Hussein Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

well it’s like this: If Clinton had actually eliminated Bin Laden like he was supposed to do…

Oh wait, any action Clinton took was either evil, stupid or both.

never mind, carry on.

Any person with half a brain knows that it isn’t Clinton’s fault. It’s Monica’s fault. If she hadn’t have needed to give him a blow job, then Bush would never have been elected. Monica is the person responsible for us being in Iraq, because we’re fighting them there instead of here.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Great stuff.

Twisted logic. The genius of Karl Rove.

Apart from the question of whether Clinton did enough to get Bin Laden and other terrorists (I view his efforts as inadequate at best), the libertarian in me points out that the WTC was a government project to begin with, and in 1970 in New York City, that meant Democrats.

It’s obviously not a popular point of view, but reality is that the WTC had been a disaster for a long time. Distorted traffic patterns in Manhattan, provided unneeded office space at an exorbitant cost (which is one reason why, thank God, less than 3000 people died), and offered a too-tempting target for terrorism.

I’m certainly not going to get “my way” here, but I’m holding out hope that it will not be rebuilt, and the street grid might be replaced. If you needed to, you could replace all the office space there with buildings no more than 25 stories high while retaining two blocks as memorial parks for what happened there.

The whole blame game is stupid. Neither Republicans or Democrats caused 9/11. Terrorists are to blame for 9/11, pure and simple. To say now that one side or the other could have prevented it is unhelpful at best. We have the benefit of hindsight and can now piece together the puzzle a little better, but there are no guarantees putting it together beforehand would have allowed either side stop the attacks.

Even if bin Laden had been found, captured or killed, there are no guarantees the attacks would have been stopped. When one terrorist is killed, another crops up to take his/her place.

Neither side has the high road here.

Apart from the question of whether Clinton did enough to get Bin Laden and other terrorists (I view his efforts as inadequate at best), the libertarian in me points out that the WTC was a government project to begin with, and in 1970 in New York City, that meant Democrats.

It’s obviously not a popular point of view, but reality is that the WTC had been a disaster for a long time. Distorted traffic patterns in Manhattan, provided unneeded office space at an exorbitant cost (which is one reason why, thank God, less than 3000 people died), and offered a too-tempting target for terrorism.

What the F#$% does any of that have to do with what happened on September 11th?

What the F#$% does any of that have to do with what happened on September 11th?

Absolutely nothing.

Pre 9/11 U.S. approach to terrorism was a police based one. In other words act like cops, arrest and enforce where possible. Prevent if possible.

The Bush administration decided the events of 9/11 meant that a change of policy was in order switching from a police view to a military one.

Now the merits of this can be debated… But, as pointed out by bruce, the whole blame game is stupid. Clinton didn’t do anything more right or wrong then previous administrations.
(and my first comment was sarcasm as the right critiqued his actions regardless of what they were.)

But then again… we don’t do that wimpy diplomacy thing now a days, only appeasers do that. (Except with Iran at the moment, and South Korea, but that’s somehow different.)

Look at the billboard. It’s basically saying a vote for a Democrat will cause another 9/11. Smithers is simply stating facts about how Bush ignored the intell about Osama that was brought to him leading up to the attacks.
Funny how Bush used “bad” intell to get us into Iraq.

little d -
agreed.

In my opinion the billboard itself is disgusting.

But then again… we don’t do that wimpy diplomacy thing now a days, only appeasers do that.

Somewhat off topic, but… this brings to mind an interesting point made in a Times Book Review article about a new book on the Cuban Missle Crisis. I’m paraphrasing, but the author more or less wondered aloud about the difference in approach to diplomacy v. assault between our current administration and that of Kennedy’s in the early 60. He asked what the world might look like if Bush, Cheney and Co. had been in power during the Crisis. Now I’m not saying that specific time was the same as now or vice versa, but I think it’s obviously prudent to consider history when shaping our foreign policy in the present. This is why Obama’s stated flexibility on this front is a welcome change to the myopic, stay-the-course repetition coming from Mr. McCain (a.k.a. Bush 2).

The point I was making is that absent government interference, the target would probably never have existed. Aren’t you liberals all about pointing out that jihadis can’t kill a target that isn’t there?

Well, I’m joining you. One of the major consequences of immense public buildings (and spending 3x/square foot more in the process than the private sector would–compare with Sears Tower) is that you’ve created immense targets for those who would attack us, no?

The point I was making is that absent government interference, the target would probably never have existed. Aren’t you liberals all about pointing out that jihadis can’t kill a target that isn’t there?

Well, I’m joining you. One of the major consequences of immense public buildings (and spending 3x/square foot more in the process than the private sector would–compare with Sears Tower) is that you’ve created immense targets for those who would attack us, no?

First off, allow me to say that any $ spent educating you was woefully misspent. This was a waste as you have obviously benefitted little from whatever it was.

Moving on, what you say is absurd. To imply that the non-existence of the twin towers would somehow have allowed us to elude a 9/11-like terrorist attack is foolish — no, it’s outright dumb. Moreover, to imply that government interference (as you call it) invited or caused the terrorist attacks is equally dumb and shows your ignorance.

Your tangential suggestions that 1) building made for private enterprise are always as efficient as possible and never wasteful of space, and 2) that buildings that do not use space as efficiently as physically possible are both prime examples of your inability to sympathise with others’ desire for a non-Orwellian existence (as you obviously prefer it?). More importantly, they also reflect your almost total lack of perspective.

Who? Which liberals claim this? Specifics, motherfucker (pardon me, Smithers) — no BS generalizations.

You have a problem with “immense” public buildings? One’s that don’t use physical space efficiently? Then start gathering signatures to pull down the Statue of Libery and the Washington Monument. Same goes for undeveloped natural spaces - petition your representative to develop the crap out of them. Oh, and don’t forget to go after cultural landmarks, museums, most religious places of gathering, major sporting arenas, etc.

Oh, what’s that? It’s not that you don’t like ‘em it’s that you just mean to say they’re bad cause they are targets for terrorist attacks? My bad. You’re even dumber than I thought — arguing semantics for the sake of hearing yourself talk. The world is a poorer place for the fact that in the internet you’ve found a forum to spew uneducated crap.

pcomeau, nice set of ad hominem attacks. You were saying something about MY education?

But reality is simple; yes, terrorists like big targets. You do remember that AQ tried to get it not once, but twice, right? As terror is more about propaganda than killing, they like to get the “most bang for the buck.”

If building overpriced, trendy office space that will sit empty for decades doesn’t deter us from devoting tax money on a project, maybe the fact that it could also be a lightning rod for terrorism will.

Bubba -

Please double check the name of the poster you’re responding too…

In re-reading my posts I see saracasm and snark but no attacks.

Now this:
First off, allow me to say that any $ spent educating you was woefully misspent. This was a waste as you have obviously benefitted little from whatever it was.
- was posted by checkbook may be what you’re referening to.

But let me assure you that I and checkbook are not the same person.

Oops, checkbook is the culprit. My mistake.

But let me assure you that I and checkbook are not the same person.

Indeed we are not.

The point I was making is that absent government interference, the target would probably never have existed.

Bubba,
You’ve convinced me that if it wasn’t for the man keeping me down, literally anything wonderful and glorious I can imagine could come true. I’d love to commute to work on the back of a pink unicorn. I can’t quite figure out how government is keeping that from happening, but I bet you can connect the dots for me.
Thanks!

I’d love to commute to work on the back of a pink unicorn.

Though it may not seem so at first, it’s totally worth the 3-odd minutes it takes to watch. Delightfully absurd.

crap. the link didn’t work…