I heard John Bolton speak Sunday afternoon.........met him and shook his hand. He's an amazing guy and talked for 30 minutes with no notes; articulate, loves this country, and truly understands the threats. One of the interesting points he made, though I can't take the time for all the details, was how so many blame our threats on us, that if we'd not gone into Iraq....etc etc. He reminded us about N. Korea (probably about to do their 3rd nuke test) and Syria...working together....so many threats to Isrrael....about Russia, China, Turkey, Iran's nuke attempts, and made point that these are happening for other reasons.........not Iraq. I wish I could have taped what he said and transcribed it for you. Anyway, he mentioned Paul Krugman's blog post for 9/11, which I printed below in BOLD, and I thought I'd bring it to your attention because it deserves your attention:
The Years of Shame
Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
Z: "oddly subdued?" Do fringe leftwingers think parades are in order? Stand up comics? With all the memorial events and coverage, did you find them 'oddly subdued?'
Unlike Krugman, I'm courageous enough to open this up to comments; Let 'em rip :)
z
106 comments:
Krugman is a jerk
Rudy's presence calmed the nation that was on edge. Kerik was an able administrator who did a fine job when the chips were down. His later ethical lapses are the stuff that are human tragedies greatness and weakness often are in all of us.
I remember Hillary being booed by firefighters and making up absurd stories about Chelsea being in danger. As the Clintons were not NYers 9-11 did not touch them. Even
in the Brill book Schumer works tirelessly while Hillary promotes herself.
Krugman has no clue
I would love to meet John Bolton. He is one of the brightest minds in Washington, and does not entertain fools like Krugman.
Krugman has some problems, not only with his intellect and personality, but with his moral compass. His blog is incomprehensible to me, larded with code words, and exhibits his astounding level of ignorance of world events.
Subdued reaction? 9/11 was a wake-up call to combat evil. It now looks like some of that evil is Paul Krugman.
Jonah Goldberg has the best description of Krugman, calling him a "gargoyle on the parapets of establishment liberalism."
I love that line! So classy and witty. I just call Krudman that beady-eyed bearded troll.
I read the article and thought what a coward, but then this is the same guy who called Palin out on the death panels issue and later admitted that what she said was true.
Nobody's listening to Krugman's call for "Stimulus XVIII". And ever since Krugman's claim that a fake alien invasion would be the cure for the Obama Re-Recession, he needs to make up new reasons for being booked on the Sunday morning news shows.
At least the liberals will still watch him...
There is absolutely no way you would be able to publish the language I would use if I talked about that jerk, so I won't comment.
Why anybody PAYS Krugman for his views is beyond me.
He is summarily vitriolic, morally corrupt, intelectually Sophomoric and criminally insane.
Yet they pay him for his opinnion as though he has something rational to say.
His opinion of his opinion is vastly inflated to the point of self importance...a good thing, because nobody else thinks he is important at all.
thanks, everybody; I knew you'd "appreciate" this. Turned my stomach, I have to admit.
Joe, there are people paying for their kids to attend Princeton and hear Krugman's bias.
beamish, I always thought that WMDs might include gases which killed hundreds of thousands of people already, but apparently that's not MASS enough a DESTRUCTION for people like Krugman?
Ah yes, Kerik/Giuliani. How much graft did they rake in.
Bernie's in the joint but Ghouliani is mouthing something about a presidential bid. Guy has no shame.
Unfortunately he fits well with Bolton who is just (just) this side of a mad dog and represents the worst of our reaction to the attack.
beamish, I always thought that WMDs might include gases which killed hundreds of thousands of people already, but apparently that's not MASS enough a DESTRUCTION for people like Krugman?
-----------
Hundreds of thousands? Where?
Gas didn't kill that many in WW I. The weapon of mass destruction there was the Maxim gun.
You've been watching too much Flash Gordon. "Watch out, Saddam has a death ray".
I agree that Krugman's post can be seen as offensive to some, if not many.
But within those words are a couple of truths that stand out, at least to me.
1. "The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue." Is this not true? 9/11 and how we think about it has become a wedge issue.
2. "...the attack was used to justify an unrelated war..." No attackers on 9/11 were from Iraq, yet 9/11 was in fact used by many in the Bush Admin as part of the justification for that war.
3. "A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?" Here he clearly is calling out the MSM as many call it for failing to do their job in the run up to the war in Iraq.
Was what Krugman did insensitive, coming on the actual date? Yes it was, and I suspect he will later regret his timing.
Did he use inflammatory language? Yes he did.
But did he he also have some truth in his screed? Yes, in my opinion, he did, just as most of you have in your thoughts and comments here.
"used to justify an unrelated war"?????
And just what would a "related war" look like? Hitler's attack on Belgium before France?
I hate to inform Mr. Miller of some facts of geography, but Afghanistan is not an island in a Central Asian Sea. And now military man worth his salt would ever leave a viscious enemy in his rear.
...unless he were gay. ;)
For those of you unfamiliar with the Marxist Duck. He teaches wannabe pornographers film production.
An apologist for Hugo Chavez, Castro and Arafat is talking about graft. Is this site now Comedy Central.
Lets see the record shows Kerik had ethical lapses but was an effective leader. No evidence links Rudy to any of this. What the Duck has done is typical guilt by association while whining about Black lists.
The Duck leaves out just who supplied Saddam and Syria with poison gas. Once again commie leave out the fact that their own ranks provided the gas and the training.
...especially if it might serve to unify two historical enemies in a common struggle!
You wanted to take on the ENTIRE Ummah in Afghanistan??? Wow.
Mr. Joe, I am not arguing the rightness, or wrongness of the War in Iraq, from a military or any other strategy.
All I said was that Krugman was correct in his assessment that 9/11 was used as part of the justification for that war.
Was Krugman wrong on that point?
1. "The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue." Is this not true? 9/11 and how we think about it has become a wedge issue.
One of the most patently offensive things to me in the aftermath of 9/11 was Democrat politicians gathering on the steps of the Capitol to sing "God Bless America," and then going back to being Democrats.
2. "...the attack was used to justify an unrelated war..." No attackers on 9/11 were from Iraq, yet 9/11 was in fact used by many in the Bush Admin as part of the justification for that war.
Saddam Hussein's Mukhabarat (intelligence agency) historically financed and coordinated with many terrorists that in fact weren't Iraqis. The Baluchi Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (planner of the 9/11 attacks) and his nephew Ramzi Yousef (1993 World Trade Center bombing) were on Saddam's payroll. Saddam Hussein himself hosted the conference in Baghdad that merged Egyptian Islamic Jihad with bin Laden's al Qaeda in 1998. Clinton justified the airstrikes on the al-Qaeda owned al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan because of the evidence that Iraq had outsourced chemical weapons production there. The Clinton administrations 1998 federal indictment of Osama bin Laden specifically lists al-Qaeda's cooperative and collaborative ties to Iraq.
Ignoring the longstanding ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda first declared and revealed by the Clinton administration itself is, well, willful ignorance.
3. "A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?" Here he clearly is calling out the MSM as many call it for failing to do their job in the run up to the war in Iraq.
No, he's just shilling for stupidity, a well established Krugman schtick.
Don't know about you all, but I think Kurds, though they're the ones who immediately moved into the homes of Armenians when the Turks took them out to massacre 1.5 million of them, shouldn't be considered people....
at least 300,000 dead Kurds is pretty MASS DESTRUCTION to me. To say nothing of Syria, Beamish, you're right.
Ducky, John Bolton understands more than you could fit in your left shoe. Someone who loves this country, understands how naive we've always been.....
Dave, I guess we need to sit back and not be quite as partisan when the Democrats backed Iraq, too. People do forget that, I Know.
Am working outside the house today; see you later.
Elmer's Brother, please keep watch; you know what I accept and what I don't, thanks xx
All I said was that Krugman was correct in his assessment that 9/11 was used as part of the justification for that war.
No, you were arguing that the War was "unrelated". Now you claim to be arguing as to it's relatedness. Which is it? Logical consistency demands that you choose only one. But is is unlikely you will be able to "prove" your contention that the wars were "unrelated", as Krugman has asserted, so I suggest that you gracefully retreat.
...or do you forget your preface?
But within those words are a couple of truths that stand out, at least to me.
Truths? 'Used to justify an "unrelated" war.' stands out to you as a "truth"?
..that "No attackers on 9/11 were from Iraq" does not validate the "truth" of Krugman's false premise.
beakerkin, you and beamish should take on Mister Miller at Team B. He would appear to fit right in.
Paul Krugman...an American's definition:
"A Krugman":
A patronizing, pedantic, petulant, pediculous, pusillanimous, pig, prig and needs to be waterboarded. IMHO!
One only need to look into those gargoyle like eyes to see that this piss-ant is either on LSD, Librium, thorazine or crack.
And yet....this is the "best" that the NYT has?
Krugman....should have been that "falling man" on that day.
Mr. Joe...
Reread what I wrote...
2. "...the attack was used to justify an unrelated war..." No attackers on 9/11 were from Iraq, yet 9/11 was in fact used by many in the Bush Admin as part of the justification for that war.
Now, as I asked before, what part of what he said was untrue?
As for all that other stuff, like Team B, I have no idea of what you guys are speaking...
Krugman reminds me of the head of the Political Science department in college...'nuff said.
Krugman is a liberal. Enough said.
All I said was that Krugman was correct in his assessment that 9/11 was used as part of the justification for that war.
Was Krugman wrong on that point?
----------
Doesn't seem to be much interest in taking up the question.
Of course the lead up to the war in Iraq was a disgrace. But Trotskyites like Bolton make a good living of scamming the suckers when they're frighted.
No was the attack used as an excuse to hide less than noble activity and motives?
Are we willing to listen to Krugman's contention that they were? When you have people like Kerik, Giuliani and Bolton putting there hands in everyone's pocket then they deserve a jaundiced eye.
Oh, I forgot, Giuliani kept Beak safe from the squeegee men.
The only shame about 9/11 is that Krugman wasn't standing under the towers when they fell.
ducky
this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends
not with a bang but a wimper
or as some would rather have it
boom boom boom boom
Krugman is a piece of garbage. This maniac wants a major war then turns around and uses 9-11 to attack those who went to war.
All I said was that Krugman was correct in his assessment that 9/11 was used as part of the justification for that war.
Was Krugman wrong on that point?
----------
Doesn't seem to be much interest in taking up the question.
It would seem that beamish covered some of the points nicely, Dave and Ducky. But, I will add more.
We had every right to go back into Iran even before 9/11. Why? Because Saddam was breaking sanctions left and right, sanctions endorsed and put into place by the U.N.
Saddam was constantly taking pot shots at U.N. aircraft patrolling the no fly zone…..oh…wait a minute the U.N. doesn’t have any planes…..they were our planes and our pilots flying them.
Saddam constantly interfered with U.N. inspectors doing their jobs. I can’t count the times they were booted out of Iran.
Then there was the constant abuse of the “oil for food” program. The U.N. didn’t want to enforce that rules as there were many U.N. “partners” and members that were helping Iran to break those sanctions too……there’s more, need I go on??
Bottom line is, the U.S. didn't NEED to use 9/11 as an excuse.
Krugman is a low-life scumbag and he should be totally ashamed of what he said. Liberal hate, apparently, has no boundaries.
Scotty, I am not arguing the point of need. Krugman stated that 9/11 was used to justify an unrelated war.
Or... it was used to tie, perhaps necessary, intervention in Iraq to 9/11.
Was Krugman incorrect in his assessment?
I am not interested in arguing over the rightness or wrongness of the war, or our right to wage it...
Well Scotty, there is serious disagreement on every point but let it go.
Did Chucklenuts use 9/11 s a pretext or didn't he?
Forget Giuliani, he's a human filth pile but Krugman nails Rudy pretty well.
THanks, Elmer's Brother....I'm back from work and can take over.
Sorry you had to work so hard here:-)
Dave, Ducky, why's it have to come from Scotty? You can't read Beamish's responses?
What would have been your responses to 9/11....hit Saudi Arabia, where all 19 killers were from, or just trust that that was a total anomaly and nobody will ever hurt us again, like Ducky likes to hide behind?
You're both excellent at holding other commenters' feet to the fire but you never seem to respond to information like the fact that one of the ticket agents might have prevented 9/11 , at least one plane, had he followed his guts and kept one killer behind....he was on video, on CNN, talking about how he felt he'd be in trouble if he profiled...
beautiful....how stupid we are in our wish to put everybody else before America's safety.
I was stunned to read Oprah Winfrey after having had interviewed George W and having read his book; she's quite turned her head around on Iraq when she finally had his information at hand. typical
thank God for John BOlton...thank GOD that they can see through the crap.
Elmer
That has already been done thank you.If you wish to point fingers I suggest you talk to the person who speaks with about nine handles.
We have firmly established there is no Joe Conservative.
Dave, Ducky, why's it have to come from Scotty? You can't read Beamish's responses?
==================
Yes, and I ignored them.Standard boilerplate. He says nothing about the decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq.
By the way, z. I know you're a big fan of the "he shipped the WMD's to Syria" theory.
Ignoring the question of why he would ship them to an enemy, why isn't Assad using them during the current revolution?
Maybe John Bolton has the answer. Ah me, America,Britain and Israel against the world. Such a grand myth.
Oh, yes, Ducky, America, England and Israel have picked the fight, right?
:-) The Hate America First bunch in action, thanks to Ducky.
STandard boilerplate, and yours isn't? !!
And Syria? Don't be naive; the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and nobody feels that more than an Arab.
Elmer
That has already been done thank you.If you wish to point fingers I suggest you talk to the person who speaks with about nine handles.
We have firmly established there is no Joe Conservative.
Beak leave your anti-semitism conspiracy theory on your blog.
Thanks...don't care who established what or when....beat it.
"What would have been your responses to 9/11....hit Saudi Arabia, where all 19 killers were from,..."
Yes. But we know that Bush and his family ties to the Saudi savages prevented this. Ideally....we should have exacted and equal death toll and destroyed an equivalent of WTC in Saudi Arabia.
Gas prices would have spiked eventually....but after 10 years...we'd be paying a buck a gallon. Cause the Saudi's would know after a retaliation...we mean business.
And eye for an eye....they believe that...I guess we don't.
By the way, z. I know you're a big fan of the "he shipped the WMD's to Syria" theory.
Ignoring the question of why he would ship them to an enemy, why isn't Assad using them during the current revolution?
Actually duhkkky after serving in Iraq during the invasion it was found that out allies had been supplying many of those weapons and rather then destroy those alliances and losing friends helping us in Afghanistan etc...we chose the better part of valor. Course you wouldn't understand the noble thing would you.
Suck it up dudes, Krugman is spot on.
Thanks for the comment BD. You added absolutely nothing To the conversation.
You know, I was just thinking; Conservatives were critical of some of what Bush did (TARP, etc.)...mr and Mrs. Z weren't particularly excited about the Iraq war, either, as a point of interest..But, Mr. Z had spent almost a year in Iraq on missile defense business and he'd have colleagues suddenly disappear in the seventies...never to turn up again (EVER)... Mr. Z was no fan of Saddam, neither were his Iraqi compatriots, all of whom he liked VERY much.
So, he did feel Saddam was a threat to his people and to us. And to the region.
I blame the CIA, not Bush. They should have smoked him without our boots on their ground.
Anyway, I HAVE A QUESTION:
Should we be more like KRUGMAN and show total disdain for AMerica...?
or like someone like Bolton who recognizes our foibles but loves this country enough to put us first amongst all and recognizes the threat and doesn't blame US for it?
Which country do you leftwingers think is more exceptional than our country? I'm eager to hear.
I was with some teens today...one kid out of twenty has been brainwashed by his adults in his life to believe that the Towers came down from explosives. It did my heart good to see 19 of the kids roll their eyes with such maturity and say "and you think THAT could have been kept SILENT? And who the heck would be that evil?"
Amen, kids...Amen.
Scotty, I am not arguing the point of need. Krugman stated that 9/11 was used to justify an unrelated war.
Or... it was used to tie, perhaps necessary, intervention in Iraq to 9/11.
Was Krugman incorrect in his assessment?
I thought my answer made it apparent,I guess I need to be more blunt.....Krugman is wrong and it's an attempt at revising history. He's a putz!
Oh yeah.....there were plans on the books and strategies being bantered around as it pertained to Iraq, LONG before 9/11. Many strategies were being played out in the "war rooms".
Because the many breaking of sanctions, by Saddam, the talk of going in based on WMD's, wasn't necessary either!
Elmo, what weapons? We gave him some chemical agents so he could kill Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war.
But if he didn't have nukes then he didn't have a mass destruction weapon.
Using the attack to justify the Iraq fiasco was high cynicism and Krugman is correct.
I really like John Bolton. I hope there will be a place for him in the next Administration.
"...the attack was used to justify an unrelated war..."
Dave,
It was not used as an excuse, it was a reasoned decision.
"No attackers on 9/11 were from Iraq"
Dave,
Let's get this straight. No attackers were Afghanis either.
However they allowed training camps for Al Qaeda. Got that?
Are you sure there were no training camps in Iraq? How would you know?
Unless any of you were working in intelligence, you are clueless about the decision to take on Iraq. Others here have spelled out viable reasons for it.
Today, if we hadn't taken on Iraq, Hussein would have nuclear waste material which could be sold to the terrorists, and it was a proven fact they had chemical weaponry.
They murdered people with them, and that capability, was provided by the Russians. They've admitted it.
"I am not interested in arguing over the rightness or wrongness of the war, or our right to wage it..."
Oh really Dave, you're back on that fence and not able to take into account why we have to put America first?
You fence sitters are all alike, you stir the pot, then stand back and refuse to commit to anything. How pathetic.
I have to laugh at Krugman totally ignoring his man, Obama, supporting the so called Arab Spring which to my mind is a bow to the Muslim Brothehood, who is now leading attacks on Israel, from Egypt, and soon will no doubt be given a pass in Libya.
By the way, what are we doing in Libya? Is it ok since Obama became President? It was reported today we do have boots on the ground there. Well whaddaya know whoda thunk it! Give me a break!
As for Krugman, he is an overrated so called pundit, who seems to be mentally challenged, and so in love with himself, he can't see what a fool he really is.
Dave,
"The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue."
Good point. Care to discuss who was driving the wedge?
Duhkkky read Saddam's Bomb Maker. I can tell you that some of our European allies provided the elements for chemical weapons and that members of my platoon turned them over.
Try this duhkkky
we are at war and these libs are beyond the pale Z..the day will live in infamy ...God bless u Z.:)
ALL:
I'm pretty sure this is one of my favorite threads ever...you guys are (mostly) fantastic, thanks so much. with your comments, your links...
You know, I think the Leftwingers were ready to think the worst of US for some reason (a number which has grown in the last fifty years, sadly) and the media's led the charge and they actually can't extricate themselves from it all. They seem to want to believe the very worst; it's almost palpable in their cynicism and negativity.
Americans used to find America wonderful, EXCEPTIONAL. And the world did, too. Then we get a leftwinger media which does nothing but bash and insult US and the world follows suit.
I'm not saying that we've been perfect; I'm not saying we must love everything America does (God knows, most of America doesn't love what's going on NOW), but I am saying that most countrymen put their country first and that's why I applaud a Bolton over a Krugman.
Whoa, Whoa Whoa. I don't know who's who on your site Geez. I can't tell Beakerkin from Beamish from FJ from Joe Conservative from Ducky. But I'm beginning to think I dove into what I thought was the deep end to it actually being a 3 foot end. After commenting here at at Beakerin's site, I'm thinking it best to block my profile page again because there appear to be some real whackos there (and now here) and I really do not want them following me to my mostly non-political site because they seem to thrive on tossing a pipebomb into a room.
From what I can tell your posts agree with mine, but some of your commenters are WAYYY out there.
I don't know if this is a recent occurence or an old one.
I do know that one of your commenters thought I was too stupid to see through her imbecilic disguise I could not tell she thought she was so intellectually above me (and apparently you) that I could not read how remembering 9/11 and grieving the way I need to was advocating "hate".
It's amazing to me that the peaceniks are all about advocating forgiving and forgetting while being able to do so only because brave men and women fought and died for their right to say that.
They can call it whatever they want, I would love for even ONE of these Cindy Sheehan types to go live under Iranian rule for even a week and see what they believe after that.
Unlike Krugman, I'm courageous enough to open this up to comments
Well, some comments anyway.
Impy,
Not a Peep....not a code stink, sheehan, piece of dunk camped outside of Obama's WH...or his favorite golf course.
That all pretty much died out when the UN oil-for-food scandal got too close to revealing all the leaders of left-wing anti-war organizations that got a little kickback from Saddam.
What's MP Galloway over in merry ol' Angland doin' these days? Reality TV shows?
Dave:
Z may have tried to shut down comments on this thread, and your attention drawn to more important things. But, I would like to continue the discussion for a bit.
First, I do not agree with Krugman on anything he said, and was surprised you found some truth in his words.
To me, the central theme was in his comment that the war became a "wedge issue", and his accusation, "turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?".
I truly do not understand what Krugman meant. I viewed his use of words as code of some sort. Certainly somebody understood what he was trying to say.
So, just how is being attacked a wedge issue? Just how was the event hijacked? What was the corruption and who corrupted the event?
I am not trying to be contentious. I would truly like to know, and you are an articulate, thinking individual and can help me understand.
Thanks.
You can't read Beamish's responses?
==================
Yes, and I ignored them.Standard boilerplate. He says nothing about the decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq.
What's there to say? In direct violation of the UN Charter Article 6 military force implying UNSCR 1441 instructing Iraq to declare and disclose all stockpiles of chemicals, including those no military applications, Saddam Hussein didn't produce a tally of the number of grains of salt in his kitchen. He tightened his own noose.
What did libya and Kosovo do to us?
Bob, my blog partner deleted comments yesterday (at my request because I was gone) because they were completely OFF TOPIC, by friends of ours who carried a fight from another blog over to mine...
I did not try to shut down comments on this thread. I am no Paul Krugman.
Rita, I didn't see that insult to you but am sorry if you saw it that way.
My blog does have frequent disagreement and sometimes it gets ugly but I try to control that.
None of us can take it too personally; let's remember those who hit hard are often anonymous, have no blogs, and they shoot and run.
We just have to keep trying to educate; like you do with your comments and your blog. THanks for being here!
Sorry for the collatoral damage, Ms. Z and elbro.
Z and others...
1. On the unifying event statement from Krugman... the fact that people are arguing in such a lather proves his point... what should have been a unifying event, has become a huge point of contention. It is a fact.
2. On using 9/11 to justify the invasion into Iraq. You are right Z, I chose to ignore Beamish for a couple of reasons. One, President Bush mentioned this in a speech during the war... ""I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Mr Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat - and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.""
If Saddam, and by extension Iraq, were involved in 9/11, why did Bush just not say they were? The was was tangentially related in that the Bush Admin wanted it to be, but, as we now know, and again, as President Bush has admitted, there were no WMD, so Iraq was not a real threat, at that time to us.
More on Beamish, I have chosen not to respond directly to him because of the language he uses in responding to those with whom he disagrees. Frankly, I find name calling and deriding people with offensive terms not worthy of a response. While he held his tongue [pen, keyboard] this time, his style is one of bombastic confrontation.
I am not arguing for, or against the War in Iraq, although I clearly felt it was a bad idea and not well thought out before we invaded. However once the decision was made and we were there, it became our mission to make the best of it.
Contrary to popular belief, there are liberals out there who share the patriotism of many on this site and love America as much as anyone else.
Where we differ is on the how.
I have a different view on how America should conduct herself around the world from many of you. Does that make me any less a lover of America, or any less American?
Apparently, from what I frequently hear from people here, it does. Although I am not sure why, or how.
My family has fought in both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and the current wars. I have walked precincts for candidates of both major political parties over the years based on how I felt they would best serve America, not the letter after their name.
Never before 9/11 can I remember our political discourse veering towards charges of "not being American."
Yes, Krugman was right, and no one has offered any evidence, or proof here yet that we are not more divided as a result of that horrible event.
The answer to your question, Dave, lies in how you interpret the events of 9/11. Some of us (not all) believe that it was an attack by those trying to restore a unified Islamic caliphate. In other words, it was an attack of Islam upon the United States to UNIFY the caliphate.
The problem that the Islamicists have in achieving this end, is that THEY are divided. THEY need a larger enemy (like the USSR in the 80s & USA today) to THREATEN them into unifying.
The dividing line is Islam is between Sunni and Shi'a. The Sunni's attacked us on 9/11. The Shi'a (Iran) did not. Why not? We kicked their Sunni masters (Saddam Hussein) out of the holiest of holies in Shi'a Islam (Najaf) - (Remember the USMC battle with the Shi'a Mahdi Army?) but then put MODERATE Shi'a in charge of Iraq. THOSE EVENTS in IRAQ held the Shi'a in IRAN in check and when the SUNNI al-Qaeda bombed the golden mosque in Najaf, ENDED ALL POSSIBILITY of Sunni and Shi'a COLLABORATING in attacks in the US in Afghanistan.
Don't get me wrong. Iran still covertly supplies some al-Qaeda units and provides some fighters in Afghanistan... but not nearly as many as would have been the case had we NOT invaded Iraq.
The Ummah REMAINS divided. Al Quaeda lost their battle for unification of the caliphate. BUT the struggle continues. Iran and the Sunni extremists remaining are still vying for leadership (ie - the struggle between Hamas & FATAH in Gaza, the struggle w/Hamas in So. Lebaonon & Syria for political control)
There's a difference between TACTICS (responding to 9/11) and STRATEGIES (responding to the reason behind the attack on 9/11). Bush pursued the greater "straturgeries" as you like to poke fun of him for doing. And given the OTHER possibilities of Saddam Hussein breaking out against the US and joining al Qaeda in an attack on the US, kept the enemy divided.
I think Krugman really suffers from deep insecurities tied to his physique and potential the size of his penis.
That's how I see it.
HE should have been cast as a hobbit in the Lord of the Rings.
Good stuff Joe...
It seems as if your view puts us at war with Islam...
You said... "In other words, it was an attack of Islam upon the United States to UNIFY the caliphate."
We can take this view, however President Bush stated many times that we are [were] not at war with Islam, one of the world's great peaceful religions.
I do appreciate the opportunity to think about and respond on this...
As for Bush and his strateguries, or whatever, I am not in that camp.
For me, it is just as horrible for people to poke fun at innocent gaffes at Bush as it is for Obama. It's like me, there are just some words i cannot say very well... I just get tongue twisted.
As an aside, wasn't it the Wahabi's who orchestrated the attack?
. On the unifying event statement from Krugman... the fact that people are arguing in such a lather proves his point..
That's not so, Dave. Most here are arguing that Krugman made the statement that President Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to go after Iraq.
It only proves that we're NOT unified with Krugman!
If Saddam, and by extension Iraq, were involved in 9/11, why did Bush just not say they were?
Very simply, Dave, he didn't have to. As I've been saying, there was just cause to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11.
and again, as President Bush has admitted, there were no WMD, so Iraq was not a real threat, at that time to us.
Current intel said that there were stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq. And based on that intel Iraq was a threat.
Both side of the fence, democrats and republicans alike acted on the intel. The democrats were privy to the same information that President Bush was.
Democrats and republicans were unified in the resolve to take Iraq to task.
Again, it's easy to Monday morning quarterback those events.
Have you read any of the stories shared by Iraq's top chemical and nuclear scientist that fled Iraq?
Do a search, the information is readily available to those that are curious enough.
Have you taken the time to read all the post in this comment thread. I see all your questions being answered but, you seem to keep coming back with the same questions!! As if there some other answer should be put forth.
I see you asking the questiong but I haven't seen YOUR stance on the question you ask....what is that stance, Dave.
Another great point that was put forth to YOU, Dave that you didn't answer.....who are the folks that are causing the division???
The Sunni are the Western Equivalent of Catholics, and the Shi'a, Protestants. Osama bin Laden was a cardinal trying to become a Borgia Pope and uniting Italy.
Pick a faction. Guelph or Ghibelline?
Causus Belli are always "pretexts" for war/invasion. They are NEVER the REAL reasons. That's what the Downing Street Memo proved.
Moqtada al Sadr is a direct descendent of Mohammed and has backers in BOTh Najaf and Qom. HE wants to unify the caliphate. So far, he's been prevented from using his Mahdi Army to attack us (as he did in the initial Iraq invasion). It is behind HIM that the Iranians and heretical Iraqi's will eventually rally.
He has promised NOT to attack coalition forces, just so long as we continue drawing down forces. But after we leave.... who knows?
Moqtada al-Sadr's first test will be to take over Iraq and then unify w/Iran. After that, he'll take on Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait and anyone else he can get to join him in an all out attack on Israel. Most likely, he'll sucker Egypt into joining him at that time, too. From then on it'll be the Brotherhood v Saudi's v Moqtada and the Yemeni's for Africa and the Saudi Holy cities.
The Saudi "hope" will come from Afghanistan/Pakistan. THEY have the nukes. The nukes were always Osama's goal.
More on Beamish, I have chosen not to respond directly to him because of the language he uses in responding to those with whom he disagrees. Frankly, I find name calling and deriding people with offensive terms not worthy of a response. While he held his tongue [pen, keyboard] this time, his style is one of bombastic confrontation.
Blah blah blah. The only thing Bush needed to concern himself with was the US Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say that Saddam Hussein has the right to disobey a direct order from the President of the United States of America. It's bad enough the bastard was inhaling oxygen produced by American trees without compensating us. Dude failed to get off the thin ice.
Dave, what? "We can take this view, however President Bush stated many times that we are [were] not at war with Islam, one of the world's great peaceful religions."
World's great peaceful religions? You honestly believe that terorists are lone wolves acting outside the Koran? :-)
Am I saying all muslims are unpeaceful terrorists..no. Am I saying the koran's replete with KILL THEM exhortations? yes.
Would I like to see peaceful muslims marching in our streets against their terrorists? Hell, yes.
WOW
It's a shame that such traitorous rats won't leave the USA that they obviously hate so much.
It's just fake-shame that he peddles.
MK, you're so right. They hate it here; let them go live in some OTHER exceptional country :-)
Thanks for the reply, Dave. I guess I am part of the Team B you mentioned. My question still remains about 9/11 being a wedge issue.
What facts of 9/11 have changed since 2001?
1. The USA was attacked.
2. The attacks were carried out by radical Islamic people.
3. The radical Muslims that carried out the attack for religious reasons.
What is it about these facts that have changed and caused 9/11 to be a wedge issue? Whose opinions have changed to the point that these facts are seen differently?
I believe that 9/11 is a wedge issue because some people on the left want it to be. It is a wedge issue only in their minds.
Dave, the issue is not difficult nor should it be controversial. What facts should we consider that would rationally make 9/11 an issue that divides the American people?
Bob, in a way, having read your last comment which got me thinking, it is a wedge issue. 9/11 had a way of changing liberal hearts to conservatism because they felt the conservatives would protect their safety better.
Evan Sayet, Dennis Miller, and many more.........
Suddenly, Dems were laughing at Americans wearing flag pins and saying those people somehow needed that pin to show or feel patriotism.....ridiculous.
Suddenly, Americans felt like they could fight back and not sit back and appease but they knew they couldn't rely on Dems for that.
Suddenly, they were hearing far leftwingies suggesting it was OUR fault.
I could go on and on, but that did drive a wedge; and it illustrated things that Americans should know about both sides, don't you agree?
I think it was a good wedge, no matter what Krugman thinks.
Bob, I am SO TOUCHED by your including me in your 9/11 blog. THANK YOU.
Lovely piece, by the way. xx
Z: Of course, you are correct about 9/11 becoming a wedge issue. On that day, and for weeks afterword, all Americans agreed on the attacks, who did it, and why. The who and why were identified by the attackers, themselves.
My whole point is that 9/11 need not a wedge issue. Those who have changed their minds, or feel (without substance) that America has wronged all those billions of Muslims, have made it a wedge issue.
I would like to understand the thinking behind such irrational behavior. I respect Dave's ability to discuss things without getting into a sweat, and I thought he would welcome a conversation. That is why I addressed him.
9/11 should not be a wedge issue. We can argue all year about the Iraqi war, or even about Afghanistan, but the facts behind 9/11 are immutable.
As far as my 9/11 post, I just had to relate your post. It was a moving story.
Bob, I'm glad you addressed Dave; that's what we're all here for, right!?
re the wedge; what a different world this would be had Bush got the respect leftwing presidents get for their stances. The leftwingers took it upon themselves to attack and belittle (here and in EUrope in our press) and the world heaped it on top of our own leftwing insults to ourselves.
I just met an American woman who lived 20 years in the Netherlands....she said she had to bring her kids back for long periods of time or they'd have hated AMerica like the rest of the Dutch do. I don't believe that's quite true, but she did draw the distinction of "the American people vs the American government...." "they still like the people"
And she totally agreed with me that they only had CNN and the Int'l Herald Tribune (reprints of the NY Times, which owns that wholly now; when I lived in Paris, the Washington Post owned half of it), so they got nothing balanced AT ALL. very sad.
I blame our media; they knew that Iraq was approved of by the Democrats, too.
I saw that Black college prof on FOX so often, Mark something? He's a fun guy, but very liberal. He actually said the Dems in the Senate only went along because they were given bad information: as if BUsh made it up and spoon fed it to them.
unreal
Post a Comment