I remember how angry I was on September 11, 2001.
When I realized we’d been attacked by Islamic terrorists, I wanted the U.S. to do something strong and quick like leveling all countries that were helping Osama bin Laden elude capture and hunting down and locking up people with even the remotest connection to Al-Qaeda until they started talking. I wanted to see heads rolling, literally.
My anger has abated after seven years, naturally, but I still think we should have responded much more aggressively.
I urge you to think about the consequences of and real meaning behind September 11, 2001. It was not a random event perpetrated by lone-nut type fanatics who hate America. It was and is a defining moment in Muslims’ desire to destroy our way of life. It was an affront to Western civilization, and we’ve got to fight it with everything we’ve got. Forget weak “surges” and sending our men and women to fight a rag-tag bunch of thugs. Bomb them out, smoke them out, hold public executions — whatever it takes.
(I received an advance copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization. I haven’t started reading it yet, but with section headers like, “Beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder,” “Knowing God yields science,” “How Christians elevated culture,” and “Islam v. Civilization,” I can’t wait to dive in. On the cover: “Warning: Contains Moses, Plato, Jesus, and Shakespeare. Contents May Be Offensive.” Too cool.)
Forget jets crashing into buildings. That’s not the worst. Remember global Islamic terrorism. Think about living under sharia. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be dead. That’s how strongly I feel about my freedom.
Victory over Islamic terrorism won’t take place in a desert battle zone but in our hearts and minds. We need a strong will and zero tolerance for weakness and apathy.
I have issues with George Walker Bush, but man, was I glad to have someone like him at the helm. Imagine a similar or worse terrorist attack under President Barack Hussein Obama. How do you think he’d handle it? The words appeasement and understanding and root causes come to mind. I shudder to think…
Update: I’ve got a pile of books ahead of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, but I started reading it after I published this post. I can’t put it down! An excerpt:
“Christianity. Judaism…Dead white males. Old-fashioned morality…The traditional family. Tradition itself.
“These are the betes noires of the elites. They are the pillars of political correctness. Together, they constitute that thing called Western civilization.
“Political correctness, at its heart, is the effort to dissolve the foundation on which American and European culture has been built. It has been a demolition project: undermine Western civilization in whatever way possible, and build a brave new world from the rubble.
“Multiculturalism has nothing to do with genuine love for natives of the Australian outback or the monks of Tibet. It is an effort to crowd out our own cultural traditions.”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 25 comments }
“I have issues with George Walker Bush, but man, was I glad to have someone like him at the helm. Imagine a similar or worse terrorist attack under President Barack Hussein Obama. How do you think he’d handle it? The words appeasement and understanding and root causes come to mind. I shudder to think…”
~Agreed. If Al Gore had been at the helm we’d have likely done very little in response and been even worse off today because of it. If some like BHO were in charge we’d have probably invited Bin Laden to the White House for conciliatory talks over an Islamic-approved meal.
The government has been given the power by God to wield the sword against evil doers, and when it doesn’t it hasn’t just failed its citizenry, it’s failed God. (Even if they don’t want to acknowledge Him.)
I NEED that book!
“If Obama had been at the helm…”
“If Al Gore had been at the helm…”
How true!
But remember also that we got to 9/11 because Clinton did nothing when al Quida attacked Americans several other times.
Looking objectively at the history makes me want Palin to not only come to Washington, but to bring her guns.
We need leaders like I expect McCain and Palin to be, who will go after America’s declared enemies and “kick butt and take names”.
Or–we could let al Quida come here, and maybe we could get them to sit down with us and we could try to understand where they’re coming from. (Anyway, would it really so bad if we became an Islamic nation, ruled by an ayatollah?)
LaShawn – you were glad to have someone like GWB at the helm on 9/11? Someone who reacted like a deer in headlights when told. I don’t think he should have bolted out like his derriere was on fire, but exactly what did he do? Why would anyone believe Obama would have reacted any differently – maintain composure, notify the nation, oh and let’s not forget the statement: “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” Hmmm, ok if Saddam was the haborer who has been brought to justice – what about the supposed mastermind – Usama bin Laden, has Bush gone after him with the same zeal as he did for Saddam’s crew? In my opinion, there is a clear distinction between the handling of the perpetrators of 9/11 and our involvement in Iraq.
Follow-up action is what’s more important, not how the man first reacted upon being told. He’d received some shocking news! Now, my problem with his follow-up: not aggressive enough. BHO’s follow-up, based on my impressions of his views on foreign policy, would be much weaker.
Regardless of what Clinton did or did not do – 9/11 didn’t happen during his presidency; The fact that Usama bin Laden is still at-large is not because of anything Obama has or has not done. I don’t see why Bush should be given any sembelance of a feather in his cap for his handling of 9/11 and decisions subsequent inconjunction with 9/11. The war on terror has been a complete and total mess. I don’t understand why anyone would see it differently. Oh, because there has been no further attacks on American soil. Wow! that proves nothing. How can we conclude that if a Gore, Kerry or Obama were in office that we would be worse off (as it relates to the “war on terror”) than we are today. That would be pure unsubstantiated conjecture.
3 & 4:
The same leftists who threatened/promised to move out if Bush was elected got all over him for following the procedure established if such an event should ever happen. [Aside: zipla, you've got an interesting mix of metaphors: Did he bolt or stand transfixed?]
We need our President, and there are procedures in place to keep him/her safe in an attack, and separated physically from the VP. (What if LBJ had been in the car with JFK that day in Dallas?)
Add to that 2 factors:
1. Nobody knew what was happening, who was doing it, how much more (if any) was to come. Therefore it was wise to put the President in a bunker in the center of the country AND to shut down all air traffic.
2. The POTUS is at ALL times in COMPLETE communication with all our nation’s security operations. He was not “out of the loop” at 9/11 (both he and Mrs. Bush were informed immediately and moved out, even though away from all federal installations). (BTW, he was not “out of the office” during Katrina; he could not have been better informed or more in command had he been in the White House or at the Superdome.)
Action clearly was taken pretty much immediately upon recognition that this was more than a plane crash. Who do you think commanded that action? Only the President had the authority to do so, and did.
And once the threats were properly assessed, the President returned to Washington, and spoke to the American people, calming us and reassuring us that the situation was under control.
Sorry, but where’s your problem with this? (Oh, I see–Bush is not a liberal Democrat, that’s what, by definition, make him such a scared idiot.)
BTW, I know exactly what Jimmy Carter would have done: hemmed and hawed, and wrung his hands, just like he did when 6 Americans were captive of the Iranian radicals.
“Usama bin Laden, has Bush gone after him with the same zeal as he did for Saddam’s crew?”
Simple answer is, ‘Yes!” It boggles the mind how people seem to think that just because we got Saddam and not Bin Laden, that it is somehow indicative of how hard we’re looking. It further confuses me how the “zeal” of the President has any bearing on the performance of the individuals on the ground over there as they operate under various situations.
Saddam was trapped within a nation that we had taken significant control over. We had enough cooperation with the locals to get tipped off where he was. All it took was going to get him. You think we would have simply stumbled over him without someone giving him up? That’s a pipe dream.
Osama, on the other hand, managed a narrow escape through treacherous terrain that we were still fighting to control. Sympathetic neighbors across the border in Pakistan, a politically unstable nuclear power, makes Osama’s position a little safer than Saddam’s. And given the tendency of GWB’s opponents to smear the man as power hungry and self-serving, it doesn’t make sense that he would let go the chance at becoming a national hero by going on TV to announce the death or capture of Bin Laden under his leadership.
This partisan idea of a “dropped ball” in Afghanistan in favor of the “distraction” of Iraq manages to simultaneously belittle the nation’s ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, and completely ignore military and political realities.
Dooz, my problem is not with Bush’s [immediate] reaction when he was told of the event – my problem is with Bush & his administration’s subsequent handling of the “prepetrators” and the war on terror. Usama bin Laden IS still at-large isn’t he? We have been in Iraq and in a “war on terror” for 6 years – and I personally don’t see it as a successful campaign. I know most Republicans probably do because you have to hold the company line. Yeah, right if we had a “leftist” POTUS – we would be dealing with further attacks on American soil, and the terrorist cells that actually live here would be more prominent, we all would actually be worse off?
And now, we all are supposed to believe that we would be better off with McCain – the Amnesty King.
Public executions? … really?
I agreed with all your post except that. I want to read that book too.
mussolini, hitler, and tojo were not captured by us, but we still won the war. obl has not been captured but is he free? he’s been reduced to sending out video tapes recorded in (presumably) the caves in which he hides out.
some may disagree about our invasion of iraq but what say you about BHO saying he’d invade pakistan, our ally? (august ‘07)
Seven years ago, there was a brutal dictatorial regime in both Afghanistan (in that case an Islamic extremist one) and Iraq that were producing, supplying and harboring terrorists. These people declared it a victory when thousands of our fellow citizens were killed. They were emboldened by the years of complacency that had come before, and felt empowered by their success. They promised more.
Today, there are two Constitutional democratic republics in the heart of the Middle East, threatening its neighbors not with military force but with ideals that could shatter their regimes from the inside. There are thousands of dead terrorists, thousands of capture terrorists, and thousands more that have been shown the heart of such militancy, having lost loved ones to indiscriminant terrorist violence. And the greatest collection of diplomats in the world, the American military, has transformed hearts and minds with every handshake, every piece of dispensed candy, every donated soccer ball, every rebuilt school or hospital.
Today, the terrorists are a demoralized and desperate group, hiding in the wilderness without a “home,” without the support of the people they once enjoyed, without prospects now that the world is on notice, and without hope so long as we are on the offensive.
Has the War on Terror been a success? Heck yeah.
I don’t know if OBL is “free” but what I do know is GWB said there is no distinction between the terrorists and those that harbor them. So if our “ally” is harboring terrorists the terrorists that some say committed the single worse act of terrorism on us then based on GWB’s statement – yeah, we must invade our ally if they won’t hand the terrorists over. So BHO’s statement about invading is keeping with GWB’s statement.
GWB is better than the alternative at the time – Al Gore? Shudder! But I sure wish we had a stronger president these past years. We hit hard but not hard enough.
We hit hard but not hard enough.
One of the few times I’ve ever heard someone (other than myself) say this!
“Christianity. Judaism…Dead white males. Old-fashioned morality…The traditional family. Tradition itself.”
This might be too off topic from the rest of the thread, but it got me thinking, especially the part about traditional family. As a single middle-aged woman, how do you see yourself as part of the traditional family dynamic, Ms. Barber? I don’t say that as an attack at all. I admire singles, and probably will remain one for my entire life, and I’m trying to figure out how to live out that life in a healthy and happy way when most of our culture’s models for happiness revolve around marriage and children. I’m just wondering if you ever have (or intend to) write about singleness in the context of the traditional family and Christian living.
And yeah, I’ll probably pick up that book too.
The thing that struck me hardest about 9/11 was the hypocrisy of my generation. For more than thirty years I kept hearing from the left that they opposed the war in Vietnam because it was a “civil war” and we had no business getting involved. They SWORE they would defend this country if we were actually attacked.
We were attacked on 9/11/01. Suddenly it’s an entirely different story.
They lied.
IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION!!!!
It’s how we got 9/11, and multiculturalism!
Never forget? I don’t: http://www.fromthepen.com/issue253.html
The war on terror has been a complete and total mess. I don’t understand why anyone would see it differently. Oh, because there has been no further attacks on American soil. Wow! that proves nothing.
al Qaeda has a 100% failure rate in launching attacks on US soil since 9/11 and that is proof that things are a mess? Wow! Talk about terminal cognitive dissonance!
What other pearls of wisdom will zipla drop next? Hitler actually won WWII because the Third Reich collapsed? The world is flat because scientists say it is round? Buffalo is a 4-time Super Bowl champ? 2 + 2 = 5? The mind boggles!
I was going to reply to zipla (#8), but after some of the other replies (my favorite is #18), I’m not sure I have anything to add. And for that matter, I’m not at all sure you’d listen. I mean, the facts are out there, and you’ve demonstrated a determination to hold to your beliefs even though it requires some very “creative” logic and downright denial.
Obama is saying dumb things, refusing to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance to the nation he aspires to lead, giving an entry-level worker’s response to a question he can’t or won’t answer (”It’s above my pay grade.”); Biden is showing that he can talk but can’t do it without totally being stupid; and zipla is parroting the leftist/”liberal” mantra undaunted by facts. If this doesn’t show us what our choices are this November, I can’t imagine what it will take.
Your logic in #5, that Clinton wasn’t President when 9/11 happened is representative. Somehow his eight years of failing to deal with the attacks on Americans by al Quaida doesn’t count because he was already out of office when the final attack came. Somehow, it’s not his fault that al Quaida went unchallenged while he raided a religious group within the US and shipped a little boy back to a Communist totalitarian future to placate a two-bit dictator–and messed around with an intern in the Oval Office.
And yet you believe him when he tells you that Bush is a terrible President!
And you believe that this Daley machine hack is our hope for change.
BTW, for the record, your rebuttal in #8 changes your original argument in #3, wherein you appeal directly to Bush’s initial action as evidence of his ineptitude. When I challenge you on that, you simply change the subject!
I warn you, zipla, don’t ever start thinking for yourself or being logical, or you’ll find yourself being a (gasp!!) conservative Republican.
If a ANY Democrat had been President under the same 9/11 attack, and had intercepted and prevented all future attacks, I have no doubt that zipla would be singing their praises. A classic case of bending every fact to fit an agenda, and disregarding those facts that can’t be bent.
zipla’s comments can be distilled into one sentence. “What I believe if fact, what you believe is conjecture.”
I wish these people could step outside their small locked viewpoint and see what their arguement looks like from the outside. THEY think they have it all down cold, but they just look small and angry.
Daudi, Is It a Fact that alQueda has had a 100% failure rate in launching attacks on US soil since 9/11? Are you sure after 9/11 it was in their plan to re-attack US soil?
Why are you so pleased with the “war on terror”?
Let’s weigh out the costs of and the accomplishments of –
Dooz,
Fortunate for me I actually do think for myself. Your logic is steeped in keeping the “company (GOP” line. Denial – denial is why are we STILL in Iraq. Why are you ranting about Obama & Clinton (in post #19) all of what you said is so irrelevant to the conversation. The conversation is about why LaShawn (and others) expressed gladness that GWB was at the helm after the 9/11 attack. Everything I have had to say was because I (and many others) feel he has been extremely incompetent in his handling of the perpetrators of 9/11.
CorbinKale,
Is it not be conjecture to say if Obama was President after 9/11 . . . if Obama becomes President the further handling of the “war on terror” will result in . . .
Is it not fact that GWB said: “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” Has his administration kept that promise?
BTW, I haven’t supported Obama (or the Democrats) here or anywhere else. I have been critical of the handling of the perpetrators of 9/11, that’s it that’s all.
“Is It a Fact that alQueda has had a 100% failure rate in launching attacks on US soil since 9/11? Are you sure after 9/11 it was in their plan to re-attack US soil?”
Because, a) they’ve said so and b) they’ve tried.
“Why are you so pleased with the “war on terror”?”
Read 11.
“Is it not fact that GWB said: “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” Has his administration kept that promise?”
You seem to be using a very broad definition of harbor. The terrorists in Pakistan aren’t there under the auspices of the government. In fact, the areas of Pakistan in which the terrorists are active have been nearly autonomous areas where the Pakistani government has no control and little influence. And because of the political situation in that country, a heavy-handed Pakistani policy in that area could inflame a volatile segment of the population.
Further, the Bush doctrine, a collection of about 16 paragraphs from the State of the Union address, doesn’t even suggest a purely military tactic against terrorists. It includes financial sanctions, police actions and cooperation with allies. Why emphasize the lack of military action against terrorists in Pakistan when that would violate the cooperation portion of the Bush doctrine?
Your suggestion that Bush should have ignored the realities of going into Pakistan (particularly under Musharef) in order to stay true to a dogmatic reading of one aspect of the Bush doctrine is either a cynical no-win criticism, or a the result of your own ignorance about the Bush Doctrine, the War on Terror and global politics.
Oh… and the perpetrators of 9/11 are dead. They died on impact. We’re going after Al Qaeda now, which is the just the operational name for the loose group to which the perpetrators belonged. The purpose isn’t ONLY to bring them to justice (or send them to meet God’s justice), but to prevent them from doing what they want to do. In that regard, the War on Terror has been highly successful.
#21: Thank you, zipla, you’ve proven my assertion for me. You say, “Fortunate for me I actually do think for myself.” And then in the same paragraph, you say, “Everything I have had to say was because I (and many others) feel he has been extremely incompetent in his handling of the perpetrators of 9/11.”
Come on! Do you think or do you “feel”? Is this thought or emotion? Or do you not know the difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4&feature=related
There was an attack on the world trade center during Bill Clinton’s administration. We did not connect the dots. There was an attack on the Cole and we did not connect the dots. And so on.
Then by tuesday afternooon, sept 11, 2001 we all realized that we had a problem on our hands.
George Bush’s reaction was to take a strategic view, to take out not only the low level operatives but the systems that enabled them. Obviously thats why we now have an army between Iran and Saudi Arabia which are the regions prime exporters of terrorism and oil. My guess is it was a choice between Iran and Iraq, Saudi Arabia being politically harder to pull off.
My views is that some very good people have taken on some very hard burdens, so that the rest of us can sleep the sleep of the pure. That no doubt includes Dimmicrats and Rethuglican’s alike.
Comments on this entry are closed.