Friday, August 18, 2006

Carter would do well... remember what happened that day. The ACLU should take a quick reminder as well.

One thing that strikes me is the absolute bravery of the firefighters that responded. Those guys are heroes, and we should honor their memory for generations to come.

Within minutes of the first plane hitting at 8:46 a.m., firefighters — some off-duty, some even retired — began calling dispatchers to volunteer their help. Lt. Timothy Higgins, in a typical response, called at 8:52 a.m.

"We're available for the trade center," he volunteered.

"OK, thanks," replied the dispatcher. Higgins, with five other members of his squad, made the trip to Manhattan. All six died.

In the Bronx, Lt. Michael Healey called a dispatcher just before the second plane hit to ask for an assignment in lower Manhattan.

"I was just seeing if he could maybe possibly get us over there, so, just keep us in mind, over into Manhattan," he said.

"OK," the dispatcher said. They responded, with Healey and five other squad members killed.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13


Matt said...

We ALL remember that day with crystal clear memory. The question is, did we overreact in certain areas of our government in response to it. 95% of all the imports that come into the US are not checked, nor are they put through any kind of radioactive detection. So no, we haven't overreacted that way. We did grant our president way too many powers in my opinion and our foreign policy might as well be conducted by a crazy, gun toting cowboy from texas.... oh yea, it already is. Conservatives invoking 9/11 to justify their policies makes me SICK. As if democrats do not remember that day. We were just as mad as you were.

Bush mentioning 9/11 every single day and reminding us to "never forget" is his way of saying, 'vote republican or terrorists are going to come and KILL YOU'. Don't you see that this is no better than what the "sheehanites" and "murthas" are doing? Except the prez is using the deaths of 3,000 americans to justify his actions... instead of just one like cindy. How is he any better for doing this?

If I hear Bush say "we should never forget the lessons that we learned on that day, september the 11th" in response to a totally unrelated question about Iraq one more time I think I'm gonna shoot myself. This double standard is sickening.

k2aggie07 said...

Bush isn't exploiting deaths for personal gain. If that were the case he'd fly by opinion polls.

And what's wrong with him saying "vote republican or terrorists are going to come kill you"? What makes you think that isn't the case? The only change I'd make to that statement is "vote for people who will be strong on terrorism or terrorists are going to come and kill you". I think the British are figuring that out now, as did the Spanish.

I'd vote for Lieberman over Lamont just for that.

k2aggie07 said...

Furthermore, the reason to remind Carter of that wasn't for us to go to Iraq; it was so he would remember what Fundamentalism looks like.

I'll give you a hint - it ain't singin' hymns on Sunday. And it sounds a lot like "ALLAHUACKBAR --BOOM--".

Matt said...

Quit propagating the notion that democrats are "weak" on terrorism. They have a different plan to combat it and national security is just as high on their list of priorities. The main difference here is that national security is the ONLY issue that democrats are concerned with. Republicans keep reminding us of terrorism because they really have nothing else to talk about. This congress has f*cked up big time, so has this administration on several different issues, and they know it. This is all playing politics... and these people will SAY ANYTHING to get back in office. If getting re-elected means that they have to say "democrats are going to let terrorists kill you", they'll do it without giving it a second thought. Don't you see that a debate can't get any lower... that's rock bottom. Telling someone they will die unless they vote for you. Sick and pathetic.

What makes you think that IS the case? No democrat has ever said that we should just STOP combating terrorism... they have a different idea of how to fight it.

k2aggie07 said...

Enumerate, please. The only calls for action I've heard out of the Democratic party have been to

1.) Withdraw immediately from Iraq
2.) Stop interrogations ("torture") of Gitmo prisoners -- even to release Gitmo detainees
3.) End the NSA wiretap program
4.) End the bank account tracing program
5.) Not build a border wall (synonymous with not secure the borders).

Now I'm not saying the Republican party is the greatest. They've porked it up the past few years, and I don't agree with Bush on immigration. I'm not beholden to any political party. But I do believe that the Dems have no plan whatsoever to combat terrorism, and have been opposing said combat tooth and nail in order to make Bush look like a fool.

So, please -- enlighten me. What is this great alternative plan the left side of aisle wants to try?

Matt said...

Here's the plan:

To protect the American people, we will immediately implement the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission and finally protect our ports and airports, our borders, mass transit systems, our chemical and nuclear power plants, and our food and water supplies from terrorist attack…

Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or “dirty bombs…”

Screen 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America’s nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.

Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure — such as ports, airports and mass transit — to foreign interests that put America at risk.

Provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment, and cutting edge technology they need.

Protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the Avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers.

---Yes, if anything looks stupid today, it’s the idea that we should be focusing on a variety of techniques to stop terrorism rather than randomly invading countries with virtually no connection to anti-American terrorism!

The Bush Doctrine has made us far less safe and terribly weakened politically throughout the world. Homeland Security appropriations were increased in Kansas and reduced in NY City and Bush is cutting real security dollars to pay for his needless war in Iraq.

The argument that we haven’t been hit again in 5 years is bullshit, too! We’ve lost 2,601 and another 20,000+ seriously wounded during the last 5 years! Those deaths and injuries in Iraq were unnecessary.

We’ll be safer after the first Tuesday in November when there’s real Congressional oversight over this foolish ‘doctrine’.
The Democrats’ plan calls for ‘finishing the job’ in Afghanistan. Aileron, do you think diverting so much needlessly to Iraq helped us ‘finish the job’ against those who actually were responsible for 9/11?

Matt said...

You've got it all wrong about the dems. They want to operate within the confines of the law... a system of law that has been perfected throughout our history, and which should not be ignored today. If we ignore the values and principles that we have abided by for so long, the terrorists have already won. They don't want to toss out these programs, they just want to MAKE THEM LEGAL according to the constitution. Democrats and Republicans are all split on immigration, its not a left or right issue, and neither are the borders.

Matt said...

I don't know who aileron is but i copied that comment from the liberal avenger blog.

k2aggie07 said...

All this is like a wishlist. This is not a plan, this is what the Marines call an "end state".

An end state is this: I will be a millionaire by 2020. Or, We will win the war on terror.

A plan is a step-by-step way to achieve an end state. All you're putting here are a bunch of goals, with no real plan to get there.

You say eliminate OBL, destroy AQ, fight Afghanistan, etc. What do you think we're doing? We've been hunting OBL (don't you think we've got spec ops guys on that? And you think they'll be more successful under a dem president than a republican? You've never met a spec ops guy; they don't care who is in office -- they care about their mission) we're fighting in Afghanistan, we've killed Zarqawi, who was the leader of AQ in Iraq.

So...what you're basically saying is continue the Bush doctrine. If you're so against war, how can you be cozy with the idea of a unilateral invasion of Afghanistan but not of Iraq?

#2 on the wish list is like asking for a pony from the easter bunny. Spec forces aren't a "size" issue. You can't snap your fingers and make our intelligence capability grow; what do you think has been going on the past four years with the "shake ups" at the CIA / NSA? And as far as intelligence being free from political pressure, that will never happen - and thank God! We'd have a secret thought police over night!

#3 is just as la-la. You could make a great argument to invade Iraq on the first sentence, and we lead efforts to uphold human rights all the time. The only way to renew our "longstanding" alliance with, say, France, would be to hamstring ourselves by becoming beholden to the UNSC (and see how effective they are in Israel? 15,000 troops becomes 400! Like magic!).

Securing nuclear materials such as those in #4 would require violations of sovereignity of free states such as Russa, China, Pakistan, India, and soon enough Iran. You want to go to war?

Screening 100% of containers etc, sure, fine. I'm not sure of the impact that would have on our economy but if you think thats a viable plan to the stated goals, then thats fine. This is the first "plan" listed. The second half of #5 is more I-wish-therefore-it-should-be talk. How do you propose to safeguard plants and food and water supplies? Are you willing to limit personal freedoms to do so?

I assume #6 is referring to the Dubai ports deal. That whole thing made me sick to my stomach. Either a country is an ally or it isn't. The British controlled the port before the Dubai Ports Authority bought that company; what makes one ally different than another? Furthermore, a company has no interest in destroying its own assets. That whole scandal was nothing but political posturing.

#7, ok. Thats fine. What exactly is this "cutting edge" technology? What do they need? Seems to me cops need nice guns, nice handcuffs, nice cars -- they have all of these. I also don't see these as being related to the war on terror. Terrorists are not criminals, they are enemy combatants. We would do well to think of them as such.

#8 is all wrong. The public health infrastructure is by and large a private entity. The government needs to keep its hands off of things that don't belong to it. Again, this is trading personal freedom for supposed security. Wrong in its essence.


As far as the democratic party wanting to make things legal, that may be what you want, but they have consistently demonstrated that to not be the case.

If that were true, they would have abided by the literally DOZENS of rulings that clearly stated the NSA wiretapping deal was under the constitutional powers of the presidents. Clearly, the democrats don't want things to be legal, they want things to be done their way which is not the same thing.