Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Columnist says another 9/11 would be good for America

Read his words for yourself:

ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I’m thinking another 9/11 would help America.
What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?

A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically – thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq – that we have forgotten who the enemy is.

It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O’Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.

Iraq has fractured the U.S. into jigsaw pieces of competing interests that encourage our enemies. We are deeply divided and division is weakness.

Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?

Not because Americans are “anti-war.”

Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don’t have the patience for a long slog. We’ve been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years.

That’s not the American way.

In Iraq, we don’t believe our military is being beaten on the battleground. It’s more that there is no formal “battleground.” There is the drip of daily casualties and victory is not around the corner. Americans are impatient. We like fast food and fast war.

Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm’s way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.

America likes wars shorter than the World Series.

Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong – but he did it with the backing of Congress.

Because the war has been a botch so far, Democrats and Republicans are attacking one another, when they aren’t attacking themselves. The dialog of discord echoes across America.

Turn back to 9/11.

Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy – 12/7/41.

We knew who the enemy was then.

We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.

Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working, if we are “safer” now, whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls, whether cops should detain odd-acting “flying imams,” whether those plotting alleged attacks on Fort Dix or Kennedy airport are serious threats or amateur bumblers. We bicker over the trees while the forest is ablaze.

America’s fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago’s Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.

Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America’s righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won’t last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that.

He makes several great points, especially how sickening it is that a mere six years after the ruthless attack on our soil that claimed about 3,000 of our brethren, we’re right back to bickering and politicking. While I see what he’s saying about how another 9/11 would help, I think (a) that’s a pretty sick thing to hope for; and (b) his conclusion that it would help is false.

Look, if we were back to bellyaching a mere year after the attacks, and a mere three years after the attacks we almost vote out our commander-in-chief in favor of a liberal Massachussets blueblood who (a) saw terrorism as a mere nuisance and (b) would have subjected our interests to the UN’s “global test”, and we complain about how we’re treating the camelhumpers who want us dead while we detain them at Club Gitmo…then I don’t think another attack is going to unite us. Americans have short attention spans, and it would take repeated attacks and thousands more deaths at semi-frequent intervals to steel our national resolve. I, for one, don’t want to see that.

August 10, 2007 - Posted by | religion of peace

6 Comments »

  1. The unity would last only until the nation was forcibly divided among lines of “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Just like this time. When discontent over the war began (whatever the motivation) that line was quickly established. Bush divided the nation himself then called for unity, while doing nothing to make that happen.

    Terrorism was a mere nuisance to everyone in the US until it struck home, never even considered a reality by most. Ships and embassies have been bombed and garnered not much response because it was ‘over there’. Same as the frequent bombings in other countries, we could easily disassociate it with putting ourselves in real danger.

    I know this will meet with ireful comments, but we need to figure out why this anger against the west exists. It’s not as simple as hating freedom, like we’ve been told many times. Much stems from previous and continued actions in that area of the world. While we can’t change the past we can work to fix current actions. Maybe then fewer people will buy into the ideas presented.

    Comment by wailin | August 10, 2007

  2. I know this will meet with ireful comments, but we need to figure out why this anger against the west exists. It’s not as simple as hating freedom, like we’ve been told many times.

    There are a number of reasons, Wailin, and in my humble opinion, these are three of the top reasons:

    1. They hate freedom. Just like we’ve been told. They’ve said on a number of occasions that the West is too decadent and sinful, and they’ve also said that democratic-style government is horrible. They want sharia, pure and simple.

    2. We’re not Muslim. When they say (as they have on numerous occasions) that we can avoid their bloodlust by simply converting to Islam and nothing short, then what else is there to discuss?

    3. We support Israel. They want Israel wiped off of the map, and we don’t. Simple enough.

    There are many more reasons they hate us, and virtually none of those reasons will ever be remedied by us because we are not willing to change them (i.e. we will never adopt sharia and turn into an Islamic republic, we will always be a decadent and sinful country because we’re free to damn our souls to Hell if we so choose, etc.). And I, for one, am glad we won’t.

    Comment by crushliberalism | August 10, 2007

  3. With conversion, that’s an attitude adopted by many religious zealots. “My god is better than your god” always has and always will cause problems.

    As far as Israel, I agree our continued unconditional support is an issue. We try to broker peace but arm Israel at the same time. That’s a little messed up.

    But as with everything, most Muslims likely have a “don’t mess with me and I won’t mess with you” attitude much as we do here. The real problem is blaming the whole because of the few.

    Comment by wailin | August 10, 2007

  4. With conversion, that’s an attitude adopted by many religious zealots. “My god is better than your god” always has and always will cause problems.

    The main difference, Wailin, is that you rarely find Christians today that are willing to kill you for not believing in our God. Sure, we think those who reject Christ will be in Hell for eternity, but we’re not the ones who are going to send you there. So I can’t accept the equivalency here.

    Comment by crushliberalism | August 10, 2007

  5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4317498.stm
    “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq… And I did.”

    Rare, indeed! All it takes is one.

    Comment by wailin | August 10, 2007

  6. Wailin, did you even read that link you supplied? The quote you reference was disputed by the White House as having never been uttered? You can choose to believe a Palestinian over your president, and that is certainly your prerogative. But a “he said – he said” isn’t working for me.

    Later in that same article, Abbas seems to “recount how Mr Bush told him: “I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.” If what Abbas is saying is true, then I’d say that there’s a HUGE difference between “I’ve got a moral and religious obligation” to do something versus “God told me to do it.” I mean, I’ve got a moral and religious obligation not to steal anything, but God didn’t audibly tell me to abstain from theft.

    Rare, indeed! All it takes is one.

    I assume you’re referring to my statement where I said Christians rarely kill you for rejecting Christ. Then you quoted (or, more appropriately, misquoted) Bush to imply that God was telling him to kill people in other countries for not being Christian. You DO know that he was authorizing the killing of terrorists because they are terrorists and NOT because they’re not Christian, right?

    Look, you can play the “religious moral relativism” card all you like my friend, but the undisputed fact is that Christians almost never kill anyone who doesn’t believe in Christ (and please don’t point to the centuries-ago Crusades as proof to the contrary…we HAVE evolved since then). We don’t kill people who are non-believers just for being non-believers, since one of His commandments is “Thou shalt not kill”. Therefore, when you get some wingnut psycho who kills abortion doctors and says that he’s doing God’s work, the overwhelming majority (99% or more) of the Christian community roundly reject that nutbar and help to bring him to justice.

    You strike me as someone who isn’t Christian, correct? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, and I won’t take offense if you don’t answer. My only point is that if you aren’t Christian, I am more than confident that no one here is going to wish you harm. And no, not even George W. Bush wants you dead! :-D

    Comment by crushliberalism | August 10, 2007


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

« Previous | Next »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers