Posted on 04/12/2004 10:02:40 AM PDT by kattracks
In a commentary today in the Wall Street Journal, FBI Director Louis Freeh refers - indirectly, of course - to Bill Clinton's failure to deal with terrorism.
He writes:
Al Qaeda was at war with the U.S. even before Sept. 11, 2001. In August 1998, it attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In December 1999, one of al Qaeda's soldiers, Ahmed Ressam, entered the U.S. to bomb Los Angeles airport. In October 2000, al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in the port of Aden.The question before the 9/11 Commission is why our political leadership declared war back on al Qaeda only after Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden had been indicted years before for blowing up American soldiers and embassies and was known as a clear and present danger to the U.S. So what would have happened had the U.S. declared war on al Qaeda before Sept. 11? Endless and ultimately useless speculation about "various threads and pieces of information," which are certainly "relevant and significant," at least in retrospect, will not take us very far in answering this central question.
On Jan. 26, 2001, at 8:45 a.m., I had my first meeting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They had been in office four days. We discussed terrorism, and in particular al Qaeda, the African embassy bombings, the Cole attack and the June 1996 Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia. When I advised the president that Hezbollah and Iran were responsible for Khobar, he directed me to follow-up with Condoleezza Rice. I did so at 2:30 p.m. that day and she told me to pursue our investigation with the attorney general and to bring whatever charges possible. Within weeks, a new prosecutor was put in charge of the case and on June 21 an indictment was returned against 13 Hezbollah men who had been directed to bomb Khobar by senior officials of the Iranian government. I know that the families of the 19 murdered airmen were deeply grateful to President Bush and Ms. Rice for their prompt response and focus on terrorism.
I believe that any president and Congress faced with the reality of Sept. 11 would have acted swiftly and overwhelmingly as did President Bush and the 107th Congress. They are to be commended. However, those who came before President Bush can only be faulted if they had had the political means and the will of the nation to declare a war back then, but failed to do so. The fact that terrorism and the war being waged by al Qaeda was not even an issue in the 2000 presidential campaign strongly suggests that the political will to declare and fight this war didn't exist before Sept. 11. ...
Freeh is scheduled to testify Tuesday before the 9/11 commission. Should be interesting.
Bulls##t.. Gore would have rolled over and capitulated to France, Germany, Russia and the United Nations.
Don't you get how the Liberal extreme left thinks in this country?
Liberalism is not just a mental illness, Liberal Democrats are Globalists... until the American people get this into their heads, our precious liberty is in jeopardy.
....let's see if the DNC blast Freeh as they did Condi.
I'm sick and tired of Iran and others committing ACTS OF WAR, and us not treating it as war. We are apparently at war with Iran on several fronts; at least they behave that way. I suggest we return the favor and make craters of their illegal nuke plants.
Wrong! Clinton wouldn't act and wouldn't lead. Marie Jana Not-so-bright said it succintly herself, when she whined that nothing was done under their watch because the decisions were so difficult. I.e., they didn't want to be leaders, in the responsible sense of the word. Period.
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.