September 11th anniversary; Shoud the U.S. now help Al Qaeda?

The tragic irony of today's anniversary is this - at the same time that we commemorate the events of September 11, 2001, we are seriously debating whether we should commit U.S. air and naval forces to help the people that attacked us on September 11 so that those people can win a war and take over yet another country.

If you voted for Obama in the last two elections (or either of them) you probably don't know that I am referring to the current controversy over whether we should bomb Syria. For those who still don't understand, here is a brief summary: Syria is fighting against Al Qaeda (even though that doesn't mean that Syria is good). (Al Qaeda is definitely bad, because they are the group that attacked us on September 11, 2001.) The Obama administration wants to bomb Syria because Syria allegedly used chemical weapons in Syria's war against Al Qaeda.

While the newspapers and networks debate the issue of whether Assad used chemical weapons or whether he will surrender those weapons or whether we will negotiate some other resolution, the western dhimmitude marches on unceasingly.

Instead of discussing whether the U.S. is still at war against Al Qaeda, the networks will focus, instead, on (1) whether the "first responders" are properly funded and (2) the particular pieces of granite on which the names of the 9-11 victims are etched.

Radical islam is patient. The islamists suffered many casualties as a result of attacking us on 9-11. But they now can bide their time while we forget. Remembering the victims or the first responders is not the same as fighting the war - especially if we find ourselves fighting on the wrong side.

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn

We should beware anyone who seeks to explain 9/11 by using the words "each other."

Mark Steyn

Quote of the day - Rosie O'Donnell

Don’t fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers.

Rosie O'Donnell

Ann Coulter; Godless; the Witches of East Brunswick; Kristin Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg

Ann Coulter has deflated another MSM/DNC propaganda balloon, and the leftists are squealing like stuck pigs. In Ann's new book, Ann writes the following about four of the widows from 9-11 who have allowed their names to be used in a relentless campaign against George W. Bush and for the Democrats:

These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process.

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.

As Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote more than two years ago, "Americans are beginning to tire of them." Ms. Rabinowitz also wrote the following:

From August 1940 to May 1941, the Luftwaffe's nightly terror bombings killed 43,000 British men, women and children. That was only phase one. Phase two, involving the V-1 flying bombs and, later, rockets, killed an additional 6,180. The British defense, was, to the say the least, ineffectual, particularly in the early stages of the war--the antiaircraft guns were few, the fire control system inadequate, as was the radar system. Still, it would have been impossible, then as now, to imagine victims of those nightly assaults rising up to declare war on their government, charging its leaders, say, with failure to develop effective radar--the British government had, after all, had plenty of warning that war was coming. It occurred to no one, including families who had lost husbands, wives and children, to claim that tens of thousands had been murdered on Winston Churchill's watch. They understood that their war was with the enemies bombing them.

Read the whole thing.

Ann has now accomplished what the rest of us could not do with our respectful debate and measured attempts to refute the shrill attacks that were made in the names of these women. She has dragged them into the center of the fray, so that they could not continue to snipe from the cover of their status as "9/11 widows." From now on, the MSM/DNC will have a harder time introducing any of these women on their morning programs as "a victim of the 9-11 attacks who takes issue with the President's position on [Iran, Iraq, tax cuts, gun control, fill in the blank. . .]"



I applaud not only Ann's criticism of the women, but the tone of Ann's counterattack. They have spent years spewing mud from a safe position and are now getting it back. Blood is in the water. Other conservatives need no longer give these ladies a free pass. They are as partisan as Hillary Clinton, Cindy Sheehan or John Kerry and can be identified as such.

Any conservative who shrinks from attacking these ladies makes a tactical mistake and provides them with more respect than they deserve. The Captain wrote in a comment on his blog that Ann should ". . . criticize their policies instead of using insults and personal attacks. . . " This comment highlights the point of the 4 widows. They have no policies. Their usefulness to the MSM/DNC lies in their guerilla attacks, not in proposals or policies. Demanding a "commission" that would whitewash the causes of 9-11 and serve as a tool for partisan sniping is not a policy, it is a tactic.

H/T to Atlas for rallying to support Ann.


[H/T Atlas for the photo]

Being nice to those whose only goal is to foment Bush Derangement Syndrome will never pay off. We will never receive any credit for such refinement.

But those of us who are not blessed with Ann's mass appeal need not do the heavy lifting required to uncover the various MSM/DNC voices. We can, instead, sit back and enjoy the fruits of Ann's labor, as we watch the MSM/DNC search for new frontpeople to give voice to its tactics in its endless War on the War on Terror.

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter - Godless

“These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process.”

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

Ann Coulter - Godless - [writing about 4 of the 9-11 widows]

John Murtha believes that 9/11 never happened.

"Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started."

Congressman John Murtha - 11/17/05

[H/T Lifelike Pundits for the link to the PBS transcript.]

Over the past four years, we have been treated to numerous theories about what "really" happened on 9/11, including (1) the idea that Bush planned the attack in order to start a war for oil and (2) the belief that the attack was perpetrated by the jooooooos. [I don't have citations to those responsible for these theories. Check out the archives of Daily Kos or Howard Dean's hard drive if you are really interested.] We also heard from the left and the perpretators of the 9/11 commission that George Bush is at fault for failing to prevent the attacks. If only Bush had listened to Richard Clarke. . . .

But now we learn the real truth from Congressman Murtha. The 9/11 attacks never happened at all! Terrorism actually started in 2003 - not in 2001 or before.

For years the MSM/DNC has tried to erase the memory of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassies in Africa, the Achille Lauro, flight 847 and others. As I wrote on the anniversary of the Achille Lauro attack:

The MSM/DNC prefers to remain silent about this anniversary because it wants us to believe that terrorism began during the Presidency of George Bush - just like hurricanes.

Murtha has taken this strategy one step further by coming as close as one can to explicitly denying the existence of 9/11.
As Lifelike Pundits wrote:

These are the words of a liar or an idiot.

As I wrote on the anniversary of the embassy attacks more than four months ago:

The slightest emphasis on today's anniversary would destroy the MSM/DNC meme, which blames George Bush for all terrorism. Even the slightest mention of this story would remind Americans that terrorism began BEFORE the U.S. led invasion of Iraq.

For the benefit of the left and the MSM/DNC, here is a chronology:

(1) Global terrorism occurred many times over the past thirty or more years.

(2) We began to fight back, including the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

(3) The MSM/DNC began a relentless campaign to reverse the order of ## 1 and 2 in the minds of the public. That is a very difficult task. Judging from the last election, this strategy has worked with only 47% of the voters.

That task requires the MSM/DNC to bury many facts down the memory hole. The victims in Nairobi and Tanzania are mere inconveniences to be forgotten in the MSM/DNC's mad rush to play politics and rewrite history.

This never happened, according to "Decorated war hero" and Democratic "hawk" John Murtha















--------------------
Update - Mudville Gazette posts an additional history lesson to counteract the left's revisionism. H/T Michelle Malkin.

Libby v. Berger v. Daphiney Caganap

So I understand that the prosecutor in the Plame/Flame case rejected a plea deal because he wants "serious jail time" for Scooter Libby. As Joseph Farah asks:

Where was he [the prosecutor] when former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was caught red-handed stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives, destroying some and then lying about it to investigators?

As you recall, Sandy Berger will do no jail time for his role in helping to cover up Clinton's national security failures.

In other news, Daphiney Caganap will probably serve no jail time either. If you don't know who that is, here is a summary courtesy of Debbie Schlussel:

In San Ysidro (near San Diego), as head of the INS' intelligence unit and anti-smuggling operations, Caganap helped cover-up an illegal immigrant and drug smuggling operation, allowing it to continue for years--in exchange for $30,000 in money, services, and gifts (including a new hot tub). She also lied to the FBI about it. Caganap was indicted for all of that.

But instead of serving 36 years in prison (as the law allows), she will serve no jail time.

Who among this list has done the most to harm national security?

Sandy Berger

Daphiney Caganap

Scooter Libby

Sandy Berger helped the 9/11 commission whitewash the mistakes of the Clinton administration. Daphiney Caganap helped illegal aliens, possibly including more al Qaeda operatives, slip into this country. Scooter Libby . . . . . what did he do again?

Which of these three faces the greatest possibility of jail time? Remember this the next time you see people jumping out of burning buildings.

Curt Weldon - Able Danger; still more plausible than MSM/DNC version

I understand that questions have arisen as to details of Congressman Weldon's recent claims regarding Mohammed Atta and the Able Danger operation.

Even if Congressman Weldon is wrong on the key points of his story, Weldon's version is still more credible than that of Richard Clarke, the 9-11 Commission, Michael Moore or any other purveyor of MSM/DNC 9-11 gospel.

I realize that I have set the bar very low, but does anyone doubt that MSM/DNC would have given Weldon voluminous airtime and even made him an ABC news consultant had the roles of the GOP and DNC been switched? Had Weldon used the Able Danger story to expose a Republican administration instead of Bill Clinton and Jamie Gorelick, any flaws in the story would be ignored and Weldon would be the hero.

The fact remains that the 9/11 commission was a disgrace, Jamie Gorelick was more responsible for 9/11 than anyone else except the terrorists, and the MSM/DNC strives mightily to hide those facts while blaming Bush. What is more important is that the politics-as-usual mentality that compounded the horror of 9/11 with the disgrace of the Commission remains firmly entrenched.

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn

A body [9-11 Commission] intended to reassure Americans that the lessons of that terrible day had been learned instead engaged in what at best was transparent politicking and collusion in posterior-covering and at worst was something a whole lot darker and more disturbing.

Mark Steyn

Jamie Gorelick; 9-11 Commission; Mohammed Atta; Able Danger

The blogosphere has begun to document thoroughly the revelations that Mohammed Atta had been identified more than one year prior to 9-11 and that this information was kept out of the hands of the FBI by the Jamie Gorelick memo. Captain's Quarters summarizes here and here. TKS summarizes here. TKS provides advice for those looking to break through the MSM/DNC wall of silence and misinformation:

(An aside: Can we please avoid giving this story some excessively cute suffix-gate nickname? Every time some over-eager blogger or talking head does that, the rest of the country rolls their eyes. This thing is too serious for our usual bad habits. Let's just call it "the Able Danger revelations" and leave it at that.)

emphasis added

I think it has been established at this point that the 911 commission is a partisan disgrace. Its main task has been to rewrite history and protect the Clinton administration, thereby preventing an understanding of 9-11 that might avoid the next attack. They don't understand (or don't care) that lives are at stake.

In order to set history straight, we should give Jamie Gorelick her proper association with the events she helped bring about.



These photos belong together in history as surely as Neville Chamberlain's photo has been weighed down with the images of Nazi aggression.
Here is a rhetorical question.
What is worse:
-the Gorelick Wall that protected Atta as he planned his murderous attacks?
-the activities of MSM/DNC, Richard Clarke etc. in trying to blame the attacks on Bush?
-Gorelick's role on the 9/11 commission despite her conflict of interest?
-the Commission's failure to report the Able Danger documents so that it could preserve its mission to whitewash the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history?

It doesn't matter at this point which disgrace is worse. It only matters that we look at the photos, remember the dead, and rid our government of those who treat 9/11 like just another political game.