BuffettNews.com

Pardon me for expressing these sentiments, but as we just passed the five year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, I feel angry and frustrated with an administration that has done little to make citizens in this country safe, that lied to the American public in order to pursue an unneccessary war in Iraq at enormous cost in lives and dollars, and has used the attacks of five years ago to pursue every pet project that the administration's neocons had sitting on the shelf since Bush I was voted out of office fourteen years ago.

The last few days have been difficult ones for me personally. As for how that imbecile in the Oval Office has dealt with the aftermath of those attacks in the last five years I'd like to say "thanks for nothing".

Five years after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, President Bush said Monday night the war against terrorism is “the calling of our generation” and urged Americans to put aside differences and fight to victory despite what he called “a difficult road ahead.”

“America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over,” Bush said. “The war is not over — and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious.”

Bush, in a prime-time address from the Oval Office, staunchly defended the war in Iraq even though he acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Uh . . . that wasn't what Bush and Cheney were saying four years ago. New intel? No. I think the administration just figured that outrageous lie had outlived its usefulness (unlike the over 2600 KIA service men and women who won't get that chance).

Bush said that Osama bin Laden, the reputed mastermind of the attack, and other terrorists are still in hiding. “Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you and we will bring you to justice.”

Yeah but first we have a few more countries to invade (oops I meant "liberate") before we get around to looking for Osama.

Bush said the war on terrorism was nothing less than “a struggle for civilization” and must be fought to the end. . . We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations,” the president said.

That would be worshipping at the altar of consumerism via mass consumption and ensuring access to all the oil we can eat (yes the food at your local grocery store is entirely dependent on cheap/accessible oil).

“The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict,” the president said. “It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation.”

Yes - an ideological struggle to establish an American Empire running on the world's remaining reserves of oil and gas (and the careless sacrifice of the lives of your sons and daughters).

Thanks George. It's been a long, strange and expensive ride but it looks like this train is finally pulling into the station. The only question on my mind is should we stop the train and let you off, or should we just slow down and push you out the back door of the caboose?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14788377/

Banana.

In times like these, I am reminded of a quote from Ho Chi Minh.

"You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it."

flyboy55 wrote:Pardon me for expressing these sentiments, but as we just passed the five year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, I feel angry and frustrated with an administration

~snip~

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14788377/

Hmm.... angry much?

Glad you're able to express your opinions, although IMHO your analysis is seriously flawed.

Truth is, it's all pretty simple. There are terrorists around the world (mostly Islamo-fascists) that want to destroy America. On 9/11/01 they took a pretty good shot at it.

Since that time, UNDER MR. BUSH'S LEADERSHIP, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil.

That's what it boils down to. Period.

We're killing the terrorists, and they're failing to kill us. Keep that up long enough and we win. Everything else is details.

Though I have pretty strong political feelings, I try to stay out of that stuff here because I see what the discussion becomes.

Simply said, my politics are in line with flyboys but just don't want to get into lengthy arguments with any of you about this stuff.

Nonetheless, I was pretty stunned at just how political the president's speech last night was. September 11th is a day to unite us, to remind us of what this was all about in the first place, and not a night for trying to justify the war in Iraq when even this administration now admits that Iraq had nothing to do with what occurred on September 11th.

krusin1 wrote:We're killing the terrorists, and they're failing to kill us.

Nice statement, if it was true... at least 2,974 Americans have been killed in Iraq since the war started... more than were killed in the 9/11 attacks...

I hate getting involved in these discussions, but to say "they're failing to kill us" is just misinformation.

SharkOnLand wrote:

krusin1 wrote:We're killing the terrorists, and they're failing to kill us.

Nice statement, if it was true... at least 2,974 Americans have been killed in Iraq since the war started... more than were killed in the 9/11 attacks...

I hate getting involved in these discussions, but to say "they're failing to kill us" is just misinformation.

and what the heck, we're also getting innocent Iraqi bystanders killed right and left by removing a strong (albeit sadistic, autocratic, authoritarian) regime in the name of "nation-building"... thank god the US is fudging the numbers as to whether someone killed by execution or car bomb are counted differently for the stats...

Well, I rather agree we're in a "struggle for civilization"...but George doesn't understand he's caused much of that struggle. He's turned a war against terrorism into a region-wide (and near-worldwide) religious war. He's toppled a soverign government and left a vacuum in its wake (Iraq), messed up the balance of power (Shia vs. Sunni), thrown aside democracy (Palestine) and human rights (Guantanamo, CIA prisons), blindly supported one country's excessive response (Israel in Lebanon), left the UN nearly powerless to deal with rogue nations (Iran) while doing almost nothing to enforce existing laws to manage our borders (immigration). And, he's made up a lot of his own rules along the way (courts are finally starting to challenge his plethora of signing statements).

It's very sad how the US is now seen so negatively and not trusted around the world...and we've done it to ourselves.... Many months ago I labeled George an "inept imperialist" and unfortunately, I've seen nothing to encourage my thinking otherwise. I fear Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld will be known as one of the most dangerous triumverates in history. I hope I'm wrong.

From a historically Republican-leaning, independent voter.

Why do they call it "anniversary" should not be called a day of Remembrance
Wordsmyth:
Anniversary
1. the yearly recurrence of a particular event such as a marriage
Wordsmyth:
Remembrance
1. the act or process of remembering

El mojito wrote:Why do they call it "anniversary" should not be called a day of Remembrance
Wordsmyth:
Anniversary
1. the yearly recurrence of a particular event such as a marriage
Wordsmyth:
Remembrance
1. the act or process of remembering

According to good old merriam webster:

anniversary
1 : the annual recurrence of a date marking a notable event

El mojito wrote:Why do they call it "anniversary" should not be called a day of Remembrance
Wordsmyth:
Anniversary
1. the yearly recurrence of a particular event such as a marriage
Wordsmyth:
Remembrance
1. the act or process of remembering

I have no problems with referring to it as an anniversary.

I have a problem with using it for partisan political purposes. For so many this is a painful, sacred day, and bringing the politics of Iraq into it is just inappropriate.

El mojito wrote:Why do they call it "anniversary" should not be called a day of Remembrance
Wordsmyth:
Anniversary
1. the yearly recurrence of a particular event such as a marriage
Wordsmyth:
Remembrance
1. the act or process of remembering

while we are there... Tragedy.... not so much

how about attack??

krusin1 wrote:Since that time, UNDER MR. BUSH'S LEADERSHIP, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil.

That is slightly flawed logic.

Other than the Oklahoma bombing and Pearl Harbor, how many "successful terrorist attacks" do you think there have been? Also, are you counting domestic groups or just foreign groups?

Since there have only been a couple "successful" attacks, that leaves a lot of Presidents that have shown great leadership by your standards.

land_shark3 wrote:

krusin1 wrote:Since that time, UNDER MR. BUSH'S LEADERSHIP, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil.

That is slightly flawed logic.

Other than the Oklahoma bombing and Pearl Harbor, how many "successful terrorist attacks" do you think there have been? Also, are you counting domestic groups or just foreign groups?

Since there have only been a couple "successful" attacks, that leaves a lot of Presidents that have shown great leadership by your standards.

and with that, Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore proudly take their places among the great American Presidents in Shrub's colouring book.

tho technically, attacks against military targets by another military are not terrorism. I would also say that attacks against uniformed members of the military are not really terrorism. (Guerilla warfare or terrorism all depends on who is writing the book when it is said and done. And the winners probably don't use pejorative terms to describe their actiions.)

land_shark3 wrote:

krusin1 wrote:Since that time, UNDER MR. BUSH'S LEADERSHIP, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil.

That is slightly flawed logic.

Other than the Oklahoma bombing and Pearl Harbor, how many "successful terrorist attacks" do you think there have been? Also, are you counting domestic groups or just foreign groups?

Since there have only been a couple "successful" attacks, that leaves a lot of Presidents that have shown great leadership by your standards.

World Trade Center '93 ring a bell?

Then there a few others throughout the nineties that weren't technically on American soil, but were definitely aimed at our interests (USS Cole, anyone?) And yes, the main focus is on Islamo-fascists. They seem to be the ones clamoring for all the attention currently.

Again, it's real simple - we kill the terrorists, or they kill us.

Terrorists are not amenable to reason or logic. They cannot be persuaded because they believe they have god on their side. If we leave them alone, they WON'T leave us alone - that's already been proven (9/11/01)

Are there a lot of terrorists in Iraq right now? Sure. And that's a GOOD thing. If they're over there, they are NOT over here - and OVER THERE is where we have the firepower to deal with them effectively.

If you're really doubting Mr. Bush's whole war on terror thing, I DARE YOU to follow these thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Suppose we leave Iraq before it's able to defend itself. Iran and LOTS of Islamic-fascists suddenly have a really nice place to hang out, train, develop nasty weapons and prepare to COME KILL US!

Suppose we just decide to leave the terrorists alone. They regroup and work undisturbed on better ways to COME KILL US!

We can go on and on if you like, but the bottom line (again) is that either we kill the terrorists or they come kill us.

The only workable long-term option is to make terrorism so expensive in blood and treasure, and so ineffective in accomplishing the desired ends, that people just stop trying it.

Mr. Bush and Co. have certainly made some mistakes along the way, but I'm not seeing anyone else with a workable solution...

(and PLEASE don't trot out the UN... we've yet to see them deal effectively with any kind of violent threat... if that's all you've got, just don't even bother.)

Have a nice day.

Quiet and Shy wrote:Well, I rather agree we're in a "struggle for civilization"...but George doesn't understand he's caused much of that struggle. He's turned a war against terrorism into a region-wide (and near-worldwide) religious war. He's toppled a soverign government and left a vacuum in its wake (Iraq), messed up the balance of power (Shia vs. Sunni), thrown aside democracy (Palestine) and human rights (Guantanamo, CIA prisons), blindly supported one country's excessive response (Israel in Lebanon), left the UN nearly powerless to deal with rogue nations (Iran) while doing almost nothing to enforce existing laws to manage our borders (immigration). And, he's made up a lot of his own rules along the way (courts are finally starting to challenge his plethora of signing statements).

It's very sad how the US is now seen so negatively and not trusted around the world...and we've done it to ourselves.... Many months ago I labeled George an "inept imperialist" and unfortunately, I've seen nothing to encourage my thinking otherwise. I fear Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld will be known as one of the most dangerous triumverates in history. I hope I'm wrong.

From a historically Republican-leaning, independent voter.

wQ&Ss

The biggest problem I had with it was that to me, he put politics into it. 9/11 is a day we should all be united, and to me at least, Bush put his partisan views into the speech.

jonesbeach10 wrote: The biggest problem I had with it was that to me, he put politics into it. 9/11 is a day we should all be united, and to me at least, Bush put his partisan views into the speech.

Yeah...that was sad...for the families and all affected, as well as for the additional divisiveness it's created.

krusin1 wrote:

land_shark3 wrote:

krusin1 wrote:Since that time, UNDER MR. BUSH'S LEADERSHIP, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil.

That is slightly flawed logic.

Other than the Oklahoma bombing and Pearl Harbor, how many "successful terrorist attacks" do you think there have been? Also, are you counting domestic groups or just foreign groups?

Since there have only been a couple "successful" attacks, that leaves a lot of Presidents that have shown great leadership by your standards.

World Trade Center '93 ring a bell?

Then there a few others throughout the nineties that weren't technically on American soil, but were definitely aimed at our interests (USS Cole, anyone?) And yes, the main focus is on Islamo-fascists. They seem to be the ones clamoring for all the attention currently.

Again, it's real simple - we kill the terrorists, or they kill us.

Terrorists are not amenable to reason or logic. They cannot be persuaded because they believe they have god on their side. If we leave them alone, they WON'T leave us alone - that's already been proven (9/11/01)

Are there a lot of terrorists in Iraq right now? Sure. And that's a GOOD thing. If they're over there, they are NOT over here - and OVER THERE is where we have the firepower to deal with them effectively.

If you're really doubting Mr. Bush's whole war on terror thing, I DARE YOU to follow these thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Suppose we leave Iraq before it's able to defend itself. Iran and LOTS of Islamic-fascists suddenly have a really nice place to hang out, train, develop nasty weapons and prepare to COME KILL US!

Suppose we just decide to leave the terrorists alone. They regroup and work undisturbed on better ways to COME KILL US!

We can go on and on if you like, but the bottom line (again) is that either we kill the terrorists or they come kill us.

The only workable long-term option is to make terrorism so expensive in blood and treasure, and so ineffective in accomplishing the desired ends, that people just stop trying it.

Mr. Bush and Co. have certainly made some mistakes along the way, but I'm not seeing anyone else with a workable solution...

(and PLEASE don't trot out the UN... we've yet to see them deal effectively with any kind of violent threat... if that's all you've got, just don't even bother.)

Have a nice day.

"The only workable long-term option is to make terrorism so expensive in blood and treasure, and so ineffective in accomplishing the desired ends, that people just stop trying it."

One jihadi with $50 worth of explosive takes out 3-4 US soldiers, requiring the expense of recruiting, training, and reequipping them. $50+ a bit of support to the family vs. what? $50k just for the infantrymen? repairing a tank whose tread has been blown off, or a Humvee crushed like a beercan is still a profit for the terrorist/irregular soldier.

So your logic fails.

On another related note, I don't see how we can pull out of Iraq now; we have to (try to) fix the mess we've made. But as we went in against the wishes of so many others (because there was no hard evidence), no one else will come running to help us out (with or without the UN). It'll be interesting to see what happens with Britain given Blair will be stepping down in the next year....

Disclaimer: I didn't see W's speech, I went down to Ground Zero when I left my office Monday night and didn't get home until about 10:00.

Just curious - does everyone disagree with the president's message that we're in a struggle for civilization or just the forum in which he chose to deliver the message? We're dealing with islamic fundamentalists who have absolutely no problem murdering innocent civilians, kidnapping people, usually civilians, and cutting their heads off while videotaping the beheading so it can be shown to the world, blowing up trains and buses, flying planes into buildings. They specifically target innocent civilians. They would be perfectly at home living back in the 7th century. They believe it's their duty to kill the infidels, I think that means all of us. The president of the islamic republic of Iran thinks Israel should be wiped off the map. And this is not something that began after the war Iraq, it's been going on much longer than that. If we're not in a struggle for civilization, just what would you call it?