Replies

I'm on the last chapter of "Losing Bin Laden" - I put it down to come down and watch 60 minutes and Clarke. Clarke is practically the hero of the book. Bush may well have felt that he needed his own assessment and plan to go after Bin Laden and may not have felt Clarke was as effective as he could have been due to his temperment - he apparently pissed a lot of people off and so in typical, yet sad, bureaucratic fashion, they purposely sabbatoged his plans. This plus Clinton's refusal to take Bin Laden seriously made any attempt to get Bin Laden pretty futile. Couple that with Gen Hugh Shelton lying to Clinton by telling him they'd have to have a big footprint to go in after Bin Laden (this was Shelton's way of blowing things out of proportion because Shelton and some of his cronies on the Jt. Chiefs refused to send a special ops team to do the job) makes me amazed that Clarke kept pitching given the crap he had to overcome.

That said, I'm sure he has a political persuasion and it ain't our direction. He was obsessed with Bin Laden (rightfully so) and would probably think any foreign policy that wasn't focused solely on OBL was pointless. We know that Bush had ordered a full plan of attack for OBL and that it was put on his desk on 9/10 or 9/11.

None of the Clinton people wanted to believe Iraq was involved with anything because that would have meant they'd have to do something about Saddam - Clinton was so ineffectual at recognizing the need to meet evil with might, that we are left with a truly vast terror network which is well-financed and trained and will go on to inflict as much pain to us as possible even after Al Zahwahiri and OBL are long captured/killed.

That will be Clinton's legacy. Perhaps we should send "Losing Bin Laden" to the Clinton Liebrary.

OK, this is a CBS hit-piece. Clarke surprises me that he could stay on throughout the ineptness of the Clinton approach to Iraq and is yet disgruntled to the point of airing this dirty laundry over 9 mos of the Bush admin. He strikes me as a guy who is po'd that no one allegedly listened to him. He definately has an agenda.

This load of manure that Leslie Stahl is dishing on Bush not going to "battle stations" when Clinton had in Dec '99 (because Jordanians found a massive millenium plot due to hit Americans in Jordan and then on the next day, the White HOuse wet its pants when the border guard in Wash State caught the terrorist who planned on blowing up LAX on 12/31/99). Then Clinton went into "battle stations" until Jan 1, 2000.

Sorry, but Clarke's story doesn't ring completely true. There's no way he could have put up with Clinton all those years and then come out and condemn the Bush admin for not taking AQ seriously until 9/11.

The admin better have a load of talking heads out on the talk shows this week to counter this idiot. Because w/o someone questioning Clarke on this, Bush looks terrible. And there's another side to this story. Just like there's another side to Iraq's ties to AQ.

I used to think ABC was the most anti-conservative network. I think CBS is outdoing Peteh.

I was wondering just where you were in the book. You're right that Clarke is made out to be a hero in 'Losing bin Laden' which makes me wonder, did he stay quiet with all this information and make it seem like he wasn't a clinton (dem) sympathizer just to spring it now to make Bush and his admin. look bad, and oh btw, he's got 'credibility'...

It's too bad he's so ineffectual (doesn't play well with others) because he had the right idea about bin Laden. That Clarke made it nearly impossible by his behavior to make things happen in a timely fashion was made very evident in Leslie's interview.

Also thought provoking is why this morning Terry Moran on This Week looked so unexcited about this story as he reported it, he never misses an opportunity to enjoy a story he thinks is damaging to the president.

Clarke said many things that make him appear like an angry loon on 60 minutes and Leslie was nauseating as usual. I think CBS has a special distaste for President Bush.