Daniel Pipes
Mobile Edition
Regular Site

Let's hope they don't invade
Reader comment on item: Democrats Unlearn 9/11

Submitted by Scott Pearson (United States), Mar 17, 2004 at 02:48

As I read your article (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1430), I found myself incessantly nodding my head in agreement. And I found myself with this thought: If the liberal Democrats win the upcoming Presidential election -- thus throwing the defense posture of this nation into its pre-September 11th litigious impotence -- we had better hope that the Osoma bin Laden terrorists do not physically invade the United States. For if they were to bring their militant Islamic terrorist troops to American soil, I fear that a Democrat-led U.S. Government would end up requesting a search warrant from a grand jury before taking-out a terrorist lair equipped with the elements for a bioweapon and/or nuclear weapon. And of course the aforementioned warrant would have to be served by the local law enforcement officers rather than U.S. military personnel, who are forbidden to conduct operations domestically. It is absurd to believe, as the liberal Democrats do, that wars are matters of law. They are matters of survival. And it is even more absurd to consider that perhaps the most secure place for a foreign terrorist to set up shop is right here on American soil.

I applaud your writings on this subject. I fail to understand how any reasonable person, any person with any sense of history and survival, can miss your point. Yet sadly, many of those who do miss the point are in powerful positions of political leadership both in this country and abroad. It boggles the mind how the liberal Democrats are setting aside reason in favor of some bizarre political ambition. Theirs represents a truly dangerous position for the free world.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (53) on this item

Title By Date
we are still at risk ...in 2007 [115 words]Phil GreendJun 16, 2007 22:18
Why unlearn only 9/11? [707 words]kkvermaNov 11, 2005 03:05
IS the Military learning? [1006 words]WallaceMar 31, 2005 09:23
Capitalism -- that's the ticket [41 words]T.Jan 29, 2005 21:34
Keep up the good work... [25 words]Eric A. AndersonAug 8, 2004 04:41
⇒ Let's hope they don't invade [268 words]Scott PearsonMar 17, 2004 02:48
The Democrats' Problem [134 words]Peter J. HerzFeb 12, 2004 06:53
Pipes at AU [188 words]DONVANJan 21, 2004 12:21
The Democrats & 9/11 [223 words]Clem UgorjiJan 19, 2004 09:32
Dems naive [83 words]S.C.PandaJan 14, 2004 04:40
Do not agree [388 words]Marj LewisJan 12, 2004 18:39
We need more like President Bush! [346 words]CarolJan 9, 2004 18:17
Afghanistan [84 words]alan smithJan 9, 2004 12:34
Bush vs. the rest of the world [274 words]Andrei SmarandoiuJan 9, 2004 06:43
Declaration of War
[w/response] [500 words]
(Mrs.) Beverly RyanJan 9, 2004 00:19
Internationally effective strategies in combatting terrorism [460 words]Daniel ArthurJan 8, 2004 21:09
Dems [33 words]Dona WilsonJan 8, 2004 18:44
War [63 words]Lester Earl BaconJan 10, 2007 15:59
Investigating terrorism [136 words]BCJan 8, 2004 16:47
But, wmd? [159 words]john w. mcginleyJan 8, 2004 16:02
Comment on Pipes comments [219 words]Steven J. SmithJan 8, 2004 11:47
Democrats [179 words]Judy LeBlancJan 8, 2004 10:44
Thinking back, is it time to revisit the OKC bombing? [164 words]Ewin BarnettJan 8, 2004 08:47
Democrats unlearn 9/11 [57 words]Arthur SagotskyJan 8, 2004 06:51
The policy of turning the other cheek [217 words]T.AJan 8, 2004 06:44
Date of first anti-American Islamist violence
[w/response] [112 words]
Avrom Weissman (aka - Avraham Weissman}Jan 8, 2004 04:55
Sloan Coffin's History [186 words]Max FriedmanJan 8, 2004 02:11
War started in 1979 [180 words]PaulJan 8, 2004 01:21
The "WAR" [139 words]PaulJan 7, 2004 23:51
Sirhan Sirhan
[w/response] [40 words]
John-Paul PaganoJan 7, 2004 22:20
Democrats Unlearn 9/11 [79 words]Delbert S. ButtmanJan 7, 2004 22:03
A change in emphasis? [157 words]E. J. BlumbergJan 7, 2004 21:35
You are so right [23 words]Sally RogowJan 7, 2004 18:52
Democrats Don't forget 9/11 [140 words]Darwin BarrettJan 7, 2004 18:18
Democrats Unlearn [110 words]William PapkeJan 7, 2004 15:45
Excellent Article [218 words]Osher Doctorow Ph.D.Jan 7, 2004 14:53
Democrats Unlearn [41 words]Stephen MachtJan 7, 2004 14:37
Sorry, I disagree.. [233 words]John SwedbergJan 7, 2004 14:19
Other side of the coin [379 words]James O. HackerJan 7, 2004 14:05
the democrats [181 words]susan meyersJan 7, 2004 13:07
War against terrorists [43 words]Vijay DandapaniJan 7, 2004 12:21
Democrats unlearn 9/11 [44 words]Darold ChampaignJan 7, 2004 11:54
What About Pearl Harbor? [65 words]Rudi FrankeJan 7, 2004 11:47
The West can't really "lose that war" [218 words]Alain Jean-MairetJan 7, 2004 11:46
The Lessons of September 11 [202 words]Arlinda DeAngelisJan 7, 2004 11:27
Western Apologists [206 words]BobMikanJan 7, 2004 11:15
war on terror [59 words]joseph wylenJan 7, 2004 11:12
Democrats Never Learn [66 words]Edward ClineJan 7, 2004 10:54
Lazy and spoiled Americans [163 words]Sheila PickerillJan 7, 2004 10:47
They have already forgotten [70 words]Marya SteinerJan 7, 2004 10:26
Democrats [48 words]William GeorgaquiJan 7, 2004 10:11
Dems on War on Terror [252 words]fred lapidesJan 7, 2004 09:43
The truth is still being air-brushed. [38 words]V. ThogersenJan 7, 2004 09:36

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

Back to top of page