At that point, he wasn't.
If 9/11 came after the Middle East became nuclearized, then the threat would have been taken much more directly. Espeically if WMD were used. Possibly we would have had a national mobilization, a draft, and other measures. People's reactions are based off of the level of threat at the time, and under those situations, you wouldn't see the public stand for acts of disloyalty, like they do now. The situation dictates the response.
If Pearl Harbor happened in 1925, we would have sailed over to Japan, flattened it, and sailed home. Maybe some debate over whether or not it was rogue elements of the Japanese military, but weren't the people our friends, and shouldn't we all just get along? There certainly would have been no internment camps. There just wasn't the level of threat present to back it up.
The two events are significant for us, and pushed us into new eras, but they were very different situations. The analogy is bound to fail.
Given recent German history at the time, he was. And subsequent history demonstrated such.
Why do I have the feeling I am debating two Pat Buchanan Neanderthal-cons with a completely warped view of history?