Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose [Dan Collins]

Mark Steyn:

Six years on, most Americans are now pretty certain what they’ll wake up to in the morning: There’ll be a thwarted terrorist plot somewhere or other – last week, it was Germany. Occasionally, one will succeed somewhere or other, on the far horizon – in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, London. But not many folks expect to switch on the TV this Tuesday morning, as they did that Tuesday morning, and see smoke billowing from Atlanta or Phoenix or Seattle. During the IRA’s 30-year campaign, the British grew accustomed (perhaps too easily accustomed) to waking up to the news either of some prominent person’s assassination or that a couple of grandmas and some schoolkids had been blown apart in a shopping center. It was a terrorist war in which terrorism was almost routine. But, in the six years since President Bush declared that America was in a “war on terror,” there has been in America no terrorism.

In theory, the administration ought to derive a political benefit from this: The president has “kept America safe.” But, in practice, the placidity of the domestic front diminishes the chosen rationale of the conflict: if a “war on terror” has no terror, who says there’s a war at all? That’s the argument of the left – that it’s all a racket cooked up by the Bushitlerburton fascists to impose on America a permanent national-security state in which, for dark sinister reasons of his own, Dick Cheney is free to monitor your out-of-state phone calls all day long.

Stupid NSA. Safety is unpatriotic. Unless it’s, you know, banning tag or busting someone for oversalting your burger then forcing you at gunpoint to eat it.

Have you seen that bumper sticker “9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB”? If you haven’t, go to a college town and cruise Main Street for a couple of minutes. It seems odd that a fascist regime that thinks nothing of killing thousands of people in a big landmark building in the center of the city hasn’t quietly offed some of these dissident professors – or at least the guy with the sticker-printing contract. Fearlessly, Robert Fisk of Britain’s Independent, the alleged dean of Middle East correspondents, has now crossed over to the truther side and written a piece headlined, “Even I Question The ‘Truth’ About 9/11.” According to a poll in May, 35 percent of Democrats believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Did Rumsfeld also know? Almost certainly. That’s why he went to his office as normal that today, because he knew in advance that the plane would slice through the Pentagon but come to a halt on the far side of the photocopier. That’s how well-planned it was, unlike Iraq.

Apparently, 39 percent of Democrats still believe Bush didn’t know in advance – or, at any rate, so they said in May. But I’m confident half of them will have joined Rosie O’Donnell on the melted steely knoll before the Iowa caucuses. If Iraq is another Vietnam, 9/11 is another Kennedy assassination. Were Bali, Madrid and London also inside jobs by the Bush Gang? It’s no wonder federal spending’s out of control.
And what of those for whom the events of six years ago were more than just conspiracy fodder? Last week the New York Times carried a story about the current state of the 9/11 lawsuits. Relatives of 42 of the dead are suing various parties for compensation, on the grounds that what happened that Tuesday morning should have been anticipated. The law firm Motley Rice, diversifying from its traditional lucrative class-action hunting grounds of tobacco, asbestos and lead paint, is promising to put on the witness stand everybody who “allowed the events of 9/11 to happen.” And they mean everybody – American Airlines, United, Boeing, the airport authorities, the security firms – everybody, that is, except the guys who did it.

18 Replies to “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose [Dan Collins]”

  1. easyliving1 says:

    I can’t remember criticizing Steyn, as I’ve enjoyed his commentary more than almost any other writer (Krauthammer and PW -of course- aside).

    BUT.

    We have had terrorism attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. I wish they were better known, and possibly Steyn would see any criticism of his statement that “there has been in America no terrorism” (after 9/11) as a way to raise awareness of the attacks.

    Still, I don’t accept “perhaps…” when libs state lies, so why would I, or you as it were, accept that from Steyn, even though (or perhaps more appropriately, because of the fact) I (you) like his writing immensely?

    I wonder if Goldstein, as a true expert, cares about what Limbaugh has cared about for a long time: words meaning things?

    I also wonder whether it’s worth the effort to learn how to use colons and question marks, along with whatever “-” are, in the proper manner…

  2. Dan Collins says:

    I thought perhaps he meant that according to liberals, such incidents as a shoot-em-up at a synagogue school can’t rightly be termed terrorism. That did catch my eye, as well.

  3. Jeffersonian says:

    There has been terrorism in the US since 9/11, but only the spontaneous, disorganized sort: a limo driver shoots up the El Al counter at LAX, an aggrieved student runs his rented Cherokee into a flock of students at UNC. The rest of them, the organized and medium- to large-scale attacks – have been rolled up. Not that the Left has had anything but the most lachrymose, hysterical reaction to the arrest and detention of these wannabes, mind you.

    Or, as Cleo might put it, it’s the highest form of patriotism to run interference for those who would annihilate our country.

    Maybe it’s time Chimpy let another attack happen, like he did on 9/11. All the better to fool the booboisie.

  4. Shorter Mark Steyn says:

    I hear people saying we don’t need this war
    I say there’s some things worth fighting for
    What about our freedom and this piece of ground?
    We didn’t get to keep ’em by backing down
    They say we don’t realize the mess we’re getting in
    Before you start preaching
    Let me ask you this my friend

    CHORUS 1
    Have you forgotten how it felt that day
    To see your homeland under fire
    And her people blown away?
    Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
    We had neighbors still inside
    Going through a living hell
    And you say we shouldn’t worry ’bout Bin Laden
    Have you forgotten?

    They took all the footage off my T.V.
    Said it’s too disturbing for you and me
    It’ll just breed anger that’s what the experts say
    If it was up to me I’d show it every day
    Some say this country’s just out looking for a fight
    After 9/11 man I’d have to say that’s right

    CHORUS 1
    Have you forgotten how it felt that day
    To see your homeland under fire
    And her people blown away?
    Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
    We had neighbors still inside
    Going through a living hell
    And you say we shouldn’t worry ’bout Bin Laden
    Have you forgotten?

    I’ve been there with the soldiers
    Who’ve gone away to war
    And you can bet they remember
    Just what they’re fighting for

    CHORUS 2
    Have you forgotten all the people killed?
    Some went down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field
    Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
    All the loved ones that we lost
    And those left to carry on
    Don’t you tell me not to worry about Bin Laden
    Have you forgotten?

    Have you forgotten?
    Have you forgotten?

  5. happyfeet says:

    But, in the six years since President Bush declared that America was in a “war on terror,” there has been in America no terrorism.

    In theory, the administration ought to derive a political benefit from this: The president has “kept America safe.”

    I don’t agree with this, cause I think the corollary validates trutherism. There will be another horrific terrorist attack. Someone will be president. Whoever it is, their agenda will be set on the backburner. Political attacks on their failure to “keep America safe” are ridiculous. Sure – look hard at the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, but the responsibility for preventing terrorism is inherently decentralized. It better be anyway.

  6. mojo says:

    Anybody see that video of Hillary’s 2000 (allegedly!) unlawful confab with Peter Paul (a name that practically demands the question “where’s Mary”) and Stan Lee? http://www.hillcap.org I think.

    Notice the big CIA coffee mug on Paul’s desk?

  7. MamaAJ says:

    Besides the LAX shooting and other incidents, there was that bit with the anthrax. Yes, I know the FBI says it was homegrown, but either way, it really bugs me that it’s almost completely forgotten.

  8. happyfeet says:

    It was clearly inspired in some way by 9/11. At least I think of it that way.

  9. happyfeet says:

    Whoa. That burger thing deserves its own post. That Atlanta cop should be famous I think.

  10. Dan Collins says:

    Atlanta cops seem to be getting famous for all the wrong reasons, lately.

  11. ThomasD says:

    From the salty caper article.

    City public information officer George Louth said Bull was charged because she served the burger “without regards to the well-being of anyone who might consume it.”

    I worked restaraunt kitchens all through high school and college. I’ve dealth with several owner/managers who had rather broad defintions for edibility and servability. And I’m talking about things well beyond a little ‘floor spice.’

    I guess I’ll go turn myself in.

    Commenting may be light…

  12. Luis Mendoza says:

    The leaders of the 9/11/2001 plot are still at large. The attack and illegal invasion of Iraq was a complete blunder that increased the ranks of our enemies around the world, and discredited America in the eyes of our allies, making us less safe. This in turn benefits defense industry cronies of the Administration since the more people hate us and the more we help in creating those conditions, the more money they make. If Iraq had not been invaded at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, a fraction of that money and effort focused on going after the people behind the 9/11 attack, brought them to justice, charged them, prosecuted them, and convicted them in a court of law, we would have (1) kept the respect of the rest of the world, (2) would have made our country safer, and (3) would have properly dealt with the issue of justice for the victims of 9/11 and their families. Terms such as “war on terror” and “homeland” are propagandist. Our government’s responsibility is to protect our “country”, to protect our “citizens”, to protect and defend our constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. The term “homeland” is foreign to our history and values, and is being introduce as part of a new narrative related to jingoism, militarism, and fascistic tendencies.

  13. Spiny Norman says:

    So Luis, if we hadn’t “blundered” into Iraq (where some of bin Laden’s followers, such as al-Zarqawi, had fled to), we would be free to invade Pakistan to search every cave and remote village in Waziristan?

    Really?

    And what is with this Mythical “international respect” you people keep goin on about? We were being mocked by the Eurotrash Left during the Clinton Administration. And the first Bush Administration. And the Reagan Administration…

  14. Jeff G. says:

    I think you should shoot a video of yourself saying those things, Luis. Throw in a bit about Kyoto, taxes, subprime lending, and Vietnam, and I think you might be on to something…

    Incidentally, I got the feeling that “Osama” was hoping we’d quit Iraq after the Dems took over Congress. He seems almost as upset as Luis, in fact, that such hasn’t happened.

    I know why Osama’s upset — al Qaeda is getting their asses handed to them, and the Arabs in Iraq have turned against the jihadis. Not so sure why Luis is upset.

    Now, Luis being the verbose commenter he is is sure to follow up with a lengthy comment. But I’ll be sipping a scotch and finishing a novel, so I won’t be responding.

    I invite the rest of you, though, to do so at your leisure.

  15. Sean M. says:

    At first, that looks like some nice lefty boilerplate there, Luis. But while you mentioned “defense industry cronies of the Administration,” you forgot to mention Halliburton by name, so we’ll have to dock you a point there. You also neglected the “stolen elections” and the obligatory remarks about Karl Rove’s (or Dick Cheney’s–they’re pretty much interchangeable) deviousness and/or perfidy. A Vietnam reference would’ve been nice, too.

    Pretty sloppy, really. Needs improvement.

  16. Rusty says:

    omment by Luis Mendoza on 9/9 @ 10:19 pm #

    The leaders of the 9/11/2001 plot are still at large. The attack and illegal invasion of Iraq was a complete blunder that increased the ranks of our enemies around the world, and discredited America in the eyes of our allies, making us less safe. This in turn benefits defense industry cronies of the Administration since the more people hate us and the more we help in creating those conditions, the more money they make. If Iraq had not been invaded at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, a fraction of that money and effort focused on going after the people behind the 9/11 attack, brought them to justice, charged them, prosecuted them, and convicted them in a court of law, we would have (1) kept the respect of the rest of the world, (2) would have made our country safer, and (3) would have properly dealt with the issue of justice for the victims of 9/11 and their families. Terms such as “war on terror” and “homeland” are propagandist. Our government’s responsibility is to protect our “country”, to protect our “citizens”, to protect and defend our constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. The term “homeland” is foreign to our history and values, and is being introduce as part of a new narrative related to jingoism, militarism, and fascistic tendencies.

    Allu Akbar! Brutha! Keep spreading the good news! BTW, OBL ayssay the heckcay is in the ailmay. (wink)

  17. RDub says:

    the more people hate us and the more we help in creating those conditions, the more money they make.

    Wow – so the defense industry has actually made a machine that sucks the hate right out of the air and mints it into cold hard cash? Those magnificent bastards!

  18. JockCommy says:

    Let’s see how silly Luis’s comments are.

    The invasion of Iraq was justified because Saddam HUssein was a major threat to regional and specifically USA security. Iraq was a known Al Quaeda stronghold. Since then the correctness of the decision has been borne out by a significant reduction in animosity and terrorist activity directed at the US from the Muslim world. The USA has never enjoyed stronger support from it allies and this has made terrorist operations on foreign soil ever more difficult for Al Quaeda. The entirely necessary war in Iraq has been fought at practically zero cost with no benefit to the suppliers of military goods and services who have no connections to the Bush administration.

    The term homeland has been common parlance since the formation of the republic and in no way resembles the kind of Stalinist and Nazi propaganda which referred the glorious father and/or mother lands. It just seemed like a good choice at the time.

    #—–

    It amazes me that people don’t realize that the defense industry loves conflicts. Do you think they dream of a world at peace where they will be no need for the stuff they make? What happens to their shares when terror strikes and wars start? The sad thing about you guys is that you probably don’t even have shares in Lockheed Martin. If you were at least guilty of un-enlightened self interest, but no, you’re just plain thick, gladly forking over your tax dollars to sponsor carnage as long as it is far from the “homeland”.

Comments are closed.