On May 16, 2002, one of the most irresponsible “journalists” in America, Ann Compton, made a ludicrous statement on ABC Radio. She claimed that she was present when President Bush was informed of the World Trade Center disaster, and that, as she observed the president she could tell, “He knew - I could see it in his eyes.”
The New York Post had this headline that same day: “9/11 Bombshell - BUSH KNEW - Prez Was Warned Of Possible Hijackings Before Terror Attacks!” This was another example of irresponsibility disguised as journalism.
Then New York’s most beloved senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton rose on the floor of the Senate to quote the New York Post headline. “We have learned something today that raises a number of serious questions. We have learned that President Bush had been informed last year, before Sept. 11, of a possible plot by those associated with Osama bin Laden to hijack a U.S. airliner.”
For some reason she forgot to mention that her husband, equally beloved by all patriotic Americans, received far more specific intelligence reports in both 1995 and 1999 than the sketchy reports President Bush received in August of 2001. In fact, after being briefed on bin Laden’s possible plans to attack the World Trade Center back in 1995 (see the Resources section below), Bill Clinton blew many opportunities to apprehend bin Laden. In fact, Clinton spent many millions more persecuting Bill Gates, who has contributed much to the prosperity of the United States, than he did trying to stop bin Laden, an avowed enemy of our country. Senator Clinton ignores what most Americans know - that Former President Clinton allowed our country’s intelligence and military capabilities to deteriorate so far that it is doubtful anything could have prevented 9/11.
Hillary also neglected to mention that Congress held hearings on the intelligence information, which Former President Clinton ignored. She was having too much fun assassinating a real president’s character by implying (not very subtly) that President Bush deliberately suppressed information that could have saved thousands of lives.
Three other great patriots (Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman), piled on with similar accusations and slimy innuendo. “What did the president know, and when did he know it?” they bleated indignantly. They, along with Hillary, knew exactly what the president knew, and exactly when he knew it, because it was all part of the public record of the Congress. They knew as well that the president had received no specific threats upon which he could have acted.
Then why did the Wicked Witch of New York and the Three Stooges try to appear ignorant of the facts (not too difficult for them). Why did they pretend that the president knew all the details of the 9/11 attacks and deliberately let three thousand Americans die for some unexplained reason? This is a multiple-choice test:
1) They believed that President Bush’s high standing among the American people had waned enough eight months after 9/11 that they could get away with such blatant partisan lies and mud-slinging.
2) If one were to add every shred of character, integrity, and honesty owned by all four of these individuals together, it wouldn’t add up to one tenth of the character, integrity, honesty and love for the American people exhibited daily by our Commander in Chief.
3) They are all planning to run for president in 2004, and hoped the American people would be stupid enough to believe their ludicrous statements, thus damaging Bush’s reputation.
4) All of the above.
Those of you who chose number 4 (All of the above) were correct. You have won a free subscription to Conservative Truth.
Politics aside for a moment, I want all of you to think how all of this must have made George Walker Bush feel. Please don’t say, “He ran for the office, and he has to accept this sort of thing. It comes with the territory.” I cannot accept that. The president is human. He has feelings. He was heart-broken over the tragedies that occurred on 9/11. He was hurt, and he was crying inside, but he remained strong for us. He brought us all together in a terrible resolve to rid the earth of the vermin that did this horrendous thing to us. Imagine how he must have felt when he was accused by these despicable people of knowingly allowing the country he loves so much to be injured so terribly.
Hillary, Daschle, Gephardt, and all of the others who jumped on their bandwagon of hatred-for-political-gain are beneath our contempt. Of course, when they felt the outrage of real Americans, they back-pedaled so quickly that they almost fell over one another. “I didn’t mean that. You must have misunderstood me.” Yes, you did mean that. You own your vile statements. We didn’t misunderstand you. You misunderstood us. You thought we were too dumb to see through your statements and your motives. We aren’t as stupid as you politicians think we are.
Articles on Project Bojinka:
Terrorist acts, many of which Clinton ignored or responded to in a weak manner:
Articles on Terrorism:
The Changing Face of Middle Eastern Terrorism - Heritage.org
Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa
FROM AN EDITOR: You’re right, Tom. Actually, Former President Clinton had more knowledge of terrorism and did nothing about it. During his eight year term he could have done many things to boost American security. During his term the first bombing on the WTC and the attack on the USS Cole took place, as well as the bombing of the US Embassy in Nairobi. Former President Clinton and his staff knew these were all related to al Qaeda. Instead of dealing head-on with the terrorist threat, what did he do during his term that we will remember in perpetuity? He was linked to Whitewater and had numerous affairs. His terms of office cost the government untold taxpayer dollars to defend his moral lapses. No wonder Mrs. Clinton and her cohorts are trying to defect blame onto a Christian president. George W. is a good man. He has God in the right place in his life. -- Nancy Bustani, Psychologist.
ANOTHER EDITOR SOUNDS OFF: I think the real issue is that the US under Bill Clinton’s leadership did not respond forcefully to the terrorists. Because Clinton failed to respond, the terrorists kept increasing the lethality of their attacks until they struck the World Trade Center the second time on 9/11. With Bush’s leadership, the response has been forceful.
Look at the pattern of attacks while Bill Clinton was president:
Feb. 26, 1993: First World Trade Center bombing. Truck bomb: 6 killed, 1042 wounded. Clinton’s response: None. There is clear evidence linking both Iran and Iraq to this atrocity. See the article, “The Changing Face of Middle Eastern Terrorism” in the Resources section above. In this 1995 article the Heritage Foundation recommended that the US deal with these states that sponsor terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Cuba and North Korea (looks pretty much like President Bush’s “Axis of evil”). We never struck back and held those regimes as responsible.
Nov. 13, 1995: A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. Clinton’s response: None.
June 5, 1996: Bombing of the Khobar Towers military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 dead, 515 wounded. Clinton’s response: None
August 7, 1998: Bombings of American Embassies at Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salam, Tanzania, "These two cowardly attacks seriously wounded over 5,000 men, women and children. Civilized people everywhere reject such acts of random violence." The State Department is wrong when they call them "acts of random violence." These were premeditated acts of violence, but the US response was pathetic. Perhaps the real issue is that the vast majority of the 291 killed and 5,000 people were black, and that is why Bill Clinton did so little. He launched 75 Tomahawk missiles. Of note: Osama bin Laden was directly linked by the State Department to these bombings (see “Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa” in the Resources section above).
Oct 12, 2000: Attack on USS Cole. 17 killed, 30 wounded. Clinton’s response: None. Thus, because Bill Clinton did not respond forcefully after the terrorists’ attacks (US struck back only once, and then only with 75 Tomahawk missiles), they kept striking again and again and again and again, until they finally attacked on President Bush’s watch last September. Then the Commander in Chief responded forcefully. This is very reminiscent of the Iranian terrorists holding US hostages for over a year while a weak president (Carter) was in office. The moment a strong man was in office, Iran released the hostages.
In my opinion, the real issue is not the failure of intelligence (spies), but the failure to use intelligence (smarts). A smart president knows that the only way to deal with a bully is to use force. Clinton tried to talk his way out of the terrorist problem. Bush is showing the terrorists that we mean business. -- Glenn Palmer, Military Historian.