I concur. With Fred we get that plus allot of terrorists dieing

It's not sick, Stu, it's stupid and illogical. If we have another 9/11, we won't be fractured. If we don't have another 9/11, we can afford to be fractured. We don't need another 9/11 just so we can all agree with Stu.

Blockhead.

You are 100% correct, Frank! I so miss the Gipper! Our leaders today are lightweight losers compared to him! I was always proud that he was my President and he was always proud of the American people and of America itself. I don’t see any of that in today’s crop of politicians!

That's the ticket!

I also think a real military buildup would help. Some new bad ass weapons too. Get people worked up to want to try them out. They could say "Hot damn! I've always wanted to use a tractor beam in real life." Or fly jets like those aces on that movie that just came out.

"If the only way to get people motivated to fight terrorism again is lots of death, then that is a huge failure in leadership."

Dead on, Frank! Excellent point!

Even with the recent links to Kos, that was one of the dumbest columns I've read in a while. We didn't "need" the first 9/11; it happened because a previous administration allowed & practically facilitated it. That right there illustrates why strong leadership needs to be in place in '08.

I think Stu needs to have a cup o' joe & wake up.

//America likes wars shorter than the World Series.//

Only because wars are waaaaay more entertaining. In war, stuff gets blown up. In baseball, guys scratch themselves. If you took away the ball, they'd just call it Baseloitering.

So I propose two things for Stu:

1. Maybe Iraq needed to be nuked at the start, and

2. Baseball needs explosions to liven things up.

Granted, he was the last president who seemed, well, presidential. But he's also the same man who ordered Marines to stand around Lebanon with no clips in their M-16s - right before Hezbollah blew up their barracks, killing 241.

Oh yeah, then he ordered a hasty retreat...

Yeah, it is a huge failure in leadership. Which is why, right now, only a bunch of deaths would get people motivated to fight terrorism.

We don't NEED another 9/11, but it would probably convince people to take terrorism more seriously. It would shut up a lot of people who say "There is no terrorist threat"

Then again, a lot of the moonbats would simply blame it on the government again, probably.

Either way, you're right Frank, we need better leadership, and we need it soon.

Nothing, not even the Second Coming is going to change the minds of the "peaceniks" and "we support our troops but....." crowds.

That said we do need a leader who says what he means and means what he says. One of Reagans most powerful ploys was using the media against itself. He'd ask for time from the networks and then tell the American people that "Congress" the "Senate" or " the House" were standing in front of legislation that he supported. He then reminded "we the people" that we elected him to do this thing and that if we wanted it to get done we'd better call, write or whatever our elected officials and get them out of the way.

Worked almost every time.

We need to understand that the office of president is not a popularity contest. If Hillary wants to be Queen she need to find a different country to run. The President serves at the request of the people. He serves, not runs, not orders, not hounds.... serves. If we could find someone who understood the word, they might make a good president. Good luck with that.

As much as I miss Reagan too..he would need to be a hell of a lot tougher in the Middle East - no dealings with Iran and NO bailing out of Lebanon (or any other country) when we suffer a tragedy. Baring those two caveats. I agree.

You know, I tried to think of some long winded diatribe in support of your theory but really there is only one answer to your question:

Nope.

I don't think "another 9/11" would rally everyone, any more than the first one did. Look at all the retards who, instead of getting behind the war on terror, decided that we had it coming and that it was our fault for not being more sensitive to why they want to annihilate us & Israel.

Sadly, whether we "need" another terrorist catastrophe or not is a moot point; it's really just a matter of time. Only when something even worse that September 11th happens will the entire nation unite, but even then it'll likely only be temporary. Sure, we all said prayers & held vigils right after it happened, but even at the time there were people who reveled in it. Richard Berthold, a UNM professor at the time, actually praised the efforts of the Islamic murderers- in class. People immediately started holding peace rallies & marches. The Bush-bashing really began in earnest, and all these "peaceful people" were willing for the rest of us to be the new Dhimmis & instead of fighting the terror cells, we could just appease them.

What they fail to notice, apparently, is that the Quran was written well before America was a nation. Wahabbist schools have been around for a looong time. It's in their religious nature to kill us for the sake of the Prophet and glory of Allah. Even if we had no relation with Israel, it would not change their goals concerning us: The world WILL be Muslim, or it will eliminated.

I can't help but notice that the Democratic Left has an appallingly short memory & their support base is largely for weakening the military and disarming the public. What happens if Hillary gets elected? Or Obama?

I shudder to think. One has proven (via her husbands administration) that her agenda is not for our safety, the other is a charismatic sophomore who has an Arabic name & stated that he'd go visit the nations hostile to us... i.e., he's willing negotiate.

When it comes to negotiating with terrorists, Regan said it best...

You know.

I think another 9/11 would cause more diversion and each party tired to claim the other caused it. I'm sure the Democrats learned enough from 9/11 to make sure the Republicans don't get the jump on them this time. Democrats will start whining and crying and finger pointing much earlier.

The worst part of another 9/11 would be the loss of 3,000 innocent human beings. If that required you, your brother, mother, sister, wife, husband - the price would be far too high. Especially when you think about these people not voluntarily giving their lives and even having a chance to fight back; but rather their lives being taken by miserable murderous thieves and terrorists.

We do need another presidential president. One who makes us proud to be an America and stops this insanity of tearing down America to be politically correct. We also need a president who understands the pride in America and being an American is valuable enough that we actually require people to gain these rights the legal way; instead of cheapening what it means by offering it to every Jose, Martinez, and Joe Blow who broke the law to get into America.

I'm in favor of another 9/11. I think every september 11th we should level the two tallest buildings in whatever country is the most annoying at the time. When they complain, we just tell them that in the name of cultural diversity we didn't want 9/11 to be just an america centric day of rememberance. that way the left will feel better about the whole thing.

hwy93, I think we should up the anti, just a bit. Like pick a country and take out its military infrastructure. Do this at least once a year. We could start with Iran or Syria next month. Raise the stakes; turn up the heat; cook the turkeys.

Oh. This isn't funny. Sorry. I'm humorless every Sunday morning.

Iran and the Muslim world in general understood Reagan before the American Public really grasped what they had.

By some "Miracle," as the time for him to be sworn in approached, lo and behold, the hostages that the "Media" had been counting the days in captivity sorta like the body counts during the 'Nam and successive "conflicts," were suddenly, inexplicably released.

Go figure...

What we need is a bunch of A-10s that just fly around the world 24/7 with a banner hanging on their tail. The banner will read: "if you act up, I'm going to spank you with 30mm pieces of depleted uranium".

Having Americans die so that liberals get a clue is not what we need. Now, if said liberals want to go offer themselves up as the first line of "targets", then that would be fine.