This was written by someone who was only a couple of blocks away from the Twin Towers on 9/11. She wrote it very soon after it happened, and even if she wasn't an amazing writer, it would be worth reading.
Unfortunately, I think too many people have forgotten what really happened that day.
The language may be a little rough in spots. Justifiably rough, in my opinion, but still and all, you might want to watch who you give it to.
[ September 08, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Aren't you Israeli?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
You might want to post a language warning.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: You might want to post a language warning.
My apologies. It hadn't occurred to me. Thanks for pointing it out.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Aren't you Israeli?
Um... yes. And American. Dual citizenship, actually. I was born in Chicago, and I've lived 12 years in Israel.
Why? Do you have to be an American to get 9/11?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I keep hearing people say we've forgotten what happened.
I haven't seen us or many others in the world forgetting.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
As an American. Sure. I would imagine living in Israel gives one an insight into most things (edit: maybe even all?) Israeli, too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I keep pointing out that we should forget what happened, or at least get over it, and dwelling on it and celebrating it is highly unhealthy.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Chungwa, I'd like you to meet Tom. Tom, Chungwa.
I'm not talking about celebrating it. But "getting over it" isn't very healthy when those who did it are still out there planning the next strike.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Lisa, could you delete the other thread?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But "getting over it" isn't very healthy when those who did it are still out there planning the next strike.
Why not? There's a fairly enormous difference between still being hung up about something and actually acting to resolve it; the former doesn't make the latter any more likely.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Lisa, could you delete the other thread?
Um, I don't see one. I just see this one.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I deleted it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thanks.
It was bugging me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm with Tom on this one. And, in essence, I've been of that opinion since the instant we knew what had happened. And I don't mean "get over it" as in "forget it." What I mean is that we did not need hysterics. We didn't need to flex our muscles and turn into a police state either. What we needed to do, and still need to do, is to calmly announce to the planners and perpetrators that they will never get any quarter or any rest. That when they show their faces they will be captured and not face instant death, but a long and laborious process of lawful incarceration and a fair trial.
What we needed to do, and still need to do, is show that this isn't going to faze us. That we don't care how fast or hard you run, we will be inexhaustible in our efforts to find you. Period.
And the other thing I would've done is work WITH the Arab nations. I would've challenged them. Give us Osama in 30 days or we'll go in and get him and there will be nothing left where we pass. It's your call. Turn him over or get out of the way but you have 30 days in which to do it.
And I would've passed NO special laws. I would've done NOTHING different. And I would've rebuilt everything I could rebuild. And I would've paid the victims out of the money I seized from the states that were involved...if I could.
I learned very early in life, there is only one way to deal with a bully. That is to never rise to the bait because it just encourages them. In this case, if you can't kill these people quickly, showing them that they have succeeded in rattling you is the WORST POSSIBLE tactic. And that's exactly what we did.
I won't ever forget 9/11 but not because of the sense of loss over the attack, but the sense of loss for the country in turning into a mindless beast intent on revenge instead of acting like the leader of the Free world.
And I think the missteps that have taken place in the aftermath of 9/11 are likely to be viewed as the real tragedy arising from this situation. That we had an opportunity to do something truly great and noble and we opted for revenge and didn't let a little thing like truth get in the way of that.
Blind and stupid. Enraged. A mob. That's what 9/11 turned us into.
And because that's what our reaction was, the terrorists did win.
I think we have a fine example in Israel of how the tactic of reciprication does not work. It's time to try a strategy taht is a bit more sensible that has long-term viability.
NOTE: This screed isn't really directed at anyone. I sensed the barest hint in the first post that somehow my brand of dealing with this would be classed as "having forgotten" so I wanted to respond to that. I felt this way from the instant I saw the WTC hit for the 2nd time -- the instant we knew it was a terrorist attack. And I've shaken my head watching the country do exactly the wrong thing ever since.
From the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq to the current bumbling mess over Homeland Security.
I see exactly two things that have been done well:
1) One portion of the Patriot Act removes ridiculous restrictions on information sharing between various law enforcement agencies. That has always been a stupid waste of resources, IMHO, and encourages interagency rivalry instead of better law enforcement. I'm glad it's mostly fixed.
2) Improved identification systems. This has had an enormous impact on things like visa violations and has opened the debate on illegal immigration anew. I'm happy about it not because I think the governments' (state and federal) positions are all uniformly wonderful, but because it means we're finally addressing the stupid mess that is our state-specific identification system. It just doesn't work to have drivers licenses be the gateway identification if you aren't going to have some minimum standards. And we finally get to decide, as a country, what we want to do (if anything) about illegal immigrants.
I believe that other than these two (relatively inexpensive) things, the remainder of our efforts post 9/11 have been an expensive waste of people and money. Not that there haven't been some good outcomes (I'll even give Iraq a provisional thumbs up), but that the same objectives could have been achieved more quickly, with less loss of life, and at much lower cost. And the extra spending, to my point of view, is directly traceable to our turning into an enraged mob seeking vengence instead of working deliberatively and cooperatively to bring the planners to justice.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Bob, Amen.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: I deleted it.
Thanks.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't know anybody who has forgotten.
When people, including country music singers, say people have forgotten, what they really mean is quite clearly that if you don't support the war in Iraq, you support the terrorists instead. Come on, now, have the balls to spew that crap openly, instead of thinly implying it.
I haven't forgotten. I don't see the relevance to attacking Iraq.
That was a fairly well-written vignette. A few things didn't ring true. Mostly some issues of timing that don't jive with my memory of the day. And this line:
quote:Knots of people stand outside, blaming Saddam, testing out possible bright sides.
Well, heck, I wasn't where she was, so I guess I can't dispute it. But I don't know anyone who wondered if it was Saddam. That thought certainly didn't occur to me. Did you think it was Saddam? (Do you think it was now?) I did think of Arab terrorists, but Saddam was still just about the furthest thing from my mind.
-o-
Bob, I don't agree with your number one and number two. We have never had a national identification, and I think that's a good thing. I also believed LONG before 9/11 that it was a good thing government agencies couldn't pool all their information. Keeping that information separate was a good check to the government's power to oppress the people, and I regret the loss of that check.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Bob and Tom, clearly the both of you are traitors. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Oh, and me! Don't forget about me!
Edited after a re-think.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Bob, you are a wise man and you get it....
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Well, heck, I wasn't where she was, so I guess I can't dispute it. But I don't know anyone who wondered if it was Saddam. That thought certainly didn't occur to me. Did you think it was Saddam? (Do you think it was now?) I did think of Arab terrorists, but Saddam was still just about the furthest thing from my mind.
The first words out of GWB's mouth reportedly, upon being informed that the WTC thing was a terrorist attack were "Was it Saddam."
I see your point about a national ID. I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating minimum standards for proving who you are before a state issues an ID. I also want greater security on them, and I want them to expire on the same date as the visitor's Visa, Student Visa, what have you. Nobody should be given a 7 year Driver's License upon showing a 10 month Visa.
As for sharing info, I want some checks and balances in there. An ideal system would provide a pointer showing that another agency HAS information on a particular person and then the law enforcment entity doing the inquiry can follow up with that agency. So, if the State Patrol in NY has stopped Mohammed Atta and there's a pointer that says the FBI HAS information on him, the trooper can make an inquiry with the FBI. Or the fact that the guy was stopped in NY can be "known" to others.
It doesn't have to be extremely intrusive and I'm a HUGE fan of privacy. What I hate is waste, though. And when we taxpayers have paid for the same information to be gathered 6 different times, I think that's dumb.
I also want civilian control and review. Non-partisan too!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. You had to think about whether you were with us or against us, Megan? *grin*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, it's quite the police state we have here. I heard this guy made this movie about the President, full of clever edits to make him look stupid. And he timed it right before the election. I bet he never gets out of prison.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but my hyperbole limit's been reached.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
It is amazing to me that some of the same people who thought everyone in every level of government should have been in LA a week ahead of this tragedy think we're overblowing the terrorist threat.
The frustration you feel now that the government didn't move faster in Lousiana is nothing compared to the impatience I have with those who are drawing out the Iraq war unneccesarily by giving the so-called "insurgents" hope that their continued murders will somehow thwart our efforts to free the people of the Middle East to be able to resolve their conflicts through legitimate and moral methods.
You really want me to hold my two daughters, one of whom was born the week the towers fell, and just forget the lessons we learned that day?
In the same breath you lambaste the government for failing to prevent Katrina, you call for the government to "get over" 9/11? Stop worrying so much about terrorists?
A coordinated terrorist attack on several cities could leave us with a half a dozen New Orleans situations, only instead of wet suits, the rescuers would need radiation suits.
But hey, that will be okay. Because giving them a chance at democracy, a chance to have their voices heard without the power of death behind them, would really have been a bit of an imposition.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
No, go away doc, you're so much worse then Dag at representing Republicans.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Hm. You had to think about whether you were with us or against us, Megan? *grin*
Oh, I'm definitely with you. I just posted something that, upon consideration, definitely took the hyperbole too far. I was joking, of course, but others might not see it like that.
Gallows humor and all that. Jim does it all the time, and I'm finding it's catching.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Sorry for the sarcasm, but my hyperbole limit's been reached.
Can you stand just a little bit more?
You know, the Bush Administration caused the terrorist attack in New York and the Hurricane. The next one they are working on is a major earthquake on the San Andreas fault line. In August of 2001, they got together and decided that the three most likely things that could happen to the US would be a terrorist attack in New York, a major hurricane hitting New Orleans and an earthquake in California. In that order. The first two have already happened. Would you want to live in CA right now? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The next one they are working on is a major earthquake on the San Andreas fault line.
Please. You liberals and your wacky theories. Oregon is next on the list.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Darn it, I wanted to visit Portland some day.
Though the article did say it was unlikely to affect any major population centers...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:
You really want me to hold my two daughters, one of whom was born the week the towers fell, and just forget the lessons we learned that day?
What lesson was that, exactly?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
[I don't think I can make this post polite.]
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:What lesson was that, exactly?
Tom, obviously everybody sees 9/11 through the kaleidoscope they already hold in front of their faces to distort the world, so we'll never agree on what the "real" lessons of 9/11 were, any more than we agree on the real "lessons" of Vietnam or the real "lessons" of Watergate.
But to me, the biggest lesson of 9/11 is this:
That while we, a nation deeply divided between two political parties, sit here arguing which of the parties will first destroy our nation through incompetence, there exist out there people whose real goal, real intention, is to do us harm.
We had the chance to come together. We had the chance to realize that, while we may have different beliefs about how to do it, each of our parties is extremely well intentioned--in fact, they all want the same thing. For everyone in America to be free to find as much joy in life as they can.
And while we sit here, firm in our belief that our greatest enemy is the guy who votes on a different preliminary ballot than we do, there are people out there who genuinely and sincerely want to do us harm.
And that matters. Because of another lesson we learned on September 11th.
Americans can die.
They die in great numbers, and through no fault of their own. We've never suffered civilian casualties like this in an international conflict. Maybe in Hawaii once, but I think we brushed that aside, because Hawaii is still "out there," one island attacked by another island.
We learned that we can't ignore what's happening on the world stage because the world stage isn't going to ignore us.
This isn't a partisan issue for me, so I'm not speaking for Republicans, jebus. Republicans are making mistakes. But they're not making the even bigger mistake I hear so many of the Democrats making, and that's to believe that ignoring the problem would somehow be the higher, nobler ground.
I wish that, rather than single-mindedly pursuing the anti-Bush, anti-War rhetoric they spout upon command, the leaders in the left were actually offering constructive, insightful advice about Iraq.
I agree that the rebuilding efforts there could be better handled. I would love to see the energy and devotion that the intellectual elite is putting into creating an anti-Bush spin on everything go instead into ideas for how to deal with the challenges we've confronted in Iraq.
To me, the war will not be won until the average Iraqi citizen begins to see the benefits of Democracy and realizes it is better than what they used to have.
The left has a tremendous amount to offer in helping to bring this about. The left deeply believes in doing right by the common man, and in Iraq there are a good number of common men who need to be done right by.
Because while we waste our hate on members of our own government, the terrorists are not so choosy. As the deaths on September 11th showed, they hate you and me as much as they hate George Bush or Bill Clinton, and are just as anxious to see us die.
So in large part, it is you and I who need to find in our hearts what we need to do differently because of 9/11.
It is not enough to call for "the government" to go out there and do "something," or to let our soldiers go off and die for us, for them.
There are people who suffer constantly under the threat of what transformed us, after having faced it for only a single day.
Just as important as our anxiousness to send in troops is our anxiousness to show our compassion, our concern. Right on the heels of our troops should be outpourings of donations, of supplies, of goodwill, that come not from the government, but from you and I, from the American people. Things that can be given to them not as trinkets from the US government to buy their affections, but genuine displays of love from the people of one country to the people of another.
And, perhaps more importantly, we need the teachers. The ones who can not only give them food to get them through the night, but the ones who can give them knowledge to get them through their lives. Again, not government cronies sent to recreate nations in our image, but volunteers, American people who have learned to think beyond themselves and their own mud fights in the sandbox.
Isn't that a noble mission? Isn't that a 9/11 cause worth rallying around? That's not a mob mentality. That's not "rising to the bait."
The troops are still necessary. As the unused boxes of school supplies found in the palaces of Saddam's two sons showed us, goodwill alone is often not enough.
But once we uplift and transform the people, give them hope and give them some of the joy it is our privilege to bask in daily, they'll reject the terrorists themselves. They'll reject the corrupt leadership themselves.
But we're so busy bogging ourselves down in partisan games, so quick to use our wit and our intelligence to spin our side or find holes in that side, so busy unmaking each other, that we never get around to seeing what we can make.
This was once a nation where every mother and father hoped their kid would grow up to be President. Now it's a nation where they hope their kid will grow up to take down the President. Yesterday it was Clinton. Today it's Bush. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.
Well, get on with it, then. Pack your mud balls nice and tight. Continue the schoolyard scuffles while there's a murderer on campus.
And above all, never, ever, raise your sights. Keep right on worrying about what America, in its anger, might do to the world, so you don't ever have to stop to think what America, in its nobility, might do for the world.
Because, after all, if we live and let live all will be fine.
We've never been given a reason to believe otherwise.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: To me, the war will not be won until the average Iraqi citizen begins to see the benefits of Democracy and realizes it is better than what they used to have.
Really? You think the War on Terror we've decided to fight will be won when Iraqis appreciate democracy?
quote: And above all, never, ever, raise your sights. Keep right on worrying about what America, in its anger, might do to the world, so you don't ever have to stop to think what America, in its nobility, might do for the world.
I think it's safe to say that this is a straw man. You're arguing against a position that doesn't exist on this thread.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't know anyone who has forgotten 9/11.
Everyone, even Tom and Bob, you lovely dissidents, remembers it in different ways.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I don't know anybody who has forgotten.
Other than the continued encroachments on our personal liberties here in the US, it seems to be business as usual. Politics as usual, too.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: When people, including country music singers, say people have forgotten, what they really mean is quite clearly that if you don't support the war in Iraq, you support the terrorists instead. Come on, now, have the balls to spew that crap openly, instead of thinly implying it.
Um... (a) While I don't have balls, I can't possibly believe that there's anyone here who has read my posts and thinks that I would hint at something rather than say it straight out. And (b) You obviously have no idea why I think the lesson has been forgotten.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: That was a fairly well-written vignette. A few things didn't ring true. Mostly some issues of timing that don't jive with my memory of the day. And this line:
quote:Knots of people stand outside, blaming Saddam, testing out possible bright sides.
Well, heck, I wasn't where she was, so I guess I can't dispute it. But I don't know anyone who wondered if it was Saddam. That thought certainly didn't occur to me. Did you think it was Saddam?
Yeah, and most people did at the time, too. I remember reading this essay when it first appeared, and it was like a couple of days after the attack. A week at most.
Bush I attacked the rabid dog and failed to put him down. Now Bush II was president and a terrorist attack was committed against the US. Hmm... that's a toughy.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Bob, I don't agree with your number one and number two. We have never had a national identification, and I think that's a good thing. I also believed LONG before 9/11 that it was a good thing government agencies couldn't pool all their information. Keeping that information separate was a good check to the government's power to oppress the people, and I regret the loss of that check.
I completely agree.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Here's the thing. I have a good reason for being anti-Bush. It's not because I enjoy taking down presidents or because I am anti-American and don't remember 9/11 It's because the man is truly, truly incompetent. Everything he has done from the moment he entered office has been posturing, it has been taking a useless product and surrounding it with false aadvertising. I watch him take little pauses, or try to look mature and powerful. It's all a show. It is completely fake. Even after 9/11, I failed to see how he was a strong leader. Promising war and revenge after such a terrible time does not equal strength. But most of the population bought it and agreed with the steps taken in Iraq which not only had nothing to do with 9/11 but has plunged the country into even more chaos! I see a man that lacks compassion and empathy. I see someone who cannot see the finer details or the larger picture. All I see is lies and deception weakening this countyr, making us lose every bit of honour it had... Yesterday I was at the emergency room and they kept showing CNN. I could not help thinking that finally the rest of the country was discovering something I was already aware of. That this president is useless, vancant and vapid and the ones that will suffer for it are the ones on the very botton.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: As for sharing info, I want some checks and balances in there. An ideal system would provide a pointer showing that another agency HAS information on a particular person and then the law enforcment entity doing the inquiry can follow up with that agency. So, if the State Patrol in NY has stopped Mohammed Atta and there's a pointer that says the FBI HAS information on him, the trooper can make an inquiry with the FBI. Or the fact that the guy was stopped in NY can be "known" to others.
It doesn't have to be extremely intrusive and I'm a HUGE fan of privacy. What I hate is waste, though. And when we taxpayers have paid for the same information to be gathered 6 different times, I think that's dumb.
So you want all local, state, and federal databases with either links or alerts to each other, but it can't be intrusive or invade anyone's privacy.... You are asking for the impossible. How can you have information sharing without sharing information? I will guarentee you that if this was attempted, people would start screaming Police State! or well, more than they already do
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:Really? You think the War on Terror we've decided to fight will be won when Iraqis appreciate democracy?
The most amazing part about the fact that you asked this question is that you did it in the same post where you say I set up a straw man.
It isn't an arguement. It's an A.L.S. Arguement-Like substance.
If all we're going to play is semantic games about which war or part of the war I'm talking about or what the definition of "is" is, count me out. I can't take it. I put too much of my heart and soul into these posts. The post I made above was 1,000 words that could have been added on to my latest fiction story.
But once again, I let myself get suckered into checking out hatrack, and I got so worked up I wasted that time emotionally draining myself for a post that will fall off the edge of the forum in a couple of months.
quote:I think it's safe to say that this is a straw man. You're arguing against a position that doesn't exist on this thread.
Tom, you didn't ask me to post an arguement against something in this thread. You asked me to post what 9/11 meant. Specifically, what it meant to me.
Of course, if there's a context to my post, it's not just "this thread," and there's no reason it should be. At the minimum, I'd consider the context to be all the forum threads going on right now. And if there wasn't a larger world for this thread to be talking about, there wouldn't be anything for this thread to say.
But again, I'm getting drawn into pointless semantic games.
My post was not meant to be an argument against anything so much as it was meant to be an arguement for something. Something I deeply and passionately believe. A vision I'd like to create in hearts and minds.
It's not against anything because it's in the middle of all the arguements.
A middle ground that does not seek to forget 9/11, out of fear and worry for where its memory will take us, but that also does not react blindly and without careful forethought. A reaction not in heated ignorance, but in cool rationality. A reaction that is as deeply rooted in sympathy as it is in sorrow. But above all, it is a reaction bound together by unity.
And this seems to be one of the greatest challenges. Because all cries for unity are redefined as calls for conformity. They're mistrusted. They're dismissed.
I'm trying to create a vision here that's so inspiring, sounds so right, that it can overcome that fear the parties have of each other, help us stand side by side again, and maybe even be a bit of glue to bind us together as one.
But here I fall into the trap again. Posting something I care about so deeply that my heart beats faster as I type, that it's like I'm channeling hot lava out of my body through my fingertips, all so that jebus can think of another hilarious zinger, or somebody can split the hairs of the beast I've birthed.
And of course, I betray my conceit, in thinking I can change hearts and minds. Because ultimately the problem isn't that the right ideas can't be found--they can. The problem is that as a nation, we've created an environment where the worth of an idea is based, not on inherent value, but on who has created it. And since you all don't know me from Adam, it's a little bit audacious for me to be so bold.
I don't mean that sarcastically. I really am letting myself get way too worked up over this, and I should probably learn my lesson here.
Again.
That love/hate post about Amazon could have been about Hatrack.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If all we're going to play is semantic games about which war or part of the war I'm talking about or what the definition of "is" is, count me out.
I would argue that figuring out which war we're talking about is hardly a semantic game.
Which war ARE we talking about? Which war, specifically, will be over when -- and if -- the Iraqi people learn to appreciate American-style democracy? Is it the SAME war that was presumably started by 9/11, the one that taught you the apparently surprising lesson that some people are willing to kill Americans? If not, when will THAT war be over? And when -- presumably at some time when we weren't looking -- did the war that Iraqi democracy will supposedly end actually start?
quote: I'm trying to create a vision here that's so inspiring, sounds so right, that it can overcome that fear the parties have of each other, help us stand side by side again, and maybe even be a bit of glue to bind us together as one.
This sounds beautiful. But tragedy is a poor tool for unity; using tragedy as an inspiration for that unity is more likely to lead to cynicism and corruption, as we've seen over the last few years. It's a nice myth, the belief that people pull together when they need to survive -- but it's not always true. People often devolve down to small individual little units when it comes to survival. And in situations like the "War on Terror," where most of the country doesn't even necessarily feel all that threatened, the best that can come out of it is some poorly-considered decisions propped up by maudlin rhetoric.
There are lots of good reasons to find an inspiring vision to motivate the whole country; I wholeheartedly support such an effort. 9/11 doesn't fill the bill, and shouldn't be crammed into that role.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just for the record, I'm with Tom and Bob...and Megan.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm with them too.
9/11 is not forgotten. Not even up here. Nobody wants to forget it.
But nobody wants it to haunt us either, like a broken arm that we once got and, when it suits us it begins to ache so we can rub it pitiously.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Holy crap! I totally forgot about this. It's been, like, 8 hours since I last heard someone reference it. And I was asleep the last 8 hours.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*smack*
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: And in situations like the "War on Terror," where most of the country doesn't even necessarily feel all that threatened, the best that can come out of it is some poorly-considered decisions propped up by maudlin rhetoric.
I could keep going, but I think this pretty much shows that most of the country does feel threatened by a future terrorist attack
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I, for example, feel that a terrorist attack is likely, yet do not feel threatened by same. I am a suburban woman for those of you keeping track of the demographics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And yet how many people do you know who have actually purchased duct tape and plastic? Or wake up every morning and check to make sure the country is still here?
I'm pretty sure we'll go to war with China in the next twenty years, too, but that doesn't mean that I cringe every time I walk past a Chinese student in our computer lab.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm not looking forward to a war with China.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
You know, any time someone says, "Most of the country feels this way," I start to twitch.
And I do mean anyone.
*twitch*
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
You're not alone, Megan.
Most of the country feels that way.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Gah!
*twitch*
Edit: Oh, of course it would have to be the first post on the second page, so that now I look like a twitching fool. See previous page for the source of the twitching.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
quote: Other than the continued encroachments on our personal liberties here in the US, it seems to be business as usual. Politics as usual, too.
We're in agreement about the encroachment on personal liberties. Since mort of the encroachers use 9/11 as their justification, I suspect this is why Tom would rather we did forget.
quote: You obviously have no idea why I think the lesson has been forgotten.
You are correct. I don't knew why you think this. I'm also not sure what you think we ought to be doing differently, though I get the sense that it has to do with increased popular support for war in the middle east. Feel free to elaborate.
(The idea that I find offensive, which perhaps was not implied by you but only inferred by me, is that those who do not support the war are either disloyal, stupid, or actually have a faulty memory. FWIW, the tendency to ascribe malicious motives--or stupidity--to those who see things differently from you is something I consider to be a trait of yours. Feel free to prove me wrong. )
quote: Yeah, and most people did at the time, too.
So you say. I disagree. *shrug*
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Synesthesia - "Here's the thing. I have a good reason for being anti-Bush. It's not because I enjoy taking down presidents or because I am anti-American and don't remember 9/11 It's because the man is truly, truly incompetent. Everything he has done from the moment he entered office has been posturing, it has been taking a useless product and surrounding it with false aadvertising. I watch him take little pauses, or try to look mature and powerful. It's all a show. It is completely fake. Even after 9/11, I failed to see how he was a strong leader. Promising war and revenge after such a terrible time does not equal strength. But most of the population bought it and agreed with the steps taken in Iraq which not only had nothing to do with 9/11 but has plunged the country into even more chaos! I see a man that lacks compassion and empathy. I see someone who cannot see the finer details or the larger picture. All I see is lies and deception weakening this country, making us lose every bit of honour it had... Yesterday I was at the emergency room and they kept showing CNN. I could not help thinking that finally the rest of the country was discovering something I was already aware of. That this president is useless, vancant and vapid and the ones that will suffer for it are the ones on the very bottom."
*psssst* *cheers softly* so as not to incur the wrath of anyone who is a better debater than her-which is just about everyone).
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Here's the thing. I have a good reason for being anti-Bush. It's not because I enjoy taking down presidents or because I am anti-American and don't remember 9/11 It's because the man is truly, truly incompetent. Everything he has done from the moment he entered office has been posturing, it has been taking a useless product and surrounding it with false aadvertising. I watch him take little pauses, or try to look mature and powerful. It's all a show. It is completely fake. Even after 9/11, I failed to see how he was a strong leader. Promising war and revenge after such a terrible time does not equal strength. But most of the population bought it and agreed with the steps taken in Iraq which not only had nothing to do with 9/11 but has plunged the country into even more chaos! I see a man that lacks compassion and empathy. I see someone who cannot see the finer details or the larger picture. All I see is lies and deception weakening this country, making us lose every bit of honour it had... Yesterday I was at the emergency room and they kept showing CNN. I could not help thinking that finally the rest of the country was discovering something I was already aware of. That this president is useless, vancant and vapid and the ones that will suffer for it are the ones on the very bottom.
It's funny. This is exactly how I felt about Clinton. Then I realized I didn't just hate his ideas, I hated him. Then it turned into an unhealthy obsession that had me blaming him for every failure, every disaster, natural or not, and every misery of my life.
Then I realized that the President of the United States is 1. Human and imperfect. 2. Not God. 3. A politician who cannot please everyone.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't say I liked Clinton that much, but, Bush has gone beyond Clinton in more ways than one. It's one thing to be human and imperfect, another to be pretending to be such a good leader for this country and not delivering. I'm fair. I'm objective. I try to look at everything from every angle, but Bush has gone too far.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, but don't forget, Clinton was President through Rwanda and later seemed amazed that it happened. He failed us morally and ethically with that.
Sure, it wasn't American lives on the line, but 800,000 people are dead and we were no where to be found. And we should have been. There is that pesky legal obligation and all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's difficult to defend Clinton for not acting to prevent the slaughter in Rwanda; I regard it as one of the most tragic decisions of his presidency. It's also easy to understand why he didn't; because of poor PR in Somalia, the mood was against U.S. intervention overseas -- and moreover, he was continually beset by claims that those times he did intervene were motivated by a desire to deflect attention from domestic scandals. Remember, Bush II campaigned specifically on a foreign policy that centered on not intervening in other countries' disputes; it was actually a point he drove home repeatedly, and with some success: that he was not going to make the Clintonian mistake of stretching our military too thin by sending them everywhere every time a country needed help.
I don't think it would have been politically feasible for Clinton, given his situation at home, to explain to Americans why we were going into Rwanda so shortly after the mission in Somalia went belly-up; lacking the sort of obvious villain sthat Bush had in Al Qaeda and Hussein, I don't think we could have been persuaded in the time it would have taken.
But, yeah, this is a convenient rationalization. To Clinton's credit, I believe he recognizes this; I believe he understands that to some extent he failed to prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of non-Americans because he was afraid of the political fallout. A few years back, he returned to Rwanda and apologized; having read the speech, it sounds sincere to me. Now, I'm not saying that an apology makes up for anything of this magnitude -- but that in and of itself is more than we've ever had from the Bush team on any of their mistakes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You may well be right, Tom. The Bush Admin. has been horribly inept at admitting error to say nothing of apologizing.
But as for Clinton...apologies are easy once you're out of office.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'll be curious to see whether GWB admits any error or apologizes once he's out of office.
Honestly, one of the things I find so utterly disturbing about him is that he cannot admit that his administration made a mistake, not even a little tiny bit. He (and perhaps his supporting staff/leadership?) are so obsessed with seeming STRONG and UNWAVERING that when they screw up, it becomes impossible for them to say, "Hey, you know what, this didn't go so well. We messed up a bit." If they did that, even once or twice--actually own a mistake--I would feel far less uneasy about them.
I mean, I'd still be uneasy (see Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, the invasion of Iraq, and this thread), but I'd feel less like they were going to let the country implode because they can't correct any mistakes for fear of appearing WEAK and FLIP-FLOPPING.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Constant jaw being set posturing is all you can expect from these people, not real strength and power. Real power would be admitting where mistakes had been made and doing something about it. Just not in the minds of some people. But, they have already flip-flopped in a lot of ways, folks just don't notice.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
To be fair, I wouldn't admit mistakes either if I knew that any such admission would become an out-of-context soundbite.
I've never criticized Bush for not admitting mistakes. I think any sitting president would be insane to, in the media atmosphere we've fostered.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I guess I agree in some respects about the media taking some of the blame for public leaders being unable to admit their mistakes. I don't think we can place ALL the blame there, though. So much of the country, especially during the last election, ate up the image of the strong, unwavering Bush and the weak, flip-flopping Kerry. They weren't told to think that by the media; they thought that on their own. It seems to me that along with the growth of the "moral majority," the neo-con movement, the "taking back of America," the drive for "traditional American family values," came a movement to be seen as strong and implacable, as unwavering, and to see any change in position, any compromise, as weakness (what's the phrase..."Guns, Guts, and God"?). This is fine...except when it prevents you from being reasonable, which seems to be the case quite often in our current president.
I think that the idea that admitting a mistake is a weakness is a destructive one, for which blame cannot entirely rest on the media. Some of it, at least, resides on the shoulders of the culture as a whole (which is NOT solely dictated by the evil liberal newsmedia cabal, regardless of what Republican pundits would have us think). Our leaders get referred to as cowboys and bullies by other countries; that isn't for no reason. I don't find this trait disturbing only in Bush; the whole idea bothers me. Might does not make right, but that seems to be the way the prevailing winds of politics are blowing in this country.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It takes a great person to admit his mistakes even if he knows its going to be all over the media. If that person is great enough he or she can admit it gracefully so it can't be used against them.
Bush can't be elected again, so he should be going all out for the best he can do in the situation. He's got nothing to lose by admitting mistakes, by speaking forcefully and by saying what he means.
EDIT: If he's afraid of the media in his situation, then he's not demonstrating very good leadership skills.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Megan, I'm not placing all of the blame on the media. Actually, I think the Kerry campaign would have made commercials constantly quoting "I was wrong" soundbite that Bush allowed to exist. (Just like the Bush campaign made lots of use of clips of Kerry apparently contradiucting himself and apparently flip-flopping.)
And Teshi, I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying why I believe Bush won't admit mistakes. Kerry basically admitted voting for the war was a mistake, and look where it got him.
I think we have evolved a system that rewards the most bankrupt people--morally, ethically, and leadership-wise.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:I think we have evolved a system that rewards the most bankrupt people--morally, ethically, and leadership-wise.
Truer words were never spoken.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Umm... it's rather late to be saying this. But, docmajik, if you are still reading this thread, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your post awhile back. I have disagreed with pretty much everything I've ever read from you, and our ideologies couldnt really be more diametrically opposed if we were from different planets. But when I read your long post twords the end of the last page, it made me think. Not so much about your points, most of which I still disagree with, but about you, and why you hold your opinions. It made me step back a little bit and realize that just because I think you are misguided (not to be patronizing, as I'm sure you'd think I were misguided too if I were as open about my ideas), doesnt mean that you dont have very good reason for what you believe. I dont know. I just wanted to let you know that your passion isn't wasted. People on different sides of the issue often seem to have very similar reasons for feeling the way that they do. Realizing that makes it harder to demonize those who disagree with you, and makes you look harder at your own blindness. Thanks for the reminder.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)