9/11, The War on Terror, and How Our Nation Has Healed

[demsformd]

The Purpose of the Original Post

I wanted to recount my experience because I wanted to explain the shortcomings of the war on terror...which I completely support...and the politicalization (decided to make a new word up ) of President Bush of the subject so he can win reelection and to invade Iraq. It is Bush's emphasis on Iraq today that has made terrorism on Americans overseas more prevalent lately. bin Laden is coming up more as well as other terrorist attacks directed at Americans. When we were in Afganistan and kicking a$$, terrorism was not as great a threat. But we seem to be letting up so we can go off and invade Iraq. Iraq did not cause 9/11 but we might as well attack them because they aren't playing nicely. I did not mean to say that the War on Terror was pointless, I meant to say that it has become pointless.
Bush used this issue to his advantage left and right. Stumping for candidates he would say Candidate N. will help me stop terrorism. Is he maybe capitalizing on an issue that should not be political? Absolutely.
We have let the terrorists win if you ask me when everyone is still afraid and is still clinging to an old event...We have to move on past 9/11 and get the people that caused in six feet under.
I say that instead of focusing our efforts on Iraq, we should still be after bin Laden in full force. Instead of going after Hussein and maximizing our political gain like Bush, we should focus on what really matters. bin Laden is the enemy and no one else if you ask me. We should also change our Middle East position to create a Palestinian state and create an everlasting peace.
Christy, I truly resent your statement concerning my hatred. To suggest that I would not hate bin Laden as much as others is completely false. My best friend from college and my best man in my wedding is the closest friend that I have and the death of his children made truly sick to my stomach. That is why I want to find that evil bin Laden and not Hussein who did not have anything to do with 9/11.

 

[MGKrebs]

And here's the REST of the story.

Evidently, the provision only protects ONE company for ONE product.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/12/eveningnews/printable532886.shtml

The Man Behind The Vaccine Mystery
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12, 2002
It's been a mystery in Washington for weeks. Just before President Bush signed the homeland security bill into law an unknown member of Congress inserted a provision into the legislation that blocks lawsuits against the maker of a controversial vaccine preservative called "thimerosal," used in vaccines that are given to children.

Drug giant Eli Lilly and Company makes thimerosal. It's the mercury in the preservative that many parents say causes autism in thousands of children – like Mary Kate Kilpatrick.

Asked if she thinks her daughter is a victim of thimerosal, Mary Kate's mother, Kathy Kilpatrick, says, "I think autism is mercury poisoning."

But nobody in Congress would admit to adding the provision, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Acosta – until now.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey tells CBS News he did it to keep vaccine-makers from going out of business under the weight of mounting lawsuits.

"I did it and I'm proud of it," says Armey, R-Texas.

"It's a matter of national security," Armey says. "We need their vaccines if the country is attacked with germ weapons."

Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., isn't buying it. The grandfather of an autistic child, Burton says Armey slipped the provision in at the last minute, too late for debate.

"And I said, 'Who told you to put it in?'" He said, 'No, they asked me to do it at the White House.'"

Critics say the Bush family and the administration have too many ties to Eli Lilly. There's President Bush's father, who sat on the company's board in the 1970's; White House budget director Mitch Daniels, once an Eli Lilly executive; and Eli Lilly CEO Sidney Taurel, who serves on the president's homeland security advisory council.

Officials at the drug giant insist they did nothing wrong. "No one, not our CEO, not myself, not anyone who works with me asked the White House to insert this legislation," said Eli Lilly spokeswoman Debra Steelman.

But Kathy Kilpatrick and her husband Michael argue that the thimerosal provision is not designed to protect the nation, but rather to protect Eli Lilly.

Asked what he'd say to a congressman who came forward and admitted he was responsible for inserting the provision, Michael Kilpatrick says, "I would ask him if he knew he was protecting mercury being shot into our kids."

Kathy Kilpatrick asks, "Why would anyone want to save Eli Lilly on our children's backs?"

Because Armey is retiring at the end of the year, some say the outgoing majority leader is the perfect fall guy to take the heat and shield the White House from embarrassment.

It's a claim both the White house and Armey deny.
© MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Christy]

Dems, resent me all you want. I'm simply calling a spade a spade. Rather than thinking to yourself "oh I'm becoming hate filled just like those who attacked us", you think you're becoming a conservative. You're essentially throwing us into the same category and I RESENT THAT.

There have not been more attacks on US citizens since 9/11, there has just been more media reporting of attacks on US citizens. If you ask any military member who's had the luxory of serving in one of these cesspools they'd tell you the same. It's been happening with great frequency, even when your boy Clinton turned a blind eye to it, it was happening Dems. It has nothing to do with Bushy upsetting the apple cart. It has to do with them wanting to wipe anyone who's not Muslim off the map.

 

[Bruzilla]

Demsformd, I hate to say it, but you're either totally blind and ignorant to world events, or a total fool.

There are no more terrorist attacks against Americans than there were before. The only difference now is that you hear more about them than you did before. I've travelled all over the globe for the military since 1992, and every time we hit the road we got briefed on terrorist threats to us. These were the same generalized threats that everyone gets worked up about these days, and they're been getting issued for years. I have a stack of Saudi newspapers from my trip there in July 2001, and you wouldn't believe how many people were getting killed by these groups and others every day. I was truly shocked at how many people die violent deaths each and every day that we in the US never hear about. The only difference between the pre-9/11 and post-9/11 terrorist threats is that the general public is now aware that the bad guys are out there.

Did Bush use the terrorist attacks and Iraq to the benefit of his party? Yes he did, but so what? How can a member of a party that uses racial, social, and economic issues to their every advantage find room to criticize Bush? You were the guys who politicized the burning of black churces and the dragging death of a man remember? You Democrats need to get off of the moral high-horse that you have no right to be on.

In a time when one person can kill millions of people in a second, there can be little tolerance for threats. The attacks on 9/11 moved the US from the theoretical world to the real world. We learned that the unthinkable can happen, and most importantly we learned that when a person or group makes it a policy to kill you or attack your interests, you can't always write it off as bragging. While I disagree with anyone who says that Iraq poses a military threat to the US, I wholly agree with the fact that an Iraq with WMDs poses a significant threat to our national interests. An egomaniac who envisions himself as the second coming of Mohammed, with complete control over WMD-equipped military forces, and who has shown no regard for human life, is not someone you want around. Would you prefer that Bush hide his head in the sand and pretend that Hussein doesn't exist? It seems that any action he takes against Hussein is characterized by you as "politicizing".

I would prefer not to ask you who our enemies are because it's obvious that you have no clue. A lot of people are trying to draw parallels between the Cold War and the World we live in today, and you can't. The Soviet Union was a nuclear-armed enemy, but they were a sane, rational, government that understood the consequences of their actions. The same cannot be said of religious zealots who honestly believe that they are earning their place in paradise. Secondly, not all enemies of the US are the ones that can blow us up. There are those, like Iraq, that can level us economically.

I hate to say this, but it's people who think like you that let 9/11 happen. They hate the thought of killing innocent women and children in the pursuit of our enemies; they feel that we shouldn't take pre-emptive action to a recognized threat; they feel that we shouldn't work with bad characters; they feel that if we just leave well enough alone that we'll be fine. I believe that the World is comprised of about 99.9% fine, hard-working, caring people who are always having to pay the price for the misdeeds of the last .01 percent. It's sad that many of those 99.9% have to get injured, maimed, or killed because of what the .01 percent do, but that's the ##### of life on planet Earth. Trying to appease or ignore the .01 percent does not make them less of a threat to you, and in fact, 9/11 proved that the opposite is true.

I think the purpose of your posts was nothing more than a reason to bash Bush and the Republicans.

 

[MGKrebs]

Dems can speak for himself, but as for me:

1. IF you believe that all terrorist leaders are wackos that do not respond to reason, then we can have no discussion. There is no criteria to define that condition. It is an opinion that cannot be discussed with logic.

2. I see NO evidence that answering terrorist threats with violence has ever reduced the threat. It did not work in Northern Ireland, it has not worked in the Middle East, it has not worked in Chechnya, it has not worked with Al Qaida. Yes, you can say that specific attacks were thwarted, but my perception is that for every terrorist we kill, we create 20 more terrorists and 100 more attacks. I am NOT sympathetic with terrorists, I’m just being practical.

3. Yes we should respond to known threats and respond to attacks. But that alone will NOT solve the problem. As much as we hate the idea of engaging terrorists, it is the only hope of a long term solution. If you believe in a Palestinian state, you agree with this. If you agree with the Northern Ireland solution, you agree with this. It does not have to be done publicly, it does not even have to be done directly. And it especially does not have to be done from a position of weakness or under duress. If we are sincere in listening to a groups grievances, we may find that whatever they want is something we are willing to give.

I understand that this opens the door for further "blackmail", and I understand that negotiation hasn’t worked in the Middle East either. But as time goes by, I think we get closer and closer to a solution.

4. No matter what we do, we are unlikely to end terrorism. The issue is how to minimize it. Today’s terrorists have NOTHING TO LOSE. There is nothing we can threaten them with that will deter them.

5. Iraq is completely different (similar to Libya). They are a sovereign nation, member of the UN, with a lot to lose. But I see no connection between attacking Iraq and reducing terrorism. I would like to think that we could monitor and deter Iraq just like we do for probably 30 other countries in the world we don’t like (or who don’t like us, if you prefer).

 

[Christy]

1. IF you believe that all terrorist leaders are wackos that do not respond to reason, then we can have no discussion. There is no criteria to define that condition. It is an opinion that cannot be discussed with logic.

Krebs, religious zealots do not respond to reason, so I guess we don't have much to talk about if you think that they can.

2. I see NO evidence that answering terrorist threats with violence has ever reduced the threat. It did not work in Northern Ireland, it has not worked in the Middle East, it has not worked in Chechnya, it has not worked with Al Qaida. Yes, you can say that specific attacks were thwarted, but my perception is that for every terrorist we kill, we create 20 more terrorists and 100 more attacks. I am NOT sympathetic with terrorists, I’m just being practical.

It most certainly does work when you don't do it half way. Libya is a perfect example.

How would you propose we deal with terrorists? Appease them? Let them kill all the Jews and Christians? Next would be the atheists, because guess what? They aren't Muslim either.

I understand that this opens the door for further "blackmail", and I understand that negotiation hasn’t worked in the Middle East either. But as time goes by, I think we get closer and closer to a solution.

I disagree, I think our years of appeasing terrorists has taken us farther and farther from a peaceful solution.

4. No matter what we do, we are unlikely to end terrorism. The issue is how to minimize it. Today’s terrorists have NOTHING TO LOSE. There is nothing we can threaten them with that will deter them.

They most certainly do have something to lose. They just know we wouldn't dare hunt down their families and make them "pay" for the crimes they've committed. Until we become as brutal as they are we will lose. It's a fact, and keeping our high morals in this fight is going to cost more lives than it saves.

5. Iraq is completely different (similar to Libya). They are a sovereign nation, member of the UN, with a lot to lose. But I see no connection between attacking Iraq and reducing terrorism. I would like to think that we could monitor and deter Iraq just like we do for probably 30 other countries in the world we don’t like (or who don’t like us, if you prefer).

If you don't think Iraq supports and funds terrorists Krebs, you're living in a fantasy world. This is a man who gasses his own people and executes his family members. Do you really think he's steered clear of throwing money and supplies at anyone willing to do us harm?

 

[Warron]

Personally, I see the war on terrorism to be on par with the war on drugs. We will pile tons of money and resourses into the effort, let it transform our nation into a more secure (and less free) place to live. And in 20 years, terrorism will be exactly the same as it is now. And to compliment it all, we will have an even greater prison population to support with our tax money.

 

[demsformd]

Warron has the best point that I can see...The War on Terror is not a long-term solution. It is helping now but when we attempt to apply it to Iraq and other nations, its effectivness will decrease. As for attacks, a French oil tanker was hit by a terrorist bomb and diplomats over in Africa were assassinated. Since we are so concerned with whether Iraq has crossed all its t's and dotted the i's, the religious zealots can do a lot more. I agree the zealots are much more of a greater risk than previous enemies, so why are we going after a soverign state? I want to stop the zealots and attempting to kill all of them won't stop them. Fighting fire with fire just creates a bigger fire. It's time for our nation to use water to end religious radicalism.
It's not people like me that caused 9/11, its people that for too long were intolerant of that culture. Misunderstanding leads to things like 9/11 and maybe if we didn't force our will on them so much, they wouldn't feel compelled to strap themselves to a plane and fly it into a building.

 

[Heretic]

There are ways to end terrorism, most Americans would not agree to them though.

Kill a terrorist bury him in pig skin so he will spend eternal damnation in hell is just one I can think of.

In the early 80's there was a big rash of kidnappings for ransom in the middle east. One enterprising arab decided to kidnap some important Russian. THe KGB found out who the kidnapper was and his brothers head was mailed to him with his penis stuck in his mouth, other than Chechnya the Russians havent had any problems since.

The Chechnians that held the theater full of people hostage in Moscow a couple months ago are now burried in pig skins so that they will spend eternity in hell (so Islam says).

 

[Heretic]

Dont forget about the lessons Saudi children learn in school......Americans live lifestyles that make them evil, we should hate ALL Christians, ALL Jews, and it is our duty to kill them. Throwing stones at Jews is even taught in the Koran.

These repressive governments pretty much have to teach this stuff in school or their citizens will want things like most of the western world and to keep their citizens down they have to teach them that their way is the only right way.

If you want to talk about intolerance and imposing wills you have no further to look than most of the Arab world.

 

[demsformd]

Yes Heretic you are quite right, the Arabic World is very intolerant. But we are not because we are Americans. We understand other people. (To quote a model of mine: we "feel your pain.") We need to be more understanding of them...rational discussion is the thing that will help us the most not a bomb.

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by demsformd
Lately I have received inspiration (AKA: Brainfart) to discuss this topic in great extent. On September 11th, 2001, I was in Baltimore at the World Trade Center there to meet an old friend of mine for breakfast.
(1) I was unaware that we had another World Trade Center In Baltimore........ If we do, forgive me.

(2) His news just increased my hatred...I was becoming a monster, a conservative.
We already knew that, Dems........

(3) A couple days later President Bush said one of the things that I truly admired him for at that time: "Live your normal lives."
First sensible item that you state so far.........

(4) We still do not have bin Laden, his top deputies, and his terrorist organization is still attacking American targets.

You truly expected it to end by now, this fast?

(5) What have we accomplished? Next to nothing, we are still at as great a risk today as we were yesterday.

Over 100 plots against the US and her Allies thwarted, and we've done nothing concrete to this date?


(6) President Bush used bin Laden and the War on Terror to scare people into the voting booths in the last election

He is trying to keep everyone aware that the threat does still in fact exist, do not become complacent!

(7) President Bush will not let us forget that day because he wants to win reelection.

Pure tripe, however, the same answer to No. 7 applies.

(8) I do not want our President to use him as a reason to attack Iraq, which he has already done.

Really! Just what interests have we attacked in Iraq lately? Other than AAA Batteries firing on our interceptors.

Yet we are allowing our President to tear us down piece by piece.

I'm sorry but your arguements break down into these points, and I find them pathetic. Perhaps you ought to buy an airplane ticket to Bagdhad, and join Sean Penn as another learned fellow over there.

penn

 

[STMLADY]

I read the entire posts for this topic.

These are my views.

9/11 happened because at the time our intelligence/security forces were severely hinderd by lack of funding.

We are seen as the evil nation by many groups. For many different reasons.

We have become to complacent and have taken to protecting the innocents of these countries into consideration.

Sorry folks plain and simple...when attacked you attack back hard decisive and mean. Do you honestly think they cared about all the innocent lives that were lost in 9-11 H-E-double tooth pick no. We need to be just as cold hearted as they are, that is when and only when they will not mess with the US.

There can be no comprimse on this issue.

 

[Penn]

You are Darn Straight

Originally posted by STMLADY
I read the entire posts for this topic.

These are my views.

9/11 happened because at the time our intelligence/security forces were severely hinderd by lack of funding.

We are seen as the evil nation by many groups. For many different reasons.

We have become to complacent and have taken to protecting the innocents of these countries into consideration.

Sorry folks plain and simple...when attacked you attack back hard decisive and mean. Do you honestly think they cared about all the innocent lives that were lost in 9-11 H-E-double tooth pick no. We need to be just as cold hearted as they are, that is when and only when they will not mess with the US.

There can be no comprimse on this issue.

Here's another reason 9/11 happened, and it has to do with our intelligence community again: The FBI, CIA, NSA and the rest of those people weren't talking to each other! I'm going out on a limb, but I'd wager if there was more inter-agency communication/coordination, we might have had a much better chance at stopping the terror flights.
But no, it's about an age old fight about "Turf Wars", afraid of crossing agency lines, keeping it to yourself, and image is everything.
In America, we care what happens to innocent civilians - everywhere! We've got to wake up the the fact that there are LOTS of despot nations, especially in the Middle East who may
say they care, but how can you explain people like Saddam
murdering his own countrymen and women and children? Sorry,
it's pretty plain to me that they do not.
We have to be a lot tougher as Americans, or we will NOT win this war against Terrorism. Too many bleeding liberals, too many analysts, trying to tear your heart apart with horror stories
and shots of impoverished children in foreign lands for us to feel guilty about, and want to back off.

penn

 

[STMLADY]

I agree with you Penn!

 

[Penn]

Once more for Insanity

What got just the bare mention on TV, the talk shows and commentary segments, was the fact that Saddam Hussein made an offer to Omar Qhaddafi over in Libiya(sp?) to the tune of TWO and a Half to Three BILLION dollars for Safe Haven for himself and family, should he decide to abdicate and leave Iraq!
When we, all of us, see the pictures being broadcast on TV of the severity of life conditions over there, - the children, the "poor people", hell you've seen them: dressed in rags, starving, flies buzzing around them?
Remember that 'ol Saddam has billions of dollars to save himself, but NOT his people!

penn

 

[MGKrebs]

Jetmonkey- Defender of Freedom

Consistently exerting his God-given and Constitutional right to show no class! (Well, except for the Xmas light pics, they were cute.)

Use it or lose it!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You suck!

smooch Muslim ###

Spendenning

it's a world of ####, we live in a world of ####.

tan mitties

was that a *b-oi-oi-oi-oi-oi-ng!* I just heard?

asswhack'


MGKrebs- Political Correctness Monitor (PCM)

 

[Kyle]

Geez Krebs... Some of us just don't take "everything" seriously...

Especially the usual America hating, French-like, whiney-@$$ed, PC lib-drivel!

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by jetmonkey
I think he has a crush on me!

Typical

 

[MGKrebs]

Just as I thought,

tough on the surface, but soft and sensitive on the inside. Kinda like a bon bon.