Posted by
Roxanna M. on Saturday, September 15, 2012 12:54:29 PM
According to the left, George W. Bush is responsible for every bad thing that has happened in this country in the past 11 years, beginning with and including 9/11.
At the RNC, Jeb Bush said to “quit blaming my brother,” adding “He is a man of integrity, courage and honor and during incredibly challenging times, he kept us safe” to which the increasingly deplorable Chris Matthew said “Not on 9/11.”
On September 10, 2012, The New York Times carried a particularly despicable column blaming Bush for 9/11. If only he had paid more attention. If only he had connected the dots. The article states, then completely discounts, the fact that no one knew when and where and how any attack would occur.
It is important to point out at this time that the Clinton administration had erected a "wall of separation" that prevented counterterrorism agents and federal prosecutors from communicating with one another prior to September 11. No mention in the NYT article that this was the major obstacle that prevented anyone from "connecting the dots". To do so would have deflected blame from Bush, and that the left won't allow.
So, everyone knew an attack was coming, but no one knew when . . . where . . . how. How do you prepare for something when you have no specifics? Everyone in the world knew that Hurricane Katrina was coming and that she was a big one, but the democrat governor of Louisiana and the democrat mayor of New Orleans didn't do squat to prepare. The mayor of New Orleans famously left buses sitting in a pool of water and then demanded that someone send buses to help move people.
It should also be pointed out that democrats, outraged over the outcome of the 2000 election, purposely delayed confirming Bush’s cabinet nominees.
Terrorists had spent pretty much the entire Clinton presidency attacking us. Where are the articles blaming Clinton? The fact of the matter is, Clinton bears primary responsibility for 9/11. It was planned during his presidency, a presidency that projected weakness and immaturity. Under Clinton, acts of war were treated as nothing more than crimes, to be adjudicated in the courts. No reason to get excited. No wonder our enemies were emboldened.
The plain and simple truth is, Bush did keep us safe. That safety came to an end on November 5, 2009, with the murders at Ft. Hood. The terrorists realized that, yet again, America had a wimp at the helm. They had every reason to believe so. Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo and ending the wars and bowing in submission to every head of state he met. And rather than correctly call this an act of terrorism, the Obama administration downgraded it to "workplace violence.” Under this administration, acts of terror are no longer even crimes. Is it any wonder that our enemies are emboldened once again.
And now the latest 9/11, ending with the murder of an American ambassador for the first time since 1979. It has been reported that these attacks were planned and that Obama didn't attend an intelligence briefing for the week prior to 9/11, exactly at a time when we should have been most on our guard. Should I hold my breath waiting for The New York Times article blaming this on Obama's failure to connect the dots?
There are two sides to the presidency. The first is the actual job. The second is the part about the power, the prestige, and the perks, which is the only side of the job Obama is interested in. Having never really worked a day in his life, he has no intention of starting now.
Obama didn’t skip a beat after hearing about the attacks. He made an emotionless, perfunctory statement and went on his way to a campaign stop in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Never bother a child with chores when there’s a big, shiny plane to play with.