Washington Post: George Bush Is To Blame For Not Uniting Us After 9/11

Most of the media is ignoring the 17th anniversary of September 11th, with, at best, some tiny little stories, or yammering on like Charles Lane, which is one of 3 web front page pieces, the 2nd which features iconic pictures, the third which kinda goes after Trump. There are a few unhinged op ed pieces, like Excitable Joe Scarborough using 9/11 to attack Trump. He needs to leave the GOP, he’s as wacko as Bernie Sanders and Corey Booker

We expected the war on terror to unite us. What went wrong?

Seventeen years ago, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist minions, using hijacked passenger planes as weapons, killed 2,977 people in a single awful raid on the United States. The al-Qaeda attack horrified and angered the nation — but also caused Americans to rally together as they had not done since Pearl Harbor.

Eighty-two percent of Americans spontaneously displayed the flag in the days just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to a Gallup poll. Some 150 members of Congress from both parties gathered on the Capitol steps and sang “God Bless America.” Soon thereafter, a huge bipartisan majority voted to give President George W. Bush near carte blanche authority to wage a retaliatory “war on terror.”

In January 2001, 55 percent of the public described themselves as “extremely proud” to be American, according to Gallup; after what were widely understood as murderous attacks on U.S.-style freedom itself, that number surged, reaching 70 percent by June 2003. (snip)

Obviously, it has not worked out that way. Gone, long gone, are the singing, flag-waving and bipartisanship of the 9/11 aftermath. In their place, we have a polarized, hate-filled political climate often, and not inaccurately, described as a “cold civil war.” In July, Gallup found that only 47 percent of the public is still “extremely proud” to be American.

The majority of those are Democrats. Only 32% were extremely proud, versus 74% of Republicans.

Bush deserves blame for the politicized manner in which he and his team pursued the conflict, staking out extreme positions on, say, denying Geneva Convention protections to captive terror suspects, then denouncing critics as insufficiently committed to victory.

Yet divisions over the conduct of prolonged irregular warfare were bound to intensify sooner or later, as they did during the Vietnam War. By its nature, such a conflict breeds difficult policy dilemmas, and democracy, by its nature, processes such controversies through partisan conflict.

Of course, Blame Bush, rather than those, who were mostly Democrats, who quickly turned and started attacking him, who came up with the insane 9/11 Truth conspiracy theories, who claimed that Bush either let 9/11 happen or made it happen. Who decided that any attacks on Islamic radical terrorists was an attack on all Muslims, and started yammering about Islamophobia. Who seemed to care more about protecting those jihadis than Americans. Who cared more about some captured jihadis (who are actually mostly not protected by the Geneva Convention) than Americans having their heads sawed off. How were just unhinged still that Bush won the 2000 election (then the 2004) so had to be against everything he was for.

It’s also not unusual, since these same people hate America, so they take the side of the jihadis.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Washington Post: George Bush Is To Blame For Not Uniting Us After 9/11”

  1. drownedpuppies says:

    You claim that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq (based on Bush administration lies) hate America. That those who opposed torturing detainees hate America. That those who questioned the US surveillance state hate America.

    Yep, unhinged is a good description.

    • formwiz says:

      Up yours, moron. The only one unhinged is you.

      Everybody around the world believed Saddam had those WMDs (including Willie) and, as IS proved, he did. He also had a massive stockpile of uranium and a great many his pal, Vlad, trucked out of the country into Syria.

      • drownedpuppies says:

        Sad. Little of what you believe is true.

        How do you reconcile that Donald J. Trump thinks George W. Bush lied to invade Iraq? Who is more wrong? Bush or tRump?

        President Clinton didn’t invade, Bush did.

        The point is that opposition to the ill-fated and wrong-headed invasion of Iraq does not represent hating America. Is it hateful to want our nation to do the right thing?

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          Little of what you believe is true.

          Maybe the little fella could point out the untruths, hopefully with citations.

          President Clinton didn’t invade, Bush did.

          Uh,no. A coalition of military forces led by the U.S. did.

  2. formwiz says:

    We expected the war on terror to unite us. What went wrong?

    The lying WaPo and all the other Lefties, including, doubtless, little Jeffery.

    Dubya’s approval was at 90% following 9/11 and that could not be allowed to last, so they made up lies about torture, no WMDs, Katrina, who was responsible (Mocha Messiah) for the market crash, anything to make him look bad.

    Whatever happened since may be another matter, but everybody was glad Dubya was there to stand up for this country then and not that psycho and scamster, Albert Gore The Living Redwood.

    • david7134 says:

      The way that Bush handled the Iraq war and the peace is troublesome. I think that his mistakes have led to prolongation of the conflict. But the worst thing that Bush did was to limit our definition of the enemy to terrorist or extreme Islam. Our enemy is Islam. Very few Muslims do a thing to stop the terrorist. It is the same as saying in WWII that our enemy was the Nazis and not the German people.

Pirate's Cove