 |
Posted on 05/17/2002 11:03:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Events this week reminded our countrymen that "homeland security" in the war with Jihadistan is not all that secure -- and can certainly be used as cheap partisan fodder by unscrupulous Leftists.
Coast Guard intelligence reports surfaced about 25 Islamic militants who have entered the U.S. since March in shipping containers at the ports of Miami, Savannah, Georgia, and Long Beach, California. This report arrived amid charges by Sociocrats and their Leftmedia cadre that an intelligence report given to President Bush last August constituted "advance knowledge" that Osama bin Laden planned a terrorist airline hijacking in the U.S.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle led the charge: "I'm gravely concerned that the president received a warning in August about the threat of hijackers by Osama bin Laden and his organization. Why was it not provided to us, and why was it not shared with the general public...?"
Vice President Dick Cheney laid bare the crude political attack, saying, "Such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war," and a livid (but somehow composed) President Bush simply said, "There's a sniff of politics in the air."
While Daschle's comment was a prime candidate for the "BIG Lie," this transparent, phony, execrable political ambush on President Bush has become such a "chatter head" feeding frenzy that it had to be addressed top of the fold. To wit: Thursday, the front-page of the New York Times read, "Bush Was Warned Bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes," and The Washington Post's headline read, "Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers." CNN's Judy Woodruff issued a damning indictment: "President Bush knew that al-Qa'ida was planning to hijack a U.S. airliner." An incensed Katie Couric posed the question on NBC's Today Show, "What did he know and when did he know it?" -- the famous question asked of President Nixon during the Watergate scandal.
Here are the facts. The President is provided a "world situation briefing" every morning by his senior national security staff. One morning in August of 2001, that briefing included information that Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida cadre might attempt to hijack an airliner -- perhaps domestic, perhaps international. The warning, like many before it concerning al-Qa'ida threats, was "unconfirmed, unsubstantiated and unspecified." National security analysts have, for years, predicted aircraft hijackings, including the possibility that those aircraft might be used as missiles against high-profile targets.
In 1993, after the bombing of the World Trade Center in an unsuccessful attempt to collapse one tower into the other, a national security analyst (and member of The Federalist's Editorial Board) predicted in an intelligence summary briefing: "The next time they hit the WTC, it will be from the sky." In 1995, the FBI and CIA had warnings that Abdul Murad, a pilot and al-Qa'ida terrorist linked to the 1993 WTC bombing, planned to fly a small plane filled with explosives into CIA headquarters. In late 1998, intelligence analysts estimated that Osama bin Laden was planning retaliatory strikes on Washington or New York in response to the U.S. missile strike on his headquarters in Afghanistan. It is important to note that the above estimates constituted only a small part of the threat scenarios that were surfacing for analysis. (Theses estimates were provided in the years that Bill Clinton was president -- you know, the guy who missed three promising opportunities to kill or capture Osama long before 9-11, but was too busy appeasing Palestinian terrorists.)
Looking forward from 1993, there were, literally, millions of intelligence threads pertaining to terrorism groups and activities around the world. Looking back from 9-11 with 20/20 hindsight, one may determine with some accuracy which threads were connected to the horrific events of that day. But to suggest, because such thread clues existed, that the FBI and CIA should have divined this al-Qa'ida attack plan, and added it to their list of successful terrorist interventions, is grossly uninformed. (However, Director Robert Mueller is restructuring the protocol for information collected to centralize the analysis at FBI headquarters, and similar restructuring is taking place at CIA.)
To suggest further that President Bush knew about the 9-11 attack in advance is utterly ludicrous! To suggest that he should warn the public about every threat in the "Early Bird" intel summary is equally absurd. Note that three weeks ago, while generally praising the administration's Homeland Security measures, The Federalist (No. 02-17) specifically criticized the administration "for crying wolf and prompting duck-and-cover exercises by repeatedly issuing alerts for unconfirmed, unsubstantiated and often unspecified threats."
The above facts not withstanding, Hillary Clinton found an open mike yesterday and declared: "I am just here to get answers.... One of our New York newspapers had a headline this morning, 'BUSH KNEW!' Bush knew what?" Ms. Clinton was referring to a full page blast in the New York Post, a tabloid. She did not demand answers about celebrities being kidnapped by aliens as recently reported in other tabloids like the Star and National Enquirer.
Hope you'all enjoy this rebuttal as much as I did.
Quote of the week...
"No nation can be totally secure or more secure unless we're well protected, and unless our borders are well screened. We must know who's coming into our country and why they're coming. We must know what our visitors are doing, and when they leave. That's important for us to know; the knowledge is necessary to make our homeland more secure." --President George W. Bush, this week signing the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. (The bill: provides for 400 more Immigration and Naturalization investigators and inspectors processing the 500 million people that cross U.S. borders each year; hikes pay for border patrol agents; creates a database of suspected terrorists accessible at every entry point; provides for machine readable biometric information on entry visas; and bans without special exemption entry from terror-sponsoring nations.)
Open Query...
"When people talk about a 'peace process,' they are usually talking about something that matches their preconception that negotiations end wars. But, if we are really interested in peace, then we have to look at the hard evidence of what has in fact led to peace. What ended the Cold War with the Soviet Union? Was it all the 'summit meetings' that took place for decades on end, while the Soviets sponsored wars of aggression around the world? Or was it Ronald Reagan's much-lamented 'arms race' of the 1980s that put the Soviet economy under more strain than it could handle?" --Thomas Sowell
Actually, I feel the same way...;-)
Even with top-of-the-line leadership, it is going to take us a generation to clean up all of the messes the Clinton Gang left in their wake.
Of course all this happened before 9/11, and I'm concerned and slightly disturbed that the Safety Commissions' recommendations, might have prevented the events of 9/11, however expensive those recommendations may have been.
(Did you all see my head bobbing to emphasize these points, ala tommy?)
J. Edwards was the delegated fence sitter yesterday in true lawyer-like fashion. The rest of America, frankly, would just like those DEMS off of our tv sets. DEM FATIGUE!!!!!
Meanwhile, the Honorable Vice President Dick Cheney was at a big pubbie dinner and IT WAS NICE TO HEAR ANOTHER VOICE OF REASON. Comments anyone on the backlash theory?
Someone might LOUDLY proclaim it in any case! ;-)
Of course all this happened before 9/11, and I'm concerned and slightly disturbed that the Safety Commissions' recommendations, might have prevented the events of 9/11, however expensive those recommendations may have been.
The failures of the Dems are legion, and dangerous to the lives of American citizens.
(Did you all see my head bobbing to emphasize these points, ala tommy?)
Oh yes... ;-)
EV
As far as I'm concerned, she on longer exists. Just like the sh** that you flushed yesterday.
|
I think you're right, or at any rate, to the extent that this is not going to help the Dems, even if there isn't a major backlash.
I think what's going to happen is that it will all quietly disappear, because the Dems must surely realize that blaming a man who was in office for 9 months makes no sense when the guy who was in office for 8 years left a very clear paper trail of botched handling of terrorism in general, and Islamics in particular. They don't really want that examined too closely, I'm sure.
Their strategy is to hit and run. I think this will go away very quickly, probably not hurting them too badly, but on the other hand, not helping them.
What I wish would happen is that Bush would use it as an excuse to clean out the Clinton-era holdovers in the security services.
The lady who cut my hair this morning told me that she thought Daschle was just 'in it for himself'.
It would seem that back home, the bloom is coming off the rose.
If anyone is interested in an inside look at how Daschle has stayed in power...by convincing gullible South Dakota Republican voters that he is a 'good guy', and 'for the little guy', here is an old ABC interview with Daschle while he was out and around our beautiful State.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/ntl_daschle_transcript.html
I ask people to examine this issue, in the hope that everyone will have a little talk with their friends and relatives in SD about how badly the Daschle Democrats are hurting our country.
Regards...EV
You are the champ, my friend...yes indeed...no one else even comes close...
I'm still laughing... :-)
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.