Sunday, September 10, 2006


The five-year anniversary of the atrocities committed on September 11, 2001 is upon us. As we each in our own way honor the memory of those murdered on that day, let us also ponder where we stand as a nation, relative to the Islamist threat.
Since that day, no terrorist attacks have been committed on American soil. Many credit President George Walker Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror; a number of terrorist plots have been nipped in the bud. Others say it is mere coincidence. Osama bin Laden himself has said that he simply has not ordered another attack yet, but many dismiss that as mere spin.
Today, after five years, we have some quisling politicians, mainly on the left, who would have us effectively surrender. They are very quick to point out American "malfeasance", whether at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib or elsewhere. Many are starkly silent about the atrocities committed by the terrorists themselves. This is the same mentality that led to the withdrawal of our troops from Somalia after the "Black Hawk Down" incident, rather than finish the job. That specific withdrawal emboldened bin Laden; he has admitted as much. It is the same mentality that, in an earlier era, said "better red than dead".
While such quisling politicians as Rush Holt, Frank Pallone and Bob Meanendez may call for a troop withdrawal from Iraq, make no mistake. They would subsequently withdraw troops from Afghanistan too. Our nation under such head-in-the-sand "leaders" would then fight the War on Terror here in our own backyards as a law enforcement issue. How many would die cannot be predicted.
I make no apology for the partisan bent of this post. This is a partisan blog. That some have chosen to deviate from the goal is the real partisanship in this issue. President Bush has said that this war will take a long time and be fought on many fronts. To withdraw now and say "uncle" would be a slap to the memory of those who lost their lives five years ago, and those killed in action. It must be fought to the end, until Islamofascist terrorism is no longer a threat to this world.
If not us, who?


Teddy Roosevelt said...

What gets me is our inability to learn from history.
The west tried negotiation with two fanatical ideologies 60 years ago Nazis and imperialist Japan. In fact Japan was very similiar to islam in that they were willing to commit suicide for the cause.
The only thing that ended that terror was all out war that completly defeated and utterly demoralized the enemy. They had to be completly broken before they could be rebuilt into the productive nations they are today
The only difference is this time the ideology is not limited to one nation. Make no mistake the dominant ideology in Islam today is Hate the west, Jews and Christianity. It is an ideology as odius as any that have preceded it and it must be crushed or it will crush us. The only way to defeat it is an all out ruthless war. Unfortunatly I do not think that the US still has the stomach for this type of War. Black hawk down is a perfect example. Tactically we had won that battle. Farid was on the ropes. instead of pressing the advantage we cut and run. This emboldened terrorists and if anyone has been watching, Somalia is now on the verge of becoming a Taliban style Islamic Republic. Even when our brave (and best in the world) Military is willing to make the needed sacrifices those back at home can not bear it. And forget about us making any sacrifice. We have become weak and selfish as a nation and are headed the way of Europe. I pray daily that we wake up before it is to late.

Michael Martin said...

I'm not sure that you are genuinely appreciative of the poor strategies and false justifications for the war in Iraq that were created by the Bush administration's poor management. By beginning to withdraw now from that country, we could begin to get a modicum of respect back from our allies, allies that we'll need to fight the real global war on terror; Iraq has been a distraction from the intra-and-international terrorist conflict and has drained our country of necessary resources to fight it. Though you are welcome to your opinion, I think it is wrong-headed.

Teddy Roosevelt said...

Mr. Martin.
False Justifications Created by Bush.
Oh where do I start.
Multiple countries thought Saddam had WMD.
Clinton, Kerry and Kennedy are all on record of having stated that based on the intelligence they saw they believed he had it. We know that at one time he had it because he used it against Kurds and Iranians. We are still not sure he did not have it. Let us assume everyone was mistaken and he did not have it. That nearly the entire universe believed he had it counters the argument that Bush created a false justification. Mistaken maybe , liar no way.
Second justification. terrorism. It is a fact that Saddam sponsored and gave haven to PLO and Hamas terrorists. In spite of the recent report I believe Saddam had contacts with Al Quada. But rather then argue that does anyone believe that if he felt an alliance was in his best interests he would not have done so.
Lets not forget that he was in violation of numerous UN resolutions and regularly fired on US aircraft. Let us also not forget that he was a brutally represive tyrant. Exactly how much freaking justification do you need.
The Mistakes that were made were not taking him out in the first Gulf War and the second time trying to be nice about it. Bush's mistake was not going in with 500 thousand troops and locking that country down. That and not being ruthless enough. Now we are trying to stuff the genie back in the Bottle.
Respect from our allies. Like I care what the French think.
I would rather have our Enemies fear us. If we pull out of Iraq without finishing the job the terrorists will be able to claim a victory.
As far as being a distraction on the war on Terrorism. i wonder what all the foriegn terrorists we have killed in Iraq would say about that. We have taken out some of there best and brightest over there. The battle has been focused on their doorstep rather then ours. They are on the defensive.
My argument is supported by historical comparision, actual facts and a realistic understanding of the culture and ideology of our enemies.
What is yours based on.

Lugar96 said...

What bothers me regarding the political back and forth about Iraq is the fact that if it were Clinton handling the war exactly as Bush is handling it, most Republicans would be ripping into him and most Democrats would blindly support him.

There are some issues that are supposed to be above partisan politics. As a Republican, I will say that the Bush Administration has done a horrible job regarding Iraq. It has seemingly never been prepared for anything other than the best case scenario at every turn. At most, Republicans will say "some mistakes were made." That's not good enough.

As Republicans we should be strong enough to admit when an elected Republican is doing a bad job. The party is full of quality people, capable of governing. We should work to elect them instead of those among us who are simply the most electable.

The Democrats are merely the party of weak alternatives. But they start to look better when our party stands behind inept leaders.