No-Satire 9-11: Today, Date 11, Month 9, Remember to Also Take Time to Thank and Support Our Troops Who Deport Jihadists to Hell for All Time.

9-11-- No Satire: Today, Date 11, Month 9, Remember to Also Take Time to Thank and Support Our Troops Who Deport Jihadists to Hell for All Time.·

By Jim Wrenn,
Editor, PoliSat.Com; PoliticalXray.Com.
September 12, 2011-- See September 30, 2012 Update in the box immediately below:

September 30, 2012 Update

I wrote/uploaded the original version of this "Eleven Years" celebration in the early-morning hours of September 12, 2012, a time when information made available to the public from our government and the dominant media about our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had not yet confirmed that whatever happened there had caused the death of our Ambassador, Christopher Stevens and others in the Consulate or in a nearby "safe house". Subsequent information has undermined the stated premise of the "Eleven Years" celebration/congratulations I had posted in the early-morning hours of September 12, 2012. See the excerpts below from a column by Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard about what we have learned since then not only about what actually had happened but also how the Obama Administration and its eager allies in the dominant media struggled mightily to preserve the then-known-by-them-to-be-false premise for a celebration of "Eleven Years" without a major terrorist attack (other than prior mis-descriptions such as the characterization of the Fort Hood shootings as "workplace violence" rather than a terrorist manifestation of jihadist fanaticism) on sovereign U.S. territory:

Excerpts from a column by Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard on September 30, 2012 (for the "October 8, 2012 Issue" date):

* Top Pentagon officials declared the assault a terrorist attack on “Day One.” Doing so enabled them to expedite any response to the attack (Yahoo! News).

* U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials understood right away that the attacks were planned for the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 (THE WEEKLY STANDARD).

* Within 24 hours of the attack, “U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda-affiliated operatives were behind the attack and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers” (Daily Beast).

* In telephone intercepts of phone calls involving members of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked group in Libya, members “bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador” (Daily Beast).

* U.S. counterterrorism officials had repeatedly warned about the growth of al Qaeda affiliate groups in Libya and noted in particular their relationship to al Qaeda’s central leadership in Pakistan (THE WEEKLY STANDARD).

Read the entire column at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/our-fearless-misleader_653228.html?nopager=1 .

See also a comprehensive description of the time-line of facts and deceptions in John Nolte's September 29 2012, article at BreitBart.Com:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Benghazi-Gate-Timeline-What%20Government-Knew-What-they-Said .

Thus, it is now readily apparent that my video at the bottom of this page (scroll-down to the Windows Movie Video featuring Jeff Grier's famous "I'll Take It From Here" painting) celebrated the "Eleven Years" from 9-11-2001 to 9-11-2012 without knowledge that yet-to-be-accurately-reported events occurring in Libya on 9-11-2012 had invalidated the premise of including "Obama/Biden" in the time-period concluding at the end of September 11, 2012.

End of update. The original content of this installment begins on the line immediately below this box. -- Jim Wrenn, Editor

Today, Date 11, Month 9, remember to also 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. And now in Two-Thousand-and-Eight the fruits of the surge have been great, yet those who opposed it won't say though they know it, and vict'ry we're near in '08.

Perhaps as you're reading you find the words are in rhythm and rhyme. If so, you're astute, so scroll-down to view the stanzas a line at a time.

Read this column first

Today, Date 11, Month 9
with reverence we pause to take time
to thanks 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.

Read this column second

(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.

And now in Two-Thousand-and-Eight
the fruits of the surge have been great,
yet those who opposed it
won't say though they know it,
and vict'ry we're near in '08.

Jim Wrenn,
Editor, PoliSat.Com.

After finishing this column, go to the right-hand column.