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.
He didn’t have to name Islam as the problem because it’s self evident. Everyone knows Islam is the root cause, including liberals who lie when they answer polling on the subject. Even they know it’s the problem, deep down, under the layers of their anti-WASP hatred.
>> it’s self evident.
Maybe so... but W *denied* that islam was the problem. He didn’t even have sense enough to keep his mouth shut and let the obvious be obvious.
Bingo.
You stick with attacking Bush. I’ll stick with attacking Obama and his jihadi buddies around the world.
I’ll stick with telling the truth and not sugar coating it. Too bad Bush didn’t stick with his first words.
It’s politics, man, and there’s an argument to be made that moderate Muslims aren’t the root cause. You have to take this stuff with a grain of salt and look at the policies.
After all, it's all bull sh*t.
Moderate Muslims just don’t want to get their hands bloody.
Religion of peace?
Moderate Muslims aren’t the ball that’s in play. Solve the problem with the radicals and you’ve solved the problem with the moderates.
Is he any relation to David Horowitz?
15 of the 19 9-11-2001 plane jackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia.
That photo speaks louder than tough talk.
you are correct.....
Imagine if Bush or anyone said or says “we need to go to war with Muslims” ...there are 1.6 billion
In politics one needs to read between the lines
Bush said what needed to be said and put us on a war footing
That was an obvious "nudge nudge, wink wink".
Did you forget when he offered his left hand to the Soddy "Crown Prince"? (and he took it)
It is too bad Bush didn’t stick with his first words, on that we agree. He did right by the nation for well in to his second term. Kept the country safe. Ultimately he weakened, he could no longer carry all of the burden he had shouldered.
It’s too bad half of the country spent all of their time tearing the man down. He needed their support. We needed a united people. The truth is obvious, the enemy is inside the gates and it’s name isn’t George Bush.
It’s the Democrat/Media/Academia complex. It’s all those who stood against America then and now. That’s where the focus of rage and vengeance should be. Not on those who did their best and ultimately came up short.
Religion of feces.
LOL, could be!
lslam is the worst that Western civilization has experienced since Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al.
True, but it’s nowhere near the existential threat that those other ideologies were. We’re going to crush these Islamic jokers one way or another. But it’s going to be frustrating because we’re going to do it with one hand tied behind our back.
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.