Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Bush Is Innocent and the Democrats Are Guilty (David Horowitz Column)
Front Page Magazine ^ | 5/20/02 | David Horowitz

Posted on 05/19/2002 9:18:33 PM PDT by Pyro7480

Why Bush Is Innocent and the Democrats Are Guilty
by David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 20, 2002

IT FIGURES. The guilty ones are the first to point the finger. Now the same Democrats who for eight years slashed the military, crippled the CIA, blamed America for the enemies it made, opposed the projection of American power (missiles and smart bombs excepted) into terrorist regions like Afghanistan and Iraq, dismissed acts of war as individual misdeeds, rejected airport security on "racial profiling" grounds, defended a commander-in-chief who put his libido above the security of his citizens, and still oppose essential defense measures like holding suspects and imposing immigration controls – these same obstructers and appeasers are now in full war cry against the President and are hoping to pin him with responsibility for the September 11 attack.

Not every Democrat is as kooky or anti-American as Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) who sits with Democratic connivance on the International Relations Committee and spent the week before 9-11 joining hands in South Africa with Iranians and other Islamo-fascists to condemn the United States, then came home to accuse Bush of plotting 9-11 so that his friends in the Carlyle Group could make war profits on defense contracts. But more mainstream Democrats -- the Leahys and the Boxers and other equally left and determined antagonists of American power -- are far more significant players in the debacle of 9/11. And no one is more singularly responsible for America’s vulnerability on that fateful day than the Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and his White House staff.

It is appropriate therefore that the crowning irony of the present Democrat attack is that it is the Clinton Administration not George Bush who knew of the plot to use airliners as bombs to blow up American buildings, that they knew it in 1995, that they did nothing about it, and that they kept this information from the Bush security team.

But first the background.

Despite the fact that Republicans had fought Democrats for eight years over the military and intelligence budgets, over immigration and security issues, despite the alliances that leftwing Democrats had made with America’s enemies in the UN, despite the obstructionism of Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy in opposing domestic security measures and efforts by the Justice Department to bring al-Qaeda to heel, Republicans refused to point a partisan finger on issues of war and peace. Now their self-restraint has come back to haunt them as the Democrats seek to shift the blame they have done so much to earn to the shoulders of their political opponents.

The Democratic attack on George Bush is based on an intelligence analysis he received a month before 9/11, which indicated that al-Qaeda terrorists were planning to hijack planes. The described threats in this analysis came under the category "general" meaning they did not specify time, place or method, and they were uncorroborated. The reports the President received in the months prior to 9/11 described targets that were mainly overseas – in the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, Italy, Paris, Rome and Turkey. On the slim reed of the existence of a possible hijacking threat in the United States – included with all these others -- the Democrats have built their treacherous case.

Yet hijackings occur and have occurred for forty years. On most occasions they are stopped. Nine of the 9/11 hijackers were hauled out of airport security lines as they were boarding the fatal flights that September. But because airport security had not been tightened – and could not be tightened without a battle royal with Democrats over "racial profiling" the al-Qaeda hijackers were allowed to continue and carry out their sinister design. Shutting down the U.S. airline industry or sounding a national alarm that would produce the same effect in August 2001 on the basis of a vague report that a hijacking was possible is something no administration has ever done in 40 years of hijacking incidents. Yet this is the logic behind the Democrats’ present "investigation."

If, on the other hand, Bush had known what the Clinton Administration knew – that al-Qaeda had plans to use commercial airliners as bombs and fly them into buildings – specifically the CIA -- this would be a serious charge. But they did not know it, because the Clinton team never told them.

Although the Clinton security team knew that Operation Bojinka included blowing up the CIA building in Langley, Virginia, it kept this information from the rest of the government. When Dale Watson, chief of the FBI’s International Terrorism Operations Section testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 1998, he withheld this vital information. He identified Operation Bojinka only as a plot to blow up U.S. air carriers, and assured the senators that the FBI had the situation under control.

It is possible that Clinton never received the information about Operation Bojinka, since his lack of interest in national security matters throughout the course of his administration has been noted by many – including his chief political advisor Dick Morris, and his chief "biographer" Joe Klein. February 1998 – the date of the FBI testimony -- is also the month after Monica Lewinsky became a national celebrity.

The fact that Bush didn’t know about plans to hijack planes and run them into tall buildings was confirmed by Condoleeza Rice at her recent press conference:

Dr. Rice: Hijacking before 9/11 and hijacking after 9/11 do mean two very, very different things. And so focusing on it before 9/11 – perhaps it’s clear that after 9/11 you would have looked at this differently, but certainly not before 9/11.

Q: And no discussion in this briefing, or any others, about the possibility of al-Qaeda hijacking, and the fact that there have been active investigations into the possibility of a CIA building plot, or an Eiffel Tower plot. Never came up?

Dr. Rice: It did not come up.

On September 10, 2001 a document landed on the President’s desk that he had commissioned months before. It was a plan to dismantle and destroy al-Qaeda and had taken months to prepare. It was necessary because the Clinton administration had drawn up no such plan in the eight years before.

The charge now being led by the Democrats against the nation’s commander-in-chief as he attempts to protect its citizens against the next certain terrorist attack is worse than unconscionable. It is one more Democratic stake driven into the heart of the nation’s security. Limiting the damage, defending his authority, in order to protect Americans from further harm is now the daunting task before the President and his team.

Israel. We must also not take part in a regional conference with Arafat or his representatives. We must not fall into this trap under any circumstances.

"When the Prime Minister turned to me and asked me to take part in the information effort, I responded willingly, and met with many Senators and Representatives. If I had any difficulties in explaining, it was not regarding why we want to expel Arafat; it was why we were *not* expelling him!

"The biggest mistake that was made [a reference to
Sharon, among others] was to promise the greatest prize for Palestinian terrorism: the establishment of their own independent state. Most people now feel that a state under Arafat would be a terrorist fortress dedicated to our destruction. But some say that without Arafat, and without the Tanzim, and with a different leadership, things would be different. Let's see if this is true. We want to ensure that such an entity does not receive more than self-rule. But it will demand all the powers of a state, such as controlling borders, bringing in weapons, control of airspace and the ability to knock down any Israeli plane that enters its area, the ability to sign peace treaties and military alliances with other countries. Once you give them a state, you give them all these things, even if there is an agreement to the contrary, for within a short time they will demand all these things, and they will assume these powers, and the world will stand by and do nothing - but it *will* stop us from trying to stop them. We will thus have created with our own hands a threat to our very existence. Arafat said it best when talking to reporters the day he signed the Oslo accords: "Since we can't defeat Israel in war, we must do it in stages, we must take whatever area of Palestine we can get, establish sovereignty there, and then at the right time, we will have to convince the Arab nations to join us in dealing the final blow to Israel.". Self-rule, yes. But a state with which to destroy the State of Israel - no.

"All the Likud governments objected to a Palestinian state, and with that we received our mandate from the public, and to this mandate all Likud leaders are bound. And yet something strange happened here: Without anyone approving it, without any democratic process - not in the party, not in the government, not in the Knesset, and certainly not in the country - but only with some ill-advised remarks [by Sharon in favor of a PA state], one of the foundation stones of our national security has been shaken, and suddenly the position of Sarid and Peres has become the official policy of the Government of Israel - and as a result, also that of the United States. Ladies and gentlemen, is this how critical decisions on our national existence are made??

"Just today we heard in the news that Shimon Peres met with Arafat's top aide, Muhammad Rashid, in order to discuss the 'reforms that must be made in the PA in order to enable a PA state.' We are told that we must not tie the government's hands in this matter - and I say that in this existential matter, we must tie its hands and stop this danger! If we end this evening without a clear decision on this matter, not only will we not stop the train of a PA state, we will even speed it up. For it will mean that the Likud has retreated from its principled positions..."

David Horowitz is editor-in-chief of FrontPageMagazine.com and president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

  

 

E N D

 


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; cia; defense; democrats; nationalsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last
Comment #101 Removed by Moderator

To: Pyro7480;nutmeg
Thank you for the post and the ping. Great article.

Did Clinton know the extent of the terrorist theat world-wide? Based on his State Dept. '96 Report on Terrorism, he knew the major players, the locations, weapons' caches, history. Members of his administration gave speeches at think tanks, dinners, and briefings...and wrote up pretty web pages....very little action.

Knowing how dangerous Osama Bin Laden was, Clinton did wait until President Bush would reap the consequences to make his final move:

Clinton's parting gift to Bush? Poking the Taliban hornet's nest...and running:


Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands. , Dec. 20th...2000.
Why did Clinton wait until Dec. 19th, 2000 to push the UN for tougher sanctions against the Taliban? Clinton knew this would anger not only the Taliban, but their terrorist pals across the world. The UN understood the danger...they pulled their own people out of Afghanistan the same day, Dec. 20th, that the new threat was issued.

The electoral college voted for President Bush on Dec. 18th. Clinton went to the UN to push for tougher sanctions on Dec. 19th. On Dec. 20th, the UN reluctantly issued the threat...to go into effect 30 days later, just in time for President Bush's inaugeration.

This was an intentional, calculated act on the part of Clinton. He left office as he served, leaving our nation weaker and divided, the world de-stablized, and with one last act of personal vengence, he put his self before the security of our nation.

102 posted on 05/20/2002 2:34:52 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Thanks for the great analysis. Few would have come up with that, but since we all frequent FR, many of us are "beyond well-informed." I think people from the CIA and other government agencies may end up saving money (and it's taxpayer's money) if they used FR as a resource.
103 posted on 05/20/2002 2:59:11 PM PDT by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
Come on.

In this day of carnivore and eschelon and every other search tool, dont tell me that this nfo was so hard to come by.

The nfo that said Ramzi Yousef had plans to ram planes into buildings was found by a twit like me,so dont you think the entire weight of the entire federal government chain of intelligence could?

I'll get back later with the nfo.

104 posted on 05/20/2002 3:22:10 PM PDT by Betty Jo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Horowitz exposes the scurrilous lies of the deadRats again! Good post.

Let the Rats know how you feel here:

Freep This NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll

105 posted on 05/20/2002 3:27:16 PM PDT by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walkin Man
Bump to Bookmark
106 posted on 05/20/2002 5:11:12 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
BTTT!
107 posted on 05/20/2002 5:46:16 PM PDT by StriperSniper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jo
Betty Jo, the article should have contained the number of airports in the US, the number of passengers daily, the number of possible targets, the number of places security can be breached on the borders, etc., etc., the number and scope of threats against the US regularly....all of which would help you understand that there was no way to find this needle in the haystack on 9-11. Keep dreaming.
108 posted on 05/20/2002 6:08:09 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480, all
Siren on at Drudge re: details of the FBI memo.
109 posted on 05/20/2002 6:10:35 PM PDT by MamaLucci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
You're funny!
110 posted on 05/20/2002 9:02:53 PM PDT by Betty Jo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy
One would think DH, has been cribbing notes from my posts of the last few days. Thanx, I missed this article originally.
111 posted on 05/21/2002 7:20:50 AM PDT by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: OPS4; Quix;Altayann
See the CNN hits from google above
112 posted on 05/21/2002 6:12:22 PM PDT by Betty Jo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jo, TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
THANKS MUCH FOR YOUR POSTS,

Blessings,

113 posted on 05/21/2002 9:57:26 PM PDT by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
BTTT
114 posted on 05/24/2002 3:44:14 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchy
Just trying to bump this article to the top again. I really thought this one would generate more than 114 posts.
115 posted on 05/24/2002 3:49:23 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
BTTT
116 posted on 05/24/2002 7:33:16 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson