Comments on: A DEAD WRONG HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF 9/11

By: Watcher of Weasels

Watcher of Weasels — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:23:00 +0000

The Council Has Spoken!

First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Our Liberties Are Our Liberties, E…

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:58:06 +0000

Ellis’s problem isn’t lack of enough time to allow a historian to gain perspective. It’s innumeracy. The attack on September 11, 2001 has cost the United States economy two TRILLION dollars over a five year period. Our economy is growing but it’s not growing fast enough to absorb repeated attacks of that scale. How would we deal with the impact of an attack an order of magnitude larger? And what, short of a mobilization that approximates war, can prevent the re-occurrence of such an attack in the near term?

And, then, there’s also a lack of perception of the total scope of the attack from a world perspective. The attack destroyed (or revealed to have been destroyed) a post-Westphalian world order that had been in place for nearly 400 years. We’re still struggling to get our minds around that idea.

By: Watcher of Weasels

Watcher of Weasels — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:39:15 +0000

Submitted for Your Approval

First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…

By: expat

expat — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:02:24 +0000

What Ellis seems to have missed in his ranking is blackmail potential of unassimilated Muslim populations in allied countries and of radical groups in moderate Muslim countries. One only needs to look at the Danish cartoon reaction. My reaction to 9/11 was “I hope we get this right, because if we don’t, no one else will be able to resist.” I’ve lived in Europe for a long time, and I know how utopian and naive the people can be.

Ellis seems to be analysing from an island. He doesn’t seem aware that European Muslims now get their news via satellite dish and are being subjected to truly obnoxious propaganda that can set off protests in a moment. He also seems oblivious to the effects of terrorist attacks on the global economy.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:19:37 +0000

The notion that it’s too early to treat 9/11 as “history” is, perhaps, true, but that does not mean we just wait for its historical signficance to be determined by some analyst in the future. The record we create now will add to and help determine the accuracy of that future analysis. God help us all if we had to rely on just the NY Times for that record.

I think, though, that the significance of 9/11 will not be by way of any comparison to Pearl Harbor or of the war on terror to World War II. Instead, I think the significance will be that the erosion of the power of the executive branch of government, begun by Watergate, will have finally reversed. We finally have a president who, after being confronted by a congressional desire to control the president through an act of congress (FISA) simply said, “No.” I don’t think this would have been possible in a pre-9/11 world.

By: DocJim

DocJim — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:42:10 +0000

Joe Ellis is an engaging writer, a partisan political hack and an historian of marginal abilities.
Nonetheless, he will be quoted repeatedly from this New York Times essay and his detractors will trot out the series of lies of Ellis that stirred up about 4-5 years ago. In a few words, Joe Ellis destroyed his own credibility years ago.
The notion that a large number of jihadis are planning to destroy the country and their use of terrorist tactics make us vulnerable places 9/11 as high or higher on the list than the Cold War. And to answer mklutra both here and in his other posts on this, NO, we in the USA did not consider the Russians (or Soviets, if you prefer) as the same kind of mad men that the jihadis claim to be. So the Cold War was no more frightening than this new threat.

By: jorie

jorie — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:08:45 +0000

Joseph J. Ellis
exaggerated his involvement in the Vietnam War…
That is the official MSM version of Joey’s Military Service.
The truth is: Joey Lied about his Military Service. In how many other ways has Joey slanted, embellished the truth? Does Joey know what the truth is?
Massachusetts has lots of famous people who lie about their Military service(”Can we say traitorous Liar John Kerry”).
Joey teaches at an all girls school in the peoples republic of Massachusetts.
GI-JOE teaches little girls, GI-JOE Lies to Little Girls …So they will think think he is a big wise Macho Man. GI-JOE lies to the American public so they will think he is a big wise MACHO caring MAN. He is just a lying MAN.

By: mynewsbot

mynewsbot — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 05:17:26 +0000

Interesting analysis

Are you a news Junkie ?

By: Oldcrow

Oldcrow — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:45:23 +0000

The average man in the street mattered then as he does now because the average man in the street voted then, as he does now, for those who formulate national security policy.

What are you stupid or something? Since when did the man on the street in the USSR get a vote? You may think it is a political issue put then you are wrong it is a survival issue idiot. You really do believe AQ and islamic fundimentalism is not a threat. Well thanks for playing further posts from you can be ignored since you are obviously insane certifiably so. BEGONE NUTJOB TROLL!!!

By: mkultra

mkultra — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 03:56:10 +0000

The average man in the street mattered then as he does now because the average man in the street voted then, as he does now, for those who formulate national security policy. If Americans believed that AQ was a non-threat, Bush couldn’t do jack. No American is going to agree to sacrifice liberties for a non-threat. And Bush wouldn’t be trying to do it if he didn’t believe he could get political support.

Quit analyzing a political issue in a political vacuum.

The other point is this: You didn’t live thru the same Cold War I did. I remember nuclear holocaust as a real possibility. I don’t remember Reagan, for instance, ever telling me that the Russians will never send the nukes and that I had nothing to worry about. Do you? Do you remember “The Day After”? I remember watching it thinking not only that it could happen, but it would be worse if it did. And why have those “duck and cover” exercises, and do all the other things people did then to prepare for a nuclear war if MAD made it impossible.

Stop re-writing history to satisfy your current polticial needs. Thank you.