9/11/2001 in Staten Island, New York

My annual remembrance of September 11, 2011


I post this essay every year in honor of September 11th, 2001 (see 2010201120122013201420152016, 2017, 2018, and 2019).

Every generation has a defining moment. For my generation, it was 9/11/2001.

Here are my memories of 9/11/2001. It was a Tuesday.

I was a Senior at Staten Island Technical High School, which is about 20 miles from ground zero. We were about 1 week into the school year. I was sitting in Ms. Endriss's 2nd Period A.P. Political Science class. We were going over some NYC Public School discipline policy, and discussing what kinds of weapons were forbidden in schools (brass knuckles were a no-no). A student walked into the classroom late. He had heard a rumor that a Cessna airplane had hit the World Trade Center. A girl in my class exclaimed that her father worked in the World Trade Center. I could see the look of fear in her eyes, even though none of us had any clue what was going on. She wanted to call her dad. I was the only student in the class with a cell phone, which I promptly gave her. The call did not go through–he worked on one of the upper floors of the tower, and passed away.

We finished second period, apprehensively. I logged onto a computer, and attempted to check the news. I recall one friend told me to check MTV.com for news. At that point, the reports were unclear, and no one knew what was going on. We proceeded to 3rd period A.P. Calculus with Mr. Curry. At that point, someone told us that it was not a Cessna, but in fact a passenger jet. We were all getting nervous, and didn't quite know what was going on. Later in class, a student came into the class and said a second plane had crashed into the other tower. We also heard that there was an explosion at the Pentagon. At that point, we knew it was not an accident.

I remember leaving the class (something I never did) and walked up to the library where I knew there was a T.V. Just as I arrived in the library, I saw the first tower collapse. I watched it live. I was stunned and could not believe what was happening before my eyes. I grabbed my cellphone to call home, and almost immediately after the tower collapsed, I lost all service. I was not able to call my mom in Staten Island, though I could call my dad who was working in Long Island. Long distance calls seemed to work, but local calls were not working. I remember my dad told me that this was a life-changing event, and he had no idea what would happen. I heard some rumors on TV that there were 15 planes that were hijacked, and unaccounted for in the skies.

By lunch time, the school guidance counselor set up a conference room where students could go to talk. I remember seeing student after student who had a family member or friend who worked in the World Trade Center or in Manhattan. A large number of firefighters and police officers reside in Staten Island. Tragically, many of the emergency responders who perished were from Staten Island. What could we even tell those students?

After that, the day become a blur. I remember hearing that the second tower had collapsed, though I did not see it.  I remember watching the entire United States Congress sing God Bless America on the steps of the Capitol. I had never been so afraid in my life. Later that night, I took a bus home. The New York City public buses were still running, and I remember the driver was not collecting fares.  On the bus, people were talking about the imminent war (against whom,  no one knew) and the imminent draft. Some were saying that students were exempt from the draft.

The next morning, September 12, 2001, I woke up and smelled this horrible smell. The air had this pungent odor, that reminded me of burned flesh at a BBQ. I went to school that morning, and attendance was low. In all of my classes, we were talking about war. I asked whether the US would need to use nuclear weapons. My teacher explained that carpet bombing–a phrase I had never heard of–could wreak plenty of damage in Afghanistan. Later that week students began making sandwiches for the relief workers, and collecting goods to donate to the relief effort.

From Staten Island, I could see the smoldering Ground Zero. It was surreal. The skyline looked so very empty. To this day, whenever I look at the Skyline, a sight I had seen thousands of times, I have the most bizarre feeling. Additionally, whenever we saw an airplane fly overhead, we all freaked out. This lasted for months.

For days, weeks, and months after 9/11, people in Staten Island were waiting for their loved ones to come home. Many patients were alive, but were so badly burned that they could not be identified. People prayed that these unnamed patients would soon come home. One woman whose husband was a firefighter waited outside her home every single night for months. She eventually put a candle in her window every night. Later, she put a memorial lamp in her window. He never came home. Others were simply waiting for remains of their loved ones to be returned. Many were never identified.

I ordered a gas mask from eBay, which I kept in my car, fearing a biological weapon attack on New York City. I remember I tried it on once and I almost suffocated. I wanted to order some Cipro for an anthrax attack, but I could not locate any.

It is hard to encapsulate what a New Yorker went through on 9/11. Thinking back on that day, when I was just 17 years old, I realized that I had to grow up awfully quick. It was a new world we were living in.

Never forget. Ever.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: September 11, 1958

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.

  1. I had been at the instantly-infamous 9-10-01 Amherst (MA) Selectboard meeting where they had decided to prohibit the flying of American flags from the lightpoles.

    Of course my first thought was the B-25 Mitchell bomber that had hit the Empire State Building in 1945 — that was an accident.

    And some of us knew what had happened in 1993 hadn’t been…

  2. “I realized that I had to grow up awfully quick. It was a new world we were living in.”

    You learned the wrong lesson.

    In fact it was the same world. The only difference was we were on the receiving end of terrorism instead of on the sponsoring end.

    9/11 could have easily been prevented if the Bush Administration took terrorism as seriously as did Clinton/Gore. And after it happened it should have been handled as a police matter. Instead we got sidetracked into a several-trillion-dollar “global war on terror”. At a formative age Josh got exposed to that kind of media environment which I think explains much about his later thinking.

    1. Fuck off.

    2. “9/11 could have easily been prevented if the Bush Administration took terrorism as seriously as did Clinton/Gore.”

      Terrorism seems to be equal opportunity to the Dems and GOP.

      Did you forget the 1993 bombing of the WTC?

      1. It’s impossible to control who is driving a van around the streets of lower Manhattan. It very possible to prevent certain persons from boarding a plane.

        It’s also very possible to prevent a van carrying explosives from entering the country. That’s what the Clinton Administration did with the LAX bombing plot in 2000. For security reasons he didn’t mention it publicly. Imagine Trump trying to keep his mouth shut about that.

        (P.S. And they did catch the mastermind behind the 1993 bombing. He’s still in prison.)

        1. Yes, that’s my point, that terrorism happening is equal opportunity between the parties…because it’s so difficult to stop, especially if the terrorists get creative. Thanks for agreeing with me, in your own unique way.

          As for catching the blind sheik, why is that something to write home about? Line staff, the non-political employees who do the work in the various federal agencies are determined to catch terrorists no matter who’s at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

          Also, just so you know, if we can’t stop drugs from entering the country, we can’t stop explosives from entering the country.

          1. I think there are some world views that make it easier to contain terrorism. For example, one of the subplots to emerge from 9/11 is that the military had just fired a bunch of Arabic translators for being gay (a policy Clinton tried to rescind), which in turn resulted in a significant amount of intelligence not being translated, some of which would have prevented 9/11. So one can argue that conservative homophobia was partially to blame for 9/11 not being discovered and prevented in time. Something similar happened during the Walker spy ring; the Naval Intelligence Service was so busy investigating homosexuals on that ship that Walker the Younger was able to successfully smuggle top secret documents out. And in general I think such harmful world views trend conservative, though there are some counter-examples.

            I also think that in general, Democratic presidents make appointments based on competence whereas Republicans make appointments based on loyalty and partisanship, though there are exceptions to that too. Obama’s energy secretaries all had PhDs and years of relevant experience in the field; Trump appointed Rick Perry who’s as dumb as a box of rocks and expressed surprise to learn how important the Department of Energy actually is. But, he’s a Trump loyalist, so that counts for something. Would a President Al Gore have put more competent people in top intelligence jobs who would have discovered 9/11 in time to stop it? We’ll never know, but my bet would be yes.

            1. I read the entire 9/11 commission report a few year back…gays weren’t mentioned once. It’s actually a good read, believe it or not. It’s pretty authoritative as the whys and wherefores and hows.

              I don’t know about the Walker spy ring, so I decline to comment on that, other than to mention Ames and other double agents had nothing to do with your pet subject of homosexuality. A foolish reliance on polygraphs abounds though.

              I won’t defend Rick Perry as energy secretary, but he’s not dumb, which is the tire, and rather boring, calumny lobbed by liberals at conservative politicians. Anyway, a pox on both your houses, as other relative goofs are in office appointed/confirmed offices from both parties. Need I mention Janet Reno? I will agree, though, that there is a general trend that liberals make good bureaucrats and therefore there is a deeper bench to draw from in the federal service.

              I saw someone had once did an analysis that Republicans draw appointees that are state college grads and Democrats from Ivy League schools.

              1. In general, liberals want government to work and conservatives don’t want government to work, and each of them acts accordingly.

                The Walkers did not, strictly speaking, have anything to do with homosexuality, nor did Aldrich Ames, but the fact that the NIS was wasting time investigating homosexuality rather than concentrating on espionage no doubt helped them. And the Arabic translators are all over google; in five minutes you can find plenty.

                1. No, wrong framing. Liberals want government power to expand, and conservatives don’t want it to get any bigger, or to shrink it. Therefore, when a conservative doesn’t expand the power and reach of the government, or does it in such a way as to advance a conservative cause, the response is typically that they “want government to fail.” No, they want a different service level or have different policy aims. That’s just natural, and normal, and should be accepted. Another truth is, that liberals can make government not work well all on their own, without conservatives helping things along, like the launch of Obamacare for example. Not that conservatives can’t hose things up to, they do all the time, even in things they support, like military procurement of various implements of war.

                  As for gay translators, whatever, I’ll take the 9/11 commission report as pretty authoritative. For God’s sake, the FBI guy said “there are alot of Muslims that want to learn to fly planes all of a sudden” and if that was ignored, what did the gay translators have that was more important than that?

                  Also, you must recall, that at one time, in the not so distant past, that being gay was something that could get you kicked out of the military and could be used to blackmail you. Just like having an affair or excessive debts and a gambling problem. Put back into place your 1980s-1990s brain switches, and you can see that investigating such things was warranted. KGB agents in Poland routinely used such things to undermine. It’s why Pope John Paul II didn’t act as he should have against all the homosexual abuse by Catholic priests.

              2. The 9/11 commission report was a whitewash.

                Unlike Clinton, who agreed to testify under oath and gave them all the documents they wanted, the Bush administration (successfully) stonewalled requests for documents, and agreed to present GW Bush only not under oath and with Cheney there to hold his hand.

                1. Huh. Well, I do hear occasionally from right wing circles that “there needs to be a commission on the 9/11 commission” as Rush Limbaugh has said because they disagreed with some of the conclusions therein.

                  Whitewash, no. Didn’t portray either party in a flattering light, yes. And the gay angle is just a grasp at some victimhood points. It’s like saying “immigration is to blame for 9/11” that you hear from the right. It’s tangential at the charitable best, and a waste of time and red herring and stupid ideological talking point at worst.

                  1. If an email from a known al Qaeda operative is intercepted on Sept 10 saying “tomorrow is zero hour”, and a couple of weeks prior the daily intelligence briefing said bin Laden was planning a U.S. attack, but the Sept 10 email wasn’t translated in time because the translator was fired because he was gay. . . I’d hardly call that “tangential”.

        2. “It very possible to prevent certain persons from boarding a plane.”

          Bush knew who these “certain persons” were, and didn’t stop them from boarding airplanes? That bastard.

        3. “It’s also very possible to prevent a van carrying explosives from entering the country.”

          And Clinton prevented what happened on April 19, 1995 — and that was done with home-made explosives.

          “That’s what the Clinton Administration did with the LAX bombing plot in 2000. For security reasons he didn’t mention it publicly.”

          No, Clinton perpetuated the myth that there had never been a foreign terrorist attack on US soil — something he knew to be false.

          1. And let’s not forget TWA 800, which exploded shortly after takeoff under very mysterious circumstances. https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/what-caused-twa-flight-800-to-explode-mid-air/

          2. It’s been 25 years, and some might not catch the reference.
            See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Murrah_Federal_Building

          3. If it’s already in the country, and planned while in the country and with a truck loaded with explosives while in the country, there’s not much anyone can do to prevent it.

    3. “Never go full retard”.

      captcrisis: “Hold my beer”

      1. I have to try myself not to fall into the “blame the liberals” routine. Sure, there is alot to blame them for, and Republicans too. But just because something good, or bad, happens during a certain presidential administration does not mean, unless a certain policy decision was made specifically by that president, you can’t ascribe blame, or credit. Captcrisis needs to learn this.

    4. “were on the receiving end of terrorism instead of on the sponsoring end.”

      September 11 is also the date on which the U.S.-backed military coup overthrew the democratically-elected Allende government in Chile, leading to the torture and murder of tens of thousands. Never forget.

      That is one of many terrorist acts perpetrated by the U.S. around the world to expand its hegemonic reach. Americans are right to remember the horror of 9/11, but in typical American fashion, never stop to consider the effects of politically-motivated violence in other countries, or learn of its causes.

      Point being, they don’t “hate us for our freedoms” – they hate us for continuing to kill and threaten them.

      1. ….psst, all you’re missing in that comment is a “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” and you’ll hit all the propaganda-cliche high points. Really go for it next time please.

        1. Sure thing. In the meantime, would you care to respond to America’s well-documented history of coups and international aggression on the merits, or are you just going to sneer?

          And yes, *I’m* the one in the thrall of propaganda – as you continue to labor under the delusion that America is a global force for good.

          1. Sneer? No. Maybe “sardonic grin.”

            Oh, and I wish America didn’t meddle in foreign elections, etc. But please, half of those places (or more) wouldn’t have been necessary if the Soviet Union didn’t get involved in fomenting commie insurrections in the first place.

            America as a force for good? It’s a mixed bag. But, yo, tell the whole story.

            1. Except the example I gave – 9/11/1973 – was not a reaction to an “insurrection” at all. Allende was the duly-elected leader of Chile, and the U.S. decided to invade that country’s national sovereignty to push capitalist ideology and American hegemony. Severe human rights abuses followed, as they tend to do when those motives are at play. Plenty more similar examples where that came from.

              The “red menace” excuse was never a very good one, but it ceased completely in 1991. What’s your excuse for the last three decades?

              1. Oh, that’s where you’re wrong. The Soviet Union was highly responsible for stirring up insurrections for the entire Cold War. Did their influence in creating pathological ideologies and useful idiots to undermine the West evaporate overnight after 1991? No. The Russians (and Chinese) are still playing at this game today. I hope you don’t deny it. The left, in a sudden reversal notable only due to the rank hypocrisy of the matter, are blaming Russia for 2016 still to this day when they denied Russian influence on anything for 70 years.

                So again, tell the WHOLE story, please.

                As for Chile, specifically. It came out all right in the end. It’s not like the Commies are good at respecting human rights any more than the fascists are.

                1. “As for Chile, specifically. It came out all right in the end”

                  Well, except for all those people we tortured and killed. But you’ve got to break a few eggs if you’re going to make an omelette, right? And what a delicious omelette U.S.-led international market neoliberalism has turned out to be!

                  Also, you really need to learn the difference between “the left” and “liberals” if you think the former have actually been purveyors of russiagate stuff.

      2. Well, I suppose the good news is that if they did hate us for our freedoms, once Democrats sweep the November elections, they’ll no longer have anything against us.

        1. Except that the Democrats WON’T — not without massive voter fraud.

        2. No need for alarm – Biden will doubtless continue to bomb, drone, and torture to preserve American empire. Your “freedoms” are safe.

    5. “seriously as did Clinton/Gore”

      Yeah, 9/11 involved no aspirin since Clinton had taken out that terrorist factory.

      1. He came within hours of getting bin Laden. But no, that was “wagging the dog” — the important thing was that stain in Monica’s dress.

        1. You are so full of crap.

  3. Every generation has a defining moment. For my generation, it was 9/11/2001.

    Yes, I think in the long wrong, your generation will have been seen to be negatively effected by a singular event that made everyone feel threatened and helpless.

    I am a bit older than you, and for my generation, the defining event, I think, was the fall of the Berlin Wall. When I was growing up, half of the world was under Communist tyranny, and it was thought this was a more or less permanent state of affairs that we would have to endure for decades at least. Then along came Ronald Reagan, labelled it the Evil Empire, stood resolute against it, and then, with some help, the Evil Empire collapsed.

    It taught me (and I hope my generation) that if you stand resolute against tyranny, there is always hope for a better tomorrow. (I think people went overboard in their optimism, thinking this was the “end of history.” Well that turned out not to be true. But the world is still a better place.)

    1. long run. (Can’t we get an edit function here?)

      1. Sure. We’ll get it in Keynes’ long run.

    2. It may be better if we weigh the Fall of the Berlin Wall against Iran Contra, Marines operations in Guatemala, and other 80s examples of US imperial overreach. By viewing the Berlin Wall as the defining moment and sidelining those other things, both in the time they happened and in our nostalgic gaze at the past, we reify a state of affairs that never was.

      Specifically in this context, 9/11 was a consequence of the global application of US Tyranny in the previous decades. Painting the fall of the Berlin Wall as *defining* wrongly constructs the US government as ‘against Tyranny’. And although I imagine the Soviet’s failed Afghanistan campaign looms larger in their memory, I wonder if the lesson islamic terrorists took from the fall of the Berlin Wall wasn’t about standing against tyranny, but that unyielding defiance of a geopolitical enemy pays dividends.

      1. It may be better if we weigh the Fall of the Berlin Wall against Iran Contra, Marines operations in Guatemala, and other 80s examples of US imperial overreach.

        Yes, because the collapse of the USSR, the biggest foe of the United States, is just as important as undermining the communist satrapies that were, in fact, only one facet of the struggle against the USSR.

        Oh, wait–I was responding as if you were a thinking human being–

        Painting the fall of the Berlin Wall as *defining* wrongly constructs the US government as ‘against Tyranny’.

        But you’re clearly an imbecile.

        Never mind.

        1. Do you have an actual argument to make, or are you going to just attach ad hominems to quotes of what I wrote.

          As to the only thing you wrote that even begins to approach an argument: “Yes, because the collapse of the USSR, the biggest foe of the United States, is just as important as undermining the communist satrapies that were, in fact, only one facet of the struggle against the USSR.”

          The collapse of the USSR was remote from any direct US action. Our direct deployment of US forces or material says more about the US government of the time than Reagan’s speeches. Actions are louder than words.

          And just because the USSR was clearly an evil does not mean that the US government was necessarily ‘good’. Especially not in its official actions. Which shouldn’t be a point that needs making on a libertarian site which routinely points out how our government frequently is evil, stupid, or both.

          I mean, how can you look at the current covid-induced government power grab and argue our government is ‘against tyranny’.

    3. Yes, I remember the wall going down.

      I was watching the noon TV news, the local cut to network which cut to West Germany and the next thing I saw was some DDR bureaucrat and thinking “holy f***, did he just say what I *think* he did?”

      He had — it was suppertime there, and apparently everyone in the DDR took him at his word and went for the border. The rest is history….

  4. I will admit that 9-11 didn’t have a great personal impact on me: I lived in a rural area, none of my friends lived in affected cities, it was an event on the TV. So my reaction was more intellectual than visceral.

    What I mainly recall is a week later I was flying to SF for a Battlebots competition, and my robot being put through a scanner that was totally incapable of noticing that, by simple changes that couldn’t be picked up, I could have turned it into an incendiary bomb. Then driving across the Bay Bridge, and seeing a solitary soldier with a rifle watching multiple lanes of traffic roar past, and wondering what he was there for: To shoot out the tires if he saw a van with an “I heart Osama” bumper sticker?

    What I recall vividly is a nation reacting to a real problem with theater, not real solutions. And thinking, “If this is the best we can do, we’re screwed.”

    The actual 9-11 attack became impossible to replicate part-way through the attack, when people became aware that being hijacked might not mean a free trip to an exotic destination, but instead being used as a murder weapon. Ever since then, attempting to hijack a plane has become a good way to get beaten unconscious by a human wave attack of passengers.

    But we’ve been subjected to an avalanche of security theater aimed at a threat that went away even as it was being carried out. While real remaining threats have gone unaddressed.

    I’ve been forced to conclude that our political class are simply incapable of being serious in the face of a real problem.

  5. Both sides of our political divide agree the loss of 3000 innocent lives 19 years ago was a tragedy, an outrage, and cause for solemn remembrance. Why is it that only one side treats an ongoing COVID tragedy 60 times that size, much of it avoidable by the president, with remotely comparable solemnity and outrage?

    1. There is a lot to be said about the way humans perceive (and mis-perceive) risk. The guy with a sports car who regularly speeds at 100mph and rock climbs on the weekend has a fully funded retirement plan. Your more likely to die in a car drive but people fear flying and terrorists, but get the flu shot despite having unprotected sex with strangers.

      As for this other opinion you have about how the effects of the virus, “much of it [was] avoidable by the president”, I have to ask, what could Trump have done differently? Note, he shut down travel from China when others were still calling it xenophobic, and the “masks yes/masks no” debacle you can blame on the CDC. Most deaths came from NYC super spreaders like the un-sanitzed subway, and in nursing homes.

      1. Orangemanbad. Maybe it should be called the Trump virus, then, the world will know who to blame. /s

        1. It’s not the Trump virus.

          It is the Trump depression economy and Trump botched pandemic management.

          1. Right, it was a crying shame the way Trump ordered all those states to shut down their economies. I’m still not certain why he ordered them to do it at different times, and to different degrees, or why he only ordered some states to force nursing homes to accept people who were contagious with Covid 19, while letting other states protect their elderly, but that’s just detail.

            The important point to remember is that everything the states did was Trump’s fault, even if he was publicly urging them not to do it.

      2. “I have to ask, what could Trump have done differently?”

        A significant cohort of Trump supporters believe COVID is a Democrat hoax, and they behave accordingly. Now where do you think they could have gotten that idea?

        1. A significant cohort of Trump supporters believe COVID is a Democrat hoax

          No. A significant cohort of Trump supporters believe the COVID response is a Democrat power grab based in an exaggeration of the threat.

          Because it is.

          1. Po-tay-to, po-hoax-to.

            1. Honest question: If there was a president that could unite the country in a pandemic response, would both liberals and conservatives overlook that not everything could possibly run smoothly? Clearly W. Bush, Hillary, Trump, and Obama could never do this.

              Who could do such a good job uniting everyone? Resurrect G. Washington or FDR or Lincoln or Pericles or Caesar (assuming they could be brought up to speed on modernity) and I still don’t think such a thing is possible.

              1. GW Bush did unite the country after a crisis, at least at first when he was really trying, and both Democrats and the media fell in line behind him. Remember?

                Hillary and Obama could not do this, not because they lacked the skills but because Republicans do not fall in line behind Democrats, ever.

                1. G.W. Bush united the county for about a hot minute. Also, uniting the country after an enemy attack is not as difficult as during a pandemic, for a protracted time, in an election year. In less than two months after both parties were singing America the Beautiful together on the capital steps together, the knives were back out. You also may recall, that it was Democrats to fell out of line in supporting G.W. Bush first. Oh, that the Republicans supported LBJ during Vietnam, for one counter example to your wrongheaded notion that Republicans never support Democrats.

                  Hillary and Obama *do* lack the skills, because 1) Hillary couldn’t even win an election against Trump, and 2) Obama can’t stop being an ideologue. He bestrode the American scene like a colossus, and what did we get? Obamacare and racial division. *sigh* He had such potential.

                  So, pick someone from history that could do what you wanted Trump to do. Maybe, maybe, I’d grant you Bill Clinton. Sorta.

              2. I don’t think anyone could unite the country today. Bush and Obama are both decent and well intentioned. Both would put the country’s needs above their own. But I doubt either could move the needle very far toward unification in this environment.

                But however ineffectual Bush or Obama would be as 2020 unifiers, neither of them, nor any other president in my lifetime, would divide us like Trump does. That’s partly because it’s his goal, and partly because it’s all he’s good at. He only has one speed — lying ignorant self-aggrandizing bigot — and he makes that work for 45% of the market by flattering them with hatred of the same people they hate. They in turn flatter him with, well, flattery. Simply put, he’s never anything but self-interested. He couldn’t be if he wanted to, and he doesn’t want to.

                Is that a recipe for unification anywhere ever? No.

      3. Note, he shut down travel from China when others were still calling it xenophobic,

        He never shut down travel from China. Nobody called it xenophobic. (Well, I’m sure someone did.) And it was late, not early — something like 40 countries had already done that. He didn’t shut down travel from Europe like he needed to. Indeed, he didn’t do anything after he issued his partial, ineffective restrictions on travel from China; he acted as if that had solved the problem.

        He acted that way both in not making substantive policy and in his rhetoric. He told everyone it was a hoax, and that malicious lie has never left the playing field. After people belatedly began to take it seriously, he tried to undermine them, first demanding that the country reopen by Easter and later tweeting out for armed rebellion in various states against shutdown orders.

        He fucked up testing. He has refused to wear a mask to set an example. Worse than just not setting a good example, he has encouraged his acolytes not to wear masks. He decided to hold rallies for his own ego instead of keeping gatherings down. He has made up fake cures. Undermined the CDC and FDA. Hijacked the task force press conferences to make them his campaign events.

        1. Even politifact bends itself into a pretzel to admit that Biden called Trump xenophobic about the issue. There are other factual assertions wrong in your comment, such as the “fake cure” part. But you’re looking at the dress and see black and royal blue and I see white and gold. Nothing will change your mind, you know it and I do as well.

          Anyway, my recollection is that it was Democrats telling people to gather in large groups for the Chinese New Year in Chinatown and to be “Wuhan Strong” when Trump was taking it seriously. Look into that.

          So, yea, I’m not going to pretend the response was perfect. In a crisis we all muddle through. But what you, and nobody else from anti-Trump crowd has come up with, is something that Hillary or a random Dem president would have done different, or better.

          1. Anyway, my recollection is that it was Democrats telling people to gather in large groups for the Chinese New Year in Chinatown and to be “Wuhan Strong” when Trump was taking it seriously. Look into that.

            Think is, there’s video proof of your recollection.

            Nieporent’s blathering? Not so much….

    2. “Both sides of our political divide agree the loss of 3000 innocent lives 19 years ago was a tragedy, an outrage, and cause for solemn remembrance”

      Based on this thread, not your side. Just another “America is evil” moment.

      1. You mean another “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” type of “America is evil” moment?

        1. Yeah, Trump was wrong about that too. He was a Dem until 2015 after all.

          Nice whataboutism though.

          1. You denied there was a both sides, Bob. Now you’re accusing me of whataboutism for proving you wrong?

  6. I’m going on a plane ride today. Either I can dwell on how terrified everyone was 19 years ago, or I could go on with my life. I choose the latter.

    1. I don’t fly anymore, I refuse to tolerate the BS.

  7. The libs here are really outdoing themselves today.

    US is a terrorist, Bush’s fault, Trump is bad and so are his supporters, GOP cause it because of the gheys.

    Excellent work guys.

    1. There was a time you plausibly might have made that argument with a straight face. But now? When you support a president who blames America first, denegrates our military, insults our POWs and war dead, reacts to 9/11 by bragging about how much cooler it made his own building, refuses to hear a bad word about Russia, exchanges love letters with Kim Jong Un, and brags about squashing the inquiry into a Saudi despot’s vivisection of an American reporter?

      Get serious, Bob. I mean, really.

        1. Do you have a triplicate prescription pad?

      1. Again, nice whataboutism.

        1. I didn’t dispute the validity of the criticism. In fact I tacitly admitted it. I only disputed the credibility of any Trump supporter who would try to offer it.

  8. Is 2010 the first time you wrote this down?

Please to post comments