Tuesday, September 11, 2007

At last...

...I've figured out why this anniversary of 9/11/01 has angered me more than any other.

It's not simply the fact that a mangy slimeball hiding in a cave in Afghanistan still survives to taunt us.

It's not only that many in the media are downplaying the observance in obeisance to politically correct fools who believe we should "get over it."

It finally hit me while I watched Hillary Clinton insulting General David Petraeus during a senate hearing today. In her holier-than-thou, I-am-always-right manner, I finally saw the seeds of our eventual destruction.

Perhaps -- to digress -- some of it may have to do with a biography of Franklin Roosevelt I've been reading, an adulatory piece that elevates him as near sainthood as a Protestant can get.

What struck me is the contrast between the World War II years and the last six years.

No one in congress -- save one deluded and probably senile woman who voted against declaring ourselves in WWII as she did in WW I -- suggested we turn our backs when over a thousand men were killed at Pearl Harbor. They did not ask when we can "bring the troops home," as their modern counterparts do. Those who felt the wrath of senators and representatives in those days were those who did not do enough to speed victory along. When they criticized Roosevelt, it was for his machinations and devious actions taken to suit his sometimes-misguided view of the war.

But our so-called servants today attacked Petraeus not for lack of a will to win. No, they slammed him because he is not the kind of soldier who is as eager to surrender as they are.

And, shamelessly, they piled on him on the anniversary of the day when 2974 people, mainly civilians, died to satisfy the blood lust of a man claiming to act in the name of Islam, an inhuman terrorist who remains the face of evil.

I've said before that I think the invasion of Iraq was the foolish action of an incompetent president. I still believe that.

But the foolishness was not his alone. When his predecessor was in office, most of those who now howl for immediate surrender were clamoring for Saddam Hussein's head. When Bill Clinton lobbed a cruise missile at an Iraqi aspirin factory, they cheered; he was fighting terror.

In his own way, I suppose, he was. He was fighting his own terror at the prospect of impeachment.

If any of the pathetic excuses for human beings in congress had asked Petraeus "how can we get this won and over with?" my respect for them would be boundless. Instead, they all asked how quickly we can run away.

Such military geniuses as Hillary, Barbara Boxer, Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden lectured a four-star general on how the military should be run. All seem to believe our brave soldiers, sailors and fliers should be sacrificed, along with the next round of civilians who perish in another terrorist attack, in the name of "peace."

Nancy Pelosi and -- in a truly traitorous act -- Dennis Kucinich have prostrated themselves in front of the Syrian ruler, as despicable a terrorist as can be found in the Middle East.

What I want to know, and what the knaves in congress should want to know, is this: how do we make the world as safe as possible from maniacal terrorists?

If it takes reducing certain areas in the Middle East to flat plains of glass and rubble, so be it. If it takes putting pressure on the Saudi leadership, a duplicitous and arrogant bunch of oil-rich peasants, so be it.

But we must not allow evil to make us cower. And we have the weapons to bring those who wish to destroy us to rapid submission. Conventional weapons, mind you.

Instead, we -- including Bush -- tremble in fear whenever anyone in the world doesn't like us. So we spend our money, and sacrifice our military, to attempt to make Iraq as clean and happy as California. Which it never will be.

Do you honestly believe that if President Hillary got mad at someone, she would hesitate to rush troops into harm's way? I don't. Her hatred for the military is on record; so is her hatred for anyone who doesn't accept her every thought as Holy Writ.

I don't mean to pick on Democrats only, though their voices are most strident in calling for surrender. The culture of defeat, of caving to pressure, of political correctness in the face of genuine threats, has permeated Washington.

At this end of this 9/11 anniversary, we are in greater danger than ever. And most of it comes from the enemy within.

What unspeakable attack has to happen, how many innocents here need to die, before we wake up?


Anonymous said...

(quote)At this end of this 9/11 anniversary, we are in greater danger than ever. And most of it comes from the enemy within.

sad...but true very good, MrScribbler. mafan

John said...

I wish one of these guys being badgered by those holier than thou liars would just walk over and bitch slap the lot of them one time. I agree with you on the whole thing.

lowandslow said...

Do you believe in evolution? I do. How do I know? Because we have "leaders" who were born without spines. Their brains have devolved, too, and not in a good way.

sugarcane said...

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for saying what I've been thinking about our current leaders (it almost makes me want to puke calling them "leaders" by the way). It's so frustrating to know that our lives are in their hands.

MrScribbler said...

Sugar -- I suspect more of us are angry about this than we know. But most don't seem to realize that we are the ones who give them the power, and we can take it away if we have the will.

Anonymous said...

Totally disapponted in your effort to link WTC with Saddam.

Blind support for a country that systematically terrorised and invaded their Arab neighbors resulted in WTC.

The biggest supporter of WTC terrorists (KSA) is big buds with GWB and this seems to escape everyone's attention.

You do MUCH better with cars.

MrScribbler said...

"anonymous" -- If you read carefully, I did not link Hussein to 9/11. In fact, I referred to KSA in the previous post, though not by name.

Our treatment of KSA -- as you say, big buddies of Bush -- is indefensible. Putin is also Bush's big pal, and that will bite us soon enough.

My contention, which I stick to, is this: we are there, Iraq does have al Qaeda (with Iranian support) operating within its borders, and the situation cannot be resolved by retreat.

I believe that the only way we can defeat anyone who seeks the destruction of this country is to inflict the most severe punishment on them.

If you had asked the high-and-mighty Ms Clinton, or Kerry, or Obama, or their ilk whether we should take out Hussein when Bill Clinton was in office, all would have said, "hell, yes!"

But for political reasons only they are happy to be appeasers while the other party is in the White House.

Anonymous said...

This is why I am registered an "Independant"; because too many R's and D's both have the wrong idea.

Well-written entry, BTW.

>>I've said before that I think the invasion of Iraq was the foolish action of an incompetent president. I still believe that.

Amen, brother. I couldn't agree more.

>>If it takes reducing certain areas in the Middle East to flat plains of glass and rubble, so be it. If it takes putting pressure on the Saudi leadership, a duplicitous and arrogant bunch of oil-rich peasants, so be it.

Another "amen". What a shame that Saudi Arabi owns so much of our country that our own police forces will harass Michael Whatisface just for FILMING near the Saudi-Arabian embassy (Somewhere in Fairneheit 9/11--his cameras weren't even facing that way! That's how sensitive we are to these MF's wishes, that our government will sick it's own forces on anybody who might infuriate or offend them in any way!

America is the new China and Saudi Arabia, but you won't see anything about THAT in the news.

Still, ever since I heard about Petraus (sp?) I keep thinking about a quote from Sun Tzu's "Art of War"....lessee....I think it's the "Parable of the King's of Wu's Concubines".

Ah, here it is--I ripped this from http://www.chinakongzi.com/2550/eng/suntzu.htm because it contains the quote I wanted:

Sun Tzu: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."
So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded. Now the king of Wu was watching the scene from the top of a raised pavilion; and when he saw that his favorite concubines were about to be executed, he was greatly alarmed and hurriedly sent down the following message: "We are now quite satisfied as to our general's ability to handle troops. If We are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded."
Sun Tzu replied: "Having once received His Majesty's commission to be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept."

And of course, after he beheaded those obnoxious bitches they straightened right up, ready to march thru fire for Sun Tzu. :)

History, including the Bruce Catton Civil War book I'm currently reading, is FULL of instances where politicians think they actually know how to run an army. and yet actually do nothing but cripple and incapacitate their own forces.

The only thing politicians know is how to be elected!

Gosh, it'd be nice if our government actually represented our people, wouldn't it?

Again, "thanks". I'm glad once again to see I'm not the only person who feels this way.