Since the left is all a flutter about ABC’s “The Path to 9/11″, calling it a fraud and even bringing forth Mr. Fraud himself, Richard Clarke to refute the movie.

But unlike liberal moonbat websites like “Think Progress”, some of us have more than first hand knowledge about Clinton and his inaction in regards to terrorism during his reign.

One very good and factual book, “Losing Bin Laden”, written by 30-year FBI veteran Gary Aldrich told the tale of one of the Clinton administration’s typical day at ineptness.

“On September 1, 2003 syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote an article announcing a new book entitled, Losing Bin Laden. Mr. Novak revealed a secret meeting discovered and reported in the book, by its author, Richard Miniter which took place in the Clinton White House after the bombing of the USS Cole.

The meeting in October, 2000, occurred twenty-six days before voters decided who would succeed Bill Clinton. Why did Clinton and his advisors ignore a proper military response and allow Osama Bin Laden to live on? Could it be so that Al Gore would have an easy transition to the White House? After all, military actions can produce messy political ramifications if done wrong. Clinton had already bombed one aspirin factory – was he worried about bombing a second?

It‚Äôs important to note that what happened during that remarkable meeting may have sealed the fate of more than 3,000 innocent Americans. Those lives were lost in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia as a result of Osama Bin Laden‚Äôs carefully orchestrated attack. After the USS Cole bombing, Bill Clinton had a prime opportunity to kill Osama, and possessed solid evidence about his location.”

Mansoor Ijaz, who in essence worked by the Clinton Administration and actually helped broker the 1996 deal for Bin Laden which Clinton refused, was referrered to in this 2001 Newsmax article:

“Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president‚Äôs own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and “detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas,‚Äù Ijaz writes in today‚Äôs edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.

But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel “Sandy‚Äù Berger failed to act.

”I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,” Ijaz writes.

‚ÄùThe silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.”

Now while the left will call Aldrich a hack (but can’t refute his charges) and Newsmax a shrill rag for the administration (but they can’t refute what this article states), the fact is that I know people who were there when these things were going on and they know what happened. The Path to 9/11 is only the beginning, as more and more of the true history of the Clinton Administration lack of action during the 90s will be coming out.

Here are some other facts about Clinton and terrorism (taken from this site):

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. (he did nothing)

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. (he did nothing)

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. (he did nothing)

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. (he did nothing)

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. (he did nothing)

“Everything was more important than fighting terrorism. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration’s supporters, Janet Reno’s objections, considerations of cost, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism.”

- Dick Morris, New York Post, Jan. 2, 2002

UPDATE: Decision08 with a smackdown of Clarke.

UPDATE II: Must be Christmas. Uber moonbat Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter throws a hissy fit and cites Think Progress all in the same press release! Man are they nervous or what?

UPDATE III: Andy McCarthy:

“The fact, though, is that Clinton had eight times as long as Bush to deal with this crisis, and his administration’s performance was wanting. They did some good things ‚Äî the terror prosecutions were successful if ineffectual, and the 1996 anti-terror legislation was excellent ‚Äî it is still more important than the Patriot Act in terms of counterterrorism enforcement. But they also dropped the ball very badly in several places. The Wall was an unmitigated disaster, and the Clinton administration simply had other priorities ‚Äî concerns over hypothetical civil liberties problems, the quest to solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue, worries over what the “international community” would say if America took decisive action against bin Laden in Sudan or Afghanistan ‚Äî that caused them to subordinate the al Qaeda threat.”

democrats elections politics bush war on terror path to 9/11