Unhappy 9/14!

As national security reporter Eli Lake just Tweeted, "On this day in 2001 Congress gave President Bush the authority to wage war against al Qaeda all over the world[.] Obama asserts the same powers."

Read Lake's Reason piece on "The 9/14 Presidency" here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Max||

    You fucking right-wing hacks are always pretending that intelligent Democrats are just as bad as moronic Republicans. Only in your fucked-up doctrinaire imaginations.

  • Bradley||

    0/10

  • CJ||

    The intelligent Democrats in the country are definitely better than moronic Republicans. Now if only there were more than two or three of them.

  • Paul||

    Obama is being presidential.

  • mr simple||

    It's hard to take anything tweeted seriously.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The proper past tense of tweet is 'twat'.

  • LarryA||

    9/14/2001

    Act in haste; repent in leisure.

  • ||

    So, where's bin Laden?

  • Tman||

    Why is this unhappy? Al-qaeda doesn't have a country, they hide in various locations world wide, and they are sworn to kill as many Americans as possible.

    I still wonder what exactly was Bush supposed to do after 9/11 if not declare war against the people who attacked us?

  • ||

    Not invade Iraq.

  • Tman||

    I'd be happy to debate (again) the neccessity for the war in Iraq, but that isn't what we're discussing in this thread.

  • cynical||

    If he wanted to hurt the people who attacked us on 9/11, I think Bush should have gone to hell.

  • Hugh Akston||

    He'll get there eventually.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Why is this unhappy? Al-qaeda doesn't have a country, they hide in various locations world wide, and they are sworn to kill as many Americans as possible.

    Which is exactly the same situations as on 9/10/01

    I still wonder what exactly was Bush supposed to do after 9/11 if not declare war against the people who attacked us?

    A measured response of investigation and intelligence, using the political capital that 9/11 gave the US to build a coalition of nations to root out terrorists using special forces and financial investigators, making it that much more difficult for terrorist organizations to find safe harbor.

  • ||

    All of which required us invading Afghanistan. How do you build a coalition when a country is harboring terrorists and refuses to turn them over?

  • ||

    I was all for the Afghanistan adventure. As soon as our puppet Karzai was installed, we shoulda gotten the hell out.

  • Hugh Akston||

    No, see, you build a coalition with other countries that condemn terrorism, and then when you find terrorist organizations, you conduct small, targeted operations to eliminate them. If the host country wants to cooperate, so much the better, if not, tell them you're going in anyway.

    Full-scale invasions and toppling governments is the way to fight WWII, not the way to fight terrorism in the 21st century.

  • Tman||

    Both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were supported by a coalition of forces from various countries that also condemned terrorism. Both the Taliban and Saddam were protecting members of Islamic terrorist groups and refused to allow US forces to enter their country in which to apprehend said individuals. In fact, Abu Zarqawi was in BOTH countries (he left Afghanistan after we invaded and in to the loving embrace of his buddies in Iraq).

    Expecting cooperation from either the Taliban or Saddam would be grossly naiive and a dereliction of duty from a Presidential standpoint considering the consequences if said individuals were not caught or killed.

  • ||

    ""Both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were supported by a coalition of forces from various countries that also condemned terrorism.""

    Including support from those who support the enemy but changed their minds when we offered them cash.

  • ||

    Heck, why not bury the hatchet with Saddam back then? Just write-off the 90s as a feud between friends. The Ba'athists hated AQ and would've been more than happy to watch that part of the region for us.

  • Tman||

    Saddam was in the business of supporting Islamic terrorists. The idead that he was unwilling to support said terrorists flies in the face of the available evidence.

    www.husseinandterror.com

  • ||

    I've seen that web address before and I just visited it for the first time: it looks like some Sunday school teacher in the church basement just slapped it together.

    That's why I'm hesitant on checkin' out links and sites.

  • ||

    It's the online equivalent of a street ministry pamphlet! Kinda funny....

  • Tman||

    Nice way to shoot the messenger. Do you have any specific arguments against the evidence provided, despite the fact that you don't like the presentations visual qualities?

  • ||

    I'll bite -- many of those quotes from Saddam & Company were after the WTC attacks when Saddam was trying to build support from fellow Arabs after we started the drumbeat for an Iraqi invasion.

    The use of the term "homicide bomber" is straight outta Fox News -- it's baby-talk, man.

    Using New York Post covers is not evidence of anything.

    Photos of the World Trade Center, before and after? Whew...

  • ||

    19 or 20 sources was the National Review Online. So I wouldn't pat the website on the back for quality research.

  • ||

    19 of 20 resources...

  • Tman||

    Mongo,

    So "many of those quotes from Saddam & Company were after the WTC attacks". Which quotes? What evidence is in question?

    Look at the evidence that proves that Saddam was writing checks to Palestinian terrorists to blow up Jews. They blew up some Americans during this process, thus Saddam paid Islamic terrorists who killed Americans. Then look at the number of wanted individuals from the Islamic terrorist list that were in Iraq. Look at people like Zarqawi who were able to find safe haven in Iraq in 2002.

    What SPECIFIC evidence -not the pictures- do you have a problem with?

  • ||

    Tman -- I resent that I have to re-visit this jingoistic, poorly written site but here you go:

    How about ALL of the quotes dated 2002 and after.

    What, is Debbie Schlussel's blog down or somethin'?

  • Tman||

    Fine, since you don't like that link so much here's one that will hopefully satify. It's a different source but contains the same information.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html

    Abstract: Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.
  • ||

    OK, Tman -- that's a much more credible source and thanks for the paragraph as I didn't want to actually go to another site.

    It's not so black & white: we're closely allied with Israel and any enemy of the Jewish state can be considered our enemy. It's all a matter of how closely and deeply we want to link ourselves to Israel. I'd rather have Israel on our side than those other effed-up kingdoms.

    Saddam could of easily offered an olive branch and gotten out of his mess with us but had to save face and, combined with the neo-cons' ginned-up evidence of a WMD threat, took it in the keister.

    Your original comment made it sound like there was only one option that Bush had when there were many options.

  • Tman||

    I'd rather have Israel on our side than those other effed-up kingdoms.

    It isn't a coincidence that currently we both have the same primary enemy.

    Saddam could of easily offered an olive branch and gotten out of his mess with us but had to save face and, combined with the neo-cons' ginned-up evidence of a WMD threat, took it in the keister.

    I like the way PJ O'Rourke puts it,

    "No, it turns out Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. And how crazy does that make Saddam? All he had to do was tell Hans Blix, 'Look anywhere you want. Look under the bed. Look beneath the couch. Look behind the toilet tank in the third presidential palace on the left, but keep your mitts off my copies of Maxim.' And Saddam could have gone on dictatoring away until Donald Rumsfeld gets elected head of the World Council of Churches. But no . . ."

    Your original comment made it sound like there was only one option that Bush had when there were many options.

    There were probably many options available, but few of them would leave us with one less Middle Eastern Fascist Dictator to deal with who "may or may not" be ready to hand Zarqawi a bowl of Armageddon while letting him shack up in Anbar. I think this was spelled out well in the Iraq war AUMF which is probably why it passed in the first place, with 40% of the House Dems and 58% of the Senate Dems.

    I don't understand why people to this day are so confused by this. There were only bad options, and Iraq and Afghanistan were not the worst of them by a long shot.

  • ||

    ""What SPECIFIC evidence -not the pictures- do you have a problem with?""

    It's either a picture or a link to the National Review Online.

  • ||

    ""Do you have any specific arguments against the evidence provided,""

    For the most part it had little to do with the US. Unless we went to war in Iraq on behalf of Israel, the site has very little to offer.

    It shouldn't be the job of the US to fight everyone elses boogiemen.

    There's a big difference between letting a terrorist live in your country after the fact, and letting them live in your country while they are planning an attack against you. We let the 9/11 terrorist in this county after at least one of our intel agencies identified at least one as such. They were trained by american pilots to fly planes. We ignored FBI field agents.

    I'm not saying it means anything, except you could package it in away, with sources, that supports the 9/11 truther's claims.

  • ||

    Some of that was from the 70s and 80s. In the 80s we supported Saddam, so if at that time Saddam was supporting terrorist, we were supporting those who supported terrorism.

  • ||

    US customs let the 9/11 hijackers into the country. Were they supporting terrorism?

  • ||

    As soon as we bomb Iran Eli will be a kosher pig in shit

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Ah yes...the day we didn't actually do anything as clear as declaring war.

  • lj200904||

    where i can find more about this???2rd3reg4

  • lj200904||

    do you like eating~~~YURCHU64

  • leijing||

    at last you open your mouth DT45DIFD

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement