What was George W. Bush referring to on the 9/11 anniversary?

The New Neo Posted on by

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.

Victor Davis Hanson speaking on Biden, Afghanistan, and America’s decline

The New Neo Posted on by

I haven’t yet watched the whole of this video – it’s long. But what I’ve seen seems excellent, if depressing. I suggest you watch (or just listen to, if you’re double-tasking) at least part of it. Sometimes, to save time with videos, I watch at faster speed – you can adjust the speed in the YouTube settings for each video.

In case you’re unaware of Hanson’s specialty, he’s a military historian:

9/11: twenty years later

The New Neo Posted on by

[BUMPED UP]

This is the saddest anniversary of that date in the twenty years since the event itself. Saddest by far, and angriest as well.

I don’t really have to explain in any detail why I say that; I’ve already written a great deal about how the actions of the administration in the last month or so have not only undone any progress we had made against the forces that perpetrated and/or celebrated 9/11, but in my opinion have taken us to an even worse state than before.

That undoing – that unraveling – was performed for no pressing reason other than whatever goes on in Joe Biden’s mind and the minds of those who advise and to a certain extent control him. The left has its reasons for doing what it does, of that you can be sure, and they do not include wishing America well.

All of that makes what otherwise would have been a solemn and sobering occasion an exponentially more tragic and enraging one.

There are so many documentary videos on the original 9/11 that I find it hard to choose what to highlight today. This one, however, is very short but very searing. It encapsulates the horror and pathos of the day. The ending of the video is a reminder of a resolve that is still there for many of us but certainly not for all of us, and not for the people who are currently in positions of power in the White House. Why did I merely link to it and not embed it? It is just too heartbreaking, and using a link gives it the tiniest bit of extra distance. I warn you that, short though it may be, it is difficult to watch.

Here’s another short one that focuses on a recent interview with some of the now-grownup children who lost a parent that day. It highlights the passage of time.

Twenty years. Sometimes it seems like a lot more than that, doesn’t it?

Biden – or his animatronic – gives a pre-recorded speech on the 20th anniversary of 9/11

The New Neo Posted on by

[BUMPED UP]

I’m just going to link to it rather than embedding it. I don’t want his face to appear on my blog today. If you decide to follow the link you may notice – as I did very late last night – that the comments are uniformly bitter and derisive.

Here’s a sampler:

Like the soft caress of a cold dead fish, Biden ‘soothes’ the nation with a pre-recorded, heavily edited statement that would not even get an honorable mention for public speaking at the local retirement home.

Cmon man that was 20 years ago “checks watch”.

I watched this at night…. now I can’t sleep, he just looks so creepy.

This traitor gave a nation to the terrorist who did these attacks.
Disgusting to hear him talk about the victims.

Vacant stare in those dead black eyes. What’s up, Joe.

The man invented Borking which led to the politics of personal destruction. He’s a used car salesman with a law degree.

He looks like he just woke up out of his casket. We have never had a weaker person as a president.

He preaches the very opposite of everything he does. While he sows division in everything he does, he preaches unity. What a joke you keep talking about unity joe.

These are typical. Plus, there are a great many that mention his leaving behind Americans in Afghanistan. There’s a great deal of anger out there, and his supporters – wherever they are and whoever they are – are almost entirely silent. It’s probably because they are not actually pro-Joe but anti-Trump and anti the right.

I have yet to speak to any of my Democrat friends on the topic of what’s been going on in the last few weeks, except to refer to it in the general sense as very upsetting, a sentiment with which they agree. I sense they do not want to talk about it or hear from me on it, but at some point my plan is to choose one or two friends whom I usually can talk to about politics without their getting angry (although they sometimes get impatient), and talk to them in more depth about these things.

I have no idea whether they are getting at all regretful about their votes for Biden, or whether they are still very pleased he won. My guess is the latter.

One of Biden’s Afghanistan drone strikes apparently killed the wrong people

The New Neo Posted on by

Even when the Biden administration is trying to seem tough on terrorists they can’t quite pull it off with competence. I’m actually surprised that the left is reporting this story:

The U.S. drone strike that military officials said targeted a suspected ISIS-K car bomb in Kabul during the final days of the U.S. evacuation effort may have mistakenly targeted an innocent civilian, according to extensive investigations by the New York Times and Washington Post. Ten civilians, including seven children, were reportedly killed in the August 29 airstrike. All were members of the same extended family.

…On August 29, U.S. Central Command announced that it had conducted a drone strike on a suspected terrorist driving a car that seemed to be filled with explosives and was believed to pose an imminent threat to the airport. Military officials suggested that the driver, whom they were not able to identify, had acted suspiciously in the hours before the strike, including a stop at a possible ISIS-K safe house, and loading the car with heavy packages that may have been explosives. The U.S. said that a larger secondary explosion occurred after the drone strike, which would suggest the presence of explosive cargo and seemingly justified targeting the vehicle.

But the Times investigation found no evidence of a large secondary blast, and the Post’s investigation suggests that if a second blast was seen, the most likely explanation would be that it was from the ignition of the vehicle’s fuel…

Both publications have identified the driver as Zemari Ahmadi, a 43-year-old electrical engineer who had long worked for Nutrition and Education International, a California-based aid organization operating in Afghanistan. According to relatives who spoke with the Times, Ahmadi and another member of his extended family in Afghanistan who had once worked as a U.S. military contractor had both applied for refugee resettlement in the U.S. for them and their families.

According to Ahmadi’s family members and colleagues, the white sedan he drove belonged to NEI, and his various stops on the 29th were just a normal day on the job, including picking up his boss’s laptop and transporting co-workers…

…[P]er the Times report, “according to his relatives, as Mr. Ahmadi pulled into his courtyard, several of his children and his brothers’ children came out, excited to see him, and sat in the car as he backed it inside.”

What a nightmare this administration is. They sent a drone to kill someone based on evidence that flimsy? They were apparently desperate to appear tough.

Again, I wonder why the left is reporting this. I can speculate – for example, is it a sign that Biden is going to be removed? But I really have no idea.

Kamala Harris on my body, my choice

The New Neo Posted on by

VP Harris yesterday:

The President and I are unequivocal in our support of Roe v. Wade and the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, and the right of women to make decisions for themselves with whomever they choose — about their own bodies. And, needless to say, the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision; it is their body.

Interesting that she doesn’t say “birthing people.” But in addition to that, note she only states that women have that right, not people in general.

More:

And no legislative institutions have the right to circumvent the Constitution of the United States in an attempt to interfere with, much less to prevent, a woman to make those decisions.

Harris is a lawyer. Her words are carefully chosen: no legislative institutions. She goes on to specifically cite the Texas legislature as a big offender (as well as other states seeking to limit abortions) to her stated principle. Does Harris think the chief executive – that is, President Biden – has the right to limit the body freedom and decisions of individuals concerning COVID and vaccinations? Don’t be silly; of course she does.

More:

So we will have a conversation about how what is happening in Texas is affect- — affecting women in Texas. But, as we know, it’s not only Texas where this is happening. And I know we’re going to talk about Mississippi. We’re talking about New Mexico. We’re going to talk about the United States and what we must do collectively — all of us — to protect the women of our country and protect their constitutional rights.

You get the idea: we’re going to stop those state legislatures – you know, the ones that reflect the will of the people – from limiting our power to limit their power. And again, it’s about women’s rights, not rights for all people. Oh, and constitutional rights? The main problem with Roe is that it invented a constitutional right where none existed, and even many of those who like the results of the decision have admitted it rests on very shaky constitutional grounds.

Harris continues to rail against states that have limitations on abortion, and mentions that health care is a universal right (something she did not say about bodily integrity and autonomy, which she limited very carefully to women). It’s only at the very end that she adds the following:

When people are able to design their lives in a way that they can determine their own futures, we are a stronger democracy and we are a stronger nation. When people are able to make choices without government interference for themselves — in terms of their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their family, in consultation with whomever they may choose — we are a stronger society.

That’s the only time Harris mentions people in general, and note that she adds the following: “in terms of their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their family.” That limitation is in there for a reason, I think, which is that it would allow her to say, if asked, that vaccination refusal negatively impacts not just on the self and that person’s family but on others as well. Of course, so does abortion – in particular, it impacts on the man who impregnated the woman and who may want the child but has no say in the matter, and of course it impacts on the child.

The child? What child? One of the things that has always struck me about this “my body, my choice” thing is that it clearly involves the life of at least one other person by terminating it. One can even be in favor of abortion and recognize that as a troubling fact that needs discussing rather than denying. But abortion advocates such as Harris would rather pretend it doesn’t even exist. That is really the heart – and the heartbeat – of the matter, isn’t it?

NOTE: For my own views on abortion, I refer readers to these previous posts but in particular to this one.

On the failure to apply a cost/benefit analysis to COVID policy

The New Neo Posted on by

Here are some excellent observations from Glenn Greenwald:

The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world,” while “crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54.”…

Given how many deaths and serious injuries would be prevented, why is nobody clamoring for a ban on cars, or at least severe restrictions on who can drive (essential purposes only) or how fast (25 mph)? Is it because most people are just sociopaths who do not care about the huge number of lives lost by the driving policies they support, and are perfectly happy to watch people die or be permanently maimed as long as their convenience is not impeded? Is it because they do not assign value to the lives of other people, and therefore knowingly support policies — allowing anyone above 15 years old to drive, at high speeds — that will kill many children along with adults?

…It is because we employ a rational framework of cost-benefit analysis, whereby, when making public policy choices, we do not examine only one side of the ledger (number of people who will die if cars are permitted) but also consider the immense costs generated by policies that would prevent those deaths (massive limits on our ability to travel, vastly increased times to get from one place to another, restrictions on what we can experience in our lives, enormous financial costs from returning to the pre-automobile days)…

We never opt for a society-altering policy on the ground that “any lives saved make it imperative to embrace” precisely because such a primitive mindset ignores all the countervailing costs…

…[T]he use of cost-benefit analysis as the primary formula we use is uncontroversial — at least it was until the COVID pandemic began. It is now extremely common in Western democracies for large factions of citizens to demand that any measures undertaken to prevent COVID deaths are vital, regardless of the costs imposed by those policies…

Whatever is true about motives, what is unacceptable — sociopathic, really — is the insistence on assigning severe costs to just one side of the ledger (harms from COVID itself) while categorically refusing to recognize let alone value the costs on the other side of the ledger (from severe, enduring anti-COVID disruptions to and restrictions on life).

Greenwald doesn’t get into why this is happening. And I don’t know why either. But I do observe the following: (1) It is not just a US phenomenon, it appears to be widespread in western countries and in some non-Western countries as well (2) It serves the purposes of the left in that it gives them more power and more excuses for that power, as well as accustoming the population to greater levels of government control (3) It serves the purposes of the media for attracting viewers through escalating fear; and (4) It takes advantage of widespread ignorance of math and statistics.

What’s more, in psychological terms, we tend to accept the risks of things to which we’ve become accustomed. COVID is new and although pandemics themselves aren’t new, this one had a very dramatic beginning and frightened people right off the bat (as it were). The unknowns were heightened, and once people became so frightened, COVID became a huge fear for a lot of people and that fear has remained.

Fear tends to be irrational, so cost-benefit analyses don’t often convince in such situations. If cooler heads don’t prevail – and they certainly haven’t with COVID, for the most part – and drum the cost-benefit information into people’s heads with constant repetition, many people will tend to go with their fears. Instead of damping those fears down, government has purposely escalated them.

[NOTE: One of my very first posts about COVID, published March 14, 2020, was called “Gone are the days: assuming the risk.” Right from the start with COVID, I was puzzled by the lack of cost/benefit analysis and historical perspective.]