not the whole war.

It struck me, listening to the Dems go on today about President Bush's supposed 'politicization' of 9/11 in last evening's speech, that they should know what it means to use 9/11 in a political way.  People who spent the bulk of their adult political careers undermining our national defense stood on the Capital steps on 9/11/01, singing God Bless America, for a photo moment to use to campaign, or at least to use to try to defend themselves when called soft on defense.  People who no more would sing God Bless anything sang proudly, as though they would let anyone invoke the name of God in a public place. 

Then came the onslaught of 9/11 widows, those that some have called the 'Jersey Girl's.  Now, I'm not making light of their losses, but tell me, has there been an issue involving President Bush and any defense matter since 9/11 that the Jersey Girls are not dragged onto some talk show to state their opinions?  I guess it is ok for them to use 9/11 for someone's political purpose, but when the President speaks on the anniversary of 9/11, he is called names, chastised for being 'too political'.

The one thing that truly struck me, though, was that in making these criticisms of the President making 9/11 political, a 'wedge' someone said against our 'unity' (which unity is this, by the way?  The unity where the Senators threatened ABC?), the Dems and leftists in this country revealed their true lack of understanding of what 9/11 is and will continue to be.  It was the first seriously considered battle in the war on islamofascism, the battle that we lost, but that woke us up.  Like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 started a process that will end when we win, and not a second sooner. 

Dems don't get that though, anymore than they got any of the events starting with the takeover of our embassy in Tehran, thru Beirut, thru the African embassies, the Cole, London, Madrid.  They don't connect the dots.  They chastise the President for not connecting dots before 9/11, as though anything he did in response to vague threats to take over airplanes would have been accepted by any on the left.  Absent a letter stating date and time of attack, no one on the left would have accepted the restrictions now imposed in airports.  Heck, they rail against them now.  They don't want eavesdropping on bad people because it might mean some good people get caught in the net now and then.  Profiling before 9/11?  They won't go for it now, why would any suggestion by President Bush before 9/11 have been accepted.

Dems and leftists (other than the smart ones like Sen. Lieberman and some others) just don't see how all of these events add up to a war, just like Pearl Harbor was connected to D-day and everything in between, in a worldwide context.  They want each event evaluated on its own merit, and 9/11 seems to me to be almost of holiday proportions to them.  How soon before it is a national holiday, years from now '9/11 holiday sales' at Walmart just as commonplace as a 9/11 barbeque?

I heard someone, I think the dense Keith Olberman, saying something about how not having a memorial at Ground Zero means the terrorists have still won, as though (a) President Bush is delaying that memorial (he's not), and (b) Bin Laden is following the events among those haggling over the monument.  People like Olberman lose the point, lose the focus, politicize what was a speech by the only man in America, President Bush, who does 'get it'.  He understands that Americans and the world need to be reminded about 9/11 not just to remember those who died, but because it began the effort to stop islamofascism in a way that his predecessors failed to see and implement.  Yes, we are at war and will be for the foreseeable future.  Remember 9/11 as we remembered Pearl Harbor day BEFORE Germany, Japan and Italy surrendered...hopefully as the  beginning of the end of the evil.

Westsider.....Becky

So, Bill Clinton admits he did not even watch Path to 9/11.  He cries like a baby about the 'inaccuracies', but he didn't watch it to see if what people were telling him about the show were true?  President Bush is constantly accused of being stupid because he doesn't read everything first hand, relying as most presidents and ceo's do on executive summaries, but President Bush, last time I checked, didn't advocate having a major network pull a production off the air.  

And the Senators who threatened ABC's license didn't see it either, also relying on their assistants and others for their facts.  A bit like what they did with the pre-Iraq war intelligence, I bet.  Aren't they the same ones who claim they were misled?  I bet they never read the actual intelligence reports any more than they actually viewed Path to 9/11.  

Westsider  

Is this what the Dems want?  Sure seems like it. They are doing all they can, with the help of the MSM, to undermine not only the current handling of the war in Iraq and the war on terror, but to undermine the original bases for the war.   How, precisely, does it help our country to call President Bush a liar on these things?  Even when President Clinton was under attack for lying under oath in the Jones matter, that had a limited impact on what the world thought of President Clinton as a truthful international leader.  After all, most of the 'enlightened' world thought lying about sex was as natural as the sun rising in the east. 

These attacks on President Bush are much more pernicious.  They give our enemies support for their attacks (verbal and otherwise) our country, and its power in the world.  These attacks also do something far worse--they give our enemies justification for what they do to us and those who fight against radical Islamists.  If, as the Dems love to say, what we are doing in Iraq is actually increasing Islamic hatred for the US (and thus justifying, in that moral relativistic way,murdering Americans and anyone who works with Americans), then the self-fulfilling prophecy will occur.  How stupid can you get?  Did Republicans during WW2 say things that helped Hitler and Hirohito?  No.

Do I advocate a gag order against criticizing the Administration?  No, but how about some self-censorship?  How about having private discussions and negotiations instead of jabbering like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do, criticizing even the President's 9/11/06 speeches and activities?   Loose lips do sink ships, but the Dems seem not to care.  Spare us the Capitol steps singalong after another attack. 

Westsider

I graduated from law school 27 (yikes) years ago, but I do recall taking Con Law classes where we talked about prior restraint.  I won't go on about what Hugh Hewitt and others have far more ably posted about the threats made against ABC by some US Senators, as well as the more veiled threats from that old truth teller himself (LOL), Bill Clinton.

If you don't live in LA and don't get the LA Times, you might not have seen Tim Rutten's column in Saturday, September 9th's Times, or the review of Path to 9/11 in the Times' Calendar section  http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten9sep09,1,4386536.column?ctrack=1&cset=true

Truly, people who cannot deal with the scales of logic...weigh the 8 years of Clintonian nothingness vs. the 8 months of Bush administration before 9/11/01, no comparison, unless you think that Michael Moore's take in Farhenheit 911 was accurate.  Somehow, reading a book to kids and not running off the stage screaming in horror (as some apparently wanted President Bush to do) was bad, but doing nothing besides lying to the American people about his private life was ok.  What exactly, by the way, would President Bush's bolting from the stage at that school have done to change what happened on 9/11?  I never did understand any of that silliness, except for what it always was and is, Bush bashing. 

All those people gone, because of evil men, and good men who were narcissists like Clinton. 

Becky

As I stood in line at Starbucks this morning,  I heard a woman, Bluetooth in her ear, order a 'soy nonfat, no foam latte', and wondered to myself, are we Americans tough enough to fight, let alone win, a war on terror, terrorists, and Islamic fascists?  If we can't drink a simple cup of coffee with milk, how are we ever going to get along if a suitcase nuke blows up part of one of our harbors, or cities?

It hit me that, for most of us, there is no war.  There is no sacrifice.  Heck, I've met one active duty soldier in my entire life, and I'm almost 54 years old.  I'm not ordering soy lattes, hold the foam, but I do rely on my TIVO an awful lot.  If the temperature goes above 80 when we sleep, the kids whine about it being too hot, but to them, 'too hot' means they can't pull the covers up over their heads.  So we turn on the a/c and deplete our resources, and complain about the cost, but are we really suffering?  Our parents lived through depressions and a world war, and still live in many instances like they worry about their next meal, but our generation, and our kids' generation, seems immune from actual deprivation.  If there is no soy milk at Starbucks, what will that gal do?  Will she have a withdrawal attack?