The only thing we have to blame is not taking action fast enough. As soon as the '93 attack occured....Clinton could have prepared the nation and the world for the War on Terror, and hunted every Al Qaida cell they could find. Instead, it was treated as a police matter. It SHOULD have been a declaration of war...but it wasn't "BIG" enough. Eight years later, we knew we had an enemy so fueled by hate that they had indeed declared WAR. That's one thing I had trouble with a "President Gore" scenario....as I don't believe these Democrats who say he would have gone into Afghanistan. I think the most he would have done would have been to shoot a few missiles at Kabul....and he certainly wouldn't have created the Department of Homeland Security or passed the Patriot Act or conducted wiretapping.
That's why I am supporting John McCain, and that's why national security is my number one issue. The reason we haven't been attacked is VERY likely because of the things such as the Patriot Act that the Bush Administration has enacted...and if we get a President Obama...he's gonna tear that act to shreds...and risk America's security.
Also, I hate having people who ask "WHY" and that is one thing that gives me a disdain for liberal-minded people. There always has to be a reason for something...and nothing in their mind can ever just "happen". If the hurricane hits...it hits because it's mother nature...but to the liberals...there has to be some "present day underlying cause". If a terror attack happens...it's because the terrorists want us dead for reasons already known...but the liberals ask "WHY". I remember back in late June 2007, when there were attempted terror attacks in Scotland and the U.K, someone on the forum posted something to the effect of "Why would they attack Scotland if BLAH BLAH BLAH, ect ect"
I tried to relay to them...with terrorists...it is simple. THEY WANT US DEAD IF WE DON'T ADOPT THEIR ISLAMIC EXTREMIST VIEWS AND RELIGIONS. BY US...IT MEANS...ANYONE. Iraq, Germany, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, United States, ANYONE.
To ask "WHY" is dumb when we know the reason. "WHY DID WE INVADE IRAQ?" We invaded because it was 18 months after 9/11 and everyone knew Saddam was a threat. "WHY IRAQ IF THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11?" In the post-9/11 world, any and all threats had to be taken seriously. "WHY WERE THERE NO WMD's FOUND?" Saddam either moved them or the intel was bad.
The inability to ask questions and just react is what pisses me off so much about the so-called "conservatives".
As I have written here before, terror is not just an act. It's not like arresting someone for stealing your TV - action-reaction. Terror is a deep and personal ideology. Running around blowing up terrorists will NOT stop it. Understanding your enemy is not tantamount to agreeing with them. Knowing what drives them, I mean apart from the O'Reilly and Bush talking points, helps you fight them effectively. It's like a disease, for the most part the acts of terror are the symptoms of the illness, what drives it, is the ideology of terrorism.
Going all "John Rambo" makes everyone feel better - but doesn't solve the problem.
America wasn't to blame for 9/11 (especially not the innocent victims at the WTC, The Pentagon or in the planes), no more than the British commuters were to blame on 7/7 or my friend and the rest killed in Bali. BUT asking what drives people to consider this action valid and reasonable is sensible and reasonable. Just declaring them monsters and blowing them up like in an action film doesn't make the problem go away.
I'm getting increasingly worried about Obama and the working class white vote... this stuff isn't going to make things any easier.
