When Monuments Collapse

Given the definition, the Twin Towers, or World Trade Centers, were and remain monuments. They stood as testament to American economic might and idealism and collapsed around thousands of individuals, each one a unique pillar of those very things, as well. The towers are not gone, but simply changed, now testament to a Nation under attack by the threat of radical Islam. And when monuments collapse, they can, do and should produce a monumental shift in the society that both erected and observes them.

memorial: a structure erected to commemorate persons or events

repository: a burial vault (usually for some famous person)

At the time of their collapse I lived not far across the river from them and my somewhat regular traveling to Manhattan on business always provided the opportunity to pause after emerging from their transportation hub to gaze back and up at their majesty. They were, indeed, truly inspirational. As I watched them fall from what I once thought was the safety of my living room, not only was it incomprehensible, almost surreal, it filled me with the notion that neither I, nor any American could be truly safe again so long as the repulsive and violent ideology that launched the attack remained. Few if any events in my life have produced the powerful mix of anger and sadness I felt as a mushroom of a dust cloud rose to swallow up their former majesty. It beget a tear-filled rage. That ideology does remain and is sure to do so for some time. Make no mistake, no matter how well we fight it, this war will be a long war.

I first ventured back to the site some few short weeks after the collapse, walking the grayed-out streets of what felt like a modern day holocaust. As did everyone, I choked on large particles of ash and debris that filled the lower-Manhattan air for months. The silence as you approached and overlooked the site as best one could at that time was more than deafening. It also left you mute, just as it did the many others crowding this way and that, straining for the slimmest of views. No one talked, no one murmured a word. We simply stood and tried to touch the emptiness inside of each of us reflected in the empty air through which the monument once did rise.

While the buildings have not and will not rise again, America has. In the years since, our freedom driven economic strength has surpassed expectations. A willingness to focus on what's truly best in America, as opposed to, say, the headlines in the New York Times, reveals that America's character never truly wavered, standing as tall today in support of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as it ever has.

Personally, I have no choice in the matter, I simply will never forget 9/11, not that I'd want to. And those that would forget most likely never fully appreciated the monumental nature of the World Trade Centers when they stood. I'd argue that they didn't get the best of America then, so it should come as little surprise that they don't get it now.

I thank God enough of us do. As a society, America will never forget, ... never surrender, ... and never submit. That's just the way we roll.

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

Spartan UM boy says: "Wow, you lived through Detroit?" Smacks of racism to me.

[rwilymz]

"Someone needs to tell Dick Cheney that"

Dick Cheney is a politician, who will freely mix lies and truth and irrelevancies in order to get the dimbulbs in the country -- which is, on any given subject area, 99.95% of us -- into such as state of confusion, fear, or fervor that we will allow the guvmint to go ahead and do what it was going to do ANYway, ... only now with our blessing.

You are claiming that you were bamboozled? By someone setting out to bamboozle you? Big shock!

But again: as with EVERY case of political bluster: just as much is right as wrong, and in the above, this:

"As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

...is accurate. Sadly. What this does NOT SAY however, is that "present in Iraq" == "participated in 9-11" ... which is an equivocation that was freely leapt to by a large portion of the 99.95% dimbulbs in the country who, on matters of military and foreign affairs, includes you but not me.

The US claimed ... accurately ... that prior to our invasion there existed in Iraq one of several dozen known "al Qaida-lite" groups. The rest of you boobs developed the following chain of equivocative rationalization:
1] oh, that's like al qaida
2] and they did 9-11
3] they're in Iraq
4] Iraq musta helped on 9-11

The US never said that; the boobs did. Then because it fit the machiavellianism of the US, no one from the government bothered to say otherwise, which caused the boobs to claim, later, "The Bush Administration made this claim", and the boobs have been milking that bull for four years now.

"it fails to have any relevance as to why we are in Iraq"

Of course it does.

Why? Because you *wish it* to fail to provide yadda.

Just because I'm long-winded doesn't obviate your responsibility to honestly participate in the discussion.

Iraq violated the cease-fire; cease-fire violations are considered, by international law, to be acts of war. We can respond to acts of war any way we choose. And we had, over the prior 12 years, done it all: ignored it, threatened, yawned, screamed and yelled, had small military actions, had medium-sized military action, and finally we held a large-scale military action.

You want an explanation as to why we invaded Iraq in 2003? Where were you when the US was doing anything ELSE in Iraq for the 12 years prior? Did you mewl and whine when Clinton "Desert Foxed" all over Hussein's ass? As I recall, that was pretty much limited to dog-wagging Republicans, and the Clinton boosters all claimed, in unison, "No! No! This is good! We can't let Hussein be a scofflaw to the civilized nations of the world...!"

"Do you think the American public would have been ready to go to war with what you've presented as evidence? No."

Enter politics. Cease fire violations are monumentally boring; strategic impositions on US military power by the prior agreements to UN requests are as inspiring as a zoning commission hearing. Would the American people have responded to "Iraq has violated the cease fire one too many times" with "So let's kick their ass!!!!" Hardly. "So what" would have been closer.

Would the American people have responded to "The US military has anywhere from 80K to 120K troops devoted to babysitting Iraq, and we now need them for other things" with "Flatten Iraq!!!" Hardly.

But the bottom line was: after 9-11 we no longer had the option of being the military sugar-daddy protector of the world. We were tied to Iraq from 1991 until mid-2003 because **the UN** said we were; we agreed to it in '91 with that "peace dividend" which we riffed away between 92 and 95, and the fixed force-size devoted to Iraq became a larger and larger share of the US military -- just to watch O_N_E petty tyrant violate international treaties on a daily basis, and attack our aircraft roughly once a quarter.

And now there's attacks on the US mainland. We have, literally, one hand tied behind our backs. 75K troops devoted to babysitting L'il Kim and the Pompadours [for over half a century now, and with no end in sight], and 10-15K devoted to not one but two minor Balkan squabbles, and over 100K devoted to Hussein. Does that resonate with the American public?

ya-a-a-a-awwwwwwwwn.

"Bush decided the best way was to convince us that Iraq provided an imminent threat to our safety."

Go figure!! Just like Clinton did in '98. Would you have preferred the line Clinton used in re Kosovo? "Oh, we must save those poor, helpless Kosov revolutionaries who started a war against Serbia and are losing it"? Would that have been beeter? Okay: we must go help the poor Shi'a majority and the Kurd minority who are being systematically excluded, and sometimes expired, by the rude and insensitive Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein.

There; stick that in front of the focus group and see how it flies.

Bush played politics! Why the effrontery of it all!! How dare a politician do that!!

"I think he believes most of what he presented so he's not so much evil as a moron."

A large portion of it is accurate ... and relevant to boot. Simply because you resent scare tactics does not mean that what he scared you with is uniformly false.

There were 6,500 known chemical shells, found by the UN between '92 and '98 and stored in Iraqi warehouses awaiting destruction by the UN that, after the UN went back in late 2002 to check on them, suddenly turned up missing. "No WMD"? nominally accurate, sure. But there shoulda been.

It boils down, again, to you not having enough specific knowledge of the subject area to tell the difference between what's right and what's wrong, between what actually matters and what doesn't, and making assumptions based upon your pre-set biases. And then spouting those ignorant biases as authoritative.

...and not answering difficult questions.

[TheSpartan]

Wow, long winded aren't we, you must work for the gov't.

"There was never any "case" made by the US to connect Iraq to the actions of al Qaida."

Someone needs to tell Dick Cheney that...“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.”

And while all the rest of what you say might be true (I have no reason to doubt it) it fails to have any relevance as to why we are in Iraq. Do you think the American public would have been ready to go to war with what you've presented as evidence? No. Bush decided the best way was to convince us that Iraq provided an imminent threat to our safety. He did that through claims of WMD's and conflating Iraq and Al Qaeda in the minds of the American people. The thing is I think he believes most of what he presented so he's not so much evil as a moron.

[rwilymz]

"I think you should take this opportunity to preserve what face you might have left, and exit, stage left."

Plus, he annoyed me at a moment which found me in an incredibly bad mood.

"You must be very hard on yourself."

I am, yes, but not for the reason[s] you're smugly implying, I'm quite hard on myself, and that's what makes it trivially easy for me to be hard on others with a clear conscience.

"I'll be just fine with this overblown neocon"

Never ceases to amaze me; I do my job under a Republican, I'm a "neo-con"; I do my job under a Democrat, I'm a "libtard".

I'll let this one pass. For the moment. Unless/until it comes up again.

"Honestly I don't have them committed to memory..."

I know you don't. The sheer volume of what you obviously do not know concerning this subject area - the one I've worked in now for nearly 30 years - would fill a library. Or a "lie-barry", possibly, to "donnie", who is easily amused.

"...but my guess is..."

That's good. Wax authoritative on "guesses". That always lends an air of credibility to someone whose knee is jerking in reflexive gainsay mode.

"no-fly zones..."

BZZZZZT!

"allowing weapons inspectors unfettered access..."

This is a very small portion, yes.

For your further reading pleasure: the terms of the cease fire are contained in UNSCR 687. The no-flys were constructed pursuant to UNSCR 688, which was drafted a day later, and in order to facilitate the UN's official babysitters in their duties to babysit Hussein.

"Of course it's W that kicked out the weapons inspectors."

BZZZZZT!

More "guessing", bud? How much are you willing to make up as you go along before you simply quit out of embarrassment? Does "1998" not ring a bell to you? Was the Governor of Texas calling the shots at the UN at that time? It's long been understood that organized critics of whichever US administration we currently have consists largely of conspiracy theoriests; is "the Governor of Texas runs the UN" the latest? Or, wait, I get it: Saddam Dubya Hussein. There ya go. The 'W' in Hussein's name stands for 'Wallid'. Gotcha.

"See above..."

I'll take the ping for asking a vague question. No; international law considers a violation of a Cease Fire to be an Act of War. Regardless of the relative amount of belligerence it contains.

"Sanctions and possibly military action as deemed appropriate by the UN I would assume."

Ah. Moved on from "guessing" to "assuming", I see. Not an improvement.

But you're wrong. "Everything" is the right answer. Sanctions, military action [small], yawning, military action [large], ignoring, diplomatic screaming and yelling, rattling sabers, making veiled and not-so-veiled threats, ... y'know, EVERYthing. But not "as approved by the UN". The UN is irrelevant to the enforcement mechanisms of this, or any, cease fire.

Why? Because the UN didn't sign the goddammed thing. They've got no executive capacity to do so; they've got no enforcement mechanisms in their charter to enforce the terms of such treaties should they sign them [and subsequently ratify them] independent of its member nations and those member nations' voluntary participation.

The UN is an international "deliberative body", who sits around and spins words and pontificates. Congress with no ability to pass laws. "The View". An endless Oprah.

The UN just came up with the words in the cease fire. The REST OF THE WORLD signed it, and almost every nation that signed it ratified it. The last I knew there were two holdouts ... Surinam and Lesotho, maybe. Two of the heavy hitters, at any rate.

And the deal about Cease Fires and indeed any multilateral treaty: it's a treaty "in severality". Go axe a loyyer what the term "in severality" means; he'll explain it to you in terms of contract law. Well, guess what, sparky: an international treaty is the IntLaw version of Contract Law.

The enforcement of the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire is beyond the scope of the UN, and is/was left in the multifarious hands of those member nations to enforce -- or not -- at their own prerogative.

"No one from Iraq."

Avoiding direct answers doesn't help you either, but in any event: BZZZZZT!

For what it's worth, Iraq attacked us an average of 4 to 5 times a year between 1991 and 2002. Actual **belligerent** violations of the cease fire, as opposed to the nominal, pouty violations they dished out every day.

But no: the answer was: Afghanistan.

"First The Taliban..."

The "taliban" was the government of A'stan, consisting largely of outsiders using the relative condition of anarchy after the fall of the Soviet Occupation to set up shop with local sympathizers doing the grunt work.

"...and Al Queda..."

And what is al Qaida?

"...then Iraq once W was able to make his case"

Because of al Qaida attacking us?

Nay, nay, nay. There was never any "case" made by the US to connect Iraq to the actions of al Qaida. You are confusing the strawman invented by other knee-jerkers with the boogey-man invented by the administration to frighten you.

"Part one made sense..."

Why. Why did attacking A'stan for the actions of a third party "make sense"?

You are leaving out many, many, many steps here in your *>ahem<* intellectual processing of [the limited set of] factual data you *do* possess, and you are failing to apply the same processing across the board. In other words, you are selectively justifying actions which satisfy an emotional impulse and failing to honestly apply those same justifications to others circumstances you have no emotional attachment to -- or an opposite emotion.

In short: you're being a dishonest boob and claiming high-minded nobility. You are playing politics with your view of policy, all the while claiming that others who play politics with policy are bad little do-bees. WHO is the fuckwit?

"The difference between them and what?"

Between them and them. If you have two nations which are state-sponsors of "terrorism" what is the practical difference between them? It's not a difficult question to understand, though I can see from your perspective why it might be a difficult one to answer. ...truthfully.

"Iraq did not sponsor Al Queda"

Not for lack of trying, certainly. But so what? What difference does it make? You didn't answer the question. What is the practical difference between the objects of state-sponsored "terrorism"? Follow-on: what is the practical difference **in theory** versus what is the practical difference in the circumstantial reality we have before us?

"Are you Cheney in disguise?"

You still don't get this, do you?

In any political bluster issued by any politician of any [and every] stripe, is roughly equal measures of truth and lies, and roughly equal parts of *both* the truth and lies are relevant to the issue as well as IRrelevant to the issue. Only, 99.95% of the general public is not a subject-area expert, and they do not know how to tell the truth from the lies with any sort of accuracy or consistency, nor do they know how to filter the irrelevancies out. "It doesn't matter that this is right/wrong, because it's irrelevant." How many of you are still fuming about yellow-cake? It's IRRELEVANT.

On any political bluster there will be those among the hoi polloi who know one statement to be a lie, and they will extrapolate all statements to be a lie -- as you and countless other knee-jerk critics are doing; others will know another statement to be true and will therefore assume all statements to be true -- as many "defenders of the realm" do. Both are idiots. Both are partisans, and partisans are idiots.

You are an idiot.

Learn this and learn it quick: despite what you desperately and clawingly need in order to rationalize your knee-jerk "everything is a lie" position, just as much of the bluster thrown out by the US was absolutely spot-on correct. Having a hissy fit and flapping your arms across your chest in exaggerated pouts won't change that.

"stomach hurts from laughing"

That's probably more comfortable to you than having your head hurt from thinking. Yuk it up, chuckles.

[TheSpartan]

Wow, you lived through Detroit? Hope the PTSD isn't too bad.

[Philip McDaniel]

"I'm TheSpartan because I went to Michigan State. That aside, if we were to be invaded I'd certainly line up to help defend the country."
Well said, Spartan. Wayne State myself.

[Cindi]

Wow Cindi. That was a heckuva site! AMAZING production values. I think I will now go to Walmart and purchase a Chinese-made Yellow Ribbon magnet for my car.

Posted by: BobInStamford | Tuesday, September 11, 2007 at 02:41 PM

Hang in there faginStamford. I made sure Walmart has enough large back flash lights on hand for you and your ass buddies.

[donnie]

Spartan, be really, really. really careful. F*ckwit is apparently regarded as a "skillful master" around these parts.

1]Why?
2]Explain the practical difference between 7.
2]Explain the practical difference between 7.

(stomach hurts from laughing)....

[TheSpartan]

Oh seek, I'll be just fine with this overblown neocon f*ckwit.

] What were the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire
Honestly I don't have them committed to memory but my guess is you're referring to no-fly zones and allowing weapons inspectors unfettered access. Of course it's W that kicked out the weapons inspectors.

2] What does International Law consider a violation of a Cease Fire
See above...

3] What are considered appropriate responses to such violations
Sanctions and possibly military action as deemed appropriate by the UN I would assume.

4] Who attacked us?
No one from Iraq.

5] who did we attack because of it?
First The Taliban and Al Queda and then Iraq once W was able to make his case.

6] Why?
Part one made sense...Iraq is honestly anyones guess.

7] Explain the practical difference between nation-state sponsors of "terrorism".
The difference between them and what?

7] Explain the practical difference between their proxies.
I'm assuming you mean "8"... Iraq did not sponsor Al Queda. Are you Cheney in disguise?

[seekeronos]

Spartan, you are punching WAY over your weight. Ross (rwilymz) here knows well what he is talking about... and is very, very, very able to steamroll right through your pile of BS.

Out of an unexpected stroke of kindness that is suddenly overwhelming me at the moment - I think you should take this opportunity to preserve what face you might have left, and exit, stage left.

Or you could just keep it up... I don't mind seeing - and hopefully learning from - a skillful master at work. :)

While I don't agree with 100% of everything he says, the overwhelming bulk of it is very sound, and well grounded in something y'all more idealistic liberals (in particular) tend to loose sight of very easily - Reality™.

And that Reality™ says that both individuals and the nations composed of many individuals are generally very self centered and seldom do little out of the "milk of human kindness" ... unless there is "something in it for me".

And for those elected folks who like their jobs to the point of saying anything to keep them, or aspirants who want to take those jobs... this is especially true.

It will be like this until the Good Lord Jesus returns to reign over all humankind as their Righteous King.

[TheSpartan]

"I'll tell you right from the start, I do not suffer ignoramuses kindly."

You must be very hard on yourself.

[rwilymz]

"rwilymz, all right then, just who did Iraq invade?"

I'll tell you right from the start, I do not suffer ignoramuses kindly.

I reallyreallyreally object when people who are probably very good at being accountants or auto mechanics try to tell foreign policy workers how to do their job.

I do not tell accountants and auto mechanics how to do theirs, I expect the same courtesy in return.

With that in mind, please tell me what the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire were; follow on with that answer with the IntLaw consideration of violations of same, and the legitiate responses to ditto.

"Or in your argument are we the Persians?"

No, son, but you are the rationalizing twerp.

Who was it that attacked us? And whom did we invade because of it? Why?

What is the practical difference between the nation we invaded because of an attack on us and Iraq? ...and their proxies?

"Wouldn't that include the democrats you disagree with?"

Which ones would those be?

But here's the thing about politics: people who play it will freely mix truth, lies, and irrelevancies in order to do one of several things:
1] get elected, or re-
2] get support for their legislation
3] get support for their policy

I pay almost no attention to politicians, and when I'm forced to by circumstances, and in the subject area of foreign policy and military matters, I generally know how to tell the difference between the things they say which are lies, those which are truth, and those which are irrelevancies.

Now, if you have any other petulant challenges, you are advised to first answer mine.

1] What were the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire
2] What does International Law consider a violation of a Cease Fire
3] What are considered appropriate responses to such violations
4] Who attacked us?
5] who did we attack because of it?
6] Why?
7] Explain the practical difference between nation-state sponsors of "terrorism".
7] Explain the practical difference between their proxies.

I love neophytes. They are as fun as pulling the wings off flies.

[bloodrage bob]

further adventures in leftist intellectual honesty: again & again, the same ol' liberal chickenshit. "we won't tell you what *we* would have done as a response to 9-11, but everything *YOU guys* did was wrongwrongwrong!!" "at least sparta wasn't invading persia in an obvious war for oil!!"

this from the same folks who squealed, "the surge is a failure!" back in *january*. 6 months before it went into effect. the same clowns who held anti-war rallies a **WEEK** after 9-11. "it's wrong to strike back! defending ourselves is wrong!"

how 'bout now? can we finally question their patriotism NOW???

[TheSpartan]

"given you as much knowledge, wisdom and experience in foreigh affairs and international politics as those who have worked their entire lives in the field."

Wouldn't that include the democrats you disagree with?

[TheSpartan]

rwilymz, all right then, just who did Iraq invade? Or in your argument are we the Persians?

[rwilymz]

"if we were to be invaded I'd certainly line up to help defend the country."

Just like the "real" Spartans, eh?

Oh, but they weren't defending Sparta, they were defending, most immediately, Athens, who Sparta didn't really like all that well. But Sparta realized that as went Athens, so went the rest of the Peloponnesus, and it was either meet the force that was marching to invade -- even though they hadn't quite yet -- or watch as the Persians overpowered one small, self-centered city-state at a time until it was Sparta's turn.

But it's nice that you're volunteering to do only so much for everyone as *you* think everyone needs, and not what our elected officials have decided, through the mechanisms of our constitutional republic, that the nation needs as a whole. Because I'm sure that a bunch of semester hours from Michigan State, including as many as two courses in poli-sci, has given you as much knowledge, wisdom and experience in foreigh affairs and international politics as those who have worked their entire lives in the field.

And it's ever so much more fun to sit on the sidelines and sneer about everything that isn't perfect than to just pony up and admit that most of what they're doing is actually for everyone's good.

How's that navel of yours? Been gazed at enough, yet?

[TheSpartan]

"You know, looking at the comments of "TheSpartan" and thinking of the heroic deeds done by the Spartans when the Perisans attempted to invade Greece I think this individual is misnaming himself...TheFeckless comes to mind."

I'm TheSpartan because I went to Michigan State. That aside, if we were to be invaded I'd certainly line up to help defend the country.

[templar knight]

rwilymz, the liberal types who post here have a hard time keeping their lies straight. And making up their minds. Go figure.

[rwilymz]

"Perhaps ... you can learn to quit lashing out wrecklessly and embrace intelligent, responsible leadership."

What constitutes "lashing out" to you?

Invading a country that "never did anything to us" ... that you are willing to concede was done? Like tying up a double-digit portion of our military for over a decade when we needed them elsewhere? like commit [mostly nomical] "acts of war" against us for over a decade? like fund organizations and individuals who have, for twenty years, taken actions against the US in the outside world and in the US, both?

"Perhaps... you can learn that bombing and killing doesn't make the word a friendlier, happier place ..."

Friendlier and happier for whom? The answer isn't going to change just because you're reciting the mewl in a different forum: US foreign policy is not altruism. It doesn't matter what the world thinks of it; it only matters whether it serves our interests, long-term, or short-. That's it.

"Friendy"? "Happy?" Irrelevant. If foreign nation 'X' wants to be friendly with us in exchange for removing them from our "potential targets" list, then they need to shape the hell up. If being off the list makes them happy, then whuptifuckingdoo.

Apart from that, it matters not whether all the fairy tale characters in your dreams are singing "Twitterpated" from Bambi.

Besides, after waxing poetic upon the Democrats and our political future, you should recall that they wish to undertake in Sudan what the last batch undertook in Serbia: a pre-emptive war for regime change in order to save yet another dispossessed population full of failed revolutionaries upset that their failed revolutions carry government reprisals. In other words: "bombing and killing" for "emotion" and transient "whim".

"Tough talk does not a leader make."

Solipsistic saccharine does not wisdom make, either, dimwit.

"Violence does not equal strength."

Capitulation does not make friends.

"Policies based on emotion and whim inevitably come to a bad end."

I thought our foreign policy in these last few years was based upon ruthless calculation?

Can you make up your mind please?

[BobInStamford]

Wow Cindi. That was a heckuva site! AMAZING production values. I think I will now go to Walmart and purchase a Chinese-made Yellow Ribbon magnet for my car.

[Philip McDaniel]

You know, looking at the comments of "TheSpartan" and thinking of the heroic deeds done by the Spartans when the Perisans attempted to invade Greece I think this individual is misnaming himself...TheFeckless comes to mind.

[BobInStamford]

It was 6 years ago today that Saddam Hussein sent 20 Iraqis to attack America. They flew planes filled with Yellowcake and WMDs into the WTC. Conservatives should follow the lead of the brave Larry Craig and not give up the fight! Iraq must never attack us again!

[seekeronos]

"--- Sullivan has been won over ---"

Ya-awn. That tired old queen has been nothing more than a liberal gay who happened to have one or two ideas that came close to the neo-con ballpark.

I wish that I could speak entirely well of Bush's handling of things, but I am disappointed in much of his labours. (He has done well, but hasn't done nearly enough, IMHO)

What America needs is much less self-angst and defeatism, and much more waking up in the face of a brutal, international enemy of all mankind -- the long, bloodied scimitar of Islam is aimed squarely upon the backs of necks.

If we allow ourselves to wallow in the miry sloughs of self-doubt and self-hate, and be weighted down with pronouncements of multi-culti political correctness and the asinine brayings of the so-called intellectual elites who are walled up in their ivory towers - so far out of touch with regular, every day working men and women - then we shall surely have failed to take to heart the awful sacrifice of more than 3,000 innocents and the 4,000+ lives of our brothers on the battlefield to liberate this world from Mohammed's sword, and his demonic moon-"god".

May God have mercy upon us, if we continue to neglect Him and His word, and His call for us to live uprightly in this land He guided our fathers to, and so continue to spurn Him and provoke Him to wrath.

May He grant that we wake up quickly, repent asking His forgiveness, and turn against wickedness and idolatry, and seek His guidance in removing both evil from our land within, and His protection from the Islamist enemies without.

[Islamollama]

You know, NY went to Kerry in '04. So did DC. So did California, for that matter.

In fact, since 9/11 and the Bush bunglings we've seen a wave of people young and old, conservative and independent and liberal, all start demanding government that works and that will protect us. Unsurprisingly, they elected a bunch of Dems in '06, and they'll keep sweeping the filth out of office long into '08, '10, and '12 until the Republicans learn how to do more than just talk a big scary game.

Perhaps, in crying over the ashes of the Twin Towers, you can learn to quit lashing out wrecklessly and embrace intelligent, responsible leadership. Perhaps, in contemplating the tragedy, you can learn that bombing and killing doesn't make the word a friendlier, happier place whether it happens in downtown New York or the south end of Kirkut. Given that John Cole was able to come around in '05, and Sullivan has been won over, and even George Will is beginning to see the light, I've got hope for you Dan. Not alot of hope, but it still exists.

Tough talk does not a leader make. Violence does not equal strength. Policies based on emotion and whim inevitably come to a bad end. This is the lesson Americans could be learning as we cross the half-way mark of the decade.

[TheSpartan]

I'm as American as you Cindi, that doesn't mean I think we need to be in Iraq.

[Cindi]

Not a political team, The American Team, the one's who get it, regardless of party.

Hope you don't mind Dan, but I wanted to share this link.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/united/binch/index.html

[Fred Beloit]

Goodness, Spart confuses politics with religion. No wonder he has no problem with Islamists.

[TheSpartan]

The republican team? No thanks, I'll pass...I have a soul.

[Cindi]

You are right Fred. I doubt spartan has ever felt a part of anything "American" other than being UN. All bets on....spartan was never picked for the team ;).

[TheSpartan]

I get what W wants us to believe, but that and the truth are two disparate concepts.

[Fred Beloit]

Spart doesn't appear very astute today, Cindi. He doesn't seem to GET the idea that Iraq and Afghanistan are two campaigns in a world war.

[TheSpartan]

It must be warm with your head tucked so far up Dan's tailpipe.

[Cindi]

radical islam agrees with you spartan.

Nice article Dan. Thank you.

[TheSpartan]

Supporting the war in Iraq has nothing to do with "Getting" the Twin Towers nor does geography.