a few short nearly forgotten years ago, it was almost inconceivable that america could avoid another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil for even a month, much less four years. When we saw how easily nineteen Middle Eastern men walked through security gates at our airports, climbed aboard four passenger jets, took control of the cockpits and flew those planes like guided missiles into the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field right before our very eyes, three things became vibrantly clear. america was at war, our enemy was prepared to do the unthinkable and we were a very naive soft target…
Since 9/11, many americans have tried to legitimize the actions of those nineteen murderers by blaming past american foreign policies. These americans have worked tirelessly to create a public perception that the events of 9/11 were the rightful fruits of american imperialism around the globe that had come home to roost.
These americans have justified these attacks in their own minds. They have found a way to convince themselves that america got what it deserved that day and they have spread that propaganda aimed at convincing others, here and abroad. The First amendment might protect these peoples right to say anything they want. But it will never make it true. They can call themselves patriotic if they want. But this is no act of patriotism, by any definition.
Make no mistake, the risk of further attacks on U.S. soil remains high. as Bush stated in his speech before the world on September 20, 2001, "The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. al Qaeda is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
The Bush administration shortly thereafter, took an offensive position in the new world war against world-wide terrorism. americas President told the world "We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network." Nearly every american and every member of congress stood and cheered at these words from their determined leader that day…and he has done just that since.
But those so-called americans, who have justified the attacks of 9/11 in their own minds, have since sought to undermine every initiative taken by the Bush administration in this effort. Some do this because they can’t support a war of any kind, others because they sympathize with the terrorists themselves, and still others solely for political purposes of regaining party power at any expense, even the expense of more innocent american lives.
On October 11, 2001, Bush again stood before the world and announced "This week, 56 Islamic nations issued a statement strongly condemning the savage acts of terror and emphasizing that those acts contradict the peaceful teachings of Islam." This was not a President or a nation "going it alone."
But at that same hour, one month after 9/11 to the day, dissenting views began their campaign against this war when a reporter asked "You've been careful to avoid saying how long the military strikes in afghanistan might take place. But can you promise to say how long american -- can you avoid being drawn into a Vietnam-like quagmire in afghanistan?"
One month to the day after 9/11, the press began to establish the groundwork for a "Vietnam-like quagmire" perception of the war against international terrorism. This wasn’t about Iraq, who many claim was the dividing point for support of the war. This question was asked in reference to afghanistan, one month after 9/11.
The next reporters question was "Mr. President, on that note, we understand you have advisers who are urging you to go after Iraq, take out Iraq, Syria and so forth. Do you really think that the american people will tolerate you widening the war beyond afghanistan?" The groundwork for limiting the war on terror to only afghanistan started with this question…
The follow-up question was "You've met twice in the White House since you've been in office with Prime Minister Sharon, but you have refused to meet with Yassar arafat. Now that you envision a Palestinian state, will you see and will you meet with arafat?" again, the press was busy laying the foundation for dissent against the war on terror right from the start. Where better to begin than with demands that arafat be welcomed with the same open anti-Semitic arms previously offered by the Clintons?
Bush responded "if I am convinced that a meeting with a particular party at this point in time will further the [Mitchell] process, I will do so. If it turns out to be an empty photo opportunity that creates expectations that will become dashed, I won't meet." BINGO! BRaVO!
The point is - americas President was steadfast in his offensive posture against world-wide terrorism, as well as his approach towards any meaningful opportunities to pursue peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The american people stood beside their President. Clearly, the press did not…
Since that time, the front pages of newspapers across this country have focused on body counts, every minor set-back in the difficult and treacherous war against terror. They have attempted to direct attention away from the words of this President and focus the american people on the inherent cost of war, both the human costs and the financial burdens of winning a war unlike any we have ever faced before.
Even their leaders in congress have called terrorists "insurgents", called american soldiers "Nazis", defended those who behead innocent people and attacked those who bravely track, capture and interrogate would be assassins.
They have called for retreat and defeat, beat the drum of discontent and dishonor and accused america of acts of terror, while attempting to explain away the acts against american civilians on their way to work a little more than four years ago.
They work to expose Top Secret Intelligence operations aimed at capturing and detaining people who intend america further harm — and they aim to discredit the efforts of the Joint Chiefs, the DOD and our intelligence community, all as part of a bigger plan to discredit a President they don’t support and a country they no longer love or defend.
So if and when the next 9/11 happens, who will be responsible?
The President who has acted upon his promise to be tireless in his offensive pursuit of terrorists around the world, or the people who have tirelessly worked around the clock to undermine all of those efforts?
Counter-terrorism experts say that it is not a matter of if, but of when. They predict that the next attacks will dwarf the events of 9/11. They have repeatedly told the american people that the only hope of preventing such events is a full scale offensive, on many fronts, in multiple locations around the world, aimed at keeping terrorist too busy running, to be able to launch another attack.
So who will be responsible if and when their predictions become true? an administration that has sacrificed popularity in the polls and stayed the course, even after four years of relentless attacks by the press and their political rivals, or the people who have done all they can to undermine every facet of a very complex war effort against an enemy we often can’t even identify?
You decide…but decide fast. as the attacks against our military, the DOD, our intelligence community and the President grow ever more shrill, the enemy draws ever more powerful, more certain that the offensive against them will soon end and that opportunity is near.
So decide…but do it now.