Rating: 
Summary: Losing Your Objectivity
Review: Judging by the title of the book and the cover art, this would normally not be a book I would pick up. An acquaintance told me the book was worth the time so I gave it a chance. Although I tend to lean a bit left, I believe I can maintain an open mind and fair assessment of any particular book I read. With this said maybe I should start with what I found positive about the book. Overall the author does provide a nice review of the attacks by Bin Laden against the US. The author details out the timeline with interesting facts and a nice overview. I kept thinking that this book, at least when covering facts, was rather close in its content to the recent Richard Clarke book. A fact that would probably make the partisan audience of this book a bit unhappy. I found it interesting that the author stood up for Clarke through the book. Again a position that is probably not very popular today for a conservative audience. My concern with the book started almost from the first pages. There was not one missed opportunity where the author did not slip in negative comments on Clinton, whether they were warranted or not. The author blamed Clinton for errors low-level staff made and stated he was responsible for missed opportunities when he or his administration did not know about them. The author stated on one hand that Clinton should have strongly reacted to a terrorist bombing that happened months before he became President, but does not hold that same view with the Bush administration and the Cole attack. The author blames Clinton for failures allowing the first WTC attack (during the start of his administration), but does not hold the same level of performance for Bush and 9-11. And in what I found the most hypocritical section of the book the author pulls no punches when talking about the mistaken Aspirin factory bombing in the Sudan and how large of an error it was, but then complains when the Clinton administration shows restraint later in 1999 and 2000 with other attacks due to vague intelligence. It just seemed to me that the author based his book on a bias against Clinton and would fit the story to fulfill that bias. I guess the last straw for me was the last ten pages of the book where the author tries to tie Saddam to Bin Laden. Keeping aside the rather over barring news media comments over the past year that report there was no connection between these two, even President Bush has said Saddam had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks or Bin Laden. If there is one person in the world that would like this connection to be proven it is president Bush and even he is not standing by this canard. Overall the book does offer some interesting points and a good overview of Bin Laden's attacks during the Clinton Administration. The book is bias and if you are looking for anti Clinton literature then you will be happy you bought the book. If you are looking for a little less negative view of the Clinton Administration I would suggest the Clarke book.
Rating: 
Summary: Another hatchet job from Regenery Publishing
Review: It appears that the publisher of this book, Regenery Publishing, exists solely to put out quickie hatchet jobs on so called "Liberals", as well as anyone or anything associated with the Democratic Party. Regenery's motto: "We never met a Liberal or Democrat we couldn't slander." Given that, if your'e going to read anything under the Regenery imprint (including this book), remember to take it with a million and a half grains of salt. If you're one for ax grinding, hastily researched, character assassinating, bottom of the barrel political analysis, look no further than Regenery Publishing, the book publishing arm of the Republican Party. For those that are looking for well balanced analysis and factual content, steer clear of Regenery's books. Regenery Publishing: The best in Fantasy Fiction.
Rating:
Summary: Shooting blanks
Review: Really incredible that these types of books find their way into print and even manage to get accolades from Forbes and Novak. I would have thought they would have known better. While Bin Laden has been around awhile, he was working principally in Afghanistan, Sudan and other war-torn states, hoping to put in place his brand of fundamentalist Islam. As Clarke noted in Against All Enemies, al Qaeda was at work in Bosnia as well, which Clinton recognized and did everything in his power to keep out of the political make-up of the new country. Clinton was the first president to recognize the full potential of al Qaeda and established a team of trusted counter-terrorism experts to gain a deeper understanding of this militant group. Reagan and H.W. Bush had done little to combat terrorism, viewing it as a nuissance rather than a foreign policy concern. George W. Bush essentially took the same approach when he assumed office in January, 2001. Books like this shed no light on the subject of terrorism, but rather choose to deflect attention away from what has been a appalling record by the current Bush administration to combat terrorism. They're the ones who let bin Laden get away when they supposedly had him in their sights during the Afghan War.
Rating: 
Summary: What Do People Giving Low Ratings Have in Common?
Review: That they have NOT READ the book. Thats OK. Judging by their comments, they really don't read that many books at all. One reader correctly points out the Saddam link to the first WTT bombings, he is excepted. This is a great, quick and fascinating read. This should be required reading for everyone who is interested in what really went wrong on 9-11. It is at once a book that you'll find yourself jotting down notes and hoping your not too close to finishing.
Rating:
Summary: Truth hurts liberals
Review: Liberals are fond of saying "the truth hurts". But that is their self-serving way of avoiding responsibility (check out the readers 5 star reviews on Al Frankens book for a few hundred examples). If Conservatives appear to them to be "fuming and seething with rage" it is because books full of lies are published and passed off as truth. Liberals idea of truth is not based on objective, verifiable facts, but rather what fits their America-hating worldview and their attitude of "I've got mine so screw you". Liberals cannot accept the reality that Clinton was far more negligent and damaging to America than W. Bush. It is time for liberals to stop destroying America.
Rating:
Summary: it is not truth that hurts
Review: Conservatives are fond of saying "the truth hurts". But that is their self-serving way of avoiding responsibility. If liberals appear to them to be "fuming and seething with rage" it is because books full of lies are published and passed off as truth. Conservative's idea of truth is not based on objective, verifiable facts, but rather what fits their America-hating worldview and their attitude of "I've got mine so screw you". Conservatives cannot accept the reality that W. Bush was far more negligent and damaging to America than Clinton. It is time for conservatives to stop destroying America. Miniter's credibility has been called into question. It is even more telling that he comes out of the woodwork when one of the sources backing his statements calls them into question. It needs to be asked if Miniter is lying about Clarke. If you don't ask this question, then you are not being informed, you are just looking for things to read which confirm your worldview. That is ok, it is your money. But call it what it is, and don't call it honest inquiry.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Hurts.....
Review: The mere fact that liberals (aka Bush-haters) seem to be fuming and seething with rage over this book gives it that much more credibility.
Miniter makes a compelling case (backed up with sources where applicable and disclaimers where needed) that the Clinton "administration" was largely responsible for dropping the ball on global terrorism. Many intelligent people didn't need convincing--and already suspected this from Day One (September 11th). For myself, I started questioning Clinton's policies and noting his failures back in 1993. But, here they are in black and white. Miniter highlights like never before the utter arrogance and cavalier attitude Bill Clinton had during his reign. He sacrificed anything for his own political gain, including, indirectly, 3000 lives in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Well-written, well-documented and directly to the point.
The only criticism is that Richard Clarke comes out in too positive a light. He is not painted as the disgruntled and demoted partisan employee he very clearly is.
Rating:
Summary: At least he did SOMETHING...
Review: Blaming Clinton is like blaming an outfielder who dropped a ball in the 1st inning for losing the game. At least he was pro-active, and didn't ignore the CIA Director's pleas on a daily basis like Bush. Unfortunately, Clinton had a final opportunity to get bin Laden, in an effort that would have probably been viewed worldwide as an act of war, and he held off. He did so because he felt he would be taken to task for drawing attention away from the Monica Lewinsky situation. Maybe we should blame Kenneth Starr? We've seen Bush having no problem playing the slight-of-hand game with his Space Program and Alternative Fuel speeches he gave to draw attention away from the "bad" intelligence situation in Iraq (the only thing bad about it was how the Bush Adminstration played meager rumors up to be known facts). I'm tired of being grouped with the "mean leftys" as one reviewer put it. There's nothing mean-spirited, or unpatrioatic for that matter, about questioning Bush's Intelligence (no pun intended). To me the cries of "foul" are just a case of "rightys" being able to dish it out, but not take it (see Kenneth Starr). I just heard Miniter on a fundamentalist Christian radio station, so don't try and tell me about agendas. Who is this guy anyway? Clarke at least has 30 years of impeccable service to our country. He has no reason to cook up a pack of lies. You'll notice that neither Bush nor Powell have directly responded to his allegations --- they don't have a leg to stand on.
Rating: 
Summary: So much for Clarke
Review: If we're looking for the truth, I'd go with this book before Clarke's: Via the Washington Times: "The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress - 45,000 words long - makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times." "...undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it." Add to that Clarke's assertion that Rice knew nothing of Al Qaeda until he told her, in spite of the fact she is on record in an interview a full year before he told her anything, speaking at length on the Al Qaeda problem, and Mr. Clarke becomes an unbelievable opportunist. Surely Mr. Miniter's book has a few partisan moments, also, but nothing that has been so definitively proven false as has been Clarke's political hack job.
Rating:
Summary: Read Clarke and learn the truth
Review: Verbatim from "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke, starting at page 140. Any typos are probably mine. THROUGHOUT BIN LADEN'S YEARS in Sudan, that country served as a base for arms and fighters going not just to Bosnia but also to terrorists in Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda, and even Qadhafi's Libya. Sudan's intelligence service and military supported the terrorists. Then in June 1995, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak flew to Ethiopia for a meeting in Addis Ababa of the Organization of African Unity. Aware that Sudanese-based Egyptian terrorists were plotting to kill Mubarak as they had assassinated his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, Mubarak's intelligence advisor insisted on an armored limousine and rooftop snipers along the routes from the airport. Without them, Mubarak would have been dead. Islamic Jihad terrorists attempted to block the road, fire on the limousine, and bomb the motorcade. They narrowly failed. Evidence tied the attack to terrorists in Sudan, and all of that evidence indicated support from the Sudanese government. Following that event, Egypt and we (joined by other countries in the region) sought and obtained the United Nations Security Council's sanction on Sudan. Only Libya had previously been subject to sanctions because of terrorist sponsorship. In the Counterterrorism Security Group we considered the sanctions a rare diplomatic success. The CSG also considered direct action, examining options for attacks on Bin Laden's and/or Turabi's facilities in and around Khartoum. The White House requested the Pentagon to develop plans for a U.S. Special Forces operation against al Qaeda-related facilities in Sudan. Weeks later a Pentagon team briefed National Security Advisor Tony Lake and other Principals in Lake's West Wing office. There were options to raid a terrorist facility that the Pentagon briefing labeled "Veteran's Housing for Afghan War Fighters," a plan to blow up a bank in downtown Khartoum that was thought to house bin Laden's money, and a few other options. While the Joint Staff dutifully briefed on the plan, they recommended strongly against it. "I can see why," Lake replied after seeing the details. "This isn't stealth. There is nothing quiet or covert about this. It's going to war with Sudan." The military briefer nodded: "That's what we do, sir. If you want covert, there's the CIA." The CIA, however, had no capability to stage significant operations against al Qaeda in Sudan, covert or otherwise. The Saudis, or perhaps the Egyptians may have been thinking along similar lines about the need for some covert operation against bin Laden in Sudan. Reports reached us from Sudan of two incidents in which someone attempted to kill bin Laden in Khartoum. We also knew that Mubarak wa sending word to Khartoum to rein in the terrorists or else. Egypt had moved troops and aircraft to the Sudan border once before and had even used its air force to bomb an anti-Egyptian radio station in Khartoum in the early 1980s. Now, Mubarak was threatening another military buildup. The weak Sudanese military could beat up Christian tribes in the south, but it was no match for the Egyptian military. It was getting a little too hot there for the al Qaeda leader. Afghanistan was looking better to bin Laden in 1996. The puppet government the Soviets left behind in Kabul had fallen, and after ten years of factional infighting, Pakistan had intervened to stabilize the situation. Hoping to see the return of millions of Afghan refugees in Pakistan, the Pakistan military intelligence service (ISID) had armed and trained the Taliban religious movement to gain control of much of Afghanistan. The leader of the Taliban was much like Sudan's Turabi, a religious zealot seeking to create theocracy at the point of a gun. Like Turabi, Mullah Omar was known to bin Laden and was eager to have his men and money back. Turabi and bin Laden departed as friends, and pledged to continue the struggle and to use Khartoum as a safe haven. In recent years, the Sudanese intelligence officials and Americans friendly to the Sudan regime have invented a fable about bin Laden's final days in Khartoum. In the fable the Sudanese government offers to arrest bin Laden and hand him in chains to FBI agents, but Washington rejects the offer because the Clinton administration does not see bin Laden as important or does and cannot find anywhere to put him on trial. The only slivers of truth in this fable are that a) the Sudanese government was denying its support to terrorism in the wake of the U.N. sanctions and b) the CSG had initiated informal inquiries with several nations about incarcerating bin Laden, or putting him on trial. There were no takers. Nonetheless, had we been able to put our hands on him then we would have gladly done so. U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White in Manhattan could, as the saying goes "indict a ham sandwich." She certainly could have obtained an indictment for bin Laden in 1996 had we needed it. In the spring of 1998 she did so. The facts about the supposed Sudanese offer to give us bin Laden are that Turabi was not about to turn over his partner in terror to us and no real attempt to do so ever occurred.
| 
