Swatting at Flies

Evie, I see something new in the current situation. Before 9/11, there were incidents. A Marine barracks was bombed, but after that people in the U.S. felt personally safe. After all, they weren't in the Marines and in a combat zone. A Navy ship was bombed, but for the same reason, people in the U.S. felt personally safe. There was no draft, and even if there was, a great number of people in the U.S. would be ineligible. The great mass of people felt personally safe.
9/11 changed all that. The "combat zone" suddenly became in part office buildings in the U.S., and a great many U.S. citizens came to the shocking realization that they were now in a combat zone. But there is a major difference in this new zone--age, asthma or allergy to a drug does not get you an exemption and keep you far away from this new combat zone and safe. Now, the zone is expanding to things like trains, subways, hotels and possibly any city or place in the U.S. due to chemical, biological, or explosive substances. The entire country and any person living in it could now find himself a casualty.
What should be done? Should Bush have let 9/11 "slide" and hope that they wouldn't do such a thing again? Should we elect Kerry and have him withdraw all troops from the Middle East and "apologize" to the radical Muslims? Somehow, I don't think that such would satify them and again make the average citizen in the U.S. again "safe". If we blame 9/11 on Bush, would that satisfy them and again regain that safety? Again, I doubt it.
A new form of warfare has hit the U.S., and Pandora's box will never be closed. Trying to blame the opening of that box on somebody in the U.S. for political purposes will not close that box, now we must find a way to deal with the terrorists that opened it. Kerry's shying away from these facts and not coming forth with his thoughts about a solution does not help, nor does the Democrat's attempts to blame the new situation on Bush. The basic situation is "now what do we do?", and needs to be addressed.

Hi, Evie.

For once, a thoughtful piece at that site -- about the first one I've seen there that isn't "knee-jerk conservative." However, Kerrey's attack at Rice's terminology was right on the mark. Rice may not have actually lied under oath, but she certainly used misleading language throughout. Kerrey called her on one such example. It sounds like soon we'll all be able to decide for ourselves on another -- whether that PDB was merely "historical." BTW, don't expect them to declassify it in its entirety -- I expect lots of black markthroughs, which will further enrage many of the 9/11 families.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!