Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Read!
Review: I found this book to be an extremely quick and interesting read. Maybe Bill should have stopped wasting time with Monica and taken Bin Laden's declaration of War serious? So what did Bill do for 8 years - didn't improve our situation that's for sure. And I considered myself an Independent...until now!

Rating:
Summary: Scary If True!
Review: I was a bit skeptical at first, thinking this was just another Clinton bashing hatefest. I'm not a "Clinton Fan" by any means, but recognize partisan propaganda on both sides and am able to draw my own conclusions. After reading it, I purchased copies for all my friends and realtives that read. It certainly made me see the events of 9/11 and after in a different light. I think this is a must read for everyone that plans to exercise their right to vote for our next President.

Rating:
Summary: The Eighth Pillar of the RIght Revisited: Blaming Clinton
Review: In my perusal of the book I happily found it quite free of the vapid insults that grace so many other works in the anti-Clintonista pantheon. In Losing Bin, Laden Miniter attempts factual and logical evidence. He attempts, but he does not do such a good job.

First, in the early pages of the book he describes an attack in Yemen (December 29,1992)prior to Clinton's taking the oath of office. It absolves Bush senior of guilt because of his lame duck status. Because of the attack Clinton, Miniter argues,should have known about Al'Qaeda and Bin Laden. A full nine years later he puts no similar onus on George W Bush for his neglect of Bin Laden prior to Sept 11. On Sept 11 the Bush junior presidency was eight months old. When the first attack on the World Trade Center occured in the winter of 1993, the Clinton presidency was six weeks old. Reliable sources say that Ramzi Youssef and his confederates had been planning the deed for three years. Where was Bush I and why do we see no book castigating him? (rhetorical question) Remember that many of the folks behind the first attack are now serving long prison sentences. I guess that is another Clinton failing-- that he actually put some bad guys in jail on his watch.

In fairness, Miniter does credit Clinton's successes in thwarting the millenium bombing of LAX, mentions the capture of Shiek Omar and the intelligence coups that saved the Holland Tunnel in New York from a rush hour terrorist assualt. He bemoans the fact that thousands might have died had these assualts succeeded. The fact that those folks did not die should reflect well on Bill Clinton and his administration. Remeber 3000 died in Bush juniors presidency.

Instead he views Clinton as a political cream puff afraid to act. He claims Clinton refused to take Bin Laden from the Sudanese in 1996. According to Joe Conason, Bin Laden was never offered to us. The Sudanese offered him to the Saudis. Clinton lobbied the Saudis; the Saudis said "no." The story is old right wing pap, and the reader should know that. Further corroboration can be found in an Oct 3, 2001 article by Bart Gellman and the book The Age of Sacred Terror by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon. Why would the president not take Bin Laden if he had the chance?

Clinton made many attempts on Bin Laden. The missile attack in 1998; an invasion by a CIA led Pakistani commando unit in 1999 that was cancelled because of a military coup in that country; a rocket attack on his truck convoy in 2000.

Miniter calls the October 12, 2000 attack on the Cole an act of War, and Willie Limp Wrist (Clinton) did nothing. He likened it to the sinking of the Maine (a bad choice because the Maine may have been a set up). He calls it the worst peace time loss of American sailors lives since the Maine. He bashes Clinton for the Black Hawk Down incident in Mogadishu early in 1993 where 19 service men were killed. He calls Clinton for leaving. He conveniently forgets the 253 marines that died in Beirut in 1983. They went unavenged. What did Reagen do; he cut and ran. Always Clinton is supposed to act. If he acts, he wags the dog; if he does not act, he is complicit with terrorists--talk about a catch 22, a double bind.

No less a figure than Paul Bremer, Bush Juniors top Iraqi adminitrator, said Clinton "rightly focused on Bin Laden."
(Dec 24 2000) Robert Oakley, Reagan counter terrorist expert, called the focus an "obsession." Sandy Berger told his successor to the National Security Advisorship, Conde Rice that "terrorism
and al'Qaeda specifically will take up most of her time." She did not listen until it was too late for 3000 people.

I could deconstruct further. The truth is that claims and counter claims are often merky (Here I do believe that Miniter is working as a right wing propagandist,plying his wares to useful idiots). Lets try logic:

*If Clinton bears responsibility for the 1993 WTC attack after just six weeks in office, should not Bush Junior after eight months, ample warnings, bear even greater culpability?

*If Clinton is responsible for Bin Laden whose first manifestation was three weeks before his presidency, why is Bush Junior a victim when he had almost nine years of the "Osama Show" to learn from. Why did he not hit the ground running to correct Clinton's malfeasance?

*If Clinton bears responsibility for events that happened on the Sept 11 WTC attack eight months into Dubya's presidency, shouldn't Bush I (his dad)bear responsibility for the WTC attack just six weeks into Clinton's presidency. The attack was planned for three years on dads watch.

*If Clinton is duplicit for not acting more decisively on the Cole where 17 died and in Mogadishu where 19 died, why is Reagan praised as a terrrorist warrior when he let 253 marines die in Beirut.

The truth is that Mr. Miniter is the latest in a long line of Clinton bashers who scapegaot the 42nd president to cover their own culpable behinds. If they did not have Bill Clinton to bash they would have to examine their own sorry selves; and that is just too painful.

Rating:
Summary: Fool me once/ can't fool me again
Review: Miniter's book lacks an element of truth. On the evidence Miniter tosses out, Clinton's REPUBLICAN Defense Secretary, Cohen, never advised the President to act against bin Laden. (Check the 9/11 Commission transcripts on this. This is public knowledge.) Richard Clarke and George Tenet (hired on by Bush later) also never advised the President to act on these occasions either. For my money, I'll take Bush's failure at Tora Bora -- after the US public gave the big GREEN LIGHT -- as the one moment that best defines the massive mistakes made along this trail of terror left by Osama and his associates. Where were the U.S. forces when Binny was waltzing across the border into Pakistan? There is enough blame to go around, but Clinton is and was long out of office by then. The failures in Afghanistan went on under Bush's watch and he calls himself a "war president." Miniter completely ignores that. If I could give this book a "0" for "fair and balanced" I would. It deserves worse. This is political diatribe dressed up as reporting, but as Bush says at the end of the movie... "Fool me once...."

Rating:
Summary: "Richard Miniter" and lies
Review: Someone who proclaims to tell the truth about Clinton asserts that Clinton is responsible for all the terror in the world. Since he heard of Clinton being responsible for some terror, he asserts it is the "truth." Well. "Truth" is a strong term. And just because one person has heard something does not make that thing true. Let's consider sources, which are amply footnoted in his book. He claims that because he made so many footnotes, then everything he says must be true. First, his book is not the first to report these facts; they have appeared in the Drudge Report(multiple times) and on the Dennis Miller Show (ditto). Moreover, Sean Hannity, Bush's outspoken supporter, and Bill O'Reilly, Republican Party Spokesman, told him on the record that Clinton was letting terrorists sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, spotting what they believed was bin Laden three separate times. Other intelligence and Centcom command personnel confirmed the fact. What are we to make of all of this? If Miniter wants to contact me to discuss this, I'd be happy to talk to him. I suggest that he reach me through my press guy, Pete Fabio, at [phone] ext. 116--so I'm not deluged with calls from people who have not read this review and assume it is a Miniter hit job. For the general readers, I suggest you read the first few pages on Chapter one in the bookstore and I think you'll agree that this is simply another unsupported(and to my mind, very poorly written), unresearched book by someone looking to cash in on the anti-Clinton band-wagon.

Rating:
Summary: It's unfortunate that people need to point fingers...
Review: To allege that Clinton "blew it" when it came to Bin Laden is laughable. Though Mr. Miniter researched this issue with great success he missed or intentionally left out certain parts that would give him no reason to write such a book.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Miniter began writing and researching this book with the intent of "proving" a popular theory that was started by the same people that tried to throw Mr. Clinton out of the White House.

Here is the run down of the case: Sudan offers to give Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia so that he can be handed over to the United States. Saudi Arabia basically looks at the Sudan offer as idiotic. It would have been politically damaging for any Muslim country to hand over a fellow Muslim to the United States. By not pressuring the Saudis Clinton is blamed for "letting Bin Laden go". There was also other events, such as the Sudanese offering to assist the United States in a plan to get Bin Laden which was unrealistic and was frankly wishful thinking on the part of the Sudanese.

In the end we have another anti-Clinton obsessive trying to blame terrorism on Clinton while making a dime off of the people who actually would be silly enough to buy this book. It's even more unfortunate because people take individuals like Mr. Miniter serious when there are other people who know far more then Miniter does.

I'm no fan of Clinton but his obsessive haters just look like complete fools.