9/11 did we make a mistake?

On September 11, 2001 the world as we knew it changed. It was the day that no american ever expected to see in their lifetimes. An attack on multiple sites at a massive scale on American soil. The country of the free and the brave was given a black eye, beaten down and left on the ground crying. The attack, perpetrated by al-Qaeda, turned  our own planes into missiles that went straight into the leadership of our military in the Pentagon and our financial power house in the world trade center. Almost three thousand lives where lost that day. It was more than the lives taken in Pearl Harbor and once again it had awaken a sleeping giant.

The attack change the blundering Bush administration from a vacationing President to as he called himself a "War President" with War in his mind. It also changed the American psyche forever. It made terrorism something that no longer happened in other places but could happen to them at anytime. That fear was then played up by the Bush administration to make sweeping changes to our government and country. The administration led the country into two wars. In October 2011 with support from various NATO nations we invaded Afghanistan with the purpose of finding Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda. Later the administration started making the case to invade Iraq and according to Bush's Treasury Secretary,  Paul O'Neill, the administration was intent in removing Saddam Hussein from power prior to the terrorist attack on 9/11. The administration claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and wanted to use them on the United States. In an address to the nation on March 22, 2003 President Bush stated "our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." According to an article by Joby Warrick of the Washington Post WMDs or biological weapons where never found.

The administration also took this opportunity to create a new behemoth of an organization to rule all other intelligence agencies. The Department of Homeland security was born out of this chaos, not to mention the growth of what the Washington Post investigation called "Top Secret America"where over 850,000 people have top security clearances and large corporations are involved in this new business for profit. The patriot act was also created during this time and it gave those agencies broad scope in powers that allowed them to eaves drop on all American citizens.

The administration used the terrorist attack to push this country into a war on terrorism. The reaction and response to the terrorist attack was overkill. It created fear and suffering not only in this country but through out the world. The intent presented to the public was to make america safe from terrorism.

There are various people that believe the war with Iraq was worth it. James Phillips Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation stated that "...the Iraq war was a risk worth taking". Abraham Sofaer George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution stated "...the war was worth the cost, for one reason above all: It freed the world of a dangerous, determined, and irrational leader..." CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate believes that we are much safer now in this new world than what we were in 2001. He believes we have better intelligence sharing and cooperation around the world. He states "the proof is in the pudding we've disrupted plots". The 9/11 Commission 10 year report card in conclusion states "Today, our country is undoubtedly safer and more secure

than it was a decade ago."

This is America's longest war and it hasn't succeeded in making America safer or stopping terrorism in the world. As the Tenth Anniversary Report Card: The Status of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations states in the conclusion of their report "We have damaged our enemy,  but the ideology of violent Islamist extremism is alive and  attracting new adherents, including right here in our own country". According to a recent study conducted by a collaboration of Universities and the Iraqi government there have been 500,000 deaths in Iraq alone. Think about how many of those family left suffering blame their condition to United States rash decision to go to war. We are no closer to winning this war on terror. We have provided the necessary anger, frustration, hate needed for disenfranchised Muslims to join in bin Laden's Jihad for years to come. In the process we have lost 8,400 precious soldiers and over 50,000 of those brave souls have sustained injuries. We have spent 1.7 trillion dollars in the war in Iraq alone and now a Harvard study projects that in the decades to come the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan war will reach 4 to 6 trillion dollars. The wars during the Bush administration created ill will towards America. Committed billions of dollars into destroying a country and then trying to rebuild the same. All the while American citizens where losing their jobs and homes and where constantly being stressed out with warnings of possible terrorist attacks. America is worst off now than it was prior to the wars.

It's alive...welcome to the Super PAC

In the year 2008 a new change in the law was introduced in the United States. It was the year that Supreme Court ruled on the Citizen's United vs. FEC (Federal Election Commission) case in favor of Citizen's United. The ruling allowed corporations and organizations for the first time to have the same rights as U.S. citizens. Specifically the ruling would give the first amendment right of freedom of speech to corporations. This change can be a game changer for democracy it has the power to empower a broader conversation within our political system. A level of transparency can be seen from the listing of donors for each of the Super PACs. At the same time there is an influx of large sums of money that are used to gain a media advantage over the competition which can be unfair.

‘My Super PAC Can Beat Up Your Super PAC!’

The conservatives are claiming that this move is "good for democracy". They believe because of the ruling there will be an increase in the "number of voices in campaigns". David Bossie from Citizen United said it was a victory for the first amendment and the "...fundamental rights of people to participate in the political process and the market place of ideas". They claim to be spreading awareness and education. The supporters of the decision don't see the corporations as evil entities. They see corporations as "legitimate enterprises" that should have the right to express the companies political views. Cleta Mitchell from Foley & Lardner LLC stated "the bigger the business in America the more politically correct it is". They see the ruling as a way to level the playing field which allows conservatives to have better exposure in the media. The conservatives believe if we don't let corporations and associations voice their political views then we are limiting our democracy.

The liberals on the other hand are afraid that the influx of corporate money, the possibility of billions, will harm the political process by allowing the Super PACs to manipulate the results of an election. They believe that with enough money an election can be purchased via the use of political ads to influence the voter base. They specifically worry about the influence to those citizens with limited education. Another if not greater fear is that corporations will back conservatives over liberals because of their "pro business" stance in the GOP party. However, with that being said they also believe that it gives corporations "too much power" in this country's political process.That it allows the Super PACs to run ads that may not be accurate or "downright manipulative", but allows a candidate to safely claim it wasn't their doing.

Student body Super PAC by DAVID FITZSIMMONS

ABC-Washington Post poll results

Once again I'm with the liberal point of view on this one. I don't think it's a good idea for corporations to have the first amendment right. The corporations speech should be limited to selling their product or services and providing customer support. A corporation is a group of people and as individuals they can voice their personal political views just like any other citizen. The conservatives would like you to believe that it levels the playing field and allows an increase in the number of voices in a campaign. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of us our voices are drowned in the political process. The top 25 donors to the Super PAC's in 2012 gave over $300 million dollars, with the Adelson family given a whopping $93 Million. How can a regular Joe compete with those numbers? The reporter Rachel Maddow in MSNBC said "...what's the point in individual people trying to influence politics with their donations if Exxon or some other company can quite literally match and therefore cancel out the combined donation of every single individual donor in the nation whenever it wants". That's a very scary prospect that our political system can be even more unresponsive to the people and cater even further to big business. Lastly let point you to a 2010 ABC-Washington Post poll done in Feb. 4-8, 2010 that showed %80 of individuals opposed the ruling. Ironic that a country founded by the people for the people now gives rights to corporations, which sole purpose is to make money, and with their money the corporations have a bigger voice than the people.