LA Times’ David Bell: Was 9/11 really that bad?

posted at 11:01 pm on January 29, 2007 by Ian

There is no precursor I can write about this piece, you’ll just have to read for yourself:

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Wow. Just…


jic on January 29, 2007 at 11:06 PM

After reading the op/ed I am simply stunned. what is even more disgusting is that an American newspaper would even consider running it.

It was just a bug on the windshield to this scum. Just a bug. The car wash will take care of it honey.

Have to send him this bile that dribbling down my chin. Fed-ex.

Limerick on January 29, 2007 at 11:15 PM

What I think he’s saying is that 9/11 is when America jumped the shark.

Jim Treacher on January 29, 2007 at 11:17 PM

I guess we were supposed to wait until 50,000 died and all the really tall buildings and maybe even The White House were knocked down – then we could call it a real war.

Buy Danish on January 29, 2007 at 11:21 PM

The question raised, however insane it may seem, is similar to ones I see on threads like these over and over again. They come from people making statements to the effect of “not that many U.S. troops have died in Iraq compared to other wars.”

Nonfactor on January 29, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Hey, I sent this article link to Allah earlier today!

Oh well. All I wanted was everyone at HotAir to see it. Isn’t it appalling?

jaleach on January 29, 2007 at 11:25 PM

We have OVERreacted? OVER?

CrimsonFisted on January 29, 2007 at 11:28 PM

ladies and gentlemen
they will never learn

Defector01 on January 29, 2007 at 11:29 PM


I think that is a false analogy.

Buy Danish on January 29, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Why is this a shock ? This is ever moonbats secret wet dream to have happen.

They dont hate terrorists they hate America. And they sympathize with America’s enemies

William Amos on January 29, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Does one comfort a mother who has watched her child die with a comparison to a mother who watched two children die?

Does one comfort a rape victim by comparing her to a woman who was gang raped?

Hyunchback on January 29, 2007 at 11:36 PM


Savage on January 29, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Nonfactor on January 29, 2007 at 11:23 PM

You just jumped the shark.

csdeven on January 29, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Tripoli……1801….. 307 American Hostages = WAR
Alamo……..1836….. 250 Americans killed = WAR
U.S.S Maine..1895….. 266 Americans killed = WAR

World Trade Center 2001.. 2,752 Americans killed = Just a bug on the windsheild dear.

Limerick on January 29, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Believe it or not, there are extreme left-wing anti-semites right here in America that are “happy” that 9/11 occurred. (I’ve run across more than one.) These sick people think that attacks on New York City are actually beneficial to America — simply because NYC harbors a large Jewish population. Perhaps we should call it WCS (Ward Churchill Syndrome) as opposed to Ann Coulter Syndrome (ACS).

CyberCipher on January 29, 2007 at 11:52 PM

I guess Karzai was right… they have forgotten about the people jumping from the towers .

Mazztek on January 29, 2007 at 11:54 PM

It’s refreshing to see the true opinions come out of these jackasses. It’s always easier pointing to their writings when accusing a media of being left leaning, rather than just blindly saying it.

Face it, its en vogue right now to be a defeatist.

Vincenzo on January 29, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Hypocrisy is the democrats strategy. How strange is it that they claim to care about the soldiers, hell, they can’t wait to tell us about the next “grim milestone” with each death but the 3,000 innocent civilians is no big deal.

How do these people look at themselves in the mirror?

Capitalist Infidel on January 30, 2007 at 12:08 AM


I believe you! I have been told that I am a conspiracy nut for seeing the same thing, but I was actually told that decades ago by a prominent Jew which first got my antennae up. Here are some links if you want more than anecdotal evidence.

This article from Front Page describes anti-semitism in Israel. The self-flagellation in Israeli Academia (surprise!)is really quite shocking.

This is from The American Thinker and describes (surprise!) anti-semitism at the New York Times.

Buy Danish on January 30, 2007 at 12:09 AM

The question raised, however insane it may seem, is similar to ones I see on threads like these over and over again. They come from people making statements to the effect of “not that many U.S. troops have died in Iraq compared to other wars.”

Because maybe its better that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect us then letting our civilians be murdered and the best responce was to launch a few cruise missiles at Formula factories ?

That is what the left wants a “Holliwood” president like from the West WIng who makes tough decisions on foreign policy and some dex ex machina comes down and solves all of our problems just before the comercial.

Stop living in a fantasy world left wingers.

William Amos on January 30, 2007 at 12:14 AM

I guess we were supposed to wait until 50,000 died and all the really tall buildings and maybe even The White House were knocked down – then we could call it a real war.

If the terrorists had attacked an hour or two later (after more people had shown up to work), it might have been 50,000 on that day. It still would not have made a difference to the moonbats.

Coyote D. on January 30, 2007 at 12:18 AM

David Bell has hung himself in his own article. He uses World War II to point out how 911 wasn’t really all that bad, but then goes on to call the war on terror itself the DEADLIEST STRUGGLE OF OUR TIME.

David! How can that be true? We’ve only lost a few thousand soldiers in the past few years? Compared to WWII, that’s nothing. Back then, we lost several thousand soldiers on a daily basis. So David, using your own comparison, the war on terror isn’t all that bad.


Joshua P. Allem on January 30, 2007 at 12:23 AM

He’s hardly the first left-wing moonbat to suggest 9/11 wasn’t really all that bad and, somehow, we over-reacted. This post really deserves the T-Bone picture because it is truly “red meat” for the wolves. Note the questioning:

Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

All in another ridiculous attempt to sway opinion. Well, David, indeed we were viciously attacked. The loss of over 3,000 lives should firmly cement that fact in the mind of any serious thinker. The loss of the World Trade Centers and the damage to our economy because of the attacks (estimated in the billions) should convince even the most simple minds that a swift and brutal retaliation was required. He and other “columnists” (Maureen Dowd comes to mind) should go seek employment with the BBC – the other terrorist supporting, propaganda wing.

thedecider on January 30, 2007 at 12:24 AM

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The left IS now campaigning to be our enemy. They are desperate to be our enemy. You can say that’s overstating it, but when does it stop? It’s like an hourly occurance that these anti-American POSs say ridiculous sh** like this. As always, I can simply prove the point by talking about WMDs. Those who call Bush a liar spent the previous 13 years making the case themselves. You can say “oh, well it’s just politics”, but that’s f-ing crap! If they weren’t evil to their core, they couldn’t even think of dividing the country (emboldening the enemy) and promising victory to the enemy. The left in this country is evil. They hate the Right and they love power so much that they don’t care what happens, as long as they can get elected. The leaks. The undermining. The lies. And they’ve got their tag team partners the American and international media holding their hand all the way.

RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 12:26 AM

It was all our fault anyway…

SouthernGent on January 30, 2007 at 12:26 AM

This article is not the exception in the LA Times. It’s a rag, every day.

No one serious here takes it seriously.

Entelechy on January 30, 2007 at 12:28 AM

. . .and the African Embassies, and the ’93 WTC attacks, and the USS Cole, and Khobar Towers? I guess those incidents don’t count towards our response. 9/11 was not an isolated incident. It was the culmination of over 7 years of open warfare against America.

MCPO Airdale on January 30, 2007 at 12:33 AM

Bell is demonstrating a typical liberal trait: Don’t bother me with facts.

pocomoco on January 30, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Vile, but unsurprising coming from a moonbat. Bell could obviously give a rat’s ass how many people died on 9/11. No amount of carnage would ever be enough to ignite any patriotism in spineless vermin like him. And like a typical leftist professor, Bell naturally holds up the Soviet Union as something to be admired. Pathetic.

ReubenJCogburn on January 30, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Imagine the death toll if the North Tower had been hit much lower down. Or if both planes had hit closer together in time, not allowing the people in the S. Tower time to evacuate. Trusting that Al Qaeda will be either unlucky or timid is a bad bet.

PeteRR on January 30, 2007 at 1:20 AM

In a recent book, for instance, political scientist John Mueller evaluated the threat that terrorists pose to the United States and convincingly concluded that it has been, to quote his title, “Overblown.” But he undercut his own argument by adding that the United States has overreacted to every threat in its recent history, including even Pearl Harbor (rather than trying to defeat Japan, he argued, we should have tried containment!).

2,471 people died in Pearl Harbor. 2,749 people died in the World Trade Center.

Prof. Bell I have a question for you. What if the attack didn’t end that morning on December 7th 1941? What if the Japanese decided to attack again. Killing another three thousand people. Then they attacked again killing another three thousand. Clearly even less people died in Pearl Harbor, so that simply had to be an overreaction on our part. So why do you disagree with this idea even though it follows your argument?

You say that the Japanese had a better capability to hit us than the Jihadists? Well we’ll never know since we attacked the Japanese before they could reach the mainland. Now we have the chance to attack the Jihadists before they try to cut off our oil or attack allies, or reach the mainland again. What is the difference? We are fighting back after the first strike. Neither listen to reason. Both fight to the death. Both fight because of their religious indoctrination.

Maybe Professor Bell should think clearly through his ideas before he posts them publicly in a newspaper. Then we won’t have any reason to laugh at him. Then again, I can’t laugh. I remember that he is teaching our next generation. Why do we entrust this man to do this?

Keljeck on January 30, 2007 at 1:30 AM

“Hey lady! You were only raped by ONE man. That’s nothing. You could have been raped by 50 men. Now, THAT would be a serious crime. One man? Pfffft! Not important.”

Alright you liberal pigs out there. You know who you are. The ones LURKING here. Come on, Shackler, Jahere, and all the rest. I DARE you to use that argument before a group of rape victims. I’ll bet if you do, they’ll hang you by your “bag” and pour red hot birdshot up your behind! Oh but don’t worry. Number 6 shot isn’t very bad. You won’t have anything to complain about until they use 0-0-0…..

georgej on January 30, 2007 at 1:45 AM

This is the attitude of half the dam country people. You need to get out more. Paying the survivors $millions$ didn’t help matters either. I’m not arguing this kind of ignorant attitude I’m just saying they’re out there. A vast block of Americans have been hoodwinked by the screaching and screaming.

I’m amazed everyday by the opposition party’s inability to answer even one question without first reaming the administration. And with the unwillingness or inept conscience of the media, the condemnation continues until the President is completely placid. Done. Damaged.

Our government has become just what we’ve made it. Or allowed it to become. America is over until something very, very bad happens to drown out the rhetoric. And then the real struggle shall begin.

Griz on January 30, 2007 at 1:52 AM

I love the way he minimizes the death toll from Iraq and the War on Terror when he supports his position that we have overreacted to 9/11 – acknowledging what the right has been saying all along, that we have been fighting these wars successfully, winning battles while keeping our death toll down. However, the left harps on how Americans are being killed in bunches over there, when they are trying to push their agenda – CUT and RUN. Well, which is it?

Rick on January 30, 2007 at 2:00 AM

I am almost apoplectic trying to sort out the lunacy, the idiocy, the incomprehensible arrogance that allowed those words to form in the mind of an American native. I refuse to consider this imbecile an American, for he is not.

MCPO Airdale, do not forget the USS Stark, May 1987. Hit by two French Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi-flown French Mirage F1. 37 dead, more than 20 injured. I was in the Indian Ocean aboard the Constellation at the time. President Reagan accepted an apology and the families of the slain received money from the Iraqi government. The pilot was never punished.

Now back to this idiot professor. He has the gall to attempt a comparison with Soviet Russia. Of the total dead which they suffered between 1924 and 1953, less than 8 million were to war, the vast majority due to Stalin’s purges, forced famines, and other lesser and greater forms of homegrown genocide, and the total is far closer to 40 million than 20. Hitler’s death toll is commonly thought of as 6 million, but that is the Jewish holocaust dead. Include as many again Christian victims, plus other various victims of a tyrannical dictatorship, and the total was nearer 21 million. Mao outstrips either with a total dead during his regime on the order of 50 million, mostly in forced labor camps or during the Great Leap Foward cultural revolution.

Madmen who kill their own country’s people are not in any way to be compared with the casualties of war, and in doing so destroys any credibility Bell ever hoped to have as an author.

The concept of overreacting to a deadly act of war against American civilians, is beneath any form of contempt I can conjure up for it. He is effectively calling us bullies. His argument suggests that we got punched in the nose on the schoolyard, so we pulled out a flame thrower in response. Please, Mr. Bell, say that to the face of any family member of a 9/11 victim, say it to any family member of an IED victim. You’re welcome to say it to my face, but be advised I’m not certain I wouldn’t OVERREACT.

Nonfactor, you’re attempted parallel is flawed. I’m one of those who remind folks that our military losses are extremely low for what we’ve accomplished in this conflict. But I do so, not to minimize the loss of those courageous warriors, rather to maintain perspective compared to how many people die in everyday events, so that it can be seen that we ARE NOT LOSING!

Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 2:16 AM

Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all,

Mr. Bell, just one question…. “Who is tying our hands to actually not let us win this war?”

{crickets chirping agian………….}

Liberal Democrats, that’s who…. end of your bile.

PinkyBigglesworth on January 30, 2007 at 2:31 AM

His use of history was sloppy and inaccurate–and that’s putting it mildly and politely. THe whole piece was poorly organized, even by modern “journalistic / editorial” standards, and his reasonig was at times juvenile and often just plain ignorant and stupid

And why am I not surprised?

Janos Hunyadi on January 30, 2007 at 2:38 AM

This David Bell. He is no Spartan.

EFG on January 30, 2007 at 2:38 AM

What is truly amazing is that he is using a terribly false analogy. He seems to want us to think the Soviet Union didn’t begin to defend itself until that magical number of 20 million dead was reached.

He would also have us believe that these were all civilians and that no soldiers counted toward that total.

What a tool.

SailorDave on January 30, 2007 at 7:20 AM

I’d hate to imagine Bell writing about WWI and WW2 and their justifications or lack thereof.


GT on January 30, 2007 at 7:37 AM

Let’s see, a series of terrorist attacks on US soil and US interests abroad before 9/11, no attacks on US soil after our “over-reaction.”

Question should not have been asked, except it is the LA Times.

doufree on January 30, 2007 at 8:05 AM

RightWinged, Griz,
You are correct. It is really sad to watch the AMERICA I grew up in, get smaller and smaller in the rear-view mirror.
Yes, the good professor has the right to spew this bilge, but I cannot imagine someone writing something like this during WWII. Seditious at the least.

mountainmanbob on January 30, 2007 at 8:18 AM

Hello Mr. Bell, welcome to failed logic 101.

I hope you don’t find the ropes holding you to the chair too uncomfortable. Alas, they will be the least of your worries quite shortly.

I’m going to use these large pliers to twist your pinky finger until it breaks just above the fingernail, CRACK!!

Now, now, Mr. Bell, …why the fuss? Look at you crying like a little girl. That is only ONE little bone in your PINKY finger. Did you know you have 27 bones in each hand, and 14 in your face? Yes, Mr. Bell, it’s going to be a looooong and painful night.

Alden Pyle on January 30, 2007 at 8:59 AM

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction?

No, actually it’s been a massive underreaction.

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.

This type of attitude is what drove me from leaning Democratic to leaning Republican.

aunursa on January 30, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Well…there it is.

Jaibones on January 30, 2007 at 9:41 AM

Here’s the footnote at the end of Bell’s column: “David A. Bell, a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University and a contributing editor for the New Republic, is the author of “The First Total War: Napoleon’s Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It.”

One would think, incorrectly in this case, that a history professor at a major university could write a far more intellectually and morally clear essay.

I went to high school in pre-historic times, before liberalism had captured and degraded education in this country. One of the many wonderful teachers I had was my senior year English teacher, a dedicated lady of very high academic standards. I can just imagine all the red ink comments written on this essay, had any of her students submitted it. Comments on unclarity; going off on tangents; contradictory logic, with a “C” written on top next to a comment such as “You can do far better than this”.

Had she been teaching college English, I suspect she would have been even harsher, with a “D” at best, more likely an “F”.

But we see this piece of nebulous vulgarity is written by a university professor from a major university, and published in one of America’s major newspapers!

Books have been written about the decline in American academia and journalism since their highjacking by liberalism. I submit this column is an excellent supporting example of that view.

DavePa on January 30, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Is it just me, or does it seem that whenever the libs portray themselves in television and movies that they are tough on crime and national security?

Is that just marketing, or some sort of weird psychological self-hatred thing?

Jaibones on January 30, 2007 at 9:43 AM

2,471 people died in Pearl Harbor. 2,749 people died in the World Trade Center.

That’s what immediately sprang to my mind. Our reaction to 9/11 has been quite tempered compared to our reaction to Pearl Harbor.

And let us not forget that, for better or worse, a nuclear weapon was eventually used to reduce the number of American casualties. Maybe those who think WWII was such a “civilized” war should read up on the bombing of large cities across Europe and Japan, then define “collateral damage”.

taznar on January 30, 2007 at 10:12 AM

I made a point in a different thread that is apropo in this topic also. Being that this war is connected with all other wars.

This war on terrorism is not just a reaction to the events on 9/11.

This war is a reaction to all lessons we have learned from other idealogical struggles. You, name the war, I’ll show you how it is connected to our decision to go after Bin Laden and then Saddam.

Had WWII never happened we would not have pre-emtively attacked Saddam. Had the holocaust never happened we would not be discussing pre-emptive attacks against Iran. Had 9/11 been the very first terrorist event, we would not have reacted to it the way we have.

This country has a long and proud history of attempting diplomatic solutions first and foremost. But we have recently, beginning in the Korean war, the shameful history of trying to fight wars morally. This is impossible if you expect total and complete victory. We purposely targeted and killed German and Japanese civilian citizens during WWII. It worked. When Nixon sent B52’s to bomb Hanoi, the North came to the negoitating table. But the liberals mentality eventually prevailed and 3 million people were slaughtered. Gulf War 1….the highway of death was a perfect example of how to wage war, but even as much support as we had for that war, the moonbats criticized the bombing of all those vehicles.

Ths country is in the middle of re-defining who we are as a nation. In the days following 9/11, we were almost unanimously united. Today, about 1/3 of us (a very eerie percentage if you are a believer in biblical numberings of the “hosts of heaven”) have endured in our principled beliefs that led us to finally stand up to terrorists, whereas, if the polls are accurate, 2/3 of people have given up. (I’m not suggesting that this war is armageddon, but it is an interesting thought to consider)

I believe in sticking to a committed course of action until your goals start taking on the “march of dimes” syndrome. We are still fighting the same enemy for the same reasons, so I am committed to this until we win. Some principles are worth our eternal efforts.

csdeven on January 30, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Winning a war is ALWAYS about overreacting.

You wound me, I kill you. You take out a boat, I take out your harbor. You nuke a city, I annihilate your whole country. That is how you win a war. I say we haven’t “over” reacted nearly enough to the islamists.

Mojave Mark on January 30, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong?

Yes, this is a wrong statement. But not for the reasons detailed in the article.

We were already “plunged” into this struggle years prior.

This attack was inevitable, and a significant number of people where/are not surprised, given our lack of response to previous attacks on American interest over the years in other countries.

Therefore our offensive war stance, while better late than never, is very appropriate.

Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Not much to add to the above comments. I’m too speechless anyway.

I’m just amazed that the guy is actually a historian – actually teaches history (to YOUR children, maybe?).

I can’t even count the number of times throughout history that millions of lives could have been saved if a nation had responded to a “little” attack like 9/11 with overwhelming force — instead of waiting until the bigger attacks came. In fact, I think EVERY major war had a moment preceding in which most of the violence could have been prevented, if the right steps had been taken.

What saddens me is that we can never know if THIS time we did save lives. When you do the right thing for a change, all you get is grief. If you have no imagination, you can’t see the future, I guess.

If we’d invaded Germany in 1936, the liberals would still be marching in the streets over it. And not one of them would believe that tens of millions were saved. They’d be calling Roosevelt a war criminal (But they would NOT be calling him Hitler, now would they? Because he would never have happened, at least not like he did. No Dachau or Treblinka or Stalingrad.)

If you are intellectually stunted and emotionally immature, I guess it just makes more sense to wait until your cities are nuked before responding with real force.

Just sucks if its your family that pays the price for that kind of age old stupidity.

And what really sucks is that that is exactly what’s going to happen. We’re not going to get serious until the worst does happen. Guaranteed.

Then, of course, the liberals will ALL be wondering why we didn’t do more after 9/11.

Sigh. You can’t win with these people. You just. Can’t. Win.

And to think – they call themselves “reality-based.”

Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Sophistry at its sophiest.

mymanpotsandpans on January 30, 2007 at 11:22 AM

How do you react when the Pentagon is hit by a loaded passenger jet turned into a guided kamikazi missile?

Should we just have fired three missiles at a madrassa in Afghanistan and called it a day?

Bell: a mush-headed sophist mororn who should be laughed out of civilized society for insulting the intelligence of anyone who understands to ultimate goal of the nuke-hungering jihadists scum.

Can we deport this boob to Tehran? He’d fit right in with the Holocaust minimizers/deniers.

Only 6 million Jews died in the death camps. There were still more Jews remaining alive in the world than the number destroyed by the Nazis, even after these millions were killed, so what’s the big deal? It just meant the survivors would simply have to have larger families for a few generations. And don’t Jewish people love children? In effect, Hitler was merely promoting Hebrew family development in a very roundabout way. Plus, the symapthy they gained for the 6 million gone got them Israel. Wasn’t that worth it, looking at the Big Picture? They should really be thanking the Nazis…Ad nauseam, ad absurdum(b).

profitsbeard on January 30, 2007 at 12:31 PM

And to think – they call themselves “reality-based.”

Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Their reality is different. We will never understand it but shall never ignore it either, lest we perish with them.

Entelechy on January 30, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Imagine you call 911 over nothing but a bad smell in your house. That’s obviously overreacting. Nobody is injured, nobody is dying, its just a smell.

Now, once the Natural Gas leak causes the building to explode, then calling 911 is rational, but when it’s just a smell it isn’t worth bothering with.

Looking at events and determining the likely future ramifications, not reality based enough for some. Waiting until a crisis has gotten completely out of control, now that’s just good thinking.

This line of thought has been brought to you by Professor David Bell, from John Hopkins University. What does he teach that gives him insight into how to handle a disaster? French History…

Real, but funny enough I wish I had made it up as a joke.

gekkobear on January 30, 2007 at 1:34 PM

georgej on January 30, 2007 at 1:45 AM

The liberals never come out from under their rocks until they think they have an advantage.

The liberals worry about one vote, but not 3,000 lives.
Let’s see him give this speach before a group of 9/11 widows and their children.

right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Clearly, until bodies and buildings fall on his Mercedes, this has all been a terrible overreaction.

ronsfi on January 30, 2007 at 3:48 PM

This thread has a lot of excellent commenters and I salute you all!
I’m proud to be in this “band of brothers” with whom we are fighting the cyber war on the web…blog warriors, if you will.
I’m also proud to be a Neo-Con and proud to be an American, even if we do have to share the country with these *sshats who are either too stupid or too evil to agree with us.
Bell reminds me of the sign at an anti-war protest that said “I like New York without the Twin Towers” or the director Oliver Stone who said that we can “learn to live with terrorism.”
I sure don’t want to see another Civil War here, but I’m going to keep fighting for and supporting all those beautiful American patriots he calls “overreacters” because I’m not submitting to Islam or giving up my republic without a BIG DAMN FIGHT and I don’t ever want to see any of my fellow citizens jumping 100 floors to their deaths or being stabbed on commercial jets ever again in the name of Allah.
You’ll have to take my Constitution, my Bill of Rights, my Stars and Stripes, my freedom and my right to life and the pursuit of my own happiness out of my cold dead hands.

Jen the Neocon on January 30, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Was it that bad? YES, it was!

It was so bad in fact, that it was far worse than it would’ve been, say, had the LA Times building been hit and taken you and 3,000 of your vile brethren with it instead “Professor”.


Teddy on January 30, 2007 at 8:28 PM

Imagine you call 911 over nothing but a bad smell in your house. That’s obviously overreacting. Nobody is injured, nobody is dying, its just a smell.

Now, once the Natural Gas leak causes the building to explode, then calling 911 is rational, but when it’s just a smell it isn’t worth bothering with.

Prophetic. A fire engine had just pulled up to investigate a call about a smell when a propane tank exploded. Four dead, story is about three hours old.

Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Prophetic. A fire engine had just pulled up to investigate a call about a smell when a propane tank exploded. Four dead, story is about three hours old.

Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Now to me that’s tragic, but unless there are at least 20 million dead, David Bell doesn’t give a sh*t. He wants to know why everybody’s overreacting.

ReubenJCogburn on January 31, 2007 at 2:49 AM