About, Search-box, etc. Click image below to order bumper sticker.

 September 11, 2021 -- A Day for Remembering the Last 20 Years Accurately.

September 11, 2021:

By Jim Wrenn, Editor, PoliticalXray.Com a.k.a. PoliSat.Com 


Today, Date 11, Month 9 

With reverence we pause to take time 
to thank and support 
our troops who deport 
jihadists to Hell for all time

It's true that Saddam didn't plan
the Nine-One-One hit on our land,
and likewise it's plain
attacks on those planes
were missions al Qaeda had planned.

Our forces we rightly dispatched
to Afghans' domains to dispatch
al Qaeda, foremost,
and Taliban hosts,
for launching on us such attack.

That help, not resistance, be gleaned
for forces we sent to the scene
'twas rightly perceived
for warlords to be
our allies, our force must be lean.

And meanwhile, the world knew Saddam,
who harbored desires for a Bomb,
consistently lied
in claims he'd complied
with truce-terms imposed on Saddam.

Though Wilson, the husband of Plame,
proclaimed that "Saddam hadn't made
a yellow-cake 'buy,'"
he falsely implied
Saddam hadn't tried as Bush claimed.

So Dubya correctly perceived
the danger if we were to leave
Saddam un-inspected,
and so he elected
demands that inspections proceed.

However, Saddam sternly ordered
inspectors to not cross his border
'til Dubya said "Now" and
put three-hundred thousand
American troops on his border.

The critics of Dubya maintained
as long as inspectors remained
inside Saddam's borders
that Bush shouldn't order
our forces to topple Hussein.

However, what critics ignore
is absent our keeping such force
positioned with orders
along Saddam's borders,
inspectors he'd oust as before.

And then, in such case, he'd be free
again to make WMD's,
and thus he'd by now
again be endowed
with weapons called "WMD's"

And, further, to counter Iran's
attempts to develop a Bomb,
he surely would have
resumed what he'd had:
A program for making a Bomb.

Though Bush-critics argued that "sanctions"
were means for preventing such actions,
such claims are shown wrong
by Kim Il Jung's Bomb
despite strong enforcement of "sanctions."

Since Dubya was right to conclude
that "sanctions" would never preclude
design of a Bomb
controlled by Saddam,
reality's options were two:

The two ways by which to prevent 
Saddam getting Bombs he'd invent?  
Inspections maintained 
or topple Hussein
if Bombs for Saddam we'd prevent.

Remember, Saddam's prior ejection
of experts deployed for inspections
'til Dubya deployed
a quite-massive force
next-door for a "yes" to inspections?

Without such force being maintained,
no doubt the next move by Hussein
would be the ejection
of expert inspections
and back to Square One once again.

If faith in inspections we'd placed,
the permanent burden we'd face
would thus mean, of course,
maintaining such force
of three-hundred-thousand in place.

(Remember the motives explained
by those flying Nine-One-One planes?
'Twas 'cause we'd deployed
a token-sized force
"in Arabic lands," they proclaimed.)

And even if we had maintained
a large enough force to constrain
Saddam to permit
inspections, his tricks
could still fool inspectors again.

(Remember in One-Nine-Nine-Four
inspectors proclaimed that "No more

remained of Saddam's
designs for a Bomb,"
but then learned by luck he had more?

Proclaiming his Bomb-works they'd closed,
they learned they'd been duped by his pose

when one of his kin
said "Bomb-work had been
continued right under their nose.")

And further, few nations were willing
to honor the sanctions for chilling
the search by Saddam
for stuff to make Bombs
from those who for him would be shilling.

The risks from "inspections maintained"
meant one other option remained:
Ensuring "no Bomb"
meant toppling Saddam
with boots on the ground of Hussein.

Though errors in hindsight appeared:
The WMD's that we feared
were either destroyed 
or elsewhere deployed
and never in battle appeared.

And errors in hindsight appeared
on how to best handle the fears
and grudges arising
from ethnic despising
suppressed in Saddam Hussein's years.

That chaos thereafter transpired
when thugs from al Qaeda lit fires
of hatred that bore
resemblance to war
is not proof we're wrongly inspired.

Instead, what thereafter transpired
as chaos in which we are mired
is proof that the job
is tougher but not
a job that was wrongly "conspired."

Our mission remains just as "just"
as most would concede if our "bust"
of Sǎddam's regime
was perfectly schemed
for drinking from liberty's cup.

If Bush were instead to have heeded
the chant, "Ousting Sǎddam's not needed,"
it's likely Saddam
would now have a Bomb,
and what would Bush-critics be pleading?

They'd now impugn Bush 43
for "letting" Iraqis succeed
in building a nuke
the way they impugned
his dad 'cause he left Saddam free.

The Bush-critics casting of blame 
is half-hindsight thinking displayed-- 
For more, simply play 
the video named 
"Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay."  

"Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay" 
will play when an image displayed 
above on this page, 
is clicked, which will play  
"Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay."  

Regarding the text that's displayed 
in all of those video frames, 
to find it displayed 
as text click the page 
"Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay."   

For video made to extract 
a fair-hindsight view of the facts, 
one also can play
the video named 
"Exposing [of] Bush on Iraq."

The two "vids" above that I list 
were authored in 2006,
when Bush critics urged,
"Withdraw, do not surge,
this war is a loss we can't fix."

Such critics included Barack,
who said, "Get out fast from Iraq,
and funds I'll oppose
'cause ev'ryone knows
we simply can't 'win' in Iraq."

With Reid and Pelosi he* tried
to hold-back the funds for our side,
but Bush-- no lame duck--
made them pony-up
with Joe** joining John*** on his side.

[*Barack Obama, **Joe Lieberman; ***John McCain]  

And then in Two-Thousand-and-Eight
the fruits of the surge had been great,
yet those who'd opposed it
denied 'though they "knowed" it--
that vict'ry'd arrived in '08.

Eclipsing such vict'ry, the drama
that Two-Thousand-Eight dropped upon us --
the left-induced crash
of sub-prime-loan cash
01 --
caused loss by McCain to Obama.

In Twenty-Eleven, our troops
securing Iraq he* withdrew,           (
which yielded the rise
of terror comprised
by ISIS for terror renewed.

And ISIS kept gathering steam
until in Two-Oh, Seventeen
when Trump re-dispatched
our troops to Iraq
destroying that Caliphate's dreams.

And now in Two-Oh Twenty One,
Afghanistan Two-Thousand-One
has now been revived
for terror devised
enabled by what Biden has done.


01.  Go here, and then start by watching
the video titled "Burning the House Down"
and then all the rest of the videos not
subsequently deleted by Google/YouTube. 
See also the "Tenth" item explained in this link.
See also the Tenth Anniversary of 9-o11 post
at this link.









More ... 

Well before Biden commenced his withdrawal operation in Afghanistan, he ordered an overnight abandonment of the Baghram air base and ordered our special-ops forces to cease providing air-support to the Afghan army, which we had trained to operate in small, highly-mobile units (to operate on multiple fronts) supported by effective air-support (NOT as a solely boots-on-the-ground force and not in mass-formations for battle). Then, after Biden crippled the Afghanistan army (which he then falsely portrayed as though it were a stand-alone 300,000-troops army), he launched the incompetently conceived withdrawal, and as things fell apart (mostly as a result of his having both abandoned and crippled the Afghan army), he blamed the Afghan army for failing to defeat the Taliban moving against them on multiple fronts. I agree 100% with Mark Levin: and also with Rep. Dan Crenshaw.


If the above video does not display in your browser in an embedded fashion, here's the direct link to it:


If that link fails, you can view the same video embedded below:





More ...

Afghanistan: Crenshaw-Reagan-JFK Realism Versus WOKE GroupThink and Anti-NeoCon GroupThink .

August 17, 2021:

By Jim Wrenn, Editor, PoliticalXray.Com a.k.a. PoliSat.Com 

To the WOKE Mob (we all know who they are) and the Anti-NeoCon Mob (Tucker Carlson01, Laura Ingram02 and the rest of the "no-endless-wars" sloganeers) (e tu Gutfeld!03???):  

President Joe Biden's precipitous and reckless withdrawal from Afghanistan instantaneously converted into a cataclysmic failure what had been our nearly twenty years of success in keeping Islamic-Fanaticism on its heels in Afghanistan to a degree sufficient to prevent such fanatics from accomplishing their still-held goals to launch more attacks on the United States comparable in scope to the 9-11 attack.  Biden speciously claims he was merely following a path virtually set in stone by President Trump, who had set an earlier deadline (May, 2021) for such departure.  Trump, and leaders who served in his administration, say that during the interval between the 2020 Election and the present, the Taliban had violated numerous elements of Trump's requirements for implementation of such policy and that, therefore, Trump would not have done what Biden just did.  But even it were to be assumed, arguendo, that Trump would not have implemented the plan he'd already made and and would instead have continued leaving the small force to which he had reduced our presence (after also having forced the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners), such action by Trump may well have yielded a similar catastrophe. 

Dan Crenshaw explained it best in two separate interviews in the immediate wake of Biden's catastrophic decision.  Assuming you're not a millennial without material historical knowledge and without sufficient attention-span, watch these two lengthy interviews of Crenshaw.  One is on Fox & Friends and the other is on CNN:

For the Fox & Friends interview, click here

If the link above doesn't work, watch the 
screen-captured version embedded immediately below:


 The CNN interview, click here.

If the link above doesn't work, watch the 
screen-captured version embedded immediately below:



Regarding Reagan's recognition of totalitarianism's endless-war against liberty, see watch the video below with special attention to the middle segment in which Reagan focuses on Poland's rebellion against socialistic/communistic totalitarianism's endless war against liberty:



August 19, 2021 Update:

And never forget President John F. Kennedy's Inauguration speech:


President John F. Kennedy
Bear Any Burden to 
Assure Survival of Liberty
(Inauguration Speech Jan-1961




Despite Tucker Carlson's many fine qualities and many astute insights into a broad range of issues pertaining to liberty, free speech, "smugness and groupthink," he seems to wholly lack any meaningful degree of introspective recognition of his blind hatred towards "NeoCons" (which goes all the way back to 2001) or the non-commonsensical nature of his isolationist libertarianism (in contrast to NeoCons' strong-military foreign policy based on principles recognized by Ronald Reagan and Bush 43) -- i.e., that totalitarianism is waging an "endless war" against liberty and that Liberty exemplified by the United States Constitution cannot survive as a passive island of liberty in an ocean of totalitarianism.  (On this issue, both Reagan and Bush 43 were right:  Whether we like it or not, totalitarianism has been, is, and will indefinitely continue, waging endless war against liberty regardless of whether such totalitarianism is of the communistic/Marxist/socialistic variety on which Reagan focused or the Islamic-fanaticism variety on which Bush 43 focused in the wake of 9-11.)  NeoCons understand this.  Anti-NeoCons (like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham) ignore the reality of totalitarianism' s endless war against liberty.

Once an admirer of a NeoCon-style strong-military foreign policy, a few years ago Laura Ingraham seemed to reject it and instead embraced isolationist libertarianism and began regularly chanting the "no-endless-wars" slogan.

Despite my high opinion of Greg Gutfeld's rigorous intellect and excellent political insights and judgment across a broad range of issues, I'm disappointed that in his first-blush reaction to the unfolding calamity in Afghanistan a few days ago, he seemed to be on the verge of mouthing the "no-endless-wars" sloganeering.  It was depressing.  However, since then, he's done what few in the media are willing to do:  Reevaluate the issues.  Consequently, he seems to have grasped the essence of the realistically correct view expressed by Dan Crenshaw.  That's encouraging. 



We recommend RichWeb

But we can't say RichWeb

recommends us.