Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, September 29, 2006
Lorie Byrd :: Townhall.com Columnist
Dems need more than blustery bill to earn national security voters
by Lorie Byrd
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Prompted by Condoleeza Rice’s reponse to Bill Clinton’s theatrical production on Fox News Sunday over the weekend, Hillary Clinton came out Tuesday in defense of her husband’s record on terrorism in an effort to establish Democrats’ credibility on the issue. She is going to have to come up with something more persuasive if she wants to convince voters that Democrats can be trusted with national security.

“I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks,” Clinton said. “All you have to do is to read the 9-11 Commission (report) to know what he and his administration did to protect Americans and prevent terrorist attacks against our country… I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team.”

When I saw a clip of Hillary Clinton making that statement I found myself talking to the television. I told Hillary (well, her television image anyway) that her hubby didn’t need a classified report to tell him that bin Laden was determined to attack inside the U.S. He already knew it because we had already been attacked by al Qaeda on U.S. soil -- at the World Trade Center in 1993.

Bob Owens responded similarly to Hillary Clinton’s statement, but with specifics I’d never heard. Owens described the 1993 World Trade Center attack as the “first-and-to-date only WMD attack in America by al Qaeda and Iraq-affiliated terrorists.”

“Ramzi Yousef, a Kuwaiti-born al Qaeda terrorist using an Iraqi passport, concocted a plan to detonate a large ammonium nitrate bomb in the basement-level parking decks of WTC 1. The primary intent was to have the foundation of Tower 1 compromised, toppling it into WTC 2, bringing both buildings down and killing as many as possible of the 50,000 people who worked there… Yousef was assisted by Iraqi bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin…who retreated to Iraq after the attack and lived under Saddam Hussein's protection and with his financial support until the 2003 invasion.”

What Owens detailed, which has not been widely reported, is that Yasin's bomb included a chemical component, cyanide, which was intended to form a poisonous cloud after detonation to travel through the ventilation system in the tower. Although several people were killed in the 1993 attack, the plan failed in its goal to topple the towers and carry out a poisonous chemical attack.

Owens states the fact that Hillary Clinton’s husband hoped to disguise with bluster: “Bill Clinton was President of the United States when lower Manhattan was the victim of an al Qaeda plot executed by an Iraqi bomb-builder who detonated a chemical/conventional weapon under tens of thousands of Americans. President Clinton later knew what the bomb was composed of, knew how it was intended to be used, and what threat al Qaeda posed…Bill Clinton was President for another 7 years, 10 months, 25 days after this attack.” Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Lorie Byrd is a Townhall.com columnist and blogs at Wizbang and at LorieByrd.com.

Be the first to read Lorie Byrd's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Apples and oranges
I am late to reading the comments on this column, but just read Phylo's following comment:

"Lorie Byrd writes: "In August a massive terrorist plot was thwarted in the UK in part thanks to information obtained through the use of “sneak and peek” warrants and from U.S. intelligence which provided London authorities with intercepts of the terrorist group's communications."

Ms. Byrd is attempting to plant the idea in her readers heads that this is evidence that Bush's warrentless wiretapping program, which Democrats oppose, saved British lives. This is supposed to be an example of how Dems are weak on terror.

However Ms. Byrd is intentionally glossing over a key piece of information: the Brits GOT WARRANTS!! In other words, it shows the Dems are right when they say we can track terrorists AND still have checks and balances."


If Phylo had read a little more carefully he/she would have realized I mentioned two separate things. One was "sneak and peek" in the UK and the other was US intelligence in the form of intercepts. The Brits did not get warrants (!!, as Phylo wrote) for the U.S. intercepts. Follow the link provided in the column. I did not intentionally mislead Phylo. I thought I made the distinction clear, and on second reading, still do. No shame here.

I thought America was at WAR
We are at war with an enemy who could care less about the Geneva Convention. They laugh at us when we hand cuff ourselves trying to abide by our laws and values. When they capture an American do they abide by the laws and values that we abide by? This enemy does not seek approval from some court room, or a treaty signed by countries on how they will treat Americans. They will torture, kill, and destroy without any concerns about the rights of anyone who they deem are their enemy. Why do we debate about how we treat those whom want to destroy us? I can not believe that elected US officials will debate in the halls of congress the rights of those who will kill us. The mantra of “how the world will view us” is insane. The world already hates us, so granting rights to those who want to kill us benefit us how? Those who wrongfully believe that our government must treat our enemy with rights, makes fighting this war more problematic. Sadly some do not believe we are at WAR.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.