A sickly 95 year-old woman in a wheel chair was forced to remove her adult diaper in order to board an airplane. Can we please cut the crap and admit that a sickly, incontinent 95 year old woman in a wheelchair is not a terrorist threat? I’m pretty sure that none of the 9/11 terrorists, the shoe bomber, underwear bomber, the terrorists in the first trade center bombing, etc fit this profile.

There are certain people more likely to be terrorists. When will we start to openly admit this fact?

Let me begin by stating that Muslims have every legal right to build a mosque at that location. As long as all local zoning laws are satisfied, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be built. Yet, while this building would seem to serve a function similar to that of a Jewish community center or a YMCA, only a fool can’t see the difference.

On September 11th, 2001, the United States was attacked. The nineteen terrorists were Muslims, they were members of Al Qaeda, which is an Islamic terrorist group, and if I remember correctly, there were several news reports of widespread celebrations in the MIddle East when news of the attack broke. I know the perpetrators were extremists, and I’m certainly no theologian, but it’s rather obvious that there is a propensity toward violence in Islam that is not found in Judaism or Christianity. To deny this is disingenuous.

Even if you only agree with part of my argument, you would probably point out that the Ground Zero Mosque will be run by Feisal Abdul Rauf, a moderate Imam. Of course, this isn’t true. Shortly after 9/11, he blamed the United States for being an “accessory” who brought on the 9/11 attacks. By the way, he also says the United States has more blood on its hands than Al Qaeda. Remember, this is someone referred to as a moderate Muslim.

I would prefer to see the mosque built somewhere else. If all legal requirements are met, then there is no reason why it shouldn’t be allowed to be built. Of course, mosque supporters shouldn’t be surprised when a majority of Americans oppose a mosque on this particular site. 3,000 Americans were killed by 19 Muslims, who were backed by an Islamic terrorist organization, then widely celebrated in the Middle East. If the mosque is built, we don’t need to like it, and we certainly don’t need to pretend we are fine with it.

More than 8 years after the 9/11 attacks, it seems that some of the anger has faded. It’s sad to say, but true. The United States needs to go after the remaining Al-Qaeda members, hopefully capturing Osama Bin Laden in the process. In addition to pursuing terrorists, it’s important that Afghanistan’s government is as capable as possible in order to assure that the country doesn’t fall to the same level of lawlessness characteristic of the Taliban’s rule. This actually seems like the toughest part of the mission, and I have my doubts, but any improvement in this area will be welcomed. Finally, we have the threat that Pakistan could pose.

It seems that the importance of Pakistan is usually overlooked by the typical American. Osama Bin Laden is allegedly hiding in western Pakistan, and the country has nuclear weapons. What if these weapons fell into the hands of terrorists? This possibility alone should be enough to convince Americans of the importance of this mission.

As for the 18 month time-line, I’m undecided. It’s an important mission, and I wouldn’t want to see it cut short if the situation still requires U.S. intervention in 18 months. On the other hand, I also don’t want to see the U.S. spend 10 years holding Afghanistan’s hand. At some point, they need to develop an effective military, keep terrorism under control, and maintain a stable government. We need to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and prevented from carrying out more attacks, but we don’t need help build Afghanistan for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

Senator Levin is right about the opportunity that was missed. If Osama Bin Laden had been captured, we might have had most of our soldiers out of Afghanistan. What I find interesting is that Carl Levin and his colleagues in the Democratic party are seizing on this report, yet they seem to conveniently ignore some missed opportunities that were even more damaging.

The first attack on the World Trade Center, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the African Embassy bombings, the Battle of Mogadishu, and the Khobar Tower bombing all occurred during Bill Clinton’s Presidency. Clinton made a few half-hearted attempts to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but nothing substantial. How many more acts of terrorism was Bill Clinton waiting for before he launched a full-scale military operation?

In sum, Carl Levin is right. If Osama had been captured in Tora Bora back in December of 2001, our involvement in Afghanistan could have been finished long ago. Of course, this wouldn’t have been an issue if Bill Clinton had gone after Osama Bin Laden more aggressively. Not only would we probably not be in Afghanistan, but 9/11 might have never happened.

The five terrorists are war criminals. They were part of the planning of the 9/11 attacks that resulted in the death of nearly 3,000 Americans. Since they are war criminals, they should receive military trials. Many liberals are thrilled with Eric Holder’s decision, since it will result in what they perceive as a process that is more fair and transparent. They seem to forget that the terrorists will turn the trial into a circus, a great deal of evidence won’t be admissable, and intelligence information could be exposed.

Of course, the typical liberal doesn’t care. It will give them yet another opportunity to put the Bush Administration on trial. Do you remember them? They were the people who captured the terrorists and kept the United States safe for nearly 8 years. To them, the safety of Americans is all well and good, but it certainly can’t come at the expense of the “rights” of terrorists who aren’t citizens and seek to kill as many Americans as possible. Speaking of killing Americans, what about security problems? Won’t this just increase the risk of another terrorist attack in New York and place the safety of those involved in the trial in question?

Eric Holder seems to believe he has enough evidence to guarantee a conviction. He might be correct, but has he considered the defense attorneys that will stop at nothing to call evidence into question and cause a mistrial? This must have entered into his decision, but of course, the risk must be taken in order to assure fair treatment for the terrorists and a glowing opinion of us abroad. Isn’t that really the most important thing?