On the heels of Rudy "Mayor 9/11" Guiliani’s assertion that there never was a terrorist attack on American soil under George W. Bush (which I guess can mean "no terrorist attack after 9/11 that wasn’t already a warning about or didn’t include anthrax attacks or the DC snipers or the countless attacks by anti-choice radicals or school shootings or pretty much anything that wasn’t by brown people"), there seems to be a growing consensus among those who have long since lost all connection to actual events since January 20, 2001 that "if we just narrow down the dates and criteria, then George W. Bush’s administration was totally kick ass when it came to stopping that narrow criteria within that pre-selected time period".
While I wonder if anyone will take any of this seriously, there is a video with Governor Haley Barbour that claims 9/11 should be treated as a "mulligan" and therefore "One of the things the American people appreciate about the Bush administration, after Sept.11, not one time did the terrorists who tried to kill us and end our way of life, not one time were they able to attack the mainland United States again". And in another video, Monica Crowley claimed that after 9/11, Bush kept us safe from an Islamic terrorist attack.
These made 2 things immediately jump to mind:
- What about the anthrax attacks, which certainly were an attack on the US mainland? If this wasn’t by "Islamic terrorists", then who was responsible and why are we not investigation that?; and
- What kind of horseshit assertions are these?
Why not take it a step further, and give him a pass on everything else to show just how great a Presidency he really had?
Other than bin Laden, Bush was great at capturing the top terrorist who threatened America. Other than Afghanistan and Iraq, they were 100% on military invasions of foreign countries. Other than Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, prisoners and detainees were treated wonderfully. Not counting the white phosphorus and depleted uranium, there were no banned and illegal chemical weapons used.
In all seriousness (or at least part seriousness), the undies-bomber gives everyone an opportunity to focus on things that can be done in reevaluating our approach to national security and combating terrorism. Certainly, many things being done or proposed seem to be more reactive and band-aid tactics, while others can be used to actually create policies that make sense, aren’t too onerous and work (including having agencies work together for a change when there is information available).
But these laughable assertions by right wingers also give an opportunity to revisit one largely forgotten event that was instrumental in drumming up fear in Americans – the anthrax attacks. If they don’t count as being attacks by "Islamic extremists" or don’t count as "attacks against the Homeland", then what exactly are they and who is responsible? And what about those who were so ready to jump and use them as justification for whipping this country into a frenzy? If this was justification for invading Iraq because of "Saddam’s stockpiles", and those who are trying to rewrite history are so ready to dismiss this as the responsibility of "Islamic terrorists", then I’d like to know who they think was responsible, and why there has been no accountability.
Because stupid comments by right wing idiots are sometimes meant for more than just mere mockery.
