Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Addicted to 9/11

ChefWide

Elite Mentor
Platinum
Addicted to 9/11
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN




I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear the president and vice president slamming John Kerry for saying that he hopes America can eventually get back to a place where "terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." The idea that President Bush and Mr. Cheney would declare such a statement to be proof that Mr. Kerry is unfit to lead actually says more about them than Mr. Kerry. Excuse me, I don't know about you, but I dream of going back to the days when terrorism was just a nuisance in our lives.

If I have a choice, I prefer not to live the rest of my life with the difference between a good day and bad day being whether Homeland Security tells me it is "code red" or "code orange" outside. To get inside the Washington office of the International Monetary Fund the other day, I had to show my ID, wait for an escort and fill out a one-page form about myself and my visit. I told my host: "Look, I don't want a loan. I just want an interview." Somewhere along the way we've gone over the top and lost our balance.

That's why Mr. Kerry was actually touching something many Americans are worried about - that this war on terrorism is transforming us and our society, when it was supposed to be about uprooting the terrorists and transforming their societies.

The Bush team's responses to Mr. Kerry's musings are revealing because they go to the very heart of how much this administration has become addicted to 9/11. The president has exploited the terrorism issue for political ends - trying to make it into another wedge issue like abortion, guns or gay rights - to rally the Republican base and push his own political agenda. But it is precisely this exploitation of 9/11 that has gotten him and the country off-track, because it has not only created a wedge between Republicans and Democrats, it's also created a wedge between America and the rest of the world, between America and its own historical identity, and between the president and common sense.

By exploiting the emotions around 9/11, Mr. Bush took a far-right agenda on taxes, the environment and social issues - for which he had no electoral mandate - and drove it into a 9/12 world. In doing so, Mr. Bush made himself the most divisive and polarizing president in modern history.

By using 9/11 to justify launching a war in Iraq without U.N. support, Mr. Bush also created a huge wedge between America and the rest of the world. I sympathize with the president when he says he would never have gotten a U.N. consensus for a strategy of trying to get at the roots of terrorism by reshaping the Arab-Muslim regimes that foster it - starting with Iraq.

But in politicizing 9/11, Mr. Bush drove a wedge between himself and common sense when it came to implementing his Iraq strategy. After failing to find any W.M.D. in Iraq, he became so dependent on justifying the Iraq war as the response to 9/11 - a campaign to bring freedom and democracy to the Arab-Muslim world - that he refused to see reality in Iraq. The president seemed to be saying to himself, "Something so good and right as getting rid of Saddam can't possibly be going so wrong." Long after it was obvious to anyone who visited Iraq that we never had enough troops there to establish order, Mr. Bush simply ignored reality. When pressed on Iraq, he sought cover behind 9/11 and how it required "tough decisions" - as if the tough decision to go to war in Iraq, in the name of 9/11, should make him immune to criticism over how he conducted the war.

Lastly, politicizing 9/11 put a wedge between us and our history. The Bush team has turned this country into "The United States of Fighting Terrorism." "Bush only seems able to express our anger, not our hopes," said the Mideast expert Stephen P. Cohen. "His whole focus is on an America whose role in the world is to negate the negation of the terrorists. But America has always been about the affirmation of something positive. That is missing today. Beyond Afghanistan, they've been much better at destruction than construction."

I wish Mr. Kerry were better able to articulate how America is going to get its groove back. But the point he was raising about wanting to put terrorism back into perspective is correct. I want a president who can one day restore Sept. 11th to its rightful place on the calendar: as the day after Sept. 10th and before Sept. 12th. I do not want it to become a day that defines us. Because ultimately Sept. 11th is about them - the bad guys - not about us. We're about the Fourth of July.
 
The President was doing good in his fight against terrorism..

until he started that whole iraq bullshit.

since iraq started, and when it'll finally end -- won't have made an IOTA of difference in me being safer at night.

When someone is so willing to make such huge wrong decisions, sending thousands of americans to their deaths -- makes me question every other decision he makes as well.

Someone bring Reagan back from the dead please.
 
It's well written but it's foolish to think that this you can go back to a living style during a period of time prior to 9/11 - to much has changed, how we do buiness, banking, insurance and lifestyle habits.
 
Chef

I think Friedman has missed the point entirely.

That's a wonderful sentiment, but its precisely that attitude which led to 9/11.

We failed to take terrorism seriously before that date, and he and Kerry are suggesting a return to that same failed outlook.

Modern technology has eradicated the need for large scale forces in ordwr to inflict considerable damage on ones enemy. Kerry fails to recognize, or refuses to acknowledge, that terrorists have become just another weapon to foster state agendas in the wider world. It isnt a simple matter of armed nuts, but of world regimes usuing the cover of terrorist organizations to attack their adversaries and effect policies in other countries, primarily the US.

Kerry still operates under the delusion that this is nothing more than apolice action. He parrots the nonsesne that this is all about Al Qaeda. Through his words and actions he has demonstrated himself incapable of dealing with this threat effectively or deliberately.

The state sponsors must be dealt with. They muyst either capitulate or be crushed. The too real possibility of nuclear prolifewration, and such a weapoin falling into the hands of a terrorist, demands serious action on the part of our government.
 
cripes Jerseyart and Velvett....... you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Republican Scare Machine. Bend over and let the totalitarian forces f**k you in the @ss.

This whole "are you safer" crap the Republicans scare up. The fact of the matter is you are as just as safe today as you were on Sept 10, 2001. It's just the perceptions that are different. And that is the point both Thomas Friedman and Kerry are trying to make.

It's possible to fight a 'war' on terrorists with out america being reduced to a police state.
 
Hengst said:
cripes Jerseyart and Velvett....... you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Republican Scare Machine. Bend over and let the totalitarian forces f**k you in the @ss.

This whole "are you safer" crap the Republicans scare up. The fact of the matter is you are as just as safe today as you were on Sept 10, 2001. It's just the perceptions that are different. And that is the point both Thomas Friedman and Kerry are trying to make.

It's possible to fight a 'war' on terrorists with out america being reduced to a police state.


:rolleyes:

More hyperbole from the left. Close your eyes and pretend it will all just go away. That's what your candidate plans on doing, so it's little surprise his followers do as well

Some people need to be smacked repeatedly upside the head before they understand they're in a fight
 
JerseyArt said:
:rolleyes:
More hyperbole from the left. Close your eyes and pretend it will all just go away. That's what your candidate plans on doing, so it's little surprise his followers do as well

Some people need to be smacked repeatedly upside the head before they understand they're in a fight
:rolleyes:

Then don't forget your duck tape, lifetime supply of clean drinking water, and kraft dinner. Lord knows that the boogyman is just around the corner.
 
JerseyArt said:
:rolleyes:

More hyperbole from the left. Close your eyes and pretend it will all just go away. That's what your candidate plans on doing, so it's little surprise his followers do as well

Some people need to be smacked repeatedly upside the head before they understand they're in a fight
All hat, no cattle.
 
JerseyArt said:
:rolleyes:

More hyperbole from the left. Close your eyes and pretend it will all just go away. That's what your candidate plans on doing, so it's little surprise his followers do as well

Some people need to be smacked repeatedly upside the head before they understand they're in a fight

I'm hardly a leftist............. but Bush is fighting it all wrong !!!!!!!!!!

There is a clash of culture going on and Bush (hell, the whole US power structure) refuse to tell you the truth about it.

If you REALLY think Kerry is just going to ignore the 'threat' ? I mean come on, deep down inside, If Kerry wins do you really think there will be like some sort of capitulation to AlQueda ... ?

I know !!!! Kerry can land on an Aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf and sign Articles of Capitulation to Osama Bin Laden , accompanied by a huge banner 'Mission Accomplished'

Is that what you really envision?
 
Hengst said:
I'm hardly a leftist............. but Bush is fighting it all wrong !!!!!!!!!!

There is a clash of culture going on and Bush (hell, the whole US power structure) refuse to tell you the truth about it.

If you REALLY think Kerry is just going to ignore the 'threat' ? I mean come on, deep down inside, If Kerry wins do you really think there will be like some sort of capitulation to AlQueda ... ?

I know !!!! Kerry can land on an Aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf and sign Articles of Capitulation to Osama Bin Laden , accompanied by a huge banner 'Mission Accomplished'

Is that what you really envision?

No Bush has taken the fight precisely where it should be, against terrorist sponsoring states who try to use the terroists to carry forth their agendas while maintaining plausible deniability. That way morong the world over will rsuh to the defense of the Taliban and Saddam types parroting nonsense like "we have no proof" when something tragic does occure.

Dop I think Kerry will ignore the threat. Yes I do.

I think so because his entire political career is marked by weakness in matters of national security. He wanted to capitulate to the Soviets. He sided with the communists in South America. He voted against the first Gulf War. He voted for this one, then changed his mind when it looked like he would lose the nomination..................

What Kerry will do is what Clinton did. He will treat it like a police matter, and ignore the real threats. He will comprimise away actual security in an attempt to placate enemies of this country who have no actual desire to negotiate.

What you and your candidate fail to recognize is that not everyone in the world is seeking peaceful resolution. They dont want peace, they want to win. Kerry's weakness and placating only encourage them in their goals.

You dont comprimise with evil, you destry it.
 
EnderJE said:
:rolleyes:

Then don't forget your duck tape, lifetime supply of clean drinking water, and kraft dinner. Lord knows that the boogyman is just around the corner.


Yeah its a boogeyman :rolleyes:

Should have remebered that ther only threat perceived by the left are lil old ladys who go to church on sundays
 
Bush is doing everything he can to rid the world of terrorists and make the U.S. safer. Including losing the election.
 
JerseyArt said:
Yeah its a boogeyman :rolleyes:

Should have remebered that ther only threat perceived by the left are lil old ladys who go to church on sundays
Hey. Those fucking ladies in the Volvo are driving death gas filled bombs. If six hit a few buildings, the news would be all over it. Don't forget it.

Secondly, terrorists were around long before 9/11 and (my perception) was that life was just fine. 9/11 happened and the world is a different place with alot more security measures in place and alot more press about it.

Is the amount of press necessary? Maybe. I don't know the effects of re-allocating the funds from other programs to support anti-terrorist activities vs the number of potential attacks that could of occured if the anti-terrorist activities didn't exist.

Will they make you more safer? Maybe.

Do they need to be thrust into the public spotlight every day when there are potential more important things to worry about? I don't think so.

If they aren't in the spotlight, does it mean that we don't pay attention anymore? It means that the general public will not, but the government / police / security forces will still be watching for it and take action if necessary.
 
Last edited:
JerseyArt said:
:rolleyes:

More hyperbole from the left. Close your eyes and pretend it will all just go away. That's what your candidate plans on doing, so it's little surprise his followers do as well

Some people need to be smacked repeatedly upside the head before they understand they're in a fight


Is that your new gimmick now? Calling anyone a leftist if they're agaisnt something you believe in?
 
EnderJE said:
Hey. Those fucking ladies in the Volvo are driving death gas filled bombs. If six hit a few buildings, the news would be all over it. Don't forget it.

Secondly, terrorists were around long before 9/11 and (my perception) was that life was just fine. 9/11 happened and the world is a different place with alot more security measures in place and alot more press about it.

Is the amount of press necessary? Maybe. I don't know the effects of re-allocating the funds from other programs to support anti-terrorist activities vs the number of potential attacks that could of occured if the anti-terrorist activities didn't exist.

Will they make you more safer? Maybe.

Do they need to be thrust into the public spotlight every day when there are potential more important things to worry about? I don't think so.

If they aren't in the spotlight, does it mean that we don't pay attention anymore? It means that the general public will not, but the government / police / security forces will still be watching for it and take action if necessary.

The problem with your argument is in the second paragraph. Its the same thing Friedman and Kerry both fail to comprehend.

Nuclear weapons have been a round for a long time as well. The problem is that these two disparate seasoned problems are quickly reaching a point where they will no longer be so unrelated.

Terrorists are not the problem. You will never eradicate individuals willing to kill and die for some goal they deem worthwhile. Kerry however does pretend as if they are the problem, and obfuscates the true danger.

The war on terror is only in the smallest part about finding indiviudal nuts and bringing them to justice. The far larger threat is the increasing willingness and effectiveness of rogue states using terrorists as an untraceable weapon against their enemies.

What made Al Qaeda dangerous was not Bin Laden. Whatr made them dangerous were regimes like Iraq(and yes there was a camp inside Iraq) and Afghanistan willing to sponsor, support,train, and give safe haven to these type of groups. Of even greater concern is the increasingly unstoppable proliferation of weapons which can be given by these states to these groups to inflict harm on its percieved enemies.

If a nuclear bomb was smuggled into NYC and detonated, who would you retaliate against? Al Qaeda? They dont have a country to strike against.

The only serious answer to the threat is eradicating those rogue regimes , and making it clear to all the others that we will come after you for supporting these people. You wont be able to hide behind the "show me your evidence." We wont need video tape of Saddam meeting with Bin Laden to reasonably conclude that you are as responsible as they are.

Kerry in turn spreads manure about how he is going to make every bridge,tunnel,port,airport, and important facility in the country safe. How stupid do ytou have to be to believe that shit? If you put 30 million men in arms you couldnt accomplish all of that.

You dont solve terrorist threats by hoping you can prevent each occurence. They are going to win sometimes, and they only have to win once. You stop them by cutting their legs out from under them, and that is something that Kerry will never do
 
JerseyArt said:
You dont comprimise with evil, you destry it.


They say the same thing about us.




The real question is, how do you define evil, and how far do you go to destroy it? Is evil anyone who disagrees with us? Because that's how you come across JA, constantly calling anyone who disagrees with you a "stupid liberal who is too dumb to see the truth".

At what point do you draw the line? Is France evil for doing business with Sadaam? Should we take them out too? How about Russia?

The war on terror has become the war on anything we don't like, hence the invasion of Iraq who had nothing to do with 9-11. How far are you willing to take it? Our actions have made the world much more unsafe for America simply because we are pissing everyone off. They are scared of our military might because they see us as a nation out of control who has lost their way. Are they now evil too?



We have become that which we set out to fight, and attitudes like yours are the reasons why.
 
Forge said:
They say the same thing about us.




The real question is, how do you define evil, and how far do you go to destroy it? Is evil anyone who disagrees with us? Because that's how you come across JA, constantly calling anyone who disagrees with you a "stupid liberal who is too dumb to see the truth".

At what point do you draw the line? Is France evil for doing business with Sadaam? Should we take them out too? How about Russia?

The war on terror has become the war on anything we don't like, hence the invasion of Iraq who had nothing to do with 9-11. How far are you willing to take it? Our actions have made the world much more unsafe for America simply because we are pissing everyone off. They are scared of our military might because they see us as a nation out of control who has lost their way. Are they now evil too?



We have become that which we set out to fight, and attitudes like yours are the reasons why.

K
 
Hengst said:
cripes Jerseyart and Velvett....... you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Republican Scare Machine. Bend over and let the totalitarian forces f**k you in the @ss.

This whole "are you safer" crap the Republicans scare up. The fact of the matter is you are as just as safe today as you were on Sept 10, 2001. It's just the perceptions that are different. And that is the point both Thomas Friedman and Kerry are trying to make.

It's possible to fight a 'war' on terrorists with out america being reduced to a police state.


Who's talking safety? I could die crossing the street, 9/11 has had zero impact on my life as to how I feel about "being safe". What happened could have happened at any time, perhaps next time it won't take a 2, 3, 4 planes for some control to be taken. (but that's a different thread)

I'm refering to new banking procedures and new insurance policy procedures.

I never mentioned anything about Republicans or Democrats - procedure changes are just fact.
 
Top Bottom