9/11/2001 vs. 9/11/2012

[walksalone]

ahem, guys...

 

It doesn't matter whether there was an ® or a (D) after their names. What matters is that we need to beef up security in places that we are in, get the hell out of places we don't need to be in, not misuse our resources, and get back to "boots on the ground" intel. Its silly to let the fact that two guys, neither of which I trust to run this country, take away from the fact that we have major security concerns that need to be addressed.

[carlfense]

What matters is that we need to beef up security in places that we are in, get the hell out of places we don't need to be in, not misuse our resources, and get back to "boots on the ground" intel.

Agreed. +1

[JJ Husker]

ahem, guys...

 

It doesn't matter whether there was an ® or a (D) after their names. What matters is that we need to beef up security in places that we are in, get the hell out of places we don't need to be in, not misuse our resources, and get back to "boots on the ground" intel. Its silly to let the fact that two guys, neither of which I trust to run this country, take away from the fact that we have major security concerns that need to be addressed.

 

Agreed. And we need some people in charge who will heed warnings and requests from those who are in harms way.

[carlfense]

ahem, guys...

 

It doesn't matter whether there was an ® or a (D) after their names. What matters is that we need to beef up security in places that we are in, get the hell out of places we don't need to be in, not misuse our resources, and get back to "boots on the ground" intel. Its silly to let the fact that two guys, neither of which I trust to run this country, take away from the fact that we have major security concerns that need to be addressed.

 

Agreed. And we need some people in charge who will heed warnings and requests from those who are in harms way.

. . . and not cut funding for embassy security.

[walksalone]

ahem, guys...

 

It doesn't matter whether there was an ® or a (D) after their names. What matters is that we need to beef up security in places that we are in, get the hell out of places we don't need to be in, not misuse our resources, and get back to "boots on the ground" intel. Its silly to let the fact that two guys, neither of which I trust to run this country, take away from the fact that we have major security concerns that need to be addressed.

 

Agreed. And we need some people in charge who will heed warnings and requests from those who are in harms way.

. . . and not cut funding for embassy security.

 

And improve the ROE for those detailed with embassy security...

[Nebula]

Cynicism is alright in small doses, but too much of it is poisonous. Thus, I rewrote my thoughts. This is very long. If it's too long to read, I completely understand.

 

First of all, I have never, ever, given any semblance of credence to the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. I think that, yes, some information may have surfaced warning of an attack. These types of whispers almost certainly appear with a degree of relative regularity. Thus, there is not a system shut down anytime the possibility of some kind of aggression is brought to light. There can’t be. There are violent clashes daily in our world. Add to that the inexcusable rift between our intelligence agencies, the seeming rivalry between the FBI and CIA offices to prove which entity is more valuable, and information is fragmented rather than streamlined. Data was lost. And bad men killed innocent people.

 

That said, I believe 9/11 (2001) was utilized as a method to convert fear into passive acceptance of brazen, rapid expansion of federal reach. Under the guise of protecting the citizens from attacks that, post 9/11, were seemingly omnipresent. Code red, blue, I can't remember the specific tones, but what I do vividly recall is that we never hit a color level that indicated no threat existed. It would seem to me that we have had 11 straight years of being told that terrorist violence is right outside our doorstep at all times. I do not buy that. It exists. But the chances of being killed by lightening seem far greater to me than dying in a terrorist attack on my front yard. Further, I believe our government has intentionally propagated this exaggerated threat level in order to gain greater and greater autonomy in terms of where federal intrusion ends and individual rights begin.

 

Is the world a dangerous place? It absolutely can be. Are there people who wish to murder those of other nations for a variety of reasons? Unquestionably. Do I think it is a reasonable concession to allow my own government’s drones to fly across domestic airspace, over my home, watching and recording the actions of myself and my family in exchange for my protection? Resoundingly, the answer is no.

 

As I recall, the Patriot Act was rushed through (shocking for a legislation of such magnitude) as a temporary expansion of federal reach in order to provide adequate defense against an imminent threat. Considering the traumatic shock that rippled through the populace after we all saw those buildings fall, especially for those who were there, it seemed defensible. I still remember how angry my friends and I were. I felt truly shaken...and a desire to exact revenge for the terrified faces I saw on the sidewalks in NYC. I think that was shared by a great many in those days following.

 

Power granted, however, is almost never given back voluntarily. It is more entrancing than any high there ever was or will be. And I see 9/11 of 2001 and of 2012 as tragic events that very well could lead to an even greater tragedy for a country that was founded upon the principles of individual rights. As warrant-less intrusions proliferate, as domestic spying upon any of us who the Sauron-like eye of the government falls upon, for whatever reason (and those who would scoff, I would gently remind them that McCarthyism literally ruined lives based on rumor or baseless intuition...and that was a mere 60 years ago,) as we are forced to silently stand by and allow government employees at airports to fondle the genitals of our children, something strikes me as very, very wrong.

 

The Rep President Bush instituted it, Dems and Reps both signed it through (because, I suppose, to reject the proposal you had to sign your name in the ledger opposite the one titled Patriot, the dissenting panel being under the header Benedict Arnold perhaps) and the Dem President Obama has done absolutely nothing to pare back this vast extension of authority. (Opaque power, devoid of oversight or justification.) I shudder when I realize I do believe these events are being capitalized on in order for greater control of all of us. I do NOT think our government knew these things were going to happen and allowed them to occur. (Unlike my personal beliefs regarding Pearl Harbor, but that is a discussion for another day. I’d argue it had to happen, as difficult to swallow as that might have been.)

 

I do believe, wholeheartedly, that fear mongering has been utilized to see just how far we'll let them push us under the guise of "protecting" us. This nation was not formed by the huddled meek. We went west into the unknown as seekers, embracing danger and the thrill of smirking at the wild and making our own way in a land rife with bodily threat and exhilarating adventure.

 

Homeland Security sends shivers through my nerve endings. Just the very name of it. We spend an almost inconceivable amount of money (OUR money, tax money) on defense every single year. If that isn’t enough to keep this nation safe, then we should demand better leadership NOW. Because it IS enough, if allocated and dispersed effectively, strategically, and intelligently.

 

There is one theme that is similar for both of these dispiriting acts of violence: the President, it is whispered, was warned. First of all, I laugh openly at the idea that somebody told Bush/Obama in an urgent tone that an attack seemed highly likely, and then both men shrugged and sneered. No. What I hear is, "The President was told and it still wasn't enough to save those who died. Obviously what we have in place is not enough to ensure our safety. Maybe just a slight increase in reach will provide the necessary coverage."

 

Guess what? I don't want my safety ensured. You can't do that with absolute certainty, anyway. Even kept in a guarded cage I could contract a fatal disease.

 

What I want is my rights as a citizen of the United States of America to be ensured above all else. I will not sacrifice privacy and freedom for existence. I exist to be free to pursue with liberty what gives me happiness in life.

[knapplc]

ahem, guys...

 

It doesn't matter whether there was an ® or a (D) after their names. What matters is that we need to beef up security in places that we are in, get the hell out of places we don't need to be in, not misuse our resources, and get back to "boots on the ground" intel. Its silly to let the fact that two guys, neither of which I trust to run this country, take away from the fact that we have major security concerns that need to be addressed.

 

Agreed. And we need some people in charge who will heed warnings and requests from those who are in harms way.

 

Which warnings? We get dozens, if not hundreds per month. Using your 20/20 hindsight to cry about this instance where everything went terribly wrong is stupid. We had warnings before they flew planes into the World Trade Center. Did you vote for Bush in 2004?

[Nebula]

U.S. Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and Chairman of the House's Homeland Security Committee, said Tuesday that al Qaeda is a greater threat now than it was before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

http://www.washingto...threat-now-911/

[JJ Husker]

ahem, guys...

 

It doesn't matter whether there was an ® or a (D) after their names. What matters is that we need to beef up security in places that we are in, get the hell out of places we don't need to be in, not misuse our resources, and get back to "boots on the ground" intel. Its silly to let the fact that two guys, neither of which I trust to run this country, take away from the fact that we have major security concerns that need to be addressed.

 

Agreed. And we need some people in charge who will heed warnings and requests from those who are in harms way.

 

Which warnings? We get dozens, if not hundreds per month. Using your 20/20 hindsight to cry about this instance where everything went terribly wrong is stupid. We had warnings before they flew planes into the World Trade Center. Did you vote for Bush in 2004?

I agree, hindsight is 20/20 and contributes nothing useful. I was taking a bit of a jab with this comment but my real concerns with this issue are not based on 20/20 hindsight. I am not claiming that we could've or should've prevented this tragedy. My question is; why the spontaneous uprising story? I only see 3 possibilities of why this story was perpetuated for 2 weeks by the administration.

 

1- They actually thought it was due solely to a spontaneous uprising brought about by some offensive video and then learned two weeks later that was not the case. This option requires us to accept that the powers that be may not fully understand the threats to Americans in places like the Mideast and Libya. It also requires us to accept the extreme coincidence that it happened on September 11th purely by chance. I don't think the administration is that naive, gullible, or clueless. If they are, I am very concerned.

 

2- They realized what really had happened but wanted to spin it so as not to reflect poorly on their foreign policy. A lot of the dems storyline is based on the claim that they can deal with the world in a much better fashion than Bush. i.e. We'll talk to them and be more understanding and then they will like us better. We won't act unilaterally but rather will be build consensus and work through the United Nations. You know the deal. If this is the option, well shame on them for using a tragedy like this in a political manner and for lying to the American people.

 

3- They used this as some kind of coverup story for some failure to act on intelligence or a request for additional security. I realize this is the conspiracy theory route but, this eventuality would be deeply concerning on many levels and IMO totally unnecessary. Nobody is going to have trouble believing there was a terrorist attack on a US Embassy, in the Mideast or Libya, on the anniversary date of 911. Furthermore, I don't think anyone would question that it could still happen even if all possible threats and requests were heeded. So, it does cause me to wonder why the spontaneous uprising story to begin with, then why does Hillary go out of her way just prior to another debate to claim she is responsible for security of State Dept. personell (and at the same time point the finger at their security experts) and then why does Obama come into the debate prepared to accept full responsibility so Johnny-come-lately.

 

If you have a different theory that doesn't fit one of my three options, I would be more than happy to entertain it. But, if it is one of those three, as I believe it must be, then anyway you slice it, it was handled extremely poorly. This has nothing to do with claiming they should've or could've prevented the attack.

[carlfense]

2- They realized what really had happened but wanted to spin it so as not to reflect poorly on their foreign policy. A lot of the dems storyline is based on the claim that they can deal with the world in a much better fashion than Bush. i.e. We'll talk to them and be more understanding and then they will like us better. We won't act unilaterally but rather will be build consensus and work through the United Nations. You know the deal. If this is the option, well shame on them for using a tragedy like this in a political manner and for lying to the American people.

Why do you think that calling it terrorism would reflect poorly on their foreign policy?

[knapplc]

It's possible that it was a fluid situation in a country that had very recently gone through a bloody revolution, the players involved have yet to be identified and therefore their motives are unknown, and the investigation into all this is ongoing.

[JJ Husker]

2- They realized what really had happened but wanted to spin it so as not to reflect poorly on their foreign policy. A lot of the dems storyline is based on the claim that they can deal with the world in a much better fashion than Bush. i.e. We'll talk to them and be more understanding and then they will like us better. We won't act unilaterally but rather will be build consensus and work through the United Nations. You know the deal. If this is the option, well shame on them for using a tragedy like this in a political manner and for lying to the American people.

Why do you think that calling it terrorism would reflect poorly on their foreign policy?

I don't really think that. I was trying to come up with all possible options and that one popped in there. I guess I felt it was maybe possible due to the extreme narcissism I perceive from Obama. Unfortunately, that would probably be the best of the three options I listed. Do you have another theory that doesn't fall under one of my three catagories? Seriously, I am trying to come up with some logical explanation that doesn't require a tin foil hat. I personally am sick and tired of the litany of republican generated conspiracy theories. I just am failing to be able to see where this spontaneous uprising story can have a logical and innocent basis.

[JJ Husker]

It's possible that it was a fluid situation in a country that had very recently gone through a bloody revolution, the players involved have yet to be identified and therefore their motives are unknown, and the investigation into all this is ongoing.

That may very well be and it could explain the terror event itself quite accurately. But, it does not address the nature of the spontaneous uprising story. If this is the case, then it must fall under my option number one. I'm not as concerned with the attack because I feel those are and will continue to be somewhat inevitable given that a huge portion of that part of the world believes we are the infidel and the only way to deal with us is to kill us. It is the story after the fact that has my curiosity piqued.

[knapplc]

Because we don't know what happened yet, that means "the powers that be may not fully understand the threats to Americans in places like the Mideast and Libya. It also requires us to accept the extreme coincidence that it happened on September 11th purely by chance. I don't think the administration is that naive, gullible, or clueless."

 

Sorry. That conclusion is Conservative fantasy.

[carlfense]

2- They realized what really had happened but wanted to spin it so as not to reflect poorly on their foreign policy. A lot of the dems storyline is based on the claim that they can deal with the world in a much better fashion than Bush. i.e. We'll talk to them and be more understanding and then they will like us better. We won't act unilaterally but rather will be build consensus and work through the United Nations. You know the deal. If this is the option, well shame on them for using a tragedy like this in a political manner and for lying to the American people.

Why do you think that calling it terrorism would reflect poorly on their foreign policy?

I don't really think that. I was trying to come up with all possible options and that one popped in there. I guess I felt it was maybe possible due to the extreme narcissism I perceive from Obama. Unfortunately, that would probably be the best of the three options I listed. Do you have another theory that doesn't fall under one of my three catagories? Seriously, I am trying to come up with some logical explanation that doesn't require a tin foil hat. I personally am sick and tired of the litany of republican generated conspiracy theories. I just am failing to be able to see where this spontaneous uprising story can have a logical and innocent basis.

I think knapplc's theory is probably close to the truth.

 

I also think that the internet video did spark protests even though I don't think that Benghazi was in that category. Some of the statements that I've seen talk about "protests" being sparked by the video and not "a protest." I think there were multiple mobs that were probably motivated by different reasoning.

 

The messaging problem arises when they're one side tries to put them all into one box whether that be video or terror.