Louis Freeh Pens Book: 'Investigating Clinton'

[swampfox]

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 6:51 p.m. EDT
Louis Freeh Pens Book: ‘Investigating Clinton’
newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/14/185603.shtml
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has written a book detailing his career, including his eight years as head of the bureau during the Clinton administration - where he describes his frustration over the fact that Bill Clinton wouldn’t take his warnings about the terrorist threat seriously.

Freeh’s book - due out in October and titled: “My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Waging War on Terror” - promises to be the first in-depth account by the nation’s former top cop of his days presiding over FBI investigations into one Clinton scandal after another.

According to publisher St. Martin’s Press - “Freeh tells his story, from Catholic school to law school to U.S. district attorney to head of the FBI, where he battles his boss, Bill Clinton, and tries to make everyone wake up to the threat of terrorism.”
The former top lawman has previously complained about Clinton abuses of power in the Filegate and Chinagate scandals.

He told the Wall Street Journal in 2002 that the Clinton administration had a cavalier attitude towards terrorism.

 

[gilliam]

swampfox:

He told the Wall Street Journal in 2002 that the Clinton administration had a cavalier attitude towards terrorism.

I don’t know what he is writing, but I wouldn’t say the Clinton Administration having a cavalier attitude towards terrorism. The facts from what I can see, is that everything, but everything, was weighed for its political impact. Clinton only acted in a way that would be politically advantagious. If they could not find a politically positive way to do something, they didn’t do it.

There is no way Clinton would have invaded Iraq, for example. It is also highly doubtful he would have deployed the CIA in Afghanistan as Bush did as rapidly as Bush did. Instead he would have built up the Army around the area and invaded in a traditional manner. It is my firm belief that we would be mired in Afghanistan today if Clinton was in office, instead of stuck in Iraq… instead of sand and cities, we would be in the mountains of Afghanistan, and there is no certainty that we would not have ended up like the USSR and United Kingdom did there.

 

[swampfox]

gilliam:

I don’t know what he is writing, but I wouldn’t say the Clinton Administration having a cavalier attitude towards terrorism. The facts from what I can see, is that everything, but everything, was weighed for its political impact. Clinton only acted in a way that would be politically advantagious. If they could not find a politically positive way to do something, they didn’t do it.

There is no way Clinton would have invaded Iraq, for example. It is also highly doubtful he would have deployed the CIA in Afghanistan as Bush did as rapidly as Bush did. Instead he would have built up the Army around the area and invaded in a traditional manner. It is my firm belief that we would be mired in Afghanistan today if Clinton was in office, instead of stuck in Iraq… instead of sand and cities, we would be in the mountains of Afghanistan, and there is no certainty that we would not have ended up like the USSR and United Kingdom did there.

True. I can’t forget that Clinton pardoned FALN terrorists and refused Sudan’s offer to hand over Bin Laden.