I have been swamped at work (for one solid week) with solving telecomm issues so my posting and commenting and mud-slinging at the looney left has been lax of late. But when I heard Rush talking about this yesterday, I knew I had to share it with all of you. It’s entitled “Was 9/11 really that bad?” and was published as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Time on Sunday.
The title, which is bad enough, does not even do justice to the vile nature of what this lefty loon is implying, namely that a desire to attack us is not the same as having the capacity to attack and hence, we have overreacted. Mr. Bell, being a professor of history and all, seems to conveniently forget many examples in history where a dedicated guerilla force, loaded, if not with great arms with patience, can wear down even the mightiest in a relatively short historical time. Vietnam anyone?
But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.
Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.
Of course, the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come. But then, we were hardly ignorant of these threats before, as a glance at just about any thriller from the 1990s will testify. And despite the even more nightmarish fantasies of the post-9/11 era (e.g. the TV show 24‘s nuclear attack on Los Angeles), Islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns and conventional explosives. A war it may be, but does it really deserve comparison to World War II and its 50 million dead? Not every adversary is an apocalyptic threat.
Mr. Bell, one victim of Islamic terrorism is one too many.
I can deduce that he applauds the (lack of) response to these terrorists that was exemplified during the Clinton/Albright/Berger years. ‘Don’t do anything and maybe they’ll go away.’ That’s the ticket. He conveniently fails to remind us that the nature of this enemy is vastly different from the Nazi or Soviet threats of the last century — transitory threats that were defeated as much by our will and force of arms as by their own weakness and stupidity. No, this enemy has God on its side, both human and divine fighting side-by-side to defeat the unbeliever. They’ve been doing it for fourteen centuries and I know they won’t stop until they succeed.
What will it take to convince these people of the great peril we face?
Idiot.
“Kicking the can down the road a little more” is not a viable foreign policy.
We are Rome all over again. If you study Roman history all you need to do is change the names, places and times but the same fate awaits us. It doesn’t HAVE to be that way but at the current pace of advancing ignorance washing over America we surely won’t last half as long as Rome. Rome had many experts, like this historian commenting on 9/11, who assured the people that all was well with the empire. Today everyone clearly sees that they we’re wrong but smugly feel that today’s soothsayers know it all. However, they are foolish know-it-alls.
George: “I can deduce that he applauds the (lack of) response to these terrorists that was exemplified during the Clinton/Albright/Berger years. ‘Don’t do anything and maybe they’ll go away.'”
Don’t believe everything in your inbox, George.
Lesly, thanks for the inbox comment. At least my inbox is free of messages from tin-foiled headed, granola-eating, crystal-wearing wacko leftys like you.
I lived through those years; I fumed at our inaction. Not one but a half-dozen acts of war committed against us. WTC 1, Khobar, two US embassies, the USS Cole, possibly TWA 800 (read Peter Lance’s Triple Cross), possibly Murrah. The Clinton/Albright/Berger team DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop Bin Laden, his surrogates and his organization. I’ve read way too many books on this conflict that confirm my deduction with evidence, not medication-induced delusions like you libs. The man who ran the Bin Laden desk at CIA during the Clinton years* — and he has roundly criticized Bush so I want to remove your knee-jerk response before you make it — has stated categorically that Bin Laden was positively identified and targeted at least 7 and possibly 10, times and Clinton did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Please spare us. I am so tired of you morons. It really is soul-deadening and tiresome dealing with you and your ilk.
Answering your question: read them the Quram?, remind them that Christian and Jews are second class citizens under their religion, and believers of other religions don’t even have the right to be second class?. No thing against muslims, but I prefer those who don’t practice their religion and drink beer.
George: Lesly, thanks for the inbox comment. At least my inbox is free of messages from tin-foiled headed, granola-eating, crystal-wearing wacko leftys like you.
It’s comforting to know your subjectivity hasn’t taken a plunge after the midterms. It really, honestly is.
George: Not one but a half-dozen acts of war committed against us. WTC 1, Khobar, two US embassies, the USS Cole, possibly TWA 800 (read Peter Lance’s Triple Cross), possibly Murrah. The Clinton/Albright/Berger team DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop Bin Laden, his surrogates and his organization.
That’s right, the Clinton administration did nothing except successfully prosecute and sustain life sentences for the perpetrators of the WTC 2 and, thanks to the administration’s adherence to legal protocol, a principle this administration eschews, their sentences were upheld on appeal.
As for Scheuer, I recall a post on this blog blaming Carter for N.K.’s nuke test. In the spirit of Babalu fairness, let’s go back a few years, shall we?
Spare you? Dear George, I have no intention of helping you out of the rhetorical double-standards you take refuge in. Anyone who commits himself to believing Republicans/conservatives have a monopoly on defense and Democrats/liberals have a monopoly on incompetence has every reason, and very real need, to continue deceiving himself.
I wrote: That’s right, the Clinton administration did nothing except successfully prosecute and sustain life sentences for the perpetrators of the WTC 2
That’s supposed to read “WTC 1”.
Let’s all respond to Lesly. I am tired of her and her idiotic rhetoric.
Want to know how the Clintons feel about terrorists? Who was their most frequent foreign guest? Yassar Arafat.
Damn George Lesly gave you such a brutal logic beatdown that you had to try and call on your friends to bail you out. What’s wrong, aren’t you man enough to back up your own statements?
Like Val said: “… you cannot make a statement like that and not be prepared to back it up with FACTS and DOCUMENTATION.”
Stan, if you read this blog on a regular basis you will know that I was very dissatisfied with the Reagan response to Islamic terrorism. It was not on the radar in the 80s as it is now, and it’s not an excuse. Nevertheless, I believed then, as I do now, that pre-emptive action against the criminal regimes in Tehran and Damascus would have solved many, many problems. Lesly, however, being the lazy liberal intellectual (an oxymoron?) did not address the main issue of my post: what did Clinton do besides give parking tickets to the terrorists that remained in the field? Why did he squander the many chances he had to kill — not arrest, not indict — Bin Laden. She didn’t address that because she can’t.
I am tired of dealing with Clinton apologists. I am the first one to criticize, as I have with in the past, Presidents I admire, but libs are unwilling to accept the cold hard realities of the eight wasted Clinto/Albright/Berger years where actions could have been taken that may have prevented 9/11.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Clinton was the Commander in Chief, and he did not accept his responsibility for our nations security as was his charge. That is the bottom line, he dropped the ball. Not that he tried and failed, as is his excuse, but like Yoda said, ” Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.”
Why hello, Ziva:
Want to know how the Clintons feel about terrorists? Who was their most frequent foreign guest? Yassar Arafat.
You probably forgot that when Arafat renounced terrorism in 1988 the U.S. ended non-negotiation with the PLO. To your credit, I doubt you could forget who occupied the White House in 1988.
You probably also forgot that Bush Jr. negotiated with Arafat. And finally, you certainly forgot that while Clinton invited Arafat a total of 24 times, Israel’s head of state changed 27 times during Clinton’s presidency. No Israeli prime minister could have had as many visits during Clinton’s two terms.
Having said all that, I hope this lesson in context makes an impression on you. If not, well, context distills wingnuttery with or without your admission.
Lesly,
Allow me to “school” you.
Spare us the one-sided bullcrap as you “inbox” to George. Even Snopes admits many of their sources are not verifiable. Your sources here are all bastions of truth (NOT) such as the New York times and Washington post. The Times especially is well known for false stories and biased reporting. Remember Herbert Matthews?
It is well known Clinton let Bin Laden get away -MULTIPLE TIMES. You cannot fight the terror war as a “police action”. The left is more concerned about protecting the rights of the terrorists than our security..Are we supposed to be impressed by the convictions of a few of the perpetrators? No matter what you say, even with all his perceived mistakes, Bush has at least AGGRESSIVELY killed and gone after those wishing us harm to the point of destroying us, as well as thwarting NUMEROUS attack attempts.