What if I Told You on 9/11/01, that the US Would be Struck Again

[louis c]

by terrorists within three years.

As a result of that attack, 1,000 Americans would be killed, 6,000 would be seriously injured, and it would cost the United States over 200 billion dollars. And during this time we still have not caught the culprits of our first attack.

And what if I told you that after the attack, instead of sympathy from the rest of the world, including our most valued allies, such as Canada, Mexico, Spain, France, and Germany, we would become hated by the populations of nearly every country in the world.

If I told you that, would you consider our "War on Terror" a success?

That's what has happened by Bush's invasion of Iraq. The Terrorists have gained all the advantages of killing Americans, without the world wide condemnation.

To those who have said to you, "but there has been no attack here for three years", this is your reply.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Nominated

this is very well written and is so true.

[NMDemDist2]

2. kicked and nominated n/t

[Bluebear]

3. Brilliant. I nominated as well.

[Armstead]

4. Bush has done what Osama wanted

Bush has played into the hands of Al Quadeh. He has given Osama everything he wanted to accompolish with 9-11.

Bush has been a miserable failure in the War on Terrorism. I sure wish the Democrats would start making that case.

[louis c]

12. kick

[qanda]

5. Love it and please don't forget

The Anthrax attacks.

[vetwife]

7. Kicked and nominated

[yardwork]

6. Write this in a letter and send it to the editor of your daily paper

I nominated it for the front page here. Thank you!

[Jacobin]

8. Homemade sign on a street in the French Quarter I saw today

IRAQ WAR IS AN INSULT TO 9/11

[louis c]

19. kick

[antigop]

9. Great post!

Can you please provide a link to the $200 billion figure?

thx.

[louis c]

11. Those are just estimates

I believe that number might be 135 billion, but there is much more to factor in. Those that are injured must continue to receive disability for the rest of their lives, as well as rehab.

You can rest assured that the projected figure will be well above the 200 billion.

I'm surprised that so many of you are impressed with this post. I've been using this argument for months in my discussions, I thought everyone used it.

But thanks, I'm humbled by your approval.

One thing we should learn from Karl Rove, is to keep our responses to the general public short, simple, understandable, and emotional.

[unslinkychild1]

10. Damn, that's pretty much what I said

Except I phrased it as the start of WWIII. Guess what replies I got?

SO BE IT THEN! Accompanied by the usual slur of "unpatriotic bitch," "glass parking lot," "people with bindis shouldn't be allowed in the usofa," "we need more PRUSSIAN translators in this country (meant FARSI I think), yada yada stupid shit. After two weeks of this, I quit my job. I am still unemployed, and feel almost COMPLETELY alienated from my compatriots. Were it not for DU, I would probably be nuts. As it is, I rarely leave the house anymore.

[teryang]

13. Who's stuck on the flypaper?

The Iraq gambit was referred to as a flypaper strategy to fight terrorists over there rather than over here.

I hadn't heard anything so stupid or unsupportable since Vietnam.

[louis c]

14. kick

[Jacobin]

15. but but but, there's "light at the end of the tunnel" and

We can't afford to lose the war, and don't forget the domino effect, and you can tell by the body counts (have you noticed that they started those too?) that we are winning, and Iraqization is working and and and and...

It boggles my mind as someone who lived through Viet Nam to have this same stuff happen all over again.

[nickgutierrez]

22. I haven't heard quite that phrasing

It sounds like "If the terrorists are killing our soldiers, then they're too busy to attack the buildings where rich people live and work!"

That's sick. Unbelievably sick.

[LibeMatt]

40. Bait and recruitment

What a great military recruiting slogan:

"Join the Army, become terrorist bait!"

[Dhalgren]

16. Excellent point! Well phrased!

Kudos! This very thing has been circulating at the back of my head for months; I just couldn't bring it into words. Thank you! With your permission, I will print this and email this to as many people as I can.

[louis c]

18. Yes, please do

I just can't understand that this isn't used more often.

Another point I have been making that seems to resonate is this.

"How many Iraqis have been killed as a result of our invasion?" Let's say, for the sake of argument, say 20,000. "Of those 20,000, how many were terrorists?" To continue this argument, say that it is 1,000 (I know, this is a huge number). OK then, that leaves 19,000 dead Iraqis that never had any intention of doing us any harm outside of their country. "How many relatives, brothers, sisters, fathers, cousins, husbands, and wives now hate our guts and will seek revenge?". Bush has created tens of thousands of new terrorists that will haunt America for generations to come.

All the while alienating our natural allies, and creating more enemies world wide.

Ya, I feel a lot safer with this idiot in the White House for four more years.

[JohnnyFianna1]

34. Actually, we've killed about 35000 and of those, the best estimates say

around 23000 were terrorists. The problem is that the 12000 that weren't terrorists have brothers, sisters and parents that are still living, that are now terrorists or breeding terrorists. One of the reasons we can't afford to lose in Iraq is simply because of all the terrorists we've created. We'v destroyed the country's infrastructur and if we leave it destroyed there will be more problems in thefuture for John Kerry to deal with. It really is true that nobody wins when ush is president.

[Dhalgren]

37. There is no way that "23,000 terrorists" have been killed in Iraq!

There aren't even 2300 "terrorists" in all of Iraq! Unless you count the 150,000 or so US soldiers as terrorists. You see Saudi Arabian "terrorists" came to our country and killed 3,000 or so civilians for reasons of their own. We then went to Iraq and have so far kill 20 to 30 thousand civilians for reasons of our own. Now, the Saudis do it to us and they are "terrorists"; we do it to Iraq and we are ... what? - "liberationists"? I am not attacking you, but the idea that someone would say that we have killed "23,000 terrorists" in Iraq is simply laughable.

[BeHereNow]

17. I would say...

you are right.
BHN

[counselor007]

20. Response to 9/11

What would you have had us do in response? I don't agree with everything that has been done, but I do prefer that we keep the terrorists off American soil. As far as I can see, thats been accomplished as a result of the efforts of both the left and the right.

Rod

[Eloriel]

21. Probably wrong on all counts

There's no proof we've kept terrorists off American soil. They were here before, they've been here since, they're probably here now. In fact, they're more LIKELY to be here now since we (a) didn't go after Al Qaeda with everything we had (preferring instead to dilly-dally in Iraq) and (b) we've made them even madder and (c) we haven't done that much to protect ourselves, our borders and ports, etc.

Now, you can believe the Repug spin that goes "Well, we haven't had any more attacks since 9-11 (so Bush is keeping us safe)" if you want to, but then WHY are they simultaneously promising (and I DO mean promising) another attack on U.S. soil and quite possibly before the election? Hmmmmmm?

[Dangerman]

23. You got a good point.

[louis c]

24. Are you kidding me, or what?

Iraq is a disaster. We are creating terrorists there.

We should have hunted down bin Laden in Afghanistan, with the help of allies. Remember, we have France and others on our side in Afghanistan.

The decision on going in, nearly alone, to Iraq was tantamount to being hit again.

But, anyway, thanks for giving us Cheney's position on the war in Iraq. Once in awhile we need a good laugh here.

[NMDemDist2]

25. easy... we should have stayed in Afghanistan where the real

terrorists were

saddam had No connection to alQaeda
saddam had NO WMDs
saddam was NO threat to the US


we pulled special ops and troops out of afghanistan and now the taliban/al qaeda is back in power in many areas of the country

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-binladen12sep12,1,2073306.story?coll=la-headlines-world

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan — Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and his No. 2 are still directing attacks in Afghanistan, a top U.S. commander said Saturday, three years after the attacks that drew U.S. forces into the country.

Maj. Gen. Eric Olson said that the trail was cold in the hunt for the Al Qaeda leader — even though strikes such as the recent bombing of an American security firm in Kabul, the capital, bear hallmarks of the militant network.

The Aug. 29 attack killed seven people, including three Americans, in front of Dyncorp, the U.S. security firm that provides guards for Afghan leader Hamid Karzai.

[louis c]

26. Why are we wasting our time

Check out the number of posts and the name

Councelor007.

a spy moniker, how clever. and giving us Cheney's warmed over bullshit.

[maxsolomon]

31. put 100,000 troops on the pakistan border within 2 weeks of 9-11

seal OBL's escape route, then move thoroughly through afganistan, eliminating warlord, taliban & al queda alike, turn the government over to RAWA, ban the burkha, rebuild the infrastructure, educate, educate, educate, and keep the goddamn missionaries out.

total cost? half of iraq.

how's that, counselor 007?

[MsUnderstood]

38. What I would do in response

I would draft an anti-terrorist treaty and place economic sanctions on every country until they signed the treaty to help us fight the war on terror.

I would focus all of our military might on caputuring and killing the Terrorist threat responsible for 9/11 OSOMA BIN LADEN (not SADDAM).

I would pour money into homeland security and terrorist edcuation so all of our borders are protected and our military, FBI, CIA do not pursue tactics out of ignorance and hate but with information and empathy.

I would provide better funding to first responders because if an attack does happen, they are the ones who will have to respond to help those in need.

I would not, however, trick my country and world into believing a dictactor is responsible for an act of terror and move my military from the fight on terror to the fight against another country.

I would not, however, ask soldiers to die fighting in the name of American democracy and peace so my second in command could make millions off of stock profits from his former company.

I would not, however, let the assualt weapons ban fade into the sunset while our country is in a constant state of terror over what may happen next.

[cheezus]

27. yep, people forget that terrorists are constantly killing americans

[louis c]

28. It's getting so that

I'm afraid we can't educate enough Americans about the facts in order to convince them.

When 40% of Americans still think Saddam is responsible for some aspect of 9/11, what f**king chance do we have?

[patdem]

29. Nominated and a swift kick!

I have not read all the posts to follow, but I will. This a brilliant analysis of what bush* has done to make America LESS SAFE!

[louis c]

30. Aw, shucks

thanks so much.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. Brilliant perspective. . . . . nt

[WLKjr]

33. Thanks, bookmarked and nominated

[VOX]

35. Well done, louis c -- nominated, and with many thanks!

Excellent post -- :kick:

[camero]

36. My reply

Not yet but the more people you piss off, the more likely you are to be harmed by those who you have pissed off. Violence begets violence.

[LibeMatt]

39. NYC

My father, who lives in New York City, has asked me to ask/tell as many people as possible the following:

If the vast majority of people in New York, which has actually been hit with a major terrorist attack and which is still presumably one of the biggest terrorist targets, aren't going to vote for Bush, and don't trust him to keep them safe from terrorists, why should anyone else?