» Maggie's Farm linked with Saturday morning links

Comments (40)

Thanks, Lorie.... (Below threshold)
pjaykc:

Thanks, Lorie.

This day is very emotional ... (Below threshold)
Carol:

This day is very emotional for me. It's like it happened yesterday. I will never forgot. But my blood is boiling over Obama telling the country we will now call 9/11 a "national day of service" so more people will get out and do community service. This is a joke and totally disgusting since none of his friends will get off their asses and do any charity work.

I can speak from experience. I spend most of my life doing charity and volunteer work. I'd bet my life few Obama supporters will begin a life of service to others, especially after Obama dishonors those who died on 9/11 by giving that horrible day a "new name". Totally disgusting.

As some of you may be aware... (Below threshold)
Paul_In_Houston:

As some of you may be aware, The Won is seeking to desecrate 9/11 as a "Day of National Service" instead, with the excuse that "We need to move on".

I recall, years ago when we were toppling the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, the Taliban leader Mullah Omar whining to some journalist that we should "Get over it!".

To which my response must be not only "No!", but "Hell No!!!".

Like many, I was at work on that day, learning of it when co-workers told me to check out CNN on the internet, and watched it play out, watching with horror when the buildings collapsed with so many still inside.

The next day, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, normally a fairly angry liberal, wrote a column ( reproduced at WTC Trbute - We'll Go Forward From this Moment ) in which he observed...

Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a family rent by racial, social, political and class division, but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous, yes, capable of expending tremendous emotional energy on pop cultural minutiae -- a singer's revealing dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse. We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent, though -- peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith, believers in a just and loving God.

Some people -- you, perhaps -- think that any or all of this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured by arsenals.

And concluded with...

So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange:

You don't know my people.
You don't know what we're capable of.
You don't know what you just started.

But you're about to learn.

THIS is how I'll remember 9/11, for a VERY long time to come.

Obama has now had as many d... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Obama has now had as many days in office as Bush had when the nation was attacked by terrorist. From this day forward until the last day Obama is in office he will be held accountable for the safety of this nation by its people. No excuse for failure will be accepted because Bush, while endlessly ridiculed on a personal level by the left, kept the nation safe to his last day as President, and so too must Obama.

That's a great link Paul. ... (Below threshold)
Lorie:

That's a great link Paul. Thanks.

Wow.I'm surprised ... (Below threshold)

Wow.

I'm surprised at how strong my emotions still are on this beautiful 9/11 eight years later.

I'm still unable to adequately express in words what I felt inside on that beautiful terrible day.

(Paul, thank you for your comment and that link.)

Sorry, but I wasn't shocked... (Below threshold)

Sorry, but I wasn't shocked nor did I feel any more vulnerable on 9/11 than I did a day earlier. And unlike Pearl Harbor, 9/11 wasn't the day we found ourselves in a war, it was the day most Americans finally got it into their happily ignorant skulls that we had been at war.

My reaction was more along the lines of 's**t, the b*******s got us'. I, for one, knew we were at war and I am not delusional enough to think that ware means we get to hit without getting hit back. While I wasn't expecting that specific attack, given the lack of preparedness on our part, I figured it was just a matter of time before Islamic radicals did something just like that. It just as easily could have been something else, an explosion at an LNG facility or nuclear plant, or a dirty bomb exploding in DC... and it still could be.

On 9/11 we had - and still have - enemies who want to kill us. We weren't then - and still aren't - doing what it takes to protect America from our enemies. And when one doesn't do what it takes, it is only a matter of time before our enemies are able to pull off another attack like on 9/11... and having a President who is more interested in turning today into a 'day of service' than reminding America that we're still at war doesn't let me sleep any easier.

Sorry, but 9/11 ought not be a day that we sob and dwell on what happened that day but a day that we make sure our leaders are taking seriously the threats we face.

This day still bothers me s... (Below threshold)
Hank:

This day still bothers me so much I have trouble expressing myself.

So let me simply thank Paul for his comment and link and also Mac Lorry for noting that Bush did indeed keep this country safe up to his last day in office.

George W. Bush kept your co... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

George W. Bush kept your country safe if for some reason you're willing to give him a pass on the anthrax attacks. The perpetrator was never caught.

But I guess failing to defend the nation from a terrorist so soon after 9/11 didn't really fit with the desired narrative, so down the memory hole it went.

On 9/11 America was attacke... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

On 9/11 America was attacked by craven cowards. In the Blackest of our Moments when others would run and hide when faced with such utter brutality and cruelty. We stood as one. The enemy wanted to hurt the USA, it people, it interest. With a loud voice devoid of words and with pure actions our Hero's respond. From the First Responders that ran into Buildings when others were running out. The Civilians with no training who went to help where they could. The Men and Women who yelled let's Roll and took out the Tourist on that plane.

The people who fought their own Demon and went to work in NYC to keep America going.

9-11 is a Day for Patriots, Its a day to Remember what Makes AMERICA great. A government for the THE PEOPLE of the PEOPLE and by the PEOPLE.

Let be honest it was the People who did what needed to be done without waiting for orders. It was our arrogance and belief in self that allowed us to endure the days and weeks after the events of that day.

Just because Bush never cau... (Below threshold)
914:

Just because Bush never caught you is no reason to brag hyper.

The terrorists really inten... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

The terrorists really intended to do harm to canada since it is a world power and player. NOT

Hyper, let the citizens of this country remember the day and how it effected US. ww

hyperbolist,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

hyperbolist,

George W. Bush kept your country safe if for some reason you're willing to give him a pass on the anthrax attacks. The perpetrator was never caught.

By the best evidence available the anthrax attacks were perpetrated by one man, a citizen of the U.S. who was trusted with highly classified secrets. That man's career was on hold because the anthrax vaccine he developed was reported to cause injury to some of the soldiers who received it, and thus, the vaccination program was stopped. According to the FBI, that man mimicked a terrorist anthrax attack in an effort to save his own career. This really was a criminal attack, not a terrorist attack.

Nevertheless, if the left now wants to count criminal attacks against Bush, then once October 9, 2001 (last postmark in the Amerithrax case) has passed then Obama will also be held accountable for such criminal attacks until the last day he is in office.

Way to go hyperbolist! Just keep raising the stakes for Obama. The left will yet destroy their own President.

Willie, anyone who believes... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Willie, anyone who believes that 9/11 was the last terrorist attack on American soil--that Bush somehow thwarted each and every subsequent attempt at killing Americans in America--is either misinformed or lying.

Now it's hardly reasonable to expect a President to prevent every terrorist attack. They're relatively easy to carry out, if someone is truly hell-bent on doing so. The point is, Bush did not prevent the anthrax attacks; and thus people who (reasonably) give Bush a pass on these attacks are holding Obama to a higher standard than Bush if they expect him to prevent every attack.

What any of this has to do with Canada's standing in the world, I have no idea. I wouldn't dare suggest that I have any idea how your thought processes work.

I did not know anyone who d... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

I did not know anyone who died during the attacks. I DID know our great country would never be the same. We had a president who made it a #1 priority to ensure another attack would NOT take place under his watch. He kept his promise. The anguish I felt over the attacks is nothing compared to what must have been felt by those who lost loved ones. My heart and prayers go out to all of them. I cannot imagine the grief that is felt each and every day over the loss of so many. This should be a day of remembering the lives of those lost, not turning it into a self-serving day for a person who has demonstrated he is not a patriot or an American. God Bless America, and God Bless each and every True Patriot and American.
Madalyn

Now it's hardly re... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Now it's hardly reasonable to expect a President to prevent every terrorist attack. They're relatively easy to carry out, if someone is truly hell-bent on doing so.

Bush did after 9/11. Are you saying Obama can't fill Bush's shoes? If so, you're admitting Cheney is right.

The point is, Bush did not prevent the anthrax attacks; and thus people who (reasonably) give Bush a pass on these attacks are holding Obama to a higher standard than Bush if they expect him to prevent every attack.

There is zero evidence that the Amerithrax case was anything other than a domestic criminal act . Those who say otherwise are either misinformed or lying. Nevertheless, now that the left his holding Bush responsible for allowing such criminal attacks, it's only fair to hold Obama to the same standard. Post 10/9/09 Obama will be judged a failure if he doesn't prevent all criminal attacks that cause the death of 5 of more people as was the case in the Amerithrax case. Way to go hyperbolist; just keep digging Obama's political grave.

Hyper, I do not want to wis... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Hyper, I do not want to wish you bad luck. However, I hope you get your ass handed to you the next time you go into a bar or tavern. In my humble opinion you are pond scum.

The September 11, 2001, ter... (Below threshold)

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) killed thousands and exposed hundreds of thousands to horrific events and potentially harmful environmental conditions resulting from the collapsing towers and fires,according to background information in the article. Studies have documented adverse respiratory and mental health conditions associated with direct exposure within 1 to 3 years following the event, however, the longer-term impact on health has been unclear.

I'm not raising the stakes,... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I'm not raising the stakes, Mac. I'm merely pointing out that Bush did not prevent domestic terrorist attacks.

And if you think that anonymously murdering people with mailed anthrax isn't a terrorist attack, then I guess we don't speak the same language. "Mimicking" a terrorist attack is, in fact, conducting a terrorist attack. That he/she is/was probably an American citizen is neither here nor there. McVeigh was an American citizen too.

The Beltway Sniper was also a terrorist.

My point, Mac, is not to denigrate Bush: it's to say that terrorist attacks are pretty easy to carry out; they were carried out after 9/11; and so conservatives would be holding Obama to a different standard than Bush if now they define "keeping America safe" as "no terrorist attacks of any kind, ever".

Zelsdorf Role-Playing Game World of Warcraft III, so nice to hear from you. How's life in your mom's basement? What's a "tavern"? Is that like a nightclub for ugly people who prefer dim lighting?

I'm not raising th... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I'm not raising the stakes, Mac. I'm merely pointing out that Bush did not prevent domestic terrorist attacks.

But he did prevent them after 10/9/01.

And if you think that anonymously murdering people with mailed anthrax isn't a terrorist attack, then I guess we don't speak the same language. "Mimicking" a terrorist attack is, in fact, conducting a terrorist attack. That he/she is/was probably an American citizen is neither here nor there. McVeigh was an American citizen too.

If you don't understand the difference between a criminal act like the Amerithrax case and a true terrorist attack then you shouldn't be commenting on either.

My point, Mac, is not to denigrate Bush: it's to say that terrorist attacks are pretty easy to carry out; they were carried out after 9/11; and so conservatives would be holding Obama to a different standard than Bush if now they define "keeping America safe" as "no terrorist attacks of any kind, ever".

The problem is that your point is invalid. Bush prevented all foreign terrorist attacks on the U.S. after 9/11/01 and he prevented all domestic terrorist (or criminal) attacks on the U.S. after 10/9/01. Obama has the advantage of the massive changes that were made after 9/11 such as the formation of the department of Homeland Security and passage of the Patriot act, so holding Obama accountable for the safety of the U.S. going forwarded is actually a lesser standard than what Bush was held to. Are you admitting that Obama doesn't measure up well against Bush?

Also, Cheney has warned Obama about the dangerous move of allowing his lackeys to attack the CIA for political purposes. If the U.S. gets blindsided by a foreign attack Obama will be held politically responsible for such reckless partisan stupidity.

You're right Hyper. The gr... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

You're right Hyper. The greenies have bombed and terrorized since 9/11.

So what's the difference? D... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

So what's the difference? Delineate anonymous anthrax mailings from flying airplanes into a building, such that I might understand how the former is not a terrorist attack.

The foreign/domestic distinction is meaningless for what you're talking about so I don't know why you made it. And foreign terrorists have killed an awful lot of American and allied soldiers in the past few years.

SCSI: the anthrax mailer was probably someone working for a defense contractor. Yes indeed, a greenie. But you do raise a good point: if any eco-terrorist acts were committed between 9/11 and when Bush left office, then that's another example of a terrorist attack that Bush failed to prevent.

You hold the guy up as some pinnacle of national defense, but you're ignoring certain events and re-defining others such that they don't disrupt the warm and fuzzy narrative you've allowed yourself to buy into. That's your right, but it doesn't make your argument valid.

Mac: I hope you're... (Below threshold)

Mac:

I hope you're not becoming another DJ-like Bush worshipper who gives Bush more credit than he is due (just as Bush critics shouldn't blame him for more than he was responsible for).

Bush didn't 'prevent' another terrorist attack in the days after 9/11. To the extent that other attacks were planned, they were stopped by the people in the trenches, the agents and intelligence analysts and cops who did the grunt work of detecting and preventing the attacks.

This isn't to say Bush wouldn't have been blamed had there been another attack, but that allegation would be just as wrong as giving him credit for preventing subsequent attacks.

Hyper is as always, off bas... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyper is as always, off base. If a child sneaks up to another and shouts boo, the child is momentarily terrorized. Hyper is playing his obtuse semantic games.

THAT GUY hyper refers to is our president. That is the disdain this non citizen piece of crap has for our former leader. GW's administration allowed the CIA to kick serious butt to get intell that saved lives. No doubt. Also, this administration is prosecuting and persecuting these brave men and women and by thus doing has made us unsafe. The clock is ticking on this idiot who cares more about his persona then my family's safety. ww

hyperbolist,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

hyperbolist,

So what's the difference? Delineate anonymous anthrax mailings from flying airplanes into a building, such that I might understand how the former is not a terrorist attack.

Terrorism is an act of war by a foreign enemy. The anthrax mailings were the work of a domestic criminal made to look like a terrorist attack. The CIA is chartered to provide intelligence on foreign enemies, but is barred by law from doing so domestically. There's also different motives. No criminal plans a job that they know will result in their own death.

The foreign/domestic distinction is meaningless for what you're talking about so I don't know why you made it.

You can't be that slow. The foreign/domestic distinction is the basis for the difference between the CIA and the FBI. It's the difference between recording any conversation you can and needing a search warrant. It's the difference between responding with the military or law enforcement.

And foreign terrorists have killed an awful lot of American and allied soldiers in the past few years.

Not on American soil they haven't, but I expect that difference escapes you as well.

Really hyperbolist, if you are going to play stupid you should stick to the liberal blogs because it won't fly here.

Mac: terrorism is NOT limit... (Below threshold)

Mac: terrorism is NOT limited to acts committed by foreign enemies. The Weathermen were terrorists, so was the Unabomber. Terrorism is defined by the method of attack and the motives, not by the perpetrator.

steve sturm,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

steve sturm,

Bush didn't 'prevent' another terrorist attack in the days after 9/11. To the extent that other attacks were planned, they were stopped by the people in the trenches, the agents and intelligence analysts and cops who did the grunt work of detecting and preventing the attacks.

Next you'll be telling me Bush didn't invade Iraq, the people in the military did. Sorry, that won't fly. The President is in charge and they direct all the resources of this nation when it comes to defending it. President Truman had a sign on his desk in the White House that read "The Buck Stops Here". I never head of anyone claiming that was incorrect until you came along.

steve sturm,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

steve sturm,

Mac: terrorism is NOT limited to acts committed by foreign enemies. The Weathermen were terrorists, so was the Unabomber. Terrorism is defined by the method of attack and the motives, not by the perpetrator.

The difference is that terrorism by a foreign enemy is an act of war while terrorism by the Weathermen or the Unabomber is a crime. How many more are there like you and hyperbolist who don't know the difference between war and crime? If we could get you all together in a group we could hold a class to correct your ignorance.

Bush did not invade Iraq. ... (Below threshold)

Bush did not invade Iraq. He gave the orders to the people who did, just as he set the tone for the people who did prevent any subsequent attacks. Bush didn't kill terrorists, he didn't interrogate a single one (at least not that I know of), he didn't dial in the coordinates for Predator strikes.

Yes, Presidents get credit and blame... but it should be for putting in place the policies that lead to outcomes, and not for having done the dirty work themselves.

Saying Bush kept us safe might be figuratively somewhat accurate, but not literally so... that is the point I am making.

Mac: in your rush to establ... (Below threshold)

Mac: in your rush to establish how smart you are, you are skipping over some points, and doing so qualifies you for the remedial education class you're proposing.

Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of whether the perpetrator is domestic or foreign. Acts of terrorism by foreign enemies are in fact crimes (as well as acts of war) and have been prosecuted as such.

And not all acts of terrorism committed by foreign enemies are prosecuted as acts of war: the guy caught smuggling in explosives from Canada was prosecuted in criminal court as were the original WTC bombers.

steve sturm,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

steve sturm,

Saying Bush kept us safe might be figuratively somewhat accurate, but not literally so... that is the point I am making.

Your point is invalid. Without proper leadership in war the nation would fail regardless of what others do. That's why Presidents get the credit and the blame, and rightly so.

You lefties can go down the... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

You lefties can go down the "what is a terrorist" road. We know what they are as do you but you are just being obtuse.

Steve, you are absolutely changing the rules of the game, which isn't surprising. GW Bush got blamed for Mission Accomplished, Flying in a jet, what book he carried, etc. My wife and I joked all the time about if a tree limb fell, the left would say it is Bush's fault. Like Katrina. Actually creating hurricanes. The left is an obsessed sick bunch. ww

Willie equates a child yell... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Willie equates a child yelling "BOO!" with murdering people with anthrax via the postal service. Willie continues to demonstrate why he's a Very Serious Person with Really Great Ideas. Another round of Schlitz and purple paint chips for Dim-bulb-Billy!

Your criterion that the enemy be FOREIGN is ARBITRARY, Mac. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, not merely a criminal. (The terrorist/criminal distinction is actually pretty stupid, too. Terrorists ARE criminals, of a particularly reprehensible variety.) The Unabomber was a terrorist. Both the CIA and FBI work to prevent terrorist attacks, foreign and/or domestic. And what about all those Iraqis who used roadside bombs to murder American and allied soldiers? Aren't they terrorists, even though they're operating domestically? When the media started calling them 'insurgents', the wingnutosphere went apoplectic and said "NOOO! They're terrorists!" And yes, they were correct.

QED, Mac. You can still honestly believe that Bush was a pretty good President, while conceding that he didn't put a stop to terrorism. You're not the first person to make such a claim, but you're the first person who is at least halfway intelligent. You're just being silly at this point. It's the sort of thing we've come to expect from Billy the Tame, but not you.

steve sturm,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

steve sturm,

Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of whether the perpetrator is domestic or foreign.

That's like saying murder is murder regardless of whether the perpetrator is a soldier or a gang member. We give medals to solders returning from Afghanistan while we give prison sentences to gang member for doing the same thing.

Acts of terrorism by foreign enemies are in fact crimes (as well as acts of war) and have been prosecuted as such.

If that's true then the U.S. lobbing hellfire missiles into homes in Pakistan while innocent women and children are present is a crime because it's certainly terrorism by any rational definition. So when are you going to call for Obama to be prosecuted? The only other option, and the one recognized by most governments in the world, is that acts of war are not necessarily crimes. If that were not the case than most the soldiers of the losing side in a war would be prosecuted as criminals. The FACT that that has not occurred in hundreds of years by any recognized nation proves that your assertion is wrong.

Here's an easy definition for you. Acts of war justify a military response against not only the individuals who committed the act, but also against the nation or group from which they came. Crimes justify a police response against only the individuals who committed the act or who materially contributed to the act. That's a big difference that most people don't have any trouble understanding.

hyperbolist,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

hyperbolist,

Your criterion that the enemy be FOREIGN is ARBITRARY, Mac.

Now that's a stupid statement, because it's the difference between the CIA and the FBI as well as the difference between the military and the police.

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, not merely a criminal. (The terrorist/criminal distinction is actually pretty stupid, too.

I was not drawing a distinction between terrorism and crimes in general. I was responding to the two specific events you asked about. "Delineate anonymous anthrax mailings from flying airplanes into a building." Both were terrorism, but the first was a crime and the second an act of war. I'm drawing a distinction between criminal acts and acts of war.

Terrorists ARE criminals, of a particularly reprehensible variety.)

If that's true then the U.S. lobbing hellfire missiles into homes in Pakistan while innocent women and children are present is a crime because it's certainly terrorism by any rational definition. So when are you going to call for Obama to be prosecuted?

The Unabomber was a terrorist. Both the CIA and FBI work to prevent terrorist attacks, foreign and/or domestic.

Terrorism by a foreign enemy is an act of war. Terrorism by a domestic enemy is a criminal act. The CIA is barred by law from investigating domestically and the FBI has no charter to gather non-criminal intelligence. The distinction between foreign and domestic is a bright and wide line in U.S. law. How is it that you don't know that and yet feel qualified to comment on this subject?

And what about all those Iraqis who used roadside bombs to murder American and allied soldiers? Aren't they terrorists, even though they're operating domestically? When the media started calling them 'insurgents', the wingnutosphere went apoplectic and said "NOOO! They're terrorists!" And yes, they were correct.

Calling them terrorists or insurgents was and is irrelevant. They are enemy combatants and our soldiers shoot them on sight when they catch them making a roadside bomb. Obviously, our soldiers are committing an act of war in shooting them, and thus, planting a roadside bomb is also an act of war. Otherwise, we would have to prosecute our soldiers as criminals for shooting enemy combatants. It's only the loony left that wants to treat terrorists or insurgents as criminals.

QED, Mac. You can still honestly believe that Bush was a pretty good President, while conceding that he didn't put a stop to terrorism.

Bush stopped foreign terrorists from attacking Americans on American soil (AKA 9/11) and there's no way you can spin it, otherwise. From this day forward Obama will also be judged by his ability to stop foreign terrorists from attacking Americans on American soil. He will be held politically accountable if he fails, particularly given the warnings from Cheney.

You're just being silly at this point.

The only thing silly is your trying to put domestic criminal acts in the same category as 9/11.

Hyperbolist, Are you... (Below threshold)

Hyperbolist,
Are you insinuating that Bush was prescient and
should have single handed prevented the anthrax
attacks? Wow...just wow.
What are you, a truther?

You people are weak-minded ... (Below threshold)

You people are weak-minded fools and hopeless buffoons. "We will try hard not to harm the innocent." Are you high? Are you drunk? We've already killed and maimed thousands more "innocents" than were killed or injured on 9/11. For what? What have we accomplished? America has become a nation of morons, led down primrose paths by court jesters. You're without hope. You're doomed. Your national motto ought to be 'syllogism over substance.' Your esprit de corps is straight from the scripts of Beavis and Butthead, 'we're justified, like, because, we're amerikans .. and stuff, and that makes us, like, huh-huh, better ...' Freakin' pathetic. An embarrassment.

I would like to take a mome... (Below threshold)
Linoge Author Profile Page:

I would like to take a moment to primarily point everyone to Project 2996 (and secondarily to my rememberance of Sergeant Rodney C. Gillis), and respectfully suggest that everyone look into the Project next year.

We will never forget, and we will always remember those innocent people who were murdered eight years ago.

[email protected] (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


[email protected]

We've already killed and maimed thousands more "innocents" than were killed or injured on 9/11.

Maybe that's why those thoughtful and kind Islamic radicals haven't attacked us again. They only wanted to kill American "innocents", not cause the death of Muslim "innocents".

Your national motto ought to be 'syllogism over substance.'

Did you move or didn't you read what you copy and paste? First you use "We've already..." as if you are an American, but now you're using" Your national..." as if you are not an American. Which is it or don't you know?

'we're justified, like, because, we're amerikans .. and stuff, and that makes us, like, huh-huh, better ...'

It's so simple that even a dreamer like you should be able to understand it. Americans don't take kindly to sneak attacks by foreign forces that kill Americans on American soil. The Japanees learned that lesson after their sneak attack in 1942 and we killed lots and lots of their "innocents". Even back then maybe there were some dreamers like you who thought we shouldn't have defended ourselves. Of course dreamers like you can only exist because of the sweat and blood of brave and practical people who create the stable and free nation you live in.

Now if you have a rational argument to make, come back and make it. Otherwise, people here will assume you're just another foul mouth liberal driven by childish emotion rather than adult reason.

Clean up! Spam and plagiar... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Clean up! Spam and plagiarism spilled on aisle 40.

At least they could give me credit for what they copy and pasted from post #35 before linking to their commercial dating site.




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