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.
I concur with and expand the direction of your rant with this thought: Shouldn't we know if there is a concerted and organized effort within the leadership of the Congressional Democrats, particularly the Senate, to use the fraudulent issue of "What did Bush Know about 9/11" to divide the country politically during time of war? We all know that the DNC acts like a giant conspiratorial underground cadre in its robotlike response to their faxed-in talking points or marching orders of the day. Is this a coordinated effort to use fraud and innuendo to divide the country for short term political gain during time of war? I point my finger of blame at Hillary Clinton, and her yes man Senator Daschle. This is right on the border, if not crossing the line, of an extremely serious crime, treason to undermine the US war effort against Terrorism.
Yes, once again we see the #1 Dem tactic is a smear campaign of misinformation and slander, in hopes of exploiting the ignorance of their constituents.
Only total Bush hating idiots would buy this crap.
I predict they will fall into the pit they've dug for the innocent.
ROFLMAO!!!!!
Got to have this on some of the lists!
To find all articles tagged or indexed using above index words
Go here: OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST
and then click the topic to initiate the search! !
These tourists should also ask SD citizens, "If you still vote democratic but yet you voted for President Bush, why?" They can't ALL be getting SWEETHEART DEALS and feel a sense of obligation to Daschle.
Maybe the split ticketers will have to ultimately decide between Dubya's party and Daschle's party once and for all. How can they begin to justify that they voted for President Bush and also his exact opposite, Tom Daschle; completely opposite philosophies and personalities. One is a uniter and the latter always puts politics first. Always.
I think you owe an apology to weasels everywhere!
;-)
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.