SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (127537)3/28/2004 2:59:23 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) of 281500
 
Both argue that Clinton grew into considering Al Q as his top priority such that by 1998 he was obssessed with it.

Did we live through the same year 1998? I think Clinton was pretty obsessed with not getting impeached during that year. Obsession with Al Qaeda was much more difficult to spot. Certainly he didn't order any response to the embassy bombings beyond a short-lasting cruise missile bombardment.

Let me put it this way. I don't care what anyone now says about Clinton's feelings. I look at what Clinton accomplished, and it wasn't much. It was certainly little enough to confirm Osama bin Laden in his belief that America was a paper tiger - if you struck her hard, she would snarl but run away.

As for your comments about Clarke's motives, who knows

The same people know who worked with him, they know. Let's try to find their views. It is by no means a stretch - at all! - to find personal payback in Clarke's comments. And that's not listening to what the Bush administration says, that's just ordinary reading between the lines. As I said before, Clarke's testimony slants more critical of the Bush administration than the committee report warrants, and his 60 Minutes interview was WAY more critical.

I'm still waiting to hear what comes of Sen Frist's efforts to declassify Clarke's 2002 testimony. The protests that Clarke was either lying then or is lying now, one or the other, have a genuine sound to me. Clarke's response that he was working for the administration back then is not going to cut it, since he was under oath both times.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News