ANNUAL SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH POST: 2025

Several years ago a big deal was made over whether or not the 9-11 attacks could have been prevented by greater coordination between elements of the forever corrupt intelligence community. Amid the predictable partisan bickering and childish finger- pointing that characterized the 9-11 Commission and its findings an important consideration was overlooked.

That consideration was how events would have unfolded if the attacks had actually been thwarted. Let’s take a quick look at the idiocy that might have followed.

*** Democrats always feel that the only officially “intellectual” thing to do is to take sides against one’s own country no matter what the situation is. I agree there are plenty of times when reasonable people WILL take sides against their own country, but with American Democrats the rest of us have learned to just yawn and listen with amusement while they twist logic as severely as they have to in order to stick to their apparent loyalty to “everyone who hates America, right or wrong.”

*** The sheer unlikelihood of the 9-11 attacks would have served as the springboard for the Democrats’ attack on the opposition party’s intelligence services foiling those attacks.  (And remember, I despise George W. Bush, so this is NOT a defense of him.)

*** Democrats would have scoffed at the notion that the attacks could have ever succeeded. They would have ridiculed that possibility and made remarks like: “So the Bush administration would have us believe that this perfectly charming Mr Mohamed Atta and his friends would have succeeded in multiple plane hijackings and then, with the minimal pilot training they had, manage to fly those planes with pinpoint accuracy into the World Trade Center towers! Where- EVER does that cowboy in the White House get such notions?”

*** The default argument of all Democrats is that the only people in the world that are irredeemably evil are Americans and they feel it is bigotry to ever suspect anyone else of any ugly intentions. They would have insisted the intelligence services nabbed Atta and his accomplices based solely on “xenophobic” or “racist” or “Islamophobic” assumptions. They’d have insisted it was “A Sacco and Vanzetti story for the 21st Century.”

(By the way, if you’re not sure if you’re an American Democrat or not here’s a quick guide: If you’re condescendingly assuming that other people won’t understand the Sacco and Vanzetti reference then you just might be an American Democrat!)

*** Democrats would have also launched a whole “Free Mohamed Atta” movement and, given the general ineptitude of the Bush administration, probably would have gotten Atta and his fellow conspirators acquitted.

*** Inevitably the same organizations that Atta and his playmates belonged to would have put together a deadly attack that DID succeed like the 9-11 attacks did in real life. Democrats would then have insisted that it was America’s “bigoted” treatment of Mohamed Atta and company that was the SOLE motive behind the attacks and that Americans “brought it all on themselves.”