Today, I heard someone say, “George Bush has kept us safe.” He argued that that was Bush’s legacy. I couldn’t imagine that he was serious.
On January 20, 2001, George Bush was sworn in as our 43rd president. On September 11, 2001, terrorists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, flew two airplanes into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon while a fourth airplane crashed in Pennsylvania on the way to its target. Approximately 3,000 of our countrymen were killed in what has been called the worst terror attack on our nation. Is that what we call safe? In actuality, Mr. Bush did just the opposite: he made us an easy target for terrorists when he ignored the presidential daily briefing that said “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.”
Since then, Mr. Bush has invaded a country that was of no threat to us and had, by his own admission, nothing to do with September 11, sending more than 4,000 more Americans to their deaths. Is that what we call keeping us safe?
Al Qaeda is reconstituting, we have made more enemies in the world because of our invasion of a sovereign nation, and our borders and ports have STILL not been made made safe. In fact, under Bush’s watch, our port security was sold to Dubai! Is that what we call safe? (Eventually, Dubai did sell off its assets in the U. S.)
We have not yet again suffered a terror attack in the U.S. and that’s what some use for the Bush has kept us safe argument. Sure, if you don’t count the three thousand killed by a terror attack under his watch and the over four thousand killed in an invasion that he spearheaded for no reason, then I guess he’s kept us safe. But even then, has he really kept us safe?
It was about 8 years between the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the second, in 2001. Under Mr. Bush’s watch, we have not pursued Osama bin Laden, have not secured our ports or nuclear facilities, and have given bin Laden ample time to plan his next move. Is that what we call safe?