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: 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: 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
Rating:
Summary: The Predator and "lies"
Review: Someone who claims he works on the Predator--and he may very well--says that the Predator was never deployed anywhere near Afghanistan prior to 9-11. Since he has not heard of the deployment of two Predators in the Clinton years to Central Asia, he asserts it is a "lie." Well. A "lie" is a strong term. And just because one person has not heard something does not make that thing a falsehood. Let's consider sources, which are amply footnoted in my book. First, my book is not the first to report this fact; it has appeared in the Washington Post (multiple times) and in congressional testimony (ditto). Moreover, Richard Clarke, Clinton's counterterrorism czar, and Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor, told me on the record that two were deployed, spotting what they believed was bin Laden three separate times. Other intelligence and Centcom command personnel confirmed the fact. After one crashed in the late summer of 2000, a bureaucratic blame game grounded the other plane. If this person 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, Peter Robbio, at (703) 683-5004 ext. 116--so I'm not deluged with calls from people who have not read the book and assume it is a Clinton hit job. For the general readers, I suggest that you do not judge a book by its cover, its title, or its publisher. Simply read the first few pages on Chapter one and I think you'll agree that this is the first comprehensive (and to my mind, fair-minded) book on the history of bin Laden's war on America in the Clinton years.
Rating: 
Summary: Missed Opportunities
Review: The author traces the Clinton action and inaction in regard to Bin Laden and terrorism through the nineties. He highlights the times when the number one terrorist could have been killed or captured but there was no go-ahead given from the highest level. Opportunities for obtaining foreign intelligence from other governments regarding Osama bin Laden were also met with inaction. There were those in the lower echelons of the administration who were dedicated to finding and dealing with Bin Laden but the support at higher levels was pretty well non-existent except for Richard Clarke. There was the well publicized lack of translators of mideast languages in the intelligence arena and an effort to solve this problem was not supported at the highest level of the administration. The author also provides considerable evidence to support his contention that there was a significant connection between Iraq and the network of Osama bin Laden.
In short the author maintains that Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States by several attacks on U.S. interests, but the Clinton Administration did not declare war on him and made little response to the attacks. I found the book to hold my interest but to provide more detail at times than I really wanted.
| 
