If twin towers fall and nobody pays any attention, did they really?

I was struck by how low-key and muted most of the commemorations of September 11, 2001. Six years later, I get a queasy feeling in my gut thinking about how I felt at this exact moment of that terrible, terrible day.

I don't want to forget how I felt that day. But I think to some extent I have. Maybe it's just a natural coping mechanism that as time passes our feelings of fear, grief and sorrow tend to diminish. The sorrow remains, but the intensity of it has lessened.

Osama bin Laden and his newly darkened beard (hey Osama, I dye mine too every now and then) serve as a grim reminder of the fact that the war on terror has both its successes and failures. That Osama still draws breath to taunt Americans is an insult to the 3,000 poor souls that lost their life to the madness of bin Laden and his fanatics. Then again, the fact that there has not been a repeat attack on the nation has to be considered as progress.

But what have we given up for that security? Are we trading increased security for a slow and gradual chipping away of individual rights and protections? In going into Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan have we made a mistake that has weakened our military and shattered the unity of the nation that followed September 11?

A lot of questions to be sure, but this seems as good a time as any to think about where we were before 9/11 and where we've gone since.

Questions for debate:

1. Should we "never forget" September 11, 2001 or has it begun to fade into history?

2. Has YOUR life been personally affected or changed by the events of 9/11 and/or the subsequent War On Terror?

3. Has the War on Terror been a necessary battle forced upon America or a tragically mismanaged mistake?

1. Should we "never forget" September 11, 2001 or has it begun to fade into history?

I am choosing to keep the television and radio turned off today.

We should never forget the events of 9/11/2001, but we should stop the flag-waving hoopla and paying lip service to those brave folks who died if our response is merely to politicize it. That does not serve well the memory of the dead.

Let us remember it in much the same context as Pearl Harbor is remembered but with one important difference: this was perpetrated by a group of fanatics, not a sovereign nation.


2. Has YOUR life been personally affected or changed by the events of 9/11 and/or the subsequent War On Terror?

No. My son did serve in Kuwait for around a year, and he wasn't hurt when he returned home. I am thankful for that.

3. Has the War on Terror been a necessary battle forced upon America or a tragically mismanaged mistake?

The perpetrators of 9/11/2001 should have been treated as criminals, not afforded the dignity of a belligerent foreign power. Cooperating with Interpol would have probably been as effective or more effective than the course of action taken by George W. Bush, unless you believe that Saddam Hussein actually had anything to do with the terrorists.

This kind of enemy is not the type that can be eliminated by armies. We made the mistake of legitimizing the cause of al-Qaeda by sending armies who in turn overran villages and terrorized people who weren't even involved in the conflict.

For that reason, the "War on Terror" was as much a tragically mismanaged mistake as its moniker.

Good topic. It gave me a reason to not work for a few minutes...!

Seriously, 9/11 should never be forgotten. Neither should the World Trade Center bombing, or the USS Cole, or the Barracks bombing, etc, etc.

We really need to understand that radical Muslims are a danger and a threat to the United States. I wouldn't say that MY life has been specifically changed due to 9/11, aside from my military service. Sitting in my office here in Dallas today, I can't say I personally feel any impact more than the people next door or down the street.

Sure- I fly alot, and there are hassles that 9/11 brought me. There are times when security (even at LSU games) runs amuck.

The War on Terror is both mismanaged and necessary. In other words, I believe that military resources should be used to control the threat, but doubt that the current situation is necessarily what we had in mind (heck, I doubt anyone did).

In summation, the 9/11 images should be shown once a week. We should show them in schools. We should put them on TV in the morning when stations begin regular programming and when they stop at night. People become complacent and allow the media to "butter up" the topic. There are people who would like us to think that there is no threat. Recent arrests prove otherwise. Recent Bin Laden tapes prove that the recruiting of these people hasn't stopped. It's not like the "Blow up the Infidels" campaign came to a screeching hault (ie the recent arrests in Germany).

This one isn't going to go away. It's our new cross to bear. I believe that we should take proper precautions. We should keep the notions of the 9/11 tragedy in the forefront of our consciousness. Everytime we step on a plane, walk into the mall, go to Church, see a ball game, etc. The FBI and Homeland Security can't be everywhere.

I don't mean to perpetuate paranoia. I mean that we should notice if the dude in Home Depot is putting 200 bags of nitrate fertilizer into a panel van, ya know? Is there a Uhaul beside Texas stadium with some "suspicious" looking people, etc.

Never forget – and never stop until the people and the organization that perpetrated the worst attack in our history are dead.

The idea that we could have treated the attackers as “criminals” is ludicrous. This is essentially what Bill Clinton did and imo lead to the expansion of the AQ organization in the US and 9/11



A necessary war. Dems can say all they want but the proof is in the pudding. We have had no attacks on our mainland or even our interests in 6 years which is more than we can say about the 90s when we were attacked numerous times and employed the “treat em as criminals” strategy I mention above.

When a group clearly maintains that they will do their best to kill you – civilians and military alike imo you have little choice but to seek them out and destroy them before they succeed.

We are all effected by 9/11. travel is a mess - just one example. Fortunately I lost no close friends on 9/11 but did know one person from MA who was on AA 11

1. Should we "never forget" September 11, 2001 or has it begun to fade into history?

I don’t believe it has faded at all. After all, it’s the excuse the president made to take us to war with Iraq. It is all that Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign is based on.

Personally, I choose to remember the people who died on September 11, 2001, whether as victims or heroes, and not all the tragically misguided or blatantly exploitative things done in their names since.

2. Has YOUR life been personally affected or changed by the events of 9/11 and/or the subsequent War On Terror?

No, I was blessed not to have been personally affected by the events of 9/11. I lost no family members or friends. What I am personally affected by and mourn the loss of is my country as it used to be. It used to be that when a national tragedy struck, we as Americans all pulled together. Instead, we have leaders who have pulled us apart. Now we are involved in the wrong fight with the wrong people for the wrong reasons and are widely reviled around the world. People have become either overly fearful or overly aggressive, and neither is healthy. I’m not proud of my country, or of many of my fellow Americans. And that personally affects me and makes me sad.

3. Has the War on Terror been a necessary battle forced upon America or a tragically mismanaged mistake?

The latter. Military action against “terror” is a losing proposition. Eliminating terrorism requires more finesse and intelligence than this administration is remotely capable of, and now they have botched it to the point that all the finesse and intelligence work in the world won’t even put a dent in it. Contrary to the admin’s beliefs, global terrorism has increased by 25%, making us less safe than they’d like us to believe, further exacerbating fearfulness and aggression.

1. We should never forget. Every night, on every channel randomly between 8PM and 9PM the images of the Towers being struck and falling along with the aftermath at the Pentagon should be shown.

2. I lost 13 friends. I spent the better part of 9/11 thinking my mother and father were dead. My mother's lungs are full of "silt". The company that employed me effectively folded. The travel industry was ravaged. I travel a lot I hate taking my shoes off.

3. Yes.

What about radical white men with a anti-federal grudge, anti-abortion extremists and Christian conversions at gunpoint in northeast India?

To answer the debate questions I think I don't care about 9/11 at this point. It is a hollow, meaningless anniversary shamelessly exploited to pad the sorry resumes of those who have executed a failed war policy in Iraq. It's all the more meaningless when I ask myself why haven't we implemented the 9/11C's recommendations. Our security can't be at risk if Congress can't stop bickering about these measures. Six years later we have soiled the memory of those who died by not taking the occasion seriously enough to protect ourselves from another attack in a dignified (read: constitutional) manner. Teh terr'ists won.

There's no good reason to commemorate. The only thing I look forward to at this point is bin Laden's head on a pike. His death will not bring back those people; it will not excuse invading Iraq on false pretenses, but it will give me a small measure of satisfaction if nothing else changes.

I don't know much about Christian conversion in India, but did google it. Funny enough, the only places that show articles are "christianaggression.org". Very objective...

The OKC bombing should be remembered too, but it obviously was an internal terrorist issue. White anti-federal men haven't attacked us 5 times in the past 10 years...

Anti-Abortion extremists don't kill nearly as many people as pro-abortion supporters. That's a different debate.

None of those things have anything to do with the point. I believe that the media has allowed us to slip into a political climate where 9/11 is about Iraq and the Bush administration, not the true threat. Not the true threat that still is trying to kill Americans (remember- they just got some plotting against a US base in Germany).

Questions for debate:

1. Should we "never forget" September 11, 2001 or has it begun to fade into history?

Let it fade into history. The question could be implied that anyone who chooses to forget is somehow being negligent or disrespectful. A little loaded eh? When I say fade, I'm using the context of letting the event influence one's thinking but not dominate or obsess consuming time, resources, and energy in an unproductive direction. That's not healthy. This is precisely what has happened.

2. Has YOUR life been personally affected or changed by the events of 9/11 and/or the subsequent War On Terror?

Yes, but not directly. Personally I read everything I can get my hands on to get as large or complete a picture as possible. This has stemmed from the glaring omissions which ensued from this one catalysing event. Greater appreciation of history maybe?

3. Has the War on Terror been a necessary battle forced upon America or a tragically mismanaged mistake?

A mismanaged mistake par excellence. This event allowed a president who failed to protect the people to prostitute the tragedy for his own political ends.

I've a feeling you would not find anything subjective about a site called muslimaggression.org because your acceptance of an anti-Muslim website would be based on "common sense". Let me help. This story first appeared on Yahoo! News:


Here's some more UFLA and Naga fun.


Does that make it better, less serious—what?


Muslim terrorists haven't killed as many "people" as pro-abortion supporters either but they hold a special place in your view. Are you suggesting that in spite of your mild defense of anti-abortion extremists a few thousand formerly living, breathing people are, in reality, more important than millions of aborted fetuses?


If the real threat is not about Iraq what the hell are we doing there?

Who are these people that think 9/11 and Iraq are connected?

I read about them. I see polls claiming to have unearthed them but I don't know anyone who knows anyone or who is a person who thinks 9/11 and Iraq are connected. GWB has said on several occasions they're not related (you can just google it - there's plenty of web links.)

This argument that there are people who believe Iraq attacked us or was complicit in 9/11 is disingenuous, much like the Democrats reinstating the draft. I doubt that there are more than a handful of people who honestly believe 9/11 and Iraq are related. I think this simplistic idea is trotted out more times than there are people who believe this myth.

Did you read the article you sited Dgrl?
“The total number of terrorist attacks was up more than 25 percent from the previous year, according to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism.

Incidents in Iraq accounted for nearly half of the 14,000 attacks and about two-thirds of the more than 20,000 fatalities worldwide. The number of deaths blamed on attacks increased by about 40 percent.”

So as Dems tell us there are few “terrorists” in Iraq and this is not a front against them this article says exactly the opposite. And you should note there have been no other attacks on the US and our interests outside of Iraq – sooooo it looks to me like we are safer and we are using up most of the terrorists energy in Iraq.

As has been said we can fight them there or……………
And lets also not that the enemy has failed to penetrate our better home defenses even though we know we have a long way to go in this area.




No this is used by the left to imply the war was based on this and clearly this is not the case. It’s a silly bumber sticker type line.

Dick Cheney did connect the two.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/....iraq.al.qaeda/

There has been a perception about the two being tied together in certain sectors of the public mind. Is it any accident that Darryl Worley's smash country hit Have You Forgotten, hit the Billboard country charts (No 1 for 7 weeks) on March 15, 2003 - right at the beginning of the Iraqi war? It even crossed over to the pop charts at No.22.

Fueled by Cheney and the same Nashville knucklehead that rejected the Dixie Chicks, but accepted the pseudo patriotism of Worley and Toby Keith, the idea became implanted in a large number of minds.

I remember well the Saturday afternoon Scott McClellan popped up and said “we got him." My first thought was that they had captured Osama bin Laden. I was greatly disappointed when it turned out to be Saddam Hussein.

2 things:

1) Dick Cheney isn't saying anything in that statement that says Iraq attacked us.
2) Darryl Worley's hit is about Afghanistan - the song was written in 2002 and the CD was released April 15, 2003 - and he's said so many times. And frankly, I can't imagine what a song has to do with anything.

I have no idea when the song was written, but it first appeared on Billboard's's country charts on March 15, 2003 (not April 15).* The timing was too perfect and the meaning got tangled in too many minds.

*Source: Whitburn, Joel, The Billboard Book of Top 40 Country Hits, 2006.

At best, it's release date was timed to benefit sales. At worst it was a side product, despite what Worley says, that connected 9/11, Iraq and the War on Terrorism in some minds. It aowed peoplke to beileve what they were already inclined to believe.

Pop culture has more of an impact on people than you might guess.

Gosh, why do you suppose that is? Oh, yeah, WE invaded Iraq! Besides, the increase in terrorist attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan is HIGHER than 25%. 25% is just the rest of the world.

I don’t suppose you read on about the increased terrorist presence in Pakistan? Or that Syria is arming the terrorists (which likely wouldn’t have happened if WE hadn’t invaded Iraq). Or that Al Qaeda’s presence in North Africa has exploded. Or that Central America has jumped on the terrorist bandwagon WE are responsible for the increase in terrorism, regardless of where it is. OUR actions have created a bigger problem.

(emphasis mine)

So, now we’ve helped terrorism to grow and flourish around the world, and provided an excellent recruitment tool for them. How is that successfully “fighting terrorism”?

When a song hit the charts and when it was released are often different dates. I think you're seeing something that's a coincidence. Worely had been hawking that song for a while before it was a hit.

Gee so when the Admin. Says the terrorist have come to Iraq and made it one of the “fronts” for terrorism they are correct.

Obviously Afghanistan always was.






How many thousands pages do you want connecting Syria to terrorism going back decades?? And sure AQ is in North Africa and they were in Somalia in the Clinton years as well. Did you expect them to quit. After all we have NOT, as Bin Laden demands, converted to Islam or left Saudi Arabia, and pulled support for Israel.

Or should we do all that to satisfy this lunatic?





So we are to “blame” for their “resilience” and it has nothing to do with the fact that we have not now and never will meet their demands? If we had not attacked Iraq they would have just faded away? Come on please.

How easy it is to blame the victim. Of course if a Dem was in the WH I am fairly sure your view would be very different.

Victim? The US is as much a victim as a 800-lb gorilla. Do you truly think GWB gave a tinker's damn about the people who died in the WTC? Because I don't. All they were/are to him is a means to an end.

You know, Ted, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. After all, like the old saying goes, opinions are like a------s, everyone has one. You don't have a crystal ball into my head; so quit putting words in my mouth.

1. Should we "never forget" September 11, 2001 or has it begun to fade into history?

Well, both I guess. History is pretty faded after all. What is Pearl Harbour now but an interesting date?

For as long as it still effects us, I believe we should choose to remember sept 11, 2001. Both for what it was, what it meant and why it happened. There is so much about that date that dare not be uttered by those who would refuse to accept it for what it was, the product of jihad. I find it depressing that so many more people would rather blame the USA itself for the attacks, than face the most obvious cause. The attacks were not carried out by the US government, there was no over all conspiracy or controlled demolitions and the people responsible are doing everything they can to repeat the attacks.

Today, a major terrorist attack was meant to take place in Denmark, but it was averted by the police only a week ago. I read a similar attack was also averted in Turkey. Last week the Germans also managed to unearth an al qaeda cell. The most troubling aspect of these incidents is how often western converts to Islam are implicated. Time and again we see how this religion subverts people to its cause in much the same way as any other cult, only because we are talking about the second largest cult on Earth, then we must pretend it is somehow otherwise. That this ideology is some how justified by its own existence.

We should choose to remember September 11, who carried out the attacks and why.


2. Has YOUR life been personally affected or changed by the events of 9/11 and/or the subsequent War On Terror?

Yes. I have become a nationalist as a result. Having witnessed the ruthless nature of the jihadists and seen how easily cowed the opinions of the liberal minded, left wing has become in the face of this threat, I have had no other option than to seriously reconsider my personal opinions and morality. I have come to the conclusion that western culture has become self defeatist.


3. Has the War on Terror been a necessary battle forced upon America or a tragically mismanaged mistake?

The 'war on terror' is a catch phrase. A slogan designed to deflect the truth. There can never be a 'war' on terrorism. The west should wake up and understand the truth. The enemy is an ideolgy that permits/encourages violent action against kuffar. Any one who supports that ideology no matter how 'moderate' they say they are, should be regarded as a potential enemy. There is no need for any 'war'. The truth if spoken by western politicians would suffice.

The Bush administration has sought to use the September 11 attacks for its own political gain and has failed to take the threat seriously. The increase in global terrorism by Muslims serves to ilustrate how futile the war in Iraq has been as a component of this 'war' on terrorism. GW Bush should be indited for criminal negligence. Denmark is a part of this debacle by virtue of its support for its ally the USA. This support has led to street violence in Denmark as left wing activists attack and destroy peoples property in their aggression. Prominent left wing politicians have marched under Hizb'Allah's flags and held anti American/anti Israeli speeches. Three terrorist attacks by Muslims in Denmark have been thwarted by the Danish police services.

And yet we are still supposed to accept the notion that a 'war on terrorism' has nothing at all to do with Islam.


BTW: I am informed that the reason Bin Laden has dyed his hair is not vanity but rather because the koran recommends dying ones hair dark when one undertakes jihad. The notion is to suggest youth and virility in the face of one's enemies. It is a sign of defience.

1. Should we "never forget" September 11, 2001 or has it begun to fade into history?
September 11, 2001 will always be remembered akin to other days that will live in infamy. The impact of that day has faded as new seasons of American Idol have come on and diverted most Americans short attention spans. I don’t believe that footage need be aired each day at prime time, those Americans who are cognizant of the world around them, and not just pop culture, don’t need such reminders.

2. Has YOUR life been personally affected or changed by the events of 9/11 and/or the subsequent War On Terror?
I’m not in Baghdad on vacation. Not that I buy into any Iraq-9/11 connection, but without the powers of pre-cognition, I can’t guarantee that I would be here without the 9/11 attack. My wife spent 12 months in Iraq, and I’m winding my way through a 15 month tour as a member of a surge Brigade.

3. Has the War on Terror been a necessary battle forced upon America or a tragically mismanaged mistake?
Some sort of offensive action was needed after (if not before) 9/11. I don’t believe that it should be a dominant military campaign, but clearly 9mm wielding Interpol agents aren’t going to take down all terrorist cells. I favor more cyber exploitation, financial investigation and forensics. We have stepped up efforts on these fronts, but more can be done that doesn’t involve air launched missiles. A broad but deliberate legal/financial/military offensive should be conducted, as opposed to massive ground invasions of countries with dubious terrorist ties.

With all due respect Ted the "resilience" of any remaining Talibani fighters is attributable to the shift in the war from Afghanistan and into Iraq. There have been several articles over the last year suggesting that Afghanistan is competing with Korea for the title of "Lost War" because it was overshadowed by another war which made no sense. Or, "Dude, you took your eye off the ball". This is a betrayal in the trust of the people Ted and government should pay a price for it.

There has not been a single credible rationale for shifting the focus of the war onto Iraq, and the transitory justifications only made a mockery of the suffering experienced at home. What has been perpretated on the American people is analogous to the seedy funeral director taking advantage of the grieving widow. The public has been lied to and in the process been taken along an adventure of perpetual war. The promise of endless war does not speak of a clear game plan where we will see resolution. Without resolution how do people heal and move on?

You know you posted the article I just pointed out what it said and implied..

No we should not forget 9/11 the people who did it to us and their insane reasons for doing it. And if you think we “deserved it” then please remember it was planned, trained and missed 90% on the watch of your buddy Bill so to blame Bush for the attack is to ignore history.


You have your view and me mine - so be it.

It does? Why? Is there some sort of evidence that planned attacks on the nation that have been prevented? All this indicates is that bin Laden and other jihadists are simply biding their time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the War on Terror - which virtually everyone (apart from the "none so blind as those who cannot read") now admits is only exacerbating the problem and leading to the creation of more jihadists than ever.

If this is meant to be a sop to your opponents, nighttimer, I wouldn't bother - some of them won't be satisfied until you admit that every problem that has beset mankind throughout human history is actually the fault of William Jefferson Clinton. Incredibly, there are some who are still hanging with the Blame America's Ex-President First crowd:
*sigh* This isn't even directly on topic - just a gratuitous straw at which a few are still desperately grasping. I will not, therefore, bother composing yet another variation on a post I've made here numerous times. I'll just digest one of them. The cited post was composed exactly four years ago, when I'd already thought the "Clinton did it!" excuse for... well, everything had passed its "sell by" date. I wouldn't make the effort to disabuse Ted of some of his groundless beliefs were it not for the fact that I'd like to clear some of the water that he's been deliberately muddying. In a nutshell:

During his time in office, all Bill Clinton did was capture and imprison the perpetrators of the first terrorist attack on US soil, increase anti-terror funding several times over, thwart about a dozen planned attacks on the mainland, propose and pass crime legislation addressing terrorism, sponsor coordinated responses to terrorist attacks at every level of government, break up dozens of al-Qaeda cells, create a national anti-terrorism security post, commission a bipartisan study on counter-terrorism (which urged the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency and which, if followed, could have prevented the September 11 attack), put together a comprehensive plan to take out al-Qaeda, authorize the assassination of Osama bin Laden, and put together ten briefings with those who would succeed his National Security team so they could carry on his efforts. The last item was, of course, to no avail, but every other action directly helped curb fundamentalist Islamic terror. (All of the above is sourced in the original post.)

Compared to Ronald Reagan (who responded to terrorist attacks by turning tail and running like a yellow-bellied little pansy), George H.W. Bush (who financed Osama bin Laden and countless other terrorists), and George W. Bush (who did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING prior to the September 11 attacks), Clinton looks like a real lightweight. :rolleyes:

We now return to nighttimer's thread:
And a lot of good questions, too. So I'll answer the above before getting to the questions for debate. But what have we given up for that security? What security? Are we trading increased security for a slow and gradual chipping away of individual rights and protections? No, we are trading a rather advanced chipping away of individual rights and protections for less security than we've ever had. In going into Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan have we made a mistake that has weakened our military and shattered the unity of the nation that followed September 11? Yes - and that's the least of it. We have also allowed our executive to run rampant, breaking the law, trashing the Constitution, upsetting the balance of powers, eliminating checks on the presidency, and committing numerous war crimes through the waging of illegal acts of aggression.

Questions, then, for debate:

Should we "never forget" September 11, 2001 or has it begun to fade into history?

We should never forget what happened on September 11, 2001 (as well as what happened before and, especially, since), but it is already fading into history. But what we really should not forget is the amoral manner in which our administration has exploited the tragedy for heinous political ends. We should not forget that our national leadership was asleep at the wheel, and that the local authorities, especially in New York, were utterly unprepared for such an attack (despite the 1993 attack), and, worse, obstructed the rescue efforts, endangered the lives of workers at Ground Zero, and has been shamelessly using the debris from the attack ever since as a campaign platform, usually through massive lies.

Has YOUR life been personally affected or changed by the events of 9/11 and/or the subsequent War On Terror?

I lost a cousin during the rescue efforts at the World Trade Center (and my partner lost two relatives). I didn't know him terribly well, but have got to know my aunt (his mother) much better since. So, "yes" to the events of 9/11.

But it is the subsequent "war on terror" that has most affected me personally. First, I have a number of friends who have served or are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq (including one who has come back severely damaged) - as well as a nephew who is heading to Baghdad on October 1 and a current employee, one of our best, who's starting Basic Training at the same time. This has been a cause of great anxiety and frustration, not to mention inducing considerable rage and an often overwhelming sense of helplessness - in relation to both the lives and the ideals that the Bush administration has placed under threat.

But the "war on terror" has also affected me the way it has affected all of us. In "responding" to the September 11 attacks, this administration has dishonored my county, made war criminals of the brave men and women who would die to defend it, trashed our laws and our Constitution, violated our treaties, and perpetrated acts of barbarism. As an American, this has a profound affect on my life: It has made me ashamed of the country of my birth.

Has the War on Terror been a necessary battle forced upon America or a tragically mismanaged mistake?

Neither. It has been an enormously successful exercise in war profiteering.

Ya sure. After 9/11 we made changes including smashing AQ in Afghanistan, disrupting their funds and aggressively hunting them all over the world.
Many expected another attack, especially one overseas within months. When that didn’t happen some said the “cycle” was a year or so for planning etc.
So now six years later and we have foiled every attack thanks to the Patriot act and a lot of hard working Americans in government and the military. This is no accident sir. Al Bin Laden can do here six years later is send us a nutty tape. Are we completely safe – no, but certainly more safe than the 90s. As they say the “proof is in the pudding”.

The same can not be said of the Clinton years.

As for evidence of foiled planned attacks – no doubt some are classified but one – the planned attack on LA was revealed – remember Werrtz? How about the German plot to kill our soldiers at a base in Germany?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shortly after 9/11, al Qaeda began planning to use shoe bombers to hijack a commercial airplane and fly it into the tallest building in Los Angeles, California, President Bush said Thursday.
The details were the first from the administration about the West Coast airliner plot, which was thwarted in 2002 and initially disclosed by the White House last year.
"Rather than use Arab hijackers, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said.
Mohammed was captured in Pakistan in 2003.
http://tarpbg.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror/index.html
And on TV last night Homeland Security said 50% of all info gathered that stopped attacks used the Patriot act provisions – all hotly contested by ACLU

Except we didn't.

Except we haven't.

"Some people say..." I take it you haven't seen Out-Foxed. So: Who are these "many" that expected attacks within months? The terror-mongers in the White House who want us to expect another attack every waking second? Sorry, I'm more afraid of them than I am of their attack rumors and elevated threat levels - and the abject cowardice they seem to expect of the American people. I will just mention, though, that it took eight years for al-Qaeda to organize a second attack on US soil.


It's also not true - sir. What are these attacks? Or are all of the Bush administration's valiant efforts conveniently classified? Give me a break. If there had been a single attack on the mainland thwarted by the Bush administration, it would've been covered non-stop on Fox News for six months. As it is, I haven't even seen a single news ticker about such thwartitude.


Yeah, but where's the pudding? There have been no attacks on the nation in six years, therefore George Bush is the greatest opponent international terrorism has ever known, right? Similarly, there have been no proven alien abductions in six years, therefore George W Bush is the greatest opponent extraterrestrials have ever known. And no meteors have crashed into a major metropolitan area in six years, therefore George W Bush is the greatest opponent astronomy has ever known. How about this: There have been no terrorist attacks on the Vatican City in six years, therefore Pope Benedict is also the greatest opponent international terrorism has ever known. One could go on like this all day. It's kinda fun - but it is meaningless.


Apart from George W. Bush's assertion that such an attack was foiled (during a 2006 speech in which he got the name of the building wrong), there is no corroborating evidence that such an attack was ever developed or was remotely likely to occur - never mind planned or imminent. Indeed, the only corroboration this story has got at all is from the confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - the terror suspect who, after four years in custody (and six months at Gitmo), confessed to every terrorist act that has been perpetrated since 1990 - including several which were thwarted during the Clinton administration, some of which he could not possibly have been involved in, and some which didn't even exist. You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid.

And this isn't it:
How about it? That plot was thwarted by German police working with Germany's GSG-9 anti-terrorist unit. Nothing to do with the Patriot Act, nothing to do with the omnipotent George W Bush, nothing to do with America. Germans arrested some other Germans in Germany. I feel so much safer now. In any event, the German operation, like the plot to blow up US-bound airliners which was thwarted in England last year, was the result of police and intelligence work - not war crimes being committed or unconstitutional powers being seized by their executive branches.


Yeah. When you come up with a credible source, get back to me. An unnamed Bush spokesperson touting undisclosed information regarding unnamed attacks on an unknown TV station doesn't cut it - whether they wave the Patriot Act like a flag or not.

1. Should we "never forget" September 11, 2001 or has it begun to fade into history?

I'm not sure that America, or most of the rest of the world, will ever really forget September 11th 2001.

In the distant future - dependent very much on the outcome of the "War on Terror" - it may even become something to be celebrated in a macabre kind of way, perhaps analogous to Halloween or the British Bonfire Night celebrations (commemorating a failed terrorist attack/coup d'etat from the 17th century). That's a long way off now, of course, and who knows how the world might pan out in the meantime. (Will there be a USA, or an Islam, that we would recognise in another 400 years? Maybe, maybe not, but none of us can know for sure.)

What has been forgotten, in America and some other parts of the world, is September 12th 2001. Then, there was almost universal and unequivocal support throughout the developed world - and in many places in the rest of it - for the people bereaved or injured, and for the USA as a whole.

That goodwill and support lasted for a long time - right up to the point where it looked like the US and some of her closer allies were trying to parlay it into supporting an aggressive invasion of an uninvolved ("innocent" is too strong a word) third party - Iraq.

That's when the likes of France and Germany backed off. Ok, they had strong trading links with Saddam's Iraq (with some whiffs of corruption and sanction-busting about some of them), and I dare say the immediate outpouring of public sympathy from 9-11 had faded there too to be replaced by more cynical realpolitik. But the "Coalition of the Willing" had ulterior motives too, not least the big bucks contracts that could be earned from reconstruction.

2. Has YOUR life been personally affected or changed by the events of 9/11 and/or the subsequent War On Terror?

I now have to think about getting a biometric passport to enter the USA; by the time I can afford to visit again this will almost certainly have taken effect.

Otherwise no, not really.

3. Has the War on Terror been a necessary battle forced upon America or a tragically mismanaged mistake?

America could have chosen to use police-style powers rather than military ones. That is not the same as saying that military ones can't back up police powers, or that treating terrorists as criminals rather than military opponents somehow lets them off easy. It only let's them off easy if you don't catch them - way to go, military action.

Clearly, SOME kind of response was necessary and was forced upon America. And the choice to smash the Taliban with military force since they were sheltering and supporting the prime suspect - OBL - was initially reasonable; no investigation can happen if the investigators can't get anywhere near the trail of their suspect without getting shot. Since the Taliban were the closest thing to a government that there was in Afghanistan at the time, a military occupation followed by some attempt at nation building was the obvious next move.

All of that might have usefully be labelled as a "War on Terror" in a world of 24-hour rolling news.

The tragically (or wilfully neglectful and/or stupid) mismanaged mistake was to extend all of that into invading Iraq. That's where it all went off the rails.

We're there now, so we kind of had to hold the place together until the people there could start rebuilding their institutions (many of which - the army, the civil service - were deliberately dismantled as policy by the Allies; thanks Dick). But that's the bit that has been the mistake and has been mismanaged from the get-go. Sadly, it's also knocked on to an attenuation of the problems in Afghanistan, simply by knocking it down a peg on the priorities list.

The core mistake was to try to turn a direct response to a direct threat into an attempt to achieve some wider policy goals. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don't but I can understand the logic of those that do) , toppling Ba'thism in Iraq and establishing a democracy in its place has (so far) been a very costly and - at times - very clumsy mistake.

I posted the story above – and you fail to read it?? Are you saying it was “made up”.

How many years between attacks in the Clinton years? Check out the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terro..._incidents#1992


Since 9/11 – how many? The proof is in the pudding my friend. Deny all you want but the so called massive expansion of the “terrorists” because we are in Iraq has not hit us once outside of Iraq. I call that amazing.




You seem to have missed a lot here. US warned Americans in May.

“US television reported Friday that the plot was at an advanced stage. But the government official stopped short of confirming those reports, saying only that it was 'not something that was simply an idle plot.' “

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/...y__3rd_Roundup_



Then this:


“An American intelligence official said that the United States helped German authorities track the location of two of the German suspects by eavesdropping on their cellphone conversations as they moved out of training camps in Pakistan.”
Information that surfaced during the investigation, which included monitoring phone calls and tracking suspects’ movements, led the authorities to conclude that among the targets under consideration were the Ramstein Air Base, a crucial transportation hub for the American military, and Frankfurt International Airport.
And by the way this phone tracking is exactly what the Dems have balked at as we as ACLU (of course)


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/world/eu...amp;oref=slogin

You call it amazing.. the rest of us call it war. How can you call someone attacking soldiers terrorists??

More importantly, you like to think inside the box. Let us ask a simple question, prior to 9/11 what was the last attack from foreign terrorist on our soil?? Who was President and how many years did that President do an amazing job protecting us??

Answer that and then tell us if you want to stick to your guns that it is the war in Iraq that is keeping us safe.

I am not speaking of “on our soil, I am speaking of terrorist attacks against Americans and our interests and there were far more in the 90s under Clinton including:

1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, on August 7, 1998. five Western tourists killed in Kashmir in July 1995. and the Kobart Towers 1995.

Do I need to go on?

Now list the attack like these in the last 6 years?

Could you be referring to intelligence director Mike McConnell, who claimed the Democrats' capitulation to the Bush administration's demands to pass the latest FISA amendment before summer recess was responsible for thwarting last week's terrorist plot in Germany? The same Mike McConnell who was also criticized by House Judiciary subcommittee members for talking out his flatulent behind? The same Mike McConnell who just admitted today that "Information contributing to the recent arrests was not collected under authorities provided by the Protect America Act"?

Of course it would be. And of course this little setback in your authoritarian wet dream of constitutional subversion will do nothing to diminish your enthusiasm for the erosion of my constitutional rights. Perhaps I shouldn't be angry with you too much. You gullibly believe the federal government passing a law designed to "gather intelligence about foreign targets in foreign locations without having to obtain a court order first" could implement these changes, adjust interagency procedures, collect data and inform German authorities within 30 days. To say nothing of the fact that U.S. intelligence agencies were on to the German plot for at least three months prior to FISA's amendment. You know, back when intelligence agencies lacked the very necessary legal authority to spy on foreign targets without a warrant?

Why am I consistently surprised you support whatever the government tells you to support?

To bring this thread somewhat back on topic: Has your life been personally affected or changed by ... the subsequent War On Terror?

I guess it has affected me. Clinton originally got me interested in politics but no figure, living or historical, has piqued my interest like Bush. On the run-up to the invasion I couldn't believe a majority of Americans agreed with the White House that Iraq presented an immediate threat to our national security. Before finding I would argue on other online forums with the IAEA's own online documents and people could not change their minds. I was dithering and swithering about getting a BA in journalism until Iraq. Partly because working for a newspaper or newzine doesn't strike me as a way to make a decent living, and partly because I thought I wasn't good enough. Both reasons stopped mattering after Iraq and I hope my interest is just as strong and I'm just as irritated at the workings of government after Bush moves out of the White House.

Questions for debate:

1. Should we "never forget" September 11, 2001 or has it begun to fade into history?

"never forget" in what sense? We still "Remember the Maine", but as a rallying cry to war against Spain, it has kinda lost its cachet. Perhaps because we fought the war and won it. Ditto for "The Day the Will Live in Infamy". On the other hand, you still have those who hark back to "40 acres and a mule" as a rallying cry for addressing the injustices they perceive in today's society.

So, the question about whether or not we should "never forget" depends, methinks, on whether or not the issues raised by the event we shouldn't forget have been satisfactorily resolved.

2. Has YOUR life been personally affected or changed by the events of 9/11 and/or the subsequent War On Terror?
Yes, it was directly effected on 9/11 (albeit in a fairly mild fashion), and in the immediate weeks thereafter. However, the subsequent WoT has had minimal direct affect on me personally.

3. Has the War on Terror been a necessary battle forced upon America or a tragically mismanaged mistake?
As a logical proposition, given the conflation of "tragic mistake" with "mismanaged", it can be both. I, however, will have to settle with characterizing it as a necessary battle that has at times been mismanaged, as, it must be noted, is an irreducible feature of all wars.

You are missing the point, Ted. Whether or not there have been terrorist attacks on or off American soil - with or without American targets (or bystanders) - is no barometer for gauging our relative "safety". There were more terrorist attacks against US targets under Ronald Reagan than under Bill Clinton - and far more Americans died due to terrorist attacks under the watch of George W Bush than any other president in US history. Does that tell us that we were "safer" under Clinton than under Reagan or Bush? No, such figures prove nothing.

Like it or not (and I'd think you could show a bit more gratitude), Bill Clinton did a lot to combat terrorism - more than any president that preceded him by an order of magnitude - and a lot more to prevent terrorist attacks. Until September 11, 2001, terrorism wasn't even on George Bush's radar. The fact that, under Bush, "only" 3000 Americans have died at the hands of terrorists on US soil also proves nothing - except criminal negligence prior to September 11, 2001.

The point is that, after the September 11 attacks and before to the "war on terror", especially the illegal invasion of Iraq, the United States had almost universal good will from around the world and considerable support for addressing the threat of terrorism. That has been in steady decline ever since - thanks to the Bush administration's policies. Clinton's efforts had made enormous impact on combating terrorism (and could have made much more had the Bush administration decided to follow through on any of the work of the previous eight years) and al-Qaeda was a relatively minor organization with little support and few recruits. That has been completely reversed - thanks to the Bush administration's policies. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, there was no "al-Qaeda in Iraq". Now, thanks to the Bush administration's policies, there is - and it's gaining strength and numbers on a daily basis. Plus we are far more vulnerable than ever - our borders are as porous as they've been at any point in our history, our ports are not secured, our pipelines are unprotected, there have been no coordinated efforts to secure our universities or embassies or tourist targets - not to mention post offices or governors mansions or convention centers or national monuments or shopping malls - we don't have adequate security at our major dams and reservoirs or at our chemical and nuclear power plants, our infrastructure is in bits - hell, our bridges are collapsing of their own accord and we can't even react to a flood - the National Guard, our first line of domestic defense, is exhausted (those who are even in the country), and our military is more over-extended than a volunteer force has ever been.

And even if the number of attacks per year were an appropriate gauge (and you may parse "terrorist attacks" however you like - on or off the mainland, with or without American victims, whether or not Americans were the intended target, whether the terrorist is "home-grown" or not), terrorism on the whole has been on the increase ever since the illegal invasion of Iraq - and recruitment into terrorist organizations has been booming as well. Osama bi Laden virtually endorsed George Bush's reelection in 2004 because he, too, wants to see the Iraqi adventure drag on and on and on. It's the best thing that ever happened for al-Qaeda. And the longer we're there, the better for the radical Islamic movement in general. This is not "safety", Ted, it is an ever-increasing threat - thanks to the policies of the Bush administration.

But as you seem determined to pursue a decline in terrorist attacks as "proof" of our relative safety, I would suggest that you might want to try your pudding without the Kool-Aid. During Clinton's eight years in office, Wikipedia lists ninety-five terrorist attacks around the world. During George W Bush's six years, there have been 286 terrorist attacks around the world, progressively more every year that Bush has ruled - seventy-nine in the past year alone. Several countries have experienced their first Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks ever since joining the Multi-National Force in Iraq, including Denmark, the Netherlands, the Philippines, and Spain. If you exclude the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the UK would also have been experiencing their first Islamic-inspired attacks.

It is worth noting - since you asked - that these include numerous attacks on US soil and/or against Americans and/or our interests:

• there were five killed and twenty-two injured in a series of anthrax attacks in October of 2001 (including attacks on Congress, New York State Government offices, and several media outlets);
• on January 2, 2002, five people were killed when gunmen opened fire on the American Center in Kolkata, India;
• six people were injured by pipe-bombs in mailboxes in the Midwest in April, 2002;
• two Israelis were gunned down at the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport on July 4, 2002;
• ten people were killed in the DC-Baltimore area by John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo in October of 2002;
• on October 12, 2002, the Bali bombings outside two clubs in Kuta and the US consulate in Denpasar killed 202 (including seven Americans), and injured 209, mostly Western tourists and local service staff;
• twenty-six were killed and 160 injured in the bombing of US housing in the Riyadh Compound in Saudi Arabia on May 12, 2003;
• three Americans were killed on October 15, 2003, in the bombing of a US diplomatic convoy in the Gaza Strip;
• 191 people were killed and over 1500 injured in the commuter train bombing in Madrid on March 11, 2004 (assuming you consider a bombing related to membership in the Coalition of the Dwindling to be an "American interest");
• on May 1, 2004, six were killed (two Americans, two Brits, an Australian, a Canadian, and a Saudi guard) in an attack on the offices of ABB Lummus (a Texas-based petrochemical company) in Yanbu' al Bahr, Saudi Arabia;
• five employees were killed during an al-Qaeda attack on the US consulate in Jeddah on December 6, 2004;
• fifty-six people were killed and over 700 injured in the London bombings during the G8 Conference on July 7, 2005 (again, assuming you consider our most active Coalition partner and/or the G-8 to be of "American interest");
• four people, including a US diplomat, were killed in a bombing in Karachi, Pakistan on March 2, 2006;
• nine people were injured the next day when Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove his SUV through a crowd on the University of North Carolina campus;
• on August 30, 2006, an Afghan Muslim killed one and injured nineteen in another SUV attack - this time in San Francisco;
• a Syrian guard was killed and a US Embassy employee (as well as ten bystanders) injured in an attack on the US embassy in Damascus on September 12, 2006;
• on April 10, 2007, one person was injured in a suicide bombing outside the American Language Center in Casablanca, Morocco;
• on April 25, 2007, the American International School in the Gaza Strip was stormed by gunmen who stole computers, planted explosives in adjoining buildings, doused the school with gasoline, and set it on fire

That was easy - even if, for whatever reason, you're telling us not to count terrorist attacks (as opposed to military combat) in Iraq. If you deign to count Afghanistan, which has been under American-style protection since October 2001, you get a multitude of terrorist attacks on "American interests" since Bush launched his war on such attacks. Last year alone, Human Rights Watch reported that some 350 attacks - mostly suicide bombings - killed 669 civilians. Or, to your mind, should the stats on terrorist attacks exclude terrorist attacks in any country in which the "war on terror" is actually being waged?

Regardless, for someone who has devoted a substantial portion of his presidency (and even more of his PR) to "the global war on terror", George W. Bush has a pretty pathetic track record.

Besides, it's quite possible, Ted - likely, even - that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil for six years because the last one is still paying such high dividends. Radical Islamic terrorists haven't attacked us because they haven't needed to attack us. In terms of recruitment, Middle Eastern sentiment, declining sympathy and support for the US among the rest of the world, recognition and discussion of their grievances, the strength and effectiveness of the US military, media attention for the fundamentalist cause, and even the curbing of American freedom (which they hate terribly, I hear), "the terrorists" are gaining ground - and have been since about March 19, 2003. What would another attack accomplish now? A bigger surge in Iraq? No, Ted. All al-Qaeda needed was one attack on American soil plus one corrupt, autocratic, criminally incompetent American administration and - presto! - their job was virtually done.

The proof may, indeed, be in the pudding, Ted. But the pudding produced by the "war on terror" is rancid.

The Dems voted for the changes for a good reason – we need them to listen to AQ. If you disagree then please tell me why they relented.

One intel expert testified that 50% of the intel gathered comes from this type of intercept.

Want to show me instances where your rights have been violated? How many cases do you have? 10, 1.? 0?

So if the changes are really not necessary you would think your smart Dem buddies who control all of Congress would just stop it from happening – hey maybe they know something you don’t.

So ya lets just float along until the next attack and then we can have another “what did we do wrong” and :connect the dots” nonsense over the graves of the new dead. Wonderful idea.






Yes I say we are safer than under everyone including Reagan. The wake up call came in 1988. Reagan took action but the everyone in Congress ignored the Terrorism Commission recommendations.

In the 90s Bill’s – make em “criminals” was a disaster. AQ grew, declared war on us and set up the 9/11 attack right under his nose. By 2001 it was too late – the Clinton passed prohibition on intel sharing between FBI and CIA had been instrumental in making it possible. He cut CIA field people and imo did not do enough to get Bin laden.

Bush is not free of blame either – he should have canned FBI dir. Freh and listened to O’Neil, but Clinton had more time as the plot went forward and missed it all.

If there ever was a time when the incentive to hit back at the US is high it is now. The fact that it has not happened means we are stopping it.

You're right. Muslim terrorists have killed fewer people than people who have had abortions. It think it's interesting that you admit that. It's just that there are millions of Americans who believe convenience supercedes life. Muslim terrorists aren't supported by an activist Supreme Court. Abortions are.

Iraq isn't my flag to fly. I believe, if you remember, that even Democrats voted to get us there. If you also will note, Democrats are in control of congress who holds the reigns to military funding. Do the math.

The facts are that in the US, people have begun to cower down and even seemingly defend muslim terrorists. The media wants to harken back to a police action scenario as during the Clinton era when it comes to Terrorism. Of course that didn't work. I believe that Iraq is a seperate issue, but 9/11 should be something that we still talk about, as Al Qaeda is still up and running. We should do somethin' about that.

If you look carefully you'll notice that I used quotes around people. You've read my posts on abortion long enough to figure out that I don't believe embryos and fetuses should enjoy the same rights as a born person or, hell, even a third trimester fetus. You'd need to ignore this difference of opinion to raise a red flag on the Supreme Court with respect to... um, born Muslim terrorists.


I'm really tired of this. In the Capitol Hill thread a few people have mentioned that Capitol Hill Police have to answer to Pelosi. As if that mitigates the damage. Do you really want to stave off debate and disagreements by reminding half the voting population that their side is doing something stupid? We'll be the United State of Perpetual Stupidity.


Aren't you being a little generous? Conservative pundits, journalists, politicians etc. believe the U.S. has been cowering for 6 years for refusing to ooh and ahh at everything Bush claimed.


Clinton's police action didn't work?


No joke. You won't do that something in Iraq.

Quite the congrary Ted, I know something Democrats in Congress don't know. I know the secretive Bush administration will say anything to expand the executive's spying powers. Case in point:

Republicans and the Bush administration used a 'bogus' terror threat that raised specific fears of an attack on the Capitol to scare lawmakers into adopting a dramatic temporary expansion of the government's spy powers last month, a former top intelligence committee Democrat said Wednesday. Congress agreed to give President Bush and the nation's intelligence agencies extra authority to spy on Americans just hours before lawmakers left for a month-long recess in August. In the legislative session's final week, news emerged of an impending plot by foreign terrorists to attack the US Capitol, and Republicans pointed to the reports as justification to expand the administration's powers.

"That specific intelligence claim, it turned out, was bogus; the intelligence agencies knew that," Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) said at a forum on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act organized by the Center for American Progress in Washington. However, lawmakers did not learn of the claim's unreliability until "the day" they approved the FISA expansion, she said.

Harman, who now chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, accused the Bush administration of pursuing a "Rovian strategy of using terrorism as a wedge issue" in seeking to expand the president's power rather than focusing on the needs of foreign surveillance.

Why any Democrat still trusts anything the Bush administration claims is beyond me. Maybe Democrats are like you. Maybe they like being tricked and coerced into trusting someone.

Excuse me, would you like to take this to another thread? We can talk all day about a President that didn't connect the dots, didn't take bin Laden, didn't secure a fueling destroyer, didn't protect diplomats overseas, didn't support the troops in Mogadishu, fired missiles on Iraq with no effect, blew up a medicine factory in Sudan, didn't listen to his terrorism csar....all because it "was the economy stupid". He sent his Sec State over to hug a nuke building dictator who starves his people, and gave away nuke secrets to China for campaign contributions. Let's talk about a president that had thorough knowledge about this for eight years, and when that's settled we can discuss a president who had 9/11 dumped in his lap after only eight months in office.

Let me know if you want to take this debate elsewhere.

You are aware that we didn't kn ow that Al-Quaida had bombed the US Cole until after the 2000 election was over- right? And, um, what exactly did GW do about it in the 8 months before 9-11 about Al-quaida, even though he had reports about it on his desk?

you sure do like to buy into discredited right wing radio shows don't you?

You know, whether or not we turn out for parades with police bands and bagpipers, wear black armbands, play martial music all day at work, or have moments of silence at school; there are more concrete ways of remembering 9/11. These ways ensure that even if we didn't have some kind of national commemoration, the memory would remain.

It is the heightened vigilance that borders on paranoia and stupidity at our airports. It is demonstrations of (usually) young people, most recently a young woman from MIT who strapped her electronic circuitry art to herself and showed up at the airport,* who protest the climate of fear that has enveloped some of us.

It is the domestic wiretaps that have been, legally or otherwise (remember Bush and what the Supreme Court said?), imposed on our populace, the fact that you cannot get a loan at a bank or open an account without it being subjected to or fair game to be subjected to the scrutiny of Homeland Security and any other government agency with a passing interest. It means that any health condition or statements that a patient makes to their doctor is only confidential unless there are somehow "security implications."

It means that some people are erroneously placed on "no-fly" lists, while others who have actually been identified as "persons of interest" have slipped through and been allowed to fly on commercial flights.

It means that while we tried to get Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and we "would not rest" until he was "brought to justice," we still haven't caught him four years after another war was started, by us, in Iraq and a protracted occupation is yielding more and more casualties and American troops disabled for life.

It means that many rescuers at the WTC site who developed lung diseases have died while waiting for some kind of assistance from the government which erroneously (dishonestly?) said that it wasn't dangerous to breathe the air there while trying to find people alive or recover all the bodies.

It means that the next President has a mess to contend with in Iraq because the "Windshield Cowboy" (thank you, Vicente Fox) in the White House was so eager to get Saddam that he didn't count the cost or direct that a National Intelligence Estimate be done before threatening us with a "mushroom cloud."

Do you think we have enough to remember (and correct) so that we don't forget the events of 9/11/2001?


*although she will quite possibly deny any reason other than displaying her artwork