Rating: 
Summary: Trying to Educate yourself on the War on Terror?
Review: I found this book to be very educational and eye opening. I've been doing some reading to understand what has been going on the past 20 years with OBL, and I've found Losing Bin Laden to be pretty much on target. The Chapter titled, "The Friend of Bill" alone is very credible. To the reviewers who say there is no credibility to the book haven't read it, or, are well... stupid.
I knew Mr. Ijaz seemed very knowledgeable about the war on terror. I would always try to catch him on Fox if there were something "big" going on on the war on Terrorism. Before reading Mr. Miniter's book I did not know Ijaz's background, or who he was at all.
I recall Mansoor livid one day after the Richard Clarke book had come out. He was on Fox and said he would debate Clarke Anytime and Anyplace as to the Facts!
Now, I feel pretty good about the fact that I could pick out the one person on Tv that knew what he was talking about as far the war on terrorism.
Also, I'm pretty sure I heard that Mansoor's name has been put out there for that vacant CIA position or some position like it.
How's that for a credible source?
The book reads like a spy novel, but unfortunately it seems true.
Rating: 
Summary: Fool me once/ can't fool me again
Review: I really thought this book would rip Clinton apart with completely biased views, but instead it gives him a pretty fair shake. It seems like most of the failures are blamed on bureacratic barriers and red tape rather than Clinton himself, especially with the first WTC bombing. Not the kind of insanely conservative propaganda that some reviewers make it out to be. It's a pretty easy read that I enjoyed, and I hope you will too.
Rating:
Summary: Gives Clinton a Fair Shake
Review: I really thought this book would rip Clinton apart with completely biased views, but instead it gives him a pretty fair shake. It seems like most of the failures are blamed on bureacratic barriers and red tape rather than Clinton himself, especially with the first WTC bombing. Not the kind of insanely conservative propaganda that some reviewers make it out to be. It's a pretty easy read that I enjoyed, and I hope you will too.
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: 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: The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Review: Let's be upfront about all of this from the beginning. Any book that is released by Regnery Press ( the Fox News of the publishing world ) is suspect from the very outset. And obviously " Losing Bin Laden " is certainly no exception. Regnery specializes in releasing books that are always, and I do mean 'always', Conservative filled diatribes that are often vicious, mean-spirited and little more then extremely sad excuses to blame the worlds problems on former President Clinton and Liberals in general. All generally tacky and without much journalistic merit but there seems to be an audience so.... Anyway, with titles such as Mona Charens " Useful Idiots ", " Dereliction of Duty " by James Patterson " and that truly insightful work of fiction " Ain't No Rag " by country musician turned author/social critic ( God save us! ) Charlie Daniels and you'll no doubt notice this is a far-right lovers dream library. Can't wait for Laura Ingrahams latest release from Regnery. As far as Richard Miniter's " Losing Bin Laden " is concerned one would think that the Clinton's not only conceived but are solely responsible for creating Osama Bin Laden. Not unlike Frankensteins monster Mr. Miniter would have the reader believing that Pres. Clinton was in a nearby labratory actually creating this monster and unleashing him upon an unsuspecting world. Ommiting former Pres. Reagans dubious hand in funding Bin Laden in the eighties. And of course ex-Pres. Bush's using this monster as well during his tenure as Commander-In-Chief. Oopps!, no doubt just a harmless indiscretion by our author. Nevertheless, how terribly convienenant for this author to play the 'blame game' and point his not so subtle finger at our former President all the while saying " see, I told you so. " I've seen this countless time in other Conservative books ( Rush, Hannity, Savage. The list goes on and on....and on! ) and actually done much more effectively. The book, sadly, is written rather clumsily and with comes across as almost child-like in his attempts to sound convincing. Yes, Mr. Miniter makes some accurate points in his release ( in his own ham-fisted fashion that is ) but, sadly, he seems so intent on 'getting' Pres. Clinton that he tends to take away a certain amount of validity from his argument simply due to no small amount of general dislike he obviously feels for the Clintons. Are any of us surprised? Lastly, I did catch Mr. Miniters appearance on C-Span the other morning and he did mention in his next release that he will focus on Pres. Bush's response to Bin Laden and how this administration has handled the search for Bin Laden and other terrorists. Something tells me this Republican Pres. will get much more of a objective and understanding outlook then Bill Clinton could ever hope for.
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: Questionable revisionist history
Review: Not a worthwhile purchase and but always run across his books abandoned by my friends and I advise you to do the same. There should be a law in these times that require books to be labeled "not written by a professional historian".
Rating:
Summary: Bush provides rebuttal to this book
Review: Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? [...]
BUSH: ... I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you [...]
Q: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?
BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.
I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him.
-President George W. Bush, March 13, 2003
| 
