Is revisiting 9/11 mere partisanship? Or honesty?

AN ARTICLE in the New York Daily News claims that 9/11 widows and family members are steaming mad [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/170213p-148587c.html] over a new Bush campaign series of advertisements [http://www.georgewbush.com/tvads/]featuring some video clips from the past three years – including September 11, 2001.

The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage.

The article includes a somber photo of 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, holding her husband’s ring. She is very upset about the new ads. “After 3,000 people were murdered on his watch, it seems to me that that takes an awful lot of audacity. Honestly, it's in poor taste.”

Breitweiser is a co-founder of co-founder of the group September 11th Advocates and a member of the Family Steering Committee [http://www.911independentcommission.org/members.html]for the 9/11 Independent Commission. Last September, she wrote the following in an article for Salon.com [http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2003/09/08/dc911/index_np.html]:

Remember the aircraft-carrier photo op? Bush is a man of action; in fact, he is an action hero. Except, of course, when it really counts, like in those early morning hours when this country was under attack and our commander in chief was drinking milk and eating cookies with second graders.

Another 9/11 widow quoted in the article is Monica Gabrielle, whose husband Rick perished in Tower Two of the World Trade Center.

It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people…It is unconscionable.

Gabrielle is also a member of the same Family Steering Committee, and the founder of Skyscraper Safety [http://skyscrapersafety.org/], a campaign to upgrade building codes in New York City. In a letter to the editors [http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/toeditor_nyt20030803.html] of the New York Times last July, she wrote the following:

Lest we forget, the responsibility of our leaders is to protect our citizens from harm. On Sept. 11, 2001, our leaders failed miserably. The reason for the failures has yet to be fully determined. Our recovery will not be enhanced simply because the Republican Convention will be held near ground zero.

If President Bush is “politicizing” the events of September 11, 2001, he isn’t the first person to do so.

SOURCE: Citizen Smash http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002714.html#002714

 

I don't know how I would feel about this if I was a family member of one who was lost. I do know that unexpected violent loss leads those left behind to feel some bitterness and rage, and yes, blame.

I do think people are already forgetting what happend on 9/11 and I'm very concerned about it.

I know every time I see a movie or a picture that has the towers in the background it's like seeing two ghosts standing there and it deeply disturbs me. I hope none of us gets so bogged down in the policitical parties that we forget what happened.

 

Any shots of bodies being carried out of the rubble would be in extremely poor taste. I think there are ways to get the message across without upsetting the family members of those that perished.

 

The ultra-liberal media is at it again! They certainly didn't care about showing footage of dead GI's during their anti-war campaigns, especially Vietnam. They didn't care about the families of the dead (soldiers) then.

They certainly don't care about families of African-Americans who lost their lives during the Civil Rights movement when they show footage of blacks hanging from ropes, the photos of the three Alabama school girls who were blown up during Sunday School, and photos of Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc., when they attempt to link the GOP with hatred and racism.

They certainly didn't mind showing footage of 9/11 when it suited their agenda of trying to blame Bush for the tragedy.

I have seen the Bush ad. I think we need to be reminded how horrible 9/11 was, how it could easily happen again, and how we better make sure we have a President who can lead and offer hope, encouragement, and reassurance as Bush has.

I noticed the liberal media didn't get all teary eyed when Sen. Kerry tauted his Vietnam record and when he talked about how soliders raped, pillaged, and brutalized during the war. Many of the families of those victims live in America and watch television!

What's next, taking anti-drug ads off showing overdose deaths because some who see them have had family members die from overdoses?

Now, to set the record straight, I was not for Bush in 2000. I voted Libertarian (Harry Browne). I didn't think Bush was qualified nor did I think he was very bright.

He has proven me wrong and I have come to greatly admire him and think he is an excellent President. Bush became President after the 9/11 tragedy.

 

If you want to be angry...

Let's be angry about the fact that our citizens and soldiers for years and years were being murdered by terrorists with little or no notice by the residents of NY and its environs. Where was all of this angst over Pan Am, Beirut, the Berlin Disco bombings, the Cole and the any number of other individual terrorist bombings over the years? Prior to 9/11 there were no massive, nationwide fundraisings and the government did not give up to millions of dollars to the victims or their families. They were expected to suffer in silence and get by as best they could on private insurance ( if they were lucky to have it and without a terrorism exclusion) and Social Security. But who cared, they were just soldiers, that's what we pay them for right? And not just them, what about the families of the people who are murdered every day across our country and have to carry on. Now, after 9/11 we are expected to view these particular victims as sacred and off limits for anything not considered respectful by the families. Personally, I am offended by the sense of entitlement some of these people have. The size and notoriety of the terrorist act does not make them more deserving of our sympathy than any other victims family.

I have seen the ads and all they say is we are still under threat and so we are. Let's not forget that in order for the New York Fire Chief to get where he is today he had to be a card carrying Democrat for years. The fire chief is a patronage job so he is not some apolitical individual. And among the 10's of thousands members of the victim's families is it any great stretch to imagine that they couldn't find a few partisan Democrats to complain?

It's politics and it will get worse before it gets better. Kerry supported NAFTA and supported China's inclusion into the WTO but now he blames others that jobs are leaving the USA. It's not that simple but you can't defend yourself in the 15 second commercial most people use to make a decision about for whom to vote.

Full disclosure, I will vote for Bush and I am a retired soldier.

 

You know, I think I became desensitized about the things you mention Chirs. I really don't ever remember a time when Palestinian terrorists were killing others left and right as I was growing up and watching the world. So, while I thought of all the things you mention as truly horrible acts, I really didn't think about it in terms of being on our soil. I felt safe. This is American complacency at its worst. But watching things live on television, watching those towers come down and seeing the horror in the middle of the largest city in our country, it had a very very real impact on me.

Any cop will tell you that if someone wants to break into your home bad enough, or wants to kill you bad enough, there's nothing anyone can do. I think it's the same thing when it comes to our national security. People can point fingers all they want, but ultimately, if a group wants to attack us, there's little we can do about it if they want it bad enough. I wish policticians wouldn't make such fodder of this fact.

I don't always like Mr. Bush and I don't always agree with him, but I have an even harder time with those who try to tear at his handling of our security. So much we don't know, nor will we ever know about the threats against us. I never thought I would take solice in the old days of ideological debates of communism vs freedom. This is much scarier with Islamic religious distortions attached. They don't want to rule us, they want us extinguished from the earth just like the Nazi's wanted to destroy all but their culture and race. I believe it will be much worse before it gets better. At least I'm not complacent anymore.

 

Yes you can...

You can take the fight to them. It is a tactic as old as conflict.

 

9/11 Photos

It's an election year and Karl Rove and the Republican Party will use everything they have to win re-election. They have a huge re-election war chest and are far ahead of Kerry and the Democrats in terms of available funds.

Bush has already staked his claim to being a "war president" and will use that as his main thrust in the election. The economy, jobs, Iraq etc are not big winners, but they feel that by keeping the focus on "war" and national security that they will win.

Not everyone sees the terrorism threat as a "war" nor Bush as a war president in the same group with Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt etc. They see the term "war" in a more figurative sense.

The Republican and Democratic camps seem solid and there is only a small undecided group in the center. It could be a very close election - definitely very partisan. This forum is an example.

 

Re: 9/11 Photos

Kind of like the Democrats using tactics such as if you vote Republican another black church will be burned or another black will be dragged to his death (James Byrd, etc.).

Both sides use unscrupulous tactics and this is very sad. Whether we liked him or not, "Clean Gene" McCarthy always ran decent campaigns for the Presidency.

Well, I have my new courses to work on so I will not be commenting for a while. Bye for now to all my friends, allies, and nemeses.

Viva la Peshitta and Aramaic primacy!

 

The War on Terrorism

Has already generated more casualties than some "official" wars of our past history. The greatest threat to America is so many's failure to understand the threat to civilized society that is posed by these terrorists. They have almost unlimited funding and a small but highly dedicated group willing to do whatever it takes to meet their ends. Combine this with their very large group of sympathizers to hide amongst and the modern technology which allows 9 guys to take down a building and kill thousands and you have a very real threat to our way of life.

The vast majority of Americans have never travelled very far from their homes and lead a very insular way of life. Very few of them read the papers or watch the news. If the threat doesn't walk up and knock on their door they don't acknowledge it. The jobs issue is huge and takes great importence because it is the issue that ffects them personnelly. However, the terrorism issue has lived and grown for over 30 years. I actually watched the news when the Palestinian terrorist took the Israeli's hostage at the 1972 Olympics and it has only gotten worse.

I was not a fan of Bill Clinton, but to give him his due he bent over backwards in an attempt to settle the Palestinian issue. It may have been for selfish reasons but no president ever went to the lengths he did to come to agreement. He actually went too far because it gave the Palestinian's unreasonable expectations about what they could get from Israel. What were the results? A disillusioned Clinton (who blamed Artafat) and no peace. I bet that if he had to do it all over again he wouldn't have missed the opportunity to kill Osama years ago when he had it.

This is not just a Palestinian-Israeli issue. Dictators around the middle east have fanned these flames for years in an attempt to divert their populaces from their troubles at home. That is what Bill missed and what so many others looking in do as well. This problem is not going to go away on its own and it is finally time something is done to at least attack terrorism at its source. These people do not respect pacifism they exploit it.

Jimmy: You know this ain't so. You will be back very soon.

 

I think Bush is trying to appeal to emotion by invoking images of 9/11. Not surprisingly, this was also the time he enjoyed his greatest approval ratings.

I suppose he thinks that 9/11 and this "war" on terrorism are his greatest triumphs. Some of us think just the opposite.

I think it's in poor taste and smacks of manipulation. The idea that we are "winning" the war on terrorism is absolute nonsense.

As I read recently, every day that we are in Iraq is a great recruiting day for Al Queda.

 

Tom's remarks reminds me of a date and Tony Blair...

Tom's endemic cynicism reminds me of a date I had last weekend: a 37 year-old beauty, Mt Holyoke grad, CSU master's student - BUT a native of Leftist Boston (and now Boulder County, CO - another bastion of PC mindlessness). Bush, she said, has us in Iraq to benefit his crony's - financially.

I was stunned, just like Tom's words above stun me (i.e., with disbelief)!

Somehow third-rate burglaries like Watergate can bring down a presidency three decades ago - but not now? Today any political conspiracy is worth entertaining. But HOW DOES A CONSPIRACY SO IMMENSE find British PM Tony Blair enthalled by it?

In fact, years before 9/11, Blair believed that terrorism was the real security threat for developed nations of the world.

He addressed this subject 5 March 2004:

"The characterisation of the [security] threat [we face] is where the difference [between viewpoints] lies. Here is where I feel so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the new world in which we live.

"Everything about our world is changing.... This is true also of our security.

"The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world's security, what globalisation is to the world's economy.

"It was defined not by Iraq but by September 11th. September 11th did not create the threat Saddam posed.

"But it altered crucially the balance of risk as to whether to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it. . . .

"The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York.... [W]hat galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3000.

"But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it.

"The purpose was to cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it. . . .

"This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long.

***"Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at best naivete and at worst dereliction."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3536131.stm

Why are the "Blue" states like Tom's, my date's, and Senator Kerry's so naive if not derelict?***

Honest people confront the facts honestly instead of projecting fantasies (courtesy of Glenn Reynolds, 4 March 2004):

"If you were told on 9/21/2001 that by [today]:

+The Taliban have fallen;
+Iraq has fallen and has become a bastion of free press in the [uniformly censored] Islamic world;
+Libya had given up its WMD's;
+North Korea is in multi-lateral talks about WMD's;
+A majority of the leadership of Al Queda are dead or in custody;
+Pro-democracy rumblings are going on in Iran;
+Arafat is isolated;
+Many convictions of domestic sleepers or Al Queda members (Portland, NY etc...) and finally;
+NO SUCCESSFUL TERROR ATTACKS ON US SOIL;
+And all of this has cost less than 1000 dead American soldiers;

You'd be thinking 'not bad.'

Bush said in his Sept. 20th [2001] speech that even if the country forgets he will not. He was right."

Yet Tom writes, "The idea that we are 'winning' the war on terrorism is absolute nonsense?"

Come again???

--Orson
[***emphasis added***]

 

Re: Yes you can...

Chris, now that is something I can agree with. Taking the fight straight to the heart of the enemy, furthermore an enemy that has hidden behind cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent men, women, and children across the world using the Islamic religion as some sort of justification is exactly the right tactic. For this reason, and this reason alone, I admire George W. Bush.

I'm not sure that it compensates, however, for the No Child Left Behind Act, the strangulation of civil rights (which I am afraid will never be what they were in the past, even after the terror threat has been subdued), and the mismanagement of the economic issues, in particular the exchange rates and trade inequities with Asia.

If Kerry weren't a former military guy, and hadn't supported the Iraq war (even though he is dancing around that now to please the liberal no-nothings in the Democratic party that he needs to get elected), I'd probably say I'm definitely voting for Bush. But I'm not - I'm voting for Kerry because I think he will also take the fight straight to the heart of the enemy. He, in fact, has done it before - in person.

 

I am so sick of the liberal meia in this country it makes me want to puke. There is nothing in the images that is in poor taste. Is it a HARSH reminder of what happened? Yes, but we need a harsh reminder. Why wasn't it poor tase when Bush initially went to ground zero and gave his speech? His approval ratings were never higher! But now suddenlt it becomes poor tase! What a joke.

Americans are a very "right here, right now" society. We want things immediately and we tend to easily forget things that aren't immediately effecting us. I am deeply concerned that we will forget to the point where we think there is nothing to be afraid of anymore. Anyone that believe s for a second that the Muslim terrorsit problem is going to go away if we just "act a little nicer" is sadly mistaken. To a radical Muslim fundamentalist, we ARE Satan, as is Israel. That will NEVER go away.

 

THOSE BUSH COMMERCIALS

George Bush has been president of the United States for three and one-half years. During that time, what is the single most important event that happened, not just here, but anywhere in the world? Let's state it more strongly. What one event defines the first Bush term.

Now, we may have some egocentric whiners out there who believe that the IT jobs they lost to some call center in India is that defining moment. Right ... it's all about them. The correct answer, though, is the Islamic terrorist attack on New York and Washington DC.

George Bush is the 43rd President of the Untied States. Think back. Harder if you're a Democrat, I know ... but try to think back through your life experience and the history that you managed to learn in our government schools and tell me just how many presidents out of those 43 have had a defining moment like that which occurred on 9/11. I'm not the biggest dummy out there in terms of our history, and I can only think of one other similar defining moment in the last 100 years, and that would be December 7, 1941; the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 demanded an immediate and decisive response from the president, and both Franklin Roosevelt and George Bush showed that they were up to the task.

Now Bush runs an advertisement that features fleeting images of 9/11. A shot of an American Flag flying outside at the scene of the destruction in New York, and of some firefighters. As soon as these ads hit the television screens various Democrats and Kerry supporters across the country reacted with immediate outrage.

For today's study in political absurdity we will take a look at a letter that Frank Lautenberg, The Democrat Senator from New Jersey, sent to Bush:

Dear Mr. President:
As you may know, over 700 of my constituents died in the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. .... Using images [from] the horrific and tragic event for political ends demeans and dishonors those who died and the families who lost loved ones on that day. ... I urge you to direct your campaign to immediately withdraw these advertisements."

The president of the International Association of Fire Fighters also chimed in. Harold Schaitberger said that "I'm disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters in the September 11 attacks." Most of the newspapers and broadcast newscasts who carried Schaitberger's remarks failed to also state that Shaitberger endorsed John Kerry several months ago and is a constant fixture on the Kerry campaign trail, usually standing behind Kerry with a huge smile on his face.

If you live in a primary state undoubtedly you've seen those television ads featuring John Kerry carrying his M-16 through the Vietnamese jungles. As you know over 50,000 people died in Vietnam. So, where is the outrage over John Kerry exploiting a tragedy that cost 50,000 American lives for his political campaign? Oh! You say that Kerry actually served in Vietnam, and that's different. Well Bush served in the war on terror ... as Commander in Chief in fact ... and highlighting that service as part of a reelection campaign is entirely appropriate.

When do you think Frank Lautenberg is going to send a letter to John Kerry saying "As you know, over 3,500 of my constituents died in Vietnam. Using images from that horrific war for political ends demeans and dishonors those who died and the families who lost loved ones that day." Yeah ... hold your breath waiting for that one.

Isn't this just about as stupid as things get in a political campaign? The Democrats are trying to write a rather remarkable set of rules for this election season. They are doing so with the complete and almost unanimous support of the media. Thus far we have:

1. Inasmuch as John Kerry served in Vietnam, any negative reference to John Kerry's voting record during his 19 years in the Senate of the United States shall be deemed to be an attack on Kerry's patriotism.

2. Any images of Vietnam used in Kerry campaign commercials are not only appropriate, but serve as proof positive of John Kerry's fitness to serve the country as its president.

3. Any images of 9/11 used in Bush campaign commercials are not only inappropriate and exploitive, but shall also serve as proof positive that George Bush is unfit to serve the country as its president.

4. Any group of people who support the reelection of George Bush shall be deemed a "special interest." Any group of people who support the campaign of John Kerry shall be deemed a "constituency."

We will anxiously await the next entry into the media campaign stylebook .. and will certainly report same to you.

 

George Bush's defining moment had nothing to do with him. By chance, Al Qaeda struck when he was president. He "was up to the task" - in what sense? He stood up and said what a lot of people were feeling at the time, and it resonated. What else would he have done? Or anyone else for that matter? The country was reeling and he struck a cord, a cord that many wanted to hear at the time. Frankly, Mickey Mouse could have been president, and if he had gone down to ground zero and roused the "troops", we'd all be crowing about what a great leader he was.

Bush has not been up to the task. The task is a monumental undertaking that requires some vision about not just the year following 9/11, but the years, and decades, that follow. We are dumping billions down a sinkhole with no end in sight. Can Bush even articulate what the end might look like? If he can't (and he cannot), then he has no business sending men and women, and billions of tax dollars after a cause that he doesn't fully understand. We are not erasing terrorism; we are fueling it for the next few decades.

He ran like hell from Viet Nam, and so isn't it ironic that he doesn't think twice about risking the lives of this generation's men and women, something he apparently was not up to when it was his turn.

In a country where we fill our children's heads with the mantra "anyone can be president," it's truly pathetic that for two out of the last three presidencies we cannot even find a candidate outside of one truly uninspiring family.

I for one would be grateful if Bush could turn his attention to things that might truly make a difference. How about putting billions into decaying schools and the children that get dragged down with them. And maybe some billions into research to end our dependency on oil - maybe preserve some of the environment while were at it? Healthcare for everyone maybe?

Bush can't see those issues because he's never had to struggle for anything in his life. Everything, including the presidency, has been given to him. Unfortunately, he's not smart enough to realize that he's gotten this far by luck, not skill.

I can’t help thinking back to the National Memorial for 9/11. Bush said (I’m paraphrasing), “the terrorists started this war, and we will end it at our own choosing.” What a colossal joke. And of course the Repubs have since modified that outlook by admitting that this war will go on and on and on and on. Sadly, so too, will all the problems that really deserve his attention.

 

Re: Tom's remarks reminds me of a date and Tony Blair...

Orson, your view is shortsighted. By it’s very nature, terrorism is largely an unseen threat. To look back at seemingly positive events of the past two years and conclude that we are better off is naïve. It’s like you’re living in Flatland. You’re missing the other dimension. Look up, or under maybe. Can you also claim that the widespread hatred and distrust of Americans by Muslim fanatics has also subsided? How would you know? If I were a betting man, though, I would guess that if anything it has worsened. It’s not likely to be lessened in people merely because we’ve bombed the hell out of them, and killed thousands. Their own propaganda makes it worse of course, just as ours tries to convince us that we are doing an entirely noble thing. The truth must be somewhere in between.

No terrorist attacks since 9/11? Here, you mean, of course. Again shortsighted. They are happening all over Iraq, Israel, and elsewhere, much of it fueled by anti American sentiment. No terrorist attacks (here), is like airlines claiming no crashes and a good safety record. It’s great while it lasts, but it only takes one crash to turn that on its head, and make your safety record look very very bad.

And only 500 lives lost, or so. What a deal. Do you feel just so much safer and is the world so much more peaceful, that only 500 or so (American) lives seems like a pretty good deal? Not to me. Not by a long shot.

I think we probably agree that terrorism is a grave threat. It’s just that we differ on how to “attack” that problem. You think it’s getting better. I think it’s already worse. Call it cynicism. I call it looking beyond the end of my nose, and thinking about how it might feel to be someone else – somewhere else.

 

Re: Re: Tom's remarks reminds me of a date and Tony Blair...

Tom-

Good of you to reply. You should know that I have heard the same sentiments from sceptical friends. And scepticism is not unwarranted - so long as it's based on the facts, not fantasy.

I was, for example, asked how many lives we can risk in this war before we ought to reverse course. I replied roughly 3,000; that was the price of our invitation to this war. Yet I certainly agree that Bush's strategy could be wrong.

But you don't appear to be responsive to either the fact that Blair was behind a confrontational strategy well before Bush was, or that Al Qaida's attacks are increasingly against Iraqi's - not our soldiers - and this is not precipitating the embrace of Islamic radicalism. So how is this 'shortsighted?'

Nor is the case of Al-Aqsa Brigades, Hamas, and Hezbollah, Pale- terrorist attacks on Israel much of an indicator of US hatred: it was much worse in Israel when we played their placating "friends" (in the late 90s and pre-9/11) - funding the Pale's to the tune of two hundred million a year (and two billion from Europe). With "peace" like that, grim though it is, we needed real enemies and an honest war.

Thus, I can't agree "it's so short-sighted," when the opposite is clearly working in a way that patty-cake and rolling over for dictators (Kim Jong-il of N Korea, Gadhafi of Libya, and Syria) surely didn't. Instead we now know it promoted the spread of nukes to unstable and terrorist sponsoring regimes.

Finally, your sense of concern for the several hundred million peoples who have no free-media and live under the greatest oppression in the world today, is deafening in its silence.

Democratic federal judge, Don Walters, on a mission to advise Iraq's legal reforms last summer was not so unmoved. He went from opposing the war to supporting it because of humanitarian issues - matters roundly neglected by corrupt authorities in France, Germany, and Russia - alone. The Food for Peace program, by itself, was the biggest money-maker for the UN, siphoning off billions each year as the farce went on.

"Despite my initial opposition to the war," spoke Judge Walters, "I am now convinced, whether we find any weapons of mass destruction or prove Saddam sheltered and financed terrorists, absolutely, we should have overthrown the Baathists, indeed, we should have done it sooner.

"We cannot, I know, remake the world, nor do I believe we should. We cannot stamp out evil, I know. But this time we were morally right and our economic and strategic interests were involved. I submit that just because we can't do everything doesn't mean that we should do nothing. . . ."
http://globalspecops.com/view.html

That said, it doesn't mean it's not a crap-shoot. As Pramat Pal Chaudhuri wrote so presciently in the Hindustan Times last year, "Toppling Hussein pales in comparision to the [US] decision to modernize Islam. As [Condoleeza Rice' Deputy Secretary Stephen] Hadley said in a speech, 'This is an awesome responsibility. When future scholars look back on the history of the Middle East in the early part of the 21st century, I hope they don't ask 'what went wrong? but Why did it go right?' '"
("Why George Wants Saddam's Head," 27 February 2003.)

By 1999, a majority of earth's population lived under, at least, nominal democratic government - a first in world history. And as political scientist R. J. Rummel has demonstrated, democracies are more peaceful and less democidal than any alternative by several orders of magnitude.

Last year, Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis could say that within the lifespan of those currently alive, the world could witness and end of authoritarian rule everywhere - another unimagined victory for human rights, human well-being, and world peace. Yet somehow THIS is shortsighted?

Who here has abandoned the idealism of Democrat Woodrow Wilson? And who is, ironically, leading its fulfillment?

--Orson

PS I find your warning analogy to airline safety amusing - considering that it has long been the safest means of transport humanity has yet achieved - even several decades ago with crashes! The insinuation is the very definition of farsightedlessness. But realism says that, as in Kenya awhile ago, all we need is a coordinated surface-to-air Stinger attack on Jumbo jets in the US to close down our transport system and induce another recession. And many more less priviledged lives will then be prematurely lost in the process, since 20% of US GDP results from foreign trade: how else do poorer peoples afford medicine, heat, and food but through jobs?

 

Orson, you waste your breath..

The liberals of the world will always scream "why, why, why" Why are we over there doing this when we have troubles here. Why protect those people from murder and oppression? Why is it our business? Why are you testing these kids to ensure they are actually learning something? Why are you making these people on welfare work so they develop a culture of work rather than one of dependance? The doers of the world ask "why not". Why not get rid of evil? Why not educate our children? Why not ensure that welfare is a hand up and not a hand out? The liberals of the first part of the last centur were responsible for much of the good that happened to bring people out of poverty and into the middle class. Today thay are the voice of the unwilling and quite frankly the greatest protector of much of what is bad in the world. I really don't care if they think of me as an uncultured idiot because I am a conservative (on most things anyway) it is the doers whom will do what is necessay to make the world a better place.

Bush is not perfect and I have some serious beefs with some of his people and policies. But he is doing something. And that is something the world has needed for a long time. The terrorism issue has festered for decades and has gotten worse instead of better. In the Army it was always stressed that if you were under fire that it would literally be the death of you if you just didn't do something. Do something, don't just stand there and let them kill you!! Well Bush did something and as so abley pointed out above things are getting better. The terrorists ahowed that when they turned their attentions to their fellow Iraqi's. And terrorism expert will tell you that is the last tactic of a failing movement and is meant to alienate the populace. In this case it won't work because it will also alienate them from those whom they need to hide among. It won't work because, this toime, we are not going to turn tail and run.

I find it odd that when Blair was elected that the press said that he and Clinton would have a natural infinity for each other as they were both members of the liberal party trying to move it towards the middle. Now, we hear from insiders that Bill and Tony didn't get along. Clinton was too wishy washy for Tony. Instead who seems to have the close relationship? George (a conservative) and Tony (still the leader of the UK's more liberal party). And the left hates Blair for it! Good for him, Blair may be a lefty but he is a man who will stand up for his convictions and it will be leaders like that that will make the world a better place.

 

Re: Orson, you waste your breath..

Well said!

Like you, I also don't agree with every Bush policy that has been enacted. However, Bush is a man of action. Clinton was merely a man of words. Kerry wants to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem. This was Clinton's policy as well and you can see where that got us.