The Daily Kool-Aid has the following headlines on this 5th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack against the U.S.:
Let's remember Bush let 9/11 planner get away
Bush is failing in Iraq
...which includes this: "It's not about me, and it's certainly not about Bush, who after his famous Pet Goat moment cowardly fled and hid out in Nebraska in fear -- the same kind of abject fear they'd spend the next five years selling to the American people."
BREAKING: Bush May Declare War on Wide Angle Lenses
We Deserve Better
Writing about children born after Sept. 11, 2001: "They will not remember that torture used to be something that everyone could agree on as wrong--at least in public. They will not remember that at one time we were not at war--at least not openly. They will not remember a time when our famously cherished ideals about civil liberty, equality, freedom, and the rule of law had been disastrously undermined by our federal government and abandoned, in most cases without much fuss, by its terrified constituents."
I was surprised at Arianna Huffington's 9/11 editorial. It's worth a read. It must have taken great resolve to let slip a great opportunity to skewer Bush. After all, for most liberals a hurricane was reason enough.
Russell Shaw, however, had a very different perspective. He chose the 5th anniversary of 9/11 to promote gay marriage, for some strange reason.
Simon Jenkins, another HuffPo heavy breathing lib, believed, immediately after the towers were struck, that the attacks "did not diminish America's leadership of the West, indeed sympathy for America and her restraint in response would surely enhance it."
And in a less than grand finale, Jenkins says we should have done nothing in response to 9/11: "America displayed a terror that surprised and shocked her friends. She dissipated the sympathy declared worldwide in the aftermath - including blood-donor points in Gaza - and proceeded with a massive military response that continues bloodily to this day. The result put a megaphone to 9/11 and turned Osama bin Laden into the hero of anti-Americanism everywhere. Now we are making the same mistake again. When dignity and common sense should suggest private commemoration and public silence we have seized the amplifier of terror and turned it to full volume. We have given terrorism what it craves, a state memorial."
He talks about "blood-donor points in Gaza." Do you remember the Palestinians partying in the streets when the joyful news of 9/11 reached their hovels? Jenkins only remembers blood donors. Fuckin-A, it's odd how this guy's memory works. Hey, ahh, Jenkins, go to Memri to watch video of how Arabs reacted to 9/11. Sure, some may have given blood, but the rest should be shot with ordinance soaked in depleted uranium.
It's a very liberal ideal to do nothing when attacked, because aggressive behavior, to these liberals, is the worst possible response, regardless of circumstance.
Imagine a playground bully who just bloodied the nose of another kid. Do you honestly tell the victim he should not fight back simply because that's what the bully wants? Just let him go on punching you, kid, because aggression is bad, no matter what.
In these trying times, I would not feel safe with this ideology in the White House.
Jenkins isn't the only HuffPo writer with a selective, and self-serving, memory. Bob Cesca tells about Vice Cheney reminding us, just yesterday, that we've not had another attack. First, we have suffered attacks, just not a major one (see here). We have, however, foiled major ones.
Second, Cesca says, "They use this refrain to justify Iraq..." This one is as self-serving as the "war for oil" camp, or the "lied about WMD" camp. There are approximately 22 reasons the United States made war on Iraq; each rational. Here is why the U.S. Senate authorized President Bush to wage war.
Taylor Marsh, true to the eerie liberal mantra, said, "George W. Bush is responsible for Afghanistan now going south and so is every other Republican, including Dick Cheney, because all of them helped make Afghanistan less stable the minute they turned their attention towards Iraq."
Could it have escaped Marsh's attention that Afghanistan is a NATO operation, prosecuted with funds, equipment, and manpower from dozens of nations around the world? It's more likely that acknowledging NATO involvement would fail to serve a deep desire to blame Bush for all the world's problems.
Here's more: "The continuing wingnut attempt to whitewash and hijack this this [sic] tragedy played out once again last night on ABC..."
Phew! Paranoia self destroia. Just because liberals believe conservatives are out to get them, doesn't mean conservatives aren't out to get them.
Christy Hardin Smith did manage a post, titled "In Memoriam" that somehow neglected to bash Bush. Congratulations, liberal, you did it! I'm not one to talk, though, seeing as my own remembrance of 9/11 smashed libbies with no shame.
Crooks and Liars
These liberals forgot to remember the victims of 9/11 today, but have numerous posts lambasting Bush and ABC's treacherous 9/11 special. Priorities, libs, priorities!
TChris pines away for "sympathy and support," while he obviously fears any type of aggressive action: "In the days following 9/11, much of the rest of the world viewed the United States with sympathy and support. Five years later, thanks to the Bush administration, world opinion of the U.S. has flip-flopped."
It kills me that anyone, even liberals, could place a higher value on being liked, than defending their own country. Have you known people who were strongly predisposed to pleasing people? Were they effective? Were they people you wanted to be around? By contrast, have you known people who do what they feel is right, regardless of how others feel? How did you feel about those people? Which kind of person did you respect more?
A writer called "Big Tent Democrat" chooses the 5th anniversary of 9/11 to blame Bush for letting the attacks happen: "Five years ago today, Al Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, perpetrated the most heinous attack against the United States on our territory since Pearl Harbor. As the CIA warned President Bush and his administration in its August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States using hijacked airplanes."
And here's a piece of writing that doesn't merit mentioning an author. Embarrassed, perhaps? The headline says it all: Terrorist or Victim of Bush's Terror War?
I always get a chuckle when liberals say this is "Bush's" war. I guess they don't know this.
This blog features a timeline for 9/11, but it's not what you think. It's filled with examples of how Bush failed miserably. Here are a few points of interest: increase in international terrorism, campaign to block and obstruct, failure, downgrading, steady decline.
How awful it must be to be an American! How terrible it must be to have a president who lets all of these bad things happen! He must not even care! He likes it when Americans die needlessly, isn't that right, libs?
Think Progress also points out that the "myths about 9/11" portrayed in the evil ABC special was "trounced by football" in the ratings. Shock and awe! Football got higher ratings than an ABC miniseries! Who'da thunk? It must mean the ABC special was full of lies and Democrats really are competent!
I think liberals need to huddle.
A rambling, whimsical blog entry acknowledges that we haven't suffered a major attack since 9/11, but it goes awry from there. "It is...in spite of, not due to, the strategic efforts of our counter-terrorism strategy."
Of course, of course. It's luck. No, bin Laden is busy. He's making music videos. Or have the Dems been appeasing terrorists behind our backs, keeping us safe in their non-violent way? Maybe Jimmy Carter, Madeline Albright, Cindy Sheehan, and Michael Moore held a seance.
The Rotund One has published an editorial by Howard Zinn entitled "War is not a solution for terrorism." So what is the solution? Bake cookies and give them to the terrorists! Or, like a hero from Dark Age legend, we could lash a virgin to an oak tree once a year and let the dragon feast (in other words, maybe libs think we should just give them a tall office building occasionally, filled with innocent people, and let that be that). Or, as I suspect the libs desire, we should realize that we, ourselves, are to blame for 9/11 because of our evil foreign policies, and if we just twist around a bit and give ourselves a spanking, everything will be okay.
Upp, already found a major flaw with Zinn's rant. He says, "(The war in Iraq) has been an utter failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq." And here I thought we were disarming Saddam Hussein, which was done in precisely 21 days.
Actually, the whole piece is standard, anti-war rhetoric, the likes of which we've been seeing from cowards for a long, long time.
Zinn pretends he has made good arguments, summzrizing with this odd paragraph: "If reacting to terrorist attacks by war is inevitably immoral, then we must look for ways other than war to end terrorism, including the terrorism of war. And if military retaliation for terrorism is not only immoral but futile, then political leaders, however cold-blooded their calculations, may have to reconsider their policies."
The only inkling of an alternative to war on terrorism, as proposed in the article's title, is "may have to reconsider their policies."
This means (yes, this is gonna be a real shocker), terrorist attacks against the United States are the fault of...yup...the United States. We're meanies, and deserve to get hit! Where would we be without these liberals teaching us how awful we are? I just can't imagine. I wonder if Zinn cries himself to sleep at night thinking about how murderous, barbaric, and positively evil the U.S. is?
Forgive me for closing this blog post with a tangent, but did Robert Redford move to Ireland yet?