Seven years on

Seven years ago this week, I was filled with optimism. Not everyone responded to the events of 9/11/01 that way, but I did.
    Yes, I was mindful of the horrific loss of human life. But nothing could change that; my optimism rose from what I believed would come next.
    Surely, I thought, we could set aside foolishness and use the unprecedented resources our nation possessed — military power, certainly, but also our economic dominance and perhaps most of all the strength of the ideas upon which our nation is built — to make future 9/11s less likely.
    By “foolishness” I mean a number of things. Take, for instance, our insatiable appetite for oil produced by nations that consider fostering al-Qaidas as being consistent with their interests. (Joe Biden has a great speech he’s given around South Carolina for years about the incalculable opportunity wasted by George W. Bush on Sept. 12, when, instead of urging us to every sacrifice and every effort toward transforming the energy underpinnings of our economy, he told us to go shopping and delegate the war fighting to the professionals.)
    But the greatest foolishness was the pointless, poisonous partisanship that militated against focusing the nation’s resources toward solving any problem. It should have been the easiest to set aside. It’s not that I read too much into those Democrats and Republicans singing “God Bless America” on the Capitol steps; it’s that partisanship is based on considerations that are so much less substantial than the realities of 9/11. Those attacks should have melted away party differences like the noonday tropical sun burning away a morning mist.
    But partisanship is an industry that employs thousands of Americans — in the offices of Beltway advocacy groups, in the studios of 24/7 cable TV “news” channels, in party headquarters, on congressional staffs and in the White House. And they are much better focused on that which sustains them — polarization for its own sake — than the rest of us are on the interests we hold in common.
    They lay low for awhile, but as most of us went back to shopping while our all-volunteer military went to war, the polarization industry went back to work dividing us, hammer and tongs. They tapped the powerful emotions of 9/11 to their purposes, and led us to levels of bitterness that none of us had seen in our lifetimes.
    But what did I expect to happen, seven years ago? Nothing less than using our considerable influence to build a better world. Go ahead, laugh. All done now?
    In an editorial the Sunday after the attacks, I wrote that “We are going to have to drop our recent tendencies toward isolationism and fully engage the rest of the world on every possible term — military, diplomatic, economic and humanitarian.” That meant abandoning a lot of foolishness.
    Take, for instance, our policy toward the Mideast. Our goal had been stability above all. Prop up some oppressive regimes and come to terms with others; just don’t let anything interfere with the smooth flow of petroleum. Saddam upsets the equilibrium by invading Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia? Send half a million troops to restore the status quo ante, but don’t topple his regime, because that would upset the balance.
    But 9/11 showed us that the status quo was extraordinarily dangerous. It produced millions of disaffected young men, frustrated and humiliated by the oppression that we propped up. Things needed to change.
    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed part of the equation well in Cairo in 2005: “For 60 years the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East — and we achieved neither.” The New York Times’ Tom Friedman took it further, speaking of the need to “drain swamps,” the figurative kind that bred terrorists the way literal bogs breed malaria.
    But instead of leading a national effort on every possible front — the military speaks of our national power as being based in the acronym DIME, for “Diplomatic,” “Information,” “Military” and “Economic” resources (those who put their lives on the line are wise about these things) — we’ve spent most of the past seven years bickering over the military aspect alone. This argument between the antiwar left and the hawkish right has so weakened the national will to do anything that we came close to failure in Iraq, could still fail in Afghanistan and are helpless in the face of Russian aggression in the Caucasus and Iranian nuclear ambition.
    So how do I feel about our national prospects today, given all that has happened? Forgive me, but I am once again (cautiously) optimistic, based on a number of signs, from small to momentous:

  • Dramatic improvement in Iraq — thanks largely to the “surge” that he belatedly embraced after four years of floundering — has changed the national conversation, and led President Bush to speak of starting the process of moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, the battleground even the partisans can agree upon.
  • Last week Secretary Rice sat down to solidify a new understanding with Moammar Quaddafi of Libya, the once-intractable sponsor of terror whose mind was changed by the Iraq invasion.
  • The choice for president is between two men who gained their respective parties’ nominations by speaking to the deep national desire to move beyond partisan paralysis. (I realize they would lead in different directions. But if either can lead a national consensus toward implementing his best ideas, we will be better off — if only for having had the experience of agreeing with each other for once.)

Yes, the threads of hope to which I cling are delicate, and cynics will regard me as laughably foolish. But the alternative is not to hope. And that, given the potential of this nation, would be the ultimate foolishness.

Go to

33 thoughts on “Seven years on

  1. Ralph Hightower

    From a NY Times columnist, another anniversary op-ed on 9/11/2001:
    In the Seventh Year
    Published: September 10, 2008
    And in the seventh year after the fall, the dust and debris of the towers cleared. And it became plain at last what had been wrought.
    For the wreckage begat greed; and it came to pass that while America’s young men and women fought, other Americans enriched themselves. Beguiling the innocent, they did backdate options, and they did package toxic mortgage securities and they did reprice risk on the basis that it no more existed than famine in a fertile land.
    Thereby did the masters of the universe prosper, with gold, with silver shekels, with land rich in cattle and fowl, with illegal manservants and maids, with jewels and silk, and with Gulfstream V business jets; yet the whole land did not prosper with them. And it came to pass, when the housing bubble burst, that Main Street had to pay for the Wall Street party.
    For Bush ruled over the whole nation and so sure was he of his righteousness that he did neglect husbandry.
    And he took his nation into desert wars and mountain wars, but, lo, he thought not to impose taxation, not one heifer nor sheep nor ox did Bush demand of the rich. And it came to pass that the nation fell into debt as boundless as the wickedness of Sodom. For everyone, Lehman not least, was maxed out.
    So heavy was the burden of war, and of bailing out Fannie and Freddie, and of financing debt with China, that not one silver shekel remained to build bridges, nor airports, nor high-speed trains, nor even to take care of wounded vets; and the warriors returning unto their homes from distant combat thought a blight had fallen on the land.
    So it was in the seventh year after the fall of the towers. And still Bush did raise his hands to the Lord and proclaim: “I will be proved right in the end!”
    And around the whole earth, which had stood with America, there arose a great trouble, for it seemed to peoples abroad that a great nation, rich in flocks and herds and land and water, had been cast among thorns and Philistines; its promise betrayed, its light dimmed, its armies stretched, its budget broken, its principles compromised, its dollar diminished.
    And it came to pass that this profligate nation, drinking oil with insatiable thirst, could not cure itself of this addiction, and so its wealth was transferred to other nations that did not always wish it well.
    Wherefore the balance of power in the world was altered in grievous ways, and new centers of authority arose, and they were no more persuaded by democracy than was the Pharaoh.
    For Bush ruled over the whole nation, and so sure was he of his righteousness that he did neglect the costs of wanton consumption. And he believed that if the Lord created fossil fuel, fossil fuel must flow without end, as surely as the grape will yield wine.
    Therefore, in the seventh year after the fall, with 1,126 of the slain still unidentified, their very beings rendered unto dust, their souls inhabiting the air of New York, it seemed that one nation had become two; and loss, far from unifying the people, had sundered the nation.
    For the rich, granted tax breaks more generous than any blessing, grew richer, and incomes in the middle ceased to rise, and workers saw jobs leaving the land for that region called Asia. And some fought wars while others shopped; and some got foreclosed while others got clothes. And still Bush spake but few listened.
    Behold, so it was in the seventh year, and it seemed that America was doubly smitten, from without and within.
    And, lo, a strange thing did come to pass. For as surely as the seasons do alternate, so the ruler and party that have brought woe to a nation must give way to others who can lead their people to plenty. How can the weary, flogged ass bear honey and balm and almonds and myrrh?
    Yet many Americans believed the exhausted beast could still provide bounty. They did hold that a people called the French was to blame. They did accuse a creation called the United Nations. They did curse the ungodly sophisticates of Gotham and Hollywood and sinful Chicago; and, lo, they proclaimed God was on their side, and carried a gun, and Darwin was bunk, and truth resided in Alaska.
    For Bush ruled over the whole nation and so sure was he of his righteousness that he did foster division until it raged like a plague. Each tribe sent pestilence on the other.
    And in the seventh year after the fall, the dust and debris of the towers cleared. And it became plain at last what had been wrought — but not how the damage would be undone.

  2. Ralph Hightower

    I wish that spirit of bipartisan cooperation lasted longer than the six weeks after 9/11. But partisan habits never go away. The Republicans shut the Democrats down from participating in governing and now the tide has turned against the Republicans. The Democrats have shut the Republicans down from participating in governing.
    Payback is hell!
    I just wish the two political parties didn’t act like Mad Magazine’s Spy vs. Spy. Why do the two parties act like it is Us vs. Them?
    As Walt Kelley, cartoonist for the comic strip Pogo, has said We have met the enemy and he is us.

  3. Lee Muller

    “…the spirit of bipartisanship lasted..”
    … about 10 minutes, before Democrats in the media starting spreading the lie that Bush had hidden in a bunker and Cheney was in control.
    … about 24 hours, before some nutcase Democrats said Bush knew in advance of the attacks, and let the happen.
    … about 48 hours, until Clinton aides said how they wish the attacks had come while Bill was in office, so he could have secured his legacy.
    … 22 days, until some Democrat memos were leaked showing a planned campaign of lies to smear Bush, no matter which way things progressed.
    Tom Daschle accused Bush of doing nothing… just hours before the US launched attacks on Tora Bora, Afghanistan, and revealed that our CIA and Special Forces had been in there since Sept 12.
    The Democrats gave Clinton a nearly unanimous vote in 1998 to “use any means possible to remove Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction”, but Clinton failed to make an honest effort.

  4. Herb Brasher

    Well written, Brad. Though I disagree with you on some of the particulars, especially your over-optimistic (from my point of view, obviously) faith in the military, and perhaps in the need to topple Saddam (what’s done is done, and goodness knows he deserved it), the broad lines could not have been laid out more plainly.
    All I can say, for what it’s worth, is to wish courage to you and others in such a position as you have. I’m sure you remember your history much better than I do, and recall that every move forward is usually the result, not of the mass, but of a few good leaders who persevered against all odds and inspired others.
    I suspect that a greater challenge lies before us than the likes of leaders such as Wilberforce, Lincoln, Churchill, or Mother Theresa faced, but perhaps there will be some who will lead like they did, often at great personal cost to themselves.
    Thanks again.

  5. veritas

    Lee, nothing that you have posted is true. Google has no links to any news stories or third party sources, even GOP friendly sites to substantiate your outlandish claims. If you’re going to lay out accusations, please include the facts and not regurgitated op-eds, if you even know the difference.
    Brad, I’m all for an open discussion from people with different opinions, but there comes a point when you have to let someeone go as the idea of the forum/posts is to have everyone look at the agreed upon FACTS and give their perspective.
    The problem with the US today is too many people do not look at the facts or try to look for the facts but rather form their opinions from less than truthful, highly paid opinion-heads or endless blather. Lies get aborbed as truth and end the meaningful discussion
    There comes a point in journalism when you have to say “enough.” When opinions are not squarely based on the same facts as everyone else and your comments to not hold up to simple scrutiny, its time to inform that person of their faults and tell them good-bye.
    Bye Lee.

  6. Ralph Hightower

    You are a damned fool if you even believe that crap.
    For a brief moment in time, the terrorist attacks united us. Whe forgot about that which divides us, such as political parties.

  7. george32

    initially the white house did not want it reported that bush was not in washington when the attacks occured-congressional leadership said he and they were going to be retiring to bunkers. the press checked the already published presidents schedule and reported before 10:00am (fox first i think) where he really was. some wacko republicans still believe that fdr “allowed” pearl harbor to attack. no democratic affiliated religious leaders were on their national tv network gold mine saying the us deserved it like pat robertson. he was eventually condemned after karl rove checked the public opinion polls. the nearly unanimous voted tied saddam and wmd-they still haven’t been found but we sure have killed a lot of people and sold a lot of the us to china while looking.
    brad, chief dittohead would not make enough money to support his various habits if there were a spirit of bipartisanship and fox/murdoch would be lost.

  8. Lee Muller

    Democrat Duplicity – Exhibit A – Tom Daschle
    Sept 12-18, 2001 – Democrats, led by Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi, refuse to give President Bush wiretapping authority on suspected terrorists.
    Oct 2-4, 2001 – Tom Daschle vows to gut the proposed Patriot Act
    Oct 6, 2001 – Tom Daschle denounces Bush for “not pursuing Bin Laden”
    Oct 7, 2001 – General Tommy Franks announces that air strikes are hitting Al Qaeda and Taliban forces, including Ossama Bin Laden, in Tora Bora.
    November 14, 2001 – Daschle, Gore and Kerry criticize Bush and General Franks for “letting Bin Laden escape” to Pakistan.
    Feb 28, 2002 – Daschle answers Senator Robert Byrd in phony “hearings”, that he opposes pursuit of terrorists into Pakistan.
    September 5, 2002 – Daschle, a former Air Force photo intelligence analyst, is shown classified reconnaissance of weapons and hijacker training camps in Iraq. Daschle reiterates his 1998 support for removing Saddam Hussein.
    “There is absolutely no difference of opinion with regard to the threat that Saddam Hussein poses and the need to address that threat in a multitude of ways, said Daschle.” [Associated Press, 9/20/2002]
    Associated Events
    … Shall I go on with this history lesson?

  9. Lee Muller

    Exhibit B – Democrats claiming Bush blew up the WTC towers or knew about it and let it happen
    In this blog, right now:
    James D McAlister

  10. bud

    Lee, I’ve already acknowledged (in agreement with a comment by Mike C, a person who I generally disagree with) that the WTC was attacked by a handful of radicals, mostly from Saudi Arabia and that Bush was not involved. So please remove my name from that list. This just shows how you are so blinded by ideology that you can’t even get basic, simple facts right. But I guess that’s in keeping with all the trademark smear and fear tactics used by the right. Shame on you for this slander.
    But where I have criticized Bush is in his horrible response to the August, 2001 daily presidential memo that clearly showed the possibility of an attack by the terrorists. And, to his utterly incompetent response once he was notified of the SECOND plane hitting the WTC. The man was utterly clueless while he continued to read My Pet Goat for an agonizing 5+ minutes.
    So get one thing straight Mr. Muller, your constant and hopelessly incorrect proclaimations of one sort or another illustrate nothing except your complete ignorance and partisan thuggery. You offer nothing of substance on this blog other than mis-statement after mis-statement. It’s the likes of you who have created the disaster of the Bush Adminstration with all it’s many debacles and failure. You sir, are nothing but a moron.

  11. bill

    Hunter S. Thompson 9/12/2001
    The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now–with somebody–and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.
    It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy.
    We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or what will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once.
    This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed–for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush….He will declare a National Security Emergency and clamp down Hard on Everybody, no matter where they live or why. If the guilty won’t hold up their hands and confess, he and the Generals will ferret them out by force.

  12. Lee Muller

    Glad to see that Anonymous Bud now rejects the delusion, held by 35% of Democrats, that President Bush planned or aided the 9/11 attacks.
    Don’t lecture me, Anonymous Bud.
    Lecture your delusional fellow Democrats who so hate America and anyone who takes them out of power.
    Clinton was also told of the planned WTC attacks, and could have arrested the hijackers, but Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick would not let the FBI talk to Army Intelligence which had two of the cells under surveillance. Clinton also refused the arrest and the assassination of Bin Laden.

  13. Phillip

    I’m departing from my usual policy of responding to the “facts” that Lee presents, but this one is so easy and such a good illustration of how he twists words to suit his own, shall we say “unique”?–view of the world, that I couldn’t resist.
    I believe the poll Lee is citing when he says that 35% of Democrats believe Bush “planned or aided the 9/11 attacks” is this 2007 one from Rasmussen. If you click on the link, you will find that what the poll REALLY says is that 35% of Democrats polled believe Bush knew about the attacks in advance, which of course, is a very different thing. Of course, I’d count myself among the 2/3 of Democrats who don’t believe, but in any case, it certainly is not true that a third of Democrats believe Bush actively aided or planned the attacks, that’s just a product of Lee’s very fertile imagination.
    The other interesting thing about the poll is that 1 in 8 Republicans believed the same thing, that Bush knew of the attacks in advance. Naturally that’s a much smaller percentage but still to me surprisingly substantial.

  14. Lee Muller

    Any way you want to spin it, any Democrat or other nut job who believes that Bush knew of the 9/11 attacks and let them happen, should not be driving a car, much less voting.
    Of course, a lot of these are probably kids and illiterates who watch Michael Moore lies and listen to Air America lies.

  15. Lee Muller

    To believe that Bush allowed the 9/11 attacks is to believe that he was PLANNING them, or planning to use them for some evil purpose.
    Air America says the was behind the attacks.
    Michael Moore says he was behind the attacks.
    Big Democrat donors claim that the explosions were from charges inside the WTC towers and Pentagon.
    David Ray Griffin, author of “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action,” argues in his new book that the Bush administration planned the events of Sept. 11, 2001, so they could provide justification for going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.
    “I became more convinced that if the truth about 9/11 was going to be exposed, the churches were probably going to have to be involved,” Griffin told the magazine. “If we become convinced that the so-called war on terror is simply a pretext for enlarging the American empire, we have every reason as Christians to try and expose the truth behind 9/11.”
    In March, Rosie O’Donnell advanced the inside-job theory further, arguing the attacks on the World Trade Center were designed to protect Enron by eliminating records of government investigations into corporate fraud.
    Two weeks earlier, the co-hostess of ABC’s “The View,” came to the defense of terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, suggesting the government elicited a false confession from the 9/11 mastermind by using torture, robbing him of his humanity and treating him like an animal.
    An earlier Scripps Howard poll indicated the conspiracy theorists had found a market among Americans, with more than a third believing the U.S. government somehow assisted in the terrorist attacks, or else took no steps to stop them from occurring, so the Bush administration could launch a war in the Middle East.
    Now, Rasmussen has parsed those beliefs along partisan lines.
    While 61 percent of Democrats either believed or weren’t sure 9/11 occurred with the administration’s foreknowledge, Republicans rejected the theory of passive complicity by a 7-to-1 margin.
    For those with no major party affiliation, the idea Bush knew was held by only 18 percent. Fifty-seven percent rejected it.
    Overall, 22 percent of voters believe the president knew in advance.

  16. tomfliesthebonnieblue

    Thanks for a well written piece, I don’t think you are being foolish or cynical in your desire for us to pick up the pieces and move forward as a unified country. We are going to have to find a way to do so if we are survive as a country.
    no thank you for sharing Mr. Cohen’s bizzare column. When in doubt ‘blame bush’.
    the desire to silence those you do not agree with isn’t a hallmark of a democratic republic, but the tactic of a despot.
    Hunter S. Thompson? you’re kidding us right? I’m surprised he’s still alive, let alone lucid enough to write, but as you can see, he was wrong.
    God Bless all of you, if we all agreed on everything this blog would be boring.

  17. bud

    Bush was given an intelligence briefing by way of the now-famous presidential daily briefing memo that strongly stated “Bin Laden determined to strike America”. Does this mean that Bush knew, in advance, of the attacks? No. The memo was not specific on the timing and means of this attack. However, it’s likely he could have KNOWN of the plan had he done his homework. It’s at least plausible that if Bush was a more intelligent, thoughful person he would have taken this seriously and sought every bit of information at his disposal to make sense of it. Perhaps it just couldn’t have been possible to prevent the attacks. That’s a position I can respect. What I can’t respect is his complete indifference to the memo and utter failure to even try to figure it out.
    The failure is not one of commission but one of ommission. I’m convinced the president was truly and completely surprised by the attack. But what surprises me is how people give him such a complete pass on the month leading up to the attacks. That was the most disgraceful and inexcusable episodes of any president in American history.

  18. Lee Muller

    Clinton had the same briefings, plus he had the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden and to kill him, and he refused.
    You’ll never hear any Democrat tell you exactly what they would have done to stop the suicide attacks on 9/11, because most of them already had the same briefings and they did nothing. They did nothing from 1993 to 2001.
    Democrats today want to call off the war on Islamofascism.

  19. Lee Muller

    Anonymous Bud had earlier in this thread denied that he believed that President Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Then, at 10:42 AM, he says Bush knew of the attacks and let them happen. How sick!

  20. Ralph Hightower

    I understand now. I get it.
    I see that you get your news from the Rosie O’Donnell show, The View, and supermarket tabloids.
    No wonder you believe in so many wacky conspiracies.
    Try to get your news from legitimate media, such as The State, or even Fox News. I hear that Fox News says they “Are Fair and Balanced”.
    Don’t believe what you receive in emails from a friend of a friend. It is probably one of those hoaxes that was already debunked by Snopes on their Urban Legends Page.

  21. Lee Muller

    Mr. Hightower is one of those claiming that Bush was in cahoots with Bin Laden to blow up the WTC towers and Pentagon. He has posted such delusional sedition this week, in another thread.
    Hightower needs to examine where he gets his mind poison, whether it is his Rosie O’Donnell show, The View, supermarket tabloids, Air America, Michael Moore, Bill Mahr, or Al Gore.

  22. Ralph Hightower

    You are full of bulls**t!
    You are the one that quotes Rosie O’Donnell, The View’s hosts, Air America, Michael Moore, and others. Since you are so knowledgeable about Rosie, I can only assume that you also get your news from The Oprah Winfrey show.
    September 11, 2001, I turned on the TV and watched the Today Show, after I heard a plane had crashed into the WTC. I saw the second plane plow into the second WTC. I immediately thought Al-Qaeda was behind the terrorist attack. 9/11/2001 was not the first attack on the World Trade Center. Al-Qaeda tried on 2/26/1993 to bring down the WTC with a truck bomb. Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S.S. Cole on 10/12/2000. There were also the various truck bombs on U.S. embassies in Africa.
    Bill Clinton launched 75 cruise missiles into an Al-Qaeda training camp in an attempt to kill bin-Laden. Clinton tried to kill the head snake and in the turn over to the new administration tried to warn the Bush administration that Al-Qaeda was their biggest threat.
    To me, Rosie is a crackpot.
    You, Lee, are also a crackpot for believing in what Rosie and the other crackpots say.
    BTW, I voted for Bush his second time around.
    I get my news from legitimate news sources, MSNBC web site, NBC, NY Times,, BBC, and others. The View, Rosie O’Donnell show, Oprah Winfrey, Air America are not on my list of trusted news sources.

  23. Lee Muller

    Ralph, you’re the one who said Bush was in on the WTC attacks. If you won’t tell us where you get your delusional notions, we have plenty of traitors in the Democratic Party who are likely sources.
    You’re not as dumb as you pretend to be.
    Take this conversation over to the most recent thread where you talked about Bush having foreknowledge of the attacks, and explain what you really meant. Maybe you jsut need to get a proof reader.
    And to educate you a bit, Bill Clinton launched 75 missiles at a training camp long AFTER the USAF told him to, after Bin Laden had left. Bill Clinton refused to let the USAF kill Bin Laden with an armed drone when they had him in their sights.
    Bill Clinton dropped 80,000 tons of bombs on Iraq, to remove Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. He used those exact words in 32 speeches.

  24. Lee Muller

    And Ralph, stop poisoning your mind with swill from the likes of Richard Cohen, Tom Teepan, Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd.

  25. Ralph Hightower

    Please point out where you say I said “Bush was in on the WTC attacks”. I have never blamed Bush in the WTC attacks. Al-Qaeda had America in its target sights a long time before 2001.
    I never said that Bush was in on the WTC attacks. If Bush did know of the attacks, then Bush should be impeached and jailed.
    You are the one who quotes Rosie O’Donnell and The View in your comments posted on Sep 12, 2008 9:54:36 AM; yet you tried to attribute Rosie and The View to me in your post Sep 12, 2008 7:55:14 PM.
    I have never referenced Tom Teepan. What Roger Cohen wrote in his anniversary article is what is happening now: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman going under, our addiction to foreign oil. His article was masterfully written in Biblical terms. If you don’t believe the issues Cohen wrote about, then you are living in a fantasy land.
    I get my news from legitimate news sources. I refuse to have you censor the news that I should get information from.
    No one is stopping you to get news from the Rosie O’Donnell show, or The View. However, using those sources as references makes you look like a fool.
    Rush Limbaugh is not one of my news sources. He is as divisive a force in America as much as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are a divisive force.
    For the record, I am not a Republican or a Democrat.

  26. Lee Muller

    There you go, playing stupid, again.
    You know the only reason I quote idiots like Rosie O’Donnell or Al Franken is that they are the voices of the 35% of Democrats who believe President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks and let them happen, or actually planned them. I want to know the enemies of America.
    If you don’t want to be associated with these traitors, don’t quote them, or Richard Cohen and the other ignorant columnists who spew hate against America.
    When I quote Jeremiah Wright, Percy Sutton, or one of the Arab supporters of Barack Hussein Obama, that doesn’t make me Muslim or a Democrat.

  27. Lee Muller

    Muslims Support Obama
    “I would like to see Obama become president of America because he champions ‘change and hope’, which we Muslims need as much as the Americans do,” Islamic television preacher Amr Khaled told AFP.
    Khaled told the forum that he speaks “on behalf of millions of Muslim youth who seek work, respect and freedom,” and urged the next US administration to “solve the political problems in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, and not to mix between Muslims and extremists.”
    “The Indonesian people would love to see a (US) president who has studied at an elementary school in Jakarta,” Din Syamsuddin, chairman of Muhammadiyah, one of Indonesia’s largest Islamic organisations, told AFP in a reference to Obama.
    2008 US-Islam Congress, held in Qatari

  28. Ralph Hightower

    Having trouble finding the page where you say I say that Bush was in on the WTC attacks?
    There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth that I didn’t say.
    The page! The page! Where is the page that you say I say that Bush knew of the WTC attacks?
    For the record, I didn’t quote O’Donnell or Franken; you did.
    Oh never mind… More ramblings from a lunatic Lee trying to invent quotes to pin to those participating in this blog.

  29. Lee Muller

    Maybe I misunderstood you, so I will remove you from my list of people who believe that G.W. Bush blew up the WTC towers. Quoting dolts like Richard Cohen and Thomas Friedman makes anyone look bad.
    But you just seem to have a chip on your shoulder and looking to spat. Why don’t you just drop this WTC drivel and say why you are so disagreeable.
    tIs i because I oppose so many of the local GovCo spending sprees?

  30. Walt Hampton

    Said once before…obviously
    needs to be said again.
    9/11 is available at your fingertips.
    I just want to throw out a few
    random thoughts, then that’s it..
    First, if you believe the establishment
    version of what happened on 9/11,
    you’ve been suckered. End of story.
    Guys like Pat Tillman are a perfect
    example of the fact that most Americans
    would rather die than think.
    Specifically, if you believe a handful of
    Arab “terrorists” pulled off the World
    Trade Center attack, you’re being naive.
    And if you believe the Twin Towers
    collapsed in free-fall fashion after its top
    floors were struck by a plane, you’re
    being foolish.
    The events of 9/11/01 were intentional,
    alright. Their purpose was to justify
    invasion and plunder abroad, and
    police-state tyranny at home. Power
    and profit. Period. AIPAC
    and Halliburton couldn’t care
    less that thousands of innocents
    died in the process.

  31. Walt Hampton

    The constitutional republic created by
    the Founders does not exist. The vast
    multi-racial empire which has taken
    its place would have been repugnant
    to them, as it is to me…

  32. Lee Muller

    Ralph, I got you mixed up with James McAlister, who was saying that Bush was part of the 9/11 conspiracy. I apologize for the mistake, but you two do post a lot of the same notions on other issues.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *