...Should President George W Bush have fulfilled his promises, bin Laden would be in custody, and New York City would have been reimbursed for the entire amount expensed by an event that was no fault of our own. Would there be a cause to protest this White House administration?...
On this third anniversary of terrorist attacks in New York City we may only conclude one fact: Osama bin Laden is still-at-large (as of this publication.) He is tagged by the White House, and President Bush, as the mastermind behind the 9-11 plot. Bin Laden's al Qaeda organization would have undoubtedly planned the attack for years, and with the calculatingly secretive detail of a pedophile preparing to prey upon a child. Their first attempt was minimal, their second attempt struck gold.
In the days after 9-11, President George W Bush made two promises to the people of New York City;
The full cost of the 9-11 terrorist attacks -- taking into account the stock market crash, jobs lost, death of nearly 3,000, and the structural costs of both the Pentagon and the World Trade Center complex -- is at best a guess. Deaths cannot be measured in financial cost. On the first anniversary of 9-11, total material cost approached $83 billion and in 2004 the figure tops $95 billion to New York alone. It is estimated that al Qaeda's financial cost of conducting the strikes against New York was $500,000, or a $5 bet rewarding a $1 million casualty claim.
As of the third anniversary date, our president has come through with $11.3 billion to New York City so far.... it is unclear whether an additional $4 billion will be given; however the $21 billion figure originally promised will not hold true. New York City, by itself, paid at least $83 billion towards 9-11 expenses -- or the same figure as the total price of exports for the country of Brasil -- South America's largest economy.
And yet, President Bush and the Republican National Convention (RNC) visited New York for a celebration of sorts -- the president's re-election bid. The cost to the city was approximately $75 million. Business owners say the RNC shut them down. Business sales were less than half of normal during the week meant to embrace George W Bush.
During the RNC, protesters took to the streets of New York. On the first day of protests, between 500,000 and 700,000 marched in Manhattan and carried the message; "We hate George W Bush."
Clearly there exist many issues from which voters may call upon the president to clarify. But upon this third anniversary, we shall pause for one paragraph of idealism. Should President Bush have fulfilled his promises, bin Laden would be in custody, and New York City would have been reimbursed for the entire amount expensed by an event that was no fault of our own. Would there be a cause to protest this White House administration? Under such idealism, the president would, and rightly so, be able to say he met his promise against the terrorist mastermind who struck gold on US-soil with loyal followers -- self-proclaimed Bush-haters. There would simply be no argument that our president met the challenge; but he wears bulletproof clothing for a good reason.
How is it that I know more people (than not) who hold the deepest contempt for George W Bush, and in fact would cheer upon a successful assassination? The level of hatred for this president is beyond the level of hate I have seen for any one person alive, with the exception of one group of people (pedophiles.)
What would be the root cause of such disdain for President Bush?
Has he victimized, spun lies into truth, tricked the voters, or earned distrust? The lengths and sacrifices made by a handful of --wealthy-- celebrities is an odd reaction towards someone who is pure and honest. Whoopi Goldberg lost a lucrative advertising income, Sean Penn lost two film roles, The Dixie Chicks saw their record sales plummet, Bruce Springsteen lost thousands of fans, Linda Ronstadt was escorted out of the Aladdin Hotel -- simply because these people spoke against George W Bush. A fraction of the celebrity population overall -- but a group nonetheless who put their personal thoughts ahead of making money. Perhaps under the covers of corporate layoff in 2004, I too could find my employer didn't approve of my personal stand, indeed hatred, against this White House.
It is a stretch to hate someone without first knowing them personally, which as a theory would not support the attempts to discredit both President Bush and White House contender John Kerry. Maybe the new trend is to hate without knowing why.... Under my definition of hatred, the target individual must create such tremendous chaos; cause such emotional damage and outrage; not simply have broken trust, but raped your trust; and perhaps even physically harmed the ill-will wisher, correct? I can only think of one other profile that fits -- and that is the profile of a pedophile. The man behind the child's victimization is a great public relations man.... he tricks the lesser intelligent being into trust and confidence; he embraces the child with a hug and just the most subtle grab to the groin that adults don't see; then he rapes you... and counts upon the child's imagination to keep silent and moves on to invade another victim.
President Bush certainly is not a pedophile -- that much I know about him from the one and only conversation he and I had while he was the governor of Texas. We discussed pedophilia. He hates pedophiles, although not nearly as much as I do. However, Gov. George W Bush thought that pedophiles could be cured through castration. I knew better. "Governor Bush, I would support the removal of the pedophile's arms, that would ensure he could not touch another child. Castration does not protect children from the grip of a predator's hands," I said. He signed the first state law allowing (voluntary) castration of imprisoned pedophiles in May 1997. He said the problem is solved.
Castration involves removing an individual's testicles, which denies him testosterone and reduces his sexual impulses.
Pedophiles use their hands.
The operation provides a false sense of protection that the inability to ejaculate somehow equates to his lack of desire to play with a child and provide sexual stimulation to that child -- mission not accomplished. But castration sounds equally as cruel to a most deserving scumbag who molests a child, in other words, it is a great public relations spin intended to strike an emotional wave of support, and yet there is no measurement of success.
Castration is akin to the same emotional idea of spreading "freedom and liberty" around the world. The surgery does not end the pedophile's ability to molest, and freedom and liberty is simply not meant for this world of nearly 7 billion people, human nature does not work this way, unfortunately.
Gov. Bush used emotionally charged, and factually incorrect data, to seek support for his Texas law that appears to protect children. As president he used emotionally charged claims from 9-11 to invade two countries -- both of which we still occupy -- and to snap us to attention whenever 'chatter' hits of a new threat. He uses his hands to spread liberty and freedom, to use his own words, and like castration, there is no followup check for success.
The emotionally charged rationale behind 9-11, and the government discourse since, is as clear as laws designed to protect children -- both ideas are suspect, and have no measurements of success. The child, of his own internal recognition, can claim success through his own determination in life. Terrorists determined their success through their own determination as well. Half of Manhattanites believe President Bush knew terrorists would strike the WTC on election day, 11 September 2001, just as Franklin D Roosevelt knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor after his threat. On 14 September 2001, when President Bush first visited New York City; he again told us that we will "git-em."
His re-election campaign is based, now, solely upon 9-11 and "freeing" Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and spreading liberty throughout Iraq. However, Iraq is the child to this story, and that country is now in foster care, and equally as vulnerable to political pedophiles. President Bush says the problem is solved.
Bin Laden acts as the arms to our 9-11 story, maybe. And he remains free to molest, maybe. For I ask, do we know for certain that bin Laden accepted full responsibility for 9-11? We are, after all, taking the emotional side, the hand-shake if you will, along with what the White House claims to be true. These are words from the same White House that claims no responsibility for Iraqi causalities -- a number of which is four times higher than deaths from 9-11.
No city in the United States felt the impact of 9-11 as deeply, and as personally as New York. No television image, no film clip, no essay, no word-of-mouth story did, nor ever will replace the eyewitness of horror -- unbelievable horror -- of that day. We were outraged at not only what happened to this city, but outraged by a White House that has not fulfilled its mission and promises. They protect the crime and massage the words to spin and deflect the truth -- just like a pedophile. From my simple life of 41 years, I recollect two days that will never find resolve; 26 December 1978 -- at the hands of pedophile; and 11 September 2001 in the arms of President George W Bush.