Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (30209)	5/21/2002 4:25:46 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting bit of slanted history. Miniter disparages Clinton whether he engages troops or not; he's screwed if he does and screwed if he doesn't. In the list of operations that US forces pulled out of, I note he neglects mentioning Ollie North and a Bible kissing the Ayatollah's ring, nor the pullout from Lebanon, both of which occurred on Reagan's watch. Nor the early end to the Gulf War (Bush I). Nor the fact that Bush II was in charge for 7-3/4 months before 9-11 and.... OOPSIE! Of course, this slant, to assign blame, is merely a weak effort to distract some from the present issues swirling around about why warnings were ignored on Bush II's watch. Personally, I see plenty that can be assigned to many actors in the leadership game. But I find it to be a failure on the highest order of our FBI/CIA intelligence (esp as regards the air training warnings) and our military (how can a group of misfit yutzes successfully strike such an obvious target as the Pentagon? SHEESH, I bet the old-line Soviets lay awake nights asking themselves why they folded against ineptness of that degree). Miniter's piece was for the Choir on the Right; no reputable historian would put much stock into a third-rate analysis like that, even though there's no doubt that Clinton made political and strategic errors worth noting.