September 11th

| | Comments (32) | TrackBacks (0)

bolling%20banner.jpg

Thoughts on September 11th
September 11, 2007
It seems hard to believe, but it was six years ago today that radical Islamic terrorists struck at the heart of our country, killing more Americans in a single day than at any time since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

These terrorist attacks were well planned and targeted.

By attacking The World Trade Center in New York City terrorists struck at the financial centers of our nation. By attacking the Pentagon in Northern Virginia they struck at the military strength of our nation, and by attempting to launch a similar attack against The White House or the U.S. Capital, they sought to strike the political institutions of our country.

In the days following these attacks the true American spirit was awakened. We sought to bring those who were responsible for these attacks to justice, and military operations against the Taliban and other terrorist organizations ensued. We pledged to do everything we could to make certain that an attack of this nature did not occur again.

Today, six years after these horrific attacks, there have been successes and disappointments in the war on terror.

We have replaced the Taliban in Afghanistan and we have removed the brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We have taken similar actions against terrorist operations in numerous other parts of the world, and we have enhanced our intelligence gathering operations.

Through these offensive actions we have reduced the terrorist threat, we have made the world a safer place, and we have prevented any further terrorist attacks on our homeland. These are successes we should be proud of.

These successes have been made possible by two things, and it is important that we remember these things on this solemn anniversary.

First, we owe a great debt of thanks to President Bush, who has stood strong in his resolve to prosecute and win the war on terror, even though numerous politicians and pundits have done all they could to make his task difficult. While some have tried to make the war on terror an albatross around the President’s neck, the truth is that his resolve in fighting and winning the war on terror will likely be remembered as his greatest contribution to our country and the world.

Second, we owe a great debt of thanks to the men and women of the United States Military who have faithfully gone into harms way to combat those who would do harm to our nation and our people and bring them to justice. The members of the U.S. armed forces are truly the best among us, and it is because of their efforts that we have the privilege of living in the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

Unfortunately, as the events of September 11, 2001 have become more of a distant memory, some have lost their resolve to do what must be done to keep the terrorists on the defensive, win the war on terror, and keep the American homeland safe.

Some would have us leave Iraq prematurely, before the job is done. While the work in Iraq is dangerous and difficult, and while it comes with a heavy price, we must not lose our resolve to win the war on terror and keep our homeland safe. We want our troops home as soon as possible, but we want them home in victory, and not in defeat.

If we leave Iraq before the job is done we will empower the terrorists and make it possible for them to make Iraq their base of operations for future attacks on our country and other freedom loving countries around the world. Terrorists, operating from an oil rich country like Iraq, would be far more formidable than they have ever been in the past.

And by relinquishing the offensive position and taking the battle to the terrorists in their homeland, we would make it easier for them to assume the offensive position and bring radical Jihad back to the streets of the United States. We cannot allow that to happen.

As a nation we need to wake up and realize that radical Jihad is a force, an evil force, which threatens the future of our country. These radical Jihadists will not stop until they have killed as many Americans as possible and destroyed our way of life.

While we may wish it wasn’t so, it is so; and the choices we have are to play offense and fight these evil forces in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, or play defense and allow them to bring their war back to the streets of New York City and Washington, DC and countless other places in our homeland.

These threats will not go away, not matter how much we may wish they would. They will stand as a present challenge to our freedoms and our way of life until they are defeated.

But when you think about it, it has always been that way.

When you look back over the history of our nation each generation of Americans has faced a battle of this nature. In each generation we have been called upon to defend the cause of freedom and our way of life, and we have faithfully answered the call.

The question is, six years after the worst terrorist attack in the history of our nation, has our resolve waned, or will we stand worthy to the task and continue to do the difficult work of freedom in this, our most recent challenge?

As we remember this solemn anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, let us remember those who lost their lives that day and continue to keep their families in our thoughts and prayers.

Let us also remember the brave men and women of the U.S. military who have given their lives in the war on terror, who have been wounded in battle, and those who remain in harms way in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world.

And let us pray that we will remain willing to do what must be done to defend the cause of freedom, protect our way of life, and resist the voices of those who would have us travel down a different road, for that road we will make us less secure and increase the risk of future terrorist attacks.

Yes, Americans have always been willing to answer freedom’s call and do what must be done to protect the cause of freedom and defend our way of life, but the question is, do we still have that resolve? As we ponder that question, let us never forget that the first generation of Americans that fail to heed freedoms call will be the last generation of Americans to enjoy the benefits of freedom.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: September 11th.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1346

32 Comments

Jack said:

Dec 7, 1941: 2117 killed by Japanese at Pearl Harbor

Sept 11, 2001: 2974 killed in terrorist attacks

Sept 11, 2007: 4200 killed in abortion clinics

zimzo said:

Six years after September 11 Osama Bin Laden is still alive thumbing his nose at the United States; Al Qaeda according to recent reports is as strong as it was before September 11, if not stronger; Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with the attacks whatsoever, is dead along with more than 3000 of our soldiers while the rest are stuck in a never-ending quagmire; and Jack is still crazy.

This is progress?

Jack said:

Yes, there is progress. In Afghanistan, homosexuals are no longer dropped from the high platform into a dry pool, girls can go to school again, and women are not stoned if they do not cover their faces in public.

In Iraq, there is a freely elected government of the people. Saddam Hussein no longer threatens his neighbors or his people. He will never again use chemical weapons on his own people, as he did to the Kurds (and as Clinton did at Waco). He is no longer paying the families of Hezbolla and Hamas suicide bombers.

Our casualties are very light compared to other wars (we lost more men in the Battle of the Bulge, and we lost more men on Iwo Jima).

Finally, if YOU are calling me crazy, I know I am sane.

Sanity said:

And the national debt is now over $9,000,000,000,000, up 57% since Bush took office.

Budget is now $2,800,000,000,000, up 50% in the last six years.

Those "borrow and spend" Republicans. $1/2 million every day since Christ was born would just pay the INTEREST on the national debt each year.

http://zfacts.com/p/519.html

BTW Jack: Casualties are about the same as for other wars as a percentage of troops in combat. Deaths are lower only because fewer soldiers are dying from their injuries, as medicine has advanced.

And you have to be kidding about a freely elected government in Iraq. Who are they governing? No one seems to listen to them.

jack, just continue to be a historical revisionist. We wouldn't want THAT to change, would we zimzo?

ACTivist said:

"Al Qaeda according to recent reports is as strong as it was before September 11, if not stronger;"
Where are you getting these reports, zippo? Couldn't be the same sources you trash so convieneantly when it suits you, could it? Or is this a "qualified" source since it falls within the lib/left guidelines? Who you going to believe that tells you Osama is still alive?

Sanity said:

Who says he's dead? (Other than you and maybe Jack).

Sanity said:

Bolling is obviously an idiot. The Taliban control between 1/3 and 1/2 of Afghanistan (depending on who you ask), there's no way "we have prevented any further terrorist attacks on our homeland." That's a total crock, just ask anyone that works a dock, and his analysis of Iraq is, well, I guess words that you say don't have to have any relation to reality.

Oh well. He's still young and stupid. Maybe he'll get smarter as he gets older. 'Course then again, he might end up like Jack. :-)

Dan said:

And to think that we have troops standing on the wall ready to give their last full measure for these liberal buffoons..

zimzo said:

According to the National Intelligence Estimate ACTivist, hardly a "lib/left" source and one I've never trashed.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html

Jack said:

inSanity: Do you READ the links you post. Here's the first few lines:

"President Bush claims that 'we have now achieved our goal of cutting the budget deficit in half.' Is this true?

"First, be careful, the deficit is annual additions to national debt. So all he's saying is that the national debt is not going up as fast as it had been. It's certainly not going down (as it did in between 1995 and 2001 — see graph)."

Then, their graph is the DEFICIT, not the DEBT!!

HILARIOUS!!!

"BTW Jack: Casualties are about the same as for other wars as a percentage of troops in combat. Deaths are lower only because fewer soldiers are dying from their injuries, as medicine has advanced."

Show me.

Perhaps if we put as many troops in as we had in Vietnam or Korea, it would be long over.

"And you have to be kidding about a freely elected government in Iraq. Who are they governing? No one seems to listen to them."

Does anyone listen to our government? Iraq had a higher percentage of people voting that we do.

"just ask anyone that works a dock...."

So THAT'S where you and zimzo are getting your information.

Zimzo -- if the threat is so great, why do you libs insist that we are just "fear mongering" and refuse to close the borders and enact security measures? By attempting to thwart every effort at border control and counter-terrorism measures, it seems like you WANT us to be attacked.

jacob said:

Jack,
zimzo and insanity are two mushrooms sitting in the same dark room. Smelling the same fumes. Their position is simple DEMOCRAT=GOOD, or DEMOCRAT=GOD. It is through that warped and scratched lens that they
1. don't read what we write before they attack it
2. project their hatred and anger upon the rest of us, so it we who are full of hatred and anger
3. don't read the links they hold up as 'proof' of the soundness of their position
4. it is sad
5. do not ever engage in a real dialogue involving the give and take of asking and answering questions

But, at least they are here. I think zimzo is off his meds, cuz he used to be more cogent. Oh well. Insanity showed up in a frenzy of Ha ha ha's like some demented clown or santa clause.

Actually, there has been a few laughingboys around here as of late.

Sanity said:

Jack, you moron, of COURSE I read the links and OF COURSE I know the difference between the national debt and the yearly deficit which adds to debt.

The important points, which you obviously missed, are (a) Bush is a lying SOB about the deficit, and (b) there's a nice graph showing how the deficit continued going down during Clinton and has been going up like a rocket under Bush.

If you're so simple that you don't get all that, then it's hardly worth discussing.

Do you prefer this link: http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

Or how 'bout this one: http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

I like the other graph even better, though.

Jack, just because more people voted in Iraq for their first election doesn't mean that, by now, no one's listening to them. Even you ought to be able to figure that out.

At least zimzo and I are getting our info from someone that knows what they're talking about and not just folks making stuff up.

The whole point is that you CANNOT close the borders. Anyone close to the situation will tell you that protecting our borders is about 10% real and 90% smoke. The "fortress America" policy doesn't work and can't work.

Jack: Here's a right-wing website stating that the casualty rate in Vietnam was ~10%: http://www.ussboston.org/VietnamMyths.html

Here's a blog with numbers showing the casualty rate in Iraq (at least through 2004) is about 9%, close enough. I'll try to find a newer estimate. http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/11/us-casualty-rate-in-iraq-9.html

ACTivist said:

Zippo,
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf You gave me a link to the Cristian Science Monitor as reputable? With the Boston Globe as back-up? That is he said/she said 4 or 5 times removed. Go to the source.
Again, who says Osama is alive?

ACTivist said:

Sanity?
You keep coming to Zippo's defense and vice-versa because lunacy NEEDS company. You both act like newly discovered planets on the edge of the galaxy-way out there on the fringe!

10 feet tall and bulletproof said:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

Read this and tell me again how Iraq and Bin Laden didn't work together. They were hatching a plan alright, dufus.
You probably believe EVERYTHING that liberal arts majors with an axe to grind tell you, don't you.
Big News. You don't live in reality and neither do they.

10 feet tall and bulletproof said:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1152923/posts


If you open the link (I know you aren't going to be fond of the freerepublic... but the story used all non-Bush..non-republican administration intel to make the same case.
All the quotes and intel are from Clinton Era as well as Saddam and others...with no Bush filler.

zimzo said:

ACTivist do you even know what the National Intelligence Estimate is? Apparently not. It's hard to argue with someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

Jack your rhetorical device of constantly referring to some mythical construct of "libs" based on a circa 1970 idea of what rednecks used to call "longhair hippies" and then knocking this strawman down is not quite as amusing as it used to be. Do you have another rhetorical device you'd like to try out?

10 Feet Tall, I'm sorry the demise of The Weekly World News has left you jobless. If I hear of any jobs out there for you, I'll let you know.

Jack said:

No, zimzo, the one I'm using works quite well -- you are never able to counter the accusations, because they are true.

Let's examine this particular case. Are there any counter-terrorism surveillance techniques of which you approve? Do you want to close the borders? Do you support our military efforts in Afghanistan? In Iraq? Do you agree with Sen. Kerry's assertion that Hussein was a "grave threat"?

In short, is there ANY part of the "War on Terror" that you support?

Jack said:

inSanity -- The point was that the first set of idiots you linked to said (I'm paraphrasing), "be careful, don't confuse the deficit with the debt," and then did just that. Morons indeed!


Yes, the deficit did go down under B.J., and has gone up under Bush. (It is now on the way back down, BTW.) However, Clinton benefited from the "Peace Dividend" and Bush has a war to run.

"The whole point is that you CANNOT close the borders. Anyone close to the situation will tell you that protecting our borders is about 10% real and 90% smoke. The 'fortress America' policy doesn't work and can't work."

Why do you say it is impossible when we have never tried?

So, our "casualty rates" are similar in Vietnam and Iraq are similar. So what? Are you implying that if we cut our forced in Iraq by 50% we will have half as many casualties, or that if we double the number of troops we will double our casualties?

Also, our dead-to-wounded ratio is better now not only because of better medical service, but also from better equipment.

Jack said:

"Jack, just because more people voted in Iraq for their first election doesn't mean that, by now, no one's listening to them. Even you ought to be able to figure that out." --inSanity

No, actually, I have NO idea what you're trying to say. I think you've screwed up your pronoun references.

ACTivist said:

Zippo,
I asked you where you got your information and you told me the NIE. You sent me to "others" and I sent you to the report. I know what the NIE is and does and WHO. Again, show me where in their report (as you stated your information came from) it confirms YOUR previous statement?
"Al Qaeda according to recent reports is as strong as it was before September 11, if not stronger;"
Again, where do you get this information?

zimzo said:

That's what I mean, Jack, about your having to create a mythical opposition to oppose. There are many aspects of the War on Terror that I and many if not most liberals support. We just think Bush has botched the job and that Iraq has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda. Of course, there are counter-terrorism surveillance efforts I support. I supported the war in Afghanistan and think we should have stayed to finish the job and caught Osama Bin Laden, instead of diverting resources to Iraq. I don't think Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. I think he was a terrible guy but we had him boxed in so that he could do no harm to us. He was also an enemy of Iran, which kept them in check and of Al Qaeda because he was secular and they are deeply religious. I don't think it is possible to close the borders but a reasonable immigration policy that takes into consideration the fact that our economy needs Mexican labor would allow border guards to divert their limited resources to preventing terrorists and other bad guys from entering.

So it seems you have absolutely no idea what I or most liberals actually think, which is why your arguments seem so silly and outdated.

ACTivist I sent you to a newspaper report summarizing the National Intelligence Estimate, which says that Al Qaeda is as strong as it was before September 11. If you want to read the actual report, find it yourself. I am not your personal researcher. You challenged a statement I made. I gave you evidence to back it up. You presented no counter-evidence. Like many on here you seem incapable of admitting when you are wrong.

jacob said:

zimzo,
"We just think Bush has botched the job and that Iraq has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda."
You would think after a year we would all stop talking past each other. Jack, nor, I ever said that Al Qaeda and Hussein where formally linked. Nor did I ever say that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

What I have said in short is Saddam did train terrorists. He had an old Boeing on a tarmac set up as a school. What I have said is Saddam did have WMD's and used them on the Kurds and Iranians. More importantly, he threatened to use them on us.

As for botching the job in Iraq, we agree, but not in degree nor manner.

Jack said:

Zimzo,

Hussein also paid the families of Hamas and Hezbolla suicide bombers. So you do not think that he was an imminent threat, but you did not have access to classified information. Those who did have such access, including BJ, Hillary, Kerry, and Kennedy, disagree with you.

"I don't think it is possible to close the borders..."

Why not? Have we ever tried?

"...but a reasonable immigration policy that takes into consideration the fact that our economy needs Mexican labor would allow border guards to divert their limited resources to preventing terrorists and other bad guys from entering."

How are the border guards to determine who is a "bad guy" and who is not, unless they apprehend those trying to cross? How will the border guards determine which border-crossers are carrying disease or are criminals on the lam? What "reasonable immigration policy" can keep out the criminals, terrorists, and diseased without apprehending them? If we are apprehending them, why let anyone in? What "reasonable immigration policy" can you come up with that will allow unlawful aliens to stay here and be fair to those who have been waiting years to come here legally?

"So it seems you have absolutely no idea what I or most liberals actually think...."

How can I? Your thoughts have no facts or logic behind them.

zimzo said:

I never said you said "Al Qaeda and Hussein where formally linked" or that "Saddam had anything to do with 9/11." But the Bush Administration certainly implied there was some kind of link and there was not. And many Americans believe because of Bush and Cheney's disinformation campaign that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Yes, Saddam had WMDs before the first Gulf War but not afterwards.

The story that Saddam trained terrorists in a Boeing, like many stories about Saddam, has been discredited:

"The general tells of terrorists training in a Boeing 707 resting next to railroad tracks on the edge of Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad....More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of the general's account of the activities at Salman Pak. In fact, U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques. It should also be noted that the general and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein. This interview was conducted by FRONTLINE and The New York Times in Beirut. The Lt. Gen. was later identified in other stories as Abu Zeinab al-Qurairy, a former high-ranking officer in the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence service. Abu Zeinab reportedly now lives in Baghdad; he claims not to have left Iraq before the fall of Saddam Hussein and that the story of Salman Pak was a hoax. He maintains that the man FRONTLINE and The New York Times interviewed was an impostor provided by the INC. The INC denies this claim, and stands by the original story."http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/

Despite all of the tortured attempts to link Iraq with the War on Terror, the war in Iraq was a costly distraction from the War on Terror and Osama Bin Laden remains at large.

zimzo said:

Hamas and Hezbollah suicide bombers have nothing to do with Al Qaeda and they have not attacked the United States. Saudi Arabia also pays their families and we have not attacked them.

We all know that the Democrats who voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq did so because they were afraid of being seen as being soft on terrorism and because they were misled by cherry-picked and often false intelligence data. They have all for the most part (Hillary's tortured reasoning aside) said that they regret their vote.

On immigration: Even you have to concede that the amount of resources it would take to make an attempt to close the border would be enormous so to say we should just give it the old college try anyway regardless of its chances of success is ludicrous.

It's touching how concerned you are about those who immigrated legally and I know how concerned you are about fairness. I think it is unfair that I am not a millionaire and I know you will agree. People who bought the Iphone when it first came out also thought that it was unfair when Apple lowered the price, so Steve Jobs gave them $100 rebates. So here is my reasonable solution to making amnesty for illegal immigrants "fair." Give all of those who waited to come here legally a free Iphone. Problem solved.

ACTivist said:

Zippo,
I gave you the link to April 2006 judgement. Can't find the "new" report anywhere. So I'm gonna give back what you gave me but this is from NPR (you do know who that is, don't you?);

"According to a National Intelligence Estimate completed this summer, al-Qaida has rebuilt a safe haven inside Pakistan. The terrorist network remains determined to attack the U.S. and would like to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to do so.

"We assess, with high confidence, that al-Qaida is focusing on targets that would produce mass casualties, dramatic destruction and significant economic aftershocks," CIA Director Gen. Michael warned five days ago.

National intelligence director Mike McConnell told Congress Monday that, while al-Qaida has rebuilt, the group is still not as strong as it was on Sept. 11, 2001. That is the argument President Bush has made when confronted with evidence of a revitalized al-Qaida."

I guess this would be that "counter evidence"

Doesn't that make you WRONG AGAIN?

zimzo said:

No that would be counter-propaganda: "That is the argument President Bush has made when confronted with evidence of a revitalized al-Qaida."

President Bush's attempts at spin count as evidence.

These arguments where you constantly move the goalposts are tiresome. First you claim that my statement that Al Qaeda is as strong as it was in 2001 was "lib/left" propaganda. When I showed you that it came from the very unliberal National Intelligence Estimate, you first tried to claim that the Christian Science Monitor was somehow biased and inaccurately reporting what the report said. When that argument failed you then presented the Bush Administration's attempts to spin the report as "evidence" that my original statement was "lib/left" propaganda, as if right-wing Bush propaganda is somehow not propaganda.

But even the Bush spinners admit that Al Qaeda is stronger, affirming my original point that they are botching the War on Terror, which was the real point of my statement and which still stands despite your incompetent and failed attempts to nitpick at the edges.

ACTivist said:

Zippo,
You don't read your own sites. You can't interpret the meaning of information given to you and you ramble on in a tirade tripping yourself up with double-speak and flip-flopping. I don't chose to be mean but you need to hear this; you really are an idiot!

ACTivist said:

Zippo,
You don't read your own sites. You can't interpret the meaning of information given to you and you ramble on in a tirade tripping yourself up with double-speak and flip-flopping. I don't chose to be mean but you need to hear this; you really are an idiot!

zimzo said:

Good comeback, ACTivist!

Good comeback, ACTivist!

10 feet tall and bulletproof said:

Wow. A PBS story telling the demise of the dreaded 707... how compelling!!!
The real travesty in all that is that PBS uses tax dollars to spin stories like that against the very nation from which it draws it's support.
That's just sad, and they should be shut down and that money should be reallocated to some hungry people somewhere. At least the hungry people will appreciate the money.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM