Saving Clinton's Rep at Rummy's Expense

Andrew C McCarthy on the NY Times hit-job against Donald Rumsfeld, which blamed the former Def Sec for a "Path to 9/11" type failure to get Bin Laden:

Let’s begin with a fairly blatant fact. Rumsfeld’s action, or
as the Times would have it, inaction, takes place in the context of the United
States prosecuting — drum roll — a war. If you’re keeping score, that would be
the war Bush took up and Clinton didn’t.Next: We’re talking here about Rumsfeld,
not Bush. Mazzetti concedes that “[i]t is unclear whether President Bush was
informed about the planned operation” that his defense secretary cancelled.
There is no indication that Bush’s message to his team has been anything other
than the one the Times so enjoys belittling: “Wanted: Dead or
Alive.”

Now contrast President Clinton. The 9/11 Commission notes that
Clinton, dragged kicking and screaming after sundry al Qaeda threats and
attacks, finally authorized a covert operation to kill bin Laden if he could not
be captured. After that plan came to naught, another golden opportunity arose.
So what did Clinton do? He personally “crossed out the key [authorization to
kill] language he had approved [earlier,] … and inserted more ambiguous
language.”

Don Rumsfeld has done more to defeat international terrorism, than the mistakes Bill Clinton will ever have to make excuses for. To cherry-pick the Secretary's decision now with so little facts, just to get Hillary elected, is bargain basement journalism. Very cheap.