xtcian

ummm, a huge picture of him was framed to show everyone that he was dead, because we know the DailyKos conspiracy theorists would be cooking up all kinds of stories that Bush was hiding him in the basement of the white house, the same kind of theories that Teresa Heinz-Kerry was trying to advance only 2 years ago

if you want to know why it was so necessary to have a huge picture of him framed, the reason is due to the radical Left and their conspiracy theories

you seem kind of upset that Zarqawi was killed, upset that a 500 pound bomb hit his compound, but yet you support the killing of thousands of unborn American children.... interesting logic you have

as for seeing the World Trade Center collapse, we all saw that on Television, what you saw was nothing that the rest of America didn\'t see

what kind of gas mileage did you get in your rental SUV last week, when you took the big jet over to Europe?

Amen.

Ian, You left out the part about how our troops gave him medical care for 20 minutes before he died. (Which is so absurd to me because the US was trying to KILL him, and Matt, if we'd wanted him alive, we could have probably taken him alive, so don't give me that shit.)

Wait until Lucy can read. We received our Newsweek this afternoon and it has Zarqawi's dead face on the front cover, although it's not the entire cover, just a 1 inch square. So my son starts reading the magazine and he has this horrified look on his little face. He starts in with the questions:
"Who is this guy?" "What happened to him?" "What did he do?" It's really hard to explain these things to small children.

Okay, I'm going to bed now.

I hate to be boring, but I'm going to politely and unemotionally disagree that publication of a non-gory head shot of the dead Zarqawi wasn't exactly the right thing to do (I don't feel like disputing details like the choice of frame and context of the publication). The common wisdom is that bin Laden publishes videos to show he's alive, because it matters to his followers that he is, and it takes compelling proof to communicate this info, because lots of people would have an incentive lie, and a scattered underground organisation is bound to be rife with false rumors. The same principle probably applies to a Zarqawi death photo. These guys aren't simple soldiers any more than Don Rumsfeld is like some GI Joe in Iraq. These are political public figures. Different laws apply for libelling them and publishing their likenesses while they're alive, and I so no reason to start treating them like everybody else once they're dead. A lot more people are interested than Zarqawi's siblings, parents and girlfriend. We have shots of the burnt corpses of the two Goebbels parents and their kids outside the Hitler bunker, and it's lucky we do. I suppose it's the Godless Russians who shot the photos, but I don't know who published first.

anyone care to venture a guess where they are going to hang that framed photo after the dog and pony show is over??

makes you wonder what kind of photo effects we are going to get IF we ever catch bin laden. maybe even a postage stamp.

Quoting JerryD:
"as for seeing the World Trade Center collapse, we all saw that on Television, what you saw was nothing that the rest of America didn't see"

Jer, get out of the house once in awhile. There's more to events than seeing them on television.

Technically you're right, those who SAW the towers collapse on television didn't SEE anything different than what those who were in Lower Manhattan. Actually, those of us who did see it on television got a better overall view of the carnage. However, 'being there' is one of things that makes an experience unique and seeing is but one facet of any experience. Sadly in the case of NYC on 9/11 what people who were there witnessed was likely the most profoundly real experience of their lives and not in just what they saw but what they felt, what they smelled what they heard and so on. Those who watched the events of 9/11 on TV may have felt the same empathy or sadness as those who were there but to say that seeing it on the television is the same thing is just plain ignorant. I haven't talked to Ian about his experiences of 9/11 but I have talked to friends who were also there and what they experienced that day is quite different than what you or I experienced seeing it on television.

JerryD, did you just force-feed abortion into this discussion? I fucking give up. Enjoy your framed photos and plasma screen.

jerry,

that's really fucking harsh and an awful thing to say. I saw the second tower fall too that day, in person, with my own two eyes. I stood there frozen, mouth agape in shock and awe and disbelief, before my survival instinct kicked in and I hoofed it the fuck back home. I smelled it. heard the fighter jets over the city and in my confusion thought they might be more planes coming to hit us. be glad you weren't there, safely away somewhere else, watching it on television, safely away from even further atrocities that would occur on a regular basis in iraq and other parts of the world no less than 2 years later. atrocities that those unlucky enough to have been born there like I was born in manhattan, who may have no more connection to saddam and osama and zarqawi than you or I have to george bush and dick cheney and karl rove, are forced to suffer in seeming perpetuity.

I don't doubt that 9/11 shook your sense of safety and security and well-being in your own country, especially considering how the government and media handled it -- panicked terror warnings and images of those planes hitting those towers over and over and over again. but if you think that a) new york city is representative of the rest of america, and b) watching that shit was equivalent to being there, I'm quite simply appalled. your point is that 9/11 happened to every american. of course it did. I get that. there's a better way to express it than this absurdly rabid nationalism/blind obedience to our bumbling and dangerous government and a far more sophisticated way to try and make sense of it all than you may or may not be capable of.

(does nuance even interest you or do you just prefer being black, white and provocative?)

I watched katrina on TV, I watch the war on TV, I watch the president and shaq and sitcoms on TV and I know a thing or two about the medium. I'm not interested in debating this or the original topic tomorrow, I have too much work. I don't even like talking about any of this. (in fact I LOATHE talking about this.) all I'll say is I don't offend easily, and that's the least of what I am by not only your statement but the fact that I don't think you and the rest of the herd really get what it meant to be there that day, and that somewhere deep down, until it happens in your town, which I sincerely SINCERELY hope it doesn't, you never will because you think all this is helping the cause instead of increasing the chances of it actually happening again, on a potentially far more devastating scale, most likely in my hometown than yours (where the anti-terror budget was just for some reason cut I seem to recall...) if you feel like responding and talking about muslims and liberals and fetuses and priuses and inconvenient truths and debunking what I have to say, fine. whatever. go for it. the general state of the world (and our country's part in it) just makes me (a pretty fun and shallow guy) unbelievably depressed and sad, an undeniable fact, so as I see it there's really nothing to debate there.

ps -- we got zarqawi. that's fantastic. as I understand it, there are more and there will be more and we're directly contributing to making that a reality, which I think even you can agree is not fantastic.

pps -- father tim, are you allowed to even SAY fucking?

I'm sorry, Father Tim - did Ian force-feed gay marriage into a discussion about the war in Iraq?

It appears to me that what liberals don't get is that this is a WAR and sometimes war is sometimes hell.

The prosecution of this conflict is different than any in American history. You often hear conservatives rant about turning the place into a parking lot - it's not just rhetoric, it was a strategy of previous wars. Vietnam, Japan, and yes Germany were all carpet-bombed (so to head off that argument, yes, we bombed white people too).

But the prosecution of this war is different - strategic attacks, limiting civilian casualties as much as possible - it just makes this harder, that's all.

And don't give me "we could have had Zarqawi years ago", knowing bin Laden could have been had years ago as well.

So I turn the challenge back onto Ian and those who post here. What would YOU have done differently? You say you understand the threat of Islamofascism - prove it. Solve it for us, oh wise soothsayers, using the wisdom and cover of hindsight and your morally superior liberalism. Go ahead, dazzle us. Make me believe you would have had the better plan and I will tear up my Libertarian Party membership card, take down my framed picture of Richard Nixon, and officially become a liberal - oops, I mean progressive.

(OK, that last sentence was a joke - I don't really have a framed picture of Nixon - it's actually of Ann Coulter in an S&M outfit, but I digress...)

"what liberals don't get is that this is a WAR"
"this conflict is different than any in American history"

Falling back on the same old thing - a) liberals don't "get it," and b) anything goes because this war is different than all others. The last refuge of conservative scoundrels is to attack the savvy of critics and claim epochal exceptionalism. It's really tiring.

I'll leave it to other commenters to put forth a better way of fighting fundamentalism (in ALL its guises) besides invading Iraq, but if you can't think of at least three others yourself, you're just being lazy.

Ian, one good rant deserves another:

As for your angry rebuttal of my metaphor regarding the gun-toting neighbor . . . screw you too. Nope, that did not make me feel any better, but I hope your vitriol helped you.

Second, you've never addressed the fuel you burned on your jet trip last week. Waiting for your rationalization. Hey, glad you could do it, but I ain't the crusader, pal.

Third, you talk about how you were in NYC when the towers fell and, therefore, you don't need me to tell youo about the fucking threats we are facing. Granted, perhaps your proximity to the WTC gives you a better perspective. So, along those same lines, how much time have you spent in Iraq?????? None, so right back at ya', big guy.

Last, and I know this is what must really chafe you . . . you know the tide is turning. As illogical as it may seem, you know that the elections in a mere 5 months are not going to be good for you liberals. It's going to be another big fat raspberry for you guys and, when it happens, I'll revel in the image of you sniveling on your kitchen floor curled up in a pajama-clad fetal position.

For you to automatically lump me with "you conservatives" bugs me and has made this post more impassioned than necessary. My metaphor defended the use of force to defeat a threat and that is suddenly the position of only "you conservatives." Hello? McFly?! How many liberals voted for the war (before they voted against it)? Ian, get over yourself and your petty labels.

JerryD: I daresay that unlike those of us who stared in horror at our TVs as the towers fell, folks such as Ian and CP not only saw it differently, but even breathed it differently -- meaning, they were actually wading in the powdery ash that once had been human beings, documents, furniture, girders, etc. A bit of the towers lives on in all the people nearby that day in a way I can't even begin to comprehend.

ZelM.: War is ALWAYS hell. Read "All Quiet on the Western Front" (which I forced myself to read last year) and "A Rumor of War" (which I read in a 20th century U.S. history class [I know, oxymoronic] at university).

Dean, I'm sorry you felt singled out. It wasn't really directed straight at you - the "people in your neighborhood killing your family" metaphor is one I've heard far too many times.

Somehow I don't think I'll be curled up in fetal position after this next election, but hey, I've been wrong before.

Last week was a very good week for the U.S., Iraq and Western Civilization in general. A man who is undoubtedly an enemy of our country and a leader of the opposition force in which our military is currently engaged in a war was taken out. This is a victory, yet all anti-war liberals can muster, beyond a collective yawn, is lamentation about bloodlust, about losing our humanity, about ending the cycle of violence, about frames, about fricken magazine covers! (Ian would have rather the photo be distributed in digital form. Well all righty then!)

Thank God this generation wasn't in place 65 years ago. Back then we needed every abled body. I'm convinced that today half the population has neither the will nor desire to defend itself. It would rather engaged in acts of self-flagellation over perceived wrongdoings in the past than confront the very real nature of our enemy. Yes, Ian, it's Islamofascism. And all you have to do to see its true intent is listen to the words of its adherents. They aren't kidding. Making nicey-nice or leaving it to the UN or some international police matter isn't going to do anything. Neither is sticking our heads back into the sands and pretending the problems will stay away so long as we withdraw from the world and ignore it.

What really rankles is folks like Ken, who should be able to recognize a victory in the war and leave it at that, is upset over political implications! ("Even sadder is that this 'success' seems to have bought them another six months. Just when polls had hit rock bottom this happens and bolsters the Pro-war camp") That's just disgusting, and shameful. The left might want to nip this kind of thing in the bud by November if it wants to capitalize on Republican troubles. Keep the politics at the water's edge, people.

P.S. to Rebecca: It took US troops 30 minutes to arrive on scene. It would have taken considerably longer to assemble a force for an assault on the house (as opposed to minutes for a fighter jet to deliver its payload). 1) Zarqawi is known to move often, so there's no guarantee he would still be there when our ground forces arrived; 2) Our troop movements toward the area may have tipped off Zarqawi's lookouts; 3) even if we got there before he left, he had vowed never to be taken alive, and likely had some of his henchmen in the area. A firefight would have ensued at some cost in US and Iraqi civilian lives. It's not at all certain that we "could've taken him alive if we wanted." And are you implying that our military is lying when they say they applied first aid to the injured Zarqawi?

P.P.S. "And don't go talking about how we didn't drag him through the streets and set his body on fire. What are you, animals?" No, our enemy is as that is what they have done. Quit confusing the two, please.

P.P.P.S. I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone that we have a level of decorum on this blog. Try not to lower it.

Here's a conspiracy theory: don't JerryD's writing, capitalization, punctuation, and thinking seem a little too reminiscent of Booger's?

And folks, really, would you quitit with the use of personally directed invective? It stinks, and there's no call for it.

So much to comment on here, but I'll take this tiny issue.

Commenters: Why is taking a jet anywhere such an environmental crime? I think it's ridiculous that right-leaning commenters keep harping on the issue of Ian's travel.

Everyone needs to go from Point A to Point B. All other variables being equal, if it comes down to the choice of which mode of travel is more fuel efficient, I think Ian has proven he will choose the greener option.

Did you expect he and his family to row a boat across the Atlantic to get to his friend's wedding? Or perhaps you believe that if he's really an environmentalist, he should never leave his house. And, if he indeed lived like a hermit, this fact would then become fodder for other attacks.

There is no winning with this crowd. When reading the comments section on political entries, I often experience flashbacks of the playground battles in grade school....thanks for the memories.

Jose: the only point I have tried to make about Ian's trip to France is that, according to the University of Oregon study, he just increased his annual output of greenhouse gases by 50%.

Now, I do not personally care because I like to create as many greenhouse gases as possible . . .methane being my personal favorite. Pull my finger. (rimshot, please).

It just seems interesting to me that Ian occasionally rants about the perilous state of the environment, but he chose to increase his use of greenhouse gases by 50% for the sake of a trip to France to see a wedding (and some tourist sites). I do not begrudge him going to France one bit! BUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUT, it does seem, in my opinion, to lower his soapbox a tad when he chooses to rant/lecture/bemoan/critique the state of the environment.

Hope that clarifies the issue.

Au contraire, Ian (since you were just in France, you should understand that). It is you are are falling back on the same old things.

I never said "anything goes because this war is different." I just said it IS different. Do you disagree?

The last refuge of liberal elitists is to dismiss all arguments with "if you're too thick to understand why I'm right, then there's nothing I can do for you."

Whenever challenged, liberals offer nothing but their supposed intellectual and moral superiority.

Go on, explain it to me. Or are you just lazy?

Doctor Zel: I think Ian was just trying to use a Jedi mind trick on you. DHH

Here's what I take away from Ian's stance on environmentalism: he's doing what he can in his daily life to reduce his drag on the environment, especially as compared to others (my environmental contribution today will probably be on the order of, say, remembering to turn out the lights after I leave the room). Be real: we all have to fly and drive and use electricity occasionally. But are we doing it as consciously as possible? He's not perfect, nobody is, but he's trying to be responsible about the energy he does use, and that's more than a lot of people can say.

Brother Dean of Davie: I, too, am wise in the ways of the Force!

"...some of us believe that you can work hard to change the world and still keep your humility in check, your profile low, and your blood lust at bay."

Humility: "I helped soot-covered parents find their kids, I fed family members whose brothers had died in those buildings. My sister and wife handed bottles of water to firemen at Ground Zero while slabs of human meat were being carted to the tents. I don't fucking need YOU to tell me about the threats we're facing. We keep...wherever we're...I have...We make...we also got the Prius...and we installed..."

Low profile:
http://www.xtcian.com/arch/2004/11/index.php
(scroll down to November 10)

Blood lust at bay: The world's best military does the killing and the dying for us -- even if we don't like it -- so we don't have to make that terrible choice: to fight or to die.

Funny.

Matt, you have to have more faith in Americans than you do (yes, I said it). I believe we will rise to the occasion of our enemies and meet our circumstances head on - but it just so happens that many of us, conservatives and liberals, think this particular war is full of shit and could have been fought much better in a different, more intelligent arena.

Again, everyone please dispense with this notion that liberals "don't get it." On behalf of New Yorkers, at least, we're enraged every time we hear it. The view of this war from your cheap seats must be really easy to judge, I'm sure.

Yes, I just pulled rank, Chris, sans humility. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

And Zel, it's not true that "Whenever challenged, liberals offer nothing but their supposed intellectual and moral superiority." That's a lot of crap, and you know it. Thousands upon thousands of progressives, liberals, libertarians, military men, mothers and sons have tried everything they could to offer an alternative to Bush's plan, but since they have absolutely no power, they can only gain brief traction with each Bush scandal. The rest of the time they are drowned out by the frothing hoo-hah offered by your end of the spectrum, usually at 145 decibels.

And Dean, the airplane I took to France did indeed use "fuel." I paid a carbon-neutralizing fee at Carbonfund.org, and hoped that the price of making my family a little more worldly was worth it. I also spread goodwill among the French, because you never know when you might need them (see Lafayette, Rochambeau, Siege of Yorktown, 1781).

Fair enough, Ian (except for that crack about possibly needing the French military). Reasonable people can disagree about the necessity of the present war, though I hope we all agree that now that we're in it, it would be disasterous for us to lose and throw Iraq from the hands of fascist dictator into the hands of an fascist Islamic movement (i.e. al Qaeda in Iraq, or as Democrats put it, al Qaeda Which Has Nothing to Do With Iraq in Iraq Which Has Nothing to Do With al Qaeda -- credit to James Taranto) For more, see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html

If you could have prevented what happened that morning by killing Mohammed Atta or the other terrorists, and *only* by killing them, would you have done it? Even if it meant your death or going to prison?

Would that have been blood lust, or the courage to risk sacrificing yourself to save others?

Good questions, Chris M? And why is it that parent's of dead soldiers who oppose the war have "absolute moral authority" (M. Dowd) but not the more numerous parents of dead soldiers who still support it? Why is it that Ian feels comfortable "pull[ing] rank" because he was in NYC that fateful day in September -- and not his country house or the one out in California -- but you rarely ever see VFWs doing so? Does Ian have moral clarity on the issues of war and peace because he saw the Twin Towers fall *with his own eyes*, or could it be that we all have opinions and are equally susceptible to being wrong in them regardless of where our seats are located?

VAS DEFERENS. How appropriate that your tongue in cheek blog title for today was a not-so-subtle reference to the gland through which semen travels, for we are all having some utterly fantastic ejaculations today over these topics. Like everyone else with a nose, I, too, have an opinion.

Let me address some of the points made today. First to Ian, please don't think that simply because you experienced 9/11 using three more senses than most of us, that it impacted you more. I'll never know the smell, taste or feel of that day in NYC like you did. But give us all a break from the high horse. It impacted every one of us the same. Gut-wrenching fear and loss of innocence. Especially those who watched two different televisions from sun up to sun down and through the restless and sleepless nights. By comparison, as discussed with the distinguished gentleman formerly of Alexander Dorm, a victory over dook enjoyed from within the Dean Dome feels just as sweet when viewed on a big screen from the confines of The Cheyenne Grille. The fact that you experienced it differently does not give you more of a moral ground from which to declare policy.

For other commentators, I'd get off of Ian's ass for his cross-country travels or his flight to France. To his creditt, he backs his sometimes-holier-than-thou overall environmental stance with more accomodations to save the environment in his personal life than most everyone else does in theirs. Hell, I try to throw aluminum cans away in the trash if my wife isn't looking, rather than go the extra effort to walk outside and toss them in the recycle bin. At least he does all he can, within his lifestyle, to be accomodating. And hey, if any one of us inherited a million or so, we'd all be traveling all over the place, too. And I bet we wouldn't dare be driving a little frickin' Prius. So lay off the brother.

As the only super-power left, I hate that America has to be the world's police force. Given my druthers, we'd trade with those who offer us similarly fair trade agreements and we'd do business with those who help us. In return, we'd stay out of all internal conflicts. If Bosnia and the Congo want to commit genocide on their people, that's their business. Unless and until another's country's internal actions affect the U.S. directly, we'd mind our own business.

But that's not the case. I don't know who does the most sqwaking about helping intervene in other countries, whether liberal or conservative, but it happens. If I were a military man (I'm not--never was even in ROTC), I'd be pissed at those who say we should intervene and then question the very method by which we do it. (Shout out to Col. Jessup, see below.)

I believe we can all agree that we invaded another country. Nevermind the reasons or the justifications, we invaded another country. It's that simple. Ignoring the reasons or justifications for doing so, let's look at the very basic military model for fighting in this conflict. We are taking back-breaking measures to ensure that we proceed in as humane a manner as possible. Going door to door with ground troops in an effort to distinguish friend from foe should be commended. Nevermind the hiccups of Abu Girad or Haditha. By and large our troops, from the top down, have made it a priority to be discretionary in their engagements.

If I were the military general in charge of the effort and I had to follow my president's overall orders to be in Iraq, I would try to be similarly humane. I would identify the subjects I wanted: saddam, zarqawi, etc. I'd publish leaflets with their pictures, information on their associates and hangouts and drop them all over Iraq. I'd have my contact number on there with directions to call with information leading to the arrest of the men and women sought. I would also inform the civilians that I have no interest in hurting them or disrupting their homes and that I would be conducting city sweeps and going door to door. I'd apologize in advance for the inconvenience and then proceed with one simple caveat:

"Any unfriendly fire toward my American soldiers would not be tolerated."

Especially when it's home-made bombs detonated by women and children or sniper fire from a daycare rooftop. The first time my troops encountered unfriendly fire from rebels hiding among innocent civilians, after making those preemptive efforts, I'd ask my troops to make a hasty retreat.

I'd then call for an airstrike and I'd turn that particular village into a parking lot.

I'd then repeat that process at the next village, first trying to do that the humane way with leaflets and notice. Each time my troops encountered unfriendly fire, we'd have a new parking lot. My skateboarding soldiers would love me.

Eventually, I would hope, word would get out that it's better not to harbor the rebels and that our humane way is the preferred way to go. I'd have less U.S. soldier casualties and, eventually at least, fewer civilian deaths.

The problem with liberals or pacifists who decry the photos of zarqawi (it's a frickin' photo), the pictures of women and naked prisoners (they're naked--not tortured) and the alleged "crimes" of Haditha is that you are looking at this war through the rosy colored glasses of wars fought in the past. There are no Private Ryans over there talking about their 3 older brothers in a foxhole with Tom Hanks, while shooting intermittently across a designated battlefield against bad guys in different colored uniforms. Instead, we are like the Russians and Cubans from the most excellent movie, RED DAWN, trying to hunt down the rebel Wolverines. (Has Patrick Swayze--or any of those actors and actresses, for that matter--ever had a better film role than that movie?)

It's impossible to distinguish which car waiting in line at the traffic circle is the one going to be detonated. It's impossible to tell which, otherwise adorable 10 year old, is going to press his cell phone and trigger a bomb under the Army caravan. It's impossible to discern which of the men in the mosque praying just lobbed the grenade at your AID TRUCK, killing your best friend from boot camp.

I cannot fathom the pressure and the fear and the dangers our men and women face in a war where their presence is both welcomed by some and loathed by others--with no way to tell which person harbors which sentiment. The fact that they have not yet turned most of Iraq into Tony Hawk's Dreamscape themepark speaks volumes about the folks who are managing the war effort.

Talking about why we shouldn't be there is as effective as wishing that we could go back in time. It's grating. We're there now. Focus the energy on how we proceed.

While it didn't necessarily turn out so well for Jack Nicholson's character, I imagine this is how most military leaders feel when the media and the whiners arm-chair quarterback their "management" fo the war. To paraphrase Colonel Nathan Jessup:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. "

several of my friends (including my roommate) died in the wtc on 9/11 so don't preach to me about what fucking lesssons i learned that day. talk about arrogance.

i will continue to vote for the people who are doing THE MOST to prevent this from happening again.

what a lame post.

"Thousands upon thousands of progressives, liberals, libertarians, military men, mothers and sons have tried everything they could to offer an alternative to Bush's plan"

Let's see. Here are the alternatives to the Bush plan, as far as I can tell. In response to the blatant, brutal attack on defenseless American civilians, we should have:

A. Just taken our lumps because we are a boorish, oppressive nation;

B. Attempted UN sanctions (oh wait, al-Qaeda isn't really a nation, but that's a minor detail)

C. Attempted the Bill Clinton "Mogadishu Victory '94" method; or

D. Voted for the war before you voted against it.

Or maybe I just missed the "progressive" plan in the midst of my "frothing hoo-hah".

Once again, the challenge is there for Ian or any of the other enlightened people who post here. Show me. Convince me. Don't refer me to "thousands upon thousands." Defend your position right here, right now.

I said earlier I am willing to listen - why are the people with the better idea so unwilling to show me the way? Or is it just easier to throw stones from your solar-efficient, low-emissions bio-domed glass house?

How come Pauley Shore never got critical acclaim for his gutsy role in the movie, Bio-Dome?

GFWD - You know I love you, but I have to completely disagree with the point that you feel that those of us who were not in NYC experienced the same thing as those who were in NYC or those who lost loved ones on 9/11. Watching the towers and the aftermath on TV was positively horrifying, but when we turned off the TV, the world around us was relatively normal. Businesses were opened, public transit in tact, we drove home and to work with relative ease on 9/11. My guess is that it was a completely engulfing experience for those there in person. I don't believe that is the case for those of us watching on TV.

Watching UNC win the NCAA in 2005 at my home with two kids in bed was totally different from watching in CH at Henderson Street in 1993, but I'll bet those who actually watched in NOLA and St. Louis had an even better experience.

Ian, how about some more wedding pictures or French pictures to lighten the mood?

Hey Zel, here's an "alternative to the Bush plan in response to the blatant, brutal attack on defenseless American civilians" that is quite popular with many americans, both liberal and conservative.

How 'bout instead of invading Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their job, we had put all of our military resources into capturing and/or killing Osama bin Laden? You know, the guy who is directly responsible for the brutal attack... and is still roaming free.

Pointing this out is not "undermining the troops" or their current mission in any way. We all want them to succeed. Its just plain ol' common sense, based on the facts.

emma, I was working in Chicago that day and when I left the office early in the afternoon, sun shining bright, downtown Chicago was a ghost town. It was like that old movie with Harry Belafonte (can't remember the name now), where the city was completely abandoned. Only the occasional cop on a four-wheeler would zoom through an intersection once in a while. It wasn't business as usual. Very odd.

GFWD, Shore was awesome in Bio-Dome of course, but that's nothing when compared to Patrick Swayze's oscar-deprived role in Red Dawn.

Well, this has gotten super-ugly. And I'm to blame because I've fomented it, both by writing this blog and providing a space for comments (where I've written more).

Conservatives out there, we are never going to fucking agree on this thing. I believe being directly affected by acts of terror gives one a unique vantage point on the war on terror; you do not. That's fine. You clamor for me to elucidate a plan that didn't involve invading Iraq; I will not. Some of you have attacked the car I drive, the environmental choices I've made, the "millions I've inherited" as a way of saying my opinion is, at best, compromised (and at worst, utterly deluded). Whatever.

My question is this: since these issues bring out the scribe in you, why don't a bunch of you start your own blog, wherein you forsake your anonimity, include pictures of your family, talk about what you do for a living, where you're going, stories about your childhood, etc. so that I can read them, enjoy them, and then take you to task when there's something *I* don't agree with?

I'm serious, I'm not trying to be catty. I would happily create a blogroll (something I've been meaning to do anyway) and link to it, and encourage others. I think a fairly even playing field would be nice.

Emma, I'm glad you still love me and that feeling is mutual. Being there and watching it was not the same. Agreed. My point is that the bigger picture feelings are undoubtedly the same. I wasn't in St. Louis, so I don't know what the UNC fans there felt and heard inside the dome, but I daresay our feelings now are the same--pride, joy, happiness and love of that team.

My point about Ian's comments on 9/11 are that you did not have to be there to feel what he now feels. I will never be able to know what it was like to smell people covered in ash as they ran by in shock looking for loved ones. And, unlike someone else posted, I did not lose one close friend or loved one. In fact, to this day, I am not aware of any acquaintance who lost their lives that day in NYC, Pennsylvania or D.C.

But the day and memories of what I only saw on television still resonate with me. They choke me up when I see the towers fall, they clench my stomach when I read about the men and women on the planes.

A more apt comparison by me should have been that a Carolina fan who went to school there really has no greater claim to their love and passion than an equally excited and loyal fan who never attended Carolina.

Ian, as for the body blows that you've taken today and many days on this blog, I am glad that you are brave enough to stick your neck and skin out there on a daily basis. It's a great forum for the interchange of ideas. With the exception of those whose skin gets a little thin or the occasional hot topic, I think we come here EXACTLY for days like this. Keep the chin up and keep on throwing ideas down the gauntlet of public opinion. This discourse is great.

AS for lightening the mood, Emma, you will be happy to know that I plan on taking my son to He's Not on Friday to have him photographed with his first official Blue Cup. 4 months old, that's gotta be a record!

GHUMPHREYS, I'm not sure if you are the "ghumphreys" who regularly posts here or not, as you may have had a typo with the quick fingers today. If you are you and understand the meaning of the word, HOBEX, then this message is for you.

Was flipping through channels the other day and stumbled upon ROUNDERS on HBO. It had been a while since I saw it. As Matt Damon was walking in some bar, I heard "WINDOWS". Made me smile and helped me get my "groove" on "baby".

How funny...my brother (grumphreys) just posted exactly what I was going to say. The point of the discussion should be whether the course of action the US government is taking is doing the most to ensure the safest possible future for our own country as well as for the rest of the world. In view of 9/11, I would agree with my bro that the most effective action to have taken at that time would have been to pursue and capture bin Laden. An initial effort was made and then appears to have been summarily abandoned as the administration changed courses and invaded Iraq.

I think the Boog may be make, in the form of JerryD...

wow. it's the morton downey jr. show.

I'm linking to someone smarter and older than I am, and probably the rest of us:

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9533§ionID=1

the simple, basic point is that the policies of this administration aren't helping matters any, just helping you FEEL safer (an illusion) while they go about their business. one needs not be an expert in sociology or climatology or economics or geopolitics or english and history to see that. one only needs to have been had, hoodwinked, bamboozled, run amuck, led astray...

read your orwell. read your shaw. read your shakespeare and brecht and greeks. they knew.

GFWD - Four months at He's Not - not a record. I don't know if I am ashamed or boasting, but Frederick was born on August 26th, 2000 and we had him in a Baby Bjorn at Kenan Stadium and He's Not, I think, within four weeks, definitely by two months - don't know what the hell I was thinking. We do have pix. Have fun. I know Jake will enjoy.

I understand your point. I think what I am trying to point out is that we can empathize with the experience (I nearly freaked out watching the preview the other day for the movie World Trade Center), but we can't know what the experience is like. Another analogy: I attended a lot of weddings before I got married, but you don't understand and appreciate the ceremony until you have actually done it.

I don't want to contribute to the "ugliness" here but we haven't "summarily abandoned" the search for Osama bin Laden. We have 23,000 troops operating in Afghanistan right now, fighting terrorists and pursuing bin Laden, plus 17,000 NATO troops performing security in the country. Our Generals on the ground say that's enough for their mission, given their intel leads. The world doesn't stop until bin Laden is caught no more than detectives stop accepting new cases until they catch a particular suspect in an older one.

I'd like to second GFWD's last post on the forum provided to us here. I try to keep things civil, with mixed success obviously, and don't want to ruin it for Ian. As I've said before, I come here for the writing and would be a mere lurker if not for the political commentary, which I just can't resist.

Matt, not to split hairs, but I did say that the attempt to capture bin Laden "appears to have been" abandoned, assuming that there still must be a nominal effort going on. I cannot speak to whether or not 23,000 US troops is enough to accomplish that mission, but I can say that the mission is not, to date, accomplished. And that we have a lot more than 23,000 troops currently stationed in Iraq for reasons that do not appear to directly correlate to 9/11.

That's not hair-splitting, Annie, it's a fair qualifier. On the other matter, some of us believe that changing the diseased political landscape of the Middle East, beginning with a rouge state ruled by Saddam -- who refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors, refused to stop persuing his WMD programs, was cozy with terrorist groups, supported international terrorists, attempted to assassinate a former POTUS, was in violation of the '91 ceasefire agreement and 17 UN resolutions -- is a root cause of what led to 9/11 and therefore does correlate, if not directly (which was never alleged anyway). We can have that argument all day and never agree, of course.

Matt, I truly appreciate not only your civility but also the specificity of your response. And I absolutely agree that this very point is the crux of our disagreement.

Wow, can you imagine having 23,000 people looking for you and 17,000 others watching all the exits and still succeed in staying hidden?

Hmmmm. No word from J.Boog,er, I mean JerryD. to defend his assertions.

And gee Matt, that WWF Smackdown seems more likely than I thought, apparently we share the same hometown. Glad I could rankle you. That's my job, to rankle the conservatives who post stupid things on this site. Mission accomplished as your boy would say. You almost had a point a few comments ago but then lost your credibility with a Fox News Citation, always a deal breaker.

I'm also glad the neo-cons keep rehashing my 'decorum' quote. Nothing like mocking a guy who just wants to keep things civil.

And amen to Ian imploring those who feel so compelled to befoul this comment section to start your own blogs. That is precisely what I was getting at yesterday when I mentioned how I was accountable for my comments since I link to my own blog on which I do have pictures of my family and friends. I don't cover politics there however for the same reason I didn't smoke in my own house when I was a smoker (6 Months a non-smoker) I'm more than happy to stink up someone else's bar/house but not my own. Plus Ian does politis so much better than me, I'll stick to music and pop culture, thanks.

First, allow me to apologize if I have, in any way, contibuted to any uncivility in today's discussion.

grumphreys, thanks for taking a shot at answering my question. Why some seemed to take that as button-pushing, I don't know. As I said, it remains a legitimate question from someone trying to have an understanding of both sides of an issue.

As Matt said, I would forever be a lurker on this blog except for certain discussions which I cannot resist. Ian, I for one have never questioned your character or your background (although I know some have), and I think you have an interesting life and a beautiful family and if I didn't think ALL of it was interesting, I wouldn't keep coming back.

That having been said, and with all due respect, lighten up already. You pontificate and pass judgment on others from your perch in the blogosphere, and that is certainly your right. You also do it with a large degree of intelligence and often with humor, and that is why you have a readership that keeps coming back.

But I am disappointed that you have adopted this "take your toys and go home" approach to today's topic. Public discourse between intelligent parties is tantamount to a free society, and I, for one, appreciate your role on this small micro-stage. And quite frankly, the notion of "go get your own blog so I can talk shit about you" is beneath what I had come to expect from you.

I apologize in advance if this offends you in any way - I really do mean it with good intentions.

My comment was neither "taking my toys home" nor "start your own blog so I can talk shit." I can withstand a lot of heat on this blog, but every so often it'd be nice to start - or take - a discussion over to another site.

But you know I'm a comment whore so I probably wouldn't like that either. Ah well.

Fair enough.

I had a chuckle at "frothing hoo-hah" - growing up, "hoo-hah" meant a certain piece of anatomy, so a "frothing hoo-hah" could only mean...well, I don't want to leave you with THAT mental picture.

Wow. I've been out of pocket for 2 days training someone, and look at all I've missed. Definitely don't want to join this fray. I will say that living an experience vs. observing one cannot be on equal footing, though one shouldn't be offered as superiority of one's vantage point over another's (not directed at any one person). Prior to our office building in Charlotte being evacuated that morning of Sept 11, we all watched the events unfold in a conference room. Once home, we spent the day trying to account for our NY pals and family. Unfortunately for 2 of the groomsmen in our wedding, one lost his brother and another his firefighter uncle. My husband's family in Westchester lost 3 neighbors. We felt what most of the country felt, watching it unfold and then some. However, it wasn't until almost 1 month later when up in NY for a memorial of one of the "missing" when the situation would really take full effect. The emotions triggered when seeing a 30yr old new widow who was 3 months pregnant still holding out hope her husband made it out and was out there somewhere, as well smelling the burning 1 month after the fact in lower Manhattan were beyond where we had thought we'd maxed out. Back in Charlotte, on the one month anniversary, they had a rememberance service downtown. 100 people showed up.

GFWD...sound familiar:
Powers Booth: All that hate's gonna burn you up insdie, boy. C Thomas Howell: It keeps me warm at night.
Don't forget the 1 billion screamin' Chinamen!

Scruggs,

I love a woman who can woo me with RED DAWN quotes. You had me at "Powers . . . "

My favorite line of his was when he first arrived and explains why he got shot down: "it was five to one . . . I got four."

I think Ian's point about witnessing the 9/11 attack versus watching it on TV is not only a valid one, but it bears some more examination.

Because I find it odd that the people who seem to be most frothing at the mouth terrified of fundamentalist muslims and who are gung ho about dropping bombs in the middle east are from the very parts of the country that islamic terrorists have no interest in whatsoever -- like my own state of Indiana.

People like JerryD and Matt -- they aren't coming to get you guys. You're not in any danger. You're taunting Ian with "what if they were right outside your door, threatening your family" -- please. They were outside his door. But they're not outside your door, and never will be. No terrorists are interested in blowing up red states because there's nothing there to blow up.

The reality is that we aren't all in this together -- there are some folks who are standing closer to the front line, and yeah, their opinion does carry a bit more weight.

And for the record, not only would I pick up a gun and blow the crap out of terrorists if they were outside my door, I could do it faster and more accurately than any blowhard conservative here.

You know, Ian, earlier today I was thinking that I totally understand why you often think "Why bother?". It's really frustrating when you're trying to talk about something like how we can handle things differently, and we end up with these two polarized sides who just bash each other back and for with the same argument no matter what the issue. For those of us on the left, we're trying to talk about x, and end up spending the whole day reacting to whatever the right throws our way.
But then I started thinking about how if you took this blog and looked at it 50 years from now, it is really a fair assessment of what is going on in the world. If you want Lucy to really know the sentiment of the times, she can just read your blog, read the posts, and she's got a pretty good grip of where we are.
I hope, that people can look back and say "Damn, we were so divided then...I'm glad it's not like that any more". But unfortunately, I worry that it's only going to become a deeper and deeper divide and we'll see that these early years of the second millenium are where things really gathered steam.
For one, if we aren't able to differentiate ourselves from the patterns that have been established in the Middle East, then entering this conflict is only going to pull us into the trenches with them- leaving generations of hatred and animosity to deal with. But when people try to speak up to say "remember who we are!" we are bullied into "growing some gonads". Well, I think that unfortunately,the world is ruled by gonads right now and it doesn't seem to be serving anyone very well. The world, in my opinion, could stand to grow a heart, and a brain wouldn't hurt, either.

That being said, to me, this isn't about the framing of a photo. It's about everything that surrounds that. Are we patting ourselves on the back for not dragging Zarqawi's body through the streets? If we are, then we're doomed. Not that we didn't do what was necessary in this situation, but we seem to be losing our humanity in the process.

For example, at my father's this weekend (he watches Fox) the commentators were saying that if you weren't "thrilled" about Zarqawi's death then "something was wrong with you". I'd say that there's a difference in doing what has to be done, and being "thrilled" about it. There's a really subtle difference there and that seems to be where this huge divide is coming to a head.

Lucy, how did we all turn out??

"People like JerryD and Matt -- they aren't coming to get you guys. You're not in any danger."

First thing, Steph, thanks for lumping me in with JerryD. Second, I never posed a "what if they were threatening your family" scenario to Ian. Third, I work for the DoD in Washington, DC and pass under the Pentagon every day. Fourth, unlike most posters here, I've actually been to Iraq; 15 years ago last February.

Lastly, there's no way you are a faster draw than me, though I would find that very sexy.
You're taunting Ian with "what if they were right outside your door, threatening your family" -- please. They were outside his door. But they're not outside your door, and never will be. No terrorists are interested in blowing up red states because there's nothing there to blow up.

Wow, what a day.

On a totally different subject, I received Tessa's movie from Netflix today! I'm excited to watch it.

People -- stop fighting! JJ was arrested for DUI! Can't we all rally behind that? :)
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2006/news/story?id=2482061

Yeah - what Sarah said! I was really surprised about JJ's DUI because I didn't know semen had alcohol in it.