Posted on 10/18/2015 8:46:12 AM PDT by jimbo123
Donald Trump says he's not blaming George W. Bush for 9/11, but he claims that if he'd been president, the attacks never would have happened.
In an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," the real estate mogul said that since he's "extremely, extremely tough on immigration" the attackers wouldn't have been in position to commandeer U.S. flights.
"So there's a good chance that those people would not have been in our country," Trump said.
He took another shot at Jeb Bush for claiming that Bush's brother, the 43rd president, kept the nation safe.
"I'm not blaming George Bush," Trump said. "But I don't want Jeb Bush to say, 'My brother kept us safe,' because September 11 was one of the worst days in the history of this country."
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
LOS ANGELES, Sep. 11 -- Ironically, in an attempt to appeal to the growing number of Arab-American and Muslim voters, exactly eleven months ago George W. Bush called for weakening airport security procedures aimed at deterring hijackers.
On Oct. 11, 2000, during the second presidential debate, the Republican candidate attacked two anti-terrorist policies that had long irritated Arab citizens of the U.S.
At present [i.e., the evening of 9/11], of course, there is no definite evidence that Arabs or Muslims were involved in today's terrorist assaults. Many incorrectly assumed after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that Middle Easterners were involved. Nor is there direct evidence that Bush's attack on airline safety procedures made the four simultaneous hijackings easier to pull off.
Bush said during the nationally televised debate, "Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that." Then-Governor Bush went on, "My friend, Sen. Spence Abraham [the Arab-American Republic Senator from Michigan], is pushing a law to make sure that, you know, Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn't just an issue at the local police forces. It's an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we're going to have to deal with it more and more."
Bill Clinton set us up for 9/11. Several attacks under his watch with no response. Only time missile were fired was when he needed a diversion. He emboldened terror.
Don’t feel sorry for me. I’m not blind to the failures of the Bushies and the GOPe. I feel sorry for you for failing to see what is in plain sight.
So Bush’s flaws make Trump a great Conservative? Who is missing the point with Trump colored glasses?
The problem isn’t Arabs. The problem is Muslims. The Boston Marathon bombers weren’t Arabs, but they sure as hell were Muslims, “refugees” to boot.
Those of you in the Washington, DC northern Va area can see the large amounts of middle east imports so prevalent. What an utter cluster goat mating these disgraceful DC pols have fostered with ruinous immigration policies.
And put on every and any Federal & State welfare program there was - FACT!!!
I want to see the high and mighty Trump prevent all of the visa over stays.
It ain’t going to happen and he is talking out of his billion dollar a$$ if he thinks he would have prevented what had happened on 911.
This statement is a statement of a true dictator wannabe, a ruler of the peon subservient class.
Trump IS the shark. (’
I’m in Montgomery County, MD and it’s the Star Wars bar scene here.
I'm not saying it was aliens but it was aliens.
Trump IS blaming Bush for not stopping 911.
And there are certain things Bush could have done.
The issue, thus, isn’t that Bush had specific intel, which he did not. It’s that he may have ended increased scrutiny of Arab/Middle Eastern passengers at airports, because of his soft spot for a favored political constituency or his affinity for the Gulf royals, who are Muslim.
Some of the hijackers were violating existing immigration laws, but some weren't.
And like the other poster stated, it was under Bush the Boston Marathon terrorist entered the U.S.
No. In fact Trump said that he wants to legalize students with visas who graduate.
So you believe under a Trump presidency, our violent lawless borders, and our chaotic reckless immigration free-for-all policies will remain the same? Really?
Will Trump complain and boycott CNN?
“Whacko is a good term to use to describe him. He has a serious case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He is using peoples anger and disgust at PC politicians to further his own personal, and I mean personal agenda. He is no more founded in Conservative principles than Hillary. His party is the Trump party, which has no other goal than to glorify him.”
You aren’t going to be a happy camper then, will you be, when Trump is President which he will be. Trump is going to win, and I suspect you deep down inside know that. Oh, by the way, Trump is out there lying through his teeth about everything, doing it publicly, and once in office will turn on all conservatives and do just the opposite of what he is saying now while running for office. Because he really is a flaming liberal, as you oh wise one are telling us. For this we will glorify you endlessly when we find out we were wrong and you were right. Not.
Ask the the Bush dynasty supporters why Bush, after 911, allowed in more Muslims to enter the U.S., than were allowed in the previous 2 decades before 911.
Can you say all that without swearing?
I was surprised but I think Trump may finish Jeb off with this.
That is pablum for Muslim consumption. Every president who doesn't want to commit nuclear genocide while conducting operations in a Muslim country will say this. The idea being that some Muslim leader* both the US and the locals can live with will run the country. If Bush had said that Islam is a Satanic cult that deserves to be exterminated, no leader we back would have been acceptable to the locals. No president who wants to avoid a life term in prison after he leaves office will exterminate the population of a Muslim country. So the alternative is to say "nice doggy" (i.e. "Islam is a religion of peace") to Muslims while whaling on the terrorists among them.
* Why use a local leader? Why not rule directly? Because short of nuclear genocide or Mongol-style governance (i.e. the massacre of an entire village for the loss of one soldier), our casualties would have been higher - we would have needed many more troops in-country to perform normal policing functions.
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.