A List of the Democrat Morons who are blasting Bush and how they voted for Intelligence Budget Cuts

Democrat insinuations that the President and Administration had prior knowledge of the September 11th tragedy is an outrageous political attack on the Commander-in-Chief during wartime.

Principled dissent and disagreement are at the heart of democracy. However, principled dissent should not be confused with the political gamesmanship and partisan attacks being launched by Democrats.

The insinuation that President Bush had prior knowledge of the September 11th attacks is nonsensical but not without precedent.

Conspiracy theorists have long accused FDR of having prior knowledge of the December 7, 1941, surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

Conspiracy theories are as American as baseball and apple pie, but historically they have not been fueled by the mainstream news media or prominent politicians.

Any Democrat who criticizes American intelligence agencies for a lack of preparedness should be ready to defend their long history of voting to cut intelligence budgets.

After September 11th, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a series of non-specific, general warnings about potential threats. The same people who criticized the release of that information because it was non-specific and general are now criticizing the Administration for not releasing general, non-specific information. This is a hypocritical and absurd circular argument.

Proof of this goes no further than examining the record of prominent Democrats who have spoken out in the past two days:

"What was the failure of intelligence? Did the right officials not act on the intelligence in the proper way? These are the things we need to find out." (CNN, "Fingers point as early clues of attacks surface" 5/17/02)

"I think what we have to do now is to find out what the president, what the White House, knew about the events leading up to 9/11, when they knew it and, most importantly, what was done about it at that time." (Washington Post, "An Image of Invincibility Is Shaken by Disclosures" 5/17/02)

Gephardt and his colleagues voted: · TWICE in 1998 and 1999 to CUT intelligence funding · TWICE to CUT military spending · TWICE AGAINST additional military funding · AGAINST increased funding for border patrols.

Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler went so far yesterday as to say, "If the White House had knowledge that there was a danger or an intent to hijack an American airplane, and did not warn the airlines, that would be nonfeasance in office of the highest order, that would make the President take a large amount of responsibility for the tragedy that did occur." (CNN, 5/16/02)

Mr. Nadler has the gall to launch a political attack despite his poor record on military and intelligence issues. Mr. Nadler has voted: · SIX times to CUT intelligence spending. · ELEVEN times to CUT defense to the bone, including voting just last week against pay increases for military personnel.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi had this to say today on prior knowledge by President Bush,

"But, Ms. Pelosi added, the president's briefing paper had three pieces of specific information that day in August that the intelligence committees had learned over several months. That, she said, 'raised it to a different level' and needed to be part of the Congressional investigation into Sept. 11." (The New York Times, "Democrats End United Support of Bush War" 5/17/02)

· TWICE to CUT intelligence funding. · REPEATEDLY voted AGAINST increased defense funding · THREE times AGAINST strengthening our boarders. · AGAINST increased healthcare funding for military personnel.

Pelosi has defended her weak voting record on military funding by saying this about President Clinton's call for increased defense spending:

"'Certainly the president's announcement is a misguided one,' said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. 'The Cold War has ended. Why are we doing this?'" (Chattanooga Times/Chattanooga Free Press, 1/22/99).

"Today's revelations that the administration, and President Bush, were given months of notice that a terrorist attack was a distinct possibility points out the critical need for a full and complete congressional investigation." (Atlanta Journal & Constitution, "Revelations give boost to McKinney; But Miller, Norwood unapologetic" 5/17/02)

Ms. McKinney has voted: · AGAINST last week's Defense Authorization bill which provided increased military funding and a pay increase for military personnel. · THIRTEEN times AGAINST increased defense funds. · FOUR times to CUT military funding. · FIVE times to CUT intelligence funding. · TWICE AGAINST increased funds for modernizing military hardware. · REPEATEDLY voted AGAINST pay increases, funding for health care and housing for military personnel

Americans know that President Bush when faced with credible information about a threat would act swiftly and strongly. It is terribly unfair to the victims and victim families of the terrible tragedy of September 11 for anyone to suggest anything to the contrary. Such statements are irresponsible and politically motivated.

Last summer, President Bush and Members of Congress received briefings that contained general, non-specific and uncorroborated information about possible threats. In light of the potential threats, the Bush Administration took appropriate action including alerts to law enforcement agencies, airlines, and U.S. assets overseas to protect the lives of American citizens here and abroad.

Despite these facts, Democrats leaders such as Senator Tom Daschle, Rep. Dick Gephardt and Senator John Edwards have tried to play politics with this threat information by making irresponsible statements about President Bush allowing their presidential ambitions get the best of their judgment.

"As Congressional Democrats and other Bush opponents rev up the recriminations following this week?s disclosures, they should remember that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees received some of the same intelligence reports as the White House. These included public and private warnings from George Tenet, the director central intelligence, that Al Qaeda could strike at any time."

"The tempest seems overblown...based on what the White House has revealed thus far, the information Mr. Bush received was very general, and the possibility of a domestic hijacking was far less salient in the briefing he received from the CIA than the possibility of an overseas attack. The administration warned airlines to take precautions. It?s easy after September 11 to insist that more should have been done."

Remarks Of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on 9/11 Warnings

May 16, 2002

Remarks Of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on 9/11 Warnings

On The Floor Of The United States Senate

As Prepared

Mr. President, I rise today out of respect for, and to speak on behalf of, the people of New York. I am especially mindful today of the memory of the people in New York who were lost on September 11, and their family members and loved ones, who grieve for them to this day.

We learn today something we might have learned at least eight months ago: that President Bush had been informed last year, before September 11, of a possible Al-Qaeda plot to hijack a US airliner.

The White House says that the President took all appropriate steps in reaction to that warning.

The White House says that the warning did not include any specific information, such as which airline, which date, or the fact that a hijacked plane would be used as a missile. Those are all important issues, worthy of exploration by the relevant committees of Congress. The goal of such an examination should not be to assign blame, but to find out all the facts.

And I also support the effort by Senators Lieberman and McCain to have an independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, which was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in March.

Such a panel can help assure the people of New York and all Americans that every facet of this national tragedy will be fully explored, in hopes that the lessons we learn can prevent disasters in our future.

I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut's remarks on the floor earlier today indicating his desire to offer this proposal as an amendment at the earliest possible convenience. Because we must do all we can to learn the hard lessons of experience from our past and apply them to safeguard our future.

That is why I also support the call by the distinguished Majority Leader, Mr. Daschle, for the release of the Phoenix FBI memorandum and the August intelligence briefing to Congressional investigators, because, as Senator Daschle said this morning, the American people "need to get the facts."

Mr. President, I know some things about the unique challenges faced by the person who assumes the mantle of Commander in Chief. No one but those individuals who have that responsibility can truly know the full scope of the burdens of that office. But I've had the privilege of witnessing such history up close. And I know there is never any shortage of second-guessers and Monday morning quarterbacks, ready to dismantle any comment, or critique any action taken, or not taken.

Having experienced that from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I will not play that game, especially in this circumstance.

I am simply here today, on the floor of this hallowed chamber, to seek answers to questions. Questions being asked by my constituents. Questions raised by our newspapers in New York, such as the one with the headline "Bush Knew." The President knew what? My constituents would like to know the answers to those questions. Not to blame the President or any American. But just to know. To learn from experience. To do all we can to ensure that a 9/ll never happens again.

The pain of 9/ll is revisited every time a scene of the flaming towers appears on the television. It is revisited every time we see a picture of the cleanup at Ground Zero. It is revisited every time the remains of a fallen hero is recovered. And it is revisited today, with the questions about what might have been, had the pieces of the puzzle been put together in a different way before that sad day in September.

I cannot answer the questions my constituents are asking. I cannot answer the concerns raised by the families of the victims.

As agonizing as it is to even think that there was intelligence suggesting the possibility of the tragedy that occurred, particularly for the family members who lost a loved one, it's a subject that we are absolutely required to explore.

As for the President, he may not be in a position to respond to all of those concerns. But he is in a position to answer some of them, including the question of why we know today, May 16, about the warning he received, and why we did not know this on April 16, or March 16, or February 16, or January 16, or December 16, or November 16, or October 16, September 16........or August 16?

And I hope that the President will assume the duty that we know he is capable of fulfilling, exercise the leadership that we know he has, and come before the American people at the earliest possible moment to answer the questions so many Americans are asking today. That will help. My constituents would appreciate it.

After all, it's the not knowing that hurts the most.

HLL..." Pardon me while I hurl".

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.

Remarks Of Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonon 9/11 Warnings

Remarks Of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on 9/11 Warnings