NOt entirely. I agree that in Afghanistan, it was indeed necessary, because there we did have true, state-supported terrorism. Thus far, it seems to have been unique, although there are little hints of it here and there in other places. But Law Enforcement and Military Ops don’t differ just in scale. They have a completely different approach, which is one of the reasons we fell apart so badly once we had “won” in Iraq. Our soldiers were absolutely brilliantly trained and equipped for fighting and winning battles and wars. They were not trained for police work, except for the MPs, and apparently it hadn’t occurred to anyone in charge that if we got rid of all the Iraqi police, we might need some to put in their place.
I’m not an expert and I can’t tell you in what details they differ. I know that I have read and heard many times that they do. Their similarity is only that they both use force to enforce the will of the government. But there is an enormous difference between fighting other soldiers, and fighting criminals. Terrorists are criminals, and you give them too much credit when you call them soldiers.
And the other wishes it would go away. 9/11 is a stark reminder that not everyone in the world is sitting in a circle talking about “social justice”…and that those people need to be dealt with in a pragmatic way.
And if you hadn’t noticed, we are discussing in what pragmatic way to deal with it. No one is suggesting that we sit in a circle, hold hands, and sing “I’d like to teach the world to sing.”
ETA: But dealing with it in a pragmatic way does not mean whipping people up into an orgy of frenzied patriotism by showing the events of 9/11 complete with stirring music and lots of flags waving.
I’m fine with the move. I like Keith but he is NOT a newsman - he’s a commentator.
However, I’ve got to say that I’m disgusted with the pass Sarah Palin is getting in the media. All I’m seeing is story after story crying that everyone should leave her alone, but I never saw any stories provoking those. All smoke and no fire. Why didn’t the Republicans get angry when the “liberal media” was scrutinizing Obama’s private life?
Do I have a notarized copy of “Leading Democrat” stating “I wish 9/11 would go away?” No. But you knew that when you asked the question. Asking “cite?” when faced with an inconvienient concept is intellectual red zone defense. Let me take you through what you already know.
9/11 really happened. It’s not a concept or political philosophy. It demonstrated that there are people that want to kill us and money and effort must be spent to combat them.
Most people who are even slightly educated about current events and ideologial thinking realize that the Republicans are much more comfortable with the concept of building up institutions like the CIA and Defense Department to deal with the issue.
They also realize that Republicans have enjoyed an advantage on the perception of being more capable on national security issues for at least a generation.
These factors combine to become a political disadvantage for the Democrats. The less people are thinking about national security and the more they are thinking about health care and the economy (areas where Democrats enjoy a perceptual advantage), the better it is for them. Therefore, many Democrats would like 9/11 to be a distant memory two months before an election between two candidates with stark differences on national security philosophy.
Because Obama was the enemy and they wanted him ripped to shreds, of course. Let’s not be naive about this. The so-called sexist treatment Sarah Palin is getting is a figment of the Republican spin machine, manufactured to get the press away from her while they are trying to turn her into My Fair Lady. Yet another piece of evidence that this was a last minute choice - they would have done this a long time ago if they had known it was coming.
I probably wouldn’t have as much issue with bringing up 9/11 if it wasn’t being used as the justification for invading Iraq. If the Republicans were actually making inroads to deal with those responsible for 9/11, I’d have no problem with them reminding people of it. But they’re not. It’s empty and dishonest glitter to make people think the Republicans are the protectors of the American way while they’re actually getting away with murder.
That’s not exactly the same thing as wishing it would go away.
Yes, of course Democrats would prefer the election focus on the economy. But we also happen to think that anyone with a brain looking at the national security situation will see that the Democrats were right and the Republicans were wrong about Iraq (and I don’t want to hear about who voted for it - you know damn well that Bush created a political situation where most people didn’t dare vote against it because Bush had their constituents convinced that Saddam would nuke 'em next Tuesday if they didn’t!) and that we never should have gotten involved there. We think that, given a chance, national security could become a Democratic issue too.
And Barack Obama is the one who remebers who actually attacked us and who wants to commit resources to that instead of wasting time, blood and treasure in a country that had nothing to do with it.
I call bullshit on this, unless you’re trying to define “building up” as tearing down American civil liberties.
The actual threat of Middle-Eastern terrorism is also hysterically exaggerated by the political right for reasons of cynical self-interest. A few thousand fanatics are not going to take over America. Relax. You’re going to be fine. You don’t have to hid under the table. The Muslsims are not going to get you.
This is only a perception, of course, and it’s a political perception that, aside from being totally unearned in the first place, has now been largely destroyed by the ineptitude of the current administration. This also has nothing to do with your accusation that the political left “wants to forget” 9/11.
Actually, you might want to check a poll here and there. The Republicans have lost all high ground in terms of national security. Americans overwhelmingly view Iraq as a disaster, and the fear-mongering about a largely fictional Islamic threat against the US isn’t working anymore. You can only parade those corpses for so long before you reach a level of diminishing returns.
I have no problem with that. The debaters were All Dems, so whatever bias that might exist is equal, canceling it out. I also wouldn’t mind Brokaw, Stephanopolous, or some other thoughtful, reasonable Dem form hosting a Rep debate.
Ohboyohboyohboy. First your including Brit Hume with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity is laughable. You may want to acquaint yourselves with them a little more before ham-handedly lumping them together. As far as your “similar media megaphone”—that’s just too fucking bad, isn’t it. No one just gave them that megaphone out of the goodness of their hearts. They earned it. They started with very small shows on radio and then expanded because they attracted larger and larger audiences. Whose fault is it that there aren’t large audiences that want to hear the nonsense spewed by jerks like Olberman, or any of the Air America crowd. Even when it was funded to give them a head start, it failed miserably.
I haven’t seen why Matthews was “demoted” as you say. What was the reasoning. Olberman was the one who made the crack about the 9/11 footage. Matthews wasn’t even in that short segment.
I don’t see it as either/or. Who said that we need reminders instead of measures?Measures and reminders. They’re both good.
I wish, wish, wish, wish, Obama would take this lead. Imagine that, they’re at war with us, but we’re not at war with them. Perhaps some couples counseling…
I don’t think so. But regardless, it doesn’t hurt. Such is the nature of reminders. I find it troubling that you’re having such a difficult time with a rather simple concept. Oh well…
Well, it might help if you say what you mean, my psychic powers area little rusty. So you want to exclude all scenarios where it might be brought up that might show that one party takes the threat ore seriously than the other. Uhhhh, no thanks. I want to know that information. Especially during election season.
The problem is that while although radical Islam is but a subset of Islam, and those adherents to radical Islam that might actually commit acts of terrorism is a subset of that. The starting number is so big that we still end up with way too big a threat. There’s a recent thread that explores the numbers involved.
But the thing about 9/11 or the Cole incident or any other act of murderous barbarism is that you don’t need millions of people to commit it. How many were involved in 9/11, including those beyond the guys on the planes? A dozen? Two, Three?
Your Detroit analogy fails. I said we were at war with radical Islam. Not a particular locale. Your analogy would be better in arguing against going into Iraq or going into Saudi Arabia. And if we had viewed it more as a war during the '90s, and brought all resources to bear—and retaliated—and were more vigilant, perhaps 9/11 wouldn’t have happened at thos 3,000 people would still be around.
McCain wants the same thing. He just wants to make the wisest decision as far as Iraq since we’re there. If it were up to Obama, we would have run away two years ago and the surge never would have taken place. It is a good thing he didn’t have his way. And you know that “100 years” thing is bullshit. But I’m not surprised to see you parade it out. Thanks for not disappointing.
Please get Obama to parrot this utter nonsense. Please, please, pretty please?
