On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:56:33 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

In .com,
David Nebenzahl spewed forth:
On 8/12/2009 11:48 PM Ashton Crusher spake thus:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:51:58 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 8/10/2009 12:52 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

This is aimed at one particular person here, who posts as
, and who said in an earlier exchange about
Afghanistan, among other things:

We took the Taliban out of power and showed the world that if
you sponsor terrorism, you run the risk of having the US take
out your little empire, blow up your house, and kill your
family. Well, you're wrong about that. Check out this article, from
today's /Wall Street Journal/, no less, which says:

The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top
American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its
strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the
number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile
southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home.

Well, what do you expect? The previous administration took its eye
off the ball, and started mucking about in Iraq when they should
have been tending to business in Afghanistan. The Taliban have the
upper hand there now, because we *allowed* them to.

I don't disagree with you, only to say that we have as much
business being in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq (which is to say,
for the reading-between-the-lines-impaired, none).

ditto. I have yet to hear a cogent reason for us being there.

The only reason supplied by some who responded in this thread is
revenge (for 9/11). Since when is revenge a valid reason to commit
warfare? (Misplaced revenge in this case; might as well declare war
against Saudi Arabia or Yemen.)

So what should we have done in response to 9/11 then?
Invite the taliban over for a beer and sing kumbiya and tell them how it's
all our fault?
Get real


The president should have gotten on the TV and in a forceful voice
said that we would get those responsible in our own time and our own
way. he should have said that as in the past the US would overcome
this tragedy and emerge stronger and free'er then it has ever been. He
should have said that we would SOON begin rebuilding the towers. He
should have said that the US welcomes the support from around the
world and that we would begin talking to all our friends about
appropriate ways to deal with the people responsible.


Of course, that's not what our feeble minded president did. he got on
TV and looked like he was scared of his own shadow. It didn't help
that in the aftermath of 9/11 he snuck off like a coward to fly around
in circles. I know, you will say the SS made him. Really!! The SS
determines what the president does?? He also immediately started
taking away our rights and started spying on us. Even thought there
was no evidence that Iraq was involved he attached them. Wow, what a
signal that sent to Al Quada. He made no effort to get the towers
rebuilt. Instead, he, like Gulliani, used the burned out hulk of the
towers as a backdrop for political grandstanding. It's been nearly a
decade and the US still has not rebuilt the towers. What does THAT
tell Al Quada about our national will? He created teh largest
peacetime expansion of gvt in our history by creating the horrible
sounding "HOMELAND SECURITY" agency and filling the airports with
their goon squads of shoe sniffing morons.

The short answer to your question would be, whatever bush did, we
should have done the opposite.