Pre Iraq and Afghanistan wars: Relatively small number of America haters planned and conducted terrorist operations against American interests.  They had no reason to fear the meek, sporadic reprisals of the sleeping beast.

Post Iraq and Afghanistan wars: Larger number of America haters who wish death and destruction for us, but are hesitant to attack.  Terrorists have families too and they now know that their whole country is fair game if we’re attacked (Or in Iraq’s case, if we’re given the impression that the country is a threat).

Keith Olbermann, a smart man by most definitions, has become so blinded by hatred for George W. Bush that he isn’t able to formulate coherent thoughts anymore.  On September 11 Keith gave probably his most scathing rebuke of Bush yet.  He had the audacity to blame Bush for the hole that still exists at Ground Zero.  Not one bit of blame on the constantly bickering state and local officials there who are the actual guilty parties.  He went on to blame Bush for any and all acrimony that exists in today’s political climate as well as just about everything else you could think of.

Read it here, but I recommend watching the video (link on the right side of the page) to see his hatred.

As a teaser, here is how he ends his rant:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

This op-ed from today’s Huntsville Times is more than a little amusing:

Idiot president

It has taken our great Garrison Keillor, in his Sept. 7 column, “Our fortress looks shaky,” to put the proper nom de scum bucket to President Bush-Messiah. He referred to Bush as our “shallow jingoistic fool with his small rigid agenda and little knowledge of the world.”

How on-the-spot apt!

But be of good cheer, the end is near - November. What confounds me is that the election may well be close, whereas the Republicans should be losing 40-50 House seats. There is simply something deeply wrong with Americans that no one has put a finger on, not Alexis de Tocqueville, Dr. Alfred Kinsey, not anyone.

Most Americans do not think for themselves. You ask anyone why they are Baptist, Catholic, Republican or Democrat and the real answer is: “Because my daddy or mama was.” As a race, we are hopeless. Only our Einsteins have any sense at all, can think for themselves. And Einsteins only happen once every 300 years.

Given that, when we elect an idiot president, we are asking for the absurd destiny we have gotten from Bush. How to fix it? Add a requirement to the Constitution: All presidential candidates must have an IQ of at least 140.

At least then we wouldn’t get such meaningless, absurd, immeasurable questions as “Are you not safer than you were four years ago?” Most Americans, considering where most of us live, were never in any danger whatever from the “fascist” terrorists in the first place.

Floyd E. Batchelder,

Scottsboro, 35769

Apparently Mr. Batchelder is one of the “most Americans” who doesn’t think for himself.  He did after all have to use a quote from someone else to describe George Bush.

He calls Bush an idiot president and advocates an IQ requirement, which may not be a bad idea because it will at least insure that Mr. Batchelder never becomes president.  For the record, though, Bush and both of his major presidential opponents have all had very similar academic records.  I’ve seen more thorough comparisons of his and Kerry’s record and Bush’s is actually better.

Mr. Batchelder’s perspective of the war on terror is indicative of the angry left’s and it reminds us why it is important to keep them out of power.  He thinks that (in his opinion) most Americans are not in danger of death at the hands of Islamic terrorists.  Following his logic I suppose that means that we shouldn’t take active measures to prevent another 9/11.  For people like him it is OK to see two giant buildings with over 2,000 people collapse.  For him it is just fine for a plane to crash into our military’s headquarters.  He also thinks it is acceptable to see a plane with 40 Americans crashed into a vacant field.  As long as you’re not in immediate danger, Mr. Batchelder, we should just serve up other parts of the country to the terrorists.

I should be in bed by now, but I’m in the process of watching this unseen before today home video of the 9/11 attacks.  Judging by the slow download rate, I’m guessing I’m not the only one watching it.  I’ll take advantage of the down time to recount where I was on that day.

I was in college at Auburn and I had skipped my morning class (if you read that dad - it was a rare event) and had taken my dog to the park.  On my way back home I was about a half mile from my house when the radio DJ came on after a song and very gravely announced that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.  The announcer’s name was Steve Ocean, I believe, and he was a huge goofball.  The man was never serious.  But I could tell by the tone of his voice that this was a deadly serious event.

I raced home, woke up my roommate and we sat on the couch together - eyes glued to the screen.  We saw the second plane hit.  People running.  Smoke, dust, and debris everywhere.  People injured and dying.  I had never seen such raw footage.  It was very surreal.

After the second plane hit all thoughts that this was a horrible accident evaporated.  We were under attack.  Reports trickled in about a bomb exploding in the Pentagon.  When would the escalation of the attack end?

The true magnitude of the situation didn’t catch up to me until the first tower fell.  The speed of the collapse was truly startling from two perspectives.  One, it is humbling to think about how quickly life - even many lives - can be extinguished.  But it was also amazing to see a structure that took months to build collapse into a heap in a few brief seconds.  The most thoughtful words I could utter were, “Oh my God.”  It was one of the few times in my life that I was utterly speechless.  Nothing seemed appropriate.  Despite routinely solving very complex problems in my studies as an engineer I had trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of all the people who must have been in that building.  How quickly the floor must have fallen from beneath their feet.  Did they even have a split second to know that the building was collapsing or was their deaths instantaneous?  Now looking back, I can’t help but wonder if they had one last thought about their spouses and children.  How many people were watching the same footage I was, praying for their loved ones to make it home - only to see their hopes crushed as the building fell to the ground?

The smoke reminded me of a volcano - racing towards people, enveloping them.  Chaos.

The remainder of the day - the second tower falling, the crash in PA, details of the Pentagon attack are a blur.  It was really sensory overload.

I’m most of the way through the home video.  It’s more harrowing now that I know all the details of what is going on.  The people trapped on the upper floors, stairwells blocked.  The groups who choose to go up to the roof rather than down - and were never seen again.  I caught myself anticipating the second plane hitting the building.  I couldn’t make up my mind if I wanted to see it hit or have the camera aimed elsewhere.  It’s hard to watch the first responders running into the building knowing that the collapse is eminent.

The political firestorm around the ABC docudrama “The Path to 9/11″ has been interesting to watch.  Despite being an admitted dramatization of real events replete with artistic integrities it is being assailed for inaccuracies.  The Democrats, who rightfully are fearful of a portrayal as weak on terrorism leading into the mid term elections, have been quick to abandon their typical anti-censorship stance by making thinly veiled threats to reassess ABC’s operating license.  I thought only Republicans used such tactics.

All of the hype misses the main point.  Politically speaking, Clinton could not have aggressively pursued Osama Bin Laden even if he had the opportunities.  I have no doubt in my mind that if he launched a preemptive strike against OBL’s camp in Pakistan or Afghanistan the Republicans would have vilified him for attacking a sovereign nation without justification.  It doesn’t matter if they really feel that way.  The thing about preemption is that your opponents can use it against you better than you can use it to your advantage.  The Republicans would have portrayed OBL as some guy in a cave who was incapable of a sophisticated attack against the most powerful nation in the world.  Clinton could have only responded with a meek defense of, “Based on intelligence data, we thought he was a threat.”  Even now, the biggest impediment to capturing or killing OBL is that he is probably in Pakistan and we are respecting their sovereignty by not moving our troops in there to find him.  There is no way Clinton could have done that before 9/11.

Islamic jihadists have been staging attacks on infidels all over the world for a while.  There were a number during the Clinton years.  Of course there was also a big one during Reagan’s presidency - the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon by Hezbollah.  Last I checked Hezbollah is still running amuck, so obviously Reagan didn’t do what was necessary to eliminate that threat.

The pro-active response to eliminate threats against our country was only made possible by the spilling of innocent American blood on our soil.  Without that level of tragedy no President - be it Reagan, Clinton, Carter, or either Bush - can politically justify an appropriate and utterly disproportionate response.  Sad, but true.

The war in Afghanistan was necessary.  The war in Iraq seemed necessary, but obviously was not to the extent it was portrayed.  But from a high level strategic view one thing can not be denied.  The wars have shown Islamic extremists that we are more than willing to take the fight to them, even if the connection is tedious at best.  Suicide bombers have little regard for their own lives, but I would bet that they care about their friends and family.  The knowledge that we may well strike their nation and cause the death or suffering of their family in retaliation to an attack on us might give suicide bombers a moment of pause.

Back on topic, I doubt I’ll watch the 9/11 docudrama if it airs.  I just don’t watch docudramas and I typically don’t enjoy the fluff that the major networks put out.  Whether it is factual or not, it will be easy to portray the Clinton administration as unconcerned about terrorism because they didn’t have cause for concern yet.  Hindsight is 20-20, but we can’t judge historical figures based on current knowledge or beliefs.

It looks like the nut jobs are organizing something of a letter writing campaign.  Check out these letters to the editor of the HSV Times.

Responsible plan

Sept. 21 is International Peace Day. Religious and secular organizations and individuals around the world are joining to sign a Declaration of Peace 2006.

We believe the first step toward world peace is a ceasefire in Iraq, to end the U.S. military occupation and to bring our troops home now.

Latest polls show a large majority of the people of the United States now oppose the war and occupation in Iraq. Seventy-three percent of U.S. troops voiced a similar sentiment in another recent poll.

The war has caused at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths, the deaths of over 2,600 U.S. soldiers and the crippling of thousands of others and has consumed billions of dollars of our resources. This will not change until the American people declare peace.

The Bush administration frames the debate about the war as a choice between “finishing the job” and “cutting and running.” In fact, the choice is between:

Indefinite war and occupation, entailing greater death and destruction in Iraq.

A responsible, concrete, and rapid timetable for an end to the U.S. war in Iraq and for a peace process for reconstruction and reconciliation.

The Declaration of Peace is a campaign being organized in every part of this country calling for this responsible plan. It is calling on the Congress to establish by Sept. 21 a concrete and rapid timetable for an end to the war in Iraq.

To learn more, go to declarationofpeace.org.

Reese Danley-Kilgo,

Huntsville, 35802

A better name might be a Declaration of Death, because that is what “peace” will give us.  The Islamo fascists will simply take advantage of what they view as weakness and strike a deadly blow.  Good plan.  I like how she pointed to the slim majority of people who oppose the war in Iraq.  I guess whe would have asked for Washington to order his men to stand down because the Revolutionary war never had majority support in the Colonies.  She also failed to mention that the majority of Americans oppose her plan of rapid withdrawal.

Three options

Our troops are in harm’s way. The United States has but three choices:

Option one is to place 1.5 million troops in Iraq. Declare martial law. Confiscate all weapons. Establish an 8 a.m. curfew. Anyone out after curfew, anyone with a weapon looking suspicious or “glaring” at one of our troops: Shoot between the eyes.

That includes men, women, children, camels and goats. Dogs are OK but only if not wearing a backpack or armor.

Declare a Christian jihad and start concentration camps to incarcerate/eliminate all Muslims who refuse to convert.

Option two is to place strategically 25, 50-megaton nuclear warheads throughout Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Oman and any country ending in “stan.”

Israel will have to be sacrificed of course, but remember they started all this “stuff” in the first place. How dare they object to being bombed on a daily basis for the last 40 years.

The nuclear decay will last for 50 years (baring sandstorms and heavy rains), the entire area will be uninhabitable. Problem solved.

Option three is to get the hell out, and cut our losses before we suffer over 50,000 dead. Remember the “Vietnam rhetoric?” Everything is redundant.

Impeach Bush, apply pork grease (thanks Melvin), deposit him in Iraq, let him wander the desert for 40 years. This will satisfy the Muslim world (we desperately want that) and they won’t go near him. Oil prices will go down immediately.

Joseph M. Phillips,

Madison, 35758

That letter would be funny if I didn’t think he was more than a little serious about the third option.  Mr. Phillips wants to sacrifice our legitimately elected Commander-in-Chief in order to satisfy the Muslim world.  At least options one and two, while unrealistic, might actually work.

For our nation

After Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush was given the green light to do whatever he wanted, never mind the consequences. Well, this election may well be the consequences. Democrats are sure they will take the House, perhaps the Senate, but do they deserve it?

Bush has led us into a war on false premises, known or not, failed to get Osama bin Laden, and been in office as gas prices have hit record highs and the national debt sky rocketed.

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and all the Republicans, are claiming we are safer, since there have been no terrorist attacks since Sept. 11. Let’s forget Americans targeted in Bali, etc. Anyone remember being afraid of opening mail because of anthrax?

And how many freedoms has Bush given himself, while taking away ours? In many ways, bin Laden achieved his goals on 9/11.

We have fewer freedoms, our lives have been interrupted and we feel fear again. Sadly, the Bush administration has played on that.

Our forefathers, when making this great nation, saw to it that all but one of the first laws made were protecting the people from the government they themselves were making.

All I ask is that everyone who casts their vote, cast it for America - not for a person, not for a party, or even themselves. Let’s cast our ballots for our nation.

John P. Mason,

Owens Cross Roads, 35763

I’m so tired of people complaining about high gas prices and assuming the President has something to do with it.  He doesn’t and shouldn’t.  Mr. Mason conveniently did not point out that gas prices are falling rapidly.  Also, he didn’t mention which freedoms Bush gave to himself and which were taken from Mr. Mason.  If you read this John, please let me know.  I will say that his next to last sentence is spot on.

That’s funny, I was convinced that it was the radical Muslims who trained children to be suicide bombers and flew planes full of civilians into buildings who caused terror.  I’m glad she set me straight.

I mentioned this story a few days ago, but DHS Secretary Chertoff has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post pleading for us to allow the government to have extensive access to our travel plans.  I’ve got to say, after giving this plan some thought I don’t like it one bit.  Theoretically if the government had access to all of our personal data we would be safer.  I say “theoretically” because the government would find a way to both legitimately screw it up and use it for corrupt purposes.

We do not profile based on race or ethnicity, but we do assess potential threats through careful analysis of individual behavior.

While racial or ethnic profiling would be unsavory it would at least be somewhat effective - temporarily.  Government security measures are inherently reactive and the terrorists would just adapt to game the new rules.

Protecting personal privacy is a part of responding to the post-Sept. 11 world, but it should not reflexively block us from developing new screening tools. Indeed, more data sharing leads to more precisely targeted screening, which actually improves privacy by reducing questioning and searches of innocent travelers.

Translation: I have to say that crap about privacy concerns.  If you rubes would just give us your travel plans every morning we could keep you save throughout the day.

Read the column.  Ideally I am his target audience.  I’m a law abiding, terrorist hating conservative.  But I just can’t sit idly by while the government attempts to invade our private lives more and more.

The first sentence says it all.

Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.

I faintly remember hearing similar accusations about the run up to the Iraq war.  I suppose Bush et. al. would be content if the intel agencies just gave them a crayon drawing of Iran with a red X across it.

From the NY Times.

A proposal by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would allow the United States government not only to look for known terrorists on watch lists, but also to search broadly through the passenger itinerary data to identify people who may be linked to terrorists, he said in a recent interview.

Similarly, European leaders are considering seeking access to this same database, which contains not only names and addresses of travelers, but often their credit card information, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and related hotel or car reservations.

Stories like this tug me in both directions.  I understand the need to protect our country.  I am not a criminal or terrorist, so what do I care if the government closely inspects me.  But, as I read story after story about how government is intruding more and more into our personal information and lives I start to feel like this is the plot for a movie.  I’m waiting for Chertoff or Bush to just walk out and say, “If all of you will let the government mount cameras in every room of your house we can beat the Islamic fascist terrorists!”