How the Left Undermined America’s Security Before 9/11

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” His latest book is Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left (Regnery Publishing).

Twitter: @horowitz39
Facebook: David Horowitz


Pages: 1 2

[The following article by David Horowitz first appeared in our March 24, 2004 issue. We are reprinting it to mark the nine year anniversary of 9/11. -- The Editors.]

While the nation was having a good laugh at the expense of Florida’s hanging chads and butterfly ballots, Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi were there, in Florida, learning to drive commercial jetliners [and ram them into the World Trade Center towers]. It will take a novelist to paint that broad canvas properly. It will take some deep political thinking to understand how the lackadaisical attitude toward government and the world helped leave the country so unready for the horror that Atta and Shehhi were preparing.

—Michael Oreskes, New York Times, October 21, 2001.

THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center marked the end of one American era and the beginning of another. As did Pearl Harbor, the September tragedy awakened Americans from insular slumbers and made them aware of a world they could not afford to ignore. Like Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush condemned the attacks as acts of war, and mobilized a nation to action. It was a sharp departure from the policy of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, who in characteristic self-absorption had downgraded a series of similar assaults—including one on the World Trade Center itself—officially regarding them as criminal matters that involved individuals alone.

But the differences between the September 11 attacks and Pearl Harbor were also striking. The latter was a military base situated on an island 3,000 miles distant from the American mainland. New York is America’s greatest population center, the portal through which immigrant generations of all colors and ethnicities have come in search of a better life. The World Trade Center is the Wall Street hub of the economy they enter; its victims were targeted for participating in the most productive, tolerant and generous society human beings have created. In responding to the attacks, the President himself took note of this: “America was targeted for attack,” he told Congress on September 20, “because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.”

In contrast to Pearl Harbor, the assault on the World Trade Center was hardly a “sneak attack” that American intelligence agencies had little idea was coming. Its Twin Towers had already been bombed eight years earlier, and by the same enemy. The terrorists themselves were already familiar to government operatives, their aggressions frequent enough that several commissions had been appointed to investigate. Each had reached the same conclusion. It was not a matter of whether the United States was going to be the target of a major terrorist assault; it was a matter of when.

In fact, the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks had first engaged U.S. troops as early as 1993 when the Clinton Administration deployed U.S. military forces to Somalia. Their purpose was humanitarian: to feed the starving citizens of this Muslim land. But, America’s goodwill ambassadors were ambushed by al-Qaeda forces. In a 15-hour battle in Mogadishu, 18 Americans were killed and 80 wounded. One dead U.S. soldier was dragged through the streets in an act calculated to humiliate his comrades and his country. The Americans’ offense was not that they had brought food to the hungry. Their crime was who they were—”unbelievers,” emissaries of “the Great Satan,” in the political religion of the enemy they now faced.

The defeat in Mogadishu was a blow not only to American charity, but to American power and American prestige. Nonetheless, under the leadership of America’s then commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton, there was no military response to the humiliation. The greatest superpower the world had ever seen did nothing. It accepted defeat.

The War

On February 26, 1993, eight months prior to the Mogadishu attack, al-Qaeda terrorists had struck the World Trade Center for the first time. Their truck bomb made a crater six stories deep, killed six people and injured more than a thousand. The planners’ intention had been to cause one tower to topple the other and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. It was not only the first major terrorist act ever to take place on U.S. soil, but—in the judgment of a definitive account of the event—”the most ambitious terrorist attack ever attempted, anywhere, ever.”

Six Palestinian and Egyptian conspirators responsible for the attack were tried in civil courts and got life sentences like common criminals, but its mastermind escaped. He was identified as Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, an Iraqi Intelligence agent. This was a clear indication to authorities that the atrocity was no mere criminal event, and that it involved more than individual terrorists; it involved hostile terrorist states.

Yet, once again, the Clinton Administration’s response was to absorb the injury and accept defeat. The president did not even visit the bomb crater or tend to the victims. Instead, America’s commander-in-chief warned against “over-reaction.” In doing so, he telegraphed a clear message to his nation’s enemies: We are unsure of purpose and unsteady of hand; we are self-indulgent and soft; we will not take risks to defend ourselves; we are vulnerable.

The al-Qaeda terrorists were listening. In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden told ABC News reporter John Miller: “We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions. We rely on Allah.”

Among the terrorist entities that supported the al-Qaeda terrorists were Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO had created the first terrorist training camps, invented suicide bombings and been the chief propaganda machine behind the idea that terrorist armies were really missionaries for “social justice.” Yet, among foreign leaders, Arafat was Clinton’s most frequent White House guest. Far from treating Arafat as an enemy of civilized order and an international pariah, the Clinton Administration was busily cultivating him as a “partner for peace.” For many Washington liberals, terrorism was not the instrument of political fanatics and evil men, but was the product of social conditions—poverty, racism and oppression—for which the Western democracies, including Israel, were always ultimately to blame.

The idea that terrorism has “root causes” in social conditions whose primary author is the United States is, in fact, an organizing theme of the contemporary political left. “Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a ‘cowardly’ attack on ‘civilization’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘humanity’ or ‘the free world’”—declared the writer Susan Sontag, speaking for this faction—”but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq?” (Was Susan Sontag unaware that Iraq was behind the first World Trade Center attack? That Iraq had attempted to swallow Kuwait and was a regional aggressor and sponsor of terror? That Iraq had expelled UN arms inspectors—in violation of the terms of its peace—who were there to prevent it from developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Was she unaware that Iraq was a sponsor of international terror and posed an ongoing threat to others, including the country in which she lived?)

During the Clinton years the idea that America was somehow responsible for global distress had become an all too familiar refrain among leftwing elites. It had particular resonance in the institutions that shaped American culture and policy—universities, the mainstream media and the Oval Office. In March 1998, two months after Monica Lewinsky became a White House thorn and a household name, Clinton embarked on a presidential hand-wringing expedition to Africa. With a large delegation of African-American leaders in tow, the President made a pilgrimage to Uganda to apologize for the crime of American slavery. The apology was offered despite the fact that no slaves had ever been imported to America from Uganda or any East African state; that slavery in Africa preceded any American involvement by a thousand years; that America and Britain were the two powers responsible for ending the slave trade; and that America had abolished slavery a hundred years before—at great human cost—while slavery persisted in Africa without African protest to the present day.

Four months after Clinton left Uganda, al-Qaeda terrorists blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

“Root Causes”

Clinton’s continuing ambivalence about America’s role in the world was highlighted in the wake of September 11, when he suggested that America actually bore some responsibility for the attacks on itself. In November 2001, even as the new Bush administration was launching America’s military response, the former president made a speech at Georgetown University in which he admonished citizens who were descended “from various European lineages” that they were “not blameless,” and that America’s past involvement in slavery should humble them as they confronted their attackers. Characteristically the President took no responsibility for his own failure to protect Americans from the attacks.

The idea that there are “root causes” behind campaigns to murder innocent men, women and children, and terrorize civilian populations was examined shortly after the Trade Center events by a writer in the New York Times. Columnist Edward Rothstein observed that while there was much hand-wringing and many mea culpas on the left after September 11, no one had invoked “root causes” to defend Timothy McVeigh after he blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995, killing 187 people. “No one suggested that this act had its ‘root causes’ in an injustice that needed to be rectified to prevent further terrorism.” The silence was maintained even though McVeigh and his collaborators “asserted that their ideas of rights and liberty were being violated and that the only recourse was terror.”

The reason no one invoked “root causes” to explain the Oklahoma City bombing was simply because Timothy McVeigh was not a leftist. Nor did he claim to be acting in behalf of “social justice”—the historical code for totalitarian causes. In an address to Congress that defined America’s response to September 11, President Bush sagaciously observed, “We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism.”

Like Islamic radicalism, the totalitarian doctrines of communism and fascism are fundamentalist creeds. “The fundamentalist does not believe [his] ideas have any limits or boundaries,… [therefore] the goals of fundamentalist terror are not to eliminate injustice but to eliminate opposition.” That is why the humanitarian nature of America’s mission to Mogadishu made no difference to America’s al-Qaeda foe. The terrorists’ goal was not to alleviate hunger. It was to eliminate America. It was to defeat “The Great Satan.”

Totalitarians and fundamentalists share a conviction that is religious and political at the same time. Their mission is social redemption through the power of the state. Using political and military power they intend to create a “new world” in their own image. This revolutionary transformation encompasses all individuals and requires the control of all aspects of human life:

Like fundamentalist terror, totalitarian terror leaves no aspect of life exempt from the battle being waged. The state is felt to be the apotheosis of political and natural law, and it strives to extend that law over all humanity…. No injustices, separately or together, necessarily lead to totalitarianism and no mitigation of injustice, however defined, will eliminate its unwavering beliefs, absolutist control and unbounded ambitions.

In 1998 Osama bin Laden explained his war aims to ABC News: “Allah ordered us in this religion to purify Muslim land of all non-believers.” As The New Republic’s Peter Beinart commented, bin Laden is not a crusader for social justice but “an ethnic cleanser on a scale far greater than the Hutus and the Serbs, a scale that has only one true Twentieth Century parallel.”

In the 1990s America mobilized its military power to go to the rescue of Muslims in the Balkans who were being ethnically cleansed by Serbian communists. This counted for nothing in al-Qaeda’s calculations, any more than did America’s support for Muslim peasants in Afghanistan fighting for their freedom against the Red Army invaders in the 1980s. The war against radical Islam is not about what America has done, but about what America is. As bin Laden told the world on October 7, the day America began its military response, the war is between those of the faith and those outside the faith, between those who submit to the believers’ law and those who are infidels and do not.

While The Clinton Administration Slept

After the first World Trade Center attack, President Clinton vowed there would be vengeance. But like so many of his presidential pronouncements, the strong words were not accompanied by deeds. Nor were they followed by measures necessary to defend the country against the next series of attacks.

After their Mogadishu victory and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, unsuccessful attempts were made by al-Qaeda groups to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and other populated targets, including a massive terrorist incident timed to coincide with the millennium celebrations of January 2000. Another scheme to hijack commercial airliners and use them as “bombs” according to plans close to those eventually used on September 11, was thwarted in the Philippines in 1995. The architect of this effort was the Iraqi intelligence agent Ramzi Yousef.

The following year, a terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers, a U.S. military barracks in Saudia Arabia, killed 19 American soldiers. The White House response was limp, and the case (in the words of FBI director Louis B. Freeh) “remains unresolved.” Two years later al-Qaeda agents blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing 245 people and injuring 5,000. (One CIA official told a reporter, “Two at once is not twice as hard. It is a hundred times as hard.”) On October 12, 2000 the warship USS Cole was bombed while re-fueling in Yemen, yet another Islamic country aligned with the terrorist enemy. Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed and 39 injured.

These were all acts of war, yet of the President and his cabinet refused to recognize them as such.

Why the Clinton Administration Slept

Clinton’s second term national security advisor, Sandy Berger, described the official White House position towards these attacks as “a little bit like a Whack-A-Mole game at the circus. They bop up and you whack ‘em down, and if they bop up again, you bop ‘em back, down again.” Like the Administration he represented, the national security advisor lacked a requisite appreciation of the problem. Iraq’s dictator was unimpressed by sporadic U.S. strikes against his regime. He remained defiant, expelling UN weapons inspectors, firing at U.S. warplanes and continuing to build his arsenal of mass destruction. But “the Administration held no clear and consistent view of the Iraqi threat and how it intended to address it,” observed Washington Post correspondent Jim Hoagland. The disarray that characterized the Clinton security policy flowed from the “Administration’s growing inability to tell the world—and itself—the truth.” It was the signature problem of the Clinton years.

Underlying the Clinton security failure was the fact that the Administration was made up of people who for twenty-five years had discounted or minimized the totalitarian threat, opposed America’s armed presence abroad, and consistently resisted the deployment of America’s military forces to halt Communist expansion. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was himself a veteran of the Sixties “anti-war” movement, which abetted the Communist victories in Vietnam and Cambodia, and created the “Vietnam War syndrome” that made it so difficult afterwards for American presidents to deploy the nation’s military forces.

Berger had also been a member of “Peace Now,” the leftist movement seeking to pressure the Israeli government to make concessions to Yasser Arafat’s PLO terrorists. Clinton’s first National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake was a protégé of Berger, who had introduced him to Clinton. All three had met as activists in the 1972 McGovern presidential campaign whose primary issue was opposition to the Vietnam War based on the view that the “arrogance of American power” was responsible for the conflict rather than Communist aggression.

Anthony Lake’s own attitude towards the totalitarian threat in Southeast Asia was displayed in a March 1975 Washington Post article he wrote called, “At Stake in Cambodia: Extending Aid Will Only Prolong the Killing.” The prediction contained in Lake’s title proved to be exactly wrong. It was not a small mistake for someone who in 1992 would be placed in charge of America’s national security apparatus. Lake’s article was designed to rally Democrat opposition to a presidential request for emergency aid to the Cambodian regime. The aid was required to contain the threat posed by Communist leader Pol Pot and his insurgent Khmer Rouge forces.

Pages: 1 2

  • Theo Prinse

    Watched your impressive interview on Dutch television yesterday. I support Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirshi Ali. I am alerted by Chuck Norris, Gingrich on the Kenyan's alienated naief policy of apeasement with islam forced upon the free People of the US.. Hundreds of thousands of State officials like Petreaus are now converted to a lesser seperation between the State & islam and non of these disavowing people nor ABC journalists raises a protest against the demagogue smooth souffleur in the White House. The Kenyian is puppet of one million plus bourgeois of islam oil, US coal & Chinese maffia, thus not in power to initiate a cheaper (nuclear) energy price with 100 plus extra nuclear reactors . The workers of the USA (Gingrich) have no relation or representation & cannot identify with him demographically, culturally and they thus have nothing to change the Kenyan with his cultivated narcist psychology.

  • badaboo

    Did the author of this article mean ….that the animus of Louis Free towards Clinton ,the non-co-operation between the FBI and CIA , the "tail wagging the dog " B.S> when Clinton tried to get a shot at Bin Laden with cruise missles [ near miss ] in Afghanistan , how the Republicans criticized every move made in that drection , for the "usual reasons " or how the FBI IGNORED it's own agents warnings about "the strange flying lessons" being reported UPTO AND INCLUDING Bush ' inaugreation , indeed righ upto the eve of 9/11 ??? Or how the FBI ignored it's own EXPERT NY AGENT on Al Queda ? Or how the Bush Administration from January of it's start , right upto 9/11 , IGNORED the warnings of anyone in the outgoing Clinton Administration ?

    • highpressure

      Clinton missiles to an empty tent was not a serious attempt to get Bin Laden. He was advised so. It merely attempt to take America's eyes off his dishonor. That act made America look stupid and emboldened Bin Laden. To say it was a near miss is a complete fabrication on your part.

      The fact is Clinton had taken all the human intelligence away and just relied on aerials electronic surveillence – a tact that has endangered our security to this day.

      Thanks for re-writing History

      In March and April of 2001, Bush tried to close up some of the intelligence loop holes in intelligence sharing but was blocked by the traitor Tom Daschle. The same Tom Dashle whose wife was used to negate a report in the FAA that would of taken away the knives used by the terrorists. All for a political donation by the airlines to the DNC coffers.

      Thanks for misleading us by ignoring the facts.

      Badaboo, o feel ashamed for your lies or just embarrassed because your lies have been uncovered?

      • bubba4

        Talk about rewriting history, you have to play in some pretty tight circles to get head knodding for this nonsense. You can always tell the cultist…they not only support revisionist history, they claim it for themselves until they forget what actually happened.

        You remember obscure smears made years ago. You just encorporated them into your worldview…you're a FPM'r! YAY.

  • Sandra

    This all stared with Carter…he fumbled the ball….Clinton was more interested in photo ops and keeping his appointments with interns….
    9/11 was the fault of our entire government….and the reason I don't hold Bush to the wall on this is because he was in office a mere 9 months and the terrorists KNEW THIS WAS THE TIME or never.
    Obama was elected by the useful idiots of the country….he is a coward and will not stand up to our enemy.
    I have written my representatives to hold impeachment papers against him…He simply is not a leader and while I fully believe he is no a Muslim, I do believe he is sympathetic to their cause.

    • bubba4

      "9/11 was the fault of our entire government….and the reason I don't hold Bush to the wall on this is because he was in office a mere 9 months and the terrorists KNEW THIS WAS THE TIME or never. "

      Oh good…because while FPM is doing acrobatics to blame everything bad EVER on Democrats…I can't see hold Bush accountable for anything over the last decade helps the superobjective. And I like your embelishment…the terrorist knew that it was now or never since Bush came in. Quick before he has time to get organized a year in…quick activate that plan that has been in motion for years and years already.

    • Herman Munster

      maybe bush was in office only 9 months (actually a bit less than that) but remember Clinton would not allow Bush access to federal offices because his buddy Al Gore was trying to engineer the theft of the presidential election. So the Bush team had a few less months than that to get their plans together.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    Clinton created the "firewall" between the investigative branch of the FBI and the intelligence unit for one and only one purpose: To retard Justice Dept investigations into the myriad scandals that were plaguing his Administration at the time. The fact that doing so crippled US counter intelligence was of little concern to him.

    And let's not forget Sandy Berger's foray into the National Archives, where he was caught on tape pilfering documents to cover-up his own culpability in the terror attacks. Berger was given a slap on the wrist by Justice…and never had to account for the documents he stole.

  • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

    RAUF'S CNN INTERVIEW, OR C-ordoba N-on N-egotiable

    Imam Rauf warns that the suffering, anguish and turmoil that he caused because of his "mistaken" Cordoba House mosque will only worsen if the mistake is made not to build it at Ground Zero. For, says he, that would trigger an explosion of anti-American rage that would add to the body count of 9/11 and bring more tears to American families.

    Now that Rauf is repackaging his mosque as a national security issue with US lives at stake will Obama reward him with Bob Gates' job as Secretary of Defense? That would ensure that the radicals don't win and that American ideals will triumph in the end. Salaam.

    Click my name for my top five blog at Townhall.com

    • bubba4

      Well, it's not really at Ground Zero is it?

  • John
    • SAM000

      John; what you see on these vidéos are the Passdarans of Iran and the members of the Hezbollah of Lebanon, and the Hezbollah of Libanon are missionned by the suprem leader if the IRI (Islamic Republique of the Mullahs in Iran).

      they were sent to Bosni Herzegovin to fight the Serb.

  • John

    Why make all the Serbian people collectively guilty for the crimes of a few?
    This is absurd.
    Bin Laden was supporting anti-Serbian actions and fighting them in Bosnia during the war and killing them. It's absurd to make the Serbs collectively guilty for the crimes of a few. Most of them didn't participate. They fought to prevent a theocracy in Bosnia to prevent it from being an Islamic Republic. You see, Izetbegovic supported bin Laden and he invited them into his country to wage Jihad against his Serb neighbors.

    You see.

  • Johnny

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHvolvKA7D0&NR
    Look, Bosnian jihad propaganda on YouTube. I've seen piles on Bosnian Jihad propaganda on YouTube and it's clear that Clinton ignored that and supported the Bosnian extremist jihad against the Serbs in that country. The Muslim extremists in Bosnia were waging Jihad against the Serbs and other Muslims that supported the old Yugoslavia.
    The extremist faction of

    bin Laden was supporting this jihad against the Serb people there.

    bin Laden should know a thing or two about Serbs. After all, he helped wage Jihad against them in Bosnia. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1394707/
    Right?

    In the 1990s America mobilized its military power to go to the rescue of Muslims in the Balkans who were being ethnically cleansed by Serbian communists.

    That's false. These people were not communists, they were staunch anti-Communists, they prided themselves on being like the World War II Chetniks who are STAUNCHLY (read staunchly) anti-Communist after the Communist regime screwed them over, which caused the conflict in Bosnia. The Chetnik or Ravna Gora movement is STAUNCH anti-Communist and anti-Fascist movement that fought and destroyed the German occupiers of Yugoslavia. These people are not, NOT Communists. They hate communism and fascism, and fought the Croat fascists that were trying to kill them all off.

    You'll find a whole YouTube page full AND YouTube videos detailing Bosnian jihad on YouTube.
    I suggest you look at that, and get your facts straight. Those Serbs are NOT communists, they hate Tito and his commies with a royal fashion. To call them commies is just absurd. Do you get it?

    As The New Republic’s Peter Beinart commented, bin Laden is not a crusader for social justice but “an ethnic cleanser on a scale far greater than the Hutus and the Serbs, a scale that has only one true Twentieth Century parallel.”

    bin Laden WAS KILLING SERBS. What part of that don't you understand?
    The Bosnian Army soldiers dress in attire similar to that of Palestinian terrorists, look familar don't they. And these are Bosnian Army regulars. I think you to look at the jihad, too before saying any more.

    These people aren't fascists either.

    This is footage of Bosnian terrorist training camps, which Bill Clinton conveniently ignored. Maybe he should look at that too.
    Look at the jihad in Bosnia.

  • Johnny

    http://www.serbianna.com/columns/mb/036_files/boo
    Are these peacful freedom fighters to you?
    They look more like Palestinian terrorists than regular soldiers. You compare their attire to Palestinian soldiers and you will find a striking similarity to them.

  • John

    You need to understand that these people were waging jihad against their Serb neighbors in Bosnia. We claimed to be rescuing them, but the Serbs are not communists at all.
    Karadzic and his gang like Mladic hate HATE communists with a royal passion. They pride themselves on being Chetniks, the Serbian guerrilla fighters that fought for freedom in World War II, THEY WERE STAUNCH ANTI-FASCIST AND ANTI-COMMUNIST guerrilla fighters. They hate commies with a passion. The commies screwed over Yugoslavia. Quit shilling for Tito and how he screwed up Kosovo and let the tensions unhealed since World War II, like the Croatian fascist Ustasha run wild and how Serbs weren't allowed to mourn their dead after being slaughtered in Jasenovac, the Balkan version of Auschwitz concentration camp, where Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies were slaughtered by fascist Croats to have an Independent State of Croatia.
    They were slaughtering them to have a Croat state in 1941, a pure Croat state. You see what's going here? They were victims of Croatian fascists and they horrible regime of Ante Pavelic there than murdered millions and was proud and loyal puppet supported of Nazi Germany.

    Do any of you here know about that here?

    • http://www.myspace/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

      Thank you john you understand history and isn't it funny we almost never hear about the muslims who loved hitler and some 300,000 muslim troops in hitlers SS Most on camp guard duty if you know what i mean by camp duty.

      Old Bill bombed and killed freedomed fighters and helped islam to kill europeans
      ( WOMAN AND LITTLE KIDS )and our boys said nothing until 9-11.

    • Johanne

      Some people realise that they are being fed a super-one-sided story. I was a child when these images were passing over the screen, but I remember being puzzled having read about the Serb people and their spectacular fight during WWII…. Sorry, but the Serbs have lost this media-PR battle so utterly that even the Israelis must feel like brilliant spin-doctors… maybe over the next decade it will get better.

  • highpressure

    So rape, assault, stalking woman and using the position of President to obstruct justice and deny civil rights is just a sexual pecadillo in your book? One would normally call that sick.

    • bubba4

      Don't begrudge Clinton the few moments of prison sex he managed to squeeze out while nervously looking down the hallway. In your hands, it's an uptight Lifetime movie. Get over it…it's been over a decade.

      What a lot of you just can't face is that Bush was President when 9/11 happened. I know it's inconvienent…just like the fact that the bombers of the World Trade Center the first time around were tried and convicted in an American court and are serving life sentences in maximum security federal prisons.

      Lewinsky at least got a job offer for her work with the kneepads. What do you get?

  • trickyblain

    How could Clinton have ignored that memo titled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE US."

    Wait. That wasn't Clinton.

    How could Clinton have disbanded the BIN LADEN UNIT and reassigned it's head, an expert on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden (one of the only ones at that time), to a cyberterror unit?

    Wait. That wasn't Clinton.

    Why did Republicans accuse Clinton of being "obsessed" with Bin Laden, then later say he ignored him?

    And then there's silly Horowitz. Where are all his writings about the threat, beforehand? He was writing about "reparations" and how balck people kill black people. Hindsight is, indeed, 20/20.

    • BigPat7

      Klinton was "obsessed" with Monica and Oval Office headers… Hillary was too busy trying to put together Klintoncare for the populace at large…

    • proxywar
      • bubba4

        If someone thinks what your eating is disgusting, you don't puke on them to prove that it's delicious. Just a cursory glance at what you consider homework says more than you ever could.

    • Ritalynman

      Yes, Bill Clinton DID do those things, I wrote a book about it…not using what I think, but what the people involved at the time think. Bill Clinton was the greatest traitor in American history, and I have connected the dots for you. http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/end-of-days

    • highpressure

      Republicans didn't say he was obsessed with bin Laden. They said he didn't care because he only wasted cruise missiles to take his eyes off other dishonorable acts of impeachment.

      By the way, the only honest/intelligent member of the Clinton Team in these matters, Buzz Paterson sort of goves a different picture. Clinton was advised against his bombing of a aspirin factory and gave sttistical analysis quite different then what trickyblain and the history re-writer budaboo state.

      Clinton also sided with bin Laden when Clinton supported the terrorist group Kosovo Liberation Army Army who was trained by Bin Laden. (Something that just escapes the lefts grasp) In otherwords Clinton and Halfbright supported the genocide of Christians in Kosovo.

      But the left never cared about the geographical genocide of Christians in either Lebenon, Sudan or Kosovo by their terrorist pals.

      After all, the DNC sold out to the terrorists using Tom Daschle's wife at the FAA just for a 40,000 in their coffers – so that 3000 died. And as a loyal member of the DNC Team, the trickyblains of the world really don't care about the murder and genocide his side has supported.

      • bubba4

        Oh boy you love your false factoids so much, you keep citing them as evidence.

        If I want your opinon, I'll look it up in Discover the Network.

  • Gil Solnin

    One major point you did not cover and was ignored by the media was the Gore Commission on Aviation Security that followed the TWA 800 disaster and was formed in 1996.

    The Commission recommended a number of major steps increasing airport and airline security which the airlines had previously opposed. They were recommendations that would have prevented the September 11th hijackings.

    Two weeks after announcing the results later, the Boston Globe reported that Gore backed away from his own commission's proposals in a letter to the Air Transport Association.

    The day after that letter, TWA donated $40,000 to the DNC. That was followed by other airlines making large donations into the DNC of even larger amounts from American Airlines, Delta, United, and from Northwest according to the Boston Globe.

    There were two commission members, who had lost lved ones on 9/11, who supported the claim that it was the promise of those campaign contributions by the airlines that resulted in Gore backing away his own recommendations.

  • USMCSniper

    Do you remember the 9/11 commision made up of Democrats whose obvious agenda was to cover up for the Clinton Administration's criminal negligence against at least 15 major acts of terrorism under their watch. Former President William Clinton was scheduled to testify before the 9/11 commission so he sent Sandy Berger his former Security Advisor to the National Archives with instructions to retrieve and destroy classified documents. Unfortunately he was caught redhanded by guards and on video tapes stuffing his trousers and socks with top secret documents. He sure didn't decide to do this on his own accord. Obviously the Clintons had something on Bush Sennior from his CIA days to GW Bush from pursuing this with his DoJ to make Sandy Berger talk and iplicate Clinton . Berger was convicted of this and should have gotten ten years minimum in Leavenworth, but has not served one day in jail. And pleaded he the fifth and his debriefs are classified on what he destroyed.

  • badaboo

    David's obseesion , have clouded his mind , for now he spouts revisionist histrory ….and the sycophants suck it up . Hey maybe some of you were still in grade school , lol…that'd be your only excuse .
    As for David ? Obviously had a bad trip in the 60's . …now , anything that aint HARD RIGHT …is EVIL .
    Anyone caopable of reading a newspaper know the republicans hogtied Clinton as far as hitting back at Al Queda …and that "empty tent " that the previous misguided , misinformed poster mentioned , was infact occuppied by Bin laden about 40 minutes earlier .
    Sorry David , it wasn't the hippies , YOU went off the tracks a long time ago .

  • badaboo

    …..and now you spout REVISIONISM with a vengeance . You changed your colors once , and that's a sure sign that you'll do it again . Tsk, Tsk , Tsk.

    • Grateful Reader

      You epitomize the truth that there is none so blind as he who will not see. The appalling ignorance of you and your ilk is hard to stomach. Please consider moving to another country–one that is much more deserving of you than ours is.

      Thank you, David, for being a beacon of light and truth. You inspire and motivate those of us who love reason and liberty to keep fighting against the forces of irrationality and hate.

      • trickyblain

        Irrationality and hate? You're commenting on an article that places sole blame for 9/11 on Clinton, dude. Horowitz has made a career of playing to peoples' fear and hate. Go take a gander at any one of the "oh nooo, Muslims!!!" articles on this site and look at the comments. Are you perfectly capable of recognizing ignorance and hatred when you see it?

        For all your talk of badaboo's "appalling ignorance," you've yet to not a single item that he's wrong about.

        It's you that needs to leave the country. Or get yourself an education.

  • badaboo

    Gratefull reader , stay gratefull pal , it's right where you belong ….it's right where you choose to be led .
    Irrationality ? LOL……Hatred ??? ….yea ! feel the love that drips from David . It's a fixation , and obsession …….deep seated unresolved issues of David's former mindset , morphed into an unreasonable hatred . And worse -REVISIONISM !
    Go get your head screwed on straight Gratefull Reader .

    • USMCSniper

      What an ad hominem bag of babblesquawk. You are so stupid that you don't even suspect that you are stupid. And you are ugly and your mommy dresses you funny. hah hah hah so there. nahhh nah nah neh nahhh nahh.

  • Hal B. Wright

    CitizenMan: This country will survive and the Constitution will be saved although it will hang by a thread. If americans wil return to their religious roots and serve God, they will survive – but not without a fight.
    A time is coming when real God fearing people shall unite and go forth to perform this feat. God shall be with them and they shall prevail.
    Prophecy reveals that there shall be some horrendous clalmities on the east coast of the United States, to wit, Albany, N, Y. destroyed by fire and Boston destroyed by the ocean heaving itself over its bounds, etc. etc. etc.
    You may amuse yourself by the above comments, chuckle over them, point an accusing finger, whatever; but, just keep watching, be informed, and you may live to see it all, if you do not destroy yourself in the process.
    It has ever been the message that all peoples must repent. We really must do so. None are exempt. No, not one person… and we all know it, don't we? Sleep tight if you can.

    Let us all clean up our act and do what we all know we should do.

  • dgene

    Clintons sent Berger to stuff his pants.

    Clintons lied cheated cavilled and obfucated, all for themselves and the left.

    Wake up America.

  • badaboo

    LOL….Hal B. Wright …….your mnessage falls on deaf ears , for you'll not divert not even one of these sycophants from their self-appointed task , and they NO DOUBT believe that ALL Democrats and assorted "lefties " will be destroyed on that day , whilst David Horowitz , his followers and approvers , shall be spared and highly exalted on that day . Davids west coast retreat shall be the New Kingdom of righteousness , and he shall judge all peoples , I tell you . And anyone who criticizes a pepublican or conservative will be thrown into the lake of fire forever and ever .

  • JeffT

    Liberals are never serious about our defense. If they had their way we would have no armies or navies to harass the rest of the world. They really believe we have caused all the world's problems. While we are not guilt free in our dealings with the rest of the world, we are still the beacon of freedom. When we are no more, which day will come, then we'll see how the rest of the world collapses into war and oblivion. It's like when the last of the adults leaves the teen party. All hell breaks loose. It will not be a pretty picture.

  • http://www.myspace/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

    I for one see no hope in the future only a total move into the third world hell, by the way guys like savage and horowitz helped to take us all down a path to hell now both are big time right wing guys but both like some many other who now feel bad about the hell our kids will live under are sorry about that evil?

    Jefft is right. but that beacon of light over the night of hell is about to go out and when that is a fact the third world people will die off by the millions per-day and that to is justice, many are guilt and all will pay for that murder of freedom.

  • badaboo

    Yea , and it aaaaalllllll will be the fault of the "liberals " …riiiigght .Funny , how on Labor Day , these threads demean and denigrate unions , who fought and won weekends , a 40 hr work week , overtime , due process representation for workers in the work place , most of the OSIA safety standards , and most of the perks that anti-union WHINERS take for granted , while blaming all economics ills on the LEFT ,and of course the Unions are " the Left ……….and now on the 9th Anniversarry of 9/11 , where 3000 AMERICANS were killed [Democrat and Republican alike no doubt , ] the FINGER OF BLAME GOES WHERE ? Of course !!! It's the fault f the "left " a.k.a. Democrats So instead of uniting Americans on this somber day , you seek to divide and turn one side against the other , what a sad and sorry commentary on your ideology .
    David Horowitz , you have no shame .

  • badaboo

    This mindset has already begun to denigrate Jefferson , and Lincoln by means of twisted perverted rationales.

    What will you do on Easter ? Blame the Left for the Cfrucifixion ?

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Absolutely not but they did poison the Easter eggs…………
      of which you should stop eating they have made
      you continuously bilious……………………….William

    • badaboo

      Brilliant william ward ., how long did it take you to find that word ? Oh and btw , I take your accusation about the Easter eggs serious , it fits in , what is the acceptable " Horowitz narrative " .

      • bubba4

        That the Pharisees that turned Jesus over to Rome were the original Progressives. They were afraid that Jesus' talk of individual freedom endangered their political arrangement with Rome to control the jewish province.

        Because Obama had the annual Easter Egg Roll, we have to go back to pagan roots of this tribal foreign practice that Obama embraces. We have to ask, is Obama trying to hijack the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by focus on the pagan "fertility" aspects of Easter? And come to think of it, isn't the whole concept of coloring and hiding eggs a bit Communist? Aren't we teaching our children that you don't have to work…you just have to look around for treats made by others and left for you to find? That some magical rabbit (the state) will just drop by your house and leave your easter baskets….And what's in those easter baskets? Chocolate….dark dark chocolate.

        Obama banned white chocolate in the White House…

  • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

    !THE 9/11 OF LIBERALISM

    "Once upon a time I bought into the leftist myth that for every problem there was a government solution. And that government had the capability to perfect human society. A myth that the clueless wonder in the White House is providentially burning to the ground. It was no wonder, and no accident in my view, that Ted Kennedy (Obama's kingmaker) in a moment of rare oracular clarity once called Obama by the name OSAMA BIN LADIN, confusing him with the terrorist. For Barack Hussein Obama is the 9/11 of Liberalism."

    This is part of a short article being featured by USA Today and India Times. Click my name and read the rest

  • badaboo

    Once upon a time ? Never in the minds of intelligent , thinking ,rational people , was there the notion that ANY government , of ANY era , could provide solutions for evry problem . If you ever held that view Apoolo , that indicate a weakness of mind , an inability to comprehend reality .
    So it IS NO WONDER , that you "bought into it " and NOW should feel so disenfranchised , so injured and resentfull , that government has not ever met your juvenile expectations .
    But even so, you now "buy into another myth " that it is Obama who brought about this country's troubles …how simplistic and self serving …lol….and YOUR myth , that removing him from office , or a republican /conservative majority will provide solutions .
    Perhaps that's what got David so obssessed with the very same myth , disappointed and disgruntled over what he 'bought into in the 60's as he himself admits ….thereby leading one to conclude that David's and your positions are psychological rather than political or ideological .

    • bubba4

      It's not important that it be accurate…just that it work.

      Beware the man the defines himself by defining his enemies…especially when the enemy is an amorphous, anticonceptual boogeyman.

  • Samurai Hit Woman

    Oh, stop bugaboo you are embarrassing yourself. You are the author of so many twisted, perverted and lame rationales you have no idea of what denigrates Lincoln and Jefferson because every sentence you write is anathema to everything these men stood for.

  • http://www.myspace/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

    it may happen badaboo with a government that can't see facts and want us all on our Knees to muslim monkeys. what we need is a " charles martel ( the hammer 676-741 )

  • badaboo

    Samurai , I can now say with all confidence , that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking ..lol…nor what I am talking about . Can you see Russia from your house ?

    BTW ….use your own words , don't copy cat mine . I doubt if you even have an original thought in your mind .

  • badaboo

    Have no fear Fred , last time I looked the Second Amendment was fully intact , and when "push comes to shove " …..that's better than a hammer . Don't matter what any government sees as facts, or what any government wants … , ain't gonna be any "kneeling " in the USA …period .

  • Samurai Hit Woman

    No Bugaboo, I can't see Russia from here but I can see your Leftist ideology twisting in the wind of conservative thought.

    And I wouldn't think of using anything that came from you idiotlogue.

  • badaboo

    You call that "thought " Samurai ? The babblings of a sycophant , the rhetoric of your ideologues ? Unable to think for yourself ? Incompetence has no political stripe , and denial , revisionism and outright lieing is no intelligent argumentr to affix blame .
    Name calling and utter ignorance is all you got samurai girl , but it sells well amongst your lot , and that is becvause it feeds the ideology that languishes in those lesser characteristics of the individual .
    Here's a newsflah for the dimbulbs among us , 9/11 was facilitated by incompetence on BOTH sides of the aisle , and that fostered by blind partisanship , the same which you so obviously display .

  • Samurai Hit Woman

    Mr. Bugaboo you've misspelled ideologue. Where you are concerned it's idiotlogue. You're welcome.

    • bubba4

      You've been reduced to spell checking?

  • badaboo

    Well atleast you're consistent samurai girl .But in your case , that's not a good thing .

  • Samurai Hit Woman

    You're no fun Bugaboo. How can I exchange witty remarks with someone who has no wit?
    Evidently you're a Lefty for the same reason you're no fun—discernment is beyond you.

  • badaboo

    Oh yes samurai , let me pin the medal on you and save you the trouble . But I guess to an adloscent , calling someone an idiot is …witty . And please be advised little girl , that not all of the world operates on your level , thus your juvenile remarks remain just that …juvenile remarks . Insult once given, cannot be called back as witt , and "fun " was certainly not the intention ….well perhaps for 5th and 6th graders it may seem such . Oh well .

  • Marine Veteran

    Where was the Obama haters when Graham and McCain were pushing for Condoleeza Rice to become Secretary of State, and in her confirmation hearing she repeated the Bush meme that the August 6, 2001 document warning about bin Laden attacking the United States was just a historical document! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM Hmmm? And over 3.000 Americans died because the Bush White House and her backing them up, thought the warning was just a historical document! Those criminals should be locked up!

    In her confirmation hearing she repeated the Bush meme that the August 6, 2001 document warning about bin Laden attacking the United States was just a historical document! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM Hmmm? And over 3.000 Americans died because the Bush White House and her backing them up, thought the warning was just a historical document! Those criminals should be locked up!

    The attack on 911, as mentioned above could have been prevented, but the aviation industry was not willing to allow the Clinton administration via Vice President Al Gore’s report on the attack of TWA 800 over New York, and implementing safety  guidelines for the industry. Congressional angst about regulations, and airline companies fears of being hampered by tightened regulations caused the administration to back off. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html

    This report was then passed onto the Bush administration in hopes that they would adopt it, but it wad totally ignored by them.

    The report advanced twenty serious recommendations to strengthen aviation security. The proposals called for a sixty-day test for matching bags with passengers on domestic flights and a computer-based system of “profiling” passengers.

    Also proposed were “vulnerability assessments” at every commercial airport in the country, increased numbers of bomb-sniffing dogs, better screening and training of the workers who examined bags, and more frequent tests of their work.

    At a press conference on September 9, Vice President Gore declared his strong support for these proposals, before backing away from that support by pressure from the aforementioned.

    Furthermore, the Bush administration was not even focusing on capturing bin Laden, because they had him and his top leaders trapped in Tora Bora, and gave military commanders orders to back off as shown in a Congressional report from a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by John Kerry. Bush and his military commanders had bin Laden cornered in Bora Bora, and gave an order to the commanders on the ground to back off, and allowed him to escape over the border. This is in the Congressional record, a factual account of what transpired. TORA BORA REVISITED: HOW WE FAILED TO GET BIN LADEN AND WHY IT MATTERS TODAY __________ A Report: To Members OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE John F. Kerry, Chairman One Hundred Eleventh Congress First Session, November 30, 2009 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-111SPRT53709/ht

  • 2BlackCoffee71

    What a melodramatic essay. Have you ever considered that FBI, CIA, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and Bin Laden himself were all working for the same military-industrial-banking complex’ masters who want to keep the “boogey-man” notion alive so they can endlessly steal our money for their endless so-called “war on terror”?