Did We "Overreact" to 9/11?

Raising the 9/11 Flag

How do you "overreact" to the mass murder of 3,000 innocent men, women, and CHILDREN by Islamic terrorists? And today, how do you react to Islamic terrorists putting a bullet into each head of survivors of a downed helicopter in Iraq? You don't. You go in and KILL every one of these sobs you can before they can kill any more innocent people. You don't try to "debate" them. They aren't amenable to debate. You don't ask them why they hate us. They've already told us. It's simply because we don't believe the same way they do, so they want to KILL us. Every one. We aren't going to dissuade them from this by meekly asking, "Why do you hate us?". We're only going to be able to dissuade them when THEY'RE dead. This is World War III, and THEY'VE declared it. Did we "overreact" to the complete destruction of our Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor? I don't think so. When you're faced with an enemy who simply wants to kill you, you simply kill HIM.

This article in the L. A. Times asking that question and giving examples of times when we have "overreacted" offends me. The monumental stupidity displayed by the writer amazes me. This is an AMERICAN. He says our losses (so far) are dwarfed by those suffered by the Soviet Union during WW III. So what? What we're doing today (and Iraq is but ONE theater) is to make sure WE don't suffer such losses in the future. Yes, they're small now. But if we allow them to grow stronger and stronger, one day they'll have a nuclear device and blow up an entire city. Maybe Los Angeles. You don't stop such people by "surrendering" to them. You stop them by KILLING them. Watch for the liberal press to promote the ideas he has spelled out. His ideas are simply the "end result" of what they've already been preaching. (Rush Limbaugh, 1/29/07)