Category: Main

Check out weblog, from soldiers deployed in “the ‘stans”. My favorite exerpt thus far:

“At 0100 we arrive at Camp Stronghold Freedom. This base shares an old Soviet Era air base with the local Air Force. Their pilots flying soviet made aircraft over the base awaken us many mornings. It’s cool to see some of the same aircraft we used those aircraft recognition cards to memorize years ago flying over, as friendlies. “
How times change, indeed.
There’s really only one relevant thing to say to these guys:
Thank you.
Link via Matt Welch, who himself got it from Sgt. Stryker.

It’s Sunday, and I’ve got my morning coffee, so it’s as good a time as any for a little media deconstruction.
Exhibit A this morning is from the always-entertaining Associated Press. In their story ” protest possible Iraq war“, bylined Angela Watercutter, there are four direct quotes in total. They are as follows:
“We believe that this war can be stopped if the people intervene in the political process,” said Richard Becker of the International Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition.
“It’s really wrong that we’re even considering attacking Iraq,” said Jennifer Kelley in San Francisco. “The Iraqis have made no offensive move. It just seems like (Bush) wants to finish his father’s war.”
“I think we need to speak out loud and clear that this is not the answer,” Ortez said.
“People should be angry, not looking for peace,” said Jeff Wright, who screamed “Attack Iraq, you Girl Scouts” at nearby marchers.

One of these things is not-like-the-other, not-like-the-other, not-like-the-other…
So, everybody who believes that every single anti-war protester was as articulate and polite as those quoted above, and that the only individual that this reporter could possibly find on the opposing side to quote was somebody “screaming” insults at the protesters, raise your hand.
Hmmm. OK. Hesiod, put your damned hand down, but everybody else got it right.
It’s a brief article, so there isn’t terribly much to deconstruct, but there’s one more fun point:
Two people were arrested at the rally following a confrontation between protesters and a heckler, Lt. Larry Minasian said.
A “heckler”, you say? Are you sure it wasn’t a “counter-demonstrator”? A “supporter of war against Iraq”, perhaps? An “individual opposing the protesters views”, even?
And by the way: might it not have been somewhat more informative to indicate clearly whether the two individuals arrested were on the anti-war or pro-war side (or one of each?) Depending on the truth, perhaps not an example of bias, but we’ll never know then, will we?
Update: Hesiod replies over at his place. (The link doesn’t appear to be working right; if it doesn’t for you either, then check his main page, you’ll know the piece when you see it.) He accuses me of taking a “cheap shot” at him.
And you know what? He’s right.
Hesiod, I apologize. I got carried away and couldn’t resist a little jab at you there, but it was indeed a cheap shot, and uncalled for. You have my apology.
I’ll leave the piece as-is, as I don’t want to be accused of attempting to rewrite history, and also as a reminder to myself that I claim to be attempting to elevate the level of debate, not lower it. But as an olive branch, I’ve added a quote from Hesiod into my rotation in the top-left corner of the main page — which links to his site.
I do stand by, however, the opinions I presented on the AP piece. It was poor journalism at best, and biased at worst.

Impossible to say whether this is legitimate or not, but Deep reports:
“For about the last 48 hours, I’ve been picking up chatter on the Net.
The messages say BIN LADEN IS DEAD. Sure, there have been rumors before, but I know this is the real thing…”
She also points to at least one major media outlet in the U.K. that’s picked up on the story; follow her link to check it out, and file this one under “developing”…
(Link to Aimee via InstaGuy)

This should be extremely interesting:
Hussein Trained Al Qaeda Fighters – Report
LONDON (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s promised dossier on Iraq is to reveal that Saddam Hussein trained some of Osama bin Laden’s key lieutenants, The Sunday Telegraph reported.
The dossier is also expected to disclose that the Iraqi leader has reconstructed three plants to manufacture biological and chemical weapons, it said…
The Sunday Telegraph said a draft version of the dossier contains detailed information on how two alleged leading al Qaeda members, Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah, underwent training in Iraq and are still linked to the Baghdad government.
Link courtesy K-Lo, valiantly holding down the weekend fort over at The Corner (even though she never, ever, ever will link to TTLB).

Blue Man Group has produced an memorial to 9/11.
I’m still trying to decide how I feel about it, which I suppose means it is worthwhile.
Link courtesy of Scott Rosenberg.

I noticed that the page of my post on arguments against taking action on Iraq was exploding last night. So, it occurred to me that perhaps it would be useful to have a more well-organized forum for folks to discuss and debate these issues. Something like… well, a forum.
So, here it is. I set up a new forum this morning, and it is now open for use. I encourage everyone and anyone interested in this debate to join in.
Ground Rules are as follows:
– The forum is open access, so you can post without creating a user account, but if you intend to participate on an ongoing basis you can register if you choose.
– Any and all topics related to Iraq are welcome.
– Posting links to your weblog posts in the forum is encouraged, even if you are not otherwise actively participating in the forum discussions. Just as long as they are actually relevant!
Obviously, folks will continue to post their most significant pieces to their own weblogs, but I hope the forum will provide an avenue for those readers who don’t have blogs yet to share their thoughts, as well as providing a single spot for folks to go to read and find links to the latest & greatest arguments and news around this issue.
I’ve ‘seeded’ the forum with a few threads that I think represent some of the key aspects of the discussion; feel free to reply to them or go ahead and start your own if you have other areas on your mind.
No idea how this will be received, really, so let’s try it and find out. If the community seems to find it useful, great; if not, then I’ll probably take it down in a week or so.
Enjoy…
-NZB
Oh, and by the way: Thanks to Solonor and Robin Goodfellow for admirably representing the anti- and pro- war positions, respectively.

CNN reports that U.S. government has granted permission for the first commercial flight to the moon.
The company involved is TransOrbital Inc., whose website says:
“TransOrbital Inc. is a private company dedicated to the commercial development of space. We are on track to be the first commercial mission to the moon and currently have three Lunar launch projects in progress. Our first mission, TrailBlazerTM, is scheduled for launch in 2003.”
Hmph!
Interestingly, one department that the CNN story says endorsed the trip was the U.S. State Department.
Did they have to check and see if the visit might offend the “Moonie Street” first?
Some lunar craters that needed appeasing, perhaps?
Oh nevermind…

Greetings, fellow inactivists!
Recently, there has been much talk of taking action in the world. Specifically, American action. As I know we’ll all agree, American action is bad, bad, bad, and must be opposed at all opportunities. But what if the arguments for action are truly compelling?
Fear not. I’ve provided below a primer on five key Moral Stances which, used properly, will allow you to eloquently oppose action of any kind, while simultaneously allowing you to appear wise, thoughtful, and most importantly — morally superior to your activist opponents.
On to the stances!
Moral Stance #1: We cannot act because our hearts are not pure (past tense).
Role Model: Fisk, 9/13: “Mr Bush spoke of the tens of thousands of opponents of Saddam Hussein who had been arrested and imprisoned and summarily executed and tortured – ‘all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state’. But there was no mention, unfortunately, that all these beatings and burnings and electric shocks and mutilations and rapes were being merrily perpetrated when America was on very good terms with Iraq before 1990, when the Pentagon was sending intelligence information to Saddam to help him kill more Iranians.”
Advantages: Good argument to use against strayed sheep (lefties who have drifted over to the warmongering side) as it plays on their historical memory of genuine American misdeeds. Where possible, use examples from the current conflict, but when in doubt fall back on old standards (See Cambodia, East Timor, Chile). If all else fails, point to the American genocide of Native Americans. Added bonus of this stance is since it also has the benefit of eroding American confidence in our own nation, the more you use it, the more effective it becomes!
Disadvantages: Some irritating traitor to their sexual orientation may point out that this only increases American responsibility to fix the problem: “Fisk’s argument (Like Sontag’s) for doing nothing is that at some point in the past the U.S. had dirty hands in the matter. But even granting them this point, doesn’t that make it more incumbent on the U.S. now to set things right?” (Andrew Sullivan, 9/13)

Moral Stance #2: We cannot act because our hearts are not pure (present tense).
Role Model: Robert Scheer, 8/6: “What the heck, let’s bomb Baghdad. Sure, it’s one of the more historically important cities in the world, and many of its more than 3 million inhabitants will probably end up as “collateral damage,” but if George the Younger is determined to avenge his father and keep his standings in the polls, that’s the price to be paid.”
Advantages: Almost always handy, since as long as you can find some benefit to the United States in the action being proposed, you can accuse its proponents of acting in Naked Self-Interest. In the case of a politician, if the action is likely to be popular, you have a made-to-order accusation that they’re simply doing it to beef up their poll numbers.
Disadvantages: Somebody may point out that the process by which politicians are influenced by the ignorant masses and act in a manner which they believe those masses will support (and thereby keep their “standings in the polls”) is known as “representative democracy”.
Moral Stance #3: We cannot act because there are other evils loose in the world that we have not acted upon.
Role Model: Hesiod, 9/12: “The Bush administration has released this document detailing the case against saddam Hussein. Note, however, they don’t make the case for war. Pick a dictator. Any dictator. Why aren’t we invading Cuba, North Korea, or Iran?”. (See also: Maureen Dowd).
Key Advantages: Gives the illusion that you support action, just not this action.
Disadvantages: You do run the risk of someone actually calling your bluff if and when the other action you point to comes up. Don’t sweat it, though; most folks don’t have very good memories so you’ll probably be able to get away with using the same argument again then too.
Moral Stance #4: We cannot act because the risk of action is too great.
Role Model: William Niskanen, Cato Institute, 12/13/01: “In the absence of strong allies and regional bases, the successful prosecution of another war in Iraq may be more costly in time, lives and resources than the Gulf War. If Saddam already controls weapons of mass destruction, the costs could be unusually high.”
Advantages: Displays prudence and concern. Caution always sells.
Disadvantages: Often requires actually admitting that the threat which proponents of action are attempting to remove is genuine, which can be awkward if you’re attempting to simultaneously argue that there’s no need to worry, nothing to see here, and would everybody please just move along.
Moral Stance #5: We cannot act because we have not debated/analyzed the problem sufficiently.
Role Model: Senator Tom Daschle, 9/13: “Mr. Daschle said, first, it was important to gauge foreign reaction to Mr. Bush’s speech. He also wondered whether a major diversion of military resources to Iraq would undermine the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, and he said the administration had yet to address ‘to whom will we turn for leadership in Iraq’ after Mr. Hussein was overthrown. But Mr. Daschle said the Democrats were ‘not prepared to make any commitment’ to voting on a war resolution “until we’ve had more of an opportunity to answer these questions.”
Advantages: You can never have too much information, or too much discussion. There’s always questions that remain unanswered, so this approach is a guaranteed winner.
Disadvantages: There’s the nagging possibility that if you use this tactic long enough, your questions may be answered by the murder of large numbers of your fellow citizens.

As you can see, these approaches provide a solid foundation to oppose any action, at any time, about anything. By combining them creatively, you can be assured that no matter how compelling a case is made for action, you can sow sufficient doubt to at least confuse the issue entirely, and in the best case, ensure deadlock and indecisiveness for weeks, months, even years.
Good luck!

alert issued on Florida highway
MIAMI, Florida (CNN) — Authorities closed a 20-mile stretch of “Alligator Alley,” south Florida’s primary cross-state connector, and detonated a package early Friday after stopping three suspects who they believe may have been plotting a terror attack in Miami.
The relevant questions to ask here are:
1) Why close 20 miles of highway if this was just a bunch of guys with some conventional explosives?
Possible non-alarmist answer: An excess of caution.
Disturbing, un-followed-up paragraph in CNN’s story:
Bomb squad investigators saw wires sticking out of a package in one of the cars, and used a water cannon to blow it apart, an official said. The package turned out to be medical equipment
2) If this is an isolated group not acting in concert with others across the country, why would they claim “They mourned on 9/11 and they are going to mourn again on 9/13.” ? What could they possibly destroy in Florida that would be that significant to us? (No offense intended to Miami, of course, it’s just not the first city I’d pick for major national landmarks to attack)
Possible non-alarmist answer: The suspects were either misquoted, misheard, or were just plain boasting above their game.
Stay tuned & be safe, all.

Brief thought to get in my “you-heard-it-hear-first” claim.
At long last, the Democrats have finally decided on their approach to the war question — at least for now. And they’ve decided they are going to have a work-to-rule strike.
There’s news floating around today that apparently, we haven’t had a formal intelligence review of Iraq’s WMD capabilities in two years.
In response to Bush’s U.N. speech, I heard a Democratic Senator raising this as an issue, and basically saying that we couldn’t really start the (Congressional) debate until that review was completed.
I predict you’ll hear more of this from the Democrats in the coming days. I have this gut feeling that they somehow think that they can be seen as reasonable and prudent by focusing on the legalistic aspects of this debate, rather than the substance. I also predict it will only last about a week, when they realize its a dead loser of an approach.
One other thought: I hear people talking about Bush’s speech today and saying that there was no “smoking gun”. They want to see the “smoking gun”.
My fear is that the only thing that will truly satisfy those who oppose action is a smoking crater, where an American city once stood.

Brief note: If you’re at work and want to see Bush’s address to the U.N. live, it appears that is providing a webcast.
Update: Watching now. Realvideo stream works great. And Bush is delivering an excellent speech. Very matter of fact; basically a thorough walkthrough of all the U.N. resolutions and pledges that Saddam has violated over the past decade.
I usually find Bush an uncompelling, even irritating speaker. But this speech is an exception.
Below are a few quotes I’ve been able to capture. Note that I’ve done my best to capture these accurately, but can’t promise 100% perfection, as I’m literally typing as I listen and have no way to recheck.

“By refusing to comply with his own agreements, [Saddam Hussein] bears full guilt for the hungry and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.”
“Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.”
“Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We tried sanctions. We tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of Coalition military strikes. But Saddam has defied all these efforts.”
“The first time we can be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.”
“Iraq has answered a decade of United Nations demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment… Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding? Or will it be irrelevant?”
“We will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time… We must choose between a world of fear, and a world of progress… By heritage, and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well. Thank you very much.”

Update 11:10am EST: Bush’s speech is now over; the link above no longer works. If I find an archive of the webcast I’ll post it here (and if anyone else finds one, drop me an email).
Update again: The link for the archived webcast is here, the full text of the speech is here.
And again: Martin Devon comments. (It’s all Martin links, all the time here at TTLB! )
How much would you pay now?: Listening to WBUR radio’s The Connection’s coverage of the speech, and I just had to rewind the audio stream because I heard one commentator say something I just couldn’t believe. Observe Stephen Walt (who was up against former CIA head James Woolsey), professor of international affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School for Government, as he explains to us why there’s no need to go after Iraq now:
“I don’t believe the compelling rationale is there. There’s this argument that Mr. Woolsey has advanced that if they had weapons of mass destruction or even nuclear weapons that this would cast a huge shadow. Again, Israel has had nuclear weapons, that hasn’t enabled them to dominate the Middle East. The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons and we were able to form very powerful and cohesive alliances against the Soviet Union. If Iraq ever tried to sieze territory from others again I think we would be able to assemble a coalition just as we did in 1991.”
You heard it here first, folks. No need to bother with all that examination of the evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and is building more. Because it’s OK if he has them!
But wait! There’s more! : Will Saletan really had me worried that he had been kidnapped and replaced by a pod person with this piece today, but he comes through beautifully in the end with some insightful thoughts on the politics of appeasement.

Former crown prince of Jordan, Prince Hassan bin Talal, writing in he London-based Arabic daily, Al-Hayat, on the modern Islamic state:
“Long before the discovery of the New World, Islamic civilization was the world’s melting pot. Before the emergence of the nation-state, the Islamic world was a refuge for those escaping from religious and intellectual discrimination. Islam’s support for scientific discoveries and its respect for the environment were no less significant than its concern for the social order. This was done not by religious coercion, but by education and the teaching of civic duties…”
“A commentary cannot be complete without mentioning the destructive events of September 11, 2001. The respect for the sanctity of life is the cornerstone of the great religions. When certain actions are taken in the name of a political cause, and its perpetrators resort to legitimizing them, these actions should be considered harmful to human dignity. Extremist violent actions like these, for which innocent men, women, and children are the targets and hostages, are absolutely immoral and no modern Islamic state should condone them…”
“Our unique historical experience that relates to religious states shows the benefit of separating church from state for the benefit of all people. We need to distinguish between a religious government that seeks the well-being for all irrespective of their religions and the one which aspires to implement a single religious or secular point of view. Whenever theocracy is mentioned, people the world over, think of Iran. I like to remind them of the European theocracy, known as ‘The Vatican.'”
“Islam respects human diversity. Muslims are not required to impose their beliefs on others, and the Koran is quite specific on this point. Muslims may enter into dialogue with others about the characteristics of all beliefs, but the final judgment remains in the hands of Allah alone, may ‘He Be Blessed and Exalted…'”
“The teachings of Islam support equality and it is incumbent on the Islamic state, whether in its old or modern constellation, to respect the rights of individuals and groups in their faith and citizenship notwithstanding the existence of examples to the contrary. Historical evidence suggests that the Islamic societies, by and large, had practiced these principles. The best evidence is the Constitution of Medina, negotiated by Prophet Mohammed with non-Muslims that guaranteed them their rights and duties, and their right for worship in places of their choice. It is a set of civil rules and an action program for Islamic pluralism. Subsequent rulers established the rights of the millet, [made up primarily of Jewish and Christian minorities as a means to protect the rights of minorities to practice their religion and the application of religious law to their members].”
“The International Declaration of Human Rights has established the principle that ‘all human beings are born equal and have equal rights and dignity.’ This principle is as much as an Islamic principle as it is a universal human rights principle…”
translated by the indispensible MEMRI.
It is painfully obvious that the United States — and western civilization as a whole — has a great deal at stake in the civil war within Islam between the radical fascists and more moderate voices.
Unfortunately, it has seemed all too often that only one side — the fascists — are actually up for the battle.
I don’t know enough of bin Talal to judge whether he truly means what he says, but it is encouraging nonetheless to see it said. Regardless if the messenger may be tainted, the message is a vital one. It is not enough to simply keep repeating “Islam is religion of peace.” We need support from those within Islam who can reach back into Muslim history and provide a specific and compelling alternative to the barbarism of the fanatics — and in turn, we must support them.
As I’ve argued before, Islam is not a religion of peace; nor is it a religion of war and hatred. It is a complex set of writings, traditions, and schools of thought that are sufficiently complex to allow virtually any set of worldviews to be hung on its framework. (Like, as it turns out, every major religion). Islam is what its adherents make it to be; no more, no less.
The Saudis pour huge amounts of money into funding the spread of the fascist vision of Islam: their support for madrassas of the Wahhabist school is a basic fact of the modern Muslim world.
We need to ensure that an alternative offensive is mounted. Perhaps not directly — the taint of America might be enough to doom such an effort — but however it is done, we must make certain that a modern, open version of Islam is promoted just as vigorously as the Saudi’s spread their hate-filled one.
The military offensives in this war are vital; and Martin had it exactly right when he said yesterday that “we can no longer tolerate tyranny… it is a matter of survival”. There is a long list of regimes that must go; Iraq is only the first of many.
But the real enemy in this war is not Al Qaeda; it is not Iraq. It is fascist Islam itself. And while we can destroy its adherents with military force, we cannot destroy an ideology without presenting an alternative to take its place.
Perhaps bin Talal will be our ally in that effort. But if not him, it must be somebody. Because no matter how many times we say “Islam is a religion of peace”, it won’t be true until those within Islam itself make it true.
Update: Howard Owens points out another Muslim voice willing to speak truth.
Late Update 9/14: Commenter “JB” asks:
Dear Bear: Why do commentators (like you and Daniel Pipes) keep saying that we need to promote moderate Islam? Why should Americans support the promotion of a religion that most of us devoutly reject? Why aren’t we being encouraged to promote Christianity instead? I think there is some unconscious multiculturalism going on here, that leads you to struggle with finding a positive spin on Islam, an immature religion still mired in an ancient theology of warfare and coercion, rather than encouraging a faith that centuries ago evolved beyond that destructive stage.
Well JB, if I had my choice, I’d like to be able to convince everyone in the world to abandon all religion. (Note the word “convince”: not “coerce”). I agree with you that Christianity has, for the most part, shifted into a phase where it does not suffer from the violent perversions Islam currently suffers. (I would say “evolved”, but I’m not entirely sure the path is linear and always growing towards a more benevolent end — Christianity could swing back to barbarism at some point in the future, imho). However, I don’t think we should try to convert the Muslim world to Christianity for the same reason I don’t think we should try to convince them to become atheists: because it just ain’t gonna happen. It’s not realistic at all to say we’re going to encourage all the Muslim nations of the earth to completely abandon their chosen faith. No way, no how: do not pass go, do not collect $200.
It is realistic to hope, however, that they might choose a more moderate, peaceful version of that faith — and therefore, it makes sense to me that we should encourage that path wherever possible.

“There is a line in our time, and in every time, between those who believe that all men are created equal and those who believe that some men and women and children are expendable in the pursuit of power. There is a line in our time and in every time between the defenders of human liberty and those who seek to master the minds and souls of others.
Our generation has now heard history’s call, and we will answer it. “
– W. Bush, September 11, 2002
Link via The Corner

Note: I will be continuing to post during the day today, but new entries will appear below this one, not at the top of the page as normal.
One year ago today the world changed not at all, but our comfortable perception of it shattered forever. And now, those of us who survived — who were spared — find ourselves here, a year older; perhaps slightly wiser; grasping for the right words to honor those we have lost; the right gestures to express our sorrow. To find some way to give meaning to an event beyond comprehension at a human scale; an act so monstrously powerful that in a moment, it cleaved history irrevocably into before and after.
What rituals are appropriate to commemorate the memory of thousands of your fellow citizens murdered on live television as the world watched?
What words can we say; what symbols can we invoke that that can possibly lend meaning to an act of barbarism so grotesque that in its rejection of life; its utter, ultimate futility it defies the very concept of civilization itself?
The task seems impossible. Were there any alternative, the wise course would be to yield; withdraw from the field entirely, and leave the inexplicable unexplained.
There is no alternative. We are here; they are gone, and we are left to make sense of it. And there is still much work to be done.
And so, here I am. To post nothing today would be its own statement, would it not? And not the one I’d care to make. And so… I make my own attempt at meaning, and in my hubris, hope that perhaps I can shed some light into the darkness.
What do I expect on this day?
I fear that our remembrances this year will be dominated by resignation and passivity; will avoid the hard reality that the deaths of our fellow citizens were not accidents, but rather deliberate acts of murder by an enemy whose forces are still at large, and continue to covet American blood.
As you watch today’s ceremonies, ask yourself: if you did not know the truth, could the speech you are watching; the ceremony you are witnessing, be equally appropriate if those two towers had collapsed in an earthquake?
If the answer is “yes”, then my fears have been borne out.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but the track record up until this point is not good. We seem to be embracing the role of victim; not just commemorating it, but celebrating it. We are in danger of remembering what occurred a year ago today as a tragedy that just “happened”.
But what is being overwhelmed in the cult of victimhood is that forty men and women refused to accept their role as passive victims. They saw the face of the enemy; they learned the evil it had done already and the work it still had left to be done on that day.
And they said “no more”. They drew the line: this far, and no farther.
Flight 93.
And suddenly, there it is. Amid the senselessness of that day, a clarity appears: a meaning that can be drawn from the death and madness.
The conflict we face now did not begin last September. Whether you define the war against Islamic fascism as beginning in 1979, or in 1993, it had been with us for years; we simply failed to acknowledge that there were indeed fanatics who were sworn to kill us. And so, as horrible as the loss of life was in the Towers and at the Pentagon, as events were unique only in degree, not in kind.
But something unique did happen that awful day. Something the murderers did not expect; something they had not planned.
We began to fight back.
It deserves a name of its own. Whether you call it the “Battle of Shanksville”, the “Battle of Flight 93”, or just “The Turning Point”, it was an event inexorably tied to — and yet distinct from — the black sorrow of the rest of that day. And it should not be subsumed under the easy grief that we have come to associate with “9/11”.
For it marked the first time in this war that Americans had fought back. In those few scant minutes after the first hijackings, American society finally woke up, analyzed the threat, and acted. Forty people gave their lives in the effort, but the battle was won. There would be no third target on that day; the only harm that Flight 93 would do would be to a deserted field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Years from now, I hope the emphasis with which we commemorate the events of this year past will have changed. The loss of life and grief should not be forgotten or minimized. But I think that given time, and perspective, it will become clearer that the event that we should remember most keenly on this day is not the massive loss of life that the terrorists inflicted on us.
It is that one, small battle that occurred over the skies of Pennsylvania, where a group of unarmed American civilians stared their murderers in the face, and in refusing to quietly accept their fate, earned our nation its first victory in this war.
Driving yesterday, I was listening to NPR’s Talk of the Nation. In the midst of a panel discussion on American Empire, the inevitable comparison to Rome was raised. And one guest, Victor Davis Hanson of California State University, was asked of the fall of that great empire, and how it had been dragged down by its foes. He said this:
“The problem wasn’t the number of enemies. It was the attitude of the people… there was a level of lethargy and there were a lot of people who were asking themselves ‘What is it to be a Roman’? And they didn’t have an answer for that… When a culture doesn’t believe that their civilization is unique, or it’s worth fighting for, then it ceases to exist.”
I have faith that we, as a nation, will not succumb to the malaise that doomed the Romans. Our time may come: but not now. Not yet.
But the risk is there. If we fail to remember the victory of this day last year — if we fail to recognize that we must choose between the cult of victimhood or the brave example of the heroes on Flight 93 — then we may well lose “what it is to be an American”.
To my fellow citizens: I ask you to remember this day not just as a time of mourning, but as a celebration of victory. A small triumph; won at a price far too high; but a victory nonetheless. The first, we may hope, of many to come. A turning point in a war that has been waged against us for years; a war that we did not choose, that we do not relish, but one that has been brought upon us. A war that we now find it our responsibility and duty to finish.
To those who lost loved ones on that day: Should any of you read these words, I can only say that my grief is yours. Nothing I can write here will erase your loss; it would be arrogance and presumption for me to try. I can only hope and wish that each of you will find your own way to move forward with your lives, and to remember those that you lost.
And to those who attacked my nation and murdered my countrymen, I say: Hide well. Find the dark places where your empty souls can take solace in the absence of the light. Enjoy your victories where you may.
Because we are coming for you. And no matter how many battles you win; no matter how you have wounded us — how you will wound us — you will lose this war.
We have cleared a special place in the dustbin of history for Islamic fascism; tucked gently between the strident, shrill cries of Nazism and the sickly-sweet lies of Communism. It is waiting for you, and it will not have to wait long.
The brave Americans on Flight 93 were the first to see your evil for what it was; were the first to be willing to wager their cherished lives to defy your worship of death; were the first to defeat you in battle. They will not be the last.

Devon: “Looking at the next 250 years I can see only one way out. We actually need world peace. We can no longer tolerate tyranny. It is a matter of survival. Only when all the countries of the world bar their gates to pirates can we achieve a measure of security.”
Jim Schwab: “I’ve been rather critical as of late of the ‘Invade Iraq NOW!’ stance, and I still am. I however am in no way critical of the ‘wipe out the terrorists’ stance. I support this fully… I want Al-Queada wiped out so our lives are safe and more importantly, the lives of our children and their children are spared from an atrocity such as this.”
Nick Denton: “I’ve put aside the New York Times, and spent most of the morning browsing Glenn Reynolds from this time last year… Foreigners forget: the US may be a young country, but it is an old democracy. And the foundation of that democracy is, not the formal separation of powers, but a race-memory which emerges in these posts from twelve months ago.”
Ken Layne: “It’s nerve-wracking in a way we’re used to, this waiting for the next strike. Earthquakes come to mind. We know they’ll happen, but we don’t know when or where. But earthquakes are just geology. Earthquakes don’t murder pilots in the sky and drive those planes into skyscrapers full of people. Earthquakes don’t target Jews at LAX. ”
Lynn Sislo: “One year after the event the shock has passed. My range is mostly submerged but surfaces frequently when I read more details about the events and the people involved or when I read what masquerades as rational thought, telling us that it was America’s fault, America deserved it, or that we have no right to mourn our own loss when there is suffering elswhere in the world.”

Not to bite the hand has fed me, but based on their choice of a lead story today, I am forced to conclude that the editors of Salon believe that the most important thing to be speaking about on this day is the threat John Ashcroft poses to civil liberties.
I find this odd.