Ashton Crusher wrote:

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.

Interesting narrative and one would be here all day refuting all the points
raised. I'll tackle just one: "He immediately started taking away our rights
and started spying on us." I think you're referring to the interception and
monitoring of telephone (and other) communications by the government.

The first instance of interception and monitoring of electronic
communications took place by both the Union and Confederate forces during
the recent unplesantness. They discovered that there's a difference between
"Aunt Mary arrives Memphis by train 8:00 p.m. on 7th" and "Ordnance arrives
Memphis by train..."

We broke the Japanese Purple code. We employed Navaho "Code Talkers" so the
other side wouldn't know what we were talking about when they DID intercept
our communications. All other governments in all conflicts, from our Second
American Revolution to the present do it.

Monitoring of electronic communications from or to known (or suspected)
enemy forces is not only prudent but a sensible government requires it.