Memo From GWB: 'Welcome, Mr. President, to the War on Terror'

I've been quiet these last six years. But your belated decision to "destroy" ISIS prompted me to write. You repeatedly scorched my presidency, said that I so botched up things, so destroyed American foreign policy that all you had to do was not be George W. Bush. "Don't do stupid stuff" was your West-Wing mantra.

What a difference six years of Presidential Daily Briefings on national security threats can make.

I re-read your 2002 speech, the one where you called the Iraq war "dumb." The striking thing, in retrospect, is that you never challenged the assumption behind the Intel that assumed Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. In fact, you conceded the point. No, you saw no national security interests in that part of the world and even implied I waged the war to turn attention away from my failures as President.

As the Iraq war became more and more unpopular, you used its unpopularity as "proof" of the Iraq war's wrong-headedness. But look at the polls on the Afghanistan war, the one that you called the "right" war. Americans, too, no longer support it ?- and a plurality considers it to be wrong-headed! Do you also believe that we should not have gone to war in Afghanistan, the place where terrorists planned the attacks that killed 3,000 Americans? What, then, do you make of the Afghanistan war's unpopularity?

The answer is that the commander in chief must explain, on a consistent basis, the rationale for war -- provided he believes it. Until recently, you operated on the assumption that the "war on terror" was an exaggerated response to 9/11. When Sen. John Kerry, now Secretary of State, ran against me for the presidency in 2004, he said, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." Great. Now tell the enemy.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Tex., recently said she opposed "unilateral (air)strikes." She explained the beheading of two Americans does not justify airstrikes: "We were on their ground. It was not in the U.S. I do think we need to protect Americans wherever they are. But Americans also need to be careful where they are." You once felt the same way -- that provocative American action provoked a provocative reaction. In other words, "it's Bush's fault."

Now people like Rep. Johnson, whom you helped to whip into an angry, emotional frenzy against me -- the "trigger-happy, war-mongering" president -- are your problem.

About your decision to pull out of Iraq, your own former CIA head and then-Defense secretary, Leon Panetta, recently told "60 Minutes": "I really thought that it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq. The decision was that we ought to at least try to maintain 8,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops there, plus keeping some of our intelligence personnel in place, to be able to continue the momentum in the right direction."

Your then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, recommended keeping 16,000 troops in Iraq: "In light of the risks noted above and the opportunities that might emerge," Mullen wrote in a classified letter to Obama's national security adviser, "that is my best military advice to the president." Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed hard for leaving a stay-behind force in Iraq -- although she now rewrites her history, blaming the Iraqis and/or me for your complete pullout.

You came into office and promptly "reset" things with the Russians, undoing the defense deal that I negotiated with Poland and the Czech Republic. In return for your hugging out the bad ol' Bush years with Russia's then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, he invaded Ukraine.

You told the Palestinians that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people," emboldening those who do not want peace. Hamas and Israel fought a bloody war, only recently entering into a fragile ceasefire.

You truly thought that the war in Iraq was a complete and total disaster, waged for no legitimate reason whatsoever, a total pullout from which would have no adverse consequences.

When, after 9/11, I said Iran, North Korea and Iraq were the "axis of evil," your former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, called it "a big mistake to lump those three countries together" and said "the international community thinks that we have lost our minds."

I see now you guys were serious when Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called me a "loser" and a "liar," when the late Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie," and when Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said that I was "dangerously incompetent."

Well, I see you no longer use the term "overseas contingency operation." Welcome, Mr. President, to the war on terror.

From the a$$hole who never secured our border.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From Wiki

On October 26, 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109–367) into law stating, “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.”[1]

The bill was introduced on Sep. 13, 2006 by Peter T. King (R-NY). In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 283 -138 on September 14, 2006. On September 29, 2006 – the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80 -19.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006’s goal is to help secure America’s borders to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles (1,100 km) of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce infrastructure at the border.[1] Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to bankroll the fence, though critics say this is $4.8 billion less than what’s likely needed to get it built.[citation needed]

Proponents of the bill believe that it will diminish vehicle transport of illegal immigrants, encouraging those who want to enter the country to pursue legal channels or cover potentially hundreds of miles on foot and overcome a difficult obstacle. This should decrease the number of apprehensions of illegal immigrants, by physically reducing their numbers. It could also diminish the illegal drug trade pouring into the US from Mexico as well as provide additional protection from terrorist entry into the country.[2]
Opponents of the bill argue that it is not an effective strategy to curb illegal immigration because the fence is not a continuous barrier and can be climbed over or dug under in some areas. They also argue that it could harm US-Mexico relations, disrupt the environment and natural migration of wildlife, as well as increase the danger and risk of Immigrant workers attempting to cross the border. Further, opponents argue that because of the increased risk of crossing the border, illegal immigrants who previously pursued seasonal work and then returned home may have to bring their families and live permanently in the country.[2]

Since construction of the wall began “apprehensions, a rough proxy for measuring illegal crossings, were down 18% at the southern border in 2008 and Border Patrol attributes some of that to the fence. But a report in May 2009 by the Congressional Research Service found “strong indication” that illegal crossers had simply found new routes.” [3]

On January 23, 2008 the 110th Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124). This bill called for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles of two layered, 14 foot high fencing along the southwest border.[4] The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.[4]

By April 2009 Homeland Security had erected about 613 miles of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas.[5]

In May 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) unsuccessfully reintroduced for the second time his “Finish the Fence” amendment which would require Homeland Security to construct an additional 353 miles (568 km) of fencing along the US-Mexico border.[6]
The Republican Party’s 2012 platform highlighted the fact that the rest of the double fencing was never built and stated that “The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built.”[7] The Washington Office on Latin America alleges on its Border Fact Check site that the extremely high cost of complying with the Secure Fence Act’s mandate-estimated at US$4.1 billion, or more than the Border Patrol’s entire annual budget of US$3.55 billion- was the main reason that it was not fulfilled.[8] In reality Congress failed to fund the project sufficiently in order to finish building the fence

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.