The Book on Clinton (didn't mention terrorism until p. 574)

National Review ^ | 9/25/06 | Cliff May

[tiredoflaundry]

I was referring to whatexit's link at post #7. :o)

[Holicheese]

"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)

[divine_moment_of_facts]

Rush is talking about that right now.. LOL

[Miss Behave]

Bump!

[tiredoflaundry]

Unreal!

[Velveeta]

bump

[Radix]

Doesn't this mean that somebody actually had to actually READ that book?

I wonder who it was.

[whatexit]

I had just seen that linked on another thread somewhere, and was in the midst of reading it when I saw the reference here. Can't take credit for it, but I don't know where credit is due! lol

Tis an interesting article though, eh?

[Miss Behave]

"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)

That's gotta be one of the most asinine, bass ackwards things I've ever read.

[Enchante]

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

[whatexit]

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!

[Rummyfan]

Yes, and additionally he criticized the Bush Admin for not adopting this same failed plan and acting on it!

[Miss Behave]

The world is witnessing the freefall of the Clinton House of Cards, here and now.

[mass55th]

"Why have the MSM never asked to SEE these papers?"

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.

[dbehsman]

"45,000 words long and only mentioned Bin Laden 4 times! Amazing!"

Slick said that he was OBSESSED with getting Bin Laden in his interview with Wallace. He claimed that he was SO OBESESSED with killing Bin Laden that Republicans were criticizing him (of course, he failed to mention any names of the aforementioned Republicans).

Just more BS from Slick.

[Ladysmith]

It's about friggin' time, too.

[loveliberty2]

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.

[fortunecookie]

I'm still trying to figure out how Bill rambled on for 957 pages, and got someone to write it, and apparently got others to purchase and possibly even read it. Incredible! Incredible marketing skills. And giant yawn.

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.

[Miss Behave]

Slick said that he was OBSESSED with getting Bin Laden in his interview with Wallace. He claimed that he was SO OBESESSED with killing Bin Laden that Republicans were criticizing him (of course, he failed to mention any names of the aforementioned Republicans).

His unbridled rage caused him in his lying to go way overboard, using the word obsessed.

[nopardons]

That's VERY telling!