The last Islamic terrorist action on American soil was 9-11-2001. Taking the fight to the enemy has and still does prevent casualties on our own shores. It has been said many times since 9-11 that time will tell if Iraq was the right war at the right place at the right time. This has been a “wait and see” scenario for many Americans. It has been two long years since we invaded Iraq and it is time to make an assessment.
Do we have bombed out buildings on the streets of America? Are we afraid of large groups for fear we might be attacked? Are we afraid to fly for fear of terrorists? No, we are no longer afraid. Air travel is pushing ever onward. America is going about its business.
Keep on saying Iraq was a bad plan. Protest the war and believe the price the servicemen and women are paying is in vain. Complain about how the rice pilaf in Gitmo is so cold as to be torturous. Remember your freedom from terror when your wife goes out in a bikini instead of a burkha. Time is telling the tale.
What you see on the television every day has to do with another improvised explosive device and another soldier dead. They are not dying in vain. They are dying to keep terror away from home. They are doing an incredible job. We should be proud of how well they are doing, not calling it an unwinable quagmire. We have been winning since war was declared.
So why do we not hear it on the radio and read it in the newspapers? Why aren’t people making announcements that we are safer than we were two years ago? Quite frankly it’s because a lack of story tends to wind up as no story at all. Would you listen to a news report stating that JFK International Airport still hasn’t been bombed? Probably not. It’s easier to look at the active than the passive. Only time is telling the tale.
Something else that was queued up as potentially the “bankruptcy of America” was the national debt and the economy. Our economy plummeted and national debt skyrocketed after 9-11. We were disparaging a very horrible catastrophe and hit rock bottom. Many people felt that we were going to fall into some sort of pit of oblivion. People thought we were going to lose this great nation.
Here we sit, nearly four years later. The jobless rate is at the best it has been since George W. Bush took office in 2000. Although the stock market has not reached the levels it had during the tech boom this is nowhere close to a bear market. We have slowly pulled our economic selves together over time. The best part is when you grow the economy over time there is no inflation. Have you seen any inflation? Neither have I. (Except at the pumps, but that’s a different matter.) Time has again told the tale.
Our national debt is still high but is no longer growing. It has stabilized and may even begin to fall, as the economy grows. Since we have the added costs of the war on terrorism it should be blatantly obvious that the slowdown has come from increased tax revenues by reducing the overall taxes. I’ve explained it before and no one, particularly the liberals out there, believed me when the law of diminishing returns is explained in a tax example. We are now closer to our tax equilibrium point and therefore able to collect more in total tax revenue. Time is providing the economic proof.
Remember these words the next time a short-sited senator, congressman or other individual claims we’re in an unwinable war. Reflect on our long realized accomplishments the next time someone erupts about our horrible quagmire in Iraq. Know in your heart that we are winning, and have been winning for nearly four years now. Know that time has told the tale, and nothing else.
Said Jeremy Bol @ 4:36 pm | Permalink
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The previous terrorist attack by foreign individuals on American soil was 1993. Eight years passed between the first WTC bombings and the second. Do two years make me feel safer - nope, not at all.
You know what would make me feel safer? Better border security, better airport security, and better port security. That would be a good start.
I thank our servicemen and women for their service and undoubtedly the world is better without Saddam in power, however, Iraq does not have much to do with the “War on Terror” and never did.
Comment by KraftyOne — 6/28/2005 @ 4:53 pm
Oh - and the economy didn’t have a lot to do with 9/11 either. It was already slumping prior to the bombings, 9/11 just emphasized and sped-up what was already occuring as a natural cycle of our economy.
Comment by KraftyOne — 6/28/2005 @ 4:55 pm
“Oh - and the economy didn’t have a lot to do with 9/11 either.”
I never said it did. I just pointed out that the final slump was right after it. The tech bubble burst. That’s what kicked it off.
..as for the next attack; Time will tell.
Comment by Jeremy Bol — 6/28/2005 @ 5:09 pm
First things first, Jeremy, FANTASTIC POST bro! That is more proof as to why you are the blog MASTER!
Ok, Krafty, if you want to get to the nitty gritty about the economic thing. Let’s go there. Let’s talk about the fact that Clinton handed Bush a recession. He also handed him a depleted Military. As we went to war in Afghanistan Bush was struggling to build the economy so that we could survive the cost of such a necessary expense. It is not cheap to prepare the military to go to war. Especially when it is greatly degraded.
Then we had and yes I said HAD to go into Iraq. That put an even bigger strain on the economy. It was Conservative management that kept us from collapsing like the Soviet Union.
Here are the facts:
Weakening sales from the Clinton admin. caused the Fed to have to drop interest rates in 2001 from the fund rate high of 6.5% in 2000 (emergency session). In ‘97 the GDP was at 4.5%. Yet by mid 2001 (due to a 2 year down spiral) it actually dipped below 1%. Now after 4 years the GDP soars to record rates of 5.4% and climbing.
Regardless of a recession, the ongoing war on Terror being fought on two different fronts, Leftist Propaganda and attacks that brought the economy to a screeching halt just four years ago, we still see growth at a more rapid pace than under the Philanderer in Chief Clinton.
You say we were already on a downward spiral, and you are right, it however wasn’t a natural cycle of the economy. It was mismanagement and a liberal philosophy that took us down. It was Conservative management that revived it in the face of tragedy. Or is it natural to go from extreme depths to great heights while under a downward pressure? I don’t think so.
By the way, I can’t believe you are bringing up the ‘93 attack on the WTC. I don’t recall much being done about that in Clinton’s term. I also seem to remember our borders being wide open then too. That is the one thing I will agree with you on though. If we do not seal our borders we will not be completely safe. However, since that will not happen under either party’s rule, the war on Terror is the best thing we have. As for the war in Iraq NOT being a part of the war on terror, you crack me up. The war in Iraq is essential to the defeat of Terrorism, if it were not, how do you explain the emphasis the Terrorist have put on the battle there. Don’t give me that insurgence crap either, the vast majority of them are from Iran and other Muslim nations. They cant be defined as insurgence!
Comment by Ken — 6/28/2005 @ 6:32 pm
One thing I was going to put in this article but thought it to be confusing and a flow breaker is the nature of national debt. The reason I wasn’t going to mention it was because it basically kicks Clinton and his ilk squarely in the gonads. Here goes:
If you have no national debt you are not utilizing your national resources to the fullest. When you do this it affects the GDP adversely. When the GDP falls the amount of jobs fall, thus causing a recession.
Can anybody tell me who the last person to pay down the national debt was?
Bonus question:
Does anybody remember what surplus was used to pay the debt down with?
Answers to both questions posted by morning.
Comment by Jeremy Bol — 6/28/2005 @ 6:59 pm
Ken and Jeremy both: Great reminders of the true economics of the last half decade.
Krafty One: Good point re border security of all kinds. Given where we have come from and where we need to go, it is actually astonishing that no major attack has happened in the years since 9-11. Astonishing, but also a testament to our redundant security systems. So, let’s get them even BETTER.
Jeremy: you did a wonderful job reminding us that time has indeed told a tale. Pres. Bush did a wonderful job tonight reminding us why we are still in Iraq, why we cannot impose a time table, why we will win this war against islamofascism there and throughout the world.
Did you see the faces in the Ft. Bragg audience? They were the faces of the wondrous heroes of our time.
God, am I ever proud and honored to be an American.
Comment by The MaryHunter — 6/28/2005 @ 7:55 pm
Amen MaryH,
That was a fantastic speech. Did you see the Hannity and bug-eyes later? Hannity asked John ‘Republicrat’ McCain how he felt about the effects of his colleagues(I like that‘His Colleagues) Kennedy, Durbin & Dean’s , rhetoric ( you know the Hannity spiel) on the troops. McCain’s answer, ” Well Sean, it’s a free Country!” What the @#!%*
How long must we suffer idiots like him?
As for the Ft.Bragg heroes, Yes they warmed my heart.
Now I’d like to take a shot at the question Jeremy asked.
Andrew Jackson was the last to completely ‘pay off’ the National Debt. He stopped the amount of debt racked up by effectively killing the Bank of the United States by removing federal funds from them.
As for the tool he actually used to pay it off, I am unsure, but didn’t Bush use the Social Security Surplus to ‘pay down’ the debt?
Comment by Ken — 6/28/2005 @ 9:43 pm
No and no. You’re really close on the second one.
The national debt was “balanced” under Bush Sr’s Democratic congress. We had the funds in the bank to cover the total outstanding bonds. We still had loans out, but we were covered with assets.
It was taken straight out of Social Security…that was dead on…and the democrats wonder why we’re pissed about SS…
Comment by Jeremy Bol — 6/28/2005 @ 9:54 pm
Oh well, it was a shot in the dark. I thought I remembered SS being used, and I was almost certain it was Hillary’s husband that did it, but then I saw a chart on the National Debt and it showed a significant Dip in 2001/2002. I assumed that he used the same tactics a Clinton. Could you help me understand why the chart shows this dip and if it is a ‘pay off’, how did he accomplish it?
However, when I look for other graphs to corroborate the first one I saw ten different figures on ten different graphs.Even the Federal Reserves site is contradictory. How in the world can the average schmo like me know the truth when everything is so skewed?
‘O well, I’ll have to wait and learn tomorrow morning. (bites nails in anticipation)
Comment by Ken — 6/28/2005 @ 10:42 pm
“The last Islamic terrorist action on American soil was 9-11-2001″
The FBI disagrees with you. They classified Hesham Mohamed Hadayet’s attack on the El Al ticket counter (July, 2002) at Los Angeles International Airport as an act of terrorism, although they still don’t acknowledge his possible al Qaeda ties (or, for that matter, those of John Muhammed, the “DC sniper”).
Tom Knapp
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp — 6/29/2005 @ 2:31 am
Maybe I should have clarified a bit better. For those looking to nit pick about un-realities here goes:
I should have said “there have been no more SUBSTANTIATED and/or SUBSTANTIAL attacks by terrorists against AMERICAN assets. Does that help a bit? The El Al attack does NOT cover any of those.
…What does a random gguy named Mohammed have to do with Al Queda? Is it that enayone who does wrong with that last name is an Al Queada terrorist? I thought the cops were bad at racial profiling. Congratulations! You have just taken first place.
Comment by Jeremy Bol — 6/29/2005 @ 7:30 am
Wow Ken - um…no. Jeremy was on when he said it was caused by the tech bubble bursting. It was not caused by “mismanagement”. The same guy, Alan Greenspan, has been essentially setting economic policy the whole time. Downturns are not always someone’s fault. In case you hadn’t heard, sometimes, sh*t just happens. But you can play your blame game all you want.
I brought up the 93 attack because it illustrates the point that while time will ultimately tell whether our current actions are effective, 4 years isn’t all that much time.
Also, the military was not just reduced under Clinton, it was also reduced somewhat under Bush Sr. And, much of that reduction in military happened with a republican dominated congress.
If the vast majority of the terrorists in Iraq are not from Iraq, then why are WE in Iraq? Shouldn’t we have gone after the terrorists directly? See, by your own argument, we are in the wrong place.
National debt is a tricky topic that I will admit to not really knowing enough about to argue. I do know though that there are opposing theories about the long term effects of severly inflated national debt.
Comment by KraftyOne — 6/29/2005 @ 11:34 am
An interesting quote on debt:
Thomas Jefferson wrote to his son-in-law, John Wayles Eppes, on incurring national debt:
It is a wise rule and should be fundamental in a government disposed to cherish its credit, and at the same time to restrain the use of it within the limits of its faculties, “never to borrow a dollar without laying a tax in the same instant…” [T]he term of redemption must be moderate, and at any rate within the limits of their rightful powers. But what limits, it will be asked, does this prescribe to their powers? What is to hinder them from creating a perpetual debt?…
Comment by KraftyOne — 6/30/2005 @ 1:15 pm
He also used to burn paper money because it wasn’t tangible. Old Hickory had a serious problem with all banks in general. He felt they were corrupt and evil things to be dreaded. That was a quote from a different time and a different purpose.
National debt today is a very real tool in national economics. This is so because we have a federal reserve bank, the very thing Jefferson was trying to stop. Should we disband the federal reserve?
Comment by Jeremy Bol — 6/30/2005 @ 2:55 pm
Not saying that. As I said before, I don’t really know that much about the topic, and I believe that there are opposing theories on the subject. I just thought it was an interesting quote.
Comment by KraftyOne — 6/30/2005 @ 3:19 pm
I also think that its interesting when people say “different time, different place” for things they disagree with the founding fathers on and say they were brilliant men with timeless messages for things they agree with.
Comment by KraftyOne — 6/30/2005 @ 3:20 pm
It’s about context. People use the founding father like the bible. Of course, I’m not really too sure the bible should be used like the bible…er…that didn’t sound right…
Okay, NO MAN (or woman) is any greater than another. It is what he or she choses to do with themselves that matter. Jefferson et. al. were simply men that had their own convitctions. I have mine and you have yours.
Comment by Jeremy Bol — 6/30/2005 @ 4:28 pm
True dat.
Comment by KraftyOne — 6/30/2005 @ 4:44 pm