Home 2016 elections “JEB” Bush Tweet that Dubya “Kept Us Safe” Further Proof of His...

“JEB” Bush Tweet that Dubya “Kept Us Safe” Further Proof of His Utter Cluelessness

137
1
SHARE

Yeah, so according to “the smart Bush” (that would be “JEB”), his Village Idiot brother Dubya “kept us safe.” Evidence, according to “JEB”? Dubya with a megaphone at the smouldering rubble of the World Trade Center after 9/11. Makes sense, except for several problems, like “logic” for one.

1. There were warnings prior to 9/11, including the infamous August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”; and also repeated warnings by outgoing Clinton administration officials to incoming Bush administration officials “in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation.” Yet, according to the Clinton administration officials, “the new administration was slow to act” on their warnings, not to mention on that August 6, 2001 memo. Regardless of how much blame should go to the Bush administration for not stopping the 9/11 attacks, the bottom line is that the Bush administration most certainly did NOT “keep us safe” leading up to 9/11. That’s just ridiculous.

2. The Bush administration then managed to take their eye of the ball – Al Qaeda and the Taliban – letting many of them escape, while instead gearing up for an invasion of Iraq.

3. Speaking of Iraq, how on earth did that war – and particularly the botched aftermath of the Ba’ath regime’s overthrow – end up keeping us safe?  As far as I can determine, it led to instability in Iraq, including the rise of Sunni extremists like ISIL; strengthened Iran in the region (as Jim Webb and others predicted would happen); etc. How did any of that keep us safe?

4. Also not sure how the Bush administration’s horrendously, borderline criminally negligent preparation for/response to Hurricane Katrina “kept us safe.”

5. Also not sure how the Bush administration “kept us safe” by doing nothing while Iran increased its nuclear centrifuges from ZERO to 5,000 (!) on their watch.

6. Also not sure how the Bush administration “kept us safe” by completely failing vis-a-vis North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

7. Also not sure how the Bush administration “kept us safe” by ignoring the existential threat posed by climate change, and instead doubling down on fossil fuels.

8. Also not sure how the Bush administration “kept us safe” in the housing bubble leading up to the 2008 economic collapse.

We could go on all day with this, but the bottom line is that the Dubya/Cheney administration didn’t in any way/shape/form keep us safe. Except in the “smart Bush”‘s strange mind.

  • Quizzical

    Regarding the issues of North Korea developing nuclear weapons, and the agreement with Iran to forestall their becoming a nuclear power, the concept of what really “keeps us safe” needs to be discussed more, in my view.  Seems like a lot of Republicans believe or assume that we would be safer if we made a preemptive attack on Iran to bomb all of its nuclear facilities to smithereens. Or at least they like to talk tough and imply that they would use military force to do that.

    The notion that we would be safer by starting another war with a surprise attack to take out another country’s most powerful weapons runs contrary to our own history. And it if wasn’t a surprise attack, that would only guarantee that the nuclear labs would be further dispersed and hidden, making it even more difficult to hit them.  Even after invading an occupying Iraq out of fear that they had weapons of mass destruction, we had a very difficult time figuring out what the Iraqis had.

    What country talks crazier than North Korea?  They are always issuing threatening statement against the U.S. and South Korea, and have been doing that as long as I can remember.  Yet we haven’t attacked them.  So why should we be concerned if some factions in Iran bluster about attacking the U.S.?

    Some of the Republicans say that there is a third alternative to either going to war or making a deal with Iran, and that is to unilaterally impose even tougher sanctions.  But  despite decades of sanctions, they were on the verge of developing nuclear weapons anyway.

    The fourth option is to continue to rely on the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, and to say to North Korea, or Iran when the day comes, congratulations on developing nuclear weapons; however, if you use them we will retaliate in kind.

    Feeling safer yet?  Diplomacy, like aging, is pretty good when you consider the alternatives.