The Worst Decision by a US President in History – by David Horowitz


The Obama administration has taken a giant step in its march to throw in the towel  in the war against radical Islam. On FoxNews this morning, Peter King said of the decision to try the soldiers of al-Qaeda — who by their own account have no country but their cause — as civilians

“may be the worst decision by a U.S. president in history.”

It certainly is. It sends a signal to terrorists everywhere to attack civilians.

The administration is justifying its decisions on the grounds that because the 9/11 attackers targeted civilians they should be tried as civilians. This makes no sense unless you are a Democrat who believes that the “holy war” that Islamic jihadists have formally declared on us is no different from the acts of isolated individuals who have decided to break the law. This is the approach to the war on terror that John Kerry championed in 2004. Now that Americans have had the poor judgment — the suicidally poor judgment — to make a leftist their president, this is the strategy our nation is set to pursue.

The decision to try the jihadists in a civilian court is also a decision which will divulge America’s security secrets to the enemy since civilian courts afford defendants the right of discovery. It is also a propaganda gift to Islamic murderers who will turn the courtroom into a media circus to promote their hatred against the Great Satan — a hatred shared by their apologists at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the pro-Castro Center for Constitutional Rights who have pioneered the campaign against Guantanamo and whose influence in the Obama Administration is pervasive. (BTW, The newly appointed lawyer for the president is the husband of Obama’s recently departed Maoist communications director Anita Dunn.)

Finally, this move continues and enlarges the refusal of the President and the American Left to recognize that:

  1. We are in a war that has been declared on us — in which we, in other words, are the victims.
  2. That the war is conducted by religious armies whose war is inspired by their reading of the Koran.
  3. That the number of Muslims who support their war plan is in the tens of millions
  4. That they are aided and abetted by many Islamic governments and by the international Left.

  • bushlikesdick12

    You're babbling about nothing

  • jackhampton

    I have forgot more about war than you will ever know. Germany and Japan were different types of war. It was total war where the dictators fascist had the support of the people all out war. The wars we are fighting are limited wars and our military go to great lengths to avoid civilian deaths and injury. You are a child that does not understand or either you are a paid schill for the terrorist. If we had dropped hundreds of thousands of bombs down fireplaces there would not be very many people left in Iraq. you are simply a fool or a tool.

  • bushlikesdick12

    we were actually shocked by the level of atrocities when our soilders first walked into these camps. We really had no idea of the extent of these mass murderers.

    We did know that Nazi's were putting them in death camps even before we entered the war and what is shocking is that we wouldn't allow boat loads of Jews to come into our country due to our immigration policy of not excepting anymore people due to not being able to care for the millions already suffering from the depression.

    We knew but we didn't really understand to how much of this was happening untill it was too late.

    Even if we did know, obviously, there wasn''t anything we could have done to stop it sooner.

  • jackhampton

    You have got to be joking! you are an insult simply by your stupidty and lack of basic knoledge. Oh and I could tell you exactly where I live. But we do not need any doped up stumble bum excons around here. I notice besides likedick you want to jack people off you really are disgusting and perverted I would tell you to get a grip but you keep referring to your moma and jacking off that is deviant and vile you should have more respect for your mother. No wonder your wife dumped you for another man.

  • jackhampton

    The Patriot Act is still the law of the land. If you were as bright as you thought you were you would know we are not a demoracy but a constitutional Republic a nation of laws. The framers went to great lengths to prevent this nation from being a democracy which is basically mob rule. lolol what a stooge.

  • Don

    What? You mean Obama and Holder are NOT in power, but bush and ashcroft still are? Gosh, that WAS a clever dictatorial coup!

  • Lary9

    Glad you're still with us.
    Semper fi to you.

  • Lary9

    I know I'm in the minority opinion on this. I'm rethinking the issue based
    on all the input.

  • bushlikesdick12

    I'll attempt to read between your sarcasim and try to guess what you apparantly don't have the courage or character to just say:

    I'm assuming you are implying that now that we have a democratically controlled congress and executive branch, that the Patriot Act should easily be overturned eventhou it was found to be constitutional in the Supreme Court. (wow, AI do a good job representing and communicating your position don't I)

    I find it kind of strange Don that many on the website complain that I'm vulgar but yet I don't dance around and hide behind facades.

    Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10, 2006.~~~~

    So basically, the Supreme Court has found the intent of the Bush Administration unconstitutional.

    The subject at hand, is should this terrorist be tried in a militray tribunal or a regular court and in reflection of this choice was the prior administrations unconstitutional policies set forth.

    The indifinate encarcenation of “combatant”detianees at Gitmo was also found to be unconstitutional during the previous administration as well —

    ~~On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without congressional authorization, because they did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention (which the court found to be incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice).[4]

    This battle verses congress and the President “Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is continuing today and will for quite awhile, probably will be passed on to the next president.

    There three points I will make in rebuttal to your vague are sarcastic remark:

    1.The acts of the Bush Administration have been declared over reaching.

    2. Obviously, the acts of the prior administration affects the current adminstration considerably.

    3. Just because I present the rebuttal to a FPM article doesn't imply that I'm against these policies set forth by the Bush Administration.


    At the time of the 9/11 terrorist act, I too was extremely angry and expected vengence and justice towards the ones the perpurtrated these hideious acts.

    Furthermore, I didn't have a problem making a case out of going to war against Saddam based on faulty premises — even today I feel that that was an excellent message to send to our enemies ( that we are capable of turning into anything if needed). Very effective and I believe that strategy is probably the main reason why we haven't been attacked sense then.

    Even the Patriot act was appropiate at the time. The aggressiveness and character of this Hawkish behavior towards terrorism is exactly what we needed at the time.

    The problem I have is Bush's alliance with the Right Wing Christian Coalition and his remarks of claiming a Crusade ( insinuating against Islam as a whole).

    During most of Bush's Administration Bush demostrated a tremendous amount of arrogance which emulates ignorance which he obviously has no shortage of.

    When addressing the extremist during this period, the fragrant arrogance and the permission to behave in a deceitfull way became intolerable to the moderates and likes of people like myself that do not claim to be liberal nor conservative and do not necessarily belong to a particular party.

    I was extremely embarrassed with Bush's banner of “mission accomplised” while he was wearing a flight jacket knowing he was too chicken shit to actually fight in Vietnam ( Daddy got him into the Air National Guard — we can assume).

    Then his Hurrincane Katrina Golf trip really pissed me off.

    Then, of course, his negligence ( which of course Clinton is responsible too) of preventing the economical meltdown we have today by maintaining the conservative policies of not regulating the securities and banking standards. — Alan Greenspan holds most the blame here but he is a Republican appointee with a conservative idealogy.

    In consideration of all these facts, I started to lean left for the purpose of creating more balanc in the house and Supreme Court.

    In seeing our reputation being severly tarnished in the process, I slowly became disenchanted with the whole Republican Party.

    Then of course what threw me over the edge was the vindictive bipartisan politics introduced to me through the likes of Fox, Limbaush, and so forth.

    So there you go Don.

    Now our President recently announced that our reputation has been restored

    Like I believe that as much as I believe that our economy has improved at the great expence of our deficit.

    The deficit, in my opinion, is completely unavoidable — the banking bailout happened on Bush''s watch and fact that no strings were attached to this money — Bush is the one that could have admended it if he chose to.

    Congress had to act fast to prevent a meltdown and the complexities designed into passing laws had to be overruled but Bush doesn't have that excuse — he is a one man show in the White House and it was much easier for him to make the necessary changes to reintroduce this bill.

    Bottom line, Bush is responsible for the current economical crises by giving the banks so much money with no strings attached. As a result, the banks are holding out on the American people by waiting it out (not willing to take a risk) thus starving out our people by not giving loans thus putting us back to work.

    As you see, construction is getting hit the hardest.— no loans to build.

    You would think developers would want to take advantage of the low cost of labor and real estate, but no — banks are giving loans right now.

    So how would a Republican President react to our current economical issues — not much different.

    So yes, Don, the impact of the Bush Administration will effect us for decades not years.

    Ecuse me if I don't check my spelling but I have made my case far more than your willing to acknowledge already.



  • bushlikesdick12

    If you would bother to followup on the current status of the Patriot Act, You will see that much of it was overturned due to the constitutionality of it being overreaching. Bushlick then had to sign the new version which is still being debated in the Supreme Court as petitioners continue thier effort to control the government snooping into our personal business with the excuse of giving the govt. the benefit of the doubt of accusing anyone of being a terrorist while the term of who is a terrorist is still debated likewise.

    i.e the example of the claim of this article:

    Indefinite detention is the incarceration of an arrested person by a national government or law enforcement agency without a trial. It is a controversial practice on the part of any government or agency that is in violation of many national and international laws, including human rights laws[1]. In recent years, governments have indefinitely held those suspected to be involved in terrorism, declaring them as enemy combatants.

  • reneekelly

    Hey – all this trash talk is offensive and pointless to most of us who check in to read articles and comments here. Lay off the gutter language and treat other people with some basic decency, no matter how strongly you disagree with their viewpoints. There are plenty of places on the web to trash talk each other. Get your brain out of the gutter please.

  • CowboyUp

    Go To Bottom, Starting a new thread

  • CowboyUp


    Now I’m a lonely unhappy lefty, on top of being a hateful muslim. I don’t know where you think (or are you just feeling?) you get a clue about my ammo supply, love life, or friends, the latter two being completely irrelevant to the discussion, because you’re just blasting away with your eyes closed to keep from addressing my posts. Don’t quit your day job to headshrink.

    You claimed to not understand why anyone would have a problem trying ksm as a civilian, I told you, you asked me to elaborate and I did. Then you went on a headshrink tangent and claimed I thought “the democratic system of justice (Whatever that is, never heard of it, myself.) is stupid.” I elaborated further, implored you to look into it further, and that thread of your post ended.

    On this thread you said basically aq doesn’t want, or won’t like the publicity of a public trial. That’s nonsense, and I told you why. Then you started back with the headshrinking (and my incredulous amusement somehow becomes fear and anger), imagining things you thought I said, and trying to change the subject.

    If I said some of the things you have in your spacey moods (like now), my friends would be ridiculing me too, just not as gently as I am you. We’ve apparently got thicker hides down here.

  • jackhampton

    I gave up on her after the “hundreds of thousands of bombs down the fireplace of innocent Iraqis comment” I realized she does not have any idea about war or how it is waged certainly no experience or she is simply a liar for the muzzies one or the other. Or like that moron from Washington state that threw herself in front of a bulldozer.

  • bushlikesdick12

    I here ya and agree with you. But humor me for a minute.There are a lot of lies and misrepresentations in the articles at hand and whenever you have a lot of deceit and appeasement to these distortions, you will find characters of a lower class.I've never seen your screen name but that doesn't mean you are not other screen name. Assuming that, and assuming that you have read many of my non abusive and responsible rebuttals to the subjects at hand, then you should know that the ones that I have indecent verball exchanges with are the ones that start hurling insults first while not even responsibly addressing my rebuttal. They too can ignore me. How often do you see me abusively attack someone for no reason or for just having an absurd opinion? —never I hope. If I did, then I need to apologize which I have done in the past. Let us look at Jack Hampton for example. He has been rude from the get go and yet he trolls around trying to get people to ignore my claims while attacking my position at every turn.So you want to correct my behavior?That is okay, I'll take your advice for now.I remember a few years back when I behaved like a "Jesus freak type Christian"for the purpose of promoting tolerance on this website. I had this guy named "Hispano man who lived in Mexico who assumed that I was this innocent little Christian that wouldn't hurt a fly. So the coward decided to ripp on my religion and my character as well with the appeasement of the motely crue of posters at that time.So, in a very crude way ( he must have been a Mexican living in Mexico at the time) I told him in so many words that I would pay him $10.00 per hour to dig me a ditch along the Mexican border.Well he took to such offense to that that he never came back to FPM.As far as the rest of the posters, they couldn't believe how cruel that was and lamblasted me similar to what jack does untill they eventually went away. (these characters eventually resign their own position and eventually stop posting on FPM)What I can't understand is why so many of you find me so absurd for deliverying an opposing point of view while I become combative when attacked?I'm simply mirroring yourselves in my opinion.Thank you for your time.

  • CowboyUp

    No, that's not enterely true, JackHampton, she makes a lot of sense when she talks about Israel (other than her apparent hatred of the GOP over American policies toward Israel), and sometimes she comes up with very interesting angles on things. I think she just has a very spotty knowledge of history and warfare, doesn't understand the thinking of terrorists, is a bit emotion oriented, and posts when she's tired (mea culpa). Sometimes I wonder if it's my posts she's responding to (I've done that myself as well).

    Her notion of fighting seems to be like my youngest sister's, hit them back once and wait to see what they do. That didn't work on the playground, and it sure won't work against terrorists and their sponsors. Proportionate response only perpetuates the violence and kills more in the end. Overwhelming response most often ends violence, and discourages others from violence.

    She's been posting here at least as long as I have, so I'm fond of her, even though she unintentionally cracks me up a lot.

  • coyote3

    If you would bother to read, you would see that you are lying about what I said. I never said whether the patriot act was unconstitutional or not. I said it had not been found to be unconstitutional.. That is not misrepresentation, parts of it were, but the act itself still stands, and is being used by this administration.. You didn't quote the statutory language or refute a thing I said, because you can't. Again, if you believe there is no constitutional basis for the patriot act, then you are free to assert that position, just as I am free to do the same with medicare, etc. In fact, I did criticize Bush for unconstitutionally expanding, the program.

  • bushlikesdick12

    Here ya go Sara,

    While I was writting my previous response to you, this response popped up into my mailbox. First here is what he was responding to:

    IIf Sara Roy is so illigitimate as an academic scholar in the feilds she claims, then why bother even writting an article about her? I would understand why you would want to bring attention to the bias towards Israel but this Sara shouldn't have any sort of concern to anyone if she has no clue.

    Do you think anyone of significance cares what Horowitz thinks — I don't.

    What are Horowitz's qualifications?


    That is what I wrote! Exactly what was in that comment that you find so offensive and full of trash?

    Is my opinion of Horowitz any different than how the author talks about of the person at hand?

    Now read the response I got from him:

    antifascist18 wrote, in response to bushlikesdick12:

    Hey Bozo,

    Your ignorance is showing, and by the way, do learn how to spell. Sounds like you're a typical brain dead fascist or muslim. Either way, makes no difference.

    I'll tell you what Renee,

    If you think a Muslim should be insulted by this then you deserve some benefit of the doubt:

    If I start seeing you or someone of another screenname correct people of likes of this then I will change my screen name to ~~ObamaCares~~ instead of ~~~BushlikesDick~~~

    I promise to do this after a week of defending my non-trashy and responsible comments.

    But if the attacks of the likes of these don't stop under my new unprovoking screen name, then I will expect a public retraction of your statement along with an apology.


    You're just plain stupid.

  • bushlikesdick12

    I apoligize for the typo,

    I noticed that somehow ~you are just plain stupid~ somehow got into the ending of my comment to you.

    That was pasted from the other guys comment and wasn't directed toward you

    Sorry about that

  • bushlikesdick12

    The remark ~~ you are just plain stupid~~ was at the end of his remark. somehow, I got my words sandwiched between his

  • jackhampton

    I will take your word for it. Someone needs to explain to her had we dropped hundreds of thousands of bombs down fireplaces with the accuracy of mordern munitions there would hardly be one scorched stone or brick left standing and not very many people.

  • jackhampton

    This seems to be a reasonable post I would normally not respond but I will to this one. Your assertion that I some how attacked you first is a lie. I do not agree with you but I did not attack you first. This post reveals a lot a child like mentality mommy he hit me first and it also says that you have more personalities than EVE. There is a term for that sort of disorder but look it up it will give you something to do. By the way people with multiple personality disorder are quite often violent against women and others they believe defenseless. You try to make an excuse as to what your handle represents when you know full well the vulgar implication. I learned in 20 years of dealing with hardcore felons that most reoffend and you do not help or deter them by being timid they sense weakness and bully and abuse if left to there own devises.

  • bushlikesdick12

    You remind of an electrician I had on one of my jobs who use to also be a prison guard. He had to retire early due to the stress. ( actually he had a temper problem that was apparantly brought on by his job)

    But one thing was certain, he never loss his prison mentality. Yea everything is a oneupmanship game for him and he became one the most combative employees (subcontractor) ever.

    The only thing he understood was corruption, getting kickbacks and doing things that normal people wouldn't do such defy authority and lived in an environment where convicts make the rules amoung themselves.

    (He was a pretty good electrician thou — He caught a huge mistake my client made — like shipping out about 50 light fixtures that didn't match our Title 4 requirements. I have to give that to him!)

    Basically, he became a product of his environment and carried it into mine.

    I get a lot of your clients in my business. Construction is one of the highest paying industries that úsually doesn't do an extensive background.

    Organized crime in the construction unions have a large contribution to that as well.

    It is one of the few occupations/trades where you can literally walk onto a job and just need to show your I.D. and your SS# and sound like you know what you are talking about.

    ( that has changed a lot in the recent years — we require them to fill out appliations now with the question if they have ever be convicted. in some cases we will follow up on that question but for the most part, we just use it as a disclaimer and don't follow up on it)

    That is one of the reasons why construction jobs have the highest ratio of theft.

    If they know we have expensive tools in the container, they will know someone that will steal it.

    has happened to me more than once. It doesn't take much to deal with a security guard.

    You must be pretty nieve is you make the assumptions you are making now.

    Did you do that when you were a guard?


    Is it you that call me a stooge?

    You know what the ring leader does when he wants to frame someone — he uses someone like you as a stooge to misinform you about thier target.

    All I have to do is act like your friend on-line and lie about someone else or a subject and I'll have you feeding out my hand in no time.

    You should be gratefull that I'm who I am — at least I'm standing in front of you in plain light!

    You know what I'm going to do to your silly ass?

    ( not really— you are already too much a waste of my time)

    I'm going to use another disguise (screen name) and play the role of somebody that is as psycotic as you and be your best buddy. Then my evil twin is going to sneak up behind you and give you a rude awakening.

    You can call me what you want but Jack Nickleson knows good acting when he sees it.


    Regardless if Rene takes up my offer or not, I'm done with you. You can follow me around this website and shoot your fat mouth all you want for now on and it is only going to display your own demeanor.

    Unless of course, you can hold water in a debate of course.

    From what I can see, you can only act rude.


  • jackhampton

    All anyone has to do is read your last response and they will understand how deranged you are. The only thing that you might contract is a venereal desease. lol. Like I said I locked up hundreds like you. I ran an FFJ section for the last eight years before I retired. Now I must really be bored responding to a a lunatic. All people have to do is read your rambling nonsensical comments above it tells the whole story. You fancy your self some grand intellect and master of all things The sad part is you are more than likely off of some badly needed medication. But I hope no harm comes to you when they come to take you back to the nice place where they give you the coloring books and crayolas and ask you to draw something nice. Good luck with your fantasy world hehehe.

  • jackhampton

    I also forgot to add you exhibit all the signs of a malignant narcissist which is very compatible with criminal behaviour. You fancy yourself as some master manipulator when in all probability you are angry because all you can manipulate is some guys zipper in a bathroom stall at a bus station.

  • CowboyUp

    She does get way out there sometimes, I just assume she's tired. I've also often thought she's sometimes posting things she hears or reads in passing and agrees with, because she can't seem to discuss or expand on some things she puts out there.

  • jackhampton

    You are probably right sometime I am not the most patient as you can tell wit my verbage with the resident convict but that has about run it's course. Stay cool.

  • bushlikesdick12

    I'm not going to argue with you over the semantics of each others words if we can't even agree on the intent of our meanings.

  • LucyQ


  • jackhampton

    Yep AQ got there asses kicked big time in Iraq all there leaders killed and them just about wiped out even the old traitors like Harry(the war is lost Reid) and the idiot Nancy Ploser has had to admit these facts.

  • Lary9

    You throw that word “traitor” around so frivolously that I wonder what you
    would call someone who was actually a bonafide traitor instead simply a
    congressman with whom you disagree. That kind of political pre-pubescence
    will come back to bite you. Tighten up your rhetoric and cut back on the

  • jackhampton

    No I do not throw that word around much but when I do I mean it. Funny thing though the coffee pot did blow up after 11 years so I went and bought a new Cuisnart. Harry will not be back he will not get reelected. Hopefully there will be a nice prison cell some place next to Jefferson for him. He has to be the the worst weasel I have ever encountered in my life. Well John Murtha is probably worse. They should have prosecuted him over ABSCAM he just slid by. Then there is Dick the Turbin Durbin, If I could I would still put Teddy Kennedy in prison. He sent a letter to the Pope by Obama and received no reply.

  • Lary9

    Happy Thanksgiving to y'all. L9

  • Nick in Virginia

    “…because the 9/11 attackers targeted civilians they should be tried as civilians.”

    I guess the Pentagon does not count as a military installation?

    Holder/0bama are being real idiots on this issue. And the best thing the 0bama administration could do is keep Holder off camera, because both Kyl and Graham spanked him in the Senate hearings.

    30 years ago there was a documentary called “The 3 Rs: Reading, (W)riting, and Reefer”, in which they asked one of the high-school potheads named “Stoner” if he did anything productive while he was stoned. In a spaced-out voice he replied, “Noooo, I don't think so”.

    That was Holder when Graham asked him if the US had ever done anything like this before.

    As I said, idiots.


    Send the FBI, Sheriffs, and the NYPD to lunch and set them free on the streets of Manhatten. Lets move on to things of more importance…….

  • Brian H

    Attacking civilians and dressing as a civilian is termed "Perfidy" by the Hague Conventions, and absolves forces suppressing such attackers of blame for civilian casualties. They have no rights as combatants or, indeed, any rights whatsoever.