Carol Platt Liebau: Remembering 9/11

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Remembering 9/11

The anniversary of 9/11 is, of course, a somber day. But Jonah Goldberg's column is most astute: Why, in the press, is it presented as appropriate to remember 9/11 only with sadness, while it's perfectly OK to remain outraged about, say, Hurricane Katrina?

Six years ago today, on a bright blue sky day like the one here in California, innocent Americans were senselessly murdered because Islamofascists hate this country and all it stands for. We went after them in Afghanistan -- and took on Iraq, because according to the best intelligence from around the world, Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction that could be passed on to terrorists like Abu Musab al Zarqawi, an Al Qaeda who had been given refuge in Iraq.

Today, al Zarqawi is dead, thanks to our efforts, and so is Saddam Hussein. We are fighting a difficult battle in Iraq, but there is reason for cautious optimism. Above all, the American homeland hasn't been attacked in six years -- a feat that few would have believed possible six years ago tomorrow.

Those are reasons for some grim satisfaction . . . and continued resolve not to make the deaths of those on 9/11 meaningless by forgetting the lesson that terrible day taught us. If there's a reason for sadness (apart from the loss of life) today, it's because so many -- especially in the Democratic Party -- have sought preemptive defeat in Iraq and effectively denounced the war on terror as nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan.

It sure didn't feel like a bumper sticker on 9/11/01, and it shouldn't be treated as one today. If any good at all can come from the attack six years ago, it should be that it hardened American resolve to fight the forces of aggression, hatred and tyranny, especially when they threaten our people.


Blogger Chepe Noyon said...

Why respond to 9/11 with any emotion? Yes, emotion is a very natural human response to sensational events, but in the final analysis, isn't our task to fix it rather than emote over it? And fixing it isn't a matter for the emotions, but for the intellect.

I'll also tweak you for the sloppiness of this clause:

Islamofascists hate this country and all it stands for

No, they hate this country because of its foreign policy. The common claim that they hate liberty is stuff and nonsense, and I'm surprised that any mature person could suggest as much. If you read their tracts, the only complaint that they have about liberty is sexual license -- a plaint they share with you.

according to the best intelligence from around the world, Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction

Apparently you are unaware of the efforts of Hans Blix. He was in possession of the best intelligence in the world, and he said that there was no evidence of WMD. And guess what? He was right!

9:44 AM  
Blogger stackja1945 said...

How does one define "sexual license"? Blix maybe did not find what was moved to Syria? Do we trust vicissitudinary Syria?

8:15 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

UN Weapons inspectors went into Iraq and declared that they couldn't find anything. America said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and went in anyway. And there were no WMDs at all.

For that we should not trust Bush or any of his cronies. Petraeus has done a heckuva job.

8:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home