Yes, Joan of Arc was a loser. Moses was a failure. Churchill was an outcast and then an outcast again. The Lord Jesus himself was defeated. This is an important thing to remember at times like this. The election has been lost. But even the defeated never lose – even when they do – if they preserve that core of self deep within that no one but our Creator can touch.
Yes, as we probably all know, Joan of Arc did have some success. [Her story is one of the best and well-documented of any medieval saint (save Francis of Assisi, perhaps) in historical terms and would be worth anyone’s time to investigate further. Mark Twain devoted 14 years of his life to research his version of her story under another pseudonym and considered it his best work.] By 1428, the Hundred Years War had been going on since 1337 and the social and moral effects were devastating to the country in countless ways as war usually is (mercenary war in particular!). Then along came this young girl from Domremy. Within a few months, she energized the ‘useless’ Dauphin, handed two major defeats to the English and Burgundians and got Charles crowned at Rheims. She accomplished more in this short time than had been done in a century, and with relatively little loss. This seems like success to us, but we have the benefit of seeing from afar and knowing what followed. Yes, by 1453, the ‘cowardly’ Charles would personally lead the conquest of Calais and complete the eviction of the English invaders; and we can look back to what Joan did as the crucial turning point.
But in 1428, that was far in the future. What did it look like to those at the time? Joan’s influence at court was quickly undermined after her initial success and she was looked down on as an uneducated country rube, despite the fact she had just given the country a new start. A whispering campaign motivated by this disdain and jealousy, defeated her insights and probably prolonged the war for many years more. (By the way, I think there are parallels with Sarah Palin, who was despised by insiders for her appearance and demeanor and lynched in a media show trial. And Palin, unlike her persecutors, actually accomplished things worthy of praise and, I feel, has good insights for going forward!) In any further efforts to lead within the court, Joan was seen, and rightly so, as a failure.
Joan tried to keep fighting, with little support, and without the benefit of her supernatural directions, but she was betrayed and tragically captured by the Burgundians. She was the victim of a rigged, political show trial by the English and burned as a ‘heretic’, bringing shame and defeat to her name. Many in France did see her as a hero but her name would not be totally cleared, even by the Church, until the 20th Century.
It may be that right now all the powers that be, the media, the educational system, etc. seem to be arrayed in favor of things that we, the minority, can see are not good. Much of what we have seen has seemed ‘rigged’ against us, and we have been ‘defeated’ like the inner and outer enemies of Joan defeated her. In this time, we should remember we cannot possibly see with an infinite eye. We should leave that for the One who is competent to do so. It can’t be our goal to only ‘win’ arguments or technical victories. It is our job to live lives worthy of our calling, graced as that young woman was so long ago; we must show faith, hope & charity which are the true powers of this world as John Nash, Einstein and others have noted. If we do that, and leave the results for the future, it may be that our personal defeats may be, in fact, turning points for the general good. No good deed or good word is ever for nothing. Americans, don’t forget Joan of Arc!
I agree with you that Bush was a loser. But to compare him to people who did great things and still met with some measure of defeat is silly. Bush and his policies (and the people who have followed him blindly) have created great harm to millions of people. This harm will not pass quickly and his willful ignorance will not be forgotten. There will never be a George Bush statue anywhere. There will be no great book called “The Gathering Storm” about Bush. He fucked up. He continued to fuck up. Just cause he believed in God, especially your God, doesn’t make him a hidden success. Just like Palin didn’t lose in order to win another day. She’s stupid. You guys should put forth better Christians, like Obama. That’s your only hope to contribute to a great society.
Joan of Arc helped create a French aristocracy which bankrupted the peasantry and led to the terror of the French Revolution and the despotism of Napoleon. Oh, and the Catholic priesthood that venerates her as a saint was sexually abusing as many minors back then as it is now.
Sarah Palin = Joan d’Arc? Please, Sarah Palin would have shot Joan of Arc from a helicopter.
Wow. George Bush as Joan of Arc. That’s pretty bold.
You got one thing right though . . . sorta.
Faith, Hope and Charity are the true Powers of the World – and are exactly the reasons why Iraq was such a mistake, and precisely the reasons that the GOP, the conservatives and the so-called Religious Right got crushed over the past two election cycles.
George Bush and his Neo-con brethren didn’t have Faith that God had a plan for Iraq, and instead thought that they knew better than God. They put their own selfish plans ahead of God’s Plan.
Your theology is misguided, your ideology is selfish and your worldview is myopic, and I don’t expect that to change. The Fundamentalist mindset is steadfastly and diametrically opposed to fundamental and objective reality – and frankly, I hope it stays that way, because it will ultimately lead to a complete collapse of political viability and we might finally be able to put some true Faith and Godliness into our society.
So please, keep it up.
God willing the day will come when you will recognize that your celebration of bullet holes in people’s heads (even the heads of evil people) is not something Jesus would ever, ever endorse or approve.
I love Joan of Ark; comparing Sarah Palin to her is ludicrous. Can you tell me one thing Governor Palin has actually accomplished?
@oddjob: I love your point. How on earth is it that “Onward Christian Soldiers” and the militaristic battle mentality evolved from what Jesus taught? Whatever happened to love your neighbors and love your enemies and turn the other cheek?
To put things into perspective, you might be interested to know that Joan of Arc is now (and has been for decades) one of the major emblematic figures for the French xenophobic far-right.
Congratulations and welcome to the big leagues. You have been mocked by andrew sullivan at the Atlantic. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-logic-of-bu.html”
As for your misguided comparison of modern conservatism and the defeats of Joan of Arc et al– let me quote Gandhi on why he rejected Christianity. Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.” That is also a perfect description of the Christian conservative wing of the Republican party. You weren’t defeated for your faith. You were defeated for your hypocrisy.
Jesus Christ, mlajoie2….you sure do know how to rake in the moonbats.
@Kevin:
Welcome to FA, Sullivanites!
@jay severin has a small pen1s:
Please tell me how Obama is a “better” Christian than Bush. And I’d also like to hear precisely where it is you think Bush….
….on.
@David Lauri:
We did turn the other cheek….that got us 9/11. With Saddam, we- meaning the “United” Nations- not only did that for 12 years, but stuck our heads in the sand, spread both cheeks, and sent a message to the Butcher of Baghdad, “Go ahead and wreck it.”
Using Jesus as a sorry endorsement of pacifism is just as misguided as using Jesus for warmongering:
So tell me, has Bush and his supporters been engaged in warmongering?
Just for the record I am not a fundamentalist and I do not support militarism as an end in itself. I am making a spiritual point about not giving up when things don’t seem to be going well.
Many normal Catholics also revere St Joan of Arc because she was a saint not a xenophobe.
All true Christians look forward to the day when war will be unnecessary.
I don’ propose a straight equivalency between Palin and St. Joan; that’s ridiculous. My point about Sarah Palin was she has been a ‘doer’ not a ‘talker’ and that many of the same kind of people are opposing her for very similar reasons.
Also, I suspect that for the keepers of this site, profanity and vulgarity are not welcome here. You ought to respect someone else’s place as their own home.
Not only was she a loser, but the man she believed in got himself crucified. Out of evil comes good, out of failure comes success -all that matters is which side you choose -but that’s a “choice” liberals loathe and don’t wish to discuss.
One more thing…I wasn’t even talking about George Bush! Bush has been a big disappointment to a lot of people on this side of the argument too. You may notice I didn’t even mention him. I’m no political strategy expert. My point is a general one on how to handle defeat spiritually.
Damn! I must have missed something. I thought it was a damned fine article; with a point and a lot of truth. Keep it up.
You guys sure seem to attract a lot of leftard trolls. I wonder why they feel the need to wander so far off their reservation?
Don’t despair. Handle the defeat with grace and “spiritually” as you say. Every good leader has successes and failures to their name. It’s how you pick yourself up after you get knocked down that matters.
As for Palin, I don’t oppose her because of who she is or because of how the media has portrayed her. To me, she shared many of the negative characteristics of Bush. She doesn’t know much about the issues facing the country right now and practices a politics based more on loyalty than on competence. Yes, she’s done a few things right in Alaska, but I don’t think she’s qualified for the “big-time” of national politics. If she knows more about national issues than it seems, she and McCain campaign sure did a terrible job proving otherwise.
As for Obama, I think you have much less to fear than you may think you do.
Thanks for your post. I had to work out my own sadness with a similar logic. Nothing man makes lasts forever. The greatness of what we were recognized that man was flawed and our founders wrote a Constitution that left room to eventually correct whatever we screwed up along the way. They knew man was not the ultimate authority. Post number two points out what I think just happened to us. I’ll bet practically all of the commenter’s that were attacking you all knowingly use the old Pogo quote,” I have met the enemy and it is us”.
There is no explanation for life except as you said, to live it to the best of our ability. A friend gave me a prayer that keeps me sane, relatively speaking (not to be confused with the John Dewey relativism), that I repeat many times each day.
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
Thanks again mlajoie2.
@wordsmith
Your quote from Matthew is hilarious. So now you’re equating yourself with Jesus?
You conveniently leave out the following verses:
35 For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 your enemies will be the members of your own household.’
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
The point here is NOT raising your sword against your fellow man, but putting Jesus and his teachings above all other people, including one’s own family and their teachings. It has nothing to do with going to war, but Jesus knew well that in demanding so much respect, he would create strife. That’s what the sword HE (and he alone) is bringing stands for.
As for other people bearing swords, he has this to say -also found in Matthew, in 26:
52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
That’s precisely how a lot of the early Christians lived – they chose rather to be marthyred than to resist.
Matthew 5
39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
9/11 had nothing to do with “turning the other cheek” – quite the contrary. And your talk about Saddam, sorry, is an insult to both the dead US soldiers and the dead Iraqis, since you still have no shame spreading the propaganda drivel that brought that mess upon them.
But then again, since you have no hesitation to ignore all the inconvenient bits in the Bible, it’s not surprising that you ignore all the inconvenient facts as well.
I have to disagree with most of the ignorant comments here.
From my perspective as a chinese money manager in SEAsia and ex-officer in the military, I think your Bush did a passable job as POTUS and a very good one in terms of achieving security for the economic world against the threat of islamic terrorism.
His strategic vision and conviction in the campaign against islamic terrorism will go down in history as calculated and effective. He did a great job given his difficult circumstances, and only immature and unrealistic people with no experience in worldly reality would say otherwise.
The majority of americans have never been out of america except on mentally vacuous tourist style trips, yet they presume to know better than their POTUS and his whole admin and military on how to handle the islamic threat. Come on, give me a break. Sometimes the stupidity of you americans(the liberal ones) is amazing.
I also think that GWB should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the extremely humane way that he conducted the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. Last time when you americans fought us, you killed almost 2-3 million civilians by your bombing and almost 900K of our N.Viet soldiers, as against 60K of your KIA. Compared to vietnam, iraq was like tea with the flopsy bunnies. May I remind you that it was your democrats who started and prosecuted that war, and Nixon who ended it. At least in Iraq, you americans have already WON. In vietnam, I’m sorry to say this, but you LOST.
Some words on both Palin and Bush.
I may be arrogant to say that both do not fit the mold of so-called intelligent people. They don’t travel much, don’t speak english super smoothly, aren’t fluent in multiple foreign languages and did not have excellent records in school. But by their records and by their actions they have been effective administrators.
By contrast Obama speaks fluently(but far from greatly), and has a horrible record on what he has done, which is almost nothing so far.
If I had both Palin and Obama applying to work in my company, I would pick Palin without the slightest hestitation. Obama would talk alot but not be able to get the job done, and would probably end up cheating the company also.
@OH72:
I see your partisanship supercedes your reading comprehension skills. Here’s what I wrote:
Glad to see Bush isn’t the only one supposedly “quick on the trigger”.
Let me clarify the point: 9/11 was the culmination of not facing down the growing threat of Islamic terrorism with the level of attention and seriousness that it deserves.
Don’t purport to speak on behalf of the dead. Please tell me what the “propaganda drivel” was that “brought this mess” upon them. What about the propaganda drivel from your side, that did its own share of damage in the war effort?
I see: A is B and D is G….therefore A is G. Nice.
Please tell me what these “inconvenient facts” may be so that I may recalibrate my knowledge. Thank you in advance for your time in educating me.
to mlajoie2:
I thank you, too, Mark, for the great post. I realize and do believe as well, that spirituality has a lot to do with how people vote, and what we do with the results, I.e., Obama. I’m sure that in Jesus’ day, the people who crucified Him thought they had a victory, too, and He was surely defeated on the cross. Surprise! C’nest pas possible! I’m not saying the Republican Party is perfectly analogous of Christ, except in the actual principles conservatives espouse. It is the principles that some (even in so-called Republican forums) say are dead amongst conservatives, or at best, lacking ability to effect change, and we should conform ourselves to the left’s ideas in order to gain more votes from the other side of the aisle next time around. In other words, compromise. Nay, I say!! These principles are the glue that holds our society together, even if many refuse to believe it; these are the principles that cannot fail, nor be defeated. They are integrity, honesty, loyalty, real optimism, and love for our fellow man. I also believe the reason Sarah Palin has had such a strong reaction, both positive and negative, is because she espouses these very beliefs…to some, she epitomizes real hope for our country. To others, she threatens their leftist agenda to the core.
By the way, is this the troll hay day?!? Golly gee!
Mark,
Let me know if you’d rather not see this comment stream derailed (so soon) and if you disapprove of me steering your post off-topic by baiting for moonbats.
Dear Esteemed Mr. (Aptly named) Wordsmith,
Be my guest to do as you wish. I am Flopping Aces and so are you.
Heading out to another Thanksgiving affair….ta ta!
Wordsmith, I hope I wasn’t contributing to the derailment in some way…I do try to stay “on topic” even if a slightly different perspective on the topic! Thanks! 😉
Nah, you were on topic.
*sign*
Listen to the words of Mamba 1-0 “You guys sure seem to attract a lot of leftard trolls. I wonder why they feel the need to wander so far off their reservation?”
Think it has anything to do with the post Thanksgiving moonbat buffet Wordsmith is laying out?
Hey, as long as you keep them in a cage I don’t care.
Andrew Sullivan didn’t sick ’em on my post. 🙁
And I tried soooo hard to wave raw meat in front of them.
Remember the good ol’ days when all you had to do was type in “Ron Paul” into a post, like saying “Bloody Mary” in front of the mirror three times, and you’d find your post bombarded with indignant Paul Bearers?
To just push forward because you think God is on your side is a problematic philosophy, because it makes no allowance for being wrong and for possibly misinterpreting God’s will. George Bush is a failure not only because he refused to learn from his mistakes, he even refused to admit he had made any. If you cannot consider the possibility you are on the wrong path, then your first mistake will be your terminal one.
Gee, after reading the first 8 comments, I thought for sure that this blog has been hijacked by the Obamatons… lol
Why not? After all Google is doing a good job right now in destroying the good work of conservative sites. It is normal, because Google is in the tank for Obama and donated over a million dollars to him.
Eric Schmidt “owns” Google. Google owns “Blogger” blog-site system, GMail, You Tube and they cooperated with Communist China to censor searches in and out of China. And Google CEO Eric Schmidt advises Obama.
GOOGLE CEO ERIC SCHMIDT TO ADVICE OBAMA
“US President-elect Barack Obama has appointed a 17-member high-level team of advisors including billionaire investor Warren Buffett and Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt to guide him in channelising the economy, a media report says.”
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Google-CEO-Eric-Schmidt-to-advise-Obama/382689/
Some very strange things are happening in the USA nowadays. We still haven’t heard from MSM about the 3 cases in the Supreme Court regarding Obama’s eligibility to become POTUS. Silence! A general silence! And the conservative blogs are NOW flooded with leftists moonbats.
sigmundringeck,
I really appreciate all of your comments. I agree with your opinion on Bush and Palin.
mlajoie,
Thanks for this great article on Joan of Arc. I share your views.
Wow, who left the troll door open and released all their crazy Aunts & Uncles from the attics?! Interesting how many idiot moonbats can be churned up in the prop-wash of a brief and taken totally out of context note by Andrew Sullivan. No, Mlajoie2 made no mention of Bush and no idea how he got that disinformation rolling. And it is apparent that many of those chiming in didn’t even bother to trouble themselves with even reading the post and understanding the points being maken.
It was also interesting how those who are naive in theology love to wag a finger at people the presume to be Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians and demand they profess, “What would Jesus do?” In reference to the political trials we are enduring now. OH72 is so ignorant he doesn’t even bother with giving Chapter Numbers with his verses.
To the libs, socialists, atheists, and others. just so you don’t look like fools, if you are going to quote the Bible, the standard method to do so for centuries has been to give the name of the book, chapter, and verse. For example; John 3:16.
If we are indeed in the end-times of this epoch of man, as many believe. The messiah and his forces, according to the Judeau-Christian prophecies, will not come as a “turn the other cheek” pacifist. The task before them will be to combat all the forces of evil, corruption, temptation, and others that have been given their time to prey upon mankind. That was part of the problem with the prophecies during Jesus’ time. The Jews didn’t accept him as their messiah then due to their own prophecies of a conquering king. Yet he said himself, that he didn’t come to them, but to bring the gentiles into the fold. Jews and Muslims alike still think of Jesus as being a wise and very holy man.
Then we have “an obama voter”, who felt this was another thread where they could “rub conservatives faces in” the fact that Obama won. Sorry, but that had nothing to do with the topic at hand you idiot. But I had to laugh at your comment:
Please elucidate for us how gracious and spiritual, the Dems were following the 2000, 2004 elections when they were screaming; “Bush stole the election” and “Impeach Bush” even before he took office and since. Your gloating over an election, where crimes of an actual substantive nature were committed on a national scale, rather than vaguely alluded to as in Dade County, FL by the Gore folks and yet Dems were given a total pass by the vast majority of the media.
Angela;
We could give you pages on what Sarah’s done, as we’ve gone over that question here numerous times. Yet I expect you would probably just dismiss them anyway. I don’t feel like wasting too much of my time going back over the facts for kool-aid drinkers who may never even return to this site. Yet since you asked… For one, how about Palin putting the squeeze on the oil companies in Alaska to turn over more of their windfall profits over to the people of her state. Now I counter-suggest you name one actual instance where any other politician has successfully tried to do something similar. I doubt you can, as politicians on both sides of the aisle are in big oil’s lobby pocket. Sure Dems talk a good game about going against big oil, but that’s all it is; just talk, intended to get sheople to vote for them who don’t bother actually examining their own candidates’ records.
sigmundringeck;
Fair observations as usual. Thanks for the opinion from China.
Don L;
Sorry, got lost in your pronouns… You’re referring to Joan of Arc or Palin, & Jesus or who exactly?
Wow, I thought I was in another universe.
How many crazies can you fit into a comment section?
There is nothing more futile than talking to the left. Banging your head against a brick wall would be easier and more gainful.
Typical of the mentally ill left they post opinion as though it were fact, but have nothing to back it up with other than their elitism, hate, and condescension.
Bush protected America, liberated millions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and until the dem economic handiwork came to fruition, had a good economy and better unemployment rates than your hero Bill Clinton.
Keep thinking we lost because of the “religious right”. That way when obama is a one termer you’ll be more shocked.
@michael:
What mistake should Bush acknowledge? The decision to invade Iraq?
And do you believe Bush invaded Iraq because God told him so?
Please…..Bush is a devout man, but liberal secularists in the media have twisted and distorted meaning in purported statements to paint him as a religious nutcase. This is a man who has embraced people of all faiths- Muslims included. It’s BDS scaremongering.
Read:
Keep in mind that a translation of a translation of a translation are being used in relaying Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and then-foreign minister Nabil Shaath’s statements, laced with the cultural divide.
I really see no substantiated evidence that Bush thinks he’s on a mission from God; not in the sense that paranoid BDS-injected secularists want to believe. Someone please cite me an actual speech of his where he waxes biblical, ala Moses.
It really does take a leap of faith for the liberal mind to believe such media myth-making….kind of like believing that Elvis is alive somewhere at a gas station in Tijuana.
Found this sitting in my files:
There is an enormous difference between saying “God told me to” and believing that God guides your decisions.
As a religious Christian, he does pray to God to help him with his decisions, and believes that God provides him with guidance. That’s what Christians do. So what?
BDS sufferers would prefer to believe the caricature of the man, however.
Then there were the Flat-Earthers, slaveowners, Whig Party members, and so forth and so on. They lost and disappeared and were never heard from again. They lost permanently because their views were out of touch with reality. Kind of like today’s Christian fundamentalists and other right-wing extremists, I’d say.
See http://www.bluecorncomics.com/enemy.htm for more on these long-term losers.
Okay Mark… you’ve somewhat lost me here. There are defeats and losses… and there should be. For without errors and loss, there is no progress… no advancement. Sometimes kids need to get burned, touching that hot stove so they equate “no… *hot*” to reality, and not just discipline. Sports teams need to lose in order to strive for higher achievement in their next endeavor.
So I’m still not sure what the point of Mark’s post is. That’s okay. Judging by the tangents taken by the comments here… some seeing it relating to Bush, Palin, or Obama adoration – others to religion and whether or not any religion’s God involves themselves in the politics of mankind… I’d say I’m not alone. But if I had something to say, RockyB’s just about done it for me.
Other than that, I swore to Wordsmith off forum that I wouldn’t touch this post with a 10 ft pole… oops….
At least not until somebody officially veered out of Mark’s original post’s point far enough to make it relevant to Elvis….
He did a passable job…
The rise of far left governments in our hemisphere, resurgence of Russia and the absolute destruction of our economy. Huge strategic threats grew during the time of George Bush, the “American Century” lasted all of 7 years. All capped off with payouts to the bankers to save them with our tax dollars. Yeah, gee thanks Bush.
Rather disingenuous when you consider the “huge strategic threats” that grew in the past two decades, and culminated in bombings of military barracks, mutilation of US soldiers in Somalia, two bombings of the WTC, a US warship.
BTW, Russia’s resurgence can be traced to their quest to control the oil in the region. This would have happened if Mickey Mouse were POTUS.
And yep… I’m with you on disgust for the bailouts. However that was a problem in the making prior to Bush’s tenure. The snowball was pushed off the cliff over 10 years before. Bush was POTUS when it turned into the avalance. See my comment to you on another thread. And you may also want to read my “Perfect Storm of Housing and Lending” post.
Sorry as bad as AQ is, it was not a huge strategic threat. Russia with a nuclear arsenal and army is a huge strategic threat to our security. And as to oil, why don’t you get a chart out and show us how oil has traded in the past 8 years, feeding the beast in Russia.
At what time does a president become responsible? How much time are you going to give to Obama? Bush has been in office near 8 years… this is not his first year, or first term. He has been in the Presidency for long enough to be responsible. He inherited a huge budget surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in history. During his presidency the national debt more than doubled. So in this area, I agree with you, that Mickey Mouse and George Bush can be interchangeable as POTUS.
I’ll be sure to tell the families of those murdered by the jihad movement worldwide that they aren’t a “strategic threat”, blast….. And of course, we should just stand back and let them re-absorb Afghanistan, and allow them to take any other Arab lands for their Caliphate.
sigh…. It’s a good thing you aren’t in the position to handle US security, because you have one strange way of prioritizing “threats”.
At what time does a POTUS become responsible? At what point do you understand the way the US government is structured to understand what role Congress, legislation and regulations play in our economy and domestic policies?
POTUS have max 8 years. The first and last are often a wash for gearing up and ramping down. They only have so much power. Presidents do not appropriate money. They cannot spend what Congress doesn’t give them. All a POTUS can do is pass or veto Congressional bills and the budget.
I suggest you place too much blame on a position that doesn’t have the authority to take the brunt of it, and give the career Congress members a free pass.
And again with the Clinton surplus. Really blast, it’s just amazing how tunnel visioned you are. Especially that you believe that budget surplus was real and not just a temporary robbery from Social Security in the form of a paper loan…. i.e. the 2nd set of accounting books that the Clinton’ites don’t like to talk about. This is common practice in govt, mind you. But no one touts a false accomplishment like Teflon Bill.
As for the increased spending? We didn’t have a 911 shut down Wall Street for a week and tank the economy for a couple of years in the 90s, did we? Clinton and the GOP Congress spent their time cutting the defense and intel budget in the 90s. Bush raised the defense budget 48% after 911. money well spent, IMHO.
Then, of course, the multiple natural disasters that occurred during this admin… both on our soil and in other nations… that the Clinton admin didn’t have as an expense.
You are comparing apples to oranges. And your partisanship is masking your ability to assess facts accurately.
INRE Russia, just what do you think Georgia was all about? That they wanted to annex a tad more to the motherland again?
Enough with the self serving vitriol. I did not say they were not a threat, but they are NOT a huge strategic threat.
I asked that question since you said, “However that was a problem in the making prior to Bush’s tenure. The snowball was pushed off the cliff over 10 years before. Bush was POTUS when it turned into the avalance.” I understand how our government is structured, I was asking you if you understood. Obviously 8 years is not enough for you to attach responsibility to Bush and his failure. Look at his past State of the Union addresses, when did he start warning us of the problem of the avalanche?
@blast:
This is like blaming Carter for Elvis’ death, because it happened under his watch.
Hmm…you don’t think Chavez would be Chavez, if not for George Bush? That Russia would not be Russia if it were Al Gore or John Kerry as PotUS? That we should give Castro “a break”?
Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe Velez is probably our staunchest ally in Latin America.
Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva may be to the left, but he moved closer to U.S. President George W. Bush over ethanol output and criticized Chavez at an anti-American energy summit, a year ago.
How is George Bush responsible for any rise in anti-Americanism in the world, other than being attributable to the mischaracterization and misbelief (yes, a pseudo-bushism) of what he’s done negatively to the world? Anti-Americanism has always been alive and well regardless of the politician in office.
I think the belief that George Bush harmed our alliances with other governments of the world is mostly just that: a belief. Tony Blair (although note, conservatives thumped the ruling Labor Party throughout Britain, including turning out London’s anti-American mayor, “Red Ken” Livingstone) and John Howard may be out (just as 2008 is as much as referendum on the perceived failures of the Bush years), but Britain and Australia remain staunch allies. Then there’s the openly pro-Bush elected Sarkozy, as well as Germany’s Merkel and the return of Berlusconi (Rome also elected its first conservative mayor in 50 years), Canada’s Harper, the leaders in Ukraine, Denmark , Greece …I’d say Mexico’s Felipe Calderón is more favorable than Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as far as U.S. interests are concerned.
You know what has harmed cooperation with our allies? National security leaks by the likes of the NYTimes. Foreign governments aren’t sure that we can control our media and keep secrets.
This might be of interest, from the latest Human Security Report:
The trend for decades now, is that the world is becoming a more peaceful place to live….even during the last 8 years, and possibly ultimately because of it. Yes, we have future, rising threats; but those threats would be there to deal with, regardless of George W. Bush. He dealt with two places related to terrorism and wmd threat. Now it’s up to future leaders to continue the mop up and not drop the ball.
@blast:
He’s no Elvis, but he’s the king of blog ‘n roll:
Wordsmith, since you are good at siting examples, how about my question in my last comment, “Look at his past State of the Union addresses, when did he start warning us of the problem of the avalanche?”
OMG! I just got pwned! Epic fail!
I did notice your mention of SotU, but thought a better focus would be on
I stand corrected. I shall be sure to inform the families of those that have died in all countries at the hands of the global jihad movement that you said they were not a *huge* strategic threat. Better? I guess the 2388 Americans that died in Pearl Harbor… less than the 911 count… didn’t constitute a *huge* strategic threat either.
Still miss Congressional responsibility in the economic crisis, eh? When did Congress warn us, along with Bush? Just a few years into his term. It fell on the deaf ears of the majority of Congress, and the media. But it only counts in the SOTU? Okaaaaaay…..
Oh come on. Any fool can see that under GWB, threats to US national security were handled in a calculated, strategic and long-term manner, that will increase security for your america.
GWB was at his best at dealing with the islamic threat, he took unpopular but strategically correct decisions, that would necessitate going to war etc, doing unpopular things, and any person with basic intelligence can see he did them without regard to his popularity, or how the media would view him, because he knew they were the right things to do. He was fine with most of america hating and blaming him for the war and loss of life, as long as he knew from his conscience it was the right thing to do. You have to give him credit for it.
Whether he thought GOD was telling him to do it or not is irrelevant. It was the right path to go, and america is much safer and stronger for it.
People who denigrate Bush for saying that GOD is talking to him, are actually quite ignorant and don’t understand how religious people think. Religious people think and analyse, then they make their decision, but they attribute it to GOD guiding them. This doesn’t make the decision any more wrong than, let’s say Obama who is channeling KARL MARX or SAUL ALINSKY when he makes decisions.
At least Bush is channeling GOD(or what he thinks is GOD).
As an atheist, I am very comfortable with religious people like GWB and Palin, because they will make the right decisions, even if they attribute those decisions to god’s guidance.
Bush has kept america safe since 911. Only a fool would not give him credit for that.
—————————————————————————–
On your economy, I think GWB could have done a bit better. He did get it going after the disastrous Clinton bubble with his tax cuts, but perhaps he could have done a bit more to get spending under control and fight the dems while they were pushing Fannie and Freddie into the massive bust that caused your economic crash. His attempts at regulating Fannie and Freddie met with failure at the roadblock of a dem controlled congress, but on hindsight, he should have forseen the danger and tried harder to stop the coming disaster, that’s what a leader does.
He also should have gotten some better people to handle the SEC to stop unrestricted shorting on the NYSE which would have moderated the collapse.
He should have done something about the out-of-control spending and huge debt america owes to other countries which is becoming more and more of a problem.
Whatever the criticisms, I’m quite sure that GWB will go down in history as one of your better presidents and decent wartime leader, while Obama will surely go down in history as one of the most naive, foolish and poorly performing. With Obama, the only good thing is that america is able to elect a black guy as POTUS and thus shows it is not a racist country. After that, it’s all downwards, as he will soon prove that america made the worst choice it has ever made since Carter.
Wordsmith, seriously, if the Republicans could get both houses to vote on Terri Schiavo Bill and the President returned from vacation in Texas to sign the bill then why not this subject? If the Republicans and Bush were that interested in fixing the GSE’s (which is/was only part of the problem), why did not more action take place. What we did get over the past from Bush was the fundamentals of our economy are strong, every year in his State of the Union. Bush had a duty to tell us the truth EVERY STATE OF THE UNION and if the GSE’s formed such a threat to our economy he needed to make it plain to see.
A case of a bit too little too late.
Both parties are up to their ankles in this, but the government was run by the Republican Party for the past 8 years.
MataHarley,
Of course the Japanese were a huge strategic threat, conflating 9/11 with the attack on Pearl Harbor is mind boggling. Japan attacked us with a capital force of Naval aircraft and military forces. Japan was a sovereign country with industry to produce the weapons of war that could be used to destroy our ability to defend ourselves. Strategic.
The 9/11 attack used aircraft manufactured my the US and operated by the US. They used box cutters and playdough bombs. Tactical.
You have made better arguments then this one, but don’t try to paint me as minimizing any loss of life or property in the US. I was deeply affected by 9/11 and supported the President until evidence of his poor decision making was plain to see. Going after and destroying AQ and killing Bin Laden should have been the paramount objective of his government.
McCain and others were trying to reform GSEs in 2005, with the support of Bush. It got nowhere. Which brings me to blast’s other statement:
Single word answer… money. No donations, payola and lobby money to Congress from the Schiavo issue. Big bucks from Fannie/Freddie and investment banking.
sigmundringeck,
It is ironic with 8 years of actual evidence of failure of the Bush administration you are ready to rewrite history about him, but without ever taking office you are already declaring how Obama will be remembered. I might have doubts about Obama, but I am willing to judge him on his actions as our President before I begin to quantify his presidency.
Rob all you and blast do is show how deluded and out of touch with reality you are. Even when proven wrong you act as though nothing was said. The only ones who have been re-writing history and are doomed to disappear are those like you. Keep gloating. When you lose it will make our victory that much sweeter.
MataHarley,
We can agree 100% on this.
If Bush and McCain believed this was a problem in 2005 why did they not make it their top priority to fix the problem? This is where I think the Republican Party failed us. Spending like crazy, huge deficits and generally not focusing on the economic health of our nation. The Democrats were there too… and have their share of the result as well. The Schiavo example was the party playing to their base and not actually governing. They could motivate themselves to make that late evening action, yet totally miss doing anything about GSE’s or passing regulation on derivatives or credit default swaps (keep in mind if the latter were regulated the GSE’s would have had trouble selling all the bad debts to begin with). With power comes great responsibility. If the power is not used it is just as bad as using it improperly.
Hard Right, both you and Craig seem to have the same MO. Just complain about the left or make snide comments. Our co-commenters here (such as), MataHarley, wordsmith make reasoned arguments for their positions. I may or may not agree with them from time to time, but they make reasonable arguments, unlike yourself and Craig. I can respect them for these opinions even when differ.
If gloating is pointing out the failings of Bush and the Republican party, then I am… I also will point out when Obama fails as well, but I don’t want him to fail as our country’s future hangs in the balance. If you want Obama to fail you are working against the best interest of our country.
Some people do not want to know the truth or see reality. All they want is to keep believing what they already believe wrongly. It is a complete waste of time to try to make them understand. After giving them facts and details, they come back a few threads later with the same arguments that you have debunked so well for them in many other threads. I have learned in years of blogging, that it is a complete waste of time. This is why I never argue with them. Not only do they not understand, they do not want to understand. They only want to be right… lol
@jay severin has a small pen1s:
thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking as I read this. saved me some typing.
blast;
Posting from China, sigmundringeck does not see America through the same blinders our media has placed on our populous (and apparently which you have bought totally into). So to suggest he is rewriting our history is preposterous, he and craig presents what they feel to be unbiased world views of our country from the outside looking in, whereas you continuously approach issues solely via your party-line talking points, which is skewed to establish blame solely with Bush because it is politically convenient for your party mentality. If anyone is attempting to “rewrite history”, I suggest you turn that focus inward to your own party and our media.
Also, as typical in your posts, when your bias is proven wrong, rather than conceding your limited focus might be in error, you go the bait and switch route, resorting to distraction from the topic, (your posts 36-Blame Bush & 46-Terri Schiavo Bill), shift the focus away from those areas where you find yourself loosing points to claim your question was not addressed (your post 42-State of the Union address), or chose someone else to target whom you apparently perceive as perhaps less formidable (your posts 49 & 52).
As for your post 42, Wordsmith had previously amply addressed your allegations that Bush & the Republicans did nothing about the housing market danger, yet unsatisfied with that, you demand to know why Bush didn’t inform the American public during his SOTU addresses. As if Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were the sole driving issue of our time. Bush did speak several time to the press, yet since as you point out, he didn’t do it in a “State of the Union address”, I suppose those just don’t count in your book. This is a no win argument with your ilk. I’m sure if Bush had mentioned that particular issue in a SOTU address, the next argument would be, “Why the hell didn’t he put out mailings to everyone in the United States?”. Presidents have more to contend with than to focus only on single issues. What I want to know is why you are so quick to blame Bush, yet you won’t take Frank, Dodd, and other Dems to task for actively refuting and attempting to conceal the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem while accepting their lobby money? Why don’t you take the media to task for their silence and not pursuing this issue before it became an issue.
I forgot to add that GWB with the hard work and sacrifice of the american military, LIBERATED 50 MILLION people from oppression and fear in Afghanistan and Iraq.
For that alone, he should be remembered as a great wartime american president.
OK, that aside, taking Iraq away from Saddam freed the oil supply there to the global markets, reduced a financing house and base for terrorism, and also protected the US dollar as Saddam wanted to take euros for his oil. It also showed Iran and Syria and also Saudi that the US was not a paper tiger, and that any of them, if they were to go too far or be too lax in allowing terrorists to stage strikes on the US, well the US could simply change their regimes, and get the whole previous governments hung(like Saddam).
Saddam was the most feared leader in the whole arab world and what happened to him??? Got hunted down like a dog and hung by the neck on youtube. This made america feared and respected in the eyes of the arab world. Don’t be foolish enough to think otherwise: the more they criticise and ridicule GWB, the more it means they fear and respect him. If they praise you, it means they think you are a fool and can be easily cheated by them.
Yet there are some sadly deluded and dimwitted people in the media(and also in your country) who actually believe that more criticism means the target is really as bad as they say. It is actually the opposite.
So your GWB got a lot of advantages and benefits for america besides freeing those 50M people. Thus he did a good job as leader of america.
As a chinese, I must show thus my respect for this fearless leader, GWB. Thank godness we are not foolish enough to make him our enemy.
While the americans last time caused endless problems to china, this time they are benefiting the world(and us) by being in the front in fighting the islamic terrorism menace, so we must respect and support them all the way.
As for Obama, I think we will get our way with him easily. This guy is sure to sell out america’s interests for his own personal ambition, to get some political advantage, to look good in the media, or for his own personal enrichment.
GWB was always, “america first, even if everybody hates me for it.”
But Obama will be, “me first, even if it means america will die.”
Excellent post sigmundringeck. And Blast, why don’t you wacht Wordsmith’s video in his comment # 41. If you have the courage to wacht it, it will end all of your false assumptions once for all.
blast, INRE your Pearl Harbor/911 comment:
So how much military hardware must be used to be a “huge strategic threat”, blast? Is there a number? One warship? Several tanks? How about military issue autos and rocket mortars? Suitcase bombs count? Since our USS Cole was attacked, is it still not a threat because they used small craft that wasn’t military? Why must these weapons be a state industry, when they can be so easily bought on the black market?
My point is that in WWII, we were fighting against States with militaries and uniforms. Today our warfare is guerrilla in nature, and against stateless thugs and gangs. If anything, I consider their threat more strident because they live in the shadows, and come out to attack the innocent…”brave” warriors that they are (snicker….)
Just because the global jihad movement is stateless does not mean their intent to take over “apostate regimes” and wipe out all western presence from Arab lands is any less “huge”. You must understand, the only way they will leave the west alone (if they do at all) is if all western presence (meaning non-Muslim) is removed from their Caliphate from Spain to China. No bases, not even Mickey D’s will be tolerated. No western films, clothing… nothing.
Even at that, they would merely seek to make the entire planet subject to Shariah law. Yes, blast…. they are a *huge* strategic threat because they are even more difficult to gain intel, and their assaults are done in stealth… i.e. Mumbai, which escaped the eyes of all intel agencies.
BTW, on your post #51…. *Finally* you echo what I said about Congress letting us down more than a POTUS. The POTUS does not introduce or write legislation, but has to get it done on his behalf. Attempts were done. And I agree… not with enough urgency.
This, however, is entirely different than laying this at Bush’s feet. You have finally laid it at the feet of the elected body of Congress. Now if you could just get it thru your head as to the start of it all… because it’s been building for more than a decade.
@blast:
What were the “poor decisions”? Certainly there were some (name me one war strategy that turned out to be 100% bulletproof of hindsight criticism); but I don’t think the decision to remove Saddam by force was one of them.
Did Bush adapt or not to the situation on the ground? He “stayed the course” to victory, by implementing the surge strategy while Harry Reid declared “the war is lost” and Barack Obama made his own “poor decision” by standing opposed to “doubling down” and “winning”.
You’re still failing to see the point that Mata’s previously brought up- that the scope of the war we find ourselves in is greater than going after just bin Laden and his group. The Islamic terror threat is a network of terror groups with shared goals, shared ideology, cross-over cooperation, training, and funding. We are more properly at war with the al Qaeda NETWORK, and affiliates. The distinctions separating one terror group from another becomes blurred and irrelevant. Really, what is the difference between Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ansar al Islam, abu Sayyaf, National Islamic Front, Abu Nidal Organization, Jemaah Islamiya, and all the rest I ran out of patience to name?
This is why it’s a war effort, and not strictly a law enforcement approach.
@blast:
Awesome! Not only do we have Elvis and Terri Schiavo in the house, now we get Peter Parker, aka The Amazing Spiderman! 😀
Then my reply to jay applies to you as well. jay saw fit not to come back with a counter-response; care to tag in?
@Rocky_B:
I see it as mostly hindsight finger-wagging.
I do agree that ultimately, Bush is the captain of the ship, and the buck stops there. But saying “but the government was run by the Republican Party for the past 8 years.” (comment #46) is not accurate; unless you think we’ve been living under a dictatorship of Bushitler and the Republican Guard. You should have stopped at “Both parties are up to their ankles in this,”
Democrats are up to their necks in this, I’d say. Seriously, is there any evidence to suggest that a Democratically controlled Congress and presidency would have had the foresight to avert the current economic crisis had they governed 2001-2008? This is all hindsight blamegaming. Easy to do.
The only ones I see who actually did see some cause for concern, were the Republicans.
Now, had Saddam Hussein not been removed from power in 2003, what would we be facing today, in 2008? Instead of crediting Bush with eliminating a state-sponsor of terror, unrepentant seeker of wmd capabilities, and 12-year menace, he’s blamed for the decision of carrying out official U.S. policy of “regime change”, established on Clinton’s watch, because war, unfortunately, incurs casualties in the path to achieving the greater, long-term good.
sigmundringeck, I have fallen in love. I hope you are single…even if not, I will love you from afar and know my soul mate exists somewhere.
I love and agree with everything you said.
History, if written by scholars instead of Liberal ideologies, may actually rate Bush as one of our greater Presidents.
The criticism being leveled at Bush regarding Iraq is based strictly on how the media “thinks” the war should have been conducted. And their perception of war is about as realistic as their assessment of Obama’s experience in foreign policy.
First, the initial conquest of Iraq was nearly flawless. It was quick, overwhelming, and comparatively bloodless.
The initial steps after the conquest that have been excoriated by pundits and press; dissolving the Sunni infrastructure and bureaucracy, holding US troops back and letting the Iraqi people attempt to establish a civil society, and not imposing heavy marshal law, are actually necessary steps in the eventual development of a democratic Iraq.
If Bush had allowed the established Sunni civil bureaucrats to remain in place, they would have soon re-established a caste society in which Sunnis controlled the civil apparatus, and Shiites were the lower caste with little or no political power. This would have resulted, sooner or later, in a violent revolution, including genocide supported by Iran.
By not immediately setting the structure of society, and letting the Iraqi people suffer the resulting effects of lawlessness, and infrastructure breakdown, the conditions for the establishment of a true civil society were set. This period, painful as it was, has historically been necessary for a culture to discard the old and embrace ‘the new’. Recent examples are Germany and Japan. Until the populace suffered the effects of their political decisions, they were not ready to accept, and embrace, change.
For students of military strategy, the actions of the US military in drawing Al-Qaeda into Iraq is classic Sun-Tzu, and simply brilliant. Instead of trying to fight AQ in a terrain, culture, and logistical ground that favored AQ, the US military brought AQ into the Iraqi killing ground, where they were distinct from the population, separated from their leadership, stretched in their supply chains, and open to attack by tanks, helo, artillery, and rapid response teams. In other words, although the media thought it was wrong, the actions of the US military have been just short of brilliant. The morons of the media simply don’t “get it”.
And, in case nobody noticed, we haven’t been attacked since 9/11.
Some excellent posts from the writers above. Thanks for sharing.
————————————————————–
I’d like to thank those people who have expressed support for my writing. I’m just sharing what seems obvious to me. Hope I do not sound too arrogant or condescending.
—————————————————————-
Deborah, I am married to an ”evangelical” christian. We get along OK and agreed a long time ago to differ over such topics as evolution, the existence of supernatural deities and so on. Thank you for your encouragement. Wish you and your family the best in these tough times.
—————————————————————-
Going back to GWB and Palin and their religious inclination, that is used by some ignorant americans to imply they are stupid:
I do not think christians are stupid, because my wife is about 10 times smarter than me, she went overseas and while working fulltime in a hotel, took the English Bar exam in england and got within the top 20 places. Then later went back home and took the local professional exam and got within the top 3 places. And English is her second language, she speaks cantonese at home. Her hobby is doing brain puzzles. And she is pretty as hell in addition to that. Think of Gong Li, Zhang ZiYi, whatever chinese actress, she’s up there with them.
My spouse could run rings around Barack Obama in an academic setting, and also Clinton(the male one who was a Rhodes scholar). Obama did not even get an honors in his basic degree and has no publications as Editor of Harvard Law. It’s obvious that his position was bought and paid for as some kind of political machination.
Now I don’t think academic qualifications mean that much, seldom are they an indication of true intelligence and capability. I never judge a person by their paper qualifications. The saying goes: Those who cannot really do the work, need paper qualifications instead.
But I just want to show that there are people with high academic qualifications who think Barack Obama is nothing great(like my wife thinks of him). She calls him a “false prophet”, I just call him an ambitious crook, with a marxist inclination.
Just a factual correction: Calais was not acquired by France until 1558. I was thinking of the attack on Paris, I think, which Charles did lead (impressive for someone once known for his timidity). Sorry for the error.
Normally, I wouldn’t bother but I have to chime in because MataHarley is SO freaking ignorant (I use that technically, not inflammatory) it is driving me nuts.
First, we need to put our feelings and emotions away. You know, the thing you claim none of us dirty liberals can do. While I still tear up when I replay the imagery of that tower coming down in my mind, if we are going to talk about strategy and tactics, that has NO part in the discussion. You are coming VERY close to dragging dead Americans through the street to prove your point. Please stop. It was a horrific event. Please quit dancing on it to make points, particularly when the point you are trying to make has NOTHING to do with it.
Death is irrelavant to strategy or tactic. This is not callous, or “sad” or anything. It is simple fact. When a general is looking at his maps, the LAST…and I meand ABSOLUTE LAST thing that should be going through his mind is “boys”, “soldiers”, “kids”, “horror”, “carnage” or anything else. For the sake of those boys and soldiers, he must have NOTHING on his mind other than the field in front of him and his training and knowledge. (go ahead and twist that around, I expect it at this point…sane people will get the point, so you loonies can claim that I said generals are heartless or whatever other nonsense you can come up with)
Now, back to the point…if not a single person had died at Pearl Harbor and had it been carried out by three Japanese pilots in jacked up bi-planes, it was still a far more *strategic* issue than AQ or 9/11. Even if Sadam’s personal fighter escort, with the support of the Chinese and firing Russian missiles had flown into the US and taken the towers out with “traditional” methods…When you compare the near-complete annialation of almost our entire Pacific fleet in the shadow of a rising, mechanised, organized, military-cultured society positioning itself to sweep across the region gobbling up its resources…
Again, after you get done gleefully talking about crying mothers and dying children again to score a point in your own mind…please tell me how tactcially, strategically, heck, even logically that is comparable to anything that happened on 9/11 or since…
The comparison is childish, ignorant and…MAN would I love to play you in a game of chess.
Its one thing to debate beliefs and faith, or to argue about a certain political figure. It is utterly different to say stupid, ignorant things and then try to insulate that ignorance in the memories of fallen Americans.
gh0st, first let’s get one thing absolutely clear. There was no one – least of all me – “gleefully talking about crying mothers and dying children”. You’re exaggerating something you think I said, or believe, that you’ve manufactured in your own mind since you have perceived me to be SO [technically, not inflammatory] “freaking ignorant”.
I’m going to assume you are taking issue with my equivocation of 911 as strategic, as opposed to tactical.
It was blast who said the difference between the two as Pearl Harbor (strategic) vs 911 (tactical) was merely the weaponry used. In addition, this was an add on to our debate over his refusal to see the global jihad movement’s assault on the west as a “huge strategic threat”. He will term them a threat… but seems reluctant to attach either “huge” or “strategic” to his assessment.
Thus, using his thought, I replied making the points separately… first using his comments INRE the weaponry to demonstrate what he was saying was an absurd tangent.
Then again, I would think that most who post here would know the quest of the 911 assault team. Perhaps I’m wrong. So I’ll explain why I why I believe 911 to be strategic and, like Pearl Harbor, an act of war.
Tactical is an enemy attack designed to affect a local level or area, while strategic is striking the enemy at the sources of it’s military, economic or political power.
Pearl Harbor is obviously, and without question, strategic.
911’s culminated events were also designed to be strategic. I assuming you’re astute enough not to fall for the media’s plaintive wailing and BS that the Twin Towers were struck because they were “symbols” of America and our freedom. That is just plain lame media spin. The entire 911 assault was strategic from start to finish… regardless of the chosen weaponry and their origin.
The WTC towers (only one of the three targets) were not chosen as “symbols”, and that was confirmed by Bin Laden himself months later. The assaults were unquestionably strategic as they were meant to cut the US off at the knees from our economic/financial center (WTC housed primarily financial and trading institutions, shutting down Wall St for a week). Strike two was military (the Pentagon), and the last failed was political center (Flight 93 headed towards either Capitol or WH).
As for the lives lost associated with the two examples of strategic assaults on US soil… it was to re’stress the *huge*, or enormity, of the [*very* strategic] threat facing the western culture at the hands of stateless jihadis. A threat which blast keeps repeating was neither “huge” – nor strategic.