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.”
We know what Bill Clinton did, and didn’t do, to combat terrorism after that attack. As for what a President Hillary or a Democrat-controlled congress would do to fight terrorism, what they refuse to do today, even after 9/11, tells me all I need to know about what they would do if they were in control.
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.
Although the Democrats’ rhetoric in opposing the NSA surveillance program and the Patriot Act temporarily lessened when it was learned how the UK plot was thwarted, they have consistently opposed those and other tools needed to effectively combat terrorism. Less than a year ago Minority Leader Harry Reid even boasted that "'We killed the Patriot Act.”
Another position which calls into question the Democrats’ judgment on matters of national security is the call by many to abandon the effort in Iraq before the mission has been completed. Many Democrats rushed to embrace the NIE report declassified this week, but chose to ignore passages of the report which indicate that a withdrawal at this time would have a negative effect on the war on terror.
If Democrats want to convince voters they can be trusted with national security they will need to come up with more than a blustery Bill Clinton.