What was George W. Bush referring to on the 9/11 anniversary?
George W. Bush made these questionable remarks when speaking at the 20th anniversary of 9/11:
There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and those at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit and it is our duty to confront them.
The left and much of the right has assumed he was talking about January 6th, which is understandable on the part of the left but somewhat less so from the right, who should at least have also included the Antifa and BLM riots. But now a spokesman for Bush has issued a clarification, and I’ll assume it’s an official one approved by Bush himself:
“Those comments were certainly inclusive of but definitely not exclusive to January 6; rather all forms of extremism — attacks on schools and synagogues, on Blacks and Asians, etc,” the spokesperson said. “All forms of domestic extremism.”
It’s a fascinating glimpse into the mind of Bush that says a lot. This attitude is part and parcel of his tendency – and the tendency of many non-conservative Republicans – to do a sort of balancing act of condemnation. We hear: “on the one hand this, and on the other hand, that.” It is my opinion that such an equation is often not only stupid, but dangerous. It equates things that should not be equated.
To take Bush’s specific example, fanatic Islamic terrorism that kills 3,000 innocent people, most of them civilians, not as collateral damage but as the main event and in a vindictive spirit that seeks to conquer and subdue, is not the same as or even similar to either Antifa riots in the US or January 6th, both of which are also quite different from each other. Moral equivalence of these three things is absurd, and in particular 9/11 stands quite apart from the others.
The other two were essentially demonstrations. January 6th was not even especially violent or destructive, although there was some violence and some destruction. Antifa and company were more violent and more destructive, to be sure, but nothing in the realm of 9/11.
The January 6th demonstrators were protesting what they thought was a violation of democracy, and they wanted the official stamp on the results halted through the legal means of Congressional action. That was their aim, and the few who turned destructive and violent were the exceptions.
Antifa has a different aim. They are more akin to the self-styled revolutionaries of the 1960s. But in their demonstrations during 2020, the violence in which they engaged was for the most part to property, and although it sometimes was violent against people – especially the police – there was no widespread killing of civilians, much less thousands of them. On the scale of evil, 9/11 wins, hands down.
And what does “all forms of extremism” mean? Weren’t the heroes of the American Revolution “extremists”? Same for the abolitionists? It’s a weasel word that is purposely vague enough to allow nearly any interpretation, and plays right into the hands of the left.
But unfortunately, that’s an old habit of Bush’s.
NOTE: It’s also quite galling that Bush managed to emerge from his long Obama-era slumber to diss Trump for the last few years, but here’s my earlier explanation for Bush’s extra-special Trump-hatred. It has a long provenance, and Trump is by no means innocent, particularly many years ago, before he became president himself.
The social media twits at the Bush Center tweet every day they’re not on holiday. There have been several today, including one which is a conduit to an opinion piece by David French. In 48 hours, they’ve clarified nothing.
Note, the list “rather all forms of extremism — attacks on schools and synagogues, on Blacks and Asians”. They assiduously avoid reference to any injured party outside the circle of liberal mascots (though ordinarily liberals aren’t concerned with Jews or Orientals, they’re not hostile to them either).
What an official of a Jewish philanthropy once said of Ivan Boesky applies to Bush: “There are givers and there are users; he’s a user”. It was us he was using. It’s time for the entire family to leave public life.
Weren’t the heroes of the American Revolution “extremists”? Same for the abolitionists?
Wikipedia on Harriet Tubman:
She carried a revolver, and was not afraid to use it. The gun afforded some protection from the ever-present slave catchers and their dogs; however, she also purportedly threatened to shoot any escaped slave who tried to turn back on the journey since that would threaten the safety of the remaining group.
Too much nuance there for G. W. to handle.
When I read Bush’s remarks, I thought that his former speechwriter, Michael Gerson, must have had a hand in the script — he is an off-the-rails hater of everything Trump. And as noted by Neo, in drawing some kind of equivalence between the events of 9-11 and Jan 6, Bush has really just played into the hands of another set of crazies intent on demonizing all things Trump.
Julie Kelly has properly excoriated Bush for parroting the toxic nonsense emanating from all quarters of the establishment (White House, DHS. Department of (In)Justice, the MSM, academia, etc) concerning the dangers of “domestic extremists” and “white supremacists”, i.e conservatives and Trump-supporters. David Horowitz has argued today (at FrontPage) that the greatest existential threat to America derives from leftist BLM propaganda, anti-constitutional and anti-majoritarian.
GWB is a country club Republican; just like his dad and grandfather. The party and electorate have changed.
When Bush made his statement, Jan 6th was foremost on his mind. Of course, I can’t prove it but of it, there is to my mind, no reasonable doubt left. It’s all of a piece, entirely consistent with him. No wonder while in office he quietly took all the abuse. There’s a great difference between upholding the dignity of the office and refusing to respond when domestic enemies are attacking the country you’ve sworn to defend. Since leaving office, his behavior, words and especially his silence have been entirely that of a quiet, acquiescent apologist.
To extend further to him the benefit of the doubt is to try to put lipstick on a pig. As the Titannic was sinking, he’d have been one of the men busily straightening out the deckchairs.
“As the Titanic was sinking, he’d have been one of the men busily straightening out the deckchairs.”
GB, you get the prize for the best line of the day. I had a LOL at that one.
In the clarification, I notice there was no mention of extremists defiling our own national symbols, e.g., statues, the flag, etc. Establishment Republicans are so anxious to be considered part of the establishment they have become incapable of making statements that stand for principles they are supposed to represent. It’s knee-jerk appeasement, which achieves nothing, not even the respect they seek.
Since leaving office, his behavior, words and especially his silence
He hasn’t been silent. He’s hoovered up speaking fees left and right. However, he speaks to confidential fora and no one present bothers to lead what he says.
His staff’s clarification doesn’t mention last year’s rioters. If we were going to accept it as an inclusive statement, protests of all kinds which turn violent would be there. $2 billion in damages and a couple of dozen deaths are far, far more dangerous than the crazy guy in the Viking horns.
I agree with Neo that Bush’s antipathy to Trump is partly personal, and I understand that. Not recognizing the policy differences between Trump’s presidency and Biden’s is far less excusable.
Bush wasn’t talking about Antifa–he was talking about the nut-job who attacked a synagogue in Pittsburg (who the MSM tried to make into a Trump supporter), and Dylan Root.
He’s not talking about the Pulse nightclub shooter or the San Bernardino kilers. He’s only talking (through a spokesperson, of course) about the MSM’s faorite bogeymen–white men with guns. This is about as shallow a piece of deep thinking as one would expect.
Bush gets no benefit of the doubt from me, and the clarification is worthless since it doesn’t mention the riots from last Summer or all the historic monuments being defiled, destroyed, and removed. Given that, I think it all but certain that Bush was referring to us Deplorables on Saturday. It must amuse the Democrats to have George W. Bush, a man they disrespected in some pretty vile ways, to be doing their dirty work for them. I think behind his back, Obama and the Clintons are laughing their asses off at Bush.
And note in that clarification, he, or whoever wrote it, mentions attacks on the schools- those “attacks” are parents upset about CRT and masking of their children. What other “attacks on schools” has there been? I am coming up blank on that.
And note in that clarification, he, or whoever wrote it, mentions attacks on the schools- those “attacks” are parents upset about CRT and masking of their children. What other “attacks on schools” has there been? I am coming up blank on that.
Good point.
Art Deco,
I haven’t heard of him taking speaking fees but I’ll take your word for it. Since I haven’t read of the comments he’s made, pro or con, in the conservative press/blogs/comments it has to be being kept quiet. Speaking before other nevertrumpers would result in that.
I was a strong supporter of Bush all through his Presidency. No more, he’s dead to me.
“What other “attacks on schools” has there been?” Sandy Hook. Yes, it is just that shallow.
And Columbine.
Bush told you how they are similar. How about critiquing what he actually said instead of setting up a straw man?
J. Christian Adams on Bush’s private speeches:
Link: https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2021/09/13/president-george-w-bush-blew-it-in-shanksville-n1478380
I supported W all during his presidency and gave to his library all during the Obama and early Trump years. When he spoke out against Trump and Trump supporters as isolationists, protectionists, a nd anti-immigration, I thought it was bad judgement and a bit of sour grapes – Trump had criticized him for going into Iraq and made fun of ‘Low energy Jeb.” But when he sided with the impeachment of Trump in February of 2021, that was the last straw. No.more.donations.NOPE! I even wrote him a letter telling hi he was wrong about the America First policies. Did he read it? probably not, but I got some satisfaction out of writing it.
The Bush clan has been thoroughly unmasked. Until the past few years, their dislike of working class Americans was mostly hidden behind a genteel façade. They got away with it for years because they didn’t talk about their preference for open borders. The animosity toward regular Americans surfaced whenever the borders issue came up. The Bush/Cheney/Ryan/Romney wing of the GOP wants to maximize both legal and illegal immigration to cheapen the value of labor, and they are willing to sacrifice all other policy interests and our quality of life to do it.
When W saw how his brother Jeb fared in the 2016 primaries, the handwriting was on the wall. His 9/11 remarks were a declaration of war against populists. He senses that we know he is not on our side and will not be misled by his ilk again. The RINO era of the GOP is over, and W knows it just as certainly as he knows that his comments about January 6 patriots are nonsense.
“What other “attacks on schools” has there been?” Sandy Hook. Yes, it is just that shallow.
> 8 years ago, perpetrated by a head case who had no political objects at all (and murdered his mother as a prelude).
Bush told you how they are similar.
His statement was internally contradictory and incorporated manifest falsehoods. It’s not worth anything but a brief dismissal.
Pingback:Links and Comments | Rockport Conservatives
Bush/Cheney/Ryan/Romney are all part of what I refer to as the Morning Coat, Striped Pants, Top Hat Republicans. They’re done, thank you. I don’t need to be lectured by these effete snobs
Your rulers hate you and want you dead or replaced by Third World Mystery Meat. Luckily they can’t seem to keep their mouths shut (heh) and are (finally!) waking people up to the true nature of the GloboHomo UniParty.
Bush is a garbage, he’s like a battered spouse who want the approval, but will never get it.
@Al Catraz:
“[Crude Country Club Wasp / Wall Street ca. 1927 Republican stereotypes right out of Pravda but not wrong.. just not all there is to hate]”
As opposed to the Think Tank Latin Mass Single Malt and Cigars Faggot Queen Republicans… Or the Mystery Meat Subcontinental Grifter Republicans… or the AIPAC Pool Boy Israel First Republicans… Or the Raytheon Republicans… Magical Light-bearing Black Republicans… Doubtless also Fortune Cookie Republicans in the Current Year given that they have to sell out to Someone… Anyone! I could go on. What you won’t find in the Imperial Capital is American (remember them?) Republicans.
Strangely can’t find many Russian Stooge Republicans. They might be even more rare than the Imaginary Legacy American People First Republican.
The Z Man playing at literary conceit:
Modern Faulkner
https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=25041
“At some point in the future, the ape historians may look back at this time and call it the Bush – Clinton period of the American empire. The period started with the first Bush presidency in 1989, roughly corresponding with the end of the Cold War and concluding sometime around now. It is hard to know if this period is at an end or if it will stagger on for a while longer. It would surprise no one if Hillary Clinton or one of the Bush clan takes one last stab at the presidency in 2024.
The rivalry between the Bush family and the Clinton family mirrors the rivalry between the Compson and Snopes family in the William Faulkner novels. The Compson family represented the old Southern order that emerged from the wreckage of the Civil War and Reconstruction. The Snopes family represented the new, white trash culture that was slowly overtaking the old order. It was order and dignity at the end of its time versus an emergent disorder and lack of dignity.
In the American context, the Bush family represent the old WASP order that cannot update its thinking to the present. They are built for the old America that was confident and ascendant, but they find themselves at the end of empire. Desperate to maintain their status and position, they aligned with shady characters like Mexican cartel members, the Saudi Royal family, and the neoconservatives. This toxic blend of anti-American interests would shape the empire for decades.
The Clintons are far less grandiose. Like the Snopes clan, they represent the new order that is not really order at all. Instead, it represents the vermin that infest the dying old order, doing anything and everything to get an edge on the other rats. Unlike the Bush clan, they don’t seek power for prestige. They seek power for profit. They cut deals with China in the 1990’s for campaign cash. Then Hillary was auctioning off state secrets from her perch in the State Department during the Obama years.
.
.
What emerges from the inevitable turmoil that comes when these two modes of politics collapse under the weight of their own immorality is unknown. What is certain is a period of upheaval where the empire contracts in fits and starts, staggering from one crisis to the next. Each crisis shrinks the empire a little more until the very concept of empire is no longer tenable. The people will be spectators as the dying elites savage one another for their share of the declining profits.
The lesson from the Faulkner tales is that elites must be replaced by elites. The Snopes clan either had to evolve into an elite or be replaced along with the old elite as represented by the Compson family. That means the Bush side of the struggle will not last, but neither will the Clinton side. Rapacious thievery can never be the foundation for anew elite. A generation from now, the people at the top of whatever comes of America will be nothing like the ruling class of today.”
Bush/Cheney/Ryan/Romney wing of the GOP wants to maximize both legal and illegal immigration to cheapen the value of labor
I know this is practically an article of faith among the “populist” right, but has anybody ever actually asked them why they don’t oppose illegal immigration?
Damn… I forgot the Log Cabin Republicans(*)… I guess they’re a slightly different demographic than the Smells and Bells Surplice Lifter Fancy a Snifter Republicans.
So many people to hate. So little time in which to do it.
🙂
* I mean, Seriously? Ever get the feeling you’re being trolled by your Betters, O Flyover People of the Faux Corinthian Leather Bound Book?
Neo
in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit and it is our duty to confront them.
Back then and still today seeing same, I wonder how many regimes that “ disregard for human life” in our world?
Did G W Bush action have had effect?
Not sure his action reduce any of that.
I for one am a proud, pro-freedom extremist, in the tradition of the Sons of Liberty and the Abolitionists. As a famous old-school Republican said (quoting, as I recall, Cicero): “Moderation in the cause of Liberty is no virtue.”
Zaphod,
Since we never had an empire, we can’t be at the end of it.
And what’s hamstringing America is its internal enemies, not our external enemies.
Maybe GWB is angry at us and jealous of our affection for Trump. Yeah, we liked GWB but we fill stadiums for Trump. It’s not fair. W brought us through the crisis of 9/11. At one time we cheered him, then we forgot him. We threw our support behind a man who treated W with more disrespect than any liberal. (Neo, I read your previous blog post on Trump on Bush. Yikes.) We feel betrayed by W but maybe the feeling is mutual.
What we are finding ruling from the Capital are TWANLOC. They have American citizenship on paper but their Americanism is a skin suit.
@GB:
Re: American Empire.
You’re a smart guy and your heart is in the right place, but you must have constant cognitive difficulties in daily life when you run into Mislabeled Items.
Do you think that the Roman Senate during the Reign (yes) of Augustus had a big sign over the entrance saying “Roman Senate but not really the Senate and not Really a Republic Anymore.. and by the way that Fellow in the Curule Chair protesting that he’s not a King is a King”?
Maybe you would have woken up around the time of the Diocletian Reforms?… Perhaps we need to stick a Diadem on Joe Diapers to get the point across?
Proskynesis?
Seriously. Wake wakey.
Your cutesy little Constitutional Republic of yeoman farmers has pressing business in Kwajeilein Atoll, Diego Garcia, Qatar, etc… Doubtless you will claim that because they’re not playing Starship Troopers in Ouga#$%^ingdougou, it further buttresses the fact that all your bridges are not monogrammed with giant N’s and Bees that you don’t live in something that slowly and imperceptibly morphed into an Empire and was one for your entire lifetime and is now in the throes of what comes to all Empires.
@geoffb:
Far too many Foreigners of various ilks in your ruling class today. Classic symptom of Late Stage Empire Syndrome. They will all have to go eventually. Preferably quietly.
(This is inspired in part by my personal observation vis-a-vis Mitt Romney in 2012: if only he’d gone after the Democrats with the same gusto and energy with which he went after members of his own party, he’d had an excellent shot at being elected President.)
Draft working definition of a RINO:
any Republican who expends more energy and vehemence attacking conservatives and “deplorables”, than s/he expends attacking lefties and *supposed* moderates.
In many, many cases it’s a social class thing; in other cases it’s a phenomenon whose specific definition continues to elude me. But as a draft working definition, I’m tossing the above attempt out there.
I just want to add that Bush never defended himself because that’s how strong a bond he thought he had with the American people. Whereas we saw attacks on him as attacks on us and felt betrayed when Bush wouldn’t respond to insults and accusations.
@EvaMarie:
You might have a point about him feeling jilted. No. I’m sure you’re spot on 100% right about this.
But on one hand you’re suggesting that he’s so great-souled that he didn’t respond to criticisms during his Presidency because, well Great Soul… and now he’s all bitter because his natural constituency threw themselves at the feet of the Trumpocalypse who cruelly maligned Brother Small Hands? The GWB Character in Act 2 doesn’t seem like the noble paragon in Act 1.
I’ll freely admit that back in the day I saw him as unfairly put upon and a far better option than his two electoral opponents. Unfortunately it turns out with hindsight that this was like comparing fresh dog vomit to three day old dog vomit at midsummer. And with the passing years, he and his legacy have not matured like fine wine.
George Bush didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left him.
And he’s still mad about that.
The Bush-Trump Cage Match may be starting a new round.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2021/09/13/george-bush-decries-domestic-terrorism-at-9-11-tribute-trump-gives-him-a-clown-slap-n1478344?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=-1
Bush and Co. are trending away from the majority.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2021/09/13/cnn-poll-provides-insight-into-anti-biden-chants-erupting-at-stadiums-nationwide-n1478074
The imaginary voters who gave us Joe Biden are inflicting democracy good and hard on the ones who actually did vote for him (along with those of us who did not).
However, the new chant doesn’t quite have the resonance of “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”
We are living in less genteel times, I suppose.
This is unlikely to improve his polling numbers in the usual Democrat redoubts (assuming it’s more accurate than the story about gunshot victims in Oklahoma).
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/09/13/americans-turned-away-from-virginia-hospitals-because-of-influx-of-afghan-evacuees-n1478206?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=-1
The number of hospital officials quoted does lend considerable veracity to the story.
>Trump gives him a clown slap
Ouch! But I think what hurt more was at the 2016 debate– (from memory):
Jeb!: While my brother was protecting us from terrorists, Donald Trump was developing a reality TV show…
Trump (interrupting): But he didn’t protect us! A lot of my friends died on 9/11…he didn’t protect us!
I know this is practically an article of faith among the “populist” right, but has anybody ever actually asked them why they don’t oppose illegal immigration?
Can anyone get near enough to them to actually cross-examine them?
A refusal to enforce the immigration laws is perverse and an indicator of ulterior motives. People assume the ‘cheap labor’ motive because that’s the business case for mass immigration. But, yes, there are screwballs who fancy you have a natural right to settle anywhere in the world you care to. They include the economist Bryan Caplan, the late Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and it’s a reasonable inference they include Paul Ryan.
Democratic pols (see Michael Lind on this point, as he’s wrung admissions out of them) want mass immigration because it’s a vote far for them; per Lind from his conversations with the junior grade Podestas, Democratic strategists gave up on white wage-earners ca. 1992.
So, the question is where George W Bush and John McCain fall in here. It seems quite idiosyncratic outside the ‘business case’ argument. See Robert Stacy McCain (no relation to John McCain) on what he gleaned from a dozen years as a senior editor at The Washington Times: the Washington establishment of the Republican Party actually despises the party base. The corollary of that is a reflexive desire to seek votes elsewhere. For a treatment of the assumptions behind Jeb!’s thinking on immigration, see John Derbyshire’s review of the book Jeb! produced with Clint Bolick. (https://vdare.us/articles/john-derbyshire-concludes-jeb-bush-just-doesn-t-like-americans-very-much)
Bush/Cheney/Ryan/Romney are all part of what I refer to as the Morning Coat, Striped Pants, Top Hat Republicans. They’re done, thank you. I don’t need to be lectured by these effete snobs
Romney and Bush had patrician upbringings. Cheney and Ryan did not. Romney’s family was eccentric due to their Mormon affiliation and the balance sheet of Bush’s immediate family one might wager didn’t mark them as wealthy until around about 1963 (when Bush was 17).
I never could stand the Bush family. A collection of mediocrities who frankly are a bunch of losers as well as Saudi stooges. Reagan’s two biggest mistakes – George H.W. Bush and Sandra Day O’Connor. Let’s not forget that GHWB gave us David Souter as well.
BrooklynBoy:
Disagree with the Bushes politically if you like. Hate them if you like, even. But I cannot imagine why you would call George H.W. Bush a mediocrity. Just his early life would preclude that:
Nothing mediocre about that.
Neo
Apologies. I was referring to their political talents as mediocre and I do not for a minute question their patriotism. George McGovern flew bomber missions over Nazi Germany (a very heroic and dangerous thing to do) but I think he too would have made a disastrous president, that is my feeling about George Herbert Walker Bush. He was not the worst president we had but a very untalented one. In February 1991 he had an approval rating of about 90% (granted that was inflated by the Gulf War victory) and 21 months later he was defeated for re-election. That is a particular form of ineptness. George W. Bush seemed to have given up on his job in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina and only revived himself late in 2008.
BrooklynBoy:
I agree that both were mediocre presidents, although Bush the Younger was dealt a pretty difficult hand as president.
But they were both politically adept in the sense that both were successful at getting elected at least once (H.W.) and twice (W.).
Neo
Quite true but GWB’s greatest mistake was not winning the popular vote (he blew a 6% lead) in 2000 and therefore in the eyes of the media and the Left he was “illegitimate” and hence the movement to abolish the electoral college. He was the last Republican (2004) to win the popular vote, it will be a long time for another Republican to do that. I cannot stand dynasties and I correctly predicted that the GOP Establishment would try to foist Jeb! on the Republican Party in 2016 and do not doubt for one moment that they are grooming George P. Bush for the ultimate office one day. I cannot stand political dynasties be they Kennedys, Clintons, Cuomos, Browns (in California), Birds (in WV and VA), Bushs, or Rockefellers.
Julie Kelly at American Greatness shows without a doubt he was talking about the Jan 6 patriots.
It’s nice to see others on the same page
https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/13/bush-denigrates-war-on-terror-veterans/
I cannot stand political dynasties be they Kennedys, Clintons, Cuomos, Browns (in California), Birds (in WV and VA), Bushs, or Rockefellers.
Byrds. As far as I know, the West Virginia Byrds and the Virginia Byrds are unrelated and there was no dynasty among the West Virginia Byrds. In re the Virginia Byrds, it was just a father and son. In re Rockefellers, uncle and nephew elected in different (quite dissimilar) states on different party lines; not a dynasty. Clintons not a dynasty, but a crooked machine; doubt Chelsea is anywhere near as driven as her mother, nor as cruel. Tafts in Ohio and Digells in Michigan are the durable dynasties.
I stand corrected on the Byrd’s (I should have proofread what I was talking into the phone). Yes the Rockefellers came from different states such as New York, Arkansas, and West Virginia but they were from the same family (although Jay was a Democrat). As for the Clintons they had one president and came too close to having another, and they will push Chelsea into a safe congressional seat in New York State somewhere.
Neo
Apologies. I was referring to their political talents as mediocre and I do not for a minute question their patriotism. George McGovern flew bomber missions over Nazi Germany (a very heroic and dangerous thing to do) but I think he too would have made a disastrous president, that is my feeling about George Herbert Walker Bush.
many of the most evil people of the 20th Century had been war heroes.
it doesn’t always have bearing on their future actions
The limits in the Bushie statement about “attacks on schools and synagogues, on Blacks and Asians, etc” speaks volumes.
Why shouldn’t the omission of (for starters) whites, Hispanics, and cops, be construed as a green light to tee off on those groups?