« kicking it old school, ASV style (Games! Fun! Laughs! inside) | Main | Are you having a protest or a picnic? »

security moms and other thoughts

As most of you know by now (this is what happens when I go to bed early; I miss the breaking blogger news), a reader of Powerline did a bit of research and discovered the name of the band that was on Annie Jacobsen's flight. Clint Taylor writes:
Anyway, this is good news. Nour Mehana's band might have acted like jerks on the plane, but it appears safe to say they were not casing Northwest Airlines for a suicidal assault, and we can quit worrying about this being a "dry run" or an aborted attack. And if Jacobsen was wondering why one man in a dark suit and sunglasses sat in first class while everyone else flew coach, well, it seems pretty clear that this was the Big Mehana himself. Which is definitely not the same as saying Jacobsen was wrong to worry. The proven existence of this band confirms one of the last details of her story, and her story confirms some of our worst fears about airline security. The mindset of passengers, of the crew, and even of the law-enforcement personnel (Jacobsen said a flight attendant reassured her husband by pointing out that air marshals were on the flight), and decision makers higher up the ladder was reactive, not proactive.
I stated in my first post on this subject that there were parts of Annie's story that read like fiction to me. I still think the story has been somewhat embellished. Did Annie really think the man who had been so nice to her pre-boarding had turned and glared at her when they were on the plane? Or was she just remembering details that didn't exactly occur, but were more like dramatic flair? But that's really neither here nor there, is it? What we have here seems, on its face, to be an ending, a conclusion, the closing statement on a now legendary (in internet terms) story. Or is it? The really story here is one of security.
June 29 was no ordinary day in the skies. That day, Department of Homeland Security officials issued an "unusually specific internal warning," urging customs officials to watch out for Pakistanis with physical signs of rough training in the al Qaeda training camps. The warning specifically mentioned Detroit and Los Angeles's LAX airports, the origin and terminus of NWA flight 327. That means that our air-traffic system was expecting trouble. But rather than land the plane in Las Vegas or Omaha, it was allowed to continue on to Los Angeles without interruption, as if everything were hunky-dory on board. It certainly wasn't. If this had been the real thing, and the musicians had instead been terrorists, nothing was stopping them from taking control of the plane or assembling a bomb in the restroom. Given the information they were working with at the time, almost everyone should have reacted differently than they did.
Jacobson's fears turned out to be, thankfully, unfounded (though she still maintains that the Wayne Newton look-alike singer and his traveling band are not the people she saw on the plane). And now we delve once again into the land of what ifs; what if her fears were not unfounded? What if these guys were terrorists on a dry run? Given the circumstances of the day, that should have been a real fear. Perhaps Annie Jacobsen overreacted and, in my eyes at least, retold the story in a way that was a little too over-the-top in the drama department, but the pilots and the air marshals that were supposedly on board should have reacted differently considering what the warning of the day was. Today, splashed all over your news, we see stills from the video of four 9/11 hijackers at Dulles Airport. It's chilling to look a these pictures because we know what comes next. It's like watching a horror movie you've seen ten times already, but you still want to scream at the screen at a certain point: don't go in the basement! But they always do. And no matter how many times you look at these pictures and you want to say don't let them in! the scene has been acted, directed and wrapped. You can't change it. You can leave a theater after seeing a slasher film laughing in the knowledge that even though you just watched fifteen people die, it wasn't real. You look at the pictures of the hijackers entering the airport, you look at pictures of the burning WTC, and you wish it wasn't real. And sometimes there's a part of your brain that still can't grasp the reality of it and you look with kind of a disconnect, much like you do with movies. Unlike the movies, where fifteen more horror films will make their way to your local theater and the dumb girl will go into the basement/closet/dark room every single time, we have the power to make sure that what we see on the Dulles surveillance tape never happens again. That's my issue this election year and it's my only issue. My vote will be selfish. My vote will be about me and my family and nothing else. I will admit right here that I am not considering social security, spending, health care, taxes, gay marriage, education reform or any other issues of 2004. They are all secondary to me. What is the use of all those wonderful things like health care and the right to marry whom you want if we're not safe? First things first. Make this country safe for me. Win the war on terrorism. Make sure that we never have to scrutinize surveillance tapes or have a commission figure out where we went wrong ever agin. Then we'll talk about everything else. See, I am a security mom. Michelle Malkin speaks for me when she describes what makes her a security mom:
Nothing matters more to me right now than the safety of my home and the survival of my homeland. I believe in the right to defend myself, and in America's right to defend itself against its enemies. I am a citizen of the United States, not the United Nations. I want a president who is of one mind, not two, about what must be done to protect our freedom and our borders. I don't care about the hair on his head or the wrinkles in his forehead. I am not awed by his ability to ride a snowboard or fly a plane. Nor does it matter much to me whether his wife speaks four languages or bakes good cookies. What I want is a commander in chief who will stop pandering to political correctness and People magazine editors, and start pandering to me...
I have a place this election. I have a stand to make. Remember soccer moms? I never understood that phrase nor did I understand what made the soccer moms such an appealing part of the constituency. What did they stand for? Better soccer fields? Nicer SUVs? More after school programs? It was disingenuous to describe young, suburban mothers in that way and frankly, it pissed me off. I felt it was an insult, that we were being thought of as no more than the appendage to the family, the cheerleader for the husband and kids. Looking at me in that light was no way to get my vote. I really don't remember anyone liking the soccer mom label. It labeled us as passive observers to the political arena whose vote could be had by offering us free coupons for diapers. Condescending. But, security mom. Now there's a label I can sink my teeth into. It means something. It shows what I stand for. It shows where my vote is going and why. Security moms are not passive. We are knowledgeable. We are aware. We are active. Most of us were thrust into this role after 9/11 and we accepted it gladly. I probably do myself - and others like me - a disservice by saying my vote is a selfish one. Just because I am not putting your right to marry or your education concerns first does not mean I don't care about those things, or you. National security is for all of us. I care about this country and its future. I care about your family, your children, your safety. Somehow, our national security has become little more than a platform of partisan bickering. The release today of the 9/11 commission's report (speaking of partisan) will relieve both Clinton and Bush of any outright blame for what happened in September of 2001. Mostly, that's a good thing. Our presidents were doing all they could to protect us, right? The problems can be fixed and future terrorist attacks can be prevented. From MSNBC:
Administration officials familiar with the report told reporters late Wednesday that “neither President Bush nor President Clinton would be blamed for failing to act.” They said the panel would include an appendix praising the Bush administration for its actions since the 2001 attacks that had made the nation. The report will also debunk several “myths” that have built up around the terrorist strikes that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania, the officials said. According to the report, they said: * The Saudi government did not fund the 19 hijackers. * Relatives of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden were not allowed to fly out of the country until after air traffic was allowed to move freely after it was grounded following the attacks. Moreover, those family members had no connection to the terrorist plot. * Bush did not know about the specific threat beforehand, and there was little more that he could to prevent it.
Still, the report is expected to provide fodder for arguments in the presidential campaign. Advisers to the Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have said they hope to use the report to show that the Bush administration was inattentive in the summer of 2001 to threats of a possible attack.
Well, damn. The report is good. What a shame for the Kerry campaign. Instead of saying, look, we did all we could, let's not place blame, let's look forward, Kerry's advisers are disappointed that they can't blame Bush for everything. They're hoping to get political mileage out of it. That shows me that Kerry is not pandering to me, other security moms or anyone who cares about the future security of this country. He is pandering to the people who think Bush made it happen or let it happen (MIHOP or LIHOP for those who swim the dark waters of Democratic Underground). He is pandering to those who believe Michael Moore's fallacies. His people think that security is an issue to be used to be divisive, to drive a wedge between the Kerry supporters and the Bush supporters. He should be embracing the findings of the report and telling his supporters - and his rival's supporters - what he will do to ensure that he follows up on those findings by making this country a more secure place. Here's a man who had as his security advisor a guy - Sandy Berger - who was, by the admission of his own friends and collages, a bumbling, error-prone, careless man. And obviously a man who didn't know much about the man who was advising him on security matters:
John Kerry to Tom Brokaw tonight: Brokaw: "Did you know that [Berger] was under investigation?" Kerry: "I didn't have a clue, not a clue." Brokaw: "He didn't share that with you? Kerry: "I didn't have a clue."
Not very comforting. I am a security mom. It's a label I wear with pride. It's the reason I am voting the way I am in November. I don't think a man who is disappointed in the findings of a committee that says our president and our recent past president were doing all they could would make a good president. I don't think a man who knows so little about the people in his entourage would make a good president. And, if I can be frank here, I think John Kerry would be the worst thing to happen to national security since Jimmy Carter. Instead of pandering to me, to the people who are worried about the future of this nation, to the people who want protection and the people who want their safety concerns addressed, he panders to the far left liberals who think making up with France is a priority. I am a one issue voter this year. I find nothing wrong with that because it's an issue that directly relates to every single other issue. Without a good national security, without a strong president who will not cave in to terrorists, without a president who will stand down the antiquated machine of the UN, we will likely be looking at pictures just like this some day and asking why. [At this point in the rambling thought process, I have to leave for work. I probably did not tie all the above thoughts together and I will most likely have more to add to this later, though I'm sure some of you will not hesitate to point out any inconsistencies.]


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference security moms and other thoughts:

» Terrorizing Amerikans from The Politburo Diktat
Dear Comrade Osama, The Politburo extends its congratulations. You have succeeded in terrorizing the Amerikans. Khorosho! Far more than the actual casualties of 9/11, you have the Amerikans running scared, in hysterics, jumping at shadows, afraid to go... [Read More]

» T-SHIRTS, GET YOUR T-SHIRTS... from Michelle Malkin
Apropos of my USA Today column on security moms, the fabulous Sekimori has designed some Security Mom gear. Update: More on security moms here and here.... [Read More]

Berger wrote this?! "My old boss asked me to do him a favor and grab classified documents but I think I accidentally discarded them here, at a Starbucks. So, these papers are like really important. Everyone's mad at me. There's a reward" [Read More]

» Ah Ha! There's those Two Cents! from Game the World
I have just finished reading Michele Catalano's morning ramble. No worries, Michele, everyting tied together quite well, despite the time crunch. I keep getting an image in my head when I get to pondering the political goings-on. Fade in: Interio... [Read More]

» And the Blogging Berger Award Goes to.... from American Digest
TOM GALVIN for linkage above and beyond in his "Lost at Starbucks.: Excerpt: LOST: Really important papers, Really importantHey, I was here several months ago with a few papers. Perhaps some of you saw me walk in here with them stuffed in my pants and ... [Read More]

» The girls they love to see you shoot from Twisted Spinster
I am really tired, or I'd get more into this issue than I have with this comment. Just read michele's post security moms and other thoughts and then the reaction of her critics and tell me if you don't see some sort of problem here. All I know is I ... [Read More]

» John F. Kerry - Carter II? from Thought Mesh
Via Twisted Spinster I found this discussion about “security moms”, mothers who are concerned about the security of themselves, their... [Read More]


Here's what I don't get: if security is your top priority, why would you support the man on who's watch we had our worst terrorist attack (and did all he could to prevent any investigation - independent, congressional or otherwise into it)? Why would you back the guy who was given unprecedented, bipartisan support to globally wage war on terror and pissed it away?

And doesn't the idea that Bush's people told the Dept. of Homeland Security to be on the lookout for possible photo ops for the candidate, while he continues to obstruct any real reform, something of a problem?

Personally, I think re-electing George W Bush will be the biggest blow to nation security since... George W. Bush.

I can't speak for Michele, Oliver, but you're not giving me any reason to vote FOR Kerry (or anyone else), you're just restating the same arguments AGAINST Bush I've heard a thousand times.

Convince me that John Kerry would be stronger on national defense and security than Bush and we'll talk. Otherwise, you just don't have anything to offer me.

What Big Brother said.

michelle please don't be a security mom. It will undoubtedly cause your kids to grow up into whimpering wuss-bags.

How so, Shank? Please explain your theory.

Blaster, it is there, under Defending the American Homeland. The guy may not be the best candidate in my eyes, but he's not stupid.

I'm also a one-issue-voting security mom. My vote for GWB will a vote for the war on terror to continue. Everything else is fluff.

Oliver, I'm sorry you don't get it. Sad.

Homeland security and "national security" are related, but not the same.

No Presidential candidate other than W has "National Security" listed as an issue on their website.

You know, I read this Annie Jacobsen story, and I found it very reassuring. The fact is, Jacobsen put absolutely no thought into what would happen if the air marshals should have done:

I asked Adams why, based on the FBI's credible information that terrorists may try to assemble bombs on planes, the air marshals or the flight attendants didn't do anything about the bizarre behavior and frequent trips to the lavatory. "Our FAM agents have to have an event to arrest somebody. Our agents aren't going to deploy until there is an actual event," Adams explained. He said he could not speak for the policies of Northwest Airlines.

I'd love to seen Jacobsen flesh this out, because it sounds to me like the air marshals did the right thing. What exactly do you think is going to happen if you've got 3 air marshals trying to take down 14 terrorists and the air marshals voluntarily give up their element of surprise before anything happens!? Sounds like a bad, bad plan to me, but then what do you expect from a woman who reads Ann Coulters already paranoid ramblings about President Bush's secretary of transportation and exaggerates them.

I can summerize the entire piece in 12 seconds: Jacobsen was scared and wanted something done to make her not feel scared. What exactly? Something! Seriously, if you can write an 8 page rant, all the way down to the scowling man, but you can't think of one specific thing the air marshals could have done better, I can't think of a better endorsement of our security than that. They might be building a bomb, or they might be trying to bait you into revealing yourself so they can take over the plane. You have to consider all possible scenarios, not just focus on one, and someone probably did check the restrooms.

As for the rant about the security screening, you can just ignore this whole part. Do you really think our guys could search 2 middle eastern men at the security checkpoint, and then, if they saw something suspicious, fail to search a third because of some quota? If you think that ... you're an idiot who has no understanding of basic economics. All you need to do is consider the potential punishment (a stern talk from a supervisor, certainly waived if you can detail exactly what made you suspicious) versus the potential reward (being a national hero if you found something!)

Quick comment rebuttal for blaster: You're right "National Security" is not listed on John Kerry's issues ... just "Homeland Security." You win the meaningless semantics award of the century. They aren't the same? ROFL!!! If you want to know why I'm a Kerry supporter, just read that plan. He gets it.

Well written, Michele.

Regardless what words Kerry has in his "Homeland Security" plan, his long track record of pandering and flip-flops makes me doubt he "gets it", Soli. He's been anti-military for his entire career. Check his voting record. I could not vote for anyone with his record. If the Dems had run a strong candidate who really stood for something, I might have felt that I needed to vote for that person. But not Kerry.


Basically, isn't being a security mom in the same vein as being over protective. 'The bad men are going to crash planes into us, the bad men are going to poison our water, we need GWB (or somebody) to protect us from the inevitable onslaught of bad men.' And Michelle Malkin (nutjob extraordinaire) insisting that her husband take a cell everywhere. Lady, give it up. The world is filled with innumerable dangers that you can do nothing about. Your husband getting blown up whilst sifting through the dairy section may be one of them. I just think that reacting to terrorist threats by becoming increasingly paranoid and overprotective is an error. Pretty soon the kids'll be doing duck and cover drills in school again.

Well, Shank, considering my daughter is off on vacation with her friend's family today and my son is off at the schoolyard with a bunch of friends, I don't think I'm being too overprotective.

There's nothing wrong with exposing your children to the realities of the world - mine are 14 and 11, what would be the purpose of shielding them from the truth? Better to be aware and on your toes and know what to do in an emergency situation than be cloaked in ignorance.

It's not like we're cowering under the table over here. We're still living our lives as we did pre 9/11. We haven't built an underground bunker.

Hey,are you saying that the generation that had to do duck and cover drills are all wimps because of it?

I remember the duck and covers well. Place head firmly between knees and kiss your a$$ goodbye......

We were herded into a hallway, sat against the walls and did the drills.

The hallway had skylights. I don't think our administrator quite got the idea........

I see a potential semantic problem. People who value security over liberty will also say that they see the security of our nation as their number one priority. They just happen to be willing to give up what makes our nation what it is to get security.

Michele, I assume that you and others don't mean that you would give up the liberty that makes this country great in order to be safe. At least I hope not.

I'll vote for Bush because I can't figure out what Kerry stands for and on the issue of national security and foreign relations, I disagree with what I've seen. I don't think he'll fight the war on terror adequately. To me, the true path to national security is through aggressive and active elimination of our enemies (either by killing them or converting them).

Bolie IV

Basically, isn't being a security mom in the same vein as being over protective.

Err... no. Next question.

'The bad men are going to crash planes into us,

That could NEVER happen.

the bad men are going to poison our water, we need GWB (or somebody) to protect us from the inevitable onslaught of bad men.'

Um, Shank (capital letter provided free of charge by Big Brother), national defense and security are some of the main jobs of the government, and by definition, whoever is in charge of the government. So, yes, we need "GWB (or somebody)" to protect us. Personally, I don't yet own an aircraft carrier or C-130 gunship, though I've been looking on eBay. I also really can't afford to hire a personal air marshall for every flight I take. And I really don't have the time to personally go through the bags of each person flying with me. I asked once, and the other passengers just wouldn't let me. The bastards.

And Michelle Malkin (nutjob extraordinaire)

It's those little extra touches of shrieking idiocy that make your posts such a delight to read, Shank. I mean, how can ANY rational human being say "Nothing matters more to me right now than the safety of my home and the survival of my homeland."

What a nutjob.

insisting that her husband take a cell everywhere.

You're right. Cell phones are absolutely no use in an emergency.

Lady, give it up.

Give what up? Rational thought? Concern for her family or country? Her political beliefs? Joy, hope, or optimism?

The world is filled with innumerable dangers that you can do nothing about.

So just save the terrorists the effort, and kill yourself now.

Your husband getting blown up whilst sifting through the dairy section may be one of them.

Yes, there's nothing you can do to be safer. Death will strike you down. Why wear seat belts? You could still die in a car crash. Fire drills? Useless. People still die in fires. Lock your doors? Eh, the thieves, murderers and rapists could still get into your house.

Cell phones? What are you, some kind of nutjob?

I just think that reacting to terrorist threats by becoming increasingly paranoid and overprotective is an error.
Shank, it seems to me from reading your post that what you truly think is that just reacting to terrorist threats is an error. I mean, you jump all over Malkin for insisting that her husband carry a frikkin' CELL PHONE.

Pretty soon the kids'll be doing duck and cover drills in school again.

Oh, brilliant point. Yes, taking the terrorist threat seriously is exactly the same as useless cold-war era school drills.

I think every mom is potentially a security mom, the question is how the security equation is calculated.

Unfortunately, I think that the question doesn't boil down to "what do you take seriously?", because that's ultimately demeaning and insulting to large swaths of the population.

The question is Oliver's question: if the effect of the War on Iraq is a huge net increase in global terrorism, either because of the recruitment material it provides or the sapping of military and intelligence resources away from hot spots in Sudan, the Phillipines, and Afghanistan (just to name three), why would you re-elect the person who prosecuted it?


I have looked at parts of his voting record (about as much as I can stand without dying of boredom) and I have not found it to be anti-military. I haven't seen anything to indicate that he's more or less likely to pander then any other politician. As for "flip-flops," I want a candidate that's willing to reexamine previous positions when new information becomes available. For example, if there was a politician who decided that we should not start any new stem cell lines because there was enough already, and then further research shows that 85% of them are contaminated and useless, I would like that politician to revisit the issue. If you want a cheap talking point instead, how about ... "steel tarriff, 'nuff said."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a little assumption (I know, bad bad, but still ...) I don't think you have really looked at John Kerry's voting record. I don't blame you for that, wading through thomas and trying to extract useful information is a huge pain in the ass, especially if you are looking through a record as vast as Kerry's. I'd say there are only probably 5-10 people alive who can even claim they've made a serious attempt to examine his full voting record for the past 4 years. All of those people work for either John Kerry or President Bush and none of them are serious about making an objective evaluation. You should keep that in mind whenever you hear someone claiming to speak for the voting record of a senator.

Now, maybe you are thinking "but he voted for the $87 billion, and then against the $87 billion" or something like that. Well just remember, President Bush promised to veto it before he signed it, and almost the entire Republican contingent of the Senate voted against it before they voted for it. If that made any sense to you, then congratuations, you're probably innoculated against Democratic and Republican talking points already ;).

Off Topic: NYTimes takes a cue from Michelle's "Guitar Face" post.



Have any of you heard about this?


There were some solid "homeland security" recommendatons in the Bremer report from . . . JANUARY 2001

The question is Oliver's question: if the effect of the War on Iraq is a huge net increase in global terrorism, either because of the recruitment material it provides or the sapping of military and intelligence resources away from hot spots in Sudan, the Phillipines, and Afghanistan (just to name three), why would you re-elect the person who prosecuted it?

That's the thing.. IF. First, one needs to prove that there has been an increase in global terrorism, that it is a direct result of the Iraq War, and that the other candidates would have a better plan for reducing terrorism.

Those points need to be proven first before the question about whether or not I'd vote for/against the person who prosecuted the war.

In my response to Oliver, I wrote: "Convince me that John Kerry would be stronger on national defense and security than Bush and we'll talk. Otherwise, you just don't have anything to offer me." No answer, yet, but I could make the same point to you.

I don't want to hear reasons why I should vote against Bush, I want to hear reasons I should vote for someone else. I don't think that's too much to ask.

soli -

No, it isn't a semantic difference. Homeland security is what happens right here, on our own soil. President Bush recognizes both the need to consider Homeland security and National security.

You can read the National Security issues brief.

Nader does not consider national security an issue, and neither does the Libertarian party.

So, no other candidate than George W Bush considers national security an issue.

Oddly enough, the Democratic Party Platform considers national security issue - but their candidate doesn't.

How are we to take the Kerry campaign seriously on the issue of national security when they don't consider it an issue?

Is there evidence that indicates these so-called "security moms" voted for anyone other than Bush the last time around? My gut tells me they're core Republicans and I haven't seen any hard evidence that indicates otherwise. If that's the case, then this "new" psychographic descriptor is irrelevant.


I have an odd theory, and that's that fiscal management radically improves with a divided government, making our financing of military campaigns directed at the war on terror (currently running out of money, people, and bullets) more sounds and our operations more efficient.

P.S. Somebody's going to regret that "security mom" label in about 2 months when it appears on Access Hollywood or is uttered by Larry King or (worse) Nancy Grace for the 100th time. Remember its genesis: boring Time magazine hack Joe Klein, March 2003.

Roxanne, I voted for Nader last time out. Clinton before that. In fact, this will be the first time (and I'm voting since 1980) that I will be voting Republican.

I'm sure there are many others like me

I have an odd theory, and that's that fiscal management radically improves with a divided government, making our financing of military campaigns directed at the war on terror (currently running out of money, people, and bullets) more sounds and our operations more efficient.

I've heard the fiscal management theory before, and it seems to be for the most part true, but having more bullets is of no use if the leaders in charge won't use them when called upon to do so. The reason we are running low on the above is they are being used. That's what happens in war. We can get more people (especially as Iraq is winding down and troops are being moved out of traditional holding points like Germany), we can get more money, and we can make more bullets. Such has historically been the case, and the current war is no different.

While ordinarily I wouldn't mind seeing republicans and democrats at each other's throats, blocking each other's legislation, and generally grinding government to a halt, I don't want to see such when there is a war on. I want to see someone in the White House who is willing to take the war to the enemy, not wait around for the next attack before responding.

Nothing I've seen of Kerry so far convinces me he'd be any different than Clinton when it comes to defense issues. That's not what I'm looking for in a President. Bush, despite his faults, is a known quantity. I don't KNOW what Kerry stands for (and I'm not sure he does either).

Well, I know of one security mom who didn't vote for Bush in '00, Michele, of ASV. A quick, well really slow because they're so extensive, look through her archives will show her evolution since 9/11/01.
I think that the Jacobson story is one of classic misdirection. Much like when the Generals tell the troops to take that hill they'll have a company over on the right flank make a lot of noise, get the defenders moving reinforcements that way and hit from the left flank.
Figure this, there are a lot of ordinary Arabs sympathetic to the AlQ cause but no actual ties to the organisation. How difficult would it be for an AlQ operative to approach a bunch, such as a 14 member band with no obvious ties to them, and say something along the lines of 'get on the airplane and act funny. Don't actually DO anything, just act suspicious.'
This could get everyone looking up at the sky when the real attack is coming from another direction, say a bigassed truck bomb or a barge on the river.
After 9/11 no flight crew is going to open the cockpit door, no matter what happens on the other side of it. Period. Nor would a flight crew take one of those birds over a city if there are bad things happening in back. Period. They'll try to put it down onto one of the Air Force Bases outside cities or, as a last resort, make a big hole in the ground out in the country.
The next attack will not come from the air. If the AlQ assholes can get us all looking up, so much the better from their point of view.

Oliver writes:

Here's what I don't get: if security is your top priority, why would you support the man on who's watch we had our worst terrorist attack (and did all he could to prevent any investigation - independent, congressional or otherwise into it)

A good question. On a totally unrelated note: can you enlighten us as to your preference in the 1944 Presidential election?

Big Brother,

John Kerry has an interesting plan. One proposal that I really like in his Defend America Initiative is to create a Community Defense Service (basically a new National Guard that follows the traditional National Guard role of defending America from attacks and responding to emergencies, but not to be called up for an extended foreign war).

Here's why I like this. This initiative is something that I could sign up for. I cannot, in concience to my family and financial situation, join the National Guard. I can't afford to take the massive pay cut for an extended period to go fight a war. National Guard combat pay wouldn't cover the payments on my house (not to mention food, clothing, school supplies, etc)! I'd like to be ready to do more to defend America without abandoning my existing responsibilities, and I think there are lots of other people who feel the same. The fact is, we should be looking for ways to make defending this country not only the good and patriotic thing to do, but also an economically sensible thing to do.

There are many other good proposals which I hope that President Bush will adopt versions of, like adding real time outbreak detection to the national health system and some specific proposals on port security (I'd call this the biggest security issue in the country today!) We really, really need a serious revamp of the ports in this country. All I've found for President Bush on this is the Container Security Initiative which is for identifying and securing high risk cargos. There's a lot more that needs to be done.

Truely, I'm not terribly worried about the security of America under either candidate. There are sensible proposals coming from both sides, and there's nothing to prevent a little creative borrowing of good ideas after the election in any case.

Blaster: National Security ... securing the nation. Homeland Security ... securing the homeland. The nation is the homeland. Can you secure the nation, but not the homeland? No. Can you secure the homeland but not the nation? No. All of Kerry's defense proposals are under one category not two. Vote no on Kerry, he's better organized? I've read President Bush's brief, and the only thing he's got that Kerry doesn't is the fruity-fruit missile defense system that fails even the tests that are rigged in its favor.

I'm sure there are many others like me
Actually, most of the polls to date say otherwise, Fox News distortions notwithstanding.

On a totally unrelated note: can you enlighten us as to your preference in the 1944 Presidential election?
The difference being that after Pearl Harbor, FDR beat the living hell out of the Nazis and along with our allies smashed the Axis. With Bush, Iraq is a terrorist haven, Afghanistan is back to warlords, North Korea is building more nukes. The only comparison with FDR is that they were both POTUS. Beyond that, the parallels evaporate.

Do you think having a massive tax cut for the richest 1% of Americans while only providing the funds to inspect 2% of the cargo containers coming into the country is a good thing for the nation's security?

Because this is exactly what Bush has done.

BB, in answer to your creative interpretation of my words:

You gotta admit, Malkin is on the fringe. She's so scared that she's grasping at straws (like insisting on cell phones) to maintain her sanity. The cellphone is not going to do anything for you in the even of a real terrorist attack. Much like the duck and cover drills, it's just something she does to keep herself from freaking the f**k out. It's this kind of living in some state of constatly elevated adrenaline levels that gives me the heebie-jeebies. And I wasn't saying that we shouldn't have someone keeping an eye out for us, in the spirit of comparative advantage I'm al for the military. They do a kickass job..kicking..ass. At any rate, I think if people start to tout this 'security mom' thing as a badge of honor, we're going to have some weird stuff going on. Most importantly, what's that bumper sticker gonna look like? A picture of an AK witha pacifier in the background? I'm just saying, lets not raise our kids in a world of 100% fear.
I love you BB,
shank (capital letter not neccessary)

I'm voting on only one issue too - the same issue as you. Problem is I'm a dad not a mom. Is there a T-shirt for us? "Security Dad" or "Security Dude"?

You gotta admit, Malkin is on the fringe.

What... because YOU don't like what she writes? Sorry, Shanky, that's not good enough.

She's so scared that she's grasping at straws (like insisting on cell phones) to maintain her sanity. The cellphone is not going to do anything for you in the even of a real terrorist attack.

You mean other than being able to call police, call family and let them know where you are (and if you're safe), and even use a GPS locator to allow rescue crews to find you in an emergency?

Right. Totally useless.

Much like the duck and cover drills, it's just something she does to keep herself from freaking the f**k out.

If you say so, it must be true. I mean, you have an in-depth knowledge of Malkin's pychological makeup.

You DO have that, right?

It's this kind of living in some state of constatly elevated adrenaline levels that gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Oh, darn, you're uncomfortable. That makes me sad. I mean, it's a bummer that war causes you to feel bad.

You know what gives ME the "heebie-jeebies?" Knowing that there are large numbers of people out there who want me and my family and friends and countrymen dead because I'm not part of their particular interpretation of their religion, and who are willing to kill themselves to accomplish their goals.

And I wasn't saying that we shouldn't have someone keeping an eye out for us, in the spirit of comparative advantage I'm al for the military. They do a kickass job..kicking..ass.

Oh, gee, I'm sorry, I thought you said "The bad men are going to crash planes into us, the bad men are going to poison our water, we need GWB (or somebody) to protect us from the inevitable onslaught of bad men."

Silly me, for responding to what you wrote. I instead should have responded to what you meant, which I could have done telepathically.

Let me explain how it works, Shank.
1) The military kicks ass when:
2) The President ["GWB (or somebody)"] orders them to kick ass and/or when
3) Congress gives the President authorization to order the military to kick ass.

That means we need people in power who are willing to do their jobs, part of which is to protect us from 'bad men.'

At any rate, I think if people start to tout this 'security mom' thing as a badge of honor, we're going to have some weird stuff going on.

Y'know, on my personal "weirdness" scale, 'security mom' doesn't even rate. I'd love (and by love, I mean hate) to hear what you think is normal if something as innocuous as that term bugs you.

Most importantly, what's that bumper sticker gonna look like? A picture of an AK witha pacifier in the background?

Works for me. Anyone wanna get started on that?

I'm just saying, lets not raise our kids in a world of 100% fear.

And who, exactly, is saying we should raise our kids in a world of 100% fear, Shank?

I love you BB,
By the time we had finished with them they were only the shells of men. There was nothing left in them except sorrow for what they had done, and love of Big Brother. It was touching to see how they loved him.

shank (capital letter not neccessary)

It is if you ever expect to pass the first grade.

Hey, I benefitted from Bush's tax cuts -- you mean that makes me part of the "richest 1%"? On a social worker's salary? Go me!

BB, michele doesn't capitalize her m, but I assume you already noticed that (since you ARE big brother), and you were just reserving that little honey coated barb for me. thanks, I really do love you you know.<3.

I never said war made me unduly uncomfortable. I'm fine with the fact that we (as in human kind) resort to violence. It's probably unavoidable, don't tell the Utopians.

And you don't have to be sorry for replying to what I wrote (although your sarcasm-soaked apology and condescencing are appreciated), just don't take everything so seriously that you feel the need to pen a diatribe.

It's not the inocuous term security mom that bothers me, you're just being a little obtuse. It's the inocuous ideaolgy that can come with it. People getting panicky and whipped into a fervor, isn't that the goal of terrorism? Overzealous security moms/dudes might fall into this. To all the security parents out there, do what you must to protect your children, just don't make them wear helments to the mall or bring celly's to day care. There's being alert and ready, and then there's being paranoid and annoying.
BB, tell me about annoying, I know you want to...

"Jacobsen was scared and wanted something done to make her not feel scared. What exactly? Something!"

I am reminded of Kristin Breitweiser's remark after Rumsfeld stated the perfectly rational axiom that there is no such thing as 100% security. She said, "I don't want to hear that. That doesn't make me feel safe." I submit that Breitweiser is a ridiculous twit. Yes: I hate the fact of what she's been through. (I can emphasize this point as much as anyone requires.) In no way, however, does it qualify her to address that facts of the day. That requires a categorically different qualification, namely, thinking. "Feeling" simply is not good enough.

And this is exactly the problem that I have with Jacobsen, specifically, and the whole "Security Mom" jazz, in general. Jacobsen and her husband were content to sit in their seats and shiver instead of taking the simple -- and ancient American, I might add -- expedient of having an adult face-to-face word with the objects of her suspicion. I find this entirely contemptible for all kinds of reasons, but I'm here to point out that if she qualifies as a "Security Mom", then I know women who would do well to distance themsevles from her with alacrity.

If women are going to get in the game, then they should get all the way in. Snivelers don't count.

On 9/11 my cell phone was the only way anyone could get into contact with my and the only way I got hold of my fiance. WE were living in Washington DC. So yea a cell phone came in real handy.

As for port security. Do you guy have any idea how much goes in and out of our ports everyday? Does anyone support searching each and everyone who gets on a plane/train/bus/car? So why should we search every container that comes into a port? Really the thought that we could search every container is such a stupid idea that I don't know why I even let it bother me.

And as for JK senate record, if you admit that you have not gone over the whole thing, then you can't say if he has a good or bad record on military issues. And there have been thousands of people who have gone through Kerry's voting record. From media to bloggers to the RNC and DNC to other Senate offices. Oh and if you think that the RNC or DNC or most media outlets have to start from Kerrys first election until this year to look at his voting record then you really have no idea how politics work.

=studiously ignoring those who just don't get it=

michele ... count me in!

We need a Security Mom Manifesto. Contest time? Apparently there are way too many folks that hear us say we want our country's security and defense to be priority one, and they envision panicked housewives running around in the streets screaming their heads off. I think we need to paint them a very clear picture ... and give ourselves a mission statement, so to speak, that we can rally around and give clarity to the cause.

Earl was here
but now he's gone
I deleted his comment
so carry on

what, only TWO PEOPLE are running for president??


I lost count.

Soli - one more time - in Kerry's plan you like so much - find something regarding anything external to this country.


Of course I have not read his entire record. He's not my Senator (thank God). But I have read enough in the mainstream media to know what he's voted against. Which is every weapons system. And that he wanted to further downsize the military - which he now says is too small.

More importantly, I remember him from 1971. Also his being one of the ones who led the effort to cut off all funding for the South Vietnamese, thereby assuring their fall.

And thanks for the link to his plan. To me, it looks like a lot of locking the barn door after the horse is gone. He wants more responders. That means it's already too late. They will have hit us again.

Also, moving the National Guard to homeland security duties will further weaken the armed forces since they are currently the "round outs" in the TOE.

So sorry, Soli, he does not seem to get it for my money.


Can you find one Senator who has not voted against "every weapon system" by the definition used to make those totally phony press statements? Voting against omnibus defense funding measures when you support an alternate proposal is the "standard" used by hucksters who think the American people are too stupid to figure that out. Look at the RNC brief. Here's what they got (see the footnotes):

  • S. 3189
  • H.R. 5803
  • H.R. 2126

What exactly are those bills? I looked them up. Did our amazingly lazy press corps (or you)? There are 13 footnotes going to only 3 bills. That means in 20 years Kerry voted against at least 2 omnibus military spending bills (one of the H.R. is the House-Senate conference on S. 3189). None of them are votes on specifically about weapons systems. All of them were in cases where there was a proposed alternative where all the listed weapon systems were supported.

You want to find me something serious to criticize Kerry with? RNC totally fails my 10 minute dunce test. You can check it out, use thomas. Has Kerry voted against some weapons systems? Yes (not in the bills listed, but in other specific bills). So has almost every sitting Senator, particularily those who have been around since before the end of the cold war. Does voting to reduce or elimiate obsolete weapons systems make someone weak on defense? I keep looking for Marines with long bows from those "strong on defense" fellows. Having only the most current tech is part of the reason our flexible fighting force can kill Iraqi insurgents at a 20:1 ratio.

Kerry wanted to downsize the military shortly after the end of the cold war, but now he wants to make it bigger. Sounds like he's a conservative. Maybe you should find a Senator you like and follow his voting record. On these issues, it will be exactly like Kerry's (unless you pick a real uber Liberal).

About responders, no matter who you pick for President, we will not be 100% secure. Therefore, responders are critical. Luckily neither major candidate is sticking their heads in the sand by ignoring this issue. I happen to like Kerry's proposal and hope that President Bush will adopt it as well.


“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.” -John Kerry

Soli, wading through the arcana of the Senate is not for me.
I have read several places that Kerry has voted repeatedly to cancel or cut back modern weapons systems, not obsolete ones. That really doesn't matter.
It matters what he said in testimony in 1971. It matters that he threw away his medals - oh wait, no he didn't. But he said he did, then that he didn't.
It matters that he embraces liars (Wilson) and thieves (Berger).
It matters that he has no apparent priciples at all - only a blind desire to be President. He will say anything to anyone to reach that goal. Even if those things are complete opposites. Frankly, the "voting for it before I voted against it" is a real classic.

I doubt I'll change your opinion, which is fine. But I understand where Michele is coming from on this post.

Wow, the idea of mothers (all women?) being concerned about security and safety in the face of terrorism really brings out the creeps. I'm not even going to bother to speculate about the possible psychological impetus behind the reactions of Oliver, skank -- oops, I mean shank, Soli, Billy Beck (my personal favorite, coming from the other side of the political rainbow -- what the fuck was Jacobsen supposed to do, Beck, beat the nearest Syrian over the head with her food tray? I think if she'd been a female Bruce Li she'd have mentioned it), et al.

Oh what am I saying! Never mind. The wimmin are just getting hysterical again! Silly hormonal beings. They should quit worrying their pretty little heads about all this war stuff and just sit back and let the Democrat mens take care of everything.


Trust me, the average media moron knows much much less about the arcana of the Senate then you do. Stuff they write about this: not credible. They only people who have the time and energy to look through enough of this crap to make a case either way are all completely biased (either Democratic or Republican), and they know that most people won't bother to follow up.

His testimony in 1971 was 1) just stating the position of the "Winter Soldier" confessors (it turned out they were liars ... however, Kerry reported their testimony to the Senate accurately, which was his job). He also testified that he and thousands of others participated in "Free Fire" zones, which no one disagrees with.

He threw away little bits of ribbon with metal bits attatched to them. Some people call these ribbons (they are for pinning on uniform, not the fancy medal in the case). The navy guide book refers to them as medals. It matters that he did this, but it certainly doesn't matter that the press is too lazy to clear it up when there are no facts in dispute.

Wilson does look pretty pathetic. Kerry should denounce Wilson for being a screw-up, but it's a minor aggrivation for me. I think there's something else about that case you could mention too if you want to be intellectually honest. Berger is off the Kerry campaign the second his lack of seriousness in regards to security came to light, so good for Kerry.

No principles? You're absolutely in the wrong on most of your facts and you can't even back up the ones you're right on (he has voted against some modern weapon systems in favor of others), so you're down to ad hominem.

As for the $87 billion, if you want to talk about liars, anyone who says he didn't vote for "it" is a liar, because they are trying to say there was just one option. John Kerry voted for $87 billion where we would roll back some tax cuts to pay for it instead of borrowing, once again showing his fiscal conservatism. If you want to know about security, how about who is the only leader to cut taxes in war-time in American history.

At this point, it's clear I won't change your opinion, because you're just reciting talking points which have been absolutely demolished by every independant analysis.

Andrea Harris,

What should she have done? Nothing, she did the right thing on the plane. Why the @#%@# are you putting my name on this list? I think she could have figured out that the air marshals also did the right thing.

Because of all your other comments, Soli, and your general sneering manner. Deal with it.

Andrea Harris,

Because of all your other comments, Soli, and your general sneering manner.

I can't disagree with that. With your caveat, I agree 100% with two of your posts in a row. I think this makes a record for us.

so, basically everyone agrees that there are only TWO people to vote for in November, two people who belong to different arms of the same party, two Bonesmen, two proven liars.
Either Kerry Or Bush. Neither really worthy of the position. same ol' same ol' same ol'. Vote for the christian fundie or the waffler war vet. Only two choices.
Can't waste your vote, even though your vote counts for shnit. Electoral will choose for you anyway, so why bother.
Either way, we are screwed.

Andrea -- I count several "wimmen" among my personal friends on whom I would rely for real in a close-quarters fight in an airplane if it came to that, so whether you can put away your fascination with "psychological impetus" or not, none of that means shit to me. Get it? Fine, then. Let's see if we can carry on sensibly.

I don't know if you know who you're talking about when you run up that "Democratic mens" rubbish so shortly after my name, but I bloody well know the differences between the mitigated disaster of George Bush and the unmitigated disaster through which John Kerry would drag us. And if you're really interested in an answer to your question, then it goes like this:

Yes: she should have "beat[en] the nearest Syrian over the head with her food tray" if she was so convinced of the rampant evil that it had her "overwhelmed with terror". At the very least, she might have nudged that dink husband of hers and had him do it, except that he was equally convinced that everybody was going to die balled up in a flaming airliner, with the result that he was no more prepared to face what they both thought was a manifest threat than she was. Here's the trick, though: they obviously didn't think it was serious enough that they might have to fight for their lives. "Security mom"? I hoot all day long at the ridiculous pretense. That fucking stoopit cow.

Here is a fact, any way you slice it: they were both wrong. How wrong? They were so wrong that the air marshals on that flight wondered if she and the dink were running a scam in order to flush their cover.

Try to understand: when the air marshal told The Dink Husband "We don't freak out in situations like this," he was putting the boy in his proper place, which, unfortunately, the boy soon forgot. He was on my TEEVEE within a day, puttin' on the shakes like it was his big rock show.

(Listen: are you getting the "psychological impetus", yet, or do I have to drag The Dink Husband around some more for you?)

You think you're facing facts? Let me tell you something, luv: if the whistle ever blows while you're within arm's reach of the action, you'd better take up your "food tray" and get with it, because it's your ass on the line. Or: you can sit there and shake, and then die.

Your call.

No charge. I'm always happy to help.

Woo! I am knocked flat on my back by your macho cred! I have a sudden urge to bear your children and clean your boots!

Oh wait -- that was just gas. Never mind.

I clean my own boots, and I decided fifteen years ago that I would never have children. You're a little slow on the draw.

I'm sorry I wasted your time taking you seriously.

Aw.... I wounded to the co-ah!

Seriously, does anyone else here think that the woman had grounds for doing whatever it is Mr. Beck thinks she could have done? Let's review: the Syrians were acting oddly enough -- to her -- so that her suspicions were aroused, BUT they hadn't actually done anything. Let's review: they went to the bathroom a little too often and in too many bunches. There was some doohickey with a McDonald's bag. They conversed quietly with each other in their own language. One of more of them may have glared at Jacobsen in a hostile manner (though by that time she may have had her perceptions colored by her emotions). Sure, all my alarm bells would have been going off. But beyond watching and noticing, what else (seriously, not kung fu stunts or other nonsense) could an unarmed and inexperienced passenger do in that situation? Only realistic solutions, please.

Look, Soli, I don't echo talking points. I have never once in my life read a briefing from either party. I have never once in my life voted a party line ticket. I have never once contributed money to a campaign or worked for any candidate. So I'm not a good card carrying member of the VRWC.

I agree the press is lazy and extremely partisan. I agree they mostly get it wrong.

But if you can ask me to be intellectually honest, let me ask the same. Did Kerry veer hard to the left during the primaries to appeal to the people who might have otherwise voted for Dean. Did Kerry then alter his positions to come more to the center? Knowing full well that a hard left stance would not win.

I won't pretend otherwise, I do not like the man and have not since 1971. So you're right, you won't change my opinion. By the way, you might want to read the Winter Soldier testimony. He stated a lot of the things he said as fact. Some he said was what others had stated. But some was stated as fact.


Saddly, with the way our press works, you have to actually read the briefs from both parties in order to avoid echoing talking points (by knowing what the talking points of the day are before they get jackhammered into your skull). I am sorry I misjudged you, although you were repeating talking points however you came by them.

Yes, I agree (and have never said otherwise) that John Kerry veered left during the competitive part of the primary and is now coming back to the center. I do find this disgusting. I also balance this against the very great service he did for our country by keeping Howard Dean off the November ballot, leaving us with a ticket that will provide for the security of this country no matter who wins.

As for the Winter Soldier investigation, I have read it in several formats. The Kerry statement as well as the Freeper version. Here's the accusations Kerry made (my own summary) that were not just from the "Winter Soldiers:"

1) There were "free-fire" zones
2) American bombs hit civilians
3) Body counts were being falsified

He probably over-stated how common all these things were (by not giving any indication of how common they were, he seems to be implying that they happened all the time). However, from my understanding of Vietnam, all these accusations were more true then the converse "pro-war" negation at the time. Here is the Spinsanity debunking of some of the press reports you may have read and not recognized as talking points.

"But beyond watching and noticing, what else (seriously, not kung fu stunts or other nonsense) could an unarmed and inexperienced passenger do in that situation?"

Well, by some un-earthly miracle, she could get home, and then run around like a chicken with her hormones gouged out.

That always works.


I have read the Spinsanity articles on many things, including the one where "Kerry voted against body armor" is debunked. I never said that. I understand the difference.
I remember Kerry being against specific weapons systems from various news reports through the years. Can't recall all the specifics, but I seem to remember sound bites about B2 bombers and other things. (I remember some of these because I do recall Kerry from 1971 as I've said before.)
That's from the old days when I actually watched the evening news. My memories may be faulty, but I don't think so.
At any rate, I've read the actual winter soldier testimony, not an altered version. I actually remember reading it when it was made. I believe he smeared decent and honorable men. And I believe he did it for his own personal gain. The same with the medal incident. The same with the veer left. It's an unacceptable pattern for me.
So we're not going to change each other's minds, let's leave it at that.

Yeah, that's real helpful, you Real Man™ you.

Oops -- my reply was to Mister Beck.


I'm okay with agreeing to disagree. I'll leave you with the words of a radical leftist:

Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. - An American President in a State of the Union Address [emphasis mine]

Who was this nigh-on communist, this hater of America who could be so backwards as to boast of the stripping to the bone of America's defenses? Who could it be now? ;) Also, who was his Secretary of Defense, who could stand by, or even support, his president in such an unpatriotic enterprise?

Seriously, defense spending is a delicate issue, not something to toss around willy-nilly in sound bites. I want our Congress and our President, whichever party they are from, to know that, if Air Force recommends building F-22's instead of B-2's, or B-2's instead of F-22's, they should be able to make a good decision based on the security of this country, and not be influenced by the injection of partisian political cheap shots.

I am concerned, deeply concerned about the defense of this country and the ability of our military to be the best and continue to kick ass and take names. I would be a Bush voter in a second if the Democratic party nominated someone who wasn't ready and willing to assume the responsibility for our military. You can look at John Kerry's record, and what it shows me is that he's someone who's willing to stand on principle and vote for the best interests of our soldiers, not just the easy road that would let him avoid criticisms like this. I've also seen the same signs from President Bush (although, to his credit, John Kerry has not been taking those cheap shots). All in all, I'm happy with both tickets on this issue.

I remember him opposing development of the B2, but I may be wrong.

But I think we've flogged this one enough.


As far as I know, the details of B-2 developement are still classified. I'm not sure how you could possibly have any information about it. I do know that what you suggest is absolutely impossible, because John Kerry first became a Senator in 1984 (which was many years after the B-2 development, although before the first time it ever came to Congress above the board in 1988).

Sorry, I just can't help it. I will shut up on this now, I promise.

I just gotta wonder how these gritty 'security moms' would react to their sons' and daughters' disfigured bodies being shipped home from overseas in a box...

Charming, "southerner." Have many friends?

Southerner must really hate Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis for starting that civil war thing. Must think that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were evil men, along with Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

And that George Washington. Fucking murderer!

Thanks for dishonoring everyone who's had a family member serve in combat, southerner dipshit.

My point, for those of you too dim to get it, is that words are often just words - everyone's a badass until a gun and a uniform is thrust into their hands, or their kids' hands, in this case. And I was just wondering if this tough talk would actually get these moms through the sacrifice of their kids dying in battle.

And oh yeah, I did serve in combat, as did my dad, both my grandfathers and my great-grandfathers. Don't even think about giving me your 'dishonoring' speech, Dean. Waste it on someone else.

And oh yeah - thanks for calling at Gulf War I vet (me) a dipshit. Hope you replay this treatment for our returning Iraqi troops ten years from now.

Of course you are a vet and therefore we should kiss your ass. Because as we all know, no one ever lies about such things or uses them as an argument-ending tactic.

Andrea Harris,

The implication that southerner might be claiming veteran status "as an argument-ending tactic" might have a little more validity if you actually had an argument (with logic and facts and stuff like that) instead of spouting ad hominem bile.

Yo, Security Moms, just who the hell do you think Bush is going to send to fight his ongoing war on terror?


To Disgusted. Who do I expect Bush to send? My Childern? Yes, or at least one of them. My daughter is career army. She went to the first Gulf War and was part of the force that invaded Iraq that time. She has just come back from Korea and expects her unit to be sent to Iraq soon. Her husband is also career army. He also was in the first Gulf War and has already been to Iraq this year and expects his unit to go back sometime early next year if not sooner. So yes I do expect my child to go.

WORRIED ABOUT YOUR KIDS? ask President Bush why he allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. Apparently he is more interested in the NRA than he is the safety of your children. Have we forgotten the children of Columbine or Georgia, or perhaps New Mexico? FACT: More childern have assaulted or killed other childern with guns than terrosits have on American soil...in American schools. Now if you are worried about terrists in this country, you should be concerend that the Bush Administration just gave them more weapons to choose from.I think you should have serious concern about an AK47 ending up at your child's school. I'm afraid the political "spin" has gotten women in this country frantic for the lives of their kids. Please lets not forget what is happening in our own backyard. Write George Bush and Tom Ridge ask them how they could have let this happen... we don't want the children of today becoming terrorists tomorrow. It's the very least you can do.


Look at your children that you love so much. Look at their school pictures. Do you really want to add to your collection of their precious pictures with a picture of them in a military uniform???

I love my teenage daughters, and that's why I'm voting for JOHN KERRY!

It's time for a fresh start!

Despite the obvious reasons stated by several others above, I would like to remind you that the attacks on September 11th were carried out using box cutters and our own airplanes from within our borders. Further, I would like to ask you what the prupose of our National Guard is? If Bush keeps sending them overseas who will be left here to protect us? You are the worst threat to your children because you are not well informed about the issues.

Security Moms,
Thank you for your hard work. I first heard of you on FoxNews. I know that you have gotten very large. My request for you, Security Moms, is to help me get the word out on these movie stars that should stick to acting instead of politics. Barbara Streisand will be appearing in the next "Meet the Parent" sequal coming soon. I want to boycott that movie. Ben Afflec, Leonardo Decaprio?, Matt Damon, and many more. If we stop going to their movies, they won't have any money to donate to the democratic party. NEED YOUR HELP!!!!! THANK YOU.