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

At the time, Republicans warned that if the aid was cut the regime would fall and a “bloodbath” would ensue. This fear was solidly based on reports that had begun accumulating three years earlier concerning “the extraordinary brutality with which the Khmer Rouge were governing the civilian population in areas they controlled.” But Anthony Lake and the Democrat-controlled Congress dismissed these warnings as so much “anti-Communist hysteria,” and voted to deny the aid.

In his Post article, Lake advised fellow Democrats to view the Khmer Rouge not as a totalitarian force—which it was—but as a coalition embracing “many Khmer nationalists, Communist and non-Communist,” who only desired independence. It would be a mistake, he wrote, to alienate Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge lest we “push them further into the arms of their Communist supporters.” Lake’s myopic left-wing views prevailed among the Democrats, and the following year the new president, Jimmy Carter, rewarded Lake with an appointment as Policy Planning Director of the State Department.

In Cambodia, the termination of U.S. aid led immediately to the collapse of the government allowing the Khmer Rouge to seize power within months of the congressional vote. The victorious revolutionaries proceeded to implement their plans for a new Communist utopia by systematically eliminating their opposition. In the next three years they killed nearly 2 million Cambodians, a campaign universally recognized as one of the worst genocides ever recorded.

The Warnings Ignored

For nearly a decade before the World Trade Center disaster, the Clinton Administration was aware that Americans were increasingly vulnerable to attacks which might involve biological or chemical weapons, or even nuclear devices bought or stolen from broken pieces of the former Soviet Union. This was the insistent message of Republican speeches on the floors of Congress and was reflected in the warnings of several government commissions, and Clinton’s own Secretary of Defense, William Cohen.

In July 1999, for example, Cohen wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, predicting a terrorist attack on the American mainland. “In the past year, dozens of threats to use chemical or biological weapons in the United States have turned out to be hoaxes. Someday, one will be real.” But the warnings did not produce the requisite action by the commander-in-chief. Meanwhile, the nation’s media looked the other way. For example, as the president of the Council on Foreign Relations told the New Yorker’s Joe Klein, he “watched carefully to see if anyone followed up on [Cohen’s speech]. But none of the television networks and none of the elite press even mentioned it. I was astonished.”

The following year, “the National Commission on Terrorism—chaired by former Reagan counter-terrorism head Paul Bremer—issued a report with the eerily foreboding image of the Twin Towers on its cover. A bi-partisan effort led by Jon Kyl and Dianne Feinstein—was made to attach the recommendations of the panel to an intelligence authorization bill.” But Senator Patrick Leahy, who had distinguished himself in the 1980s by opposing the government’s efforts to halt the Communist offensive in Central America “said he feared a threat to ‘civil liberties’ in a campaign against terrorism and torpedoed the effort. After the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Kyl and Feinstein tried yet again. This time, Leahy was content with emaciating the proposals instead of defeating them outright. The weakened proposals died as the House realized ‘it wasn’t worth taking up.’”

After the abortive plot to blow up commercial airliners in the Philippines, Vice President Gore was tasked with improving airline security. A commission was formed, but under his leadership it also “focused on civil liberties” and “profiling,” liberal obsessions that diluted any effort to strengthen security measures in the face of a threat in which all of the proven terrorists were Muslims from the Middle East and Asia. The commission concluded that, “no profile [of passengers] should contain or be based on … race, religion, or national origin.” According to journalist Kevin Cherry, the FAA also decided in 1999 to seal its passenger screening system from law-enforcement databases thus preventing the FBI from notifying airlines that suspected terrorists were on board.”

In 1993, the FBI identified three charities connected to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas that were being used to finance terrorist activities, sending as much as $20 million a year to America’s enemies. According to presidential adviser Dick Morris, “At a White House strategy meeting on April 27, 1995—two weeks after the Oklahoma City bombing—the President was urged to create a ‘President’s List’ of extremist/terrorist groups, their members and donors ‘to warn the public against well-intentioned donations which might foster terrorism.’ On April 1, 1996, he was again advised to ‘prohibit fund-raising by terrorists and identify terrorist organizations.’” Hamas was specifically mentioned.

Inexplicably Clinton ignored these recommendations. Why? FBI agents have stated that they were prevented from opening either criminal or national-security cases because of a fear that it would be seen as ‘profiling’ Islamic charities. While Clinton was ‘politically correct,’ Hamas flourished.

In failing to heed the signs that America was at war with a deadly adversary, overcome the ideological obstacles created by the liberal biases of his administration and arouse an uninformed public to concern, it was the Commander-in-Chief who bore primary responsibility. As one former administration official told reporter Joe Klein, “Clinton spent less concentrated attention on national defense than any another President in recent memory.” Clinton’s political advisor Dick Morris flatly charged, “Clinton’s failure to mobilize America to confront foreign terror after the 1993 attack [on the World Trade Center] led directly to the 9/11 disaster.” According to Morris, “Clinton was removed, uninvolved, and distant where the war on terror was concerned.”

Opportunities Missed

By Clinton’s own account, Monica Lewinsky was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, the head of the CIA could not get a single private meeting with the President, despite the Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993 or the killing of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu on October 3 of the same year. “James Woolsey, Clinton’s first CIA director, says he never met privately with Clinton after their initial interview. When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, ‘that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.’”

In 1996, an American Muslim businessman and Clinton supporter named Mansoor Ijaz opened up an unofficial channel between the government of the Sudan and the Clinton Administration. At the same time, “the State Department was describing bin Laden as ‘the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world’ and was accusing the Sudan of harboring terrorists.” According to Mansoor, who met with Clinton and Sandy Berger, “President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among the members of these networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.”

President Bashir sent key intelligence officials to Washington in February 1996. Again, according to Mansoor, “the Sudanese offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to ‘baby-sit’ him—monitoring all his activities and associates.” But the Saudis didn’t want him. Instead, in May 1996 “the Sudanese capitulated to US pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere. Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Awahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the September 11 attacks….”

One month later, the US military housing complex in Saudi Arabia was blown apart by a 5,000 lb truck bomb. Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity, concludes Mansoor, “represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.”

According to a London Sunday Times account, based on a Clinton Administration source, responsibility for this decision “went to the very top of the White House. Shortly after the September 11 disaster, “Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let bin Laden go was probably ‘the biggest mistake of my presidency.’” But according to the Times report, which was based on interviews with intelligence officials, this was only one of three occasions on which the Clinton Administration had the opportunity to seize Bin Laden and failed to do so.

When the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky became public in January 1998, and his adamant denials made it a consuming public preoccupation, Clinton’s normal inattention to national security matters became subsumed in a general executive paralysis. In Dick Morris’s judgment, the United States was effectively “without a president between January 1998 until April 1999,” when the impeachment proceedings concluded with the failure of the Senate to convict. It was in August 1998 that the al-Qaeda truck bombs blew up the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The Failure to Take Security Seriously

Yet this was only half the story. During its eight years, the Clinton Administration was able to focus enough attention on defense matters to hamstring the intelligence services in the name of civil liberties, shrink the U.S. military in the name of economy, and prevent the Pentagon from adopting (and funding) a “two-war” strategy, because “the Cold War was over” and in the White House’s judgment there was no requisite military threat in the post-Communist world that might make it necessary for the United States to be able to fight wars on two fronts. Inattention to defense also did not prevent the Clinton Administration from pursuing massive social experiments in the military in the name of gender and diversity reform, which included requiring “consciousness raising” classes for military personnel, rigging physical standards women were unable to meet, and in general undermining the meritocratic benchmarks that are a crucial component of military morale.

While budget cuts forced some military families to go on food stamps, the Pentagon spent enormous sums to re-equip ships and barracks to accommodate co-ed living. All these efforts further reduced the Pentagon’s ability to put a fighting force in the field—a glaring national vulnerability dramatized by the war in Kosovo. This diminished the crucial elements of fear and respect for American power in the eyes of adversaries waiting in the wings.

During the Clinton years, the Democrats insistence that American power was somehow the disturber—rather than the enforcer—of international tranquility, prompted the White House to turn to multilateral agencies for leadership, particularly the discredited United Nations. While useful in limited peacekeeping operations, the UN was in large part a collection of theocratic tyrannies and brutal dictatorships which regularly indicted and condemned the world’s most tolerant democracies, specifically the United States, England and Israel, while supporting the very states providing safe harbors for America’s al-Qaeda enemy. Just prior to the World Trade Center attacks, the UN’s “Conference on Racism” engaged in a ritual of America bashing over “reparations” for slavery and support for Israel. The agendas had been set by an Islamic coalition led by Iran.

During the 1990s, Bill Clinton’s most frequent foreign guest was Yasser Arafat, whose allegiance to Iraq and betrayal of America during the Gulf War could not have been more brazen. Following the defeat of Iraq, a “peace process” was launched in the Arab-Israeli conflict that predictably failed through Arafat’s failure to renounce the terrorist option. But why renounce terror if there is no price exacted for practicing it?

Clinton and the Military

It is true that the Clinton White House was able, during its eight-year tenure, to shed some of the Democrats’ normal aversion to the use of American military might. (As recently as 1990 only 6 Democratic Senators had voted to authorize the Gulf War against Iraq). But the Clinton deployments of American forces were often non-military in nature: a “democracy building” effort in Haiti that failed; flood relief and “peace keeping” operations that were more appropriately the province of international institutions. Even the conflict Clinton belatedly engaged in the Balkans was officially characterized as a new kind of “humanitarian war,” as though the old kinds of war for national interest and self-defense were somehow tainted. While the Serbian dictator Milosevic was toppled, “ethnic cleansing,” the casus belli of the Western intervention, continues, except that the Christian Serbs in Kosovo have now become victims of the previously persecuted Albanian Muslims.

Among Clinton’s deployments were also half-hearted strikes using cruise missiles against essentially defenseless countries like the Sudan, or the sporadic bombing of Iraq when Saddam violated the terms of the Gulf peace. Clinton’s strikes failed in their primary objective—to maintain the UN inspections. On the other hand, a negative result of this “Whack-A-Mole” strategy was the continual antagonizing of Muslim populations throughout the world.

The most notorious of these episodes was undoubtedly Clinton’s ill-conceived and ineffectual response to the attacks on the African embassies. At the time, Clinton was preoccupied with preparing his defense before a grand jury convened because of his public lies about the Lewinsky affair. Three days after Lewinsky’s grand jury appearance, without consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff or his national security advisors, Clinton launched cruise missiles into two Islamic countries, which he identified as being allied to the terrorists and their leader Osama bin Laden. One of these missiles hit and destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, killing one individual. Since the factory was the sole plant producing medicines for an impoverished African nation, there were almost certainly a number of collateral deaths.

The incident, which inflamed anti-American passions all over the Islamic world, was—in conception and execution—a perfect reflection of the distorted priorities and reckless attitudes of the Clinton White House. It also reflected the irresponsibility of congressional Democrats who subordinated the safety concerns of their constituents to provide unified support for the presidential misbehavior at home and abroad.

The Partisan Nature of the Security Problem

More than 100 Arabic operatives participated in the attack on the World Trade Center Towers. They did so over a period of several years. They were able to enter the United States with and without passports seemingly at will. They received training in flying commercial airliners at American facilities despite clear indications that some of them might be part of a terrorist campaign. At the same time, Democrats pressed for greater relaxation of immigration policies and resisted scrutiny of foreign nationals on the grounds that to do so constituted “racial profiling.” To coordinate their terrorist efforts, the al-Qaeda operatives had to communicate with each other electronically on channels that America’s high-tech intelligence agencies normally intercept. One reason they were not detected was that the first line of defense against such attacks was effectively crippled by powerful figures in the Democratic Party who considered the CIA the problem and not America’s enemies.

Security controls that would have prevented adversarial agents from even acquiring encryption devices that thwarted American intelligence efforts were casually lifted on orders from the highest levels of government. Alleged abuses by American intelligence operatives became a higher priority than the abuses of the hostile forces they were attempting to contain. Reporter Joe Klein’s inquiries led him to conclude, “there seems to be near unanimous agreement among experts: in the ten years since the collapse of the Soviet Union [and the eight years of the Clinton presidency, and the seven since the first Al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center] almost every aspect of American national-security—from military operations to intelligence gathering, from border control to political leadership—has been marked by … institutional lassitude and bureaucratic arrogance…”

The Democrats’ Anti-Intelligence Bill

The Democrats’ cavalier attitude towards American security in the years preceding September 11 was dramatized in a bill to cut the intelligence budget sight unseen, which was introduced every year of the Clinton Administration by Independent Bernie Sanders. The fact that Sanders was an extreme leftist proved no problem for the Democrats—still enjoying their long-standing congressional majority—when they appointed him to a seat on the House intelligence committee. Indeed why should it be a problem? Shortly before the World Trade Center attack, Senate Democrats made another leftist, California Senator Barbara Boxer, an opponent of the war against Saddam Hussein and a long-time critic of the American military, the chair of the Senate Sub-committee on Terrorism.

The Sanders initiative was launched in 1993, after the first al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center. In that year, the Democrat-controlled House Intelligence Committee had voted to reduce President Clinton’s own authorization request for the intelligence agencies by 6.75%. But this was insufficient for Sanders. So he introduced an amendment that required a minimum reduction in financial authorization for each individual intelligence agency of at least 10%.

Sanders refused to even examine the intelligence budget he proposed to cut: “My job is not to go through the intelligence budget. I have not even looked at it.” According to Sanders the reasons for reducing the intelligence budget were that “the Soviet Union no longer exists,” and that “massive unemployment, that low wages, that homelessness, that hungry children, that the collapse of our educational system is perhaps an equally strong danger to this Nation, or may be a stronger danger for our national security.”

Irresponsible? Incomprehensible? Not to nearly half the Democrats in the House who voted in favor of the Sanders amendment. Ninety-seven Democrats in all voted for the Sanders cuts, including House Armed Services Committee chair Ron Dellums and the House Democratic leadership. As the terrorist attacks on America intensified year by year during the 1990s, Sanders steadfastly reintroduced his amendment. Every year thereafter, right until the World Trade Center attack, nearly 100 Democrats voted with him to cut the intelligence budget.

According to a study made by political consultant Terry Cooper, “Dick Gephardt (D-MO), the House Democratic leader, voted to cut on five of the seven amendments on which he was recorded. He appears to have ‘taken a walk’ on two other votes. David Bonior (D-MI), the number-two Democratic leader who as Whip enforces the party position, voted for every single one of the ten cutting amendments. Chief Deputy Whips John Lewis (D-GA) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) voted to cut intelligence funding every time they voted. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), just elected to replace Bonior as Whip when Bonior leaves early in 2002, voted to cut intelligence funding three times, even though she was a member of the Intelligence Committee and should have known better. Two funding cut amendments got the votes of every single member of the elected House Democratic leadership. In all, members of the House Democratic leadership supported the Saunders funding cut amendments 56.9 percent of the time.”

Many of the Democrats whose committee positions give them immense say over our national security likewise voted for most or all of the funding cut amendments. Ron Dellums (D-CA), the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee from 1993 through 1997, cast all eight of his votes on funding cut amendments in favor of less intelligence funding. Three persons who chaired or were ranking Democrats on Armed Services subcommittees for part of the 1993-99 period—Pat Schroeder (D-CO), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) and Marty Meehan (D-MA)—also voted for every fund-cutting amendment that was offered during their tenures. Dave Obey (D-WI), the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee that holds the House’s keys to the federal checkbook, voted seven out of eight times to reduce intelligence funding.

In 1994, Republican Porter Goss, a former CIA official and member of the House Intelligence Committee, warned that because of inflation, the cuts now proposed by Sanders-Owens amounted to 16% of the 1992 budget and were 20% below the 1990 budget. Yet this did not dissuade Dellums, Bonior and roughly 100 Democrats from continuing to lay the budgetary ax to America’s first line of anti-terrorist defense. Ranking Committee Republican Larry Combest warned that the cuts endangered “critically important and fragile capabilities, such as in the area of human intelligence.” In 1998, Osama bin Laden and four radical Islamic groups connected to al-Qaeda issued a fatwa condemning every American man, woman and child, civilian and military included. Sanders responded by enlisting Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio to author an amendment cutting the intelligence authorization again.

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”?