I remember the tragic events of 9/11. Unfortunately, due to Bush's incompetence, so does Osama Bin Laden.

I can see the Pentagon off in the distance from where I am sitting, and there are a bunch of camera flashes going off every few seconds in one of the parking lots. It's probably the memorial ceremony, and it's just sort of a surreal scene. Everybody here is standing at the windows in silence looking at it.

A bunch of buildings around Rosslyn have giant flags draping over them, facing that direction, and I can see some hanging off the buildings over in Pentagon City.

I work on Arlington Ridge Rd., and just walked to the end of the street, overlooking the Pentagon. There are some benches there so you can sit looking at the Pentagon or the Air Force Memorial. It was nice and quiet, perfect place to reflect. Let's all take a moment to think of those who gave their lives that day, and those that put their lives on the line every day protecting us here at home and overseas...

Yes... 9/11 was not a joke, nor is it something that should be referred to (especially today) with anything other than the respect it deserves.

Many of us lost friends and family that day.

Let's make sure to support whomever our President is to make sure it doesn't happen again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2008 06:20PM by Registered Voter.

It was almost impossible to get time in the churches for the funerals in NY. The obits filled the papers for months. The smoke was so bad that after school sports were cancelled a week later 30 miles away. What kind of mind even considers something like this? What a horror.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember the tragic events of 9/11.
> Unfortunately, due to Bush's incompetence, so does
> Osama Bin Laden.

Not really a day for political posturing. But, it could have just as easily been written: "I remember the tragic events of 9/11. I wouldn't have to if Bill Clinton had done his job and got him when he had the chance."

So, where is Bin Laden? You guys have had 7 years to catch him. Perhaps his house had foreclosed and he was forced to move.

Alternate view Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I remember the tragic events of 9/11.
> > Unfortunately, due to Bush's incompetence, so
> does
> > Osama Bin Laden.
>
> Not really a day for political posturing. But, it
> could have just as easily been written: "I
> remember the tragic events of 9/11. I wouldn't
> have to if Bill Clinton had done his job and got
> him when he had the chance."


Bill Clinton wasn't President on 9/11. Bush had been President for nine months. Bush has had seven years to get Bin Laden and he has failed. McCain promises more of the same.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Bill Clinton wasn't President on 9/11. Bush had
> been President for nine months. Bush has had seven
> years to get Bin Laden and he has failed. McCain
> promises more of the same.

And what would be the case if Bill Clinton didn't squander his opportunities to kill bin Laden? We'll never know, but perhaps a catastrophe could have been averted. Clinton failed to kill him when he had the chance. Obama wants to return to the days of treating international terrorism as a law enforcement function.

Clinton had nothing to do with it. It was Bush Sr. who was informed that Bin Laden was a threat before the 1993 bombings. So "Bush" family failed that American people twice. I'll take it a step further by adding that Reagan & Co. were the ones who armed him in the 80s.

I dunno 'bout that, Spanky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clinton had nothing to do with it. It was Bush
> Sr. who was informed that Bin Laden was a threat
> before the 1993 bombings. So "Bush" family failed
> that American people twice. I'll take it a step
> further by adding that Reagan & Co. were the ones
> who armed him in the 80s.

I don't dispute half of what you said. The planning for the first WTC bombing happened under GHWB, and according to the 9/11 Commission, bin Laden may have had an important role in the Khobar Towers bombing that happened 1 month before GHWB left office.

What is disputable by all the facts is that Clinton had nothing to do with it. Hell, even Clinton has said, "I actually talked to the 9/11 Commission for four hours, Chris, and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public, because I thought none of us had been perfect." In 1996, he passed up an opportunity to take bin Laden from the Sudanese. Granted, the offer may have been bogus, but he never followed up on it, and after all, the Sudanese did deliver Carlos the Jackel. Also, in the early fall of 2000, the CIA knew the exact whereabouts of bin Laden, but took no action to take him out because they wanted him taken alive. This was after the Cole bombing.

Alternate view Wrote:
>>>Obama wants to return to the days of treating international terrorism as a law enforcement function.


Conservative think-tank, RAND Corporation, recently released a detailed study, identifying the "law enforcement" approach as the most effective means of ending terrorist groups.

Not surprisingly, "military action", was identified as least effective, if not counter-productive.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conservative think-tank, RAND Corporation,
> recently released a detailed study, identifying
> the "law enforcement" approach as the most
> effective means of ending terrorist groups.
>
> Not surprisingly, "military action", was
> identified as least effective, if not
> counter-productive.

RAND is not considered conservative like Heritage and others. Rather, RAND is decidedly non-partisan. Walter Mondale and Arthur Levitt have served on their board.

RAND did release such a study, the authors indicate that while this is their premise, they acknowledge that law enforcement functions alone cannot handle the current terrorist situation. And, perhaps I should have been more clear in my previous post. The Clinton Administration preferred to handle the bin Laden attacks during that administration as a pure law enforcement function. The problem with that was they failed to seek and/or secure indictments in a timely manner to allow for extradition when offered. The other problem with the RAND conclusion is that it looks at all terrorist groups and assume a common goal. Al Qa'ida does not fit this mold. For instance, the authors find that the most common way terrorist groups end is by joining the political process. It is naive to think that this is possible with Al Qa'ida. Further, for better or worse, Al Qa'ida is involved in an insurgency capacity in Afghanastan and Pakistan. The authors recognize that military options are the most effective way of dealing with them in that situation.

Reverse Inquiry Market snapshot for which party bin Laden was primarily targeting during the 9/11 attacks:

REP = 76.2%
DEM = 21.3%
GRN = 02.5%

FN: Margin of error +/- 4.

Ribbit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, where is Bin Laden? You guys have had 7 years
> to catch him. Perhaps his house had foreclosed
> and he was forced to move.


he's in northern pakistan but we havent been allowed into the country to get him as pakistan assured us they were going to do it and they didnt want our help.. seven years and now our patience has run out: http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/120658.html


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Haha I got you mother fuckers