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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (7019)	9/7/2003 11:33:42 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793781

I have just been watching Miniter on CSPAN . . . . Hmm, this gets a bit more detail, then. On the 93 WTC bombing and Clinton's desire to criminalize, that makes some sense. It would have been a reasonable thing to do given the times, etc. His comment about Woolsey is pure Woolsey hype. Woolsey was a goner from day-one of the Clinton admin. Just a mistake some one, at an obviously very high level, made in the vetting process. Too bad they couldn't have gotten Louis Freeh out, too. As for the Sudan and bin Laden argument, that's more serious, to my way of thinking. I'll be interested to see how the review process deals with this. The Sudanese general does nothing for me because he may well have a rather large stake in the outcomes now. As for the failure of the principles to comment, it may well as you say, because the reports are true. But there is a powerful, other argument in which they don't object because to do so would be to give the book both credibility and more notereity. If it gets both without their responses, it will be interesting to see if they decided to weigh in. And how credible they are. As for his reading of Benjamin and Simon, they tell a story in which they fought to get their arguments listened to. I don't think Clarke's tales will go very far, not because they may be false but because he was always viewed as a hot head. That will make it harder for his arguments to get legs now. We still have not seen the book in the mainstream media. Perhaps that's coming. My impression, and that's all it is, is that Regnery books have a difficult time getting reviews in mainstream media because their history is of publishing books not well vetted carefully.