« Karl Rove you have declared war | Main | Have we gone too far? »
Saturday, June 25, 2005
America was what?????
In the seconds, hours, days, weeks and months after 9/11 America was most bloodthirsty I have ever seen it!
Anyone who is Muslim feared for their lives cause people were angsty. In Boston two Sikhs were pulled off the Amtrak trains because people were angsty towards anyone who looked different. Sikhs are not a part of Islam. Planes were stopped if any of the passengers were muslim. The Patriot act which is the single most instrusive legislation was passed without any opposition.
Things like that were not right. It diminished what it meant to be American.
So what is Karl Rove thinking of when he said this,
But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”
Posted by Sally at 01:20 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2711278
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference America was what?????:
Comments
Ok....
Oh and hey, just exactly how many terrorist attacks have been executed on American soil since 9/11?
I feel very bad for our Middle Eastern friends but the Patriot Act must actually be working. Oh, and after 9/11 like a few days later, I saw this gas station that was owned by an Afghani family. They were very muslim, with Arabic text from the Koran all over their store. I knew owner and well, on that day after 9/11 I noticed his entire store was decked out with hundreds of American Flags. They were everywhere and they were for sale! I asked, Mohammed what was up in a friendly way and he indicated that the flag is why he came to this country. The flag represented freedom and if his family was under it they'd always be free. Now 4 years later, there is still is a large American Flag on his station lot. This is a true story. For all of you that say, I have no facts, make open ended statements and (ahem!)tell lies. Piss off on politics and let freedom reign.
Posted by: steve | June 25, 2005 04:09 PM
Prior to 9/11 it was 8 years since we we last attacked on American soil. That would have been the 1993 bombing of the WTC. We had no Patriot Act in place after that bombing so something or someone (Clinton) must have been doing something right. The Patriot Act has done crappola. And Bush has just made us more enemies than we had before Iraq. Iraq was not linked to 9/11 and never should have been a target. We are oil grabbiing just like Iraq did to Kuwait in the first Gulf war.
Posted by: The Bastard | June 25, 2005 04:23 PM
Steve, Back to my question "What was Karl Rove thinking of" when he said this, "But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”
Posted by: sally | June 25, 2005 07:16 PM
Sally
Do not try to reason with Steve. I live in New York. Muslims were waving flags and crying for the Trade Center and the deaths like everybody else. They're American also.
We all believe in the American Flag and what it stands for. We also believe that peoples rights are being taken away, diminished and/or otherwise threatened.
As The Bastard said it had been eight years since the prior attack--at the same buildings. Morgan Stanley was very well prepared; few people died. Unfortunately most people at Cantor Fitzgerald and other places never had a chance.
As a country we need to understand the difference between good security, and doing away with basic good rights. Sometimes it is that simple.
Posted by: pia | June 25, 2005 10:44 PM
Pia.... There you go. So what you live in New York. Like being closer to the incident is better than what I see 3000 miles away.
You all believe in the American Flag and what stands for? Yet you are probably one of the people that voted on my blog and hope we don't have protection for the flag from desecration.
Oh and by the way, name one incident pia, where you personally were affected by the Patriot Act. Betcha can't...
Posted by: steve | June 25, 2005 11:29 PM
Steve you are too funny! We voted on your blog...the only times we have gone to your blog has been when you ranted about us.
Posted by: sally | June 26, 2005 12:05 AM
Hey, quit picking on Steve. He's right. We passed the Patriot Act, and there hasn't been a terrorist attack since 9/11. I've been wearing a tinfoil hat every day for the past ten years, to keep those Venusian space trawlers off my front porch. And guess what: there hasn't been one Venusian space trawler on my front porch in these ten years. So there!
Now I'm not trying to second guess the Afghan guy with hundreds of American flags at his gas station. But: I traveled through several Middle Eastern / South Asian countries during the '70s, and practically every business has pictures of the current leader/king/caliph plastered all over everything. This is a very smart move in a country where you could suffer unspeakable tortures if the government even suspects you might know someone whose second cousin had an acquaintance whose coworker might have said something against the government. Maybe this gas station owner really had a love affair with the American flag, or maybe he just knew how to put up the right appearances; how to avoid the lynch mob.
Posted by: Tom Harper | June 26, 2005 01:48 AM
I agree with The Bastard's apparent gist. The Patriot Act is a security blanket. When the next terrorist attack occurs... and there will be a next one, folks will point to the PA and say how it didn't protect us.
BTW, Sikhism was influenced by Islam.
Posted by: Kevin | June 26, 2005 09:25 AM
Hasn't been a terrorist attack since 9/11? What planet are you living on?
Anthrax attacks ring any bells?
How about the assault on the El Al area at LAX?
The DC/Virginia "sniper" attacks (by an al Qaeda trained ex-con and his protege)?
Tom Knapp
Posted by: Thomas L. Knapp | June 26, 2005 10:33 AM
Perhaps as ridiculous as Rove's comments was the Scott McClellan press conference that followed.
I have a post at http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2005/06/white-house-defends-roves-ridiculous.html regarding McClellan's Orwellian defense. Count the times that he suggests Rove was merely pointing out the "different philosophies" or "different approaches" among Republicans and Democrats.
Posted by: David R. Mark | June 26, 2005 10:51 AM
Anthrax attacks? Did anyone prove it was Al Oaeda or was it some nut job chemist who hated America? I don't know the answer.
You're crazy on the sniper attacks as an Al Qaeda soldier. First off, the guy and his son were killing people and were eventually heading to where his ex wife was to kill her, so it looked like the sniper. I would deem that almost being like a serial killer not a "terrorist" attack on America.
Tom, you can't classify every muslim that commits a crime a "terrorist".
Posted by: steve | June 26, 2005 11:00 AM
You are an example of what Rove was talking about. The Liberals (he didn't say Democrats, BTW) who want to cut and run and hope the nice Muslim beheaders won't bother us anymore.
Posted by: DennyK | June 26, 2005 01:49 PM
Tom,
You have got to be shitting me right?
Anthrax attack was terrorism by Al-Qaeda? Only going by the facts that were released there is no way of even concluding or linking the Anthrax "attack" to Al-Qaeda. I have my suspisions, like why the letters were post marked prior to 9/11. Was it a premptive srtike or pre-cursor to the WTC attack. With the WTC attack no one would have caught on to the Anthrax until it was to late. But unfortunately the government doesn't release all facts relevant. But if it was tied to Al-Qaeda or Iraq whay not tell us? I would definately support a response if that was the case.....but it's not.
The DC sniper? All I have to say is, give me some of that medicinal marijauna you're smoking, don't hide it, divide it.
Oh and the El Al LAX incident, well this is what the Mayor of L.A. and the Rove administration had to say about that.
Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn added: "It appears this was an isolated incident." A Bush administration source concurred with that statement, adding that nothing suggested it was anything other than a criminal act.
So all I can say is crawl back under that screen of fear that Rove and Co. have created and just wait for Rove to yell "the coast is clear." That should probably be right after the last non-christian has been murdered or baptised.
Posted by: The Bastard | June 26, 2005 02:12 PM
I see there are several iterations of the same errors, but I'll just reply to "the Bastard" as his is fairly all-inclusive:
1. "Anthrax attack was terrorism by Al-Qaeda?
I don't know where you got the impression that al Qaeda is the only group capable of carrying out or sponsoring terrorist attacks. Terrorism is the targeting of civilians for the purpose of creating an environment of terror (and, as a secondary consequence, possibly achieving some desired political result). The anthrax attacks were, indeed, terrorism. Most or all of the targets were civilian, and the obvious goal was the creation of terror.
2. "The DC sniper?"
There's absolutely no question whatsoever that the "DC sniper" incidents were intended to create an environment of terror. There's also a plausible case that they were related to al Qaeda -- the older of the two perpetrators had allegedly converted not just to Islam, but to Wahabbe Islam, in prison and had had subsequent interactions with al Qaeda affiliated groups.
But let's assume that he had no connections whatsoever to al Qaeda. It was still a terror campaign, and the assertion was that there had been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.
3. The LAX attack was undertaken against an obvious Islamist target by a Muslim known to have Islamist ties.
As far as your implication that I'm in any way supportive of Rove, the Busheviks or the religious right, sorry to burst your bubble ... but I'm an anti-war left-libertarian anarchist gagnostic/pagan Democrat.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Posted by: Thomas L. Knapp | June 26, 2005 02:35 PM
Tom: maybe he does love America. If your country gave me a visa, I might too.
And Sikhs borrowed more from Buddhism than Islam.
Steve, I can see where you are coming from. Doesn't seem like right now the Al Qaeda as a group are out to get the U.S. They'd be crazy to try it, crazier than they are now. You're also right about the definition of a terrorist in that it's not every muslim.
What worries me about the Patriot Act is not what it can or cannot do for the protection of U.S. citizens against terrorism.
In fact, Sally, I really like the provision against discrimination of Arab and Muslim American citizens: SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONDEMNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ARAB AND MUSLIM AMERICANS.
Guys, detention provisions and search rights have been in place LONG before the Patriot Act - in Title 18 of the USC.
The major changes were in detention of people coming INTO the country, under enhansed immigration provisions.
This is one of my bones to pick with the PA, because the definitions of section 411 have automatically excluded refugees from places like Somalia, who are escaping persecution often by these same terrorists.
But the main problem I have with the legislation is the power of the State to define a terrorist group, or you as a member of a terrorist group.
Since....
" `(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'. "
Two girls bake cookies for old lady and leave them on the front porch. She claims they scare her (and at her age can get a stroke from fright), plus they are on her property, arguably illegaly. It was in the news by the way a while back. Are they terrorists?
The thing that bothers me is "appear" to be intended.
Because that leaves soooo much room for interpretation, just like the malaysian Internal Security Act, which allows for detention of anyone up to 90 days if they are suspected of going against National Security.
Three bloggers were detained.
It all depends on your definition of national security, or in this case terrorism. And that definition, especially domestic terrorism, is shaky.
Posted by: anna. | June 26, 2005 03:28 PM
Karl Rove was likely thinking much the same way Howard Dean was when he said that Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives. They both hoped to bolster supporters by demonstrating how superior their parties are.
(Though Rove said "liberal" the implication is Democrat, or perhaps Green, because the general consensus seems to be that America is made up of only liberals and conservatives.)
Posted by: Random Personae | June 26, 2005 03:33 PM
Ahhh see Tom, your definition of terrorist attacks comes nicely under those of the PA.
And that's the problem really - the definition.
I'd argue that the U.S. government and the terror alert level things are "targeting civilians for the purpose of creating an environment of terror".
Who is the enemy? Everyone?
Should the same definition apply to an internation group of organized lunatics set out to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them, in LARGE numbers, and one deranged guy with a gun?
Hell both should be prosecuted. That's not the point. The point is you cant have an all encompassing definition without consequences.
"The LAX attack was undertaken against an obvious Islamist target by a Muslim known to have Islamist ties." see argument about being muslim and if that means you're a terrorist by default.
Posted by: anna. | June 26, 2005 03:37 PM
see steve, we don't always agree with democrats (not that we don't like and welcome your opinion Tom)
Posted by: anna. | June 26, 2005 03:39 PM
True Anna,
But the average American is at absolutely no risk from the Patriot Act and in fact, is offered a great protection for their basic freedoms. We can sit and argue Flag Burning in peace. But you also can't protect anyone from guilt by association or by being at the wrong place when it comes to destroying America. 90 days is 90 days, sorry... our bad, but it's for the greater good.
I do however see this very different for the guys in Guantanemo. They are enemy combatants of no particular country. Terrorists have no borders and are basically just a bunch of psycopathic thugs. Does this mean everyone in Gitmo is 100% guilty? No... but better there than out in the world screwing with us.
Random:
Comparing Karl Rove with Howard Dean. Wow... I mean. Wow... How could you...? Wow... There is a big difference. Karl Rove was commenting on the way a conservative and liberal may handle the war on terror. Mr. Dean there, basically called 1/2 of America dishonest. Excuse me, while I pay my housekeeper's kids a buck to wash and wax my BMW.
Posted by: steve | June 26, 2005 03:53 PM
as hard as it may be to imagine in the "land of the free", the definitions leave a lot of room for potential misuse. I'd just hate for the U.S. to make the same mistake...
Define "greater good". Sure, it makes you feel safer. Not really good for the people detained. What I worry about is using the 90 days as a scare tactic, you won't believe how effective that can be. Out of line? Sure, we'll write you off under the ISA(or PA in the U.S.) lock you up for a while and let you come to your senses, see if you disgaree with us then.
Am not paranoid, I've just seen it happen elsewhere.
And hey you can keep anyone you want in "Gitmo", just charge them with something already. Surprisingly, habeas corpus IS written into the PA :)
Posted by: anna. | June 26, 2005 04:28 PM
steve, I concede to your obvous mental superiority. It's so obvious, I can't believe I never understood before that people in Calfornia were equally affected by 9/11. Of course, you're right.
May you never lose telephone contact with somebody you love who works in a possible terrorist attack, run to her daughter's middle school to pick up her daughter, while you're watching dazed people walk uptown
When you get to the school, your tell your best friend's daughter that her mother is alright, and walking (you hope) uptown. Then she asks about many other people you know. You can't answer as they work in the buildings that just imploded.
So yes Steve, I bow to your superior wisdom and knowledge.
I won't dignify your truly stupid comments about your flag poll--that I didn't vote in the patriot act, and anthrax with an answer.
You're a spoiled kid with a big 'tude that isn't cute or funny.
Oh sorry, you have to be witty; you're a Republican. It's us liberals who lack wit. Let me apologize.
Posted by: pia | June 26, 2005 04:34 PM
Pia:
I am so sorry for the horrors you and your family experienced on 9/11. I don't know what it's like to lose contact with a family member or friend while the most devastating and vile event of our lifetime was happening down the street. The fear of losing family and friends is one of the experiences one can go through. I did not mean my comment to be insensitive to you or your family's experience. I am truly sorry.
Now then...
If you want to maintain your dignity, you will get nowhere calling me or others spoiled or stupid because we disagree with the entire intent and content of this weblog. Dismissing me as "stupid" is completely asinine if not deplorable. You have no idea who I am, where I am from, what I do, my education level, or know anything about any of my life experiences. And no I do not run from something I truly believe in and I will not bury my head in the sand and take it up the ass. From what I understand, and please Pia, correct me if I am wrong, but this site was established as public forum not private. This site would not be broadcast through a sevice like Blog Explosion if it was not expecting dissent. It would not be on the internet if it didn't want any and all readers. You should be very happy people like me read this blog. There are others (far worse I might add)like me who share a similar opinion that I have. You need to understand how we feel just as equally as we should know you. I know it is not your intention to have things be challenged or opposed. I get plenty of opposition on my blog. Except, on my blog, I choose what I want to respond to and have let plenty of comments go that I didn't need to respond to. I have choices, and so do you. I am just not as unreasonable as you imply.
Good Evening
Posted by: steve | June 26, 2005 09:06 PM
Hey Steve,
If you read this blog than you will see that most comments range from 2-100 on each post. Usually they hover around 20-50. That should tell you that most of the time there is some intellectual thinking and arguments going on. But when you interject with something very, lets say, along the party lines, expect some back lash. Most people that write for this blog or comment on this blog are very open minded and are looking for open ended discussions. When you first commented it sounded like a drive by comment.
Yes, I am very happy you read this blog and hopefully you will continue but look past what is being spoon fed to you and try being objective and creative. We are not trying to tote the party line here we are trying to re-invent it and hold our sitting president responsible for the err of his ways! Oh and Tom ReLay too!
Posted by: The Bastard | June 26, 2005 11:48 PM
Steve, like TB said Bring it on! is a public forum for debate. We welcome dissent...however when things are said with the same spin there is to be expected backlash...
As you say we don't know you, your education level or your experiences; you do know any of us either. Refrain from making generalizations!
Posted by: sally | June 27, 2005 01:23 AM
steve, I just wish you weren't so set on opposing us so entirely and absolutely, since assuming the content of this blog is all along the same lines is also a generalization.
The only thing we really ask is for you to approach this with an open mind, and reach your own conclusions. And if we slip into dogma, you have every right to whip us silly for it.
and pia, as devastating as the effects of 9/11 were on NY, there were many ripples of fear and policy that spread beyond your country and while other people's experiences are not necessarily the same as yours, that doesn't really mean they aren't as important them.
Posted by: anna. | June 27, 2005 02:35 AM
One final point I must make, I am not being spoon fed anything. I call it as I see it. I am not a disciple of Rush or Miss Coulter, though she can be quite funny. I don't even read the Bible or even believe a theocracy is forming at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I see things black and white, especially on what Karl Rove said above. Where you may all be up at arms about it, I see the truth, sorry, the Demo- I mean, Liberals would MAY have just wanted to "write another letter" or "discover the mindset of our terrorist friends" instead of opening a can of whoopass. Who knows...
Another thing, (to shed some humor) liberals may think of Karl Rove as an evil human being. If his name was "Carl" Rove he'd come off much softer but that "K" makes you think, Karl Marx, K for strikeout, KKK or even Krusty the Klown. That K jumps out at you as this East German, communist bloc type character or your weird Bavarian Uncle who's always pissed off with steroid rage. No wonder you guys think he is evil. It's the name, you can't look at what he says and take him seriously. Or actually, you more than take him seriously... Think, would you go to a Carl's Jr if it started with "K"? I'd be hesitant...
Posted by: steve | June 27, 2005 09:22 AM
Steve
I called you stupid and with a bad tude based on your comments on this blog and your last rant on your blog where you singled people in "Bring it on," and laughed at us stupid liberals who apparently live at our parents home until age 30, never work, wiillingly and without hesistance abort children. There was more.
That's stereotyping at its finest.
And understand something: everybody in metro New York suffered more than anybody in California (unless a family member or good friend was lost) that day. Our lives were totally disrupted. There was nothing resembling "normal" about our lives for a long time.
Do you understand the difference between seeing something on TV and having the smoke come into your house?
When I called you stupid, it was because you generalized all "liberals" into one broad category; didn't look at the nuances of 9/11--something that even now causes difference between me and most of the rest of Bring it On! Mulligan posted something about her niece's back pack being singled out at an airport. I say the more searches the better.
i will refrain from answering your last comment as Rove's remarks speak tons--his name has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: pia | June 27, 2005 10:47 AM
Steve,
Carl's Jr. was probably a bad choice. You see the company was founded by Carl Karner hence the name CKE Enterprises which owns Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. Now although he and the company have never had any kind of discrimination suits against them Carl is a devoute evangelical christian and is a main stay in California Republican politics. He does not have to say anything (smart if you want to protect the piggy bank) he just has to donate to the "right" people that suppport his racist views or discriminatory views. Again don't be so short sited and open your mind to reality.
Posted by: The Bastard | June 27, 2005 11:37 AM
Karl Marx wasn't a great choice either - his ideas weren't evil, the people who used them were. And if according to some people afflicted with the mad cao disease, since all Dems are commies, we should have nothing but the best, brightest associations with Karl Rove.
I think Rove is just funny - he dug himself into a deep hole when he opened his mouth, now I can pull out the popcorn, sit back and laugh at the consequences, thanks much :)
Posted by: anna. | June 27, 2005 11:59 AM
Actually most people who know modern world history would, if stooping to Steve's level, think of somebody and a movement that was a much greater threat than Karl Marx: Adolph Hitler and The Nazi's.
Realize that this is very un-PC, but Hitler did try to rid the world of everybody who didn't fit his specs.
But the difference betweeen us and Steve is that we look beyond the sterotypes. Agree with Anna that it wasn't Karl Marx who was evil.
Think Steve was trying to make a joke! Know that he thinks we're humorless. Something I find too funny on many levels. First and foremost is the stereotyping.
If Anne Coutler is his model of funny, I'll stick to the stereotype, thank you.
I could list all the "liberal" comedians, cartoonists, and witty writers, but the list would take the rest of the afternoon to write.
Posted by: pia | June 27, 2005 02:05 PM
lighten up guys, before we launch into a rove/dean "my party is better than your party" discussion
Posted by: anna. | June 27, 2005 02:29 PM
Geez Pia...
If you couldn't read my blog and note that post was littered with sarcasm and spite then you must be very serious about this.
Again, you are saying that your version of suffering "was better" than my version because you live in New York, lost contact with people and had smoke in your house. Fine, we surrender. But what if I told you that I spent 6 hours in a hospital room because I started puking my guts out on 9/11 watching all of that on CNN? That was the most upsetting day of my life! Plus, I had to spend a quarter of it at Kaiser with an IV in my arm. And Kaiser sucks! People suffer in many ways. Look at Pope John Paul II passing away and Catholics all over the world in mourning.
Also, if I generalize liberals and you think I am talking about you, then I probably am. Sorry! You guys stereotype all of us (me). You do it all the time. Am I anymore evil for doing it back?
FYI, I was busted at LAX for carrying a plastic box-end wrench and they told me I had to go back through security. I got lectured for it as well. Then when I told them to just throw it away, the said they couldn't. Life in a free country, eh?
Lastly, you are not humorless, this blog can be quite entertaining!!!
Bastard:
Ok, Carl's Jr is bad but still that "K" makes you think evil. I refuse to shop at Walmart for their exploitation of cheap labor and cramped isles. You'd be shocked to learn that I am against the death penalty but none of you read my blog enough to confirm that.
Anna:
Your appreciation for Rove is equal to my appreciation for Dean. Imagine if they run against each other next election? Let the good times roll.
Posted by: steve | June 27, 2005 09:08 PM
