The Clinton
Administration knew of plans to use commercial airliners
as bombs and fly them into buildings
The first World Trade Center bombing was on February 26, 1993,
one month into the Clinton Administration. The terrorists – Egyptians and
Palestinians -- blew a hole six stories deep beneath the North Tower intending to topple
it onto the South Tower and kill 250,000 people. It was – in the words of the
definitive account – "the most ambitious terrorist attack ever attempted,
anywhere, ever." Clinton did nothing. He did not even visit the site. Worse, he
allowed the attack to be categorized as a criminal act by individuals, even though its
mastermind – as the administration soon discovered -- was an Iraqi intelligence agent
named Ramzi Youssef.
The second attack took place 10 months later in Mogadishu, Somalia. It was an attack on
American military forces who were in country to bring food to the starving Somalis. In the
battle, which has been memorialized in Black Hawk Down, eighteen American soldiers were
killed and the body of one was dragged through the streets in a gesture designed to
formally humiliate the world’s greatest super power. Clinton’s response? He
turned tail and ran.
In 1995, Ramzi Youssef was captured in the Philippines with plans to use commercial
airliners to blow up CIA headquarters among other targets. This al-Qaeda plot was termed
"Operation Bojinka," which means "the big bang." After the discovery
of "Operation Bojinka," Al Gore was appointed to head a task force to tighten
airport security. Its key recommendations, which would have prevented 9/11, were rejected
by the White House on the grounds that they might be construed as "racial
profiling."
In 1996 the Khobar Towers – a barracks housing U.S. soldiers was blown up in Saudia
Arabia by Iranian and Palestinian terrorists acting on behalf of al-Qaeda. Nineteen U.S.
servicemen were killed but the Saudis refused to cooperate in tracking down the killers.
The Clinton Administration did nothing.
In 1998, the year of Lewinsky, al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania– under any circumstances an act of war. Two-hundred-and-forty-five people
were killed and 6,000 injured, mainly Africans. Clinton’s response? The infamous
strike on a medicine factory in the Sudan and a spray of missiles into an emptied
terrorist camp in Khost.
In October 2000, al-Qaeda attacked the U.S.S Cole, an American warship, killing 17
servicemen. Another act of war. The Clinton response? Nothing.
Every year that these terrorist attacks were taking place, Democrat congressional leaders
supported bills to cut U.S. intelligence funding and/or hamstring CIA operations, and/or
prevent the tightening of immigration controls – all of which would have strengthened
American defenses against an al-Qaeda attack.
Meanwhile, the principle ally of Saddam Hussein, the architect of suicide bombing, the
creator of the first terrorist training camps, and the apostle of terror as a redemptive
social cause -- Yasser Arafat -- was a "partner in peace" and the most frequent
guest at the Clinton White House among foreign heads of state.
Despite the fact that Republicans had fought Democrats for eight years over the military
and intelligence budgets, over immigration and security issues, despite the alliances that
leftwing Democrats had made with America’s enemies in the UN, despite the
obstructionism of Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy in opposing domestic security
measures and efforts by the Justice Department to bring al-Qaeda to heel, Republicans
refused to point a partisan finger on issues of war and peace. Now their self-restraint
has come back to haunt them as the Democrats seek to shift the blame they have done so
much to earn to the shoulders of their political opponents.
The Democratic attack on George Bush is based on an intelligence analysis he received a
month before 9/11, which indicated that al-Qaeda terrorists were planning to hijack
planes. The described threats in this analysis came under the category "general"
meaning they did not specify time, place or method, and they were uncorroborated. The
reports the President received in the months prior to 9/11 described targets that were
mainly overseas – in the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, Italy, Paris, Rome and Turkey. On
the slim reed of the existence of a possible hijacking threat in the United States –
included with all these others -- the Democrats have built their treacherous case.
Yet hijackings occur and have occurred for forty years. On most occasions they are
stopped. Nine of the 9/11 hijackers were hauled out of airport security lines as they were
boarding the fatal flights that September. But because airport security had not been
tightened – and could not be tightened without a battle royal with Democrats over
"racial profiling" the al-Qaeda hijackers were allowed to continue and carry out
their sinister design. Shutting down the U.S. airline industry or sounding a national
alarm that would produce the same effect in August 2001 on the basis of a vague report
that a hijacking was possible is something no administration has ever done in 40 years of
hijacking incidents. Yet this is the logic behind the Democrats’ present
"investigation."
If, on the other hand, Bush had known what the Clinton Administration knew –
that al-Qaeda had plans to use commercial airliners as bombs and fly them into buildings
– specifically the CIA -- this would be a serious charge. But they did not know it,
because the Clinton team never told them.
Although the Clinton security team knew that Operation Bojinka included blowing up the CIA
building in Langley, Virginia, it kept this information from the rest of the government.
When Dale Watson, chief of the FBI’s International Terrorism Operations Section
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 1998, he withheld this vital
information. He identified Operation Bojinka only as a plot to blow up U.S. air carriers,
and assured the senators that the FBI had the situation under control.
It is possible that Clinton never received the information about Operation Bojinka, since
his lack of interest in national security matters throughout the course of his
administration has been noted by many – including his chief political advisor Dick
Morris, and his chief "biographer" Joe Klein. February 1998 – the date of
the FBI testimony -- is also the month after Monica Lewinsky became a national celebrity.
The fact that Bush didn’t know about plans to hijack planes and run them into tall
buildings was confirmed by Condoleeza Rice at her recent press conference:
Dr. Rice: Hijacking before 9/11 and hijacking after 9/11 do mean two very, very different
things. And so focusing on it before 9/11 – perhaps it’s clear that after 9/11
you would have looked at this differently, but certainly not before 9/11.
Q: And no discussion in this briefing, or any others, about the possibility of al-Qaeda
hijacking, and the fact that there have been active investigations into the possibility of
a CIA building plot, or an Eiffel Tower plot. Never came up?
Dr. Rice: It did not come up.
On September 10, 2001 a document landed on the President’s desk that he had
commissioned months before. It was a plan to dismantle and destroy al-Qaeda and had taken
months to prepare. It was necessary because the Clinton administration had drawn up no
such plan in the eight years before.
The charge now being led by the Democrats against the nation’s commander-in-chief as
he attempts to protect its citizens against the next certain terrorist attack is worse
than unconscionable. It is one more Democratic stake driven into the heart of the
nation’s security. Limiting the damage, defending his authority, in order to protect
Americans from further harm is now the daunting task before the President and his team.
David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son,
which has been described as “the first great autobiography of his generation,”
and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to the current positions he holds.
Among his other books are The Politics of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art
of Political War was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as “the
perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.” Horowitz’s latest book,
Uncivil Wars, was published in January this year, and chronicles his crusade against
intolerance and racial McCarthyism on college campuses last spring
By David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com
David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son,
which has been described as “the first great autobiography of his generation,”
and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to the current positions he holds.
Among his other books are The Politics of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art
of Political War was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as “the
perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.” Horowitz’s latest book,
Uncivil Wars, was published in January this year, and chronicles his crusade against
intolerance and racial McCarthyism on college campuses last spring
