We resist, and rightly so, accusing people of being disloyal to their country simply because they criticize the President or oppose his policies. There comes a time, though, when one has to wonder about the motives of those who cannot find any circumstance which might cause them to bind together with the fellow countrymen and -women in times of turmoil.

When the nation is attacked, as it was on December 7, 1941 and again on September 11, 2001, the country rallies around one another and its president. It is human nature. We want to stand together to respond to an attack and, whatever failures of the government which might have made the attack easier for those wanting to harm us, those questions can be held in abeyance while the nation rallies around one another. The isolationists and admirers of fascism who were able to engage broad swaths of support in the late 1930s and even the early 1940s (calling themselves the "America First" movement ---the tea partiers of their time) disappeared after Pearl Harbor. Even Col Lindbergh sought to return to the military after the attack, just as those who questioned whether George W. Bush was legitimately elected president, and had nagging thoughts about a president who was doing a photo-op while the attack on our country was underway, suspended those concerns with the need to stand together after 9/11.

Country first, politics later. The need to be unified trumps the legitimate need to debate our country's policies because one thing should be clear: The people of this nation stand virtually unified in opposing those who want to harm us.

Not anymore, apparently. An attack on this country is an excuse to attack the president. A single person boards an airplane, armed with explosives after the government fails to use the many tools it has to identify him as a threat, and theoretically responsible members of the Republican Party and the press use that as proof of a President who does not understand the threats to our country, or has no interest in the protection of our citizens.

It is not simply amazing. It is not simply repulsive. It is shocking. Rather than rally around the president, as they insisted we do in 2001, rather than support his quest for answers to how this happened, and for resolve about how to prevent such lapses, if possible, they tell us that these things are bound to happen because the president doesn't use the word "terror" enough or because he believes the would be bomber should be indicted and prosecuted in the courts.

And it is this party that thinks it should be given increased responsibility and presence in our country. This is the party that gave us the president who ignored warnings of the impending attack and told his briefer that by presenting that information he had adequately "covered his ass" and could leave. And after refusing to cut short a photo op, then flying all over the country based on an unfounded fear that he was being targeted by another airplane (a fear that was not unreasonable, it should be noted), was able only to come up with this to reassure a nation in shock.



It didn't work. My teenage daughter was reasonably calm until she saw this scared puppy of a president. I am sure she was not alone.

Yet, we were incessantly lectured to in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack about the need to stand together behind our president, whatever his faults. NBC News was told that it decision to interview President Clinton (to express his complete support for his successor) was "not helpful" and after a comedian dissented from the view that those who flew planes into buildings were "cowards" the White House characterized that comment and the reaction to it as

reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

By September 26, 2001, the consistently hateful Michelle Malkin wrote:

What's eating Hillary Clinton? Her behavior during President Bush's address to Congress last week was abominable. At a time when even the most partisan of her Democratic colleagues stood united with the president, New York Sen. Clinton shunned patriotism for petulance. She grimaced. She sighed. She rolled her eyes. She fidgeted like a 5-year-old at an opera. And when Mrs. Clinton mustered enough energy to clap, she acted as if there were razor blades strapped to her palms....
. Hillary Clinton's resentful visage and insouciant behavior this past week reveal that -- like her husband -- she suffers from a fatal inability to put love of country above love of self...

But if this was the crazy lunatic fringe of 2001, a dubious proposition even then, it is the heart of the Republican Party today. Its most prominent representatives have spent the week not decrying the incident as much as using it to "prove" the President's lack of fitness for the position to which he was elected.

It is President Obama who is out of touch? It is President Obama who lives in a world of fanatsy? Look at the front page from the New York Post on Friday of the past week:



Following the ridiculous meme of the week, the one they have trotted out ever since Sen George McGovern, a war hero, ran against the President Nixon's continuation of the Vietnam War, that Democrats don't "get it" and would abandon this country rather than protect it, The Post allowed that President Obama "finally" had "connected the dots": had finally realized that there are people who are trying to kill Americans.

They can say all of this only by ignoring the President's consistent message, from his inaugural speech

Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred....
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken -- you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

to his "town hall meeting" with a predominantly young audience in Strasbourg, France on April 3, 2009:

But know this: The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. We were attacked by an al Qaeda network that killed thousands on American soil, including French and Germans. Along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, those terrorists are still plotting today. And they're -- if there is another al Qaeda attack, it is just as likely, if not more, that it will be here in Europe in a European city.

So I've made a commitment to Afghanistan, and I've asked our NATO partners for more civilian and military support and assistance. We do this with a clear purpose: to root out the terrorists who threaten all of us, to train the Afghan people to sustain their own security and to help them advance their own opportunity, and to quicken the day when our troops come home.

to his relatively recent speech at West Point on December 1, 2009:

I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror.

and finally to the people who awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on December 10, 2009:

I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

They are entitled to their own views and to try to distort history. That is the American way. But they are the party that presented George W. Bush and then told us he could not be criticized unless we were against our country. This was leadership, they told us. He was a "strong leader" the news cheerleaders told us.

By "strong leader" as opposed to Vice President Gore, Senator Kerry or President Obama, they apparently meant someone who would never acknowledge a mistake, much less take responsibility for the executive branch of government he was supposed to lead, and to fix whatever went wrong and endangered our lives.

Remember this performance at his press conference of April 14, 2004:

Q. ... One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's -- the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war. And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that's -- that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a -- nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

...

Q Mr. President, good evening. You've talked on the -- I'd like to ask you about the August 6th PDB.

THE PRESIDENT: Sure.

Q ... You said -- you pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to, obviously, take hostages and to secure the release of extremists being held by the U.S. Did that trigger some specific actions on your part and the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. ...

The report, itself, I've characterized as mainly history, and I think when you look at it you'll see that it was talking about '97 and '98 and '99. It was also an indication, as you mentioned, that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane, but as you said, not to fly into a building, but perhaps to release a person in jail. In other words, serve it as a blackmail.

And of course, that concerns me. All those reports concern me. As a matter of fact, I was dealing with terrorism a lot as the President when George Tenet came in to brief me....

Now, in what's called the PDB, there was a warning about bin Laden's desires on America, but, frankly, I didn't think that was anything new. Major newspapers had talked about bin Laden's desires on hurting America. What was interesting in there was that there was a report that the FBI was conducting field investigations. And I -- that was good news that they were doing their job.

The way my administration worked, Ed, is that I met with Tenet all the time, obviously met with my principals a lot. We talked about threats that had emerged. We had a counterterrorism group meeting on a regular basis to analyze the threats that came in. Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it. In other words, had they come up and said, this is where we see something happening, you can rest assured that the people of this government would have responded, and responded in a forceful way.

...I step back and I've asked myself a lot, is there anything we could have done to stop the attacks. Of course, I've asked that question -- as have many people of my government. Nobody wants this to happen to America. And the answer is that had I had any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country -- just like we're working hard to prevent a further attack.

...

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70. But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the Acting Director of the FBI at the time says -- now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was exaggerated. Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I heard about that today, obviously, and my response to that was I expect to get valid information. As the ultimate decision-maker for this country, I expect information that comes to my desk to be real and valid. And I presume the 9/11 Commission will find out -- will follow up on his suggestions and his recollection and garner the truth.

That is an important part of the 9/11 Commission's job, is to analyze what went on and what could have, perhaps, been done differently so that we can better secure America for the future. But, of course, I expect to get valid information. I can't make good decisions unless I get valid information.

Q Has the FBI come back to you, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven't talked to anybody today. But I will, though. We'll find out.

...

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I can understand why people in my administration anguished over the fact that people lost their life. I feel the same way. I mean, I'm sick when I think about the death that took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I've met with a lot of family members and I do the best I do to console them about the loss of their loved one. As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have done differently. I can assure the American people that had we had any inkling that this was going to happen, we would have done everything in our power to stop the attack.

Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice....

Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.

...

I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

How about the question from a citizen during his supposed town hall debate with Sen Kerry, on October 10, 2004?:

BUSH: Hi, Linda.

GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.

BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.

And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human.

But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right....

Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.

This is what the Republican Party calls responsible leadership? Here is what the President they feel compelled to oppose no matter what he says, reported to the nation just the other day

President Obama, January 7, 2010:

I have repeatedly made it clear -- in public with the American people, and in private with my national security team -- that I will hold my staff, our agencies and the people in them accountable when they fail to perform their responsibilities at the highest levels.

Now, at this stage in the review process it appears that this incident was not the fault of a single individual or organization, but rather a systemic failure across organizations and agencies. That's why, in addition to the corrective efforts that I've ordered, I've directed agency heads to establish internal accountability reviews, and directed my national security staff to monitor their efforts. We will measure progress. And John Brennan will report back to me within 30 days and on a regular basis after that. All of these agencies -- and their leaders -- are responsible for implementing these reforms. And all will be held accountable if they don't.

Moreover, I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer. For ultimately, the buck stops with me. As President, I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people. And when the system fails, it is my responsibility.

This is not a political debate. This is a refusal to accept the President elected last year. These are the rants of people who do not care about the United States of America, but only for "their country": a racist, religiously intolerant, militaristic state that was placed on the road to extinction in 1933, and finally destroyed in the turbulent 1960s.

I will write again about military tribunals and civilian courts---there is much to say on this subject and this post is already too long---but keep this in mind as you listen to them bleat. They do not care about which system is used to punish someone who tries to kill our fellow Americans. They are using the term "military tribunal" as a euphemism for torture: they don't want anyone to "lawyer up" because they cannot be tortured. The threat of a lifetime in prison has as much chance of obtaining what limited information Al Qaeda allowed this brat of a would be murderer to gain as would torture, of that we can be certain, although popular television shows tell us otherwise. Talk about living in fantasyland.

This is what Ann Coulter told us she thought the country should do in the immediate aftermath of September 11:

This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.

We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week....

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

This is what we are up against. These are no longer the ravings of a lunatic fringe. This is the core of the Republican Party and if it is not, the tea party people are determined to make it so.