Statement from Gov. Perry on Nomination of Gates as Secretary of Defense

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today released the following statement regarding President Bush’s decision to nominate Texas A&M President Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as U.S. Secretary of Defense.
“As a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Robert Gates is uniquely qualified for this new challenge. Like tens of thousands of Aggies before him, Gates has answered the call to serve his country. We wish him well as he undertakes the enormous challenge overseeing the U.S. Armed Forces and the War on Terrorism, and we thank him for his service to Texas A&M University.”

The American People

The American People are spineless and gutless. I am scared to death. that we are going to be attacked again.

President Bush campaigns in Texas

President Bush campaigns in Texas
11:52 AM CST on Monday, November 6, 2006
Associated Press

AP President and Mrs. Bush board Air Force One in Waco Monday morning.
Also Online
Complete election coverage
WACO, Texas — President Bush is using the last day of his ten-state campaign swing to flush out GOP and swing voters needed to keep Republicans sitting in the governor's offices of Texas, Florida and Arkansas.
Bush hits the campaign trail today for the fifth consecutive day. He'll travel to states where his advisers believe he can best help fend off a Democratic takeover of Congress and most of the nation's governorships for the first time in 12 years.
Bush's first stop is in the Florida Panhandle to stump for Republican attorney general Charlie Crist, who will be a no-show. Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the president's brother, will attend the Pensacola event in Crist's place.
After Florida, Bush heads to Arkansas where the race for governor pits Democratic Attorney General Mike Beebe against Republican Asa Hutchinson, a former congressman and federal Homeland Security official.
Before returning to his Central Texas ranch in Crawford, Bush speaks at a Dallas rally for Texas Governor Rick Perry, who leads the polls in his re-election bid.
On Election Day, Bush plans to vote in Crawford, then return to Washington to wait for ballot returns.

Abandon Troops

Friday, November 03, 2006AMERICA WEAKLY: Dems' Choice: Abandon Troops And The War On Terror

DEMS' CHOICE: ABANDON TROOPS AND THE WAR ON TERROR
Dem Policies Would Weaken Troop Morale, Roll Back Key Programs To Fight War On Terror, Leave Iraq To Terrorists ________________________________________________

FACT: Dems' Anti-Military Stance Angers U.S. Troops:

Sean Aguilar, 334th Signal Company, Mosul Iraq: "I was amazed. I was shocked to hear [Sen. Kerry] say that. I did four years, went to college, came back in, and I've been doing more college. The way he said it is just, if you don't go to college, you're joining the Army, so that just means that - I guess people that aren't smart join the army." (KIRO-TV's "Eyewitness News")
Click Here To Watch Mr. Aguilar's Reaction To Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't you get stuck in Iraq." (NBC 4's Website, www.nbc4.tv, Accessed 10/31/06)
Click Here To Watch Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Belittle American Troops.
FLASHBACK: Kerry In 1972: "I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown ... We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'" (John Solomon, "Kerry's '72 Campaign Comments On Army Mirror Latest Flap," The Associated Press, 11/2/06)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "If I ... did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners [at Guantanamo] in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot, or others that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." (Sen. Richard Durbin, Congressional Record, 6/14/05 p. S6594)
Click Here To Watch Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Compare U.S. Troops To Nazis.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Called Resolution To Support Troops "Bitter Pill." "As to the resolution in support of the troops, Ms. Pelosi regards it as 'a bitter pill.' Ever the pragmatist, she delivered a speech in opposition to its wording, then voted in favor." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "With Democrats Divided On War, Pelosi Faces Leadership Test," The New York Times, 4/1/03)

FACT: Dems Would Cut Defense Funding, Leaving Troops To Fend For Themselves:

"Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) Will Chair The Powerful Ways And Means Committee If Democrats Win Control Of The House Next Year, But His Main Goal In 2007 Does Not Fall Within His Panel's Jurisdiction." (Bob Cusack, "Anxious Dems Eye Power Of The Purse On Iraq," The Hill, 9/26/06)
"[W]hen Pressed On How He Could Stop The War Even If Democrats Control The House During The Last Years Of President Bush's Second Term, Rangel Paused Before Saying, 'You've Got To Be Able To Pay For The War, Don't You?'" (Bob Cusack, "Anxious Dems Eye Power Of The Purse On Iraq," The Hill, 9/26/06)
Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) Introduced Legislation "To Prohibit The Use Of Funds To Deploy United States Armed Forces To Iraq." (H.R. 4232, Introduced 11/4/05)
The Bill Is Co-Sponsored By 18 House Democrats. (H.R. 4232, Introduced 11/4/05)
DEMS' ANTI-TERROR POLICIES REFLECT BELIEF THAT U.S. NOT REALLY AT WAR

FACT: Dem House Leader Doesn't "Really Consider Ourselves At War" And Sees No Benefit In Catching Bin Laden:

Less Than One Year After 9/11, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Said She Did Not Consider Us At War. Rep. Pelosi: "I don't really consider ourselves at war ... We're in a struggle against terrorism throughout the world ..." (Miles Benson, "Democrats Show Greater Audacity In Criticizing Bush," Newhouse News Service, 5/6/02)

Rep. Pelosi Says Capturing Bin Laden Doesn't Make U.S. Any Safer. Rep. Pelosi: "[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done ... is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer." (Rep. Pelosi, Press Conference, 9/7/06)
Click Here To Watch Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Say Catching Osama Bin Laden Would Not Make Us Any Safer. FACT: Dems Voted Against The PATRIOT Act:

House Democrats Had Three Opportunities To Vote For Passage Of The PATRIOT Act And A Majority Voted Against It Every Time. (H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #414: Passed 257-171: R 214-14; D 43-156; I 0-1, 7/21/05; H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #627: Adopted 251-174: R 207-18; D 44-155; I 0-1, 12/14/05; S. 2271, CQ Vote #20: Motion Agreed To 280-138: R 214-13; D 66-124; I 0-1, 3/7/06)

Nine Senate Democrats Voted Against The PATRIOT Act. (H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #29: Adopted 89-10: R 55-0; D 34-9; I 0-1, 3/2/06)
In December 2005, 41 Senate Democrats Filibustered PATRIOT Act. (H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #358: Motion Rejected 52-47: R 50-5; D 2-41; I 0-1, 12/16/05)
"'We Killed The PATRIOT Act,' Boasted Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, To Cheers From A Crowd At A Political Rally After The Vote." (Charles Hurt, "Patriot Act Extension Filibustered," The Washington Times, 12/17/05)
Click Here To Watch The Video Of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) As He Celebrated The Killing Of The PATRIOT Act.
Montana Democrat Senate Candidate Jon Tester: "I don't want to weaken the PATRIOT Act, I want to repeal it." (Gwen Florio, "U.S. Senate Candidates Trade Jabs," Great Falls [MT] Tribune, 9/24/06)
Click Here To Watch Jon Tester Say He Wants To Repeal The PATRIOT Act.
FACT: Dems Opposed Terrorist Surveillance Program:
177 House Democrats Voted Against The Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, Which Would Make It Easier To Monitor Terrorist Communications. (H.R. 5825, CQ Vote #502: Passed 232-191: R 214-13; D 18-177; I 0-1, 9/28/06)
Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ): "This is the most expansive, frightening, and unreasonable expansion of government power since Japanese Americans were unlawfully interned in the Second World War." (Rep. Rob Andrews, Congressional Record, 9/28/06, p. H7864)
Click Here To Watch Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) Calling The Terrorist Surveillance Program The Most Frightening Program Since Japanese Internment.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): "[T]his is a lot more serious, a lot more like an impeachable offense than anything President Clinton ever did." (CNN's "American Morning," 3/13/06) 174 House Democrats Opposed Resolution Expressing "[S]upport For Intelligence And Law Enforcement Programs To Track Terrorists And Terrorist Finances ..." (H. Res. 895, CQ Vote #357: Adopted 227-183: R 210-8; D 17-174; I 0-1, 6/29/06)

FACT: Dems Voted Against Military Tribunals For Dangerous Terrorists:

162 House And 32 Senate Democrats Voted Against Authorizing Military Tribunals For Dangerous Terrorist Suspects, Including Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. (S. 3930, CQ Vote #508: Adopted 250-170: R 218-7; D 32-162; I 0-1, 9/29/06; S. 3930, CQ Vote #259: Passed 65-34: R 53-1; D 12-32; I 0-1, 9/28/06)
In 2004, 81 House Democrats Voted Against An Amendment That Said "The Apprehension, Detention, And Interrogation Of Terrorists Are Fundamental To The Successful Prosecution Of The War On Terror." (H.R. 4548, CQ Vote #298: Adopted 304-116: R 223-0; D 81-115; I 0-1, 6/23/04)
FACT: During The Bush Administration, Dems Have Voted Against Missile Defense At Least 9 Times:

Since 2001, A Majority Of House And Senate Democrats Voted At Least 9 Times Against Funding And Deployment Of Missile Defense. (H. Con. Res. 376, CQ Vote #155: Rejected 131-294: R 0-229; D 130-65; I 1-0; 5/17/06; H.R. 5122, CQ Vote #142: Rejected 124-301: R 6-221; D 117-80; I 1-0; 5/11/06; S. 1042, CQ Vote #311: Rejected 37-60: R 2-52; D 34-8; I 1-0, 11/8/05; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #85: Rejected 134-292: R 1-225; D 132-67; I 1-0 , 3/17/05; S. 2400, CQ Vote #133: Rejected 44-56: R 0-51; D 43-5; I 1-0, 6/22/04; H. Con. Res. 393, CQ Vote #88: Rejected 119-302: R 0-220; D 118-82; I 1-0, 3/25/04; H.R. 1588, CQ Vote #221: Passed 361-68: R 223-1; D 138-66; I 0-1, 5/22/03; H.R. 4546, CQ Vote #158: Passed 359-58: R 212-1; D 146-56; I 1-1, 5/10/02; H.R. 4546, CQ Vote #145: Rejected 159-253: R 2-206; D 156-46; I 1-1, 5/9/02)

FACT: Dems Would Leave Iraq To The Terrorists Even Though Al Qaeda Leader Said Iraq Is Central To War On Terror:

2006: 149 House Democrats Voted For Withdrawal From Iraq And Against The Resolution "Declaring That The United States Will Prevail In The Global War On Terror, The Struggle To Protect Freedom From The Terrorist Adversary." (H.R. 861, CQ Vote #288: Adopted 256-153: R 214-3; D 42-149; I 0-1, 6/16/06; H. Res. 861, Introduced 6/12/06)
2006: 38 Senate Democrats Voted For The Carl Levin (D-MI) And Jack Reed (D-RI) Plan For A Phased Withdrawal From Iraq. (S. 2766, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 39-60: R 1-54; D 37-6; I 1-0, 6/22/06)
2006: 13 Senate Democrats Voted For The John Kerry (D-MA) And Russ Feingold (D-WI) Plan To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq By July 1, 2007. (S. 2766, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 13-86: R 0-55; D 12-31; I 1-0, 6/22/06)
2005: 38 Senate Democrats Vote For A "Timetable For Withdrawal." (S. 1042, CQ Vote #322: Rejected 40-58: R 1-53; D 38-5; I 1-0, 11/15/05)
Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War ... Raging In [Iraq]." Bin Laden: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

PDF Format

A Product Of The RNC Research Department

Paid for by the Republican National Committee Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee - www.gop.com

Signup for customized GOP.com email at: https://www.gop.com/secure/Signup.aspx

Kerry draws Republican fire

Kerry draws Republican fire
By Thomas FerraroTue Oct 31, 10:57 PM ET
Democratic Sen. John Kerry drew election-year fire from President George W. Bush and other Republicans on Tuesday for saying college students could "get stuck in Iraq" if they do not study hard.
But Kerry, who unsuccessfully challenged Bush in the 2004 presidential election, refused to apologize and said his remark was a "botched joke" aimed at the president, not U.S. troops.
With the Iraq war a dominant issue in the November 7 elections, Kerry's comment on Monday gave Republicans, struggling to maintain control of the U.S. Congress, a chance to fight back.
Kerry's office said later the Massachusetts Democrat had misread his prepared remarks that included the words "Just ask President Bush," which he omitted.
Kerry, who was criticized for mishandling national security issues during his losing White House campaign, angrily accused Republicans who have never been in war of making unfounded attacks.
"I make apologies to no one about my criticism of the president and his broken policy," Kerry said in a statement. "This This pathetic attempt to distort a botched joke about President Bush is a shameful effort to distract from a botched war."
The Massachusetts Democrat, combative at a news conference in Seattle insisted: "The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and (Vice President) Dick Cheney who misled America into war."
While campaigning in California, Kerry told a college crowd on Monday: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Bush quickly seized on the controversy, demanding that Kerry apologize.
"The senator's suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and it is shameful," Bush said at a campaign rally in Georgia where the crowd booed at Kerry's quote.
"The members of the United States military are plenty smart and they are plenty brave and the senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology," Bush said.
Paul Morin, national commander of the 2.7 million-member American Legion, the nation's biggest veterans' organization, expressed outrage.
U.S. Senate candidate Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, said he was sorry about Kerry's choice of words but that the issue is the war in Iraq.
"I think what the Republicans are going to try to do is use this as a distraction. But the voters are smarter than that. They know things are not going well. And they know the president does not have a plan to get us out of Iraq," Cardin said on CNN.
SERVICE RECORDS
Kerry served in the Navy in the Vietnam War. Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guard during that war, spending his time in the United States. Cheney avoided Vietnam with student deferments.
If the White House misconstrued Kerry's comments, apparently so did others, including Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), an Arizona Republican and a fellow Vietnam vet who has had an amicable relationship with Kerry.
McCain said Kerry "owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country's call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education."
Other Republican lawmakers and conservative talk-show hosts made similar calls as both parties jockeyed for position in next week's elections.
White House spokesman Tony Snow had called the comments "an absolute insult," to which Kerry responded: "I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed-suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium or doughy (talk-show host) Rush Limbaugh."
"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq -- and not the president who got us stuck there -- they're crazy," he added.

Why am I a Republican?

Why am I a Republican?
To basically sum it up, I am a Republican because I believe that big government is a threat to liberty, prosperity, and morality, I believe the left sacrifices the truth, I love the principles of Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison, I believe entitlements cripple the human spirit, and I have morals!
More reasons I am a Republican…
I am opposed to homosexuality. A moral wrong can not be a civil right!
I disagree with promoting abortion as an acceptable means of birth control.
Affirmative action is a joke! It is a divisive concept which erroneously limits the ability of minorities to compete on an equal basis.
I do not think the US should accept known international Human Rights Violations in countries (i.e. China) for the sake of economic progress.
I totally disagree with tolerance of perversion and irreverence of patriotic symbols (i.e. Legal flag burning but illegal prayer in schools).
No one should deny children of low and moderate-income families an equal opportunity education, by opposing vouchers and the establishment of charter schools.
The Republican Oath
I'm a Republican Because...
I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.
I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.
I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.
I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.
I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.
I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.
I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.
I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.
FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

Rove campaigns for neediest candidates

By UPI StaffUnited Press InternationalOctober 30, 2006
LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- White House political adviser Karl Rove is on the U.S. campaign trail with a mission to support Republican candidates who need help the most.
The Los Angeles Times reported on Rove's efforts, which included a speech to 500 party activists last week. Also, Rove is helping four-term Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds' campaign to keep his job.
Rove helped President George W. Bush authorize millions of dollars in federal disaster aid for the Buffalo area following recent heavy snow. Reynolds broke the news to constituents just hours after testifying about his role in the sex scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., the newspaper said.
The Times said Rove's plan is to re-energize the conservative base and jolt it out of its sagging mood -- brought on by various troubles over the past year. But the newspaper said recruiting volunteers is also a problem for the GOP this year.
Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

What Would the Democrats Do?

What Would the Democrats Do?

Posted by Bobby EberleOctober 24, 2006 at 6:28 am
>> Printer-Friendly Version
As the mid-term elections near, there has been much talk in the media (and by Republican leaders) of what the next Congress would look like under Democrat control. Visions of San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi as the next speaker of the House and committee chairs such as Charles Rangel and Barney Frank are enough to scare just about any conservative to the voting booth. But… given control, what would the Democrats do?
The Republican Study Committee (RSC) recently put together an interesting document which highlights activities that normally fly under the radar screen of the media and the American public. The Democrats are hard at work in Congress. However, a study of the bills that are being spearheaded by these liberals points to just how out of touch they are with American priorities. The RSC has done a great job in pointing this out.

The Democrats continue to complain about the Republican agenda. They harp that Republicans have cut taxes and grown the economy. The Dow is hitting new highs, yet the complaints keep coming. They moan about the situation in Iraq, yet have no plan of their own (other than cut-and-run) to put before the American public. So… what is their agenda? Let’s look…
Charles Rangel is sponsoring the Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act (H.R. 2456). This bill would eliminate the mandatory minimum sentence for crack-cocaine convictions. In addition, cop-slapping Rep. Cynthia McKinney has sponsored the Tupac Shakur Records Release Act of 2006 (H.R. 4968). This bill would enshrine copies of government records concerning rapper Tupac Shakur in a specially created collection at the National Archives.
As if the federal government doesn’t have their hands in enough local issues, New York Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler has proposed the Antibullying Campaign Act (H.R. 3787). This bill would create a new federal grant program aimed at reducing bullying in public schools “based on any distinguishing characteristic of an individual.” A federal program targeting schoolyard bullies? Is this where our tax money should be going?
In a move to strike back against the success of conservative media, there is the Media Ownership Reform Act (H.R. 3302). This bill calls for restrictions on ownership of radio and television stations, which would force some owners to divest their holdings. The bill would also regulate broadcast content.
Regarding the Constitution, the Democrats have proposed amendments which would create constitutional rights to equal health care, housing, and full employment. Thus, not only would the government be tasked with protecting the nation, it would also have to provide each person with medicine, a house, and a job. Sounding more and more like France to you? It sure does to me.
There is, of course, a bill which call for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq (H.R. 4232). Add to that a bill which calls for new taxes to pay for national health insurance (H.R. 15), a bill to allow convicts who are just out of prison to vote, and a new income tax on workers, employers, and self-employed businessmen to fund Social Security.
Barney Frank wants adult diapers covered by Medicare and Jim McDermott wants people to get free gas through additional taxes.
The list goes on and on, but you get the idea. The Republicans have a lot of work to do after Election Day to earn back the trust of conservatives. We have an agenda, and we want it enacted — not set aside in favoring of playing politics. However, the fact remains that America under Democrat control means an agenda of more taxes, weakened security, and political correctness run amok. It’s our job to work for Republican majorities and then hold those majorities accountable.

DUNCAN HUNTER FOR President

Rep. Duncan Hunter Running for President



Reprint Information
Could Chavez Tamper With U.S. Election?

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: Cut Nicaragua Off If Ortega Wins
Cheney: Iraq Violence Timed to Elections
Rep. Duncan Hunter Running for President
Travelers Fear Laptop Computer Seizures


Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, known in the military's echelon for his congressional role but hardly a national name, said Monday he was taking the initial step in a 2008 presidential bid.


"This is going to be a long road, it's a challenging road, there's going to be some rough and tumble, but I think it's the right thing to do for our country," Hunter, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said at a waterfront news conference.



The declaration to form an exploratory committee allows the 13-term California congressman to begin raising money and organize supporters in early Republican primary states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.


Hunter is a familiar face on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon as chairman of the powerful panel that oversees military policy. Not so beyond Washington and San Diego, and his White House bid surprised many Republicans.

He had not been on any list of potential 2008 candidates that included more familiar names such as Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Doctors Kill More People Than Guns Do

Doctors Kill More People Than Guns Do
Nathan TaborWednesday, Dec. 29, 2004 Back before the November election, many mainstream media pundits � trying desperately to get John Kerry elected � began to harp on President Bush's unwillingness to stop certain federal gun control laws from expiring as scheduled. But their propaganda efforts came to naught because this issue was a non-starter with the American people.
The fact is, in this day of post-9/11 increased security consciousness, most average Americans simply don�t want more gun control. They want more guns on hand to defend themselves and their loved ones in the face of possible life-threatening danger. Soccer moms are now taking handgun proficiency courses down at the local firing range.
Story Continues Below


Liberals are always complaining about getting to the root of the problem � unless it deals with gun rights. Then they abandon all logical analysis and resort to hysteria, distortion and downright lies.
Today I want to set the record straight and dispel a few of the more common myths with some hard facts.
First, according to statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there is an interesting correlation between accidental deaths caused by guns and those caused by doctors.
Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.
Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.
Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners are.
Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Following the logic of liberals, we should all be warned: "Guns don't kill people. Doctors do."
More seriously, Dr. Glen Otero of the Claremont Institute has published an enlightening article entitled "Ten Myths About Gun Control." (The entire article can be found at the Web site of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, www.dsgl.org) Here are just a few of his well-documented findings.
Approximately 80 percent of all adult American citizens own firearms, and a gun can be found in nearly half of American households.
Between 1974 and 1995, the total number of privately owned firearms in America increased by 75 percent, to 236 million. During the same period, national homicide and robbery rates did NOT significantly increase.
Fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved in any type of crime, which means that over 99 percent of all guns are NOT used to commit any crime.
In 1987, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that about 83 percent of Americans would become the victims of violent crime during the course of their lifetimes.
The National Self-Defense Survey found that between 1988 and 1993, American civilians used firearms in self-defense almost 2.5 million times per year, saving up to 400,000 lives per year in the process.
Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter crime. Where U.S. counties have enacted concealed-carry laws, murder rates fell by 8 percent, rape by 5 percent, and aggravated assault by 7 percent. Urban counties recorded the largest decreases demographically.
You get the picture: Guns don�t kill people. People kill people. But sometimes law-abiding citizens with guns can save the lives of other innocent people.
It�s time to restore some common sense to the hysterical debate over gun control. When Cain killed Abel with a rock, God didn�t ban all rocks. He dealt with Cain personally. We need to enforce our criminal laws against murder, robbery and assault.
I will cite the testimony of just one more expert witness. No, it�s not another politician or media pundit. Here�s what former Mafia underboss, self-confessed hit man and government informant Sammy "The Bull" Gravano had to say:
"Gun control? It�s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I�m a bad guy, I�m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I�ll pull the trigger. We�ll see who wins."
It�s time for liberals to go out and buy a gun. And maybe get a life � or at least protect one.
Copyright � 2004 by Nathan Tabor
Nathan Tabor is a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina. He has his BA in Psychology and his Master�s Degree in Public Policy. He is a contributing editor at www.theconservativevoice.com. Contact him at Nathan@nathantabor.com

Democrats vs. GOD

Blogsnark: Democrats vs. God There is a common conceit among religious Republicans that because liberals and Democrats disagree with them over certain religious doctrines and what role the state should have in religious matters, therefore Democrats are anti-Christian and anti-God. It's the "if you're not with us, you're against us" syndrome that afflicts those who reason poorly. Bob Clasen provides a good example of this as he objurgates against everything that isn't like him: It seems to me that Democrats hate Christianity with a mindless loathing. Perhaps Democrats hate God Himself. The fact that most Americans are Christian and about half the nation are Democrats doesn't seem to have entered into Clasen's calculations. If they had, he'd never have come up with such a silly observation. The latest crusade is to kill Christmas. It is no longer okay to say "Merry Christmas" or put up a Christmas tree in any government building. The ACLU will file a lawsuit and hound you into bankruptcy. Don't even think about putting up a creche or singing Christmas Carols. None of this is true, of course. There are no prohibitions against saying "Merry Christmas," singing carols, or even putting up a creche so long as it's not the only display around. There is no "crusade" against Christmas — that's just a figment of the fevered imaginations of bumptious right-wing pundits who don't have anything else to complain about. Members of the Christian Right experience a great need to be persecuted — if they aren't being "persecuted," then they are doing something wrong. To take just one ridiculous example, for some reason, this year UPS has prohibited its drivers from having a Christmas wreath on the front of their trucks, or their drivers wearing a Santa hat. For God's sake! Now Clasen is moving from silliness into absurdity. First, what UPS does has nothing to do with the First Amendment — prohibiting this or that symbol is not part of an effort to strip religion from government. Second, and more importantly, neither Santa hats nor especially wreaths are symbols of a Christian Christmas — the first is a secular image and the latter is pure paganism. Many believers would actually appreciate the removal of such non-Christian elements from popular holiday celebrations. Thus, this "example" that Clasen finds persuasive has nothing to do with what he is talking about. Ridiculous indeed. I am sure the nation's Founders would be astonished at this interpretation of the First Amendment as Christianity and preachers were omnipresent in the eighteenth century. I'm sure that some would be astonished that blacks are free and women can vote — so what? What happened to the free exercise of religion???? It's right where it always was and always should be: in the hands of private citizens. This is another example of the attempt to portray conservative Christians in America as "victims" of "persecution." They want to act as though their religious liberty has been lost or infringed upon somehow. It's instructive to note that Bob Clasen doesn't offer a single example of individuals (when acting as private citizens) being prevented from freely exercising their religion. What is the big fucking deal? Christians teach that we should love one another, forgive our enemies, tell the truth and obey the ten commandments. Christians may teach these things, but Bob Clasen's own essay is a good example of how Christians don't actually follow those teachings. There's nothing in his essay about love or forgiveness — and there is previous little truth, to boot. People like Clasen should spend more time trying to live by their alleged teachings rather than trying to play-act the martyr role. Just imagine if these ideas caught on! What a catastrophe! Honesty and charity would spread like wildfire! Husbands and wives would love one another! Crime would disappear. How terrible!!! Crime would disappear if Christian teachings dominated society? I'd like someone to name a single Christian society where that happened. Medieval Europe, perhaps? The fact of the matter is, Christianity does nothing to advance those goals and we only need to look to contemporary America to discover this. Agnostics and atheists have a lower divorce rate than any other group than Catholics (who have the same rate) — and a far lower rate than Southern Baptists and "born again" Christians. The "secular" Northeast has lower murder rates than the "religious" South. Atheists are around 10% of the population, but only around .2% of the prison population. All of this should make it clear that Clasen's prescription for an improved society falls squarely under the heading of "gross malpractice." Besides, atheism is just another religion, no more provable than any other. It is a huge LEAP OF FAITH to believe that everything everything just popped into existence from nowhere "somehow" by "chance" as a result of the "Big Bang!" ...To make this superstition (atheism) the only permissible teaching of the state is to violate the injunction against establishing a (state) religion. It's rare to find a conservative Christian make the effort to learn about atheism before attacking it and Bob Clasen certainly doesn't disappoint. The illogic of his captious comments, though, is quite amusing. First he complains that "liberals are waging a war to eliminate religion," but now he complains that liberals are trying to establish atheism as a state religion. Logically he can't have it both ways, but any resemblance between Clasen's writings and logic is purely coincidental. It's interesting that he would label atheism a religion that is jut like others, complete with a huge leap of faith, and then denigrate this as a "superstition." If his statements were to be taken seriously, then Christianity would also have to be labeled a superstition — but somehow I doubt he would do that. When people try to argue that atheism is a religion they start out with the apparent goal of putting atheism on the same level as Christianity; often, though, they end up attacking religion and faith in a manner designed to make atheism seem inferior. At no point do they betray the realization that their attacks apply to their own beliefs. Bob Clasen wants Democrats to keep hating God. Personally, I'd like religious conservatives to keep up with the same tactics used by people like Clasen. The lies, half-truths, and total absence of logic or reason make my job much easier.

Early voting locations

Early Voting• Lubbock County Elections Office Public Room 1308 Crickets Ave. (Formerly Avenue G): 8 a.m.-6 p.m. today; 8 a.m.-8 p.m. Saturday; 1 p.m.-6 p.m., Sunday; 8 a.m.-8 p.m., Monday-Nov. 3
• United Supermarkets: 2630 Parkway Drive, 112 North University Ave., 401 Slide Road, 1701 50th St., 8201 Quaker Ave, 29th Drive & Brownfield, 2703 82nd St., 8010 Frankford Ave., 10 a.m.- 7 p.m., today; 8 a.m.- 8 p.m. Saturday; 1 p.m.-6 p.m., Sunday; 8 a.m.-8 p.m., Monday-Nov. 3
• Albertson's Food, 3249 50th St.: 10 a.m.-7 p.m., today; 8 a.m.-8 p.m. Saturday; 1 p.m.-6 p.m., Sunday; 8 a.m.-8 p.m., Monday-Nov. 3
• Slaton ISD Administration Office, 140 E. Panhandle: 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., today-Friday; 8:30 a.m.- 5 p.m., Monday-Nov. 3.
• Texas Tech Student Recreation Center, Hartford Avenue and Main Street: 8 a.m.-8 p.m., Monday-Nov. 3
• Grand Court Lubbock, 4601 71st St., 9 a.m.-11 a.m. today.
• Elmbrook Estates, 5301 66th St., 2 p.m.-4 p.m. today
• Carillon Senior Living Campus, 1717 Norfolk Ave., 9 a.m.- 4 p.m. Saturday
• Shallowater City Hall, 8001 Ave. G, Shallowater, 9 a.m.- 11 a.m. Monday
• Wolfforth City Hall, 328 E U.S. 62/82, Wolfforth, 2 p.m.-5 p.m. Monday
• University Medical Center, 602 Indiana Ave., 8 a.m.-8 p.m. Tuesday
• Covenant Medical Center-Lakeside, 4000 24th St., 8 a.m.- 8 p.m. Wednesday
• Lubbock Community Services for the Deaf, 2414 34th St., 10 a.m.-noon, Wednesday
• Covenant Medical Center, 3615 19th St., 8 a.m.-8 p.m., Thursday

The Democrats Agenda

The democrats want to impeach President Bush and destroy our credibility has a government. They want to disarm all americans and turn the military over to the United Nations. They also want us to try diplomacy first. The democrats want us to ask the UN for permission before we defend ourselves. The democrats also want to turn us into a communist country. I know for a fact that I am right in my analysis. The democrats also want to legalize gay marriage. Which is a complete violation of the bible. Please on November 7th vote for the republicans.

Clear Channel Radio Renews Sean Hannity Through 2010

SAN ANTONIO – September 28, 2006 -- Clear Channel Radio today announced that it has renewed radio talk show host Sean Hannity’s contract for another three years on 80 of its stations. Some of the major markets in which “The Sean Hannity Show” can be heard include Pittsburgh, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Cincinnati and Minneapolis.




Hannity commented, “Clear Channel program directors were early believers in my show five years ago, and I'm thrilled our partnership continues into 2010."


Known for his passionate opinion on politics and the American agenda, Hannity boasts the second-largest radio audience in the country. “The Sean Hannity Show” is a compelling mix of interviews with news-making guests, political commentary by Hannity, and special segments that take the show to the streets. It is heard by over 15 million listeners a week, and carried on over 500 stations, live on weekdays from 3:00-6:00 p.m.


"Sean has done an incredible job producing great ratings and, most importantly, desirable demographics for our stations," said Sean Compton, Vice President of Programming for Clear Channel Radio.


Hannity has won numerous awards for his nationally syndicated show, including Radio & Records’ National Talk Show Host of The Year Award in 2003 and 2004, and the National Association of Broadcasters' 2003, 2004 and 2005 Marconi awards for Talk Show Host of the Year.


Specific financial terms of the contract, effective on January 1, 2007, were not disclosed.





 

Whitehouse Correspondents

Whitehouse Correspondents
ABC
•Ann Compton:
•Martha Raddatz:
•Jessica Yellin:
Agence France Presse
• Olivier Knox
• Laurent Lozano
American Urban Radio Networks
• April Ryan
Associated Press
• Terence Hunt:
• Jennifer Loven:
• Nedra Pickler:
• Deb Riechmann:
• Mark Smith (Radio):
Bloomberg
• Catherine Dodge:
• Richard Keil:
• Brendan Murray:
• Roger Runningen:
Bureau of National Affairs
• Nancy Ognanovich
Business Week
• Eamon Javers:
CBS
• Mark Knoller (Radio):
• Peter Maer (Radio):
• Bill Plante:
• Jim Axelrod:
Chicago Tribune
• Mark Silva:
Christian Broadcasting Network
• Melissa Charbonneau:
Christian Science Monitor
• Linda Feldmann:
Copley News Service
• George E. Condon Jr.:
• Finlay Lewis:
Cox News Service
• Bob Deans:
• Ken Herman:
CNN
• Ed Henry:
• Elaine Quijano:
• Suzanne Malveaux:
Dallas Morning News
• G. Robert Hillman:
Dow Jones Newswires
• Henry J. Pulizzi
Financial Times
• Caroline Daniel:
Fox News
• Bret Baier:
• Wendell Goler:
• James Rosen:
Hearst
• Stewart M. Powell:
• Helen Thomas:
Houston Chronicle
• Julie Mason:
• Bennett Roth:
Los Angeles Times
• James Gerstenzang:
• Peter Wallsten:
McClatchy
• William Douglas:
• Ron Hutcheson:
National Journal
• Carl M. Cannon:
• Alexis Simendinger:
National Review
• Byron York:
NBC News
• David Gregory:
• Kelly O'Donnell:
Newsweek
• Holly Bailey:
• Richard Wolffe:
New York Daily News

• Kenneth R. Bazinet:
New York Post
• Deborah Orin:
New York Times:
• Jim Rutenberg:
• Sheryl Gay Stolberg:
National Public Radio
• Don Gonyea:
• David Greene:
Reuters
• Caren Bohan:
• Steve Holland:
• Tabassum Zakaria:
Salem Radio Network
• Greg Clugston
Scripps Howard
• Ann McFeatters:
Slate
• John F. Dickerson:
Talk Radio News Service
• Ellen Ratner:
Time
• Mike Allen:
USA Today

Richard Benedetto:
U.S. News
• Kenneth T. Walsh:
Voice of America
• Scott Stearns:
• Paula Wolfson:
Wall Street Journal
• Yochi J. Dreazen:
• John D. McKinnon:
Washington Examiner
• Bill Sammon:
The Washington Post
• Michael Abramowitz:
• Peter Baker:
• Michael A. Fletcher:
Washington Times
• Joseph Curl:

Bush, & Gop turn to talk shows for help

By Andrea Hopkins1 hour, 30 minutes ago
American radio talk-show hosts have become frontline warriors in a drive by President George W. Bush and his Republicans to pull off a surprise and maintain control of Congress in November 7 elections.
In the face of opinion polls favoring Democrats and bad news from Iraq, Bush turned to the powerful hosts of talk radio two weeks before Americans elect 435 representatives to the U.S. House and a third of the 100-member Senate.
On Tuesday the White House invited more than three dozen hosts from both sides of the political spectrum so they could interview top administration officials.
Radio personalities and programs play a political role in many countries. In America, they have become largely a powerful ally for conservatives, even as the rise of Internet blogs has broadened the spectrum of voter voices being heard.
"The liberal media wants to suppress the vote, they want to convince you that this race is over, they want you to go away and they want us to lose. I'm here to tell you that you have the power (to prove them wrong)," conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity told a Republican rally in Cincinnati last week in a jab at what conservatives call a liberal mainstream media.
Hannity, who does a show for ABC Radio that reaches 13 million people a week as well as a television show for Fox News, said his shows give politicians the opportunity for "real interviews, not soundbites" -- the sort of unfiltered access to voters that mainstream media don't offer.
"Look, on my radio program today I had the vice president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, Karl Rove, Tony Snow and Dan Bartlett. That's all in one radio show," Hannity told Reuters in an interview.
American University communications professor Jane Hall said that access appeals to politicians frustrated by a traditional news cycle they have little control over.
"It's a way to go around the filter, go directly to people who might be more inclined to agree. It's a friendlier audience," Hall said.
UPHILL BATTLE
The five largest U.S. talk radio shows by audience are all conservative programs with audiences of between 4 million and 14 million people a week, according to trade magazine Talkers. Rush Limbaugh, who declined to be interviewed, has the largest audience, while Hannity is a close second.
Earlier this month, the liberal news and talk radio network Air America filed for bankruptcy after slightly more than two years on the air.
Analysts said the rise of other populist media -- most notably the Internet -- along with growing schisms among conservatives over immigration, the Iraq war, budget deficits and social policy will make it tougher this year for talk radio to help Republicans chalk up an election win.
"Talk radio is still predominantly a conservative phenomenon, but it's getting smaller in scope and if it's going to be effective for conservative Republican candidates, it's going to have to be more intense than it used to be," said Michael Frank, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think-tank.
"The conservative base itself is not exactly united and cheering on behalf of one party this time ... and that may blunt some of the effectiveness of talk radio as a kind of organizing tool for Republican candidates."
Still, radio hosts are hoping the political activism of their audience will result in another strong Election Day turnout for Republicans. A study by Talkers magazine found 74 percent of talk radio listeners voted in 2004 -- well above the average U.S. election year turnout.
"If all of us go out to the polls and get every person we know to go out the poll ... the great thing that will happen on election day is we will confuse and confound the pundits and confuse and confound the liberal media," Hannity told the Republican rally in Cincinnati.
His audience was enthusiastic.
"I'm old, I'm tired, I've got diabetes, and I'm freezing to death, and yet I'm glad I came here -- it makes me want to work harder," said Zip Jaycox, 79, a self-described "strong Bush supporter and strong Republican" volunteer who goes door-to-door with her husband to rally party voters.
"We're going to get out and work like the very dickens."

order of succession

This is a list of the current presidential line of succession, as specified by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. § 19).
#
Name
Position
1
Richard B. Cheney
Vice President
2
J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
3
Ted Stevens
President pro tempore of the Senate
4
Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
5
Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Secretary of the Treasury
6
Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
7
Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
8
Dirk Kempthorne
Secretary of the Interior
9
Mike Johanns
Secretary of Agriculture
Carlos Gutierrez(ineligible; not a natural-born citizen)
Secretary of Commerce
Elaine Chao(ineligible; not a natural-born citizen)
Secretary of Labor
10
Michael Leavitt
Secretary of Health and Human Services
11
Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
12
Mary Peters
Secretary of Transportation
13
Samuel W. Bodman
Secretary of Energy
14
Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Education
15
Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Veterans Affairs

2006 and 2008 elections

I was listening to Talk Radio today. The tought of the democrats winning in november scared me to death. They will impeach President Bush or censure him. They will also raise our taxes and give the control of our military over to the anti-american UN. There were five reasons why we should vote for the GOP. I don't remember all of them right now.

an article on Gas Prices

I saw this article on the drudge report.
Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 12:00 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
Analyst predicts plunge in gas prices
By Kevin G. HallMcClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The recent sharp drop in the global price of crude oil could mark the start of a massive sell-off that returns gasoline prices to lows not seen since the late 1990s — perhaps as low as $1.15 a gallon.
"All the hurricane flags are flying" in oil markets, said Philip Verleger, a noted energy consultant who was a lone voice several years ago in warning that oil prices would soar. Now, he says, they appear to be poised for a dramatic plunge.
Crude-oil prices have fallen about $14, or roughly 17 percent, from their July 14 peak of $78.40. After falling seven straight days, they rose slightly Wednesday in trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, to $63.97, partly in reaction to a government report showing fuel inventories a bit lower than expected. But the overall price drop is expected to continue, and prices could fall much more in the weeks and months ahead.
Here's why:
For most of the past two years, oil prices have risen because the world's oil producers have struggled to keep pace with growing demand, particularly from China and India. Spare oil-production capacity grew so tight that market players feared that any disruption to oil production could create shortages.
Fear of disruption focused on fighting in Nigeria, escalating tensions over Iran's nuclear program, violence between Israel and Lebanon that might spread to oil-producing neighbors, and the prospect that hurricanes might topple oil facilities in the Gulf of Mexico.
Oil traders bet that such worrisome developments would drive up the future price of oil. Oil is traded in contracts for future delivery, and companies that take physical delivery of oil are just a small part of total trading. Large pension and commodities funds are the big traders and they're seeking profits. They've sunk $105 billion or more into oil futures in recent years, according to Verleger. Their bets that oil prices would rise in the future bid up the price of oil.
That, in turn, led users of oil to create stockpiles as cushions against supply disruptions and even higher future prices. Now inventories of oil are approaching 1990 levels.
But many of the conditions that drove investors to bid up oil prices are ebbing. Tensions over Israel, Lebanon and Nigeria are easing. The hurricane season has presented no threat so far to the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. peak summer driving season is over, so gasoline demand is falling.
With fear of supply disruptions ebbing, oil prices began sliding. With oil inventories high, refiners that turn oil into gasoline are expected to cut production. As refiners cut production, oil companies increasingly risk getting stuck with excess oil supplies. There's already anecdotal evidence of oil companies chartering tankers to store excess oil.
All this is turning financial markets increasingly bearish on oil.
"If we continue to build inventories, and if we have a warm winter like we had last winter, you could see a large fall in the price of oil," said Gary Pokoik, who manages Hedge Ventures Energy in Los Angeles, an energy hedge fund. "I think there is still a lot of risk in the market."
As it stands now, the recent oil-price slump has brought the national average for a gallon of unleaded gasoline down to $2.59, according to the AAA motor club. In the Seattle area, prices per gallon have fallen to $2.856 currently from $3.071 a month ago, a decline of 7 percent, according to AAA.
Should oil traders fear that this downward price spiral will get worse and run for the exits by selling off their futures contracts, Verleger said, it's not unthinkable that oil prices could return to $15 or less a barrel, at least temporarily. That could mean gasoline prices as low as $1.15 per gallon.
Other experts won't guess at a floor price, but they agree that a race to the bottom could break out.
"The market may test levels here that are too low to be sustained," said Clay Seigle, an analyst at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consultancy in Boston.
On Monday, the oil-producing cartel OPEC hinted that if prices fall precipitously, OPEC members would cut production to lift them. But that would take time.
"That takes six to nine months. If we don't have a really cold winter here [creating a demand for oil], prices will fall. Literally, you don't know where the floor is," Verleger said. "In a market like this, if things start falling ... prices could take you back to the 1999 levels. It has nothing to do with production."

The Left Undermined Our Security

How the Left Undermined America's Security Before 9/11By David HorowitzFrontPageMagazine.com September 10, 2004
(The following article by David Horowitz first appeared in our March 24, 2004 issue. We are reprinting it to mark the three 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.
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.