From 9/11 to 1/6
An Open Letter from a George W. Bush Alum to National Security Conservatives, Urging a Vote for Harris-Walz
On September 11, 2001, like millions of other Americans, I arrived at work on a beautiful late summer morning under a vibrant blue sky. I was a Republican staffer for a congressional committee, awaiting my start as a political appointee in the George W. Bush administration.
The sight of the gleaming Capitol dome every morning from my office window never failed to inspire me. It never felt commonplace, even after years of service on Capitol Hill. After the morning of 9/11, the sight of the Capitol would mean even more. If not for the courage of the passengers of Flight 93, the Capitol might well have become the fourth target struck by al Qaeda terrorists that day, with perhaps hundreds more deaths added to their toll of nearly 3,000 killed in New York, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania.
Nearly two decades later, on January 6, 2021, thousands of congressional staffers arrived at work likewise unaware of the trauma the day would bring. The Capitol was not just an intended target of violence that day, but the site of a deadly insurrection, an attempt to overthrow our democracy that came all too close to succeeding.
Although there are enormous differences between the two attacks, the perpetrators of both 9/11 and 1/6 intended to sow chaos and fear in American society in furtherance of their own desire for power. In such national security crises, the public looks to the President for calm, resolve, and decisive but well-considered action. On 9/11, and in the tense months that followed, we had such a President in George W. Bush. On 1/6, and throughout other national security challenges in the four years preceding it, we had the complete opposite in Donald Trump.
The evening of the 9/11 attacks, President Bush addressed a shocked and grieving nation, personifying what he called America’s “disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger.” Bush would later rally the nation’s spirits speaking to first responders from atop a pile of rubble in New York, telling them, “I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”
In the days and months that followed 9/11, President Bush’s actions matched his call for national unity and resolve. Less than a week after the attack, and again that December to commemorate Eid al-Fitr, Bush visited a mosque in the capital and made clear that Islam was not the enemy, that the culprits were terrorists who came here from bases overseas, not Muslim Americans, who deserved peace and respect. Bush also sought unity when he rallied bipartisan support to enact key legislation to strengthen our national security institutions after 9/11.
Moreover, rather than lash out with poorly conceived, immediate and unilateral retribution, President Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to end their haven for al Qaeda or face military action in Afghanistan to eliminate the terrorist group. He consulted and coordinated with our NATO allies, leading to the only invocation of NATO’s Article V provision that “an attack on one is an attack on all.” American forces then proudly served beside troops from our NATO allies in Operation Enduring Freedom.
Trump, of course, not only failed to unite and console the nation on January 6 but incited the insurrection itself. With the mob breaching the Capitol, he urged them on, hoping to prevent Congress’s certification of his defeat. He endangered the life of his own Vice President, attacking Mike Pence in a tweet for putting loyalty to the Constitution over loyalty to him. When a staffer told him Pence’s life was at risk, he said, “So what?” and continued to watch the attack on TV, refusing for hours the pleas of his staff and Members of Congress to tell the mob to stand down. He has since promised to pardon the January 6 mob, calling them “patriots” and “political prisoners” and referring to them as “we” rather than “they.”
The damning contrast with Bush after 9/11 also extends to Trump’s overall approach to national security and unity. Where Bush said “Islam is peace,” Trump said “Islam hates us” and tried to ban Muslims from traveling to the United States. Rather than seeking bipartisan compromise on national security legislation for the good of the nation, Trump has put his political interests first, such as in his condemnation of the bipartisan border security compromise, and his successful demands on Republicans in Congress to tank the bill just before it would’ve passed. Rather than agreeing to bipartisan commissions or supporting law enforcement investigations of attacks on our national security, as Bush did through the 9/11 Commission, Trump did all he could to thwart investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election and demanded Republican opposition to investigations of January 6. He largely got his demand, with Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger the only Republicans to vote for the creation of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (and later the only ones to serve on it).
One can only dread how Trump would handle a terrorist attack or international crisis on the scale of 9/11. Before the infamous “love letters” with Kim Jong Un, Trump engaged in alarming brinkmanship with the erratic, nuclear-armed North Korean dictator. General Jim Mattis, Trump’s Secretary of Defense, worried so much about a surprise attack order from Trump that he slept in his gym clothes, anticipating a late-night crisis.
Faced with a terrorist attack or escalating crisis with a foreign state, Trump would let his unhinged emotions take control and do whatever it took to “look strong.” Perhaps he would only pause to ask Vladimir Putin what to do, deferring to the Russian dictator as he did in siding with him over our own intelligence agencies’ assessment of Russian interference in our elections. He certainly would be loathe to coordinate with NATO as Bush did after 9/11; after all, Trump spent four years undermining history’s most successful military alliance and is likely to withdraw the United States from it if reelected.
America now faces a decision on whether to return the presidency to a man whom three retired generals have called a fascist after they served under him in top national security positions. A man who tried to overturn a free and fair election and threatens to do so again. A man who says his political opponents are an “enemy within” deserving military force and posing a threat more severe than any overseas. A man who faces no guardrails should he return to power, because his administration would be populated by sycophants instead of patriots like Generals Kelly, Mattis, and Milley.
Having grown up watching Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush secure peaceful victory in the Cold War, the conservative approach to national security was the bedrock of my Republican identity from the start. I was fortunate to have a front seat to history later in the George W. Bush administration as he led our nation through the 9/11 crisis and helped prevent another such attack on our soil.
But today’s Republican nominee for president is not the choice for national security conservatives. Instead, Kamala Harris offers the clearly superior choice. She understands the importance of standing up to dictators like Putin, Xi Jingping, and Kim Jong Un and the vital role of NATO in our national security. As she said in her convention speech, “Five days before Russia attacked Ukraine, I met with President Zelensky to warn him about Russia’s plan to invade. I helped mobilize a global response — over 50 countries — to defend against Putin’s aggression.” She has also pledged to ensure we have the “strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world” and to ensure we prevail over China in the competition for global leadership in artificial intelligence and other key technologies of the future. Her calm, deliberate leadership style and commitment to a strong national security posture have inspired hundreds of retired military leaders and other bipartisan national security officials to endorse her.
It is hard to change lifelong habits and challenge long-held assumptions. But national security conservatives should think back to the pride they felt when President Reagan demanded, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” and the joy they felt when the wall fell. Contrast that with Trump telling the former KGB agent Putin he can “do whatever the hell” he wants and continuing to talk to Putin in the years since leaving office. Conservatives should think back to President Bush’s call for unity and resolve in defeating al Qaeda on 9/11 and compare that to the other national security crisis known by its date, 1/6–a crisis perpetrated by a man who is not asking for Americans’ votes but demanding their personal loyalty.
A vote for Kamala Harris is a recognition of an undeniable reality, that in this election, the party of Reagan, the Bushes, McCain and Romney has nominated (again) a man who rejects their national security ideals of global leadership and opposition to dictators, who mocks their commitment to the Constitution and democracy. For national security conservatives, a vote for Kamala Harris is not a rejection of our past. It is a step toward a brighter future, one where Donald Trump no longer threatens our Constitution, one where we might begin to restore the Republican Party to be worthy of its historic legacy in defending America’s values and security at home and abroad.