Posted on 09/25/2006 11:20:55 AM PDT by truthandlife
In his interview with Chris Wallace, President Clinton repeatedly cited Richard Clarke’s book which Cornerites have conclusively demonstrated does not actually endorse the former president as a resolute and successful anti-terrorism warrior.
There’s another book that makes the same point: My Life, by Bill Clinton.
It is telling to note that in his autobiography, which I reviewed for NOR in 2004, Clinton’s first mention of terrorism does not appear until page 574. Al-Qaeda does not appear until page 797.
At no point is there a serious discussion of Militant Islamist ideologies or of the potential effectiveness of terrorists armed with advanced Western technologies. Had Clinton spent a lot of time working on such issue during his years in office, would that not have found its way into his 957-page door-stopper?
Clinton does say that after the bombing of the USS Cole he considered a “large-scale bombing campaign of all suspected [terrorist] campsites or a sizeable invasion” of Afghanistan where thousands of terrorists were being trained – this was known to Clinton and his deputies. But he decided “neither was feasible without a finding of al Qaeda responsibility for the Cole” bombing.
What about the bombing of our African embassies two years earlier? Did he seriously believe there was doubt about the responsibility for those attacks? Did he reason that a few years of further investigation might show that the US ambassadors had bombed their own embassies for the insurance money?
"You know that Democrats have a real plan for destroying Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda" but unless you put us back in power, we won't tell you what it is!!
Howard Dean (Insane-ious Maximus)
Rush is talking about that right now.. LOL
Bump!
Unreal!
bump
Doesn't this mean that somebody actually had to actually READ that book?
I wonder who it was.
Howard Dean (Insane-ious Maximus)
That's gotta be one of the most asinine, bass ackwards things I've ever read.
FLASHBACK (from article in 2004 about the Clintonistas nearly forgetting about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda when they submitted their final national security report to Congress in Dec. 2000):
"The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times. The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it. The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm
Found where I'd seen it - post 25 in this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707933/posts
The credit goes to Quilla for this great find!
Yes, and additionally he criticized the Bush Admin for not adopting this same failed plan and acting on it!
The world is witnessing the freefall of the Clinton House of Cards, here and now.
I don't know if it's ever been reported that the National Archives even knew which specific documents he'd taken. He returned some and destroyed some.
It's about friggin' time, too.
Going to National Review online and reading May's 2004 review of "My Life" is worthwhile. As a former NY Times correspondent, his recognition of what he calls Clinton's "fecklessness" is right on target.
This one sums it up:
Rewriting History, Eight Months vs Eight Years. He had 8 years to do what he expected Bush to do in 8 months (he must have known how much there would be to do!). He ignored the first attacks on the WTC, Feb 1993(?), he dallied while other countries asked us to pick up terrorists who made it known they kept planning and working to try to harm us, just for starters.
And now he's on, to quote the article, the Bill Clinton "Rewriting History and Damage Control Tour" in response to ABC's movie The Path to 9/11.
He's probably even angrier than he might otherwise have been at being called to defend himself, he'd probably rather be on tour looking for the next party to attend. He probably had to be forced 'encouraged' to try to defend his actions for the sake of Dem hopefuls and incumbents. It is an election year, afterall.
His unbridled rage caused him in his lying to go way overboard, using the word obsessed.
That's VERY telling!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.