PART II. CLINTONS PLANNED TO USE TERRORISM
TO REGAIN WHITE HOUSE
©Richard Roberts11/9/03
On 9/11 al Qaeda literally struck America like a bolt from the blue. If Clinton was derelict in his duty to protect us from the threat posed by Saddam, in regard to bin Laden, his response seems downright treasonous. First, there were the offers from the Sudan to turn over bin Laden, which Mansoor Ijaz has documented; since he was in the middle of one of the brokered deals. Clinton is on record as saying that since bin Laden had not broken any American laws, “there were no grounds on which we could hold him, “ even though Clinton knew that bin Laden was plotting terrorism against the United States.
“Avoiding Clinton’s Mistakes” is an editorial in The Washington Times (10/27-11/2/03). It sums up all the offers made to the Clinton administration by the Sudanese government to hand over bin Laden, plus correspondence with Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security advisor, and personal handwritten notes from Bill, Hillary, and Al, because Ijaz had raised more than $900,000 for Democrat campaigns, and had hosted a birthday party for Hillary in 1999. Some Sudanese intelligence reports were delivered personally to Clinton by Ijaz, and “in a September 27, 1996, brief, he details the contents of the intelligence files, which he had told Mr. Berger about in a previous August memo. . . . Mr. Ijaz’s correspondence proves the administration knew what was available. The Clinton administration simply chose to snub the government that harbored the Al Qaeda mastermind....
"Mr. Ijaz summarized his view of the Clinton administration culpability regarding September 11. ‘I said then as I say now: Bill Clinton’s inability to understand what was fueling the rise of Bin Laden as a phenomenon, not as an individual, was the greatest U.S. foreign policy failure of the last half-century. It has affected hundreds of millions worldwide. Even if we get him now, who will be the next Bin Laden? There are many willing candidates standing in line. Islamic radicalism exists today because Clinton didn’t dismantle Al Qaeda when he had the chance.’”
However, Ijaz may be wrong in attributing his old friend’s “inability to understand” the phenomenon of Bin Laden. Suppose instead that both Clintons understood the future danger that Bin Laden posed for America. Although Hillary has been in a “co-presidency” with Bill, in 2000 they were facing the end of their White House tenure; yet Hillary’s “oe’r weening ambition” to be President had not been sated, so every day she schemed and nagged Bill as to how her presidency could be brought about. As dyed-in-the-wool Marxists, we can assume they were familiar with the change in international Marxist strategy, whereby the “united” workers of the world who had grown fat and wealthy were no longer viewed as the force to bring down capitalism. Indeed, some “requested” workers in Harry Bridges’ International Longshoreman’s and Warehouseman’s Union make between $100,000 to $200,000 a year. New Marxist strategy since about 1980 calls for arming Third World countries, as France, Germany, and Russia did in Iraq, to cause catastrophic upheavals and civil wars all across the globe. Terrorist organizations (“freedom fighters”) would comprise the main phalanx of this revolution against capitalism.
So back in 1996, Clinton has nothing to lose by apprehending Bin Laden, except perhaps the wrath of Hillary, who reasons that left alone, Bin Laden will grow to be a big problem for the next administration. She schemes that by running for a Congressional office, and then taking a stand that homeland security has been neglected, when the inevitable happens, the anger of the electorate will propel her into the White House. Thus today all of the Democrats are of one mind (save for wise Lieberman) that the U.S. should not have gone into Iraq, because there is no connection between Saddam and terrorism (!), and in doing so, America’s flank has been left exposed to domestic terrorism. This dovetails perfectly with Hillary’s scheme, and Kennedy compounds it by declaring that Bush has perpetuated a fraud on the American people. At the same time, all of the Marxist “peace” movement is organizing demonstrations against “imperialist” America’s Middle East oil grab. The White Banner declaring “bring the Troops home” has as its goal permitting the revolution to go on in Iraq by means of starting up again programs for biological, chemical and nuclear WMDs.
There are, however, many links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which the Bush administration has been cautious about revealing even in the face of the Democrats’ onslaught against the war. Writing in The Weekly Standard (10/20/03), Stephen F. Hayes opines that “the White House is nervous that publicly discussing the links could trigger another set of leaks, most of them presumed to come from the CIA, attempting to discredit the new information. Those are battles the White House doesn’t want to fight.” Hayes documents in this and a following article the Iraqi connections to the attack on the USS Cole and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Operation Bojinka, which was the first clue that Al Qaeda planned to use hijacked airplanes as flying bombs. All of that terrorism occurred during Clinton’s watch. The information Hayes supplied is beyond the scope of this article but definitely worth reading to inform that Saddam was facilitating al Qaeda terrorism.
weeklystandard.com
weeklystandard.com
Clinton policy in regard to international terrorism was to treat it like domestic law enforcement: Prosecute individuals when crimes occurred, rather than preemptively going after international terrorist organizations and foreign countries harboring terrorists. CIA director James Woolsey (1993-95) describes this short-sighted policy of the Clinton administration in dealing with terrorism as follows: “Congress makes it illegal to deny visas to members of terrorist groups. . . . a lone single individual is responsible for any given terrorist act, even if substantial leads point toward backing from the Middle East. . . . Politically correct guidelines keep the CIA and FBI from recruiting terrorist informants . . . . the CIA fails to tell the State Department about two terrorists being tracked in Malaysia—they get visas and become 9/11 hijackers.” (Wall Street Journal, 10/21/03).
Even more damning evidence that the Clintons were well informed about al Qaeda plots against the U.S. is provided in an October 14, 2003 article in FrontPageMag.com. According to Allan J. Favish, “Despite recent evidence that Bill Clinton knew by 1996 that al-Qaida terrorists who had tried to topple the World Trade Center in 1993 had plans to hijack commercial planes and crash them into buildings on American soil, this evidence was ignored by the recent Congressional report on the causes of the September 11, 2001 aerial attack on the WTC....
“Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson was a military aide to Clinton from May 1996 to May 1998 and one of five individuals entrusted with carrying the “nuclear football”—the bag containing the codes for launching nuclear weapons. On page 139 of Patterson’s book “Dereliction of Duty”, published in March 2003, he wrote:
During the summer of the 1996 attacks, I myself learned firsthand that the administration knew that terrorists were plotting to use commercial airliners as weapons. The president received a Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, every morning. . . . One late-summer Saturday morning, the president asked me to pick up a few days’ worth of PDBs that had accumulated in the Oval Office. He gave them to me with handwritten notes stuffed inside the folders and asked that I deliver them back to the NSC. I opened the PDB to rearrange the notes and noticed the heading “Operation Bojinka.” I keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons and another plot to put bombs on U.S. airliners. Because I was a pilot, this naturally grabbed my attention. I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community, and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it.”
In Favish’s article, we learn that “Suicide bombers belonging to the al-Qaida’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the White House.”
The documentation of facts in the Hayes and Favish articles lead to only one logical conclusion: The intentional disregard of the impending terrorist attacks against America, and the failure to retaliate against those that had occurred, had but one objective, harming the U.S. as part of a greater Marxist strategy from which the Clintons could themselves profit politically.
Richard Roberts has just completed his ninth book, AMERICA HI-JACKED: How Marxist-Nihilism Infiltrated American Culture. He sends out a weekly newsletter, of which the following is one example. For a year’s $18 subscription you may contact him at POB 1175, Farifax, CA. 94978. |
