Posted on 10/15/2001 4:16:12 AM PDT by RightRules
Olson Book's Chilling Warning: Clinton's Terrorist Pardons Sent Signal
In a bone-chilling chapter of her new book "The Final Days," late heroine-author Barbara Olson warned that ex-president Bill Clinton's pardons of terrorists who had repeatedly bombed buildings in New York City "send a signal" that the U.S. isn't serious about fighting terrorism.
In words that now seem like a harbinger of her own Sept. 11 death at the hands of the Middle Eastern terrorists, Olson cited example after example of how U.S. officials strenuously warned Clinton that pardoning FALN Puerto Rican separatists who had waged their own bombing jihad on America posed a threat to national security.
In August 1999 Clinton pardoned 16 FALN terrorists without even being asked, in a move that was widely seen as a cynical ploy to win Hispanic votes for his wife's New York Senate bid.
The group had planned and executed 130 bombing attacks on New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., from 1974 to 1983. Miraculously, the FALN managed to kill just six Americans. But hundreds more were seriously wounded.
Law enforcement officials were stunned when Clinton decided to pardon the FALN bombers.
"The FBI's assistant director of national security, Neil Gallagher, said that the people turned loose by Clinton 'are criminals, and they are terrorists, and they represent a threat to the United States,'" Olson wrote.
In a subchapter eerily headlined "Pardons for Terrorists Send a Signal," she reported:
"President Clinton had not bothered to consult with relatives of victims of FALN terrorism. In fact, the survivors of those murdered and those whose lives had otherwise been destroyed by the terrorists were not even informed that their attackers were being released."
Olson continued:
"Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder ... conceded that the nation owed much greater consideration to the victims. And Holder's boss, Janet Reno, explicitly acknowledged that groups aligned with the FALN still posed a threat to national security."
In comments turned gut-wrenching in light of last month's attacks, former Justice Department pardon attorney Margaret Love told the late author that Clinton's terrorist pardons should have set off alarm bells.
"We should have seen a big flashing red light because of the FALN cases. ... That was a foreshoadowing of what happened later."
Love was referring to Clinton's January 2001 pardons of drug dealers and international fugitives, not the attacks on the U.S., which no one foresaw. But it's nearly impossible now to read those words as anything but prophecy of the terrorist acts that murdered Olson and nearly 6,000 others last month.
In a moment of now legendary heroism, the late author telephoned her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, from American Flight 175 to warn that terrorists had hijacked her plane. Mr. Olson had the terrible task of telling his wife that two planes had slammed into New York's World Trade Center minutes before.
Barbara Olson's phone call was the first warning the government had that Washington, D.C., had come under similar attack.
In comments sure to irk those who argued for eight years that Bill Clinton's private life was nobody else's business, the late author contends that the terrorist pardons were payback for Mrs. Clinton indulging her husband's decades of rampant philandering.
"Hillary had done a lot of heavy lifting for her husband, much of it, such as the various bimbo eruptions, that required her to hold her nose. She had to cover for her husband and lie."
Olson called the FALN pardons Bill Clinton's "first return on her investment."
Though a lively debate has raged ever since Sept. 11 over whether the ex-president did as much as he could to stop Osama bin Laden, the one-time congressional Clinton investigator is the first to raise the FALN pardon question at any length.
Perhaps now Sen. Clinton, who has made herself newly available on the TV talk show circuit since the World Trade Center attacks, will be asked whether she agrees with Olson that her husband's terrorist pardons "sent a signal."
... at least not until it can be spun as part of that vast right-wing conspiracy...
These two continue to make me wanna puke.
For TRUTH !
The beast will never be on a show where the host would dare ask such a question.
Like a giant iceberg, getting closer and bigger. And they know it.
This is a minor point, but I remember thinking at the time that the FALN pardons, in a twisted sort of way, was x42's attempt to throw a monkey wrench in Hitlery's election machine. He really did not want her to become a senator, knowing he would have to play the second fiddle position. I still believe that in the deeper recesses of his demented mind, he thought there would be greater lose than gain to her chances of being elected.
However, I agree with the main thrust of the Limbacher column and can't wait to read the book.
The real Clinton legacy may well be the events of September 11th.
I shudder to think of how much more of what this man and his eevil wife did, that will be coming back to haunt this country.
They had a knuckle head named Solomon on between 7 and 8 central time who (writes?) for the San Francisco Examiner and he was to the left of Lenin.
C-Span also continues to belittle the wearing of lapel flags by various TV personalities, implying that doing so somehow makes that look like sucking up to the government. Brian Lamb owes people an explanation that is plausible or C-Span will suffer the same fate as Teddy Turners nutwork, CNN.
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.