Posted on 11/16/2003 3:42:09 PM PST by reformjoy
©Richard Roberts11/9/03
On 9/11 al Qaeda literally struck America like a bolt
from the blue. If Clinton was derelict in his duty to
protect us from the threat posed by Saddam, in regard
to bin Laden, his response seems downright treasonous.
First, there were the offers from the Sudan to turn
over bin Laden, which Mansoor Ijaz has documented;
since he was in the middle of one of the brokered
deals. Clinton is on record as saying that since bin
Laden had not broken any American laws, “there were no
grounds on which we could hold him, “ even though
Clinton knew that bin Laden was plotting terrorism
against the United States.
“Avoiding Clinton’s Mistakes” is an editorial in The
Washington Times (10/27-11/2/03). It sums up all
the offers made to the Clinton administration by the
Sudanese government to hand over bin Laden, plus
correspondence with Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national
security advisor, and personal handwritten notes from
Bill, Hillary, and Al, because Ijaz had raised more
than $900,000 for Democrat campaigns, and had hosted a
birthday party for Hillary in 1999.
Some Sudanese intelligence reports were delivered
personally to Clinton by Ijaz, and “in a September 27,
1996, brief, he details the contents of the
intelligence files, which he had told Mr. Berger about
in a previous August memo. . . . Mr. Ijaz’s
correspondence proves the administration knew what was
available. The Clinton administration simply chose to
snub the government that harbored the Al Qaeda
mastermind....
Mr. Ijaz summarized his view of the Clinton
administration culpability regarding September 11. ‘I
said then as I say now: Bill Clinton’s inability to
understand what was fueling the rise of Bin Laden as a
phenomenon, not as an individual, was the greatest U.S.
foreign policy failure of the last half-century. It
has affected hundreds of millions worldwide. Even if
we get him now, who will be the next Bin Laden? There
are many willing candidates standing in line. Islamic
radicalism exists today because Clinton didn’t
dismantle Al Qaeda when he had the chance.’”
However, Ijaz may be wrong in attributing his old
friend’s “inability to understand” the phenomenon of
Bin Laden. Suppose instead that both Clintons
understood the future danger that Bin Laden
posed for America.
Although Hillary has been in a “co-presidency” with
Bill, in 2000 they were facing the end of their White
House tenure; yet Hillary’s “oe’r weening ambition” to
be President had not been sated, so every day she
schemed and nagged Bill as to how her presidency
could be brought about.
As dyed-in-the-wool Marxists, we can assume they were
familiar with the change in international Marxist
strategy, whereby the “united” workers of the world who
had grown fat and wealthy were no longer viewed as the
force to bring down capitalism.
Indeed, some “requested” workers in Harry Bridges’
International Longshoreman’s and Warehouseman’s Union
make between $100,000 to $200,000 a year.
New Marxist strategy since about 1980 calls for arming
Third World countries, as France, Germany, and Russia
did in Iraq, to cause catastrophic upheavals and civil
wars all across the globe. Terrorist organizations
(“freedom fighters”) would comprise the main phalanx of
this revolution against capitalism.
So back in 1996, Clinton has nothing to lose by
apprehending Bin Laden, except perhaps the wrath of
Hillary, who reasons that left alone, Bin Laden will
grow to be a big problem for the next administration.
She schemes that by running for a Congressional office,
and then taking a stand that homeland security has been
neglected, when the inevitable happens, the anger of
the electorate will propel her into the White House.
Thus today all of the Democrats are of one mind (save
for wise Lieberman) that the U.S. should not have gone
into Iraq, because there is no connection between
Saddam and terrorism (!), and in doing so, America’s
flank has been left exposed to domestic terrorism.
This dovetails perfectly with Hillary’s scheme, and
Kennedy compounds it by declaring that Bush has
perpetuated a fraud on the American people. At the
same time, all of the Marxist “peace” movement is
organizing demonstrations against “imperialist”
America’s Middle East oil grab. The White Banner
declaring “bring the Troops home” has as its goal
permitting the revolution to go on in Iraq by means of
starting up again programs for biological, chemical and
nuclear WMDs.
There are, however, many links between Al Qaeda and
Iraq, which the Bush administration has been cautious
about revealing even in the face of the Democrats’
onslaught against the war. Writing in The Weekly
Standard (10/20/03), Stephen F. Hayes opines
that “the White House is nervous that publicly
discussing the links could trigger another set of
leaks, most of them presumed to come from the CIA,
attempting to discredit the new information. Those are
battles the White House doesn’t want to fight.”
Hayes documents in this and a following article the
Iraqi connections to the attack on the USS Cole and the
1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Operation
Bojinka, which was the first clue that Al Qaeda planned
to use hijacked airplanes as flying bombs. All of that
terrorism occurred during Clinton’s watch. The
information Hayes supplied is beyond the scope of this
article but definitely worth reading to inform that
Saddam was facilitating al Qaeda terrorism.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/238dkpee.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/296fmttq.asp
Clinton policy in regard to international terrorism
was to treat it like domestic law enforcement:
Prosecute individuals when crimes occurred,
rather than preemptively going after
international terrorist organizations and
foreign countries harboring terrorists.
CIA director James Woolsey (1993-95) describes this
short-sighted policy of the Clinton administration in
dealing with terrorism as follows:
“Congress makes it illegal to deny visas to members of
terrorist groups. . . . a lone single individual is
responsible for any given terrorist act, even if
substantial leads point toward backing from the Middle
East. . . .
"Politically correct guidelines keep the CIA and FBI
from recruiting terrorist informants . . . . the CIA
fails to tell the State Department about two terrorists
being tracked in Malaysia—they get visas and become
9/11 hijackers.” --(Wall Street Journal, 10/21/03).
Even more damning evidence that the Clintons were well
informed about al Qaeda plots against the U.S. is
provided in an October 14, 2003 article in
FrontPageMag.com. According to Allan J.
Favish, “Despite recent evidence that Bill Clinton knew
by 1996 that al-Qaida terrorists who had tried to
topple the World Trade Center in 1993 had plans to
hijack commercial planes and crash them into buildings
on American soil, this evidence was ignored by the
recent Congressional report on the causes of the
September 11, 2001 aerial attack on the WTC....
“Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz”
Patterson was a military aide to Clinton from May 1996
to May 1998 and one of five individuals entrusted with
carrying the “nuclear football”—the bag containing the
codes for launching nuclear weapons. On page 139 of
Patterson’s book “Dereliction of Duty”, published in
March 2003, he wrote:
During the summer of the 1996 attacks, I myself learned
firsthand that the administration knew that terrorists
were plotting to use commercial airliners as weapons.
The president received a Presidential Daily Brief, or
PDB, every morning. . . . One late-summer Saturday
morning, the president asked me to pick up a few days’
worth of PDBs that had accumulated in the Oval Office.
He gave them to me with handwritten notes stuffed
inside the folders and asked that I deliver them back
to the NSC. I opened the PDB to rearrange the notes
and noticed the heading “Operation Bojinka.”
I keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial
airliners as weapons and another plot to put bombs on
U.S. airliners.
Because I was a pilot, this naturally grabbed my
attention. I can state for a fact that this
information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence
community, and that in late 1996 the president was
aware of it.”
In Favish’s article, we learn that “Suicide bombers
belonging to the al-Qaida’s Martyrdom Battalion could
crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4
and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the White House.”
The documentation of facts in the Hayes and Favish
articles lead to only one logical conclusion: The
intentional disregard of the impending terrorist
attacks against America, and the failure to retaliate
against those that had occurred, had but one objective,
harming the U.S. as part of a greater Marxist strategy
from which the Clintons could themselves profit
politically.
Richard Roberts has just completed his ninth book,
AMERICA HI-JACKED: How Marxist-Nihilism Infiltrated
American Culture. He sends out a weekly newsletter, of
which the following is one example. See article link
for more information.
As for the rest of your sentiment, I agree. The one thing that would cause me to consider taking up residency in another country would be her election. Once she is in control, even Canada will look conservative.
Sound like it's possible to me. Anything is with these two.
Supposedly - he was going issue ExOrders and put us all under martial law during the 'pre-planned' world-wide failure of the world during the Y2K event too ...
AMEN!!!!!!
Perhaps...but given Clintons response to the Oklahoma City Bombing (his "seminal moment"), and Ron Browns death ("saving" the Department of Commerce), it is a bit less of a stretch than it might seem at first glance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
