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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

It’s how we got 9/11, and multiculturalism!

Never forget? I don’t: http://www.fromthepen.com/issue253.html

We were attacked on 9/11/01. Suddenly it’s an entirely different story.

They lied.

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.

One of the few times I’ve ever heard someone (other than myself) say this!