Today, right before our eyes, we stopped 9/11

Every time you see a documentary or film about 9/11, the mind drifts to the fantasy of -- What if we nabbed them? What if, as Mohammed Atta is going though security in the Logon airport wearing that blue shirt, he is stopped by someone who has been following the whole plot, who says, "Got ya, bud. Plot's over. Your virgins are going to have to wait."

Thousands of simple, average Britons and Americans were going to visit grandma or see a friend get married. Some were doing their jobs, just another work day, like that Tuesday in New York five years ago. All of them were ticketed for unspeakable horror and fear. All of them were mere minutes away from their deaths. Thousands of friends and family members were about to have their lives shattered with grief forever.

All because the animals of al Qaeda seek to destroy the free West. And because they view non-Muslim life as non-human life. This will continue to do this until they are destroyed or they know they are defeated. And no amount of whiny, childish moaning from liberals is going to change that. It is a war and we must kill the bad guys, as they are trying to kill us. There will be other attempts as there were in Britain. Other people whose lives are just about to end. Will we stop those plots? Will we preempt them? Or will we be too late? These are the questions that confront our civilization today, and huge swathes of the political class are unwilling to face them.

So here's what will happen in response to this. Keith Olberman will wonder on his show tonight whether this so-called plot is a scheme to get Bush's numbers up. The media will diligently work to separate this huge victory from Bush and Blair. Chris Matthews will spend the entire hour asking how the Iraq War stops airplane bombers? None of his guests will have an answer. The New York Times will expose some secret methods that revealed the plot.

Andrew Sullivan will sneer at the attempts by "King George" to provide security for Americans. John Murtha and Ned Lamont will say this shows we need to retreat from Iraq. Howard Dean will snort something stupid about how we are no safer than we were after 9/11.

Labor Party backbenchers will continue to insist that Blair weaken his ability to hold suspected terrorists. Russ Feingold will continue to oppose the Patriot Act. John Dean will write another book saying Bush's security measures are "worse than Nixon." Josh Marshall will say that Bush's eavesdropping program is obviously unconstitutional. Liberal bloggers will demand Bush's impeachment... and say that Mossad was behind the plot.

And otherwise, Americans and Brits won't notice or care. They'll continue to take their security for granted, to bitch about waits at the airport, and to act like deaths in Iraq are tenfold their actual number. Unfortunately, it takes failed security measures to rouse us these days, with wailing families and televised funerals and the whole bit. And even more unfortunately, in this war, those will come again soon enough.

Unfortunately, it takes failed security measures to rouse us these days, with wailing families and televised funerals and the whole bit. And even more unfortunately, in this war, those will come again soon enough.

Good points, unfortunately. When even people here are bitching about Bush, you know it's going to take something very, very bad for the dems and whiners to get on board, something so horrible they cannot deny we are in a fight for our existence.

Re: What if we had stopped 9/11?

We didn't -- but I think I am getting it vis-a-vis the desperate campaign to "prove" that George W. Bush either directed the 9/11 attacks or knew of the attacks and let them happen. (See below)

Veteran journalist Peter Lance is no Bush fan. He's blamed Bush I for the first WTC attack -- Clinton had just become president, you see.

I've heard several interviews with Mr. Lance over the past few years. IMO he wanted to "prove" 9/11 was entirely Bush II's fault. But alas.. he's tethered to events which occurred in the 1990s. (He appears to be a honest man despite his feeeeeeeeeeeelings.) But he admitted in an interview tonight that he is still looking for the Bush connection.

In the mean time he names names, cover-up events, and why the cover up -- including Patrick Fitzgerald (the man trying desperately to send the Bush White House to prison). Proof (IMO) that Patrick Fitzgerald, et al. are responsible for ignoring the path to those planning the 9/11 attacks and more.

http://www.peterlance.com/

Why the desperate campaign to "prove" that George did it? Because "they" know the facts being uncovered by Mr. Lance, et al. No, the Clinton White House was not directly involved in the need to ignore the path that led directly to the 9/11 attacks -- but "they" know it all occurred on their watch.

They have to drum "Bush did it" into our heads -- it's tantamount to the years-long 24/7 cacophony of "liar/Bush, liar/Bush. . . ." smokescreen to deflect and (hopefully) forget the congenital liar, psycho BJ.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.