Rating: 
Summary: Global Terrorism Was Unleashed Before Clinton Presidency!
Review: The book is an excellent read as far as outlining the recent history of Global Terrorism, but it cannot all be placed at President Clinton's door either. Although I found this book to be a compelling indictment on President Clinton's mistakes in Foreign Policy, I feel it is just as unfair to try to lynch him over the failure to capture or kill Bin Laden too. As I read it, I had to recall all the Presidents who have made critical, expensive and devastating errors in American Foreign Policy costing Americans lives and trillions in dollars. All American Foreign Policies have never ending legacies of well intentional protections of our nation and citizens in the name of the pursuit of power. These policies date back to the very founding of our continent and can change into blunders, triumphs and vice versa.
A Young George Washington was not perfect when he actually started the French and Indian War by shooting the Half-Brother of Fort Duquesne Commander when he was sent to only give a message. President Andrew Jackson sent Davy Crockett and Sam Houston to Texas to support Texas Independence. Franklin Roosevelt War Department had cables from coded messages saying Pearl Harbor was a target of attack six days before the attack. Harry Truman put the first US Advisors in Vietnam along with $10 Million in Aid to the French to keep colonialism. All blunders that hurt Americans and yet at the same time made us stronger in the future and sometimes became burdens. Americans often make gaffe when we confront the blowbacks, or enemies of our own creation or simply do not stand up to bullies eventually. Presidents often inherit problems caused by other Presidents too. I had no problem believing the facts in this book. I think the author has made a compelling case for proving President Clinton had the opportunity to bring to a halt, capture, and eradicate bin Laden, through Drones and Global Positioning Systems a number of times. The book points out there is no question President Clinton's failure to strike back against attacks made bin Laden look indestructible in the Whabbism Islamic culture. We know from history the man who brings victory in battle is honored above all other men in Arab Society. There is no question bin Laden was able to attract supporters, recruits and the funds to underwrite his terrorism. Yet, President Nixon inherited the mistakes of Vietnam from Roosevelt to Truman to Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson. Once President Nixon learned the Chinese hated the Vietnamese worse than they hated Americans. He was able to cause a rift between Russian and Chinese Communism and used it to remove America from Vietnam. Thus, often it takes the mistakes of one President to solve threats to American Interests over time and Clinton should be held to no higher standard than other Presidents. After all, Saudi Arabian Whabbism started very back in 1870, flourished in 1920's and started to export its hate way back in 1970's to today. Should we hold all those Presidents accountable for a failure to face a future threat that started over 100 years ago? I am not holding President Clinton blameless for errors in judgment. But I disagree that the Clinton Administration knew bin Laden was as a national security threat since such action often rally radicals to their cause by shining attention on them. Upon hindsight, sure, it was slip-up not to do it, but you have judge President Clinton on the threat level against America at the time, not after 911. President Reagan was guilty of the same offenses President Clinton is being held accountable in this book. He too sent troops to Lebanon an over 200 of them died in a suicide attack and we left Lebanon. Did we not aid and arm Iraq when they needed our support against Iran in the 1980's? Did we not support the Taliban in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians? If the 1993 World Trade Center attack happen just a few months into Clinton Presidency do we blame President George Bush Father for not seeing that threat too in the early 1990's? What I found to be very good in this book was the information to learn from our President's faux pas not just dwelling on them. We now know we can learn from all of them too. We should credit President Clinton who began having the FBI playing a more important role in fighting terrorism. The book does offer documents showing how Clinton consider the early bombings as a matter for a FBI investigation, thus preparing that agency for future interaction with terrorism. Today, the FBI, CIA and Department of Homeland Security have learned from past miscues together. I do think President Clinton and his National Security team and congressional advisors can be held accountable for being naïve but no more than other Presidents. Also, no question President Clinton and Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini made a huge mistake in preventing the CIA from hiring Arabic translators and refusing to enforce immigration laws. As well as many misjudgments of Tony Lake, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, Susan Rice, Richard Clarke, and James Woolsey. All made terrible errors in advice and opinions, but again at a time when such information can now be looked at in totality. I welcome being reminded of my past mistakes too, but I prefer not to repeat them even more. As the book points out, the real enemy is bin Laden who is taking lives instead of helping others live and prosper. The book will make others come to their own conclusions too and I highly recommend it with a wary eye in judging all our Presidents. Terrorism did not start with President Clinton and he need be judged only on what he knew and could do at the time.
Rating: 
Summary: clearly a clinton-hater
Review: It's clear this author is a clinton-hater. It's also clear he has some of his facts wrong. DCI George Tenet appeared last year before congress and laid out the US goverments anti-terrorist activities prior to 9/11, and they were extensive, he also denied that Sudan offered to turn over bin laden to the U.S. It's funny how prior to 9/11 no one was critizing clinton about not doing enough about terrorism in fact Paul Bremer told the washington post he thought clinton did a good job when it came to terriosm, and Reagans other counter-terrorism director said his only complaint was that clinton was obsessed with bin laden. I would like to know how many times this author critized clinton when it came to terrorism before 9/11. On the contrary I'm sure he did what most right-wingers did when clinton blew a bin landen WMD factory and bombed his terrorist camp in 1998 which was say it was to distract the nation from monica. I also don't recall anyone blaming bush or reagan for the WTC bombing that happened in clinton's 6th week in office. And did bush or cheney ever criticize clinton when it came to terrorism in the 2000 campaign NO!
Rating:
Summary: An unfair and unbalanced look at the situation
Review: I have read this book. I have also read Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them...". I'm not a Clinton fan. I'm not an Al Franken fan. I'm not a Bush fan. I'm not a Richard Miniter fan. But read both books and decide for yourself - Bush was in power when 9/11 happened and for more than a year and a half leading up to it. Ask yourself: did Bush & company do everything (or anything?) that would have prevented this? And ask yourself this: would 9/11 have been prevented if the US government hadn't been supporting and arming Islamic radicals in Afghanistan, and then ignoring the consequenes once the Soviets were out? This book is a political book with a political agenda that has nothing to do with the truth. You may also be interested to know that Miniter is currently a faculty member of the "World Journalism Institute", whose mission, directly from their website is: "...training a cadre of Christian journalists to enter the mainstream newsrooms, and how we attempt to accomplish that mission." ...
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: 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: 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: A Great Read
Review: I liked this book. Miniter describes in detail all of Bin Laden's attacks throuth the 90s. It has the best description of each attack that I have seen in print. He points out mistakes that the Clinton team made along the way, but the book is not some partisan attack on Clinton. It is not as harsh on him as you would think from the title.
Miniter has great sources in the Sudan and writes in depth on the Sudanese relationship with the US and Bin Laden. Richard Clarke, who has been one of the biggest critics of the president, comes off as some who was deeply concerned about terrorism and did everything he could to protect America. James Woolsey was also a main source.
This is one of the best books that I have read on Bin Laden and the terrorism issue. I recommend it to anyone interested in the topic
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.
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: Discredited book from a sad partisan hack
Review: Yes, a US president DID drop the ball when it came to fighting Al Qaeda. That president, sadly, is Bush. As is clear now from the record, and the unimpeachable testimony of Richard Clarke, it was Clinton who implored Bush to focus on Bin Laden during the transition. Bush, who had never heard of Bin Laden, chose to ignore this advice, ignore Richard Clarke's furtive recommendations to attack Bin Laden, and reduce the role of the US counterterrorism czar to near obscurity.
Bush then inexplicably repeated this mistake AFTER Bin Laden had unleashed the most horrifying attack in our nation's history. Bush has again forgotten Bin Laden, and is ignoring him entirely even today. This book's absurd revisionism is actually harmful to the security of the nation, and puts America at greater risk by ignoring obvious truths, besmearching the only US president to take Bin Laden seriously as a threat.
If only Bush were half as strong a president as Clinton. America would be so much stronger, both militarily, economically, and morally.
| 
