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: carranza2 who wrote (127566)	3/28/2004 12:52:19 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If this is true, Clinton did a good job of hiding such an obsession from the public. He could have made the issue an item in the national discourse, heightening public awareness of AQ's dangers. He did nothing of the kind. There's an interesting difference of opinion here. Clarke argues that after 98 Clinton was obsessed with it; did everything he could do to bring his administration around to that point of view; included it in speeches, etc. Bob Kerrey, on the commission, argues a version of a different position, which is that Clinton should have, publicly, declared war on Al Q in 98. Clarke's reply is to look at the politics of the period and to argue there was no way the public would have gone there. Hard to know who is/was right here. Particularly, because Kerrey appears to have argued his point in 98.