<p>gla, as they say in the world of finance, “past performance is no guarantee of future results”. In other words, looking backwards at the effect of terrorists armed with box cutters provides no assurance of what will happen in the future when things like nuclear weapons are involved. I suggest that you do some research on what experts in the security business say about the liklihood of a nuclear bomb being used on a city in the next 5 to 10 years is. I believe that one such study was done by Harvard. The experts give it an alarmingly high probablity.</p>
<p>Driver:
I agree there is a difference between incompetence and lies. Whatever the ‘consensus of available intelligence’ there was absolutely no need to invade Iraq. UN inspections were ongoing. And if the intelligence was as wrong as it has proven to be, who bears responsibility and who has paid any consequences?</p>
<p>I agree with gla thoughtful reply.</p>
<p>sjm - why are there only democratic presidents in your blame rant what happened to Bush and Reagan who were also in there. Who let Saddam go the first gulf war? The Beirut embassy bombings. It is clear no matter what is said or presented to you that you are only going to believe what you want and blame only democrats.
But what I’m most sad about is that you have fallen into the conservative plan. Keep everyone in fear and they will blindly follow. Conservatives are the party of fear.Their message “be afraid be very afraid”. Well, fear comes from lack of knowledge.
As you yourself said:</p>
<p>“Finally, I have evolved into a fairly right wing conservative since 9/11/01. My husband travels frequently between the coasts, so every time he’s in the air, I’m anxious. I listen to the news, I keep my cell phone near me and I can’t really relax until he calls from his destination. He traveled yesterday, which only added to my anxiety on the anniversary.”</p>
<p>That is just how the republicans want you to feel. I am sorry for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d also like to respond to this. Yes there is a possibility that it was a mistake, but you must recognize that even if it turns out to be a mistake, that does not mean it was the wrong decision. </p>
<p>An example in layman’s terms: you want to take a trip to NYU in NYC. You check with a number of native New Yorkers and those from NJ and they all say that the best way to get there from NJ is via the Holland tunnel. So you proceed to take the Holland tunnel, only to find that there is a massive accident just ahead of you in the tunnel and you get stuck there for an hour and a half. Was it a mistake to take the tunnel? Perhaps, since going via the Lincoln tunnel would have gotten you there faster. Was it the wrong decision? Nope, not at all.</p>
<p>SJmom, did I excuse the death of 3000 citizens? Please show me where.</p>
<p>Do you excuse the deaths of 3000 American soldiers, in response to the death of 3000 Americans? Or the tens of thousands of Iraqis? </p>
<p>I’ve never found sweetness in revenge, particularly this sort. We have killed many more people than were killed on 9/11, and an equal number of our own service people have died. That is 6000 dead Americans. The fact that you don’t see the hypocrisy in this amazes me.</p>
<p>“In laymans terms” what if you should be going to Philly from Jersey but they send you NY because that’s where tTHEY want to go not to Philly where you should go?</p>
<p>The mistake was Iraq. We should have finished in Afghanistan. They used intelligence that supported their wants. they had as much intelligence telling them what was really true. British intelligence also told them what has turned out to be true. We didn’t belong in Iraq. Our fight was in and still is in Afghanistan.</p>
<p>And considering that the Taliban is reemboldened, I would say that Afganistan is a bit of a mess at the moment too, with their own share of suicide bombers. </p>
<p>There weren’t any suicide bombers in either Afganistan or Iraq, before the US invasion, but now 60-100 people are killed routinely, in a day. And we just go ho hum.</p>
<p>Hey Sideways#2:
You should pick you own username. It gets too confusing otherwise. The rest of us won’t know who to lambast.</p>
<p>Wow, I run to the post office, and I miss all of the excitement! I’ll respond to those posts that seem directed to me.</p>
<p>Post #118 – this post sounds pretty condescending to me. If you are trying to be kind, then I’m sorry. I’m well aware, as my DH constantly points it out to me, that the most dangerous part of his journey is driving between LAX and his hotel. I’ve also travelled extensively for business in the past, so I’m not naive about the safety of air travel vs. automobiles. But no one hijacked my car on 9/11.</p>
<p>Post #123 – I only named Democratic Presidents because it seemed to me that you were blaming the current administration for 9/11/01. First of all, I don’t agree that the U.S. has been either imperialistic or colonial. What did we colonize – Guam? I don’t think Puerto Rico sent terrorists, nor American Samoa. Am I missing something here? This just sounds like generic nonsense to me, and it did sound like an excuse for 9/11/01.</p>
<p>Also, I did not “fall into the conservative plan.” I arrived here in a deliberate, educated fashion, through reading, conversation and observation. I’ve lived outside the U.S., which has also given me a different perspective on things. Since I was raised in a very Democratic household, it’s not a default position.</p>
<p>My concern about my husband’s travel is not the biggest issue here. I want this country to be safe for my children and grandchildren. I want to ride the T in Boston and not be on the lookout for abandoned backpacks. </p>
<p>The Republicans don’t want me to feel a certain way, as far as I know. But I don’t bury my head in the sand, and believe that if only we didn’t make anyone mad, nothing would happen.</p>
<p>If I freaked out everytime I saw an abandoned back pack you would have to put me away</p>
<p>You are assuming that this Presidents handling of the aftermath of 9-11 has made us safer…</p>
<p>our borders are not
our ports are not
our chemical and nucluer plants are somewhat safer, but by no means secure
we let white people wth dynamite in their luggage free
we take tweezers from my mom
we freak out everytime a bag is left anywhere
bin laden roams free
Korea
Pakistan
the Taliban
Opium
Syria
More terrorist and more angry people at the US than ever before
Bad war planning
A president who didn’t kow Iraq had different factions
Rumsfield saying he didn’t want to hear about after war planning
Bush still trying to link Iraq to 9-11 and terrorist, though report after report refudiates that
Cherry picking at best intelligence data
Saying they found WMD, which wasn’t true
Putting perfectly innocent people on terror watch lists
Rendering, and extrodinarey rendering
Over budget
Missing Millions
Corruption
Using the deaths of thousands of Americans to explain Iraq
Military contractors war profitteering with no oversite
and on and on</p>
<p>as FF says, we have to look at the now, and that is our now</p>
<p>And if you think they doh’t want you to feel a certain way, you have be bambozzled</p>
<p>And Afghanistan, the real place of terrorist strong hold is fallig apart once again, and you have talliban going into pakistan, the home of a nucleur weapon, good thing we made sure that place was secure and stable before we decided to go after Saddam, and next Iran…</p>
<p>And if I remember correctly, some posters here thought the war in Iraq wa going so well, and if you wonder why I bring up Iraq in this thread, its cause Bush has connected the two himself, over and over</p>
<p>I love the quote- his hardest job is connecting Iraq to 9-11, can’t imagine why</p>
<p>
I thought this discussion was supposed to about the Path to 9/11, and I asked people to point out where it was fictionalized (which hasn’t happened, by the way). Somehow, any discussion of 9/11 morphs into a referendum on Iraq. The Dems are the ones that keep conntecting Iraq to 9/11, in my opinion!</p>
<p>I don’t understand what you are talking about regarding hypocrisy. You seem to draw an equivalency between the civilians that were killed on 9/11 and our servicemen who are engaged in a war. I don’t see the similarity, although I regret the loss of any life. </p>
<p>Many years from now, people will analyze this period of time and weigh judgement. It may well be the case that the war in Iraq does nothing to help stop terrorism – I would argue that deposing a ruthless dictator and bringing democracy to the people is still worthwhile. </p>
<p>However, it may also come to light that there is information of which we are unaware that shows how important a piece Iraq has been to protecting U.S. soil from other attacks. None of us really know that right now.</p>
<p>CGM, what do you think a Democratic president would have done differently? You are so quick to spew out a list of Democratic talking points, but I never hear any worthwhile suggestions for what our currect leaders should be doing.</p>
<p>GLA,</p>
<p>If our intelligence about Iraq was wrong, the intelligence services of many countries made the same mistake and it was accepted by both Republicans and Democrats. The authorization for use of military force against Iraq passed the House on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23. As FundingFather said, it was the right decision based on available information.</p>
<p>Yes, to put in back into “layman’s” terms, a bipartisan group of 77 senators and 296 congressmen said that NYU was the destination, not Philadelphia. But actually, here is where the analogy breaks down, because contrary the the myth (AKA Democratic talking points) that we abandoned Afghanistan, we never did. More US troops were in Afghanistan after we went into Iraq than were there before we did so. So, in “layman’s” terms - we went to NYC AND Philadelphia.</p>
<p>If only we had bought democracy, Sjmom. Unfortunately, I think the facts on the ground in Iraq speak otherwise.</p>
<p>Hamas and Hizbollah were “democratically elected” too. Are we happy with those results?</p>
<p>Not gone into Iraq like Bush did…that is the difference</p>
<p>I think a democratic president would have been more concerned about war profiteering and waste</p>
<p>I think a democratic president would have finished Afghanistan, made sure that place was stable and not going into Taliban hands again</p>
<p>IF we HAD to go into Iraq, for the RIGHT reasons, not the made up ones that keep shifting, they would have done it right</p>
<p>A different president would have protected our ports, not sell them to Dubai</p>
<p>A different president would have not shut out the world </p>
<p>A different president would not have ignored the intelligence of hte previous administration about terrorism</p>
<p>A different president would have put people in power who had a clue, yeah, like Rumsfield does</p>
<p>A different president would not have tolerated torture and abuse by our own troops and held higher ups accountable and not promoted them</p>
<p>A diferent president would not go after people for telling the truth</p>
<p>A different president would have not hired civilian mercenaries to fight this war who report to no-one</p>
<p>A different president would have expected results from the contractors for alllll that money spent</p>
<p>A different president would have hired people who could do the job, and not put people in power cause he likes them</p>
<p>A different president would have not allowed innocent people to be abused thus creating more angry young men</p>
<p>A different president would have listened to ALL intelligence, not just to what suited his agenda</p>
<p>A different president would have been honest with congress, ALL of them, not just from his party</p>
<p>A different president wouldn’t have put someone who hates the UN as ambassador to the UN</p>
<p>and a different president wouldnt have squandered all the good will we had after 9-11 by ignoring the leaders of the rest of the word</p>
<p>A different President would have a real plan for Iraq and Afghanistan</p>
<p>A different President would give our troops what they needed in the beginning</p>
<p>A different President would take care of our troops here at home</p>
<p>A different president would read for himself</p>
<p>A different president would educate himself on the country he is invading</p>
<p>A different president would have told the truth</p>
<p>A different president would insist on real #s from Iraq, not the fudged ones we get</p>
<p>A different president would not make connections that don’t exist, even in the face of Senate reports </p>
<p>A different president would tell the DHS that a popcorn stand is not a terrorist target and to get it right</p>
<p>A different president would not deplete our national guard here at home of people and equipment</p>
<p>A different president wouldn’t take pride and glory in the break up of a “terror cell” mostly built by criminal informants, saying looky here</p>
<p>A different president would be more concerned about the bill of rights</p>
<p>A different president would have been straight up and said, if we are gong to Iraq,we need 5 times as many troops, according to our generals</p>
<p>and a different president would have listened more to those generals than his staff who never fought anywhere ever</p>
<p>How could they do anything on 9-11 without “My Pet Goat” - did they not have the footage?</p>
<p>Death, taxes, and…it’s Bush’s fault.</p>