Bush Was 100% Right After 9/11

FrontPage Magazine ^ | 1-9-2014 | David Horowitz

[haroldeveryman]

” We didn’t lose because we didn’t have the will or capacity to win, or were afraid of the sacrifice. We lost because because our evil politicians refused to let us win.”

Exactly.The war in Vietnam was won by the South. North Vietnam’s General Giap even said so. The South Vietnamese Army was in complete control of every South Vietnamese province.

Then the Democrats defunded U.S. aid to the South in order to use the “savings” to fund welfare. The result was the collapse and massive slaughter of South Vietnamese and Cambodians.

[Pelham]

“There’s no doubt in my mind George Bush is a deceiver. He sure fooled me. “

He chose Karl Rove for a reason. And it wasn’t because Rove would keep him honest.

“I assume W knows who he’s talking about when he says “Lord”.”

I assume that religion was little more than the higher power necessary to get him to stop drinking. The 12 step program thing. That’s the extent of his interest. Other than that he’s the sort of incurious boob who thinks that the major world religions are just the same. He believes all that garbage that he was spouting about Islam being peaceful and loving and just like Christianity.

[wardaddy]

Man what a dumbass

[Nervous Tick]

It’s politics, man, and there’s an argument to be made that moderate Muslims aren’t the root cause.

(h/t Ben Lurkin)

[petercooper]

In 2001 we imported almost 58% of our oil from foreign sources. Today it’s about 25%. Pretty hard to declare war on them when they could have brought our economy to a halt toot sweet.

[Theoria]

Of course. ‘Terrorism’ makes the news. But, for years and years our citizens and legal residents have been raped, murdered, robbed and harmed by illegal aliens. Yet there was never a War on Illegal Aliens. It is all theater. If Bush or any President cared about the safety and concerns of the citizenry they would have secured the border and dealt with the potential threats here. There will always be a 'threat' from someone who wants to do harm. But, you don't change our own society or laws to deal with a few nutjobs who kill people.

[central_va]

[onedoug]

Then follows up with this:

DAMN IT!

[Aetius]

Bush’s disgusting popularizing of the nauseating and false ‘religion of peace’ platitude wasn’t just sop. It was an expression of an alleged conservative who had internalized and accepted the Left’s dictates on matters of race, religion, and immigration, and who was unable to think outside those leftist parameters.

Remember, Muslim immigration into the U.S. has greatly increased since 9-11, and that started under Bush. A President who truly got it, who was
right (especially an alleged conservative one), would have tried to end or at least severely restrict Muslim immigration in the wake of the religion of peace killing thousands of Americans. Instead the never ending tentacles of extended family chain migration continues to expand in the Muslim world, and we continue to import unsuitable Muslim refugees and asylum seekers, like the garbage who detonated the bombs at the Boston marathon.

W, like all the Bushes, was and remains a worthless leftist on immigration.

[VerySadAmerican]

I don’t think W had anything to do with the AA 12 step program. His buddy Bob Bullock was active. And so was Ann Richards for what that’s worth.

W “found” Jesus. But I’m beginning to wonder if he found ALL of him.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Bush's biggest mistake was his complete unwillingness to fight back against anything the left said domestically. He abdicated the fight on the home front with his "new tone." And he let the left have virtually everything they wanted domestically as the price for them continuing to fund and allow the overseas operations of the war on terror without calling out their anti-patriotic extortions.

The other biggest mistake technically wasn't Bush's, but played into and re-inforced the above. Congress should have formally declared war. That it was war was obvious when the second plane struck the second tower. I then phoned my parents, awoke them, and told them "war." It was Pearl Harbor redux. But, IIRC, fewer than 5 in Congress, were willing to declare the obvious. The rest were either cowardly unwilling or were hiding behind the difficulty of defining the unconventional enemy. The other side had no such problem in defining our side as their unconventional enemy. I see no requirement in history that wars be formally fought and only against nation states. It was a complete and unnecessary failure of Congressional imagination. If the leadership wasn't sure how to write the declaration they should have asked Democratic Ways and Means staffers if they would define the enemy so as to tax them. I guarantee they'd have an answer in short order which both Rats and RINOs would support. Substitute "war" for "tax" and you have a Declaration that the Right would support for the right reasons and the rest would support out of familiarity and habit.

Then have State take that Declaration to NATO and everyone else with whom we had mutual defense treaties and declare them triggered. Many on our side would have been surprised to find themselves fighting WWIII, but many putatively on the other side would be shocked to find themselves defending it and want out. Offer them President Grant's initials, just as FDR did in WWII, and the eventual chance, like Italy, to formally switch sides. Those that take it and comply make easy victories. Those who take it then don't, make into good examples. Point out that their side set the terms of engagement with the still smoking rubble piles in DC and NYC; any better treatment for their population is purely at our whim. State's next, and more difficult, job would be getting Russia and China on board as limited allies, or at least keeping them as co-operative neutrals.

Having a Declaration would refocus priorities on the home front and make fighting opposition to the war effort there easier. The media could be censored. Those caring too much for the enemy wouldn't stay unindicted. Treason would be easier to prove with the "enemy" predefined. Profiling potential enemy supporters for pre-emptive restraints could be considered. Read Michelle Malkin's book on the subject before reflexively saying Reagan was right and FDR wrong regarding such pre-emptive actions by FDR during WWII.

[Theodore R.]

W is either as dumb as the liberals say, he’s lost or he’s a fraud.

He's just a Connecticut Yankee posing as a Texan.