A Small Victory

The saddest thing is that at the very bottom of all their arguments is the belief that any attacks against us are completely justified... we deserved it/brought it on ourselves. How can you get through to someone like that?

No, I haven't forgotten. And, yes, I disagree that the War On Terrorism is "working".

So here we are for the umpteenth time being alerted to the possiblity of a terrorist attack, this time in New York during the Republican Convention.

Well, its a plausible possiblity, and we should be on our guard.

But so was California/New Mexico (the last alert I saw come over the wire), and Boston with the Democrats, and the Fourth of July, and & and & and & and, going back for the last three years.

But how many of these "alerts" have ever answered the questions who? where? how? and how many?

None that I know of.

Who, of consequence and in the leadership, have we brought to justice for terror?

Where can we can we point to now that is truly free from the possibility of an attack?

And what are we ordinary people (never mind the bureaucrats and the spooks for the moment) doing, but staring in the dark, imagining a thousand possible enemies, seeing none, and getting ever more hysterical in our vigilance against the terrors of the night?

I don't call that "working".

And, no, I don't know who the real enemy is, I don't know where he is, I don't know what he is doing, and I don't know where he will strike next.

Neither do our "leaders".

That's the problem.

"And, no, I don't know who the real enemy is..."

Well, you've been told over and over and over again. I am no longer willing to call this attitude anything but willful ignorance -- you don't want to know.

I, for one, would like a high-resolution .jpg of Lisa's poster so I can print out some of my own...

The real tragedy is that those posters will be torn down within 15 minutes.

People don't want to remember nor to acknowledge the truth, that like it or not we are fighting a war that was declared on us over 10 years ago and it took losing the WTC in the second al Queda bombing attack (and getting a President with a backbone instead of a perpetual hardon) to finally wake up.

WHY DON'T YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ, CHICKENHAWK? GO WATCH FOXNEWS YOU SHEEP! WHY DON'T YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ, CHICKENHAWK? GO WATCH FOXNEWS YOU SHEEP! WHY DON'T YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ, CHICKENHAWK? GO WATCH FOXNEWS YOU SHEEP! WHY DON'T YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ, CHICKENHAWK? GO WATCH FOXNEWS YOU SHEEP! WHY DON'T YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ, CHICKENHAWK? GO WATCH FOXNEWS YOU SHEEP! WHY DON'T YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ, CHICKENHAWK? GO WATCH FOXNEWS YOU SHEEP! WHY DON'T YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ, CHICKENHAWK? GO WATCH FOXNEWS YOU SHEEP! WHY DON'T YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ, CHICKENHAWK? GO WATCH FOXNEWS YOU SHEEP! WHY DON'T YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ, CHICKENHAWK? GO WATCH FOXNEWS YOU SHEEP!

Wow, the kool-aid crowd is really freaking out!

Hey, The enemy is RNC! You forgot to Heil Moore at the end of your post.

The real tragedy is the use of 9/11 for partisan politics.

Just because someone does not hold your political views and support the current administration regarding the way it has responded to the threat of terrorism in this country does not mean they have forgotten the terrible losses we all faced that day. It does not mean they were less affected. It does not mean they are cold-hearted people who do not feel the heartbreaking pain every time a picture of the attacks is seen.

Please stop using people's current political views as a way to judge how they were affected by 9/11 and then determine who is somehow better - better American, better patriot, more intelligent, more compassionate. We all suffered that day. We all sat in front of our televisions and sobbed. Many of us suffered personal losses. Many of us experienced this tragedy first-hand. Not all of us have come to the same conclusions about how to achieve a world where everyone is safe.

It is truly revolting to see this national tragedy used in this way.

But how many of these "alerts" have ever answered the questions who? where? how? and how many? None that I know of.

First, it is possible that, because of the alert, the planned attack was delayed or had to be re-planned to happen in a different manner.

Then, remember that there are these groups that are from around the DC area that are affectionately refer to as "alphabet soup". These guys might know more, and passed that knowledge on to field officers who've worked to prevent the planned attack. Protecting "sources and methods" is importatnt, as any Clancy reader can tell you. ;)

Who, of consequence and in the leadership, have we brought to justice for terror?

Hmm. Off the top of my head, I'd say Zacarias Moussaoui is in the process of being "brought to justice", and Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was just arrested in Pakistan.

Maybe one of the top ten most wanted men in the US for terrorism isn't someone of "consequence" in your eyes?

Where can we can we point to now that is truly free from the possibility of an attack?

This is the most difficult thing. I can't find it right now, but I read a poster, somewhere on the Internet, that said something to the effect of, for US to win the war on terror we have to be right 100% of the time. For us to lose, we only have to be wrong once.

This is what's most difficult about the war. The fact that it is so asymmetric is what makes it so awful.

Do you think that al-Qaida will more than bat an eye if Usama is captured or killed? They'd probably issue a statement about how grave a crime this was and how they were going to take revenge, but it would just be another reason du jour for them.

So, can we point to somewhere that's free from the possibility of attack? No. We can, however, point to the areas that have not been attacked, despite the best efforts of our enemies, but we can't say, at this point at least, "Whew, terrorist threat averted," because when we do, that's when they'll pop up again.

It's horrible, but, remember, we didn't ask for it, they feel we deserve it.

Maybe someone can get an anti-Soros to fund the production and free distribution of the poster. I'd want at least one.

To help further the cause that we must never forget, here's my humble effort:

www.threeyearsout.com

My choice is ... well, not "A", "A" is reserved for the uber moonbat (ie see the protestors at the Democratic convention with the "Kerry = Bush = Hitler" signs) and DU trolls.

I am also skeptical about "B." I have no doubt that al Qaeda would like to stage a large attack. I don't think the terrorists care who we elect president (moonbats tell me Osama wants Bush, the Kentucky GOP tells me Osama wants Kerry), but I do think another successful attack on American soil would increase their international credibility and boost recruitment.

On the other hand, I worry a lot about how transparent our intelligence process is looking. 10,000 stories have already warned the terrorists not to "increase chatter" before they attack, and I think it's a big mistake to assume they are stupid. It's quite possible that the terrorists are purposely creating false positives in order to root our American informants (ie, tell this guy you're hitting New York and that guy you're hitting Seattle, then whichever story gets out, you know which guy to whack, etc) or for some other nefarious purpose.

One thing I found extremely interesting was this little tidbit:

Intelligence sources say al Qaeda plans to move non-Arab terrorists across the border with Mexico.

Did you hear that? That's the sound of Ann Coulter getting bitch-slapped by Norman Mineta. Ouch! Let's all give props to President Bush's Secretary of Transportation who was smart enough to anticipate this on day one.

It is truly revolting that 9/11 is being whitewashed out of existance on behalf of partisan politics.

The poster created by counterconvention and rncnotwelcome is representitive of this form of whitewashing on behalf of partisan politics.

"It is truly revolting to see this national tragedy used in this way"

D, I take it that you agree the counterconvention poster is revolting.

As a non-American, all I have to say is well done. A poster like this needs to be made. I'm sick (and I mean to the pit of my stomach) of seeing left wing propaganda pointing the accusing finger towards the US and her allies.

Assuming you don't mind, I am going to make a 34 X 44 poster of that and use it next week in Dallas when the Protest Warriors have their weekly Operation against the LLL.

Michele

Cleanup on the troll aisle again!

-------

Implicit in the delusional "arteeest" poster, with the smoking WTC in the background and the tagline "real terrorists" is the old standard charge of a Xtian/Zionist plot to blow it up to stage a "coup" of the US for [cue the screaming horses] Corporate AmeriKKKa and Israel.

Joseph

First off, do you want to be told of every bit of credible evidence, or do you want to be kept in the dark? One of the first charges used by the conspiracists is that GW admin knew there had been threats and didn't go public with them. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing, eh?

Secondly, another day without attack/crime, etc doesn't exactly make for frontpage news. Most law-enforcement or security is about frustrating or diverting criminal activity. And there is so much stuff going on in the background that you, as a civilian, will never hear of. IE, are you aware of what's happening in your community in regards to gangbanging? (psst, no area is immune from it)

Soli

They may be non-Arab, but I still will bet you it won't be any Norwegian grandmas.

Sam Hall: That was my thought as well. Get some of the Protest Warriors at the "Counter Convention" to carry some of these would be a rather powerful message to the other side.

This national "tragedy". A terrible tragedy.

Not a atrocity, not an act of war by foreign enemies comitted to our destruction. 9/11 is sad.

We should weep and mourn, and then reform by being nicer. Not react by perpetuating the "cycle of violence" (by using force against state-sponsored terrorism, and prevent future collaboration of say, Saddam Hussein with terrorists. If we wipe out the terrorists, the terrorists win. Can't you see that?

I'm certain, at least as they were looking in that stewardess's eyes before they gouged them out of the sockets, they didn't LIKE what they did, and it was our fault in the first place.

/brain damage.

Last time I checked, you had to be 18 (or an adult) to go into the military and you had to volunteer...what's so hard about that concept for the left?

A pdf of this would be good...we could then link to it on our blogs.

Mike Borrelli "Get some of the Protest Warriors at the "Counter Convention" to carry some of these would be a rather powerful message to the other side."

While playing the song of the same name.

You know, I just LOVE the LLL spiel...

WHY DON'T YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ, CHICKENHAWK?

1. I am in the military, and so are a lot of people, you idiot. I've been over to the sandbox. And I can guarantee that the vast majority of guys over there went there not just for WMDs but because this was an evil dictator who needed to be removed from power.

2. There are no children in the military. The minute you turn 18 you are old enough to make any damn decision you want. I'm so sick and tired of this "bring our children home" shit. We have an all-volunteer military. Anybody who is 20 and in the military right now joined after September 11th and knew what they were doing. Anybody who joined before September 11th knew they could get sent into a war and die. But you know what? We sign up anyway, because we love our country in a way you can never comprehend.

You idiot.

This needs to be marketed. Preferably in cardboard stock with a metal frame, suitable for posting in front yards across 'flyover' land. Anyone have any ideas how to do this?

ps....Enemy - you jerk. My son IS in Iraq. And he's damned proud of it, too.

Michele, you do know that 9/11 isn't exclusively "yours" right?

And as far as terror is concerned, this hasn't stopped Al Qaeda from killing innocent people in Bali, Spain, and Iraq. Not to mention all the Al Qaeda affiliated people killing our soldiers in Iraq, now that the country's a shooting gallery. I'd feel a lot better if this president could focus on killing terrorists for five seconds. Instead, the terror level is going up today - and considering I work about a block and a half behind the White House its not exactly an abstract threat to me.

Those who view the RNC as the "real" terrorists are fools. Those who question their tactics against terrorism include fools, the wise, the politically ambitious, the nihilists, combinations of those things, and even those who want to take our attack on terrorism and make it a much bigger war. It sucks for Bush and Company that they have such a visible position, but they have to take the attacks on their policy because this is a democracy (okay, it's a republic, but still....)

The war on terrorism has been quite successful in many ways. The Iraqi war is both a distraction from and a part of that war. If, because of bad information, Bush can't sell the toppling of an evil dictator, then he's a crappy leader and doesn't deserve to lead this war. He's avoided that issue too long and it's still biting him on the ass. If he could admit to mistakes rather than pretend that his fairy tale truth will be revealed once and for all, then he won't be a smug, arrogant bastard who gets replaced by another smug, arrogant bastard after the election.

And does al Queda wish it could take out the GOP convention and a lot of New York with it? Gosh, that's a poser! May as well ask if Michael Moore wants seconds at the buffet.

Michele

Another thought, can you sister put that graphic on a t-shirt, say through cafepress?

I'd buy a few!

C. All of the above.

Screw off. The anti-RNC protesters didn't ask the RNC to come to our city. A bunch of political opprotunists in the Bush administration did. Whoever decided to bring this convention here is absolutely insane-- you want to blame somebody for the increased convention-related terror warnings? blame rove and his ilk, not the protesters.

Why yes, DARPANet, we all know that NYC is a Republican-free Zone.

And those who even think 'conservative' thoughts had better watch their backs, eh?

schmuck

Oliver, some perspective please. Please.

We can't assess success or failure without also counting numbers of Al Qaeda killed and captured, attacks thwarted, finances shut down.

Your standard is (apparently) perfection. No attacks at all, not fewer attacks than there would have been.

We can all acknowledge imperfection in the WoT, but let's measure it, ok? Otherwise, your argument is simply not serious.

Um ... no. Thats not what I said, so get off your persecuted horse for a moment.

I said that the RNC was stupid beyond belief for bringing the convention here. "Hey, I have an idea!! Lets take the national political convention of the party in power, a party hated by millions of people all over the world (including terrorists) and bring it to the city MOST AT RISK of a terrorist attack!! F-ing brilliant."

Darleen: read before you spout off, twit.

So.. anyone think the Republican National Convention is going to lock up all the protestors behind razorwire a block and a half from the convention center like the Dems did?

Or do you think they'll have free-range protestors?

"Michele, you do know that 9/11 isn't exclusively "yours" right?" )liver Wilis

Yes it is - she called dibs on it first. I heard her. ;]

Oh Jaysus on a Pony, DARPANet

NYC is the "most at risk of terrorist attack city?" How do you measure that? What makes it more "at risk" than say, San Francisco, Los Angeles or San Diego or Seattle?

Oh, cuz NYC has you in it?

Kush meer in toches

Darleen,

They may be non-Arab, but I still will bet you it won't be any Norwegian grandmas.

If you system that can be gamed, it will be gamed. If you give anyone a free pass, whether it be Norwegian grandmas or Al Gore look-alikes, you're introducing a point of failure in your system. If you single out grandmothers to get an easier pass through security, then the results of that action are easily predictable. Assuming our enemies are too stupid to take advantage of us is horrible strategy. You expect me to believe that every single Norwegian grandmother is so on the ball and alert that there is no way a terrorist could slip something into her bag before she gets to the security checkpoint?

I wonder how many times in my adult life, I've heard the story about the "real results that are too secret or too important for you or I to know about".

Okay. Maybe they are.

But unless, sooner or later, they have some tangible result that I do know about, why should I trust in the existence of these great secret victories indefinitely?

We are 90 days from the most important election in my lifetime. The point of such an election is to make a total of the results of our current leadership and judge justly if we want to keep it.

So I don't hold truck with results that are "too secret to know about". Show me the balance sheet, it's time for me to vote.

This is why I have no quarrel with partisanship about our safety. We elect our leaders from parties. We don't get them from anywhere else. So we'd better take a good close look at their partisan views and what they do to the leadership they offer.

Let's look at the balance sheet.

First, yes there have been no attacks since 9/11 on American soil. This means solely that we've done some things to make attacks harder--you can't get on a plane easily with a box cutter, for example.

But I defy anyone to say that ANY Admistration, Democrat or Republican, would not have taken such obvious precautions.

I would point out that we wouldn't HAVE a Homeland Security Office without a lot of Democratic hell-raising and we would NOT have had an independent 9/11 Commission if the White House had had its way. So this accomplishment is clearly bipartisan.

Second, we have started two wars, both still unfinished, which toppled two very nasty regimes who didn't like us much. We have also put better governments in their place, but we are STILL fighting to keep them there. And not necessarily succeeding.

No, the wars are not "over" (to quote the President directly) and the missions are not "accomplished". And it was an outstanding piece of foolishness to pretend that they were.

So this second accomplishment is pretty good, but certainly not complete or even assured. And it has come with some minuses whether the posters here are willing to examine them or not.

Third, we captured Saddam Hussein and have turned him over to justice in his own land.

Great. This one is unequivocally finished, unequivocally good, and unequivocally to the credit of the President.

That the best case I, as a Democrat, can make for the leadership of the President. If anyone has anything to add, I invite it.

I would note however that absolutely NOTHING else in this country, from deficits & fiscal responsibility to the "jobless" economic recovery to the "culture war" has received any serious attention from this Administration.

Not even most of the items on the "philosophical conservative" agenda. Nada.

What does my candidate of choice have to say about it all?

America Can Do Better.

Now at the moment, all he can do is propose, he cannot act. All action must come from the White House and we Democrats can but point out how little the White House is prone to do anything but react and that not very efficiently.

But anyone who asserts that my candidate will not act in what he belives to be the country's best interests is simply a blinded fool. He might be wrong about those interests, but he is not lying when he says he will serve them as best he can.

And anybody who asserts that I, or most Democrats, do not understand that AlQueada is an enemy, is an insulting partisan hack. We might be wrong about our current leadership but we are in no way treasonous to our country for being so.

And I, for one, am mortally tired of the constant insinuation that we are.

It's my flag, too. And I'm willing to give anyone a verbal bloody nose who implies that it isn't.

Michele and lisa: Thank you for creating this stunning and evocative poster. I would like to buy some to hang in my neck of the woods-- are you going to sell them over the 'net?

Oliver - Is this how you spend your Daddy George Soro's money by bothering people by dropping idiocy on their website?

Funny if the RNC dared to put on the dog and pony 9/11 show that the fearsome, pro military ack DNC did you wd be the FIRST to spit the pringles out of your mouth to cry foul.

What a joke.

Soli

Where did I say "ignore" Norwegian grandmas? There should be a standard of security, but also there should definitely be more intense level where it concerns people of interest. And that would include young men from hostile countries of the ME.

To set up this false "random" standard that for each two or three ME young males has to be "balanced" by a female senior citizen from the far northern regions of Europe is just damned silly in the least.

BTW... all packages and luggage is/should be inspected, regardless of passenger; however, due to the reported new tactics of coordination where terrorists might come into a plane each carrying a threatening component, later to be assembled in air, is yet another impetus to "profiling" groups flying the same flight.

Joseph

Strange, your flag statement is almost identical to the projection I've been hearing quite a while. I've seen no Republican party official or politician even imply that the flag doesn't belong to all Americans.

Certainly a bit different from Teresa's charge of certain citizens being un-American.

He might be wrong about those interests, but he is not lying when he says he will serve them as best he can.

And I'm sorry, but if Kerry's definition of what is in this nation's "best interests" is what I consider wrongheaded (ie deferring to the UN in "real" humility, fighting terrorism is "primarily" a law enforcement issue), then his "sincerity" in pursuing such interests is no virtue.

"The real tragedy is the use of 9/11 for partisan politics."

Try as I might, it's hard to think of a more moronic statement regarding September 11.

Great job with the poster.

That someone like Oliver WIllis thinks this poster is partisan reveals far too much about his thought processes than I believe he realizes.

Oh my! The Left is awfully defensive today, aren't they? Whenever anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy attempts to remind people who the REAL ememy is, (you know, the religious fanatics who've told us to our faces that they intend to destroy us; Left or Right, it doesn't matter to them) they automatically accuse that person of wrapping her/himself in the flag and claiming exclusive right to it. No-one here has done anything of the sort. Sorry guys, but we know what you really are: narcissist partisan hacks portraying yourselves as paragons of moderation and civility. Ha!

Excellent points, Oliver! You're getting a bonus this week!

DARPANet seems... upset.

Screw off.

You're not my type.

The anti-RNC protesters didn't ask the RNC to come to our city. A bunch of political opprotunists in the Bush administration did.

Yeah, how DARE the republicans want to hold a national convention! And how dare they choose America's largest city to hold it in. And how dare they choose a city that was attacked three years ago by terrorists.

I mean, everyone knows that the had RNC chosen a different city, no one would protest them.

Whoever decided to bring this convention here is absolutely insane--

Um, perhaps they thought that it might bring them some frikkin' political advantage?!?!

(Rolling eyes)

you want to blame somebody for the increased convention-related terror warnings? blame rove and his ilk, not the protesters.

Oh, there is a brilliant idea.

Heaven forfend, no sitting President has ever referred to war or attacks on the US during a campaign season.

This poster should be on billboards and on TV. I hope someone from the RNC is reading this blog.

What's the deal with CNN? They spend months broadcasting encouragement to our enemies, and then they go semi-hysterical at the announcment of heightened terror alerts.

I caught Howard "double D"(DelusionalDoublespeak) Dean with Wolfie earlier, suggesting that the Bushies made this announcement for political advantage.

Then there was Rev Al, who must have taken his meds this morning because he appeared to be more moderate than Dean.

Is it just me, or are these folks short on rational analysis and real long on emotional reactionism?

Oliver Willis,
Believing in the abstract concept that Islamofascist terrorism began on 9/11 is in itself a threat.

America is certainly safer today than all the years following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and definately, much safer since the 1979 Iranian hostage situation.

I have no doubt that today more Islamofascist terrorists have been killed in the past three years than have been in the past twenty years leading up to 9/11.

Why have you forgotten all of the 'killing fields' of Islamofascist terrorism over the past two decades?

Four Islamofascist terrorists attacks against Americans and American interests alone during the 1990's and nothing was done. Since you are so close to the White House, please tell me just how many terrorists were killed all throughout the 1990's?

YOUR city, DHIMMINet?

Joseph Marshall

"why should I trust in the existence of these great secret victories indefinitely?"

Because you're still alive.

"Second, we have started two wars,"

Scroll up a little. There's a photographic reminder of why those wars were waged. Remember, they attacked us.

I wonder how many times in my adult life, I've heard the story about the "real results that are too secret or too important for you or I to know about".

Okay. Maybe they are.

"Indefinitely"? It has been less than three years and you use a word that implies until the end of time. Fitting. Liberals still support the New Deal and all the other failed social programs that have been going on for 50+ years with no results, yet demand 100% success from efforts by Conservatives immediately. Telling.

That is not the only point, and to suggest so is sheer folly. There are two points, the first you stated, but the second and more important one is to judge if the opponents to the current leadership are a BETTER choice. Kerry has proven that he is not.

Show you? You cannot see it in the world around you? Take off your blinders. How do I know you have blinders? Let's read what you think the "balance sheet" is:

WRONG - there have been no SUCCESSFUL attacks on our soil. Stating that there have been no attacks at all is dishonest as you are not privy to all the intelligence (as you have stated above).

Fine, I will. Clinton did not take any precautions when he was warned about these attacks in the mid 90's. He told Algore to address it, they setup a commission, came up with some things (INCLUDING racial profiling!), and then promptly let it all go when there were some objections from the airlines. They would rather have no bad news in the press then a safe America. And Clinton was told in a PDB that terrorists wanted to hijack planes to fly into buildings, which is more than Bush was EVER told by anyone or was written in the handover documents from the Clinton Administration.

BS on both counts. We would have had both, but we would not have had the second one IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR.

This is just garbage. First there is only one war, and we did not start it. The war was started at the end of the 70's and has been going until this day. Militant Islam declared war on us. It was less of an enemy than the USSR so it did not get top billing during the 80's. During the 90's they attacked us multiple times, but the people in office did not want to have to fight a war, or take on the tough issues, so they ignored it when they could and then launched a few missiles when they could not. 9/11 and a new president with an actual plan of attack changed things. There is NOT two wars, but there are two separate theaters of operations where our military is engaged.

Once again, one war, and the POTUS has never said it is over. The statement was Mission Accomplished when Saddam was removed from power. Are you suggesting that Saddam is still in power by your statement that the mission is not accomplished?

The greatest military drive, swiftest victory and quickest change over from Occupation to sovereignty in history is just "pretty good" in your mind? You need to study history and get some perspective. I suggest you start with Victor David Hanson

And this gets a one word praise from you: "Great". It does not address that in order to turn him over to "justice in his own land" the government and legal institutions have to be up and working in that same land. Nor does it address that there has to be a majority of people that want to see him tried. This second point flies in the face of all the Liberals that tried to say Saddam was an elected president and that the people did not want to be liberated. If the people of Iraq had loved Saddam as much as the anti-war crowd and liberal claimed they would just free him from prison and put him back in power, yet they are going to see him executed for his actions. But in your view it is just a "great" thing to liberate two countries and return sovereignty in under 3 years. To those with some intelligence and knowledge of history it would be called "historic" or "unprecedented".

I have a ton of stuff, but your next statement shows that you are blind to it as well.

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAaaaaaw. Oh please. I will just address one point as I could fill up pages on all of them: economic recovery. The liberals and Democrat party love to qualify it as a "jobless" recovery so they can dismiss the recovery side of things. In the last year of President Clinton, 2000, the economy was already going into recession. Just over 8 months into the new administration we suffered the worst attack on US soil in the heart of one of the financial centers of our country. ALL air travel was ceased for over 4 days, which is no small thing. An enormous amount of commerce is done via the airlines, and I am not talking about moving people. At any one moment in time 75%+ of all airplanes in service are in the air, not on the ground. For four days this was stopped. I am leaving out the psychological impact to the populace and the innumerable instances of smaller financial loss suffered by individuals and small companies due to 9/11. With everything that was going on and that happened we should have been in a economic depression after 9/11 for a long time. Yet less than 2 years after it we were already in a recovery. And if you had any knowledge about the flow of things, jobs are the last to go as the recession gets worse and the last to come when it ends. This is because businesses do not want to lay off workers and wait until they have no choice but to do so (this started in 2000 as the faux "boom" was over) and these same businesses wait until they are at full production with their current workforce (signaling that the recovery is real) before they hire new workers as they do not want to hire people only to have the recovery stop and force them to fire people again.

This is true, and what happens when a Republican tries to play nice with the Democrats. Who wrote the largest education bill? Ted Kennedy. The largest Farm Bill? Tom Daschle. Not all of the spending is Democrats fault, but a majority is.

Kerry is really your first choice? If you could have any one else would you still choose Kerry?

All I have to say to disprove this is to quote Kerry himself:"Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."Kerry will not ACT against terrorism, he will RE-ACT to it. He will wait until we are attacked BEFORE he will take action. How many of your fellow citizens are you willing to let die before Kerry feels justified in taking action? The number has already been too high for Bush and he is taking the war to the terrorist, but Kerry seems to think that we need to be hit AGAIN before he will do anything.

You need to take a long hard looks at your party then, cause you are in the minority of people that understand who the real enemy is.

Ok Howard Dean. Since we are on the subject of things we are tired of, I am beyond tired of DEMOCRATS talking about ownership of the flag. No Republican in office has ever made a claim of owner ship on the US flag, nor have they suggested that Democrats do not have a claim. It is only the Democrats talking about how they are "patriots" and that "the flag is my flag too". I am beginning to believe that these statements are being made by people of guilty conscious who secretly see themselves as non-patriots and unworthy of the flag.

Smells like moonbat in here.

Great poster you guys! Don't let these castrated fools get to you. They just feel guilty because they have no spine and are fearful. I see people complaining about the openness of the administration in announcing the terror threats. This is a sign they'd sooner just sleep through it and hope to wake up alive after. The way I see it, they have stopped the attacks before they can be launched and it bugs the LLL.

Nice Blog BTW. Lurked here a time or two. have a great day.

I almost forgot to tell the moonbats to get a life.

I almost forgot to tell the moonbats to get a life.

Never forget.

Wow, does that make me witty enough to be a Lizardroid now or do I have to kill a Muslim with my bare hands first?

Well, not my bare hands, but with the swift might of my terrorist-killin' keyboard.

Tap-tap-tap-tap.

Enemy is RNC:

people don't send their kids to Iraq. All soldiers in Iraq are 18 or older. In case you hadn't heard, that is the age of consent, and they are there voluntarily. YOu people are so pathetic with your "chickenhawk" label. Many you label as such are war vets, peacetime vets or are presently serving in the military, law enforcement or emergency services. Some are too old, some are too old and a combo of the above. You are a twisted, scared and maybe evil liar. Even more pathetic because you lie to yourself and believe the lie.

In order: Get a brain, get a heart and get a life.

Freakin' moonbat!

That's my Angela! Always stopping by to leave a snarky comment but never brave enough to leave a real email address with her words.

Angela, have you ever contributed anything but sarcasm to a conversation?

Angela

do I have to kill a Muslim with my bare hands first?

When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

As Yogi Berra would say "It's deja vu all over again."

Angela, have you ever contributed anything but sarcasm to a conversation?

Um, nope. And how will listing a Hotmail account make my snarkiness anymore valid? All it's ever gotten me in the past is a bunch of unpleasant emails calling me the c-word, "moonbat" or "the hottest chick to ever walk the face of the earth."

It's hell being me.

But Michele!

Angela "hates hate" so anyone who "hates" she "hates" but then again that would make her one of those that "hates" so I guess she really "hates" herself, too....

Can't we just 5150 her?

;-)

Darleen,

Thanks. I'm voting for Bush now.

Settle down, Darleen. I only stop in every now and then. I've even said nice things about her over at evil Oliver Willis' pad. We just have completely opposite views on George Bush and his plan for winning the war on terror (whatever in the hell that happens to be at the moment).

the war on terror (whatever in the hell that happens to be at the moment).

Islamofacism kinda slipped by you, eh?

Here's a dilemma:

What if, despite warnings and everything being done right, there IS a terrorist attack in New York? And, what if that attack targets and kills LIBERAL protesters?

1. Will conservatives cheer and announce "good, they deserved it", or mourn them as Americans first? Would the liberals do the same?

2. Now that some of their own have been victims, what will the liberal drumbeat be? Must we understand the terrorists, or will it be GWBs fault again? Or will it finally be time to strike back without fussing about trying not to hurt anyone?

3. What will they do if the inevitable hearings tell us that we did everything we could to prevent the problem? Or will administration scapegoats be named immediately, and pilloried by the left throughout the hearings?

This stuff makes my head hurt. My rational mind just can't get around the willful ignorance (blindness?) that the liberals must impose on themselves to maintain their idealogical purity...

First, yes there have been no attacks since 9/11 on American soil. This means solely that we've done some things to make attacks harder--you can't get on a plane easily with a box cutter, for example.

Almost anything can be used as a weapon. Training, knowledge and intent are the real weapons. Everything else is just a force-multiplier. I’ll use the example of the common ink pen (there are more dangerous common objects, but I’m trying to be brief :-). You have a round plastic shaft, sharpened on one end, blunt on the other. Obviously, you can stab someone with the sharp end (only a complete moron doesn’t see that), but the blunt end can be used for a number of pain-compliance techniques. So can the shaft (and I’ve seen triangular-shaped pens. The edge has great potential :-). And a blunt-trauma to the throat augmented by either the point or the blunt end is most likely lethal (unless you use the same pen to perform a tracheotomy) .

Beginning to get the picture? When I teach rape self-defense to non-martial arts women, the first thing I teach is the pen. Stick him with the pointy end, ram it home with your palm, and run.

Do you really think potential hijackers are too stupid to figure this out?

I’ll say it again, because it bears repeating. Training, knowledge and intent are the real weapons.

Everything else is just a force-multiplier.

No, it's the plan that slipped by me. Golly gee, Darleen, don't make me 6347 you.

Angela,

You seem to be suggesting that Bush has pursued several different plans against terrorism. What do you think they were? Can you list them?

Chuck

You know, as much as the Leftist protesters live in an alternative Republicans=Ultimate Evil world, they both have a right to protest and I would hope they get to do so unmolested (as long as they are peaceful). And I know, personally, any terrorist attack that would physically harm them would have me both mourning them and calling for heavy penalties to be immediately inflicted on the perps. I certainly never considered either the politics or religions or nationality of the victims of 9/11, and I'm sure there were many among the thousands that I would never invite to dinner or put on my Christmas card list.

Darleen:

I agree, we are all Americans first, and liberals, conservitives etc. second. It's like:

I can pick on my brother, but you better not try it! ;)

Angela

So, you think there is One Master Plan to deal with the pan-Arab, international ideology dedicated to the defeat of Western civilization? Or should I say, do you think there should be One Master Plan?

Say, maybe you could go to your local DA and see what their one-size-fits-all Master Plan to combat all crime is ...

Yessirreebob, I think 5150 could be useful here.

Battle plans last until the first shots are fired. From there the winner is determined by who can adjust and adapt to the situation. Only a moron would adamantly stick to a plan in the light of a developing combat action.

Darleen,

[Dark, malevolent laughter]

5150, or too much 151?

:-P

Joeseph Marshall

These is nothing preventing any Democratic or left-wing site from putting up pictures of what happened on 9/11. For reasons known only to themselves, they are not interested in doing so. Why do you think that is???

If the Democratic party is going to decide that America is a good country, and that it wants to defend it, and wrap itself in the flag, then great. Climb aboard! It will be a distinct change from the last thirty years, but better late than never.