Posted on 09/22/2005 12:50:55 PM PDT by Uncle Joe Cannon
Bush: Weak terror response led to 9/11
Sep 22, 2005, 19:00 GMT
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- President Bush said withdrawing from Iraq would be a mistake that would embolden terrorists just as U.S. responses to other attacks led to 9/11 hijackings.
Speaking Thursday at the Pentagon after an update on the war on terror, Bush said a pullback would be seen as weakness and make the United States less safe.
'The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole,' Bush said. 'The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves and so they attacked us.'
It was the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, carried out by al-Qaida operatives, that led Bush to launch the war on terror with an attack on Afghanistan, where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden had been given sanctuary. Bush links the fighting in Iraq with the war on terror.
The president said the plan is to follow a strategy of making political gains in the affected counties, while training local personnel to assume security operations.
When every talk show is covered 24-7 by the blubbering liberals, they cannot be ignored. Someone must state the facts to offset their distortions. The msm is sure not going to change their dance partner. Good for our president!
Bin Laden was just an opportunist who built his network on the then clear and fertile ground for Islamic terror and used the later events as marketing.
But why is the ground fertile? Remove from the haters -- the Islamic haters -- the oil under them, and they will be like dust, nothing. That is what Genernal William Tecumseh Sherman did against the western Indians in order to finally end the centuries long war. He removed their too-easy sustenance -- the great buffalo herds. He established and encouraged great hunts that brought the buffalo to near extinction.
He was a man who loved peace. His methods spilled the least blood.
"Ask the Taliban about the President's 'backbone'. Ask alQaeda about the President's 'backbone.' As Saddam about the President's 'backbone.'"
OR, in the words of the now-deceased Uday Hussein...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93291,00.html
Saddam Hussein's son Uday…killed last week by coalition forces…apparently knew months ago that his demise was imminent. The London Telegraph says that three days before the fall of Baghdad on April 9, Uday told the director of Iraqi television, "I think the end is near" because "this time I think the Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."
"He can't be growing a backbone now.
Now I know the meaning of "blind loyalty". Maybe the left is right after all. Don't dare say a critical word of W or the wrath of the right will rain down.
I WAS not speaking generally (ie: the backbone to stand up to the terrorists, thank you W) but about the lack of engagement on the baseless and sometimes outright lies told of and about W. For 4 years, it was very rare that W or any other Republican would stand up and engage the left with the same enthusiasm they have shown in attacking the right. And that enthusiasm MUST be started from the top. That is all I meant. GWB is the first Presidential candidate I have sent any money to to help in his election AND reelection. And I would do so again. But there is problems with some of his stands. ie:illegal immigration, spending, pork etc.
As I said, "Al Qaeda morphed from the Mujahadeen during Bush's Daddy's term". Don't let context get in the way of your facts!
But let me comment on that 'blind loyalty' drivel.
Bush bashers feel free to post any nonsense, false charges, outright lies about the President (no different from the left) that they want to on FR, and then when the FACTS are posted to refute them, they charge 'blind loyalty' or 'kool-aid drinkers' like automatons.
You posted a very misleading statement commonly used by (blind) bashers......that the President lacks courage........ that apparently wasn't what you really meant to say, and only when questioned on it, did you clarify and say what you really meant.
Perhaps you lack the 'backbone' to accept the responsibility for goofing up and leading readers to the wrong conclusion with your post? And perhaps it was that lack of 'backbone' that also led you to call me a 'blind follower' when the mistake was yours....
THANK YOU Maria S ...... and .....
Thank you Mr. President!!!
Who's "we?" The President doesn't take the thinking American public as 'simpletons'......and that means us......though perhaps, not you.
It's awfully simple-minded to think that President Bush spoke factually about the reason for 9/11 in order to 'distract' from the budget, or anything else for that matter.
Perhaps you need to deepen your thought processes a bit, junkey.... your 'blind' need to criticize anything and everything the President says and does is startlingly shallow.....
"Perhaps you lack the 'backbone' to accept the responsibility for goofing up and leading readers to the wrong conclusion with your post? And perhaps it was that lack of 'backbone' that also led you to call me a 'blind follower' when the mistake was yours...."
bla bla bla. My comment, since you can't understand context, was just that. It ONLY reffered to what the thread was about. Do not read any more into it. And don't be so defensive.
"But let me comment on that 'blind loyalty' drivel."
I should have looked at your FR page first, then I would have understood why you were so defensive. Now I understand.
You goofed up, communicated poorly, and then accused others who didn't read your mind of being 'blind followers.'
Grow a backbone, hop.
He's blindly loyal too..........at least according to you. You want to argue with him about the courage of his Commander in Chief?
Thanks. It's tempting to just unload on those (such as whom you were educating...conquest, or something) who have diarrhea of the fingers, but it gets to the point that Rush made yesterday, after some stupid caller went on some metth-induced rant...he said "I've heard it said that you should not try to debate a fool, a casual observer might not know the difference."
The day that Dubya really stands up and unloads on Clintons, Carter and the libs will likely cause massive heart attacks on BOTH sides of the "aisle".
You can only push a Texan so far. Give'em Hell G.W.
"Weak?" How about non-existent?
Or, "The best defense is a good offense"
I'm surprised to find you thought GWB had never made this connection before - see posts # 73, 205, 254, 265, 277, or 287.
I know that he has made some of these remarks. My "about freaking time" comment referred to waiting several days to answer Clinton after letting the impeached POS have a Katrina platform from which he has beating up on the president. Unless Clinton is gagged with duct tape, Bush should never allow him to receive a public platform. Clinton will pull that stuff every time.
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.