Clinton NSC attacks Miniter

Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, September 23, 2003 | By Roger Cressey and Gayle Smith

[JohnHuang2]

First, Mr. Miniter recycles old, false Sudanese claims that the Clinton White House declined access to Sudan's intelligence files on al Qaeda and that an unnamed CIA official declined an offer from Sudan in 1996 to turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States.

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Quote of the Day by Tarl

[thegreatbeast]

It reads like pretty thin stuff. I've heard the Clinton clip to that luncheon and it seems to me that he contradicts a few of the assertions of these "experts". (Check their stated qualifications. Between them they have a robust five years of top level elbow-rubbing.)

[SevenDaysInMay]

Why is it that I don't beleive any of the Clintonazis?

They tied themselves forever to a pathological administration lead by two narcissistic psychopathic fascists, again (not) running for control of the world.

[Bon mots]

Why is it that I don't beleive any of the Clintonazis?

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

For eight years the Clinton administration fought hard to counter terrorism, and while we didn't accomplish all that we hoped, we had some important successes.

There's a saying that applies here: "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining".

[ernie pantuso]

So, their profound response is to:
1. attack the Sudanese messengers's credibility;
2. blame the military for talking the "CinC" out of action;
3. blame Bush for not doing anything until after 9/11;
4. "but we really tried our best and meant well".

And to think that we taxpayers lavishly fund for such brilliant public servants.

[Pagey]

"...a regime the Bush administration has rightly kept on the terrorism list, that has done nothing to bring an end to their domestic slave trade..."

I wonder if either of these writers considered the fact that their boss didn't do a darn thing about the slave trade there for 8 years either. That only fits into the article as an unecessary dig ar George W. Bush, and a mindless one at that.The article was supposed to be about refuting Miniters book,which they've turned into a rather became a feeble attempt I might add.I'm surprised the W.T. printed this blathering.