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 1-5051-100101-116 next last
David Horowitz hits the nail right on the head as always.
1 posted on 05/19/2002 9:18:34 PM PDT by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Excellent article. A wonderful compliment to his appearance shown on CSPAN last night.
Reading this, one could almost wonder if the Clinton administration deliberately hid this information from Bush.
2 posted on 05/19/2002 9:26:29 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
You know what's weird. The "printer friendly" version has all this extra material at the end of the article that isn't in the "normal" version. Here's the actual column:

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.

3 posted on 05/19/2002 9:31:41 PM PDT by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Wow...you're right - even more info in the last posting. Thanks for posting - it's a keeper.
4 posted on 05/19/2002 9:33:34 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
BRAVO BUMP.....Horowitz says it all!
5 posted on 05/19/2002 9:36:00 PM PDT by JulieRNR21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!

Dear Lord, let the Democreeps, the traitorous sorts, dig their hole deeper and fall in it more quickly and more thunderously! Amen!

6 posted on 05/19/2002 9:37:23 PM PDT by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Great read, The democrats are desperate. They have reached rock bottom and showing signs of digging :-)
7 posted on 05/19/2002 9:38:46 PM PDT by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; T'wit
Wow! His opening paragraph pretty much summarized the whole 8 years of the Clinton administration in a few short phrases! Nice piece of writing!
8 posted on 05/19/2002 9:43:15 PM PDT by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
"...one could almost wonder if the Clinton administration deliberately hid this information from Bush."

It's possible. With the Clinton administration, one should assume the worst. Of course, it's just as possible that they simply misplaced it -- i.e., the dog ate their homework.

9 posted on 05/19/2002 9:48:25 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Digging? Like this?
10 posted on 05/19/2002 9:49:34 PM PDT by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Quix
As I mentioned above, here's an example of the digging.
11 posted on 05/19/2002 9:50:29 PM PDT by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
God has already pegged people like the Finesteins, Hillarys, Liebermans, McKinnens, and Daschles:

"Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

John 3:19-21

12 posted on 05/19/2002 9:50:57 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
What are they doing? Filing Rose Law Firm Documents?

13 posted on 05/19/2002 9:55:08 PM PDT by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Excellent post. The best sound clip back to Hitlery over and over IS....

In October 2000, al-Qaeda attacked the U.S.S Cole, an American warship, killing 17 servicemen. Another act of war. The Clinton response? Nothing.


14 posted on 05/19/2002 9:56:39 PM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

15 posted on 05/19/2002 9:58:52 PM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
hehehe...bttt
16 posted on 05/19/2002 10:01:23 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
LOL!!!! Great and funny editorial cartoon!
17 posted on 05/19/2002 10:07:49 PM PDT by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: firebrand; StarFan; Dutchy; stanz; RaceBannon; DoctorRaoul; OneidaM; evilC; BlackAgnes; Cacique...
*BRAVO BUMP*
18 posted on 05/19/2002 10:10:18 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Great article.

Looks like the speech on C-SPAN last night was based on this article.

19 posted on 05/19/2002 10:12:54 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Great catch, Pyro! Thanks for posting this article.
20 posted on 05/19/2002 10:14:58 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qathleen; CounterCounterCulture
FYI
21 posted on 05/19/2002 10:15:44 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
ROFL!!!
22 posted on 05/19/2002 10:16:45 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul; kattracks; Arkinsaw; Betty Jo; Miss Marple; Snow Bunny; Brad's Gramma
*BRAVO BUMP*
23 posted on 05/19/2002 10:25:35 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I have spent most of the day browsing the site below and others like it.

I have an unconfirmed suspicion that this has been a major contributor to the chorus of "What did Bush know and when did he know it?" that the Democrats are using right now to whip up the Media frenzy!

Buried in here is a claim that Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen.

Here is another site that is full of 9/11 conspiracy stuff:

The Emperor's New Clothes
Piercing a Fog of Lies

They also have a mirror site at globalresistance.com.

I wonder if McKinney is reading the site or perhaps they are even getting funding help from the Demorat's.

24 posted on 05/19/2002 10:27:35 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
You somehow pasted the tail end of another article onto Mr. Horowitz's essay.

Horowitz's essay actually ends with the words, "...now the daunting task before the President and his team."

Everything which follows, starting with the word "Israel", is from some other source than Horowitz's "Why Bush is Innocent" essay.

I noticed something was wrong because suddenly there was someone being quoted from an Israeli viewpoint, without ever having been introduced or attributed.

25 posted on 05/19/2002 10:27:49 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
See post #3 :-)
26 posted on 05/19/2002 10:29:15 PM PDT by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
You somehow pasted the tail end of another article onto Mr. Horowitz's essay.

Grrr. Figures -- you already corrected the error in the time it took me to double-check the original essay and post my comment. Never mind.

27 posted on 05/19/2002 10:29:59 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Here is a more direct link to the 9 -11 material:

'Guilty for 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers -

28 posted on 05/19/2002 10:31:05 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
In 1995, Ramzi Youssef was captured in the Philippines with plans to use commercial airliners to blow up CIA headquarters among other targets. This al-Qaeda plot was termed "Operation Bojinka," which means "the big bang." After the discovery of "Operation Bojinka," Al Gore was appointed to head a task force to tighten airport security. Its key recommendations, which would have prevented 9/11, were rejected by the White House on the grounds that they might be construed as "racial profiling."

David is being too kind, "racial profiling" maybe, but I'd bet the $250,000 the airlines gave to Democrats about this time was the real reason Dollar Bill rejected the additional airport security.

29 posted on 05/19/2002 10:35:49 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
BUMPING for tomorrow!!!
30 posted on 05/19/2002 10:38:12 PM PDT by Bradís Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
Maybe I didn't pay enough attention, but I never realized that Wilson had withheld the information. Is it really possible that Sinkmaster never turned the info over to the Bush team?
31 posted on 05/19/2002 10:40:52 PM PDT by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
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.

bump

32 posted on 05/19/2002 10:40:57 PM PDT by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
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.

worth another bump

33 posted on 05/19/2002 10:42:12 PM PDT by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs; airforce19811985; american; antiliberal; Aquinasfan; Arioch7; AStack75...
*BRAVO BUMP*
34 posted on 05/19/2002 10:45:31 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JP Jones
"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. "

Worth yet another bump

35 posted on 05/19/2002 10:51:15 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
"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. "

a quote worthy of a bump-a-thon.

36 posted on 05/19/2002 10:56:04 PM PDT by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Great article, wish that more people would listen and read David Horowitz. He says it like no other dares.
37 posted on 05/19/2002 11:14:39 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; all
Great find and post!

MAKE THE USA/WORLD SAFER FOR al QAEDA TERRORISTS!

ELECT MORE DEMONICRATS TO CONGRESS IN 2002!

38 posted on 05/19/2002 11:17:26 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dansangel
Thought that you might be interested in this:

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.

More ammo in your battle with this Islamic loving B$tch, McKinney!

39 posted on 05/19/2002 11:21:23 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JPJones
Keep bumpin' it, JP! :-)

I'll bump it again tomorrow. Finally off to bed now...

40 posted on 05/19/2002 11:23:07 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
An awesome post. The DNC is truly amazing in its deceit and evil.
41 posted on 05/19/2002 11:27:14 PM PDT by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


42 posted on 05/19/2002 11:31:32 PM PDT by mr1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mr1776
bump for later reading!
43 posted on 05/20/2002 1:01:25 AM PDT by cgk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
I think they did. I also think that if the DemocRATs get control of the House in November they will find some pretext to impeach President Bush as payback for Clinton's impeachment. Regaining the Senate and keeping the House is vital.
44 posted on 05/20/2002 1:57:47 AM PDT by altair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Thanks for the great post.

Bookmarking for later backup and argumentation.

45 posted on 05/20/2002 2:55:55 AM PDT by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
There is a SMALL problem here,I think.

The information about Yousef wanting to ram planes into buildings was in Federal Court Testimony of the trial for WTC I.

There was no way it was kept secret form Bush or anyone else.

46 posted on 05/20/2002 4:02:53 AM PDT by Betty Jo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Detailed, very useful! Thanks for finding it, posting it.
47 posted on 05/20/2002 4:03:31 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Awesome! Bookmark Bump.
48 posted on 05/20/2002 4:08:16 AM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Bump for later read.
49 posted on 05/20/2002 4:36:01 AM PDT by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
ping for you.
50 posted on 05/20/2002 4:41:56 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next 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