Bush Was 100% Right After 9/11

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:

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.

” 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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.