September 05, 2006
Yeah, we can all play Monday morning quarterbacks since 9/11. But the film's scrutiny of the Clinton-Albright-Berger-Reno crew has more to do with highlighting their mindset that terrorists should be treated like criminals rather than combatants - a mindset that, by the way, that is still ingrained in the leadership of the Democrat party five years after the attack. The facts of history are difficult to ignore. Having swept the decks for the Democrats by ending the Cold War, Republican Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush freed up President Clinton and his Administration to deal with other threats to national security.
As Dick Morris likes to point out (and this guy knows first-hand), Clinton had no desire to even acknowledge the threat of terrorism - from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 to the Khobar Towers to the U.S.S. Cole. Why? Because the issue didn't poll well. The fact is, we could have had Bin Laden handed to us on a silver platter. We declined the offer. We could have connected the dots that would have led to the thwarting of the plan that was executed on 9/11 - that is, if the Clinton Justice Department hadn't prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information (remember the "Gorelick memo"?).
Now Democrats - who already have a credibility problem in the area of National Security - are losing it because they're being forced to confront the truth. And, sadly for them, it comes at a time when voters are beginning to pay attention to the coming mid-term elections. Why are they so determined to discredit this mini-series?
Jason Apuzzo at Libertas explains:
Make no mistake about what this film does, among other things: it places the question of the Clinton AdministrationÂ’s culpability for the 9/11 attacks front and center. And Sandy Berger wonÂ’t be able to stuff this film down his pants; the film shows him hanging-up on the CIA and the Northern Alliance right as they were calling him for approval to get bin Laden. Nor will Madeline AlbrightÂ’s faux-European hauteur be sufficient to cover her shame in helping botch a missile strike against bin Laden - something else depicted in the film. As for Clinton, the film makes him look strikingly bafoonish (merely by intercutting actual footage of him), and captures the legalistic, Â‘depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-is-isÂ’/CYA culture that defined his administration.The folks at that blog are among the few who've actually seen "The Path To 9/11". The review by Libertas' Govindini Murty is here.
Who specifically is doing all the moaning and groaning? The usual suspects, of course. And rather than watch the film and try to rebut it with facts, they're screaming for it not to be aired at all.
Funny, I thought Liberals were against censorship. Whatever.
Now, my Lefty friends will all scream about that miniseries about the Reagans that got pulled off the air by CBS back in 2003 because Conservatives squawked about it. Okay, well the difference there is that the writer of that little hatchet-job admitted in the end that almost all of the events and the dialogue that he wrote were pretty much made up (but he was sure that's what they were really like).
This project was based on the results of the 9/11 Commission and is rooted in facts that are on the record (despite Sandy Burglar's attempt to shove the evidence down his socks and pants).
The fact that "The Path To 9/11" evokes such outrage and frenzy among the nutroots indicates how close it hits to the mark. For those who want to be sure, I say watch it and judge for yourself.
Posted by: Skye at September 05, 2006 06:48 PM (MfeOa)
Posted by: wordsmith at September 05, 2006 11:11 PM (nrGCx)
Posted by: Indigo Red at September 05, 2006 11:56 PM (6HsUG)
Posted by: wordsmith at September 06, 2006 12:57 AM (nrGCx)
Posted by: wordsmith at September 07, 2006 12:56 AM (nrGCx)
Posted by: Gary at September 07, 2006 10:24 AM (QoxB+)
114 queries taking 0.1051 seconds, 230 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.