Enough

After five years of obstruction, obfuscation, nay-saying, undermining and misleading the American people about the War on Terror, we now know the Democrats national security plan for the election. They're going to run on Bill Clinton's record!

Brendan Miniter offers some highlights for your consideration:

With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.

In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.

By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
•

You go read the whole thing.

Let's don't let the Clintonistas airbrush history.

As I watch this debate unfold, each time I think that the other side couldn't possibly sink any lower, I'm surprised again. It's ike watching a bad sit-com where the character gets caught in a lie and just keeps digging himself a deeper hole.

Instead of acting like leaders, Democrats, many of whom voted for the war, have scurried like scared rabbits at any sign of difficulty.

Iraq is where our military is engaging the jihad. Al Qaeda knows Iraq is the central front in the war. Saddam deserved to be gone whether he was connected to 9/11 or not. If we prevail there, we'll go a long way toward eliminating this scourge.

This week, someone chose to leak a snippet of the classified NIE. A NY Times article stated,"A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the September 11 attacks."

What the actual report said was,

The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep
resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.

In other words, they've come to fight us there, and if we succeed, there will be fewer of them. Sounds like we ought to stay and slug it out.