Bush speech/”Path to 9/11″ open thread Update: Bush video added
posted at 8:34 pm on September 11, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Go ahead and have at it. I’ll add video of the president’s speech here later, and possibly a very short snippet of Pt9/11’s dramatization of the attacks.
Update: Here’s something to help the discussion along.
Update (Ian): Michelle posted the President’s full address.
Update: The speech was awful. It’s the thousandth iteration of the same old crap and never has it rung less true. Even he didn’t look like he believed it. If you can’t rise to the occasion on 9/11, when can you?
I’d have skipped clipping it entirely if the boss hadn’t promised her readers video. But she did, so here’s 2:15 worth salvaging. Bush praises the troops, futilely and pathetically tries to appeal to Democrats by invoking FDR and Harry Truman, and asserts that Americans on 9/11 were “united in prayer.” I’ll take his word for that; I was two blocks north of the towers when the attack began, and by the end of the day, godly thoughts were the furthest thing from my mind.
You want to watch a speech? Watch this.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
From the other Path thread-fest :)
yo, she is a woman, she’s just not bright!
Entelechy on September 11, 2006 at 10:35 PM
Well, she ain’t all-bright (*rimshot*), I’ll give ya’ that; but, I’ll argue the gender issue all day.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 10:38 PM
No, the person (or that percentage of) is/are devoid of a brain.
Niko, you are a funny person. I loved your ‘dialog’ with me, and that you were glad ‘I asked’ – this site is sometimes too funny :)
On a serious note, I agree with you – I’m happy it’s her and not the Scheisshund she replaced. Schroeder used to address his party gatherings with “dear comrades”, in German of course…no tears after him.
I also agree with you, that such a DB would send the NYT, ACLU and CAIR into ‘explosion’.
Entelechy on September 11, 2006 at 10:47 PM
I do have to give it to ABC on this ammonium nitrate investigation. They’ve exposed a big hole in our security that needs to be filled. Aside from Al Qaeda, any glorified columbine kid could do something with this stuff.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 10:50 PM
Well, Merkel also uses the “Liebe Genossen / Dear Comrades” introduction on occasion. She’s much like Mssr Chirac, socialist at heart, conservative by label. And remember that it was her, not the Scheisshund, who grew up in socialist East Germany. I really wonder why so many pundits outside Germany had hoped that under Merkel rule Germany could become an ally to the US much like Britain or Australia.
Niko on September 11, 2006 at 10:55 PM
Then we only have to focus on worrying about 27.6% of potential attackers on our soil? Well, not all are potential terrorists, I should be optimistic…
AP, I agree with you, namely that the Sept. 2001 speech was the best the Pres. ever delivered. I had just arrived in Cabo san Lucas that day, the first, and almost empty flight, after 9/11 (I had booked long ahead of that fateful day), and was hooked on CNN for that speech. I remember it vividly.
However, I agree with others who’ve seen him today – he was really gracious and liberal with his time, as he should have been. It wasn’t for show either. He is an emotional man and it hasn’t been easy. I know few who could sustain emotionally and physically what he has in the last 5 years. I’m always happy he has his Laura. She’s his pillar of strength.
Again, you’re right – but then I don’t expect him to be eloquent. So long as he doesn’t lose his cojones, I’ll cut him slack on communication.
Entelechy on September 11, 2006 at 11:00 PM
Well, still waiting for the second part to come on out here. As for the speech, can’t say that it’s not what we’ve heard before, but I have to wonder how many people tuned in or muted the speech, got some snacks, hit the latrine or put their kids to sleep. I know that while it wasn’t his best speech, it was an important speech and that it wasn’t muted. As others have said, he had an emotional day and yesterday for that matter. He is not given the credit that Bubba was given for “feeling people’s pain”. I think he truly feels every loss of that day still, every loss in the military and what we lost as a country 5 years ago. On a brighter note-I got to see my husband on television today at the 9/11 ceremony in Baghdad with the Iraqi PM & Ambassador. I wwas happy to have seen him since I hadn’t heard from him in almost a week.
Catie96706 on September 11, 2006 at 11:12 PM
The speech was terrible, but I’m long past expecting better. Even his 9/20/01 speech wasn’t that great. Pretty good, but overrated.
Alex K on September 11, 2006 at 11:33 PM
On that note, a bit of levity… some mocking (sadly from a rabidly anti-Bush site) of a bunch of Bushisms, with audio.
There are multiple pages, this is starting with the pre-2002 stuff. “You’re workin’ hard to put food on your family” and “At this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly outta Ronald Reagan Airport.” are a couple of my favs. But I don’t think he’ll ever top this comment in 2004:
Check out the audio on dozens of Bushism if you need a chuckle.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 11:40 PM
I thought the movie was very compelling…as for Bush…I just can’t believe anything he says while he allows the borders to remain WIDE OPEN!!! Justr defies explanation!!!
Mellen on September 11, 2006 at 11:45 PM
I just have to say that after seeing the 9/11 footage over and over all day, it’s felt really odd living right under a flight path. I hear a lot of planes take off and land, some much louder than others, some where the engines sound insanely loud for some reason. The last 3 or 4 have made me pause until they landed or were out of my hearing distance. It’s hard to describe, but when you’re used to a particular sound and there is something different every once and a while, you can’t help but take note. And as obnoxiously loud as it is, I’m thankful to hear the Vermont Air National Guard taking off on training missions at least a few times a week (that I notice). Those f-16s seem to shake my walls, and take off one after another (usually 3 or 4 total I think), and as horribly loud as it is, it’s comforting in a way.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 11:56 PM
I thought the Presidents speech was pretty good. He again hit on the points that many Americans seem to forget withing a week, I liked him making the point about how thousands of Americans have died in a single battle because I run across too many liberal soldier body counters [they have no clue about how many terrorists are dead today], and Bush was Presidential. I missed that back in the 90’s.
Too many things bothered me in tonights 9/11 movie. I’ll need to rewatch it to figure out which parts didn’t ring true vs. which parts were blatant falsehoods. Clark’s meeting with Condie [You will head up the internet task force] has me wondering if anything like that actually occured.
DannoJyd on September 12, 2006 at 12:09 AM
Labwrs, I watched United 93 for the first time after watching part 1 of Path. I was astonished at how the film treated the situation, and at the filmmaking. I have to admit that 9/11 has not affected me as deeply as it has most people. Partially that is due to being so removed from it (I am a west-coaster). U93 hit me pretty hard, seeing people fighting back, knowing that it would probably cost them their lives (they thought the bomb was real). There was also a scene in one of the air traffic control rooms when they first saw the news of a plane hitting the tower. The silence was incredible. I discovered that I had been holding my breath.
United 93 is definitely worth watching.
Never forget.
theholyhermit on September 12, 2006 at 12:28 AM
Dude… seriously? You think dropping 85 nukes on Saudi Arabia would be smart? Are you on crack? I agree with the whole “strong horse” idea… “peace through strength”, etc., but you are deep into bigot territory with that one. I know everyone’s emotionally charged after seeing all this on TV, but think about how you sound before posting.
I sort of enjoy having a country to live in, and gas for my car, and electricity and other things (like not going to hell), so I’ll have to go with an emphatic “no” on the nukes. The idea here is to create reform so that people don’t want to be terrorists, thus rendering them statistically insignificant, not committing enough genocide that they are statistically insignificant.
DaveS on September 12, 2006 at 1:15 AM
I could have sworn I saw Richard Clarke with a red swingline stapler
bbz123 on September 12, 2006 at 1:29 AM
RW, maybe he was trolling in Mr. Clinton’s mind…
labwrs, I saw “United 93″ in the theater a while ago and was enraged, with fists closed, for the totality of it. If one of those bastards or anyone related to them would have crossed me phisically, I would have ripped them apart.
“Path to 9/11″ has the same effect on me, btw. I get insane just seeing the enemy and the squaller they come from. Instead of using their energy/efforts to educate and work, they focus on killing. That’s the only hope we have of overtaking them and especially their ideology. But then the remaining ones will still be uneducated and will live in the same squaller. We need to address this war from many different angles.
Entelechy on September 12, 2006 at 1:32 AM
Wasn’t there a scene where there was a chart with pictures of Arab men and lines drawn. I thought there was such a chart involved in the Able Danger situation. I guess I’m wrong if no one else noticed it.
Rose on September 12, 2006 at 2:24 AM
Dave, this is perilously close to “root causes”. Don’t go wobbly.
I think we have to fight them dirtier than they fight us. No, it isn’t our usual style. We’d rather not. But we don’t have many options. It’s kill or die.
Labwr may have been engaging in a little hyperbole, but he’s got the right instincts, I think. Whether we like it or not, we have to understand the culture of the enemy. And power USED is power respected and feared in the Arab world. Restraint and civility are not effective tactics. We appreciate it. They do not.
This is not racism or zenophobia. You might even call it “multiculturalism” i.e., actually taking the time to really understand a different culture. We can’t afford to imagine they think or operate like us. They do not. It is, in fact, “Eurocentrism” to assume they do–to assume that all people think as we do.
This is not the dehumanizing of the enemy that is common in wars, but rather understanding that humans are not all alike. Centuries of radically different cultural practices and worldviews create an almost impassable abyss between us. If we do not learn to understand them, what they fear, what they respect, and what would make it more painful for them to continue than to stop, and determine to do WHAT WE MUST…we may soon be buying prayer rugs.
the-gunslinger on September 12, 2006 at 2:34 AM
Gunslinger got the dealio.We gotta whomp them in a way that will keep them from thinking that they can keep trying to get us.
bbz123 on September 12, 2006 at 3:02 AM
I have to disagree with those who weren’t impressed by Dubya’s speech. Yes there was a lot of repetition, but I think it was a pretty good all around speech with what I think is probably “new” points to a lot of people. Keep in mind that what we all watch fairly regularly on cable news, hasn’t been seen by the normal network TV viewer who might be watching the ABC program. I think the historical references were powerful, but I think could have been done a little better. But all and all, I do think it was important for the average viewer who doesn’t see all the afternoon speeches us blogger types see.
RightWinged on September 12, 2006 at 3:19 AM
I, for once, didn’t really know what to say on my own blog today (while I had no problem responding to specific topics here at HA), I eventually posted an off the cuff sort of rant.
Admittedly the post is sort of scattered and not that well put together, but the more I think about it, I think my closing point is very important, and worth passing along to a larger audience:
RightWinged on September 12, 2006 at 3:33 AM
Whoa! I hadn’t heard this guy before I guess…. or maybe it’s just the Steel Reserve hindering my memory… but I’m catching the re-airring of Hannity & Colmes at the moment and they have on a guy who was approx. 6 floors above where the plane struck in the south tower. He felt, for 10 seconds, the building sway way out towards the Hudson. I guess Bush and the Illuminati/Free Masons brainwashed this guy to think that the planes had that large of an impact.
RightWinged on September 12, 2006 at 4:17 AM
I am so tired of the lame phrase ‘war on terror’. It is a war against Islam, not a generic term of terror. Terror is not a person or a nation……….we will never win until we define our war right. And they are liars when they say we have not been attacked by terroists since 9/11. There have been a number of attacks. Muslims are constantly attacking us with cars, suvs, guns etc.
LZVandy on September 12, 2006 at 6:37 AM
I call it the “Islamic War”. Clarity in language helps claity in thinking. For those who worry that “we aren’t at war with all Islam” (a sentiment I am not sure I agree with), we weren’t at war with ALL Vietnamese either, but we still called it the Viet Nam War.
the-gunslinger on September 12, 2006 at 9:43 AM
so true. it should be called the “war on islamic fascism.” I’m also really tired of the phrase “bring them to justice.” what the hell does that mean?????
pullingmyhairout on September 12, 2006 at 9:45 AM
LZ, agreed that the “war on terror” isn’t terribly accurate, and your points to such are valid. Having said that, calling this a war against Islam doesn’t hold the same validity.
While I’ve got my own opinions on Islam as being a dynastic and repressive ideology – and you may end up being right – but to call this a war against Islam right now is, at its root, bad PR and ethically short-sighted.
War on terror is an easily digestable term that the average person can get their heads around. To call this what it is, “War against islamic extremism” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue, and confuses people (deomcrats, mostly) – and may tend to overlook the fact that while most (if not all) terrorists are muslim, not all muslims are terrorists.
If the West has any advantage, it’s that we can and should appreciate the distinction.
I think we’re at the point where profiling muslim air travelers is a sad necessity, but I hope we’re not at the point where we start nuking Mecca or declaring all out war against a religion (unless, of course, it’s scientology).
If I’m wrong, I’ll buy you a beer.
yo on September 12, 2006 at 9:57 AM
That maybe true but millions of people were in prayer that day. Even some of us who aren’t exactly “prayerful” people. At that point in my life I was one of those people.
One Angry Christian on September 12, 2006 at 10:48 AM
the-gunslinger on September 12, 2006 at 11:04 AM
Sorry, forgot the end quote…I wrote all the stuff in the second gray box. duh. just getting used to the format.
the-gunslinger on September 12, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Gunslinger,
I personally don’t disagree with your statements on the tenets of islam and the like, however, I don’t think we’re at the point where we can, and/or should villinize 1.2 billion people.
To do so would make us as guilty as the muslims who state that everyone in the West is evil.
Yes, political correctness is clouding the cause, and we need to identify the enemy. I think stating this as a war against islamic extremism does that.
I’m not sure if the world is big enough for muslims and non-mulsims, to be quite honest, but that is still opinion, not fact.
Of course, but you could say the same about Fred Phelps.
Just because a handful of Christians are complete dickwads doesn’t mean that they all are.
yo on September 12, 2006 at 11:59 AM
You must first defeat the enemy before you can create reform. But until the enemy is thoroughly defeated, worrying about reform is putting the cart before the horse.
We can debate about the military tactics necessary to defeat the enemy, but there really is no debate about the ordering of defeat then reform, for the latter will never occur without the former occurring first, and in a very decisive fashion.
thirteen28 on September 12, 2006 at 12:28 PM
But most Christians won’t touch Fred Phelps with a 10-foot pole, and most will be very outspoken in their condemnation of him and his perversion of their shared religion.
I’m still waiting for the supposed moderate muslims of the world to do the same with regard to the terrorists who commit their acts in the name of their common religion. But most of what I hear is silence.
thirteen28 on September 12, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Will be, but have any spoken out?
I’m not defending islam, per se, or even muslims, but I am defending the fact that we’re better than the enemy. And, until, collectively, all muslims come out against the West, we need to stay better than the enemy.
yo on September 12, 2006 at 12:55 PM
That’s the difference between you and I. I don’t give a flying fornication whether we appear to be better than the enemy or not (I need no reaffirmation). All I care about in this war is winning.
thirteen28 on September 12, 2006 at 1:24 PM
Of course we don’t need affirmation, but the rest of the world does need to be reminded that the Americans still stand for everything that stirs jealousy in pretty much anyone who isn’t an American.
We shouldn’t be pussies about it, but we don’t need to be dicks, either – and certainly not assholes (all hail Trey and Matt).
yo on September 12, 2006 at 2:00 PM
Given the choice of the 3, I’d prefer to be dicks. But either way, I don’t care how we are perceived, and worrying about such a thing amounts to prioritizing our own vanity over the one thing that matters in this war to the exclusion of all else – winning.
As soon as you put any conditions on winning (e.g., not being a dick about it), you’ve subordinated it to other priorities. I couldn’t possibly care any less about reminding the world of what we stand for or any other fluff.
thirteen28 on September 12, 2006 at 2:27 PM
I’m afraid when Bush starts mouthing the same old, same old, I start hearing Charlie Brown’s teacher–waaa, waaa, WHAAA, waaa, waaa.
And are pussies, dicks and assholes the only options? I think the only policy that has a chance is one that combines toughness and thoughtfulness. Too much of either renders us ineffective. I get a kick out the bravado posture–we are the biggest, meanest, toughest and we’ll blow up anyone who doesn’t agree with us. Well first, we certainly aren’t proving that point in Iraq, and second, the idea that it is our best interest to take on 1.2 billion Muslims is insane.
honora on September 12, 2006 at 2:43 PM
The flaw in your argument is that “toughness” and “thoughtfulness” are mutually exclusive until combined. Maybe you could get a time machine and go back and discuss that with Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Thucydides, Clausewitz, etc. Maybe then you’ll figure out that toughness is the most thoughtful approach there is.
Have we tried to prove that point in Iraq? The answer is a pretty resounding ‘no’, and if anything, we’ve prioritized the prevention of civilian casualties over winning, much to our detriment (and especially to our troops detriment).
thirteen28 on September 12, 2006 at 3:32 PM
Just a few thoughts…
Clinton’s War Against Islamic Terrorism = W.A.I.T.
Bush’s Attacking Terrorist Cells = A.C.T.
My preference is for us to Destroy Extremist Islamists = D.I.E.
honora, you should try building a house. Then you would understand why all of the thinking in the World doesn’t prevent problems from occuring. The latest [and recurring] idea that democrats propose is to replace those in charge of our efforts. That is as
sillyfoolish as replacing a building contractor in the middle of a project.The President is repeating himself because facts are facts, and those don’t change as do opinions, or rhetoric. We are at war, and must get real. Kill, or be killed are the options terrorists offer us today.
DannoJyd on September 12, 2006 at 3:43 PM
Yo, you are an honorable, civilized, western man, but the world only needs to be reminded that we’re the baddest M-F’s on the planet. Anything else is superfluous right now.
Honora, I just KNOW you’re kidding, right? I know you can’t possibly be suggesting that our intention in Iraq was to act big, mean and tough! PA-LEASE! Hilarious. We have been pussy-footing around, ever so sensitive, disciplining troopers for showing our flag, putting them at higher risk at every step, threatening court martial for a mistake in judgement, examining and questioning every decision under fire like they were city cops, sparing mosques filled with terrorists and munitions, not shooting back to avoid civilian casualties..all so the world will think we’re “nice”.
We’ve forced our Marines to behave like friendly neighborhood policemen who need to get a permission slip to shoot anybody, fer Chrissakes.
Just for comparison purposes: Dresden
(Caveat: I’m not supporting carpet bombing…I’m just sayin’”
the-gunslinger on September 12, 2006 at 5:42 PM
There are some good Muslims. After all, they gave us the info we needed to get some of the terrorists. The tough part is, there are some REALLY bad ones, and only a few of those can freak the others out to the point that they’ll follow the evil idealogy in a “kill or be killed” sort of way. The whole “when in Rome..” cliche.
The “REALLY bad” Muslims understand only ONE thing: POWER.
We have that power, but refuse to use it, thinking our “thoughtful” policies will eventually win the hearts and minds of the “good” Muslims, who will in-turn start outing the bad ones in droves.
NOPE.
It doesn’t work like that.
Not when the retribution for outing bad Muslims is having your throat slit. Most Muslims will be silent and wait to see who ends up with the power before doing anything (and I don’t blame them).
The thing that keeps coming to mind is that each suicide attack ends in the death of an extremist.
Maybe if we DID carpet bomb Mecca the extremists would end up blowing themselves up until few enough are left to scare the good Muslims into silence. No doubt the costs would be unfathomably terrible, but how terrible would it be if we were taken over by these jerks?
NTWR on September 12, 2006 at 6:18 PM
It has always been about root causes. The only reason that the phrase “root cause” bothers you is because you usually hear it used by leftists when they are blaming the U.S. In reality, the root causes are oppressive regimes that are motivated or aided in some way by Islamic fundamentalism. Bush’s whole approach with Iraq–the central strategic reason for being there–is to eliminate that “root cause” by encouraging the spread of free governments in that region of the world.
And even if the suggestion to drop 85 nukes on Saudi Arabia was “hyperbole”, it was still offensive and more suited to Daily Kos or DU, where mindless emotional prattle is encouraged.
I agree with you that overwhelming military force is an absolutely necessary component, but it must be accompanied by a focus of scope that itself is indicative of military superiority (and therefore strength, by logical entension). We do not wipe Mosul off the map… we go in in systematically eliminate the bad guys in a way that only the U.S. military can.
DaveS on September 12, 2006 at 7:54 PM
I really think this is an overwrought POV. I think we have executed our occupation poorly because no one thought there would be an occupation–to whit, disbanding the entire Iraqi army, allowing looting and general chaos to ensue after Saddam’s defeat, not enough troops with not the right training–basically an ad hoc approach. Odd and ineffective.
Water under the bridge I guess. I have the sneaking suspicion that this is the excuse in waiting if things turn out (more) badly in Iraq–”oh we could have won but those nasty liberals and MSM and courts wouldn’t let us fight the way we wanted to”. Bullshit. This is the single most unattractive quality of some RWs–everything is always someone else’s fault.
North Korea more dangerous now than in 2000? Uh, China’s fault; Iran more dangerous now than in 2000? Uh, Clinton’s fault; SS still a mess? Uh, Democrats fault. Immigration still a mess? Uh, RINOs fault. Iraq slipping away? See above. US reputation in the world at an all time low? Uh, the rest of the world’s fault.
Message to RW: you elected your guy, you got control of Congress, you have had 17 of the last 23 years to appoint Republican/conservative judges: it ain’t gonna get any better than this, this is your hand, good or bad so stop your whining and get it done.
And tell me, exactly what is winning in Iraq? The Iraqis are fighting each other, which should make it as plain as the nose on your face that the issue here is political, not military, shortcoming.
honora on September 13, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Well first, comparing to Dresden to Iraq is just goofy. We are up against guerillas who are embedded in the communities. You go after the guerillas and kill a lot of innocent people in the process, you have created more guerillas. I think I’ve seen this movie before.
Second, if all you state above is true, Rumsfeld is a big old pussy and should be removed immediately. Are you under the impression that the military in past wars was not subject to censure and criticism? Come on.
Third, our troops have always been held to a high, in most cases, higher standard than other military forces. Which is why we are a great country.
honora on September 13, 2006 at 10:56 AM
In communities like Fallujah, the guerilla’s didn’t merely blend, but were part of the community to begin with and had the full support thereof. As such, the supporting community bears a lot of guilt for aiding and abetting the terrorists who actually carried out the acts.
And I flatly reject your premise that flattening a place like Fallujah after their uprising would have created more guerillas. How many guerillas did Rome create after they razed Carthage to the ground? Were any German guerillas created when Dresden was turned into rubble? What about Japanese guerillas in the wake of numerous firebombings and two nukings?
Yes, and gee, I just recall the chorus of Democrats and left-wingers suggesting this very thing before the fact, with all of your perfect, crystal clear foresight.
Man, in a fight between you and a straw man, I’ll bet on you every time. You go on with your bad self.
thirteen28 on September 13, 2006 at 11:11 AM
Well see, here’s the difference. Rome was at war with Carthage, UK was at war with Germany, US was at war with Japan. Are we at war with Iraq???
And, on cue, it’s always someone else’s fault.
honora on September 13, 2006 at 11:28 AM
This is the single most unattractive quality of all LWs–everything is always President Bush’s and the RWs’ fault.
When your party becomes a paragon of vision, participation in solving the huge challenges of this time, and accountability, and when your good sense of objectivity, of which you are fully capable of, kicks in, we’ll listen.
Every single word you wrote about the ‘blame’ and every example you enumerated, could be countered with myriads of such from the other side. It must be human nature and politics…can we at least agree on that?
Entelechy on September 13, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Entelechy on September 13, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Absolutely. When you are the party in power, you’re the one with the horses, so blaming the other side is an admission of your inability to lead. Have the Dems done the same when they were in power? Of course. It was smarmy and counter productive then, it’s smarmy and counter productive now.
honora on September 13, 2006 at 12:28 PM
We were at war with the insurgents, and Fallujah was an insurgent city.
The point was that you lefties/dems had no more foresight than W. or the administration on how things would play out in Iraq and that all your armchair QB’ing now is just hindsight, comprende?
But once again, I congratulate you – you’ve kicked another straw man’s a–. You’s a bad mofo.
thirteen28 on September 13, 2006 at 12:28 PM
The buck stops where????
Actually, a lot of people, including me, predicted that Iraq would result in a civil war or a Islamic extremist state. We were mostly ridiculed. Plus la change…
honora on September 13, 2006 at 12:58 PM
And flattening Fallujah (your statement before you start with that sophomoric straw man thing) would have made us many more enemies within Iraq. See this is the difference: all the Japanese were already our enemies (ditto Carthage/Rome; Germany/UK) so driving them into the arms of the enemy wasn’t an issue.
Remember that song from Sesame Street–One of These Things is Not Like the Others?
honora on September 13, 2006 at 1:04 PM
What do you expect when you keep erecting straw men like the “blame” argument you came up with in order to avoid taking on a real argument or offering substantive counter-proposals on how to prosecute this war?
I submit that the number of people pacified by such a response would have been far, far greater than the number of those who decided to take up arms against us in its wake.
” … but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”
So, you mean everyone in Iraq that opposes us by violence as well as those that aid and abet them are somehow not our enemies?
Sheesh, and you wonder why we don’t trust you guys on issues of war and national security?!?
thirteen28 on September 13, 2006 at 1:22 PM
I really am running out of patience. READ! I clearly stated all the Japanese were our enemies. A tiny bit of critical thinking tells you I am comparing to Iraq where NOT ALL are our enemies.
If you don’t see how this is different, where the majority of Iraqis are not our enemies–remember it’s the admin position that we rescued the Iraqis from Saddam and we are aiding them in putting together a democracy–well, I am perplexed.
You want to concentrate on the minority who are our enemies and not concern yourself with killing/hurting/alienating the majority who aren’t, fine. But for the love of God, recognize it’s not the same as your WWII or Roman examples.
honora on September 13, 2006 at 1:45 PM
Boo-hoo. Heat. Kitchen. You know the rest.
And a tiny bit of critical thinking would tell you that all residents of Fallujah (a Sunni, insurgent stronghold where terrorists violently opposing the American presence had widespread support, both material and moral) were our enemies just as much as all Japanese were, and thus should have been crushed quickly and unmercifully. Instead we sent a bunch of troops in there to get killed, pulled them back so that Fallujah could be a base of operations against us for another six months, and then finally sent more troops in there to get butchered before we finally got the situation slightly under control.
See above – key words/phrases “residents of Fallujah”, “sunni”, “insurgent”, “stronghold”, “support”.
As far as the administration’s position, I’ll leave it to them – I’m arguing my own position.
You have the first half of that sentence entirely correct. The difference being that I don’t consider those who offer support, aid, comfort, or refuge to the Zarqawis and his ilk to be innocent, and nor do I concern myself with the fact that war is cruel and some innocents will get killed. As I’ve explained elsewhere, winning is what counts and all other concerns are subordinate to that.
Oh, but all of these things have their counterpart in the ancient world. You are just too distracted by the clutter to see it – assuming you’d even be willing to in the first place.
thirteen28 on September 13, 2006 at 2:25 PM
Back then we didn’t face such enormous challenges. Can’t we use both horses (or as it is the elephants and the donkeys) to pull on the same wagon, just now and then, on the big issues, instead of harping, harping, harping, with no solutions suggested? Since when is the “loyal opposition” the “enemy”? It is our country and we are contributing to its demise with this nonsense, instead of fighting the real enemy. And please don’t come back with “RWs are ‘blamers’”.
From what I’ve seen since 2000, no matter what the conservatives do, your camp criticizes, even if it’s your idea/s being implemented, or the 180 degree from before.
Your party has decided not to help, and only hark, and that’s the cold truth.
Give me 5 examples why I should trust your party wishing to be in charge of HS and the WoT (or whatever it s/b called).
This one is not perfect but on these issues I feel more secure than the ones not revealed by your camp as of yet.
Entelechy on September 13, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Give my 5 examples why I should trust your party! You see where this goes…
I disagree with you on one other point:
This is a refrain I hear often now, as in, well we have to torture/conduct warrantless taps/give the exec more powers/squash any criticism, because this is a much more frightening, dangerous etc time than any time before. To which I reply: BS.
This is simply a way to make ourselves feel better and forgive ourselves our failures. It’s not that we have bollocked everything, it’s that things are just harder than ever before. Again, BS.
Compare today to say 1940. Country entering a 2 front full fledged war, Pacific fleet decimated, military far below needed levels of troops/ equipment/expertise, economy still shaky, having to deal with allies like Stalin and de Gaulle, Republican animus toward the president etc etc.
I am not saying we are not in a difficult situation, but telling ourselves that this is the worse ever, well we are coddling and deluding ourselves.
honora on September 13, 2006 at 3:04 PM
And you wonder why I keep hitting you with the “straw man” charge?
The only BS here is your insinuation that he said things were harder than ever before – which he didn’t.
Where did this going back to 1940 stuff come from?
P.S. you lose extra points for failing to acknowledge that Republican animus towards FDR stopped at waters edge.
He never said anything about this being the worst ever, did he? No – that was your invention.
Three straw men in one post. Easily identifiable.
thirteen28 on September 13, 2006 at 3:34 PM
honora, which part of “From what I’ve seen since 2000″ did you not understand?
thirteen28, you obviously are a more calm and clear thinker; thank you for observing the rant over ficticious items/times. I’m a ’she’ and not a ‘he’ :)
Entelechy on September 13, 2006 at 4:40 PM
Gotcha ;) … I have a hard time telling sometimes.
Now if these guys would just give us an edit function!
thirteen28 on September 13, 2006 at 6:14 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2