[FairOpinion]

Rush is right.

If, God forbid, we will be attacked, people will want a president who has demonstrated that he is doing everything humanly possible to keep us safe, not some wimpy Democrat who hobnobs with Saddam, Assad and would wait if Kofi and Chirac will allow us to defend ourselves.

[Paul Atreides]

It won't keep them from hoping.

[zook]

Absolutely. The public will rally around Bush even more because they know he is the best fighter we have.

[Cicero]

One of the best commentaries by Rush that I've read in a long time. Right on the money.

[Captain Peter Blood]

Rush was talking about going all out the next time a terrorist act is committed. I don't think there will be a rock big enough to crawl under for anyone or group that attacks this country again.
We won't be going to the U.N. or anyone else, it will be all out war and we will possibly go to tactical nuclear weapons to get the point across.
For those who have not seen this movie I would suggest watching a picture called "Deterrence" with Kevin Pollak.
It came out in 1999 and dealt with Saddam and Iraq and our response when they invaded Kuwait again. Very chilling and the final speech by Pollak, playing the President, a George W. type, was great.

[Born Conservative]

[GeronL]

I've been saying this for weeks.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If it happens again, you are going to be amazed. This mighty nation is going to unleash its full strength.

I've been saying that if there is another 9/11, on 9/12 Syria and Iran are going to be liberated and on 9/13 Saudi Arabia.

Momar Qhadafi evidently got the hint.

Those that don't take the hint are going to wind up in spider holes.

[GeronL]

we might make some country into a pile of radioactive glass if we're attacked again

[Faraday]

My guess is that if we are hit hard again, all of the Euroweenies, perhaps even the Chinese, would be strongly supportive of us (hoping that we don't go absolutely nuts with nukes and so forth). In that climate, are the people going to want to "change horses in the middle of the stream." Not likely.

[Lady Eileen]

...bump

[Tacis]

Rush might be right.

All the Al-Qaeda and Saudi terrorists who come across the Mexican border, the hundreds, if not thousands, of them aren't interested in a 9/11 attack. They want a weekly attack that will poison a water supply, release a deadly gas on a subway, burn a railroad tank car full of really deadly stuff, block some key roads, call in multiple bomb scares (only a few of which are real), or blow up a remote but key bridge/viaduct/power line.

Attacks of this type, conduct at regular, predictable intervals will cancel out our military might and make the neocommunists and their running dogs in the left wing media SCREAM, "we've brought this on ourselves and only a new direction can make it stop."

Until we seal the Mexican border and start a vigorous campaign of checking folks to ensure the belong here and returning those that don't, next year's attacks are CERTAIN!

[tubebender]

My first target would be just inside Pakistan where Bin Layin is holed up...

[birdsman]

I'd just as soon not put Rush's theory to test. One 911 a lifetime is enough.

[I still care]

I remember people screaming for blood following 9/11.

If another attack were to happen like that, there would be no holding back the American people. They would want total destruction of any enemy.

[cwb]

Those democrats who pretended to support the war before Nov. 2002 did so for one reason: The mid-term elections. When they saw the results of those elections and their loss...despite their support, they returned to their true colors. Their denial makes them believe that this position is the one that will win them their power back...when they will only lose by more. Democrats seem to think that being the opposition Party, means they have to oppose everything, regardless if it's right. So they think they lost because of their support for "Bush."

And here's something I wish were asked of the Democrats: If multilateralism and UN support is so-o-o important to them, why is it that in the 1991 Gulf War, when we not only had UN support, but one of the largest coalitions in world history, only 10 Senate Democrats (who were the majority party) could muster support for GH Bush and that war (and Gore's vote was bought)? Democrat's don't object to unilateralism; they object to a Republican-led war. If this wasn't true, Kosovo would've never been fought, because Clinton intentionally avoided a UN resolution on that war. I think people are finally beginning to realize that it is the Democrats who play politics with everything, including our national security.

[expatpat]

The ignorant Islamofascists, isolated in their crummy countries, have no idea how big and powerful this country is. While terrible for the victims and their families, and a shock to all of us, 9/11 was a mere pinprick in terms of damage to the country.

While AngloSaxons are relaxed and easy-going if not harassed, they are fierce, implacable, and unrelenting when attacked or forced to fight. The militant Muslims need to realize that before it is too late.

[PhilDragoo]

Heard Rush say this today and felt a sense of relief.

The only way Hitlery can have her coup would be another terror attack--something to flaunt while chanting, "Are you safer?"

But Rush reminds us how we were ready to go get some--Let's Roll--after 911.

Should another such attack be launched, the public reaction will incinerate the blow-dried dwarves and send a message to Hitlery:

Get thee behind me, Satan.

[Nick Danger]

If, God forbid, we will be attacked, people will want a president who has demonstrated that he is doing everything humanly possible to keep us safe

And that may not be Bush. If we are attacked again, the political danger to Bush is not from Democrats. It's from a demagogue who promises to do what Bush won't do.

If it happens again, especially if it involves biological or chemical weapons, the American people are going to demand that the threat be neutralized, in its entirety, right now.

Anybody remember that Star Trek TNG episode in which an immortal, omnipotent being is confessing to having killed the creatures that attacked his planet, where he was enjoying life with his human wife? Picard says it's understandable that he'd be angry, and the immortal being says "You don't understand. I mean I killed all of them. Everywhere." That's the mood people will be in.

[Gritty]

Rush must be reading Victor Davis Hanson lately...

"If we have another 9/11, our response would be too terrible to contemplate"-Victor Davis Hanson

[Yaelle]

They'll raise Cain about it and do whatever they can, but there will be nothing in the record that any Democrat can call on to say he would have acted differently to stop it.

Rush, they will find a way. Just as you say there will always be liberals, you know there will always be clever-seeming liberals with big mouths. They will find one tiny thing to go on about and they will cling to it. However the attack occurs, there will be a chink in our armor, obviously, and liberals will play it up ad infinitum. Bush should have known. Or, Bush DID know. Either way. Oppositionality is what they do best.

But you are right; they would never have gone to root terrorists out from their source nor do they seriously think terrorist attacks should be met with punishment. Like the parent who won't ground the child because "he might fuss," they are fully incompetent to take charge.

And I said you were hot on another thread.