Would-be Tragedy Inspires Reflection

January 18th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

On Thursday, a feeling of relief overtook anxious New Yorkers when news reports explained that a flock of geese most likely caused the emergency crash-landing of U.S. Airways flight 1549. This news, accompanying images of the safe exit of all 155 passengers, eased the tensions of a great many people who feared that the crash was a replica of the events that occurred on September 11, 2001. Thankfully, there was no terroristic catalyst involved.

I often find myself unaware or overlooking the fact that I live and work in a city that has remained a major target of potential terrorist attacks. While it would be foolish to continuously focus on this undeniable fact, it is important to maintain a healthy level of personal awareness and to make occasional consideration of the events and ramifications of the attack that occurred more than seven years ago. During and in the aftermath of last week’s would-be tragedy, it was impossible to avoid this awareness.

At the same time that flight 1549 splashed into the middle of the Hudson River, I was fast at work at my office in Queens. Upon receiving a text message from my father that read: “There is a plane in the Hudson.”  I notified other staff members and went directly to the television, where most of the staff had come to see what was going on. And what a relief it was to see the end result - every man and woman exiting the plane without a single casualty.

Living in the post 9-11 world and sitting in an office with windows that show the Manhattan skyline devoid of the Twin Towers, my first thought prior to turning on the television was “Oh no! Not again.” Luckily, my first reaction was anything but valid. We were truly lucky - as were the inhabitants of flight 1549.

The relief I felt when I saw these men and women being brought to safety was immense. And while I ventured back to my desk, I couldn’t help but think about the horror our nation has gone through this past decade. Had this crash-landing occurred in 2000, the words “act of terrorism” wouldn’t have so readily materialized in my mind. The world has truly changed.

With a new administration coming in, America cannot afford to cut loose when it comes to protecting the homeland. It is these thoughts that have been going through my mind since Thursday afternoon.

Ironically, this morning, I read a short post on The New York Times’ City Room blog entitled, “Sept. 11 Death Toll Rises by One, to 2,752.” The piece read:

Leon Bernard Heyward did not die until last October, at the age of 45. But his name was added Friday to the official list of people who died as a result of the attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

Heyward was exposed to dust while working at Ground Zero. Although his death comes years after the event that has forever changed America, he is yet another hero who is being counted among those murdered by radical Islamic fascists on U.S. soil. His name is not being invoked in this case to create anger in readers; rather, it is being presented to serve as a reminder of the sacrifices our nation was forced to make - sacrifices that continue to plague many of the men and women who volunteered during the aftermath of the attacks.

Thankfully, flight 1549 landed safely and has been slated an accident. Luckily, we have not had to endure another 9-11 and I pray that we will never have to again. The new administration - and most importantly Americans - mustn’t forget what happened in 2001. While it often seems embedded in the past, families, individuals and policy-makers need to remember all that was lost so that our nation does not become complacent again.

Technorati Tags: 9/11,Flight 1549,Hudson,NYC,Terrorism

Rating: 2.3/5 (29 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!
  • Karl Drexinger
    I know of another person to add to the list of those killed on 9/11. My friend tripped where one of the buildings once stood and died of a brain hemmorage. If that building had never been destroyed and was still occupying that space, he never could have tripped and he would be alive today!!!
  • JackieM
    David--we can agree to disagree again.
  • davidwwalters
    JackieM.....
    <<
    --I said "we haven't had any attacks in the US since 911."  so Bush kept us safe.
    >>
    -Why so arbitrary with your start lines?  If The bombings began on
    2-26-93, can we say "oops" for 9-11?

    <<
    how do we know that he didn't try to stop it?
    >>
    -with the testimony from the 9-11 commission it is fairly easy to see that The Bush Administration dropped the ball in a big way leading up to 9-11.

    <<i don't think we were prepared regardless of what he did. >>

    -Since there were FBI agents were aware prior to 9-11.....
    <<After an unrelated investigation revealed that several nonresident Arab men were seeking training at a commercial aeronautical school in Prescott, Ariz., the agents' supervisor wrote in a memo to Washington that "FBIHQ should discuss this matter with other elements of the U.S. intelligence community and task the community for any information that supports Phoenix's suspicions." ........FBI headquarters passed on the intelligence to its terrorism experts in Washington and New York for analysis. The agency was considering a nationwide survey of flight schools when the terror attacks took place, Fox News has confirmed. >>
    -and no less an authority than Fox news reported this......you didn't hear?
  • JackieM
    David--I said "we haven't had any attacks in the US since 911."  so Bush kept us safe.  I didn't say Bush was not warned.  I said we don't know what he actually did.  how do we know that he didn't try to stop it?  say he acted as soon as he got the news that an attack was imminent.  would he have been able to stop it?  i have my doubts.  i don't think we were prepared regardless of what he did.  i agree that he made huge mistakes.  no one is denying that.  i'm just saying that you and I were not there and to judge with only pieces of information is not what i'm willing to do.  i really not interested in the gitmo situation but don't want them further clogging up our courts or on our soil.  the problem was identified and hopefully corrected.  however, the detainess do not need to live better than our soldiers!  with all of the lives we have saved and the people we have helped in this world, i don't have a problem with our "perception" to the world because no matter what we do, it will not make a difference to those who hate us.
  • davidwwalters
    JackieM(40).....
    <<
    David--he was warned.  how do you and i know what he actually did?  are we privileged enough to know that?
    >>

    -
    Because Sandy Berger Testified before the 9-11 Commission in 2003.
    It's a matter of public record, we are privileged enough to know.....

    <<....i can't say what Bush did because i wasn't there and everything else is hearsay.>>
    -True, however we do have interviews with the principals involved.  "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward is the result of interviews of such principals, so it is possible to gain some insight into events of the past....
    We can close our eyes (....a childish thing to do), or we can glean some wisdom from our past mistakes.
    <<i can say that mistakes were made but since this had never happened before in history>>
    -and to say this never happened before would be a mistake.  Don't you remember the February 26, 2023 bombing at the WTC?  Ramzi Ahmed Yousef
    is in prison after being captured and convicted by the Clinton Administration.
    In (44) you state :<<....and we haven't had any attacks in the US since 911. >>
    -Yet as i have shown, Bush ignored the threat prior
    to 9-11.  The very same building that was attacked on 2-26-93 was again
    attacked on 9-11!
    -A success?   Hardly.....
  • BenV
    JackieM -
    Bush may have stopped terrorist attacks, you're right, we'll never know what would have happened. But we do know that the amount of terrorism worldwide has increased since our occupation of Iraq. Maybe those attacks that Bush "prevented" would not have to have been prevented had we taken some other measure after 9/11 than a clumsy forceful attack; maybe there would not have been a threat? As the original article says "Had this crash-landing occurred in 2000, the words “act of terrorism” wouldn’t have so readily materialized in my mind"; the threat of terrorism was never in America. We have created that threat.
  • JackieM
    David:  i wonder how many lives have been saved in our country by Bush?  He has been responsible for keeping us safe, and we haven't had any attacks in the US since 911.  however, we know there have been many attempts to kills us but do not know the number.  We also don't know the work that went into keeping us that way.  This in itself was a huge success!  i am very grateful to him for ensuring that no more lives were lost in the US.  despite his many mistakes, keeping hundreds of millions of lives safe certainly classifies his presidency as a success!  this is especially true since the past eight years were unprecedented.  you can call him a failure if you want, but i am thankful to him and call him a success on many levels especially on this one!
  • JackieM
    testing
  • davidwwalters
    Listen a red voice...
    -i'm sorry a republican president has been such a failure.  Perhaps one day you'll get over it......i certainly hope so.
    <<Mistakes are made in every war, but when virtually the entire military, diplomatic and political establishment in the West opposed it, Bush insisted on the surge in Iraq that has been seen to have brought the war around, and set Iraq on the right path. >>
    -Increasing the number of troops in Iraq was the reason the former  Army
    Chief of Staff and  Secretary of Veterans Affairs Gen. Eric Shinseki forced into retirement after testifying before the Senate:  "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq.
    Now i am glad that fool is out of office.  Trying to mitigate the failure of that man with this statement:
    <<The number of American troops killed during the eight years of the War against Terror has been fewer than those slain capturing two islands in the Second World War,.....>>
    .............is an insult to each of those who lost their lives due to Bush's vanity and ignorance.
  • JackieM
    a red voice--Loved your post!  wow!  I'm speechless for a second for once.  That was awesome!  Thanks!

    Now that we have another disaster right in front of us--obama and his pals--our court systems and prisons will be more overburdened with terriorists that should be overseas and a big economic plan that will employ many illegals and waste our hard-earned money.  the stimulus package will at best give us a very short term boost.  in the long run (which is where it counts), we will be worse than before!  i will go ahead and say ahead of time, "Thank you to obama, pelosi, reid, dodd, frank and to all of the idiots who put them in office!  You have done what you  set out to do, which is to destroy this country, or maybe you were just not smart enough to see through obama's car salesman persona and believed in "hope."
  • a red voice
    It doesn't matter what Bush-hating liberals say or even why they hate George Bush, because the reasons they give are just disingenuous hyperbole. The press has been full of hatred for President Bush for eight years in order to market a propaganda of lies.

    What's the truth?  Historian Andrew Roberts has it right:

    "In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterized this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.

    At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this.

    The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinize travelers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush after 9/11.

    The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was "all about oil", or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.

    Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.

    Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that,
    in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam's own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.

    Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN's food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.

    The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.

    History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Mr Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an "axis of evil" of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Colonel Gaddafi's WMD programme was sitting behind glass in a museum in Oakridge, Tennessee.
    "

    With his characteristic openness and at times almost self-defeating honesty, Mr Bush has been the first to acknowledge his mistakes – for example, tardiness over Hurricane Katrina – but there are some he made not because he was a ranting Right-winger, but because he was too keen to win bipartisan support. The invasion of Iraq should probably have taken place months earlier, but was held up by the attempt to find support from UN security council members, such as Jacques Chirac's France, that had ties to Iraq and hostility towards the Anglo-Americans.

    History will also take Mr Bush's verbal fumbling into account, reminding us that Ronald Reagan also mis-spoke regularly, but was still a fine president. The first MBA president, who had a higher grade-point average at Yale than John Kerry, Mr Bush's supposed lack of intellect will be seen to be a myth once the papers in his Presidential Library in the Southern Methodist University in Dallas are available.

    Films such as Oliver Stone's W, which portray him as a spitting, oafish frat boy who eats with his mouth open and is rude to servants, will be revealed by the diaries and correspondence of those around him to be absurd travesties, of this charming, interesting, beautifully mannered history buff who, were he not the most powerful man in the world, would be a fine person to have as a pal.

    Instead of Al Franken, history will listen to Bob Geldof praising Mr Bush's efforts over Aids and malaria in Africa; or to Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India, who told him last week: "The people of India deeply love you." And certainly to the women of Afghanistan thanking him for saving them from Taliban abuse, degradation and tyranny.


    When Abu Ghraib is mentioned, history will remind us that it was the Bush Administration that imprisoned those responsible for the horrors. When water-boarding is brought up, we will see that it was only used on three suspects, one of whom was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaeda's chief of operational planning, who
    divulged vast amounts of information that saved hundreds of innocent lives. When extraordinary renditions are queried, historians will ask how else the world's most dangerous terrorists should have been transported. On scheduled flights?

    The credit crunch,
    brought on by the Democrats in Congress insisting upon home ownership for credit-unworthy people, will initially be blamed on Bush, but the perspective of time will show that the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started with the deregulation of the Clinton era. Instead Bush's very un-ideological but vast rescue package of $700 billion (£480 billion) might well be seen as lessening the impact of the squeeze, and putting America in position to be the first country out of recession, helped along by his huge tax-cut packages since 2000.

    Sneered at for being "simplistic" in his reaction to 9/11, Bush's visceral responses to the attacks of a fascistic, totalitarian death cult will be seen as having been substantially
    the right ones.

    Mistakes are made in every war, but when virtually the entire military, diplomatic and political establishment in the West opposed it, Bush insisted on the surge in Iraq that has been seen to have brought the war around, and set Iraq on the right path. Today its GDP is 30 per cent higher than under Saddam, and it is free of a brutal dictator and his rapist sons.


    The number of American troops killed during the eight years of the War against Terror has been fewer than those slain capturing two islands in the Second World War, and in Britain we have lost fewer soldiers than on a normal weekend on the Western Front. As for civilians, there have been fewer Iraqis killed since the invasion than in 20 conflicts since the Second World War.

    Iraq has been a victory for the US-led coalition, a fact that the Bush-haters will have to deal with when perspective finally – perhaps years from now – lends objectivity to this fine man's record."

  • JackieM
    David--he was warned.  how do you and i know what he actually did?  are we privileged enough to know that?  as long as it takes to get anything done in the government, do you think one month was enough time to figure out the plan and get everything in place to stop it?  the government can't figure out the simplest things collectively, and you think they can act this quickly?  the terrorists knew we had set ourselves up for an attack years ago by our inaction and they preyed upon it.   i can't say what Bush did because i wasn't there and everything else is hearsay.  how do i know that he wasn't trying to stop it.  from the sidelines i can say that mistakes were made but since this had never happened before in history, there was no precedent for it!  having intel may not have been enough to figure out how to prevent it.  we can't even say we won't be attacked again even with everything we have in place now thanks to George Bush!
  • davidwwalters
    << (C)linton really handicapped our intelligence...........>>
    -That handicapped intel was enough to warn of us Al Qaeda attacks in 1999...
    -and that handicapped intel was enough for Sandy Burger to war C. Rice a month prior to 9-11
    -But Bush ignored it!
    -That my friend is criminal.
  • davidwwalters
    <<but the situation Bush was in is unprecedented>>
    BUT HE WAS WARNED!!!!!
    -and i won't even mention how ineptly he prosecuted the war.....
    << no one has clean hands. >>
    But he was in charge.......that's what he was supposed to do(y'know, be vigilant and protect us), that's his job.....
  • JackieM
    David-we will have to agree to disagree on clinton/bush.  i disagree with some of both Presidents' decisions but the situation Bush was in is unprecedented.  so they can't be compared.  however, clinton really handicapped our intelligence so we can blame him too!  no one has clean hands.
  • davidwwalters
    JackieM(34).......
    <<
    we can't judge Bush on his decisions that were based on intelligence.
    >>
    -
    This seems to be the Bush apologist stance, to call it all bad intelligence and then infer that it was bad due to Clinton.  Clinton did miss a chance, he had  actionable intelligence.....yet he held back.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/...
    -"The plan was rejected over concerns the information was stale and could result in a miss or civilian casualties"
    -
    Yet C. Rice ignored Sandy Berger's warning about Bin Laden prior to 9-11
    http://premium.europe.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...
    "He said that people within the FBI knew that two of the 19 hijackers were in the country before September 11, but that information never made its way up the chain of command."
    -Why?  Clinton stopped "......a similar threat before the turn of the millennium".  It would appear that,rather than poor or non-existent intel, Bush et al ignored actionable intelligence. 
    Clinton's judgment on some matters were suspect(his personal life), but when it came to actually being a CinC, he IS head&shoulders above George Bush.
  • a red voice
    Well said - JackieM...  I totally agree with you.

    MLSmith and a tip for everyone else - save your post before you submit your comment -  Earlier, I failed the challenge question (2+2) & lost all of my info... :(   I had no idea why I failed - & all my info was lost - however now each time I make a comment, I save it first before I hit submit.  Sometimes it fails, but now that it is saved I can go back paste it all in and hit submit again  & it will usually go thru the second time ... Some glich in the 'challenge' system I think is causing the error.  So save before you submit your comment.
  • JackieM
    David--i totally agree with you on the troop levels and didn't understand that.  as i have said before, i have disagreed many times with what he has done.  however, when trying to judge this war, we can criticize Bush on issues such as troop levels, equipment, etc.  however, we can't judge Bush on his decisions that were based on intelligence.  that is my point.  i judge clinton on what i know like his cutting of intelligence and not killing bin laden when he had the chance.  clinton admitted he missed the oportunity to kill bin laden and the cutting of vital intelligence resources is a fact.  that is what happens when there is too much of a beaucracy and permission has to be given to the military to do their jobs.  however, most liberals make acusations are only speculative in nature.  currently, i judge obama on his actions.  so as of this week he has thrown away 100s of millions of dollars to other countries that we don't have and gone back on his word to work with republicans on this stimulus package along with agreeing to close gitmo without a plan.  hmmm!  the stimulus package will not work and includes a lot of pork, which he said would not happen, i.e., contraception.  ha!  what a joke.  while the republicans are trying to save small businesses, which are most of the jobs in this country, obama is fumbling around trying to create temporary jobs and has no permanent fix for this economy.  of course, he is not reining in frank, pelosi, dodd and reid either.  this is like a bad soap opera except it will have permanent devestating results on the American people.  the problems obama is creating are right in front of our faces.  i can't believe the people of America are allowing this to happen!
  • ML Smith
    The Challenge
     

    Is it as arbitrary as it seems,
    What purpose does it serve?
    Why deprive us of the means,
    To communicate when it always seems,
    That we are graded on a lopsided curve?
     
    I spent ten years learning,
    Quantum math at CalTech,
    Now a fire within me burns,
    I cannot find the words to reflect,
    The festering sore,
    2+2 no longer equals 4,
    And I refuse the challenge,
    I won’t be the whore,
    For your pimped out opinion store.
    You failed the challenge,
    UC,
    There is nothing good in censorship,
    So why don’t you take my membership,
    And do this very fast...
    Shove it all up your collective ass.
     

    Is it as arbitrary as it seems,
    What purpose does it serve?
    Why deprive us of the means,
    To communicate when it always seems,
    That we are graded on a lopsided curve?
     
    I spent ten years learning,
    Quantum math at CalTech,
    Now a fire within me burns,
    I cannot find the words to reflect,
    The festering sore,
    2+2 no longer equals 4,
    And I refuse the challenge,
    I won’t be the whore,
    For your pimped out opinion store.
    You failed the challenge,
    UC,
    There is nothing good in censorship,
    So why don’t you take my membership,
    And do this very fast...
    Shove it all up your collective ass.
     

    Is it as arbitrary as it seems,
    What purpose does it serve?
    Why deprive us of the means,
    To communicate when it always seems,
    That we are graded on a lopsided curve?
     
    I spent ten years learning,
    Quantum math at CalTech,
    Now a fire within me burns,
    I cannot find the words to reflect,
    The festering sore,
    2+2 no longer equals 4,
    And I refuse the challenge,
    I won’t be the whore,
    For your pimped out opinion store.
    You failed the challenge,
    UC,
    There is nothing good in censorship,
    So why don’t you take my membership,
    And do this very fast...
    Shove it all up your collective ass.
  • davidwwalters
    JackieM (30),
    You're right, i didn't have access to Bush's intelligence(.......forgive me, these 2 words do no go together well).  But give me a break, anyone with a modicum of tactical&strategic understanding saw that 150,000 troops was totally insufficient.....and don't take my word for it, it was stated by the  former Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton and former Army Chief of Staff, Gen Eric Shinseki.  Yet even prior to their negative comments on D. Rumsfeld's "plan" (-i could think of more colorful terms to use, but it may be rude.....), I knew 150,000 troops spearheading to Baghdad would leave exposed flanks.  At the expense of the troops, Bush's war plan was a failure before it started.   And just as i feared, every terrorist in the mideast crossed unprotected borders (from Syria and Iran) just to kill Americans, and gain access to paradise.

    And torture? Jackie,  any information gained from a suspect by torturing them is suspect at best.  Usually it is merely lies.  -<<Idiot obama is taking away most of the ways to interrogate TERRORIST>> Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's computer gave us lot's of actionable (useful) intelligence, but i doubt his torture gave us anything new.
    And now, any captured American soldier is libel to be treated the same in any future conflict, because America has pulled out of the Geneva Convention......not smart. 

    Rule of law is not simply some words, Jackie.  Yes, others may break rules, but when we do the same, we lower ourselves to their level.
    <<if we say please and here's some coffee or tea, maybe they will break.>>
    -actually you've just describe the "Good cop, bad cop" method of interrogation that works quite well.
  • BenV
    With the fox comment, I was referring to this PIPA poll: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_pr.pdf
    It showed that Fox viewers were the most likely to be misinformed about the war (out of all news watchers).


    Its comments like this "The Iraqis love America and hate Al Qaeda" that tell me that you are uninformed about the war. 


    Logically, if Iraqis love America, who is attacking our troops?




    You are not listening to me. 
    I AGREE THAT WE HAVE TO DEFEAT TERRORISM (not just islamic). 
    I agree that it will be expensive (both in life and money), and that we must pay this cost. 


    I disagree on a forceful way of doing this. We must prove to the people of the middle east that we are not who the terrorists say we are. And occupying and bombing their country is reinforcing our bad reputation.
  • JackieM
    David--i have pointed out on another blog on this site that regular folks like you and me didn't have the opportunity to see all of the military intelligence that President Bush saw.  We didn't see the intelligence from other countries either.  Bush may have made some mistakes along the way but until you and I are in his shoes, we can only speculate whether the war was justifiable or not.

    besides, it doesn't matter anymore.  Idiot obama is taking away most of the ways to interrogate TERRORISTS and will ensure the military won't be able to get the information to save American lives.  the next attack we have will be on his shoulders.  of course, if the military doesn't think they will be allowed to fight for our country and ensure our safety, people will stop enlisting.  what will be the point?  Torture is not what i'm referring to here.  however, i don't really care what they do to those monsters if it is proven that they were terrorists.  of course, if we say please and here's some coffee or tea, maybe they will break.  Obama is ruining this country and putting our lives in danger more than ever.  but hey, if his plan succeeds, we are in trouble!  no one can say they love this country if they are against protecting it and giving our military the tools necessary to do so!
  • a red voice
    To all the liberal trolls on this site:

    I could site numerous sources for you to read and research about how the war in Iraq is justifiable, but when you come back with statements such as: "Are you just regurgitating what fox tells you?"  
    Wow that is a great comeback.... it took a bunch of brains to come up with that one.
    Why waste my time on this post - when you make assinine comments like that? 

    The point is...  we need to deal with and defeat Islamic terrorism, and until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.
    Maybe you don't agree with the way President Bush has done that, but the point is the troops have been successful in Iraq.  We have deposed of Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, (THAT IS NOT THE POINT) but it is undisputed that Saddam had been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam was a terrorist.  Now, thanks to the troops -Iraq is regaining peace. The terrorists are killed and driven far away from towns and villages. The economy and infrastructure is being rebuilt. Schools and markets are reopening. People are resuming normals lives, etc., etc. and The Iraqis love America and hate Al Qaeda.  The mainstream media doesn't want you to hear that we have been successful in Iraq, but it is the truth!! We have help to creat a democratic and peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.  And yes it has resulted in lives lost and at a very expensive monitary cost - so tell me what do you think the price for freedom should be?  What's the limit  -- say if it is under $200 billion, then we fight for freedom - but  if it is over $200 billion, then we surrender??  What should the price for freedom be???

    You can't put a price on freedom - Freedom is priceless.  "The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission." --  John F. Kennedy

    hmmm...

    Maybe this is your idea of how we should defeat the Jihad -let's just make peace with everyone, maybe if we all sang this song... and hoped really hard, we could have peace...

    "I'd like to build the world a home
    And furnish it with love
    Grow apple trees and honey bees and snow-white turtle doves

    I'd like to teach the world to sing
    In perfect harmony
    I'd like to hold it in my arms and keep it company
    I'd like to see the world for once
    All standing hand in hand
    And hear them echo through the hills "Ah, peace throughout the land"

    (That's the song I hear)
    I'd like to teach the world to sing (that the world sings today)
    In perfect harmony

    I'd like to teach the world to sing
    In perfect harmony

    Id like to build the world a home
    And furnish it with love
    Grow apple trees and honey bees and snow-white turtle doves."


    Maybe that could be our new National Anthem.  We just need to be peaceful and then everyone will be peaceful with us....

    if only it were that simple...

    DWW don't assume Hitler didn't want to take over the world  (& not just the Soviet Union)  - Hitler first said he just wanted was Austria - that's was it & then what happened? & now your saying all he wanted was the Soviet Union that was it--  are you sure???
  • pleasehelp
    I believe over 4000 US troops have been lost in the occupation.
  • davidwwalters
    <<i seem to remember Hussein's military shooting hundreds of shots at our planes for years.  we should have taken him out long before we did.>>
    -JackieM
    You know, this statement is factual......he did in fact shoot at our aircraft hundreds of times and never shot one down that i am aware of.  (Proud to be an American!)  We did do the world a service by bringing that man to justice.....
    -But his life is not worth one of the 3,000+ lives paid.  We ran the Soviets out of Afghanistan; how many American lives did that endeavor cost?  Read "Charlie Wilson's War".
    -Point is, the method America used under Bush's guidance was misguided.
    (Just as misguided it was to neglect Afghanistan when the Soviets left....).
    The Neo-Con's grasp of political reality was not matched by our military's excellence.
  • davidwwalters
    a red voice(23)
    <<
    I  was asked why we were in Iraq - I gave an explanation - just because you disagree doesn't make it  not 'credible.'>>
    -The "American Historian/Researcher"your mention, was it Raymond S. Kraft?
    http://www.youdontsay.org/Kraft.htm
    In (21), "-So Iran is influenced by Wahhabi Islam? You loose a lot of credibility with misstatements like that....."
    -you didn't really explain why "Wahhabi ism" "should own&control the Middle East".
    It's not that i simply disagree, since Iran is a dominant power in that region, and clearly is not influenced by Wahhabi ism.
    Oh, i read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", my maternal grandfather was a Sudetenland German, and Nazi official.....William L. Shirer's assessment of Nazi Imperial designs on America is not supported by the facts.  Nazi Germany was fixated on destroying and occupying Soviet Russia.
  • JackieM
    i seem to remember Hussein's military shooting hundreds of shots at our planes for years.  we should have taken him out long before we did.
  • BenV
    "We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians."


    Are you just regurgitating what fox tells you?


    First of all, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and was in no way threatening the US. In fact, while he was in power, Al-Queda was not allowed in Iraq. Saddam believed in a secular government. Bin Ladden and Saddam were sworn enemies. There was zero reason to go into Iraq. If anything, we should have increased pressure on Afganistan (where Al-Queda sn the Taliban had there largest stronghold) or Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9/11 terrorists were from). We took Saddam out of power, and his people are free, but no one can control the terrorists that flood into Iraq anymore. Say what you will about tyranny, it does give the leader the ability to do tremendous things, some of them good.


    Secondly -
    Weapons of mass destruction? In the 1980's Iraq (led by Saddam Hussein) invaded Iran. The US looked at the conflict and saw Iran as the more "communist" of the two even though neither were truly supported by the Soviet Union. The US promptly gave chemical weapons to the Iraqi government, saying "please don't use them on civilians". After the US found out the weapons were being used on civilians, the US continued to give the weapons. So when we said there was proof of chemical weapons inside Iraq, or course there was, we gave them to Saddam! It turns out he used them all, destroyed them, or sold them.


    These weapons of mass destruction was not a sudden epiphany that made us decide to invade. They were an excuse for a occupation with no purpose. (it seems Bush just wanted some cool explosions)




    The cost of the war in iraq is way more than $160 billion. We have spent closer to $500 billion, and that is not even counting the most expensive part of any war: the veterans benefits for the next 60 years.




    I agree we should defeat the Jihad now. But not by force. If we undermine their support and their recruits, they will go away.  For every civilian we accidentally kill (which is almost 100 thousand by most accounts), 3 or 4 cousins, brothers, or friends will turn against the American troops. Are military presence is creating the next wave of suicide bombers. We need to stop now.
  • a red voice
    David - Thanks for the recommended reading - I will read that, & you should read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer - a very accurate historical research on the war & Germany.  Probably more a thorough account than Pat's research.

    and the following comment you made reference to where I lose my "credibility" (<<If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.>> <<The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. ><<If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East.>> were actually written by an American Historian/Researcher.

    I  was asked why we were in Iraq - I gave an explanation - just because you disagree doesn't make it  not 'credible.'
  • a red voice
    I'm sorry last night I was tired when I was typing - I wrote Hitler took Austria first and then Poland - I meant to say Austria, Czechoslovakia, & then Poland. (but it is same story for all three countries... Peace did not beget Peace.)
    Also the second part of the post starting with "There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East...." is from a great American Writer, Raymond S. Kraft.  It is long, but it contains information about America's past that is very meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is completely unknown. By being denied the facts of our history,  one is at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today, and thus becomes a prime target for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven. This is a Conservative Site, so I assume you came here to learn about the issues and not to bash.
  • davidwwalters
    a red voice........
    -i didn't have to read long before i read a misstatement:
    <<And how did Germany reward England & France for their "peace messages",Germany had "no reason to hate" England or France - but Germany attacked them. >>
    -you make it sound as if France&UK didn't declare war early in September on Germany..... according to P. Buchanan(liberal bias?) in his book
    Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World
    -i may not agree with Pat on policy, but he has a grasp of history, you should read it.
    <<If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.>>
    <<The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam
    . >>
    -So Iran is influenced by Wahhabi Islam? You loose a lot of credibility with misstatements like that.....
    and it would appear that you are drawing the wrong conclusion about Iraq:
    <<If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East.>>
    With a Shiite majority in Iraq's Parliament, do you really believe Iraq will be
    the buffer it has been in the past to Iran?  Donald Rumsfeld did visit Saddam more than 20 years ago.......why did he do that, i wonder?
  • a red voice
    BenV you stated: "Hitler did not "desire to take over the freedoms of the world" as you say. He merely told the people want they wanted to hear to gain their support"
    Actually Hitler did desire to take over the freedoms of the world (read The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich).  But your right, he merely told the people what they wanted to hear.  He told England & France all he wanted to do was regain the lands that belonged to Germany (Austria) that was all. England and France did not want to be involved in another war so far away from home and a war that didn't concern them.  So they agreed to Hitler/Germany's terms and gave them Austria (offered Austria no aid).  Then Hitler wanted Poland and so again England & France did not want to be involved - they wanted PEACE.  So again Poland was given (Poland was offered no aid) - Peace again!  England and France were basically "sending a peace message to the (German) people, and (they- England/France) could only have sent a message by proving the extremists (Hitler/Nazis) wrong, and this would have removed these leaders(Hitler/Nazis) from any position of power."  However the leaders were not removed from power, they became more powerful. And how did Germany reward England & France for their "peace messages", Germany had "no reason to hate" England or France - but Germany attacked them.  If England and France had made a stand and had kept their promises to come to Austria's and Poland's aid at the beginning - this war in Europe would have been prevented without any blood shed.  But that didn't happen. Peace doesn't always beget Peace.

    As for Al-Queda, if America wasn't occupying their 'holy land' they would have told their people something else -what they wanted to hear to gain their support against America  - as they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated.  They will not stop.  And unless they are stopped, they will gain more power.
    Because of the military action, Iraq is regaining peace. The infrastructure I spoke of (economy, schools, markets) is what we are addresses there with our Military presence there.  The Iraqis who want freedom love America and hate Al Qaeda, they have no reason to hate us when we have helped them.  It is the Islamic Resistance Movement (IRM), (the Jihad, which includes Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all other like-minded folks) who hate America and will continue to do so no matter what.

    Simonesdad2009 you asked: "What is the price tag on that little nation building project called Iraq?  Are we prepared to do the same in the Sudan?  What about Uganda or Cuba or North Korea where the people are being starved to death.  Why Iraq?  Why now?"
    Yes, it would be lovely if we could have peace throughout the world and help ALL the countries, but because we are financially unable to help ALL of the countries of the world - we shouldn't help ANYONE?  Why did  we choose to help Iraq? 
    This explains some of the reason we chose Iraq:

    There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors, or  the Reformationists.

    If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

    If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

    We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing........in Iraq.

    Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.

    (1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

    (2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

    World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again .. a 27 year war.

    World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. W.W.II cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

    The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion,which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly the same as the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning W.W.II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

    The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

    If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.

    We have four options:
    1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
    2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
    3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
    4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

    If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

    The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes.

    All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

    Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

    In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40 year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major batt le in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

    The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives into the Jihad.

    It's difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for
    Iraqis. In America , absolutely, but nowhere else.

    300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem? The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq , so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America ?"

    I would
  • BenV
    a red voice-


    your comparison to hitler is perfect. you're right, talking to to Al-Queda would not have done anything. but Al-Queda, like Hitler would have no power if he did not have the support of the people. Why did both Al-Queda and Hitler have support of the people? because they rallied the people against a common cause of their suffering. Germany before WWII was in horrible shape (due to WWI), Hitler said it was because of the jews, and now with a scapegoat, had the entire nation with him. Hitler did not "desire to take over the freedoms of the world" as you say. He merely told the people want they wanted to hear to gain their support


    For Al-Queda it was easier, Bin Ladin pointed out that there were "Infidels [American occupation] in the holy land" (during the gulf war), and the people were unified against those "infidels". At this point we choose to invade again, which just proved the point of Al-Queda and others, but as I said before, this fueled the support of the people and gave those extremist more power.


    I am not suggesting that merely talking to these leaders would do anything. But sending a message to the people, and we could only have sent a message by proving the extremists wrong, would have removed these leaders from any position of power.


    Who cares if the jihadis want to take over the world? If they have no support, they are just of blabbering to themselves. The nazi party is alive today (and spewing the same absurd messages), but it has essentially zero support, and so it is not any threat.


    The way to loosen the extremists support is to help the people out so they have no reason to hate us. The infrastructure you spoke of (economy, schools, markets) is what we need to address. Military might is not the way to do this.
  • simonesdad2009
    Red Voice,
    What is the price tag on that little nation building project called Iraq?  Are we prepared to do the same in the Sudan?  What about Uganda or Cuba or North Korea where the people are being starved to death.  Why Iraq?  Why now?  Why not the other probably 2 dozen or so other dictatorships around the world?  Why not throw billions at all of the other human atrocities around the world? Give me billions of dollars and I'll make sure some kids play in a street somewhere too.

    I'm being flippant but I think you see my point.  I'm glad there are some journalists living and reporting there.  You were able to find their reports so let's assume other can to.
  • a red voice
    oops sorry for my typo of Saddam Hussein's name-- didn't realize I typed it wrong at first and didn't proof read :(-- ooops
  • a red voice
    BenV - I am shocked, actually, I thought you were joking. I can't believe you are serious...

    Read up about the history of the world and the history of freedom. Once freedom is lost, it doesn't come back freely it must be fought for again.

    Millions of of innocent Iraqis died in the name of Sudan Hussain. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, oppressive dictator and tryant responsible for decades of atrocities.

    The libs justify fighting Hitler and ending his evil Reich and his desire to take over the freedoms of the world. But any new evil dictator who desires to take away freedoms is "okay, let's not interfere - let's be peaceful". We tried that with Hitler, and he became more powerful and a greater threat to our freedom. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

    There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world. The Jihadis, the militant Muslims,
    are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated.

    The Islamic Resistance Movement (IRM), (the Jihad, which includes Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all other like-minded folka), is much smarter than Obama is. It has recognized that our goodness is no match for its savagery, and will continue to exploit that fact until we lose and they win.

    Obama can talk to them and negotiate with them all he wants, they are still going to hate America and try to destroy us.

    This isn't a fairy tale, it's real life.

    The truth of what is happening in Iraq that the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear is:

    * Iraq is regaining peace.

    * The terrorists are killed and driven far away from towns and villages.

    * The economy and infrastructure is being rebuilt.

    * Schools and markets are reopening.
    .
    * People are resuming normals lives.

    * Children play on the streets.

    * The Iraqis love the Marines and hate Al Qaeda, not the other way round.

    You want proof? Read these blogs of actual journalist who stay/live in Iraq: Michael J. Totten and Michael Yon . They are there full time, unlike other reporters who fly in do a story and fly out the same day. They provide detailed journalism, coverage of real battles, lots of photos, etc. I urge you to find out the truth of what is really happening in Iraq.

    Thanks to all of our brave troops for all of their sacrifices to bring freedom to other parts of the world and by doing so also secure our beloved freedom that so many of us here in America take for granted. God Bless our brave men and women for doing such a fantastic job in Iraq!!
  • simonesdad2009
    So Bushed got booed and they serenaded him as he flew away into infamy.  I think he got off rather easily.  There were 2 million people there to say hello to the future, not goodbye to the past.
  • davidwwalters
    Joe Scarborough was "appalled" at the crowd's chant (".......na na na na, Hey hey hey, Goodbye!")
    -i suppose he thought it was classless, yet many like me (i'd have join'd in!)
    were genuinely "appalled" by the crimes committed in the name of the people by the former administration.....
    -i guess the conservative movement is reeling from what the Bush Administration has done to their cause.
  • simonesdad2009
    DWW,

    I guess it's true, we have taken over this site.
  • davidwwalters
    simonesdad2009
    <<
    Today is the biggest political day in a generation and not a peep>>
    -i was quite pleased to hear ".......na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!"
  • simonesdad2009
    Today is the biggest political day in a generation and not a peep on this political blog?  What's up with that?
  • BenV
    a red voice -
    evil hates freedom? the people don't hate us because we are free (the government may, but thats irrelevant). People hate us because we invade their country and tell them how to run it; because we are pompous assholes on the world stage; and most importantly, because we are occupying their country.


    If we stop doing these things and, although their will always be hatred to those that are more prosperous, there will be significantly less. If we continue to put our foot down with our military might, we will feed the fires more.
  • Eileen
    <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]>-->

    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-parent:"";
    mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin:0cm;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    font-family:"Times New Roman";}


    Open invitation to a great conservative blog website where honest debates on the issues is always welcomed. Stop by for a visit and sit a spell. It is my favorite conservative site and we are generally civil and respectfully to one another opinions and enjoy civil debates on all the current issues. The web address is http://noleftturnz.wordpress.com/
  • davidwwalters
    I saw this clown on Fox News speak of how poor Bush 43 "inherited" 9-11.....
    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/16/fox-bush-in...
    -As if that had not been attempted, or as if repeated attempts were not made to the integrity of our country, as if Sandy Berger(Clinton's National Security Adviser) had not alerted Condoleezza Rice to the threat.
    Billy, your grasp of reality seems stunted. 
    <<
    While it often seems embedded in the past, families, individuals and policy-makers need to remember all that was lost so that our nation does not become complacent again.>>
    -The complacency you speak of IS the legacy of the Bush43 Administration.
  • a red voice
    to BenV .... "...if no one hates us, there simply won't be any attacks"
    Wow - are you serious? -you really need to wake up!
    Unfortunately, that will never happen.  Evil hates freedom and there is evil in the world, and so America and its freedom will always be hated. 
    & if this truly is Obama's security plan - then I don't feel safe at all.
  • BenV
    No amount of military might will help us if the world hates us (which they certainly do). The more we try to use our military might, the more the world hates us. 


    Obama's security plan is simply and effective. Improve our reputation so that we do not have to worry about squelching every attach; If no one hates us, there simply won't be any attacks.
  • ML Smith
    I find myself thinking about the pilot often during the day and at night when I'm writing. I think I have a reasonably accurate visual image - starting at the G.W. Bridge, clearing it but losing airspeed...descending sharply to increase airspeed, which the pilot will need to drag the tail and bring the body of the plane flush with the water just as he would do in a surface landing. 

    I know that pilots recieve hundreds of hours training in simulators on this type of approach and landing, but when it's the real thing and you feel the weight of reponsibility you have to 155 people...well, that's another animal altogether.

    This pilot was well trained but it was his absolute trust in the procedure that saved those lives. The temptation to deviate...to tap the tail and slide, is enormous. It takes a helluva lot of willpower to do it the right way. I'd fly with him anywhere.
  • a red voice
    Mr. Hallowell, thank you for your thoughts .... so well said!! Thank you.
  • JackieM
    obama's plan for protecting this country should scare everyone.  just as clinton cut intelligence and missed the chance to kill bin laden, i'm afraid obama will further put us in harm's way!  but hey,  the gays will be able to come out in the military and as the polls show, it will ensure the re-enlistment numbers will go down!  that is good for the safety of this country right?  not!
  • ML Smith
    Thanks much for bouncing that. It meant a lot to me as I am sure it would have meant to others. If you had any compassion at all, you would print it. But clearly, no one read it.

    Mr. Hallowell, your article tapped every emotion and memory I have of 9/11. In tears, I just spent an hour writing about that and the heroism of Americans everywhere.

    Too bad that you still rely on that ridiculous challenge. Only UC could. I have great respect for the Americans who saved lives last week, and for the pilot of that plane. I have no respect for Urbanconservative.
  • Jason
    I hope I am wrong, but the new adminstration appears to be putting together a recipe for disaster.  Memories of 9-11 will become fresh again.
    http://rightklik.net/
blog comments powered by Disqus