The Cell, is a strong indictment of the Clinton Administration. It portrays President Clinton as distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal and dramatizes several missed opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. In one scene, then-National Security Adviser
I've never been one to get my history from TV movies, and I'm not going to start now — that would make me no better than liberals who get their history from Michael Moore. However, if any good can come of this, it could generate an honest debate on the national security failures of the 1990s. President Bush has taken most of the blame in the media for not acting on pre-9/11 intelligence, but the Clinton Administration has largely gotten a free pass. That is absurd considering that Clinton was president for eight years as terrorist attacks against the United States increased in frequency and boldness (his presidency is nearly book-ended by the first World Trade Center bombing and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole).
The reason this is an important debate to have is not to attack Clinton (Republicans were not vocally pushing for more aggressive action during the 1990s, and President Bush didn't run in 2000 on a platform of getting tougher on terrorists). Americans, as a whole, underestimated the dangers of terrorism.
But as we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11 without a major attack on
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online