Betsy's Page
HOME
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
The truth about Avesil
Cheap Hosting
Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney
Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Online Bachelors Degree
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Monday, September 25, 2006
More disproving Clinton's hypothesis
Bill Clinton kept saying that neocons and right-wing opponents criticized him for doing too much against bin Laden. There were some Republican critics, but the great number of Republicans supported his bombing Sudan and Afghanistan after the embassy bombings. Jonah Goldberg has a series of links at NRO here, here, here, here, and here of Republicans and conservatives supporting the bombing.
Meanwhile, Byron York looks at what Richard Clarke actually said about Clinton's efforts to get bin Laden.But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.It's not accurate to say that Clinton didn't try. He did try. And it is true that the Bush administration was not at all focused on fighting terrorism before 9/11. But did Clinton exercise true leadership in fighting terrorism? That is the question. He could have responded by acknowledging the difficulty of getting OBL and even point to how we haven't been able to do it with an army in Afghanistan in the past five years. But instead he chose to attack Fox News and Chris Wallace.
Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.
And on that subject, Patterico has dug up examples of Chris Wallace asking Bush administration figures why they hadn't done enough before 9/11 in fighting terrorism. Read the rest of Patterico's post for what Richard Clarke has said about Clinton's efforts.
0 comments
Comments:
Bill Clinton kept saying that neocons and right-wing opponents criticized him for doing too much against bin Laden. There were some Republican critics, but the great number of Republicans supported his bombing Sudan and Afghanistan after the embassy bombings. Jonah Goldberg has a series of links at NRO here, here, here, here, and here of Republicans and conservatives supporting the bombing.
Meanwhile, Byron York looks at what Richard Clarke actually said about Clinton's efforts to get bin Laden.
And on that subject, Patterico has dug up examples of Chris Wallace asking Bush administration figures why they hadn't done enough before 9/11 in fighting terrorism. Read the rest of Patterico's post for what Richard Clarke has said about Clinton's efforts.
0 comments
Bill Clinton kept saying that neocons and right-wing opponents criticized him for doing too much against bin Laden. There were some Republican critics, but the great number of Republicans supported his bombing Sudan and Afghanistan after the embassy bombings. Jonah Goldberg has a series of links at NRO here, here, here, here, and here of Republicans and conservatives supporting the bombing.
Meanwhile, Byron York looks at what Richard Clarke actually said about Clinton's efforts to get bin Laden.
But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.It's not accurate to say that Clinton didn't try. He did try. And it is true that the Bush administration was not at all focused on fighting terrorism before 9/11. But did Clinton exercise true leadership in fighting terrorism? That is the question. He could have responded by acknowledging the difficulty of getting OBL and even point to how we haven't been able to do it with an army in Afghanistan in the past five years. But instead he chose to attack Fox News and Chris Wallace.
Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.
And on that subject, Patterico has dug up examples of Chris Wallace asking Bush administration figures why they hadn't done enough before 9/11 in fighting terrorism. Read the rest of Patterico's post for what Richard Clarke has said about Clinton's efforts.
Comments:
Post a Comment
