Posted on 01/09/2015 6:39:59 PM PST by smoothsailing
January 9, 2015
The Islamic terror attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo was carried out by Muslim criminals who were apparently trained in Yemen. Meanwhile, national security officials are warning of an imminent threat to Europe and the United States from jihadi soldiers who are returning from the wars in Syria and Iraq. According to the head of the FBI and other first responders there is no way to stop their re-entry because, after all, they have American passports. Nor is there any way to stop them in Syria and Iraq since Obama has surrendered both countries to our enemies. The Democratic mayor of New York — ground zero for the Islamic War — has even stopped the surveillance of jihadi mosques, the breeding grounds for domestic “lone wolves.” And with our southern border shredded by Obama and the Democrats it’s not going to be difficult even for foreign jihadis to get to their infidel targets. Of course, Obama doesn’t like the word “terror” to begin with, let alone “Islamic terror.” Thanks to him, the Islamic war against the United States is officially referred to as an “overseas contingency operation,” while domestic Islamic mayhem is filed under the category: “workplace violence.”
Fourteen years after 9/11 it is tragically clear that President Bush was right about the threat we faced and Democrats suicidally wrong. The 9/11 attacks were indeed a salvo in the war Islamists have declared on us but even now, fourteen years later, Democrats still want to regard such attacks as acts of individual criminality, and deal with them through the legal justice system, affording American rights to those who want to destroy American rights. Why, you may ask yourself, is the Boston Marathon bomber going to be tried in a criminal court of law, where he will be able to make propaganda for his cause underwritten by his victims? Because Democrats want it that way. It shows we’re superior to everybody else.
Nine days after 9/11 President Bush addressed both houses of Congress to outline his response to the terror attacks. This is what he said about states that harbor Islamic terrorists, like Yemen and Syria:
We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
When the president had completed his remarks, these were precisely the sentences that were singled out for attack by the political left. To progressives Bush was a tyrant in the making and they took his warning personally: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Unfortunately, even though Bush was not thinking of them in uttering these words, he might as well have been. When Bush decided to take on the terrorist-supporting, UN-defying regime of Saddam Hussein, Democrats went into full war mode against him, against the “war on terror” and against America’s mission to defeat the al-Qaeda armies that had assembled in Iraq. Their sabotage of the war went on for five years, making it impossible for Bush to take on the terror-supporting regimes in Syria, Iran and elsewhere.
The Obama regime is the product of this momentous Democratic defection from America’s purposes, from a robust defense of the American homeland, and from a militant response to the war that Islamists have declared on us. Why is there still a free flow of immigration from nations, like Yemen, that support or tolerate the Islamist armies ranged against us? Why isn’t our southern border secure? It is because the Obama regime, with support from Democrats in Congress, regards security measures against terror supporting states to be “Islamophobic,” and regards securing our southern border to be xenophobic. Why isn’t Obama embracing General Sisi and an Egyptian regime that has declared the Islamists to be enemies of the Islamic world? It is because Obama is committed to the Muslim Brotherhood – the fount of al-Qaeda – and against this same Egyptian regime.
Will the massacre in Paris — a repellent assault on free speech in the name of the “Prophet Mohammed” — wake up the Democrats and the Obama White House, and end their appeasement of Islamic terror? Unfortunately this is unlikely. Their leader is a lifetime, America-despising radical who has shown little appetite for changing course. It remains to be seen whether other Democrats will attribute their recent electoral drubbing to the weak-kneed security policies of the appeaser-in-chief, and find the voice to oppose him. But if they don’t, it is a safe bet that this country is in for some bloody consequences.
Hard not to appreciate Bush’s clarity.
Uhh, David, did you forget when he said, “Islam is a religion of peace”?
We all know that was just a political sop.
Saudi money buys a lot of influence.
I think he probably enjoyed saying that while he was raining hell down on them. HA!
Yemen, by the way, was the only Warsaw Pact country controled by Moscow during the Cold War in the Middle East.
Sep 23, 2010 - During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack”
I wish he would have stuck to that policy.
Actually I think he said “Islam is a peaceful religion.” This was when he was in the oval office right after 911 and he was teary eyed.
But he was still pretty hard on Islamic terrorism.
Right is right, dfwgator.
We should have leveled the middle east parts of asia and kareem and alis homes
I stopped reading this at the top.
No way to stop them from entering because they have passports, etc.
So if we had a bank robber or a murderer who was returning with his passport, we would welcome him?
Yes, we would with a cop, handcuffs and a vacation in the jail.
We should do the same with anyone who fought with terrorists on the grounds that they were either fighting or training to fight against our country.
But that said, these people are not nearly as dangerous as those who sneak across the Mexican border.
It is estimated that between 2010 and 2013, 300,000 people from the Middle East have entered via the Mexican border.
The story I read said that the number from the Middle East presently is running higher than that of Mexicans plus all illegals from mid America combined.
If four or six guys could shut down France and tie up 90,000 people actively searching for them, the 300,000 number should be of interest.
Of course not all of them are terrorists, but if even 10% are......
The Democrats finally beat him down, but for about 6 years he stayed the course. But even after he started to fade, he remained stronger and more resolute than anything we’ve seen in the age of Oblabla.
Bush was mostly right. But he made two huge mistakes.
1) He didn’t have the balls to name and frame islam as the real problem, and
2) He didn’t fight to utterly defeat the enemy, either in Afghanistan or Iraq.
He allowed his hands to be tied by PC. Consequently, didn’t defeat the cancer that is islam; he clumsily excised *part* of it, but left the rest to grow and spread, thereby helping to seed the world with its malignancy.
"Either you are with us or you are for the terrorists."
~~George W. Bush
Yes, that WAS incorrect for him to say. However, I thought it to be best for the moment. Think how America would have reacted if he had said the entirety of Islam was responsible.
It was all new to most Americans who don’t follow foreign affairs.
It sure appears that way. Heck, it is that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.