In a few days it will be the sixth anniversary of 9/11, and it's worth asking the question: why hasn't there been another major terrorist strike? Why haven't the Islamic radicals at least made a second serious attempt to cause the kind of damage, or worse, than the attacks of September 11, 2001 inflicted on America?
One answer--which we can expect from Bush diehards--is that the Bush administration has installed a foolproof system of terrorist detection. This theory does not convince.
This leads to a second explanation: the radical Muslims are so weak and disorganized that they can no longer pull off an effective action. This theory has adherents both on the right and the left. On the right, we hear the theory that "we've obviously taken the battle over there, and so they are unable to do harm over here." Even if there is some truth to this, it doesn't explain why every Muslim radical must head for Iraq: surely Al Qaeda could spare a few to bring the war to the headquarters of the Great Satan. Some on the left are drawn to the theory of an impotent Al Qaeda because they are looking for any excuse to get out of Iraq and, truth be told, they would like to forget about the whole War on Terror and go back to the way things were on September 10, 2001.
I'd like to suggest a different theory for why we haven't had more attempted 9/11s. Imagine if there had been more attacks. In that case Americans would have little doubt why we were fighting in Iraq. There would be no question over why this country had dispatched more than 100,000 troops to the Middle East. As in World War II, the only sentiment for ending the war would be on the part of those calling on Bush to level the countries sponsoring Islamic radicalism so that the place could be rebuilt from the ground up, as with Germany and Japan. In sum, more 9/11s would have the effect of rousing the present-oriented, slow-to-anger American dragon.
Instead, we are six years away from that catastrophic event, and already Americans are growing forgetful and impatient. Somehow, for many people 9/11 has become a freakish, surreal, one-time disaster that was surely tragic but whose recurrence doesn't seem to be a clear and present danger. So are the Islamic radicals holding back and waiting for American restlessness to produce a withdrawal from Iraq? Are the bad guys biding their time in the hopes that American lassitude will create new opportunities for them to strike even more savagely and with greater impunity in the future? How else to account for the uneasy calm that has hovered over this country for the past six years?
Reader Comments ( Page 17 of 17)
241. I believe that the primary reason that there has not been another attack in the U.S. like the 9/11 attacks is because the people responsible for the attacks on 9/11 are methodical, thorough, carerful and patient. The 9/11 attacks took years to plan and execute. Due to changes in our security measures following the attacks, the next attack may take even longer to bring about. But I have no doubt that our defenses are being constantly tested.
David Worrel at 3:30PM on Sep 13th 2007
242. Liz, quit whining. All you do is spout a party line. I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, but I won't like it.
Your ilk is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
"Game over," you say? Bwahahahahaha!
Loser.
Captain Negative at 4:00PM on Sep 13th 2007
243. Liz,
If you don't take a look at those towers falling and see that they look just like other buildings being brought down by "controlled demolitons" you are too stupid to wandering at large in even a semi-free society.
Get your head out of the sand and Hillary's posterior.
Captain Negative at 4:00PM on Sep 13th 2007
244.
Captain Negative:
"All you do is spout a party line. I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, but I won't like it."
My opinions are my own. (There IS a party line?) More informed, more coherent and more literate than much of what I read here on these blogs. But I shall persist despite your bile-filled posts.
In fact, your rage and vitriol at me are a palpable reminder of why the democratic party is often not successful: they attack each other instead of the real opponent.
Don't like smart accomplished women much, do you?
Liz at 4:25PM on Sep 13th 2007
245. I do like smart and accomplished women,Liz. That probably explains why I don't like YOU.
All you have to say is that Hillary is riding Bill Clinton's coattails. Like Bill Clinton can only advise someone because of marriage.
Don't try to cast me as a mysoginist because I don't like the candidate WHO HAPPENS TO BE A WOMAN.
Unfortunately, I can't ignore your own comments which show that you like Hillary BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.
Is that really a good strategy, Liz? Is it a goood tactic to say that anyone who doesn't like political whore, Hillary, JUST DOESN'T LIKE WOMEN?
You're being foolish, Liz.
ARROGANT and foolish.
Captain Negative at 5:24PM on Sep 13th 2007
246.
Captain:
On another blog I posted a detailed explanation of my reasons in response to your question about why I think Hillary would be a good president, electable, too.
Perhaps you didn't read it or perhaps you just misunderstand it because you keep repeating things I did not intend and did not say.
If you did read it, have some explain it to you, because clearly you don't understand my points.
You know, I would join you in a discussion of the issues if you would only open your closed mind. You are interested only in your own ideas and your own opinions. You seem to disregard any other reasoned opinion that doesn't align with yours.
Sometimes you seem to disagree for the sake of being contrary and, well, negative, Captain. And then you use dismissive put downs as if those are a persuasive arguments. You grow less credible everytime you do.
Your posts speak for themselves.
Knock yourself out. Or grow up.
Liz at 6:16PM on Sep 13th 2007
247. Liz, you are a blind little prissy liberal. You said it quite clearly. We should vote for Hillary because she is married to Bill and anyone who doesn't support Hillary must hate women.
Union busting Sam Walton used to refer to his WalMart board attorney, Hllary Clinton, as, "My little lady."
Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a political opportunist. She was either fooled by, or afraid to stand up to the Bush Junta.
Captain Negative at 12:12AM on Sep 14th 2007
248.
Name calling again Captain?
Here's what I wrote. You won't have to torque my words into something unrecognizable anymore:
-------------
Yes, Hillary. Because she's smart, determined, tough, capable, savvy and she's experienced politically.
She had to be tough as steel to get through Bill's presidency problems and still want the top job.
But the biggest reason is b/c we get Bill back in the White House. The value of Bill and his ability to strategize and implement cannot be underestimated. He is everything she is times 10.
Remember the economy back in the 1990s?
Remember peace?
Remember his ability to garner the respect of other nations?
She is electable. Look at Hillary's record as a senator from New York. She is extremely popular there, Those are a lot of votes in November, plus those of NJ, PA and other populous democratic east coast states. And these can tough votes to get.
But she's only electable if people like you and me start putting the word out that she is, to make it safe for those who would almost vote for her in the primary, but think she's not electable.
In other words, people who know the issues can foster confidence on her behalf by expressing our support for her candidacy.
I'm voting for Hillary. She has changed and grown and since she started as a candidate. She knows her way around Washington corridors of power. And think about this:
Hillary (and Bill) have learned from their mistakes in their White House years. They have reflected long and hard. They were relatively young and inexperienced. Stooopid even. Now they are seasoned and will make fewer missteps and dumbass calls.
It amounts to one hellauva potential do over.
When has this opportunity ever presented itself before? And after the hideous thing in the WH called Bush...who needs another president who needs on the job training (not that that dangerous imbecile could have learned anything.)
You might want to take another look and listen when Hillary speaks.
BTW, I could see myself voting for almost any of the Democrats now running. But none of them have the power of such a dazzlingly capable spouse.
I'll get into the hard core issues another time. But for now, think health care system and economic growth. And think of his regrets over Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia...We'd never have to see another Darfur and stand idly by and watch such suffering continue (I know several Lost Boys personally.)
Liz at 4:24PM on Sep 10th 2007
----
Addendum: Gore's okay. He's electable. He'd get a lot of votes just out of a sense of pity for the gross injustice delivered by the Supreme Court.
But he doesn't have that famed fire in the belly or he would have jumped in by now. He's seen the other side and he likes the green grass he's grazing on now. (Read: $$$)
Liz at 4:57PM on Sep 14th 2007