September 14, 2006
This part picks up just after the break-up of the Millenial terror plot that was to have taken place on December 31,1999. The first major event is the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000. The Clinton Administration is winding down in its last few months in office and the President is focused on Middle East peace talks rather than retaliation - even though the opportunity is there.
Again, Richard Clarke continues to be portrayed as a frustrated advocate for going after Bin Laden and his network but no one wants to listen to him. We, the audience, share in his frustrations. Clarke continues to serve in the Bush Administration, which is by no means given a pass by this film. Clarke's focus is redirected away from counter-terrorism in a "restructuring" of the NSA. It took almost eight months in office before National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is prepared to present a plan for dealing with Bin Laden. Of course, by then it was too little, too late.
Clinton apologists have no reason to complain that their guy was treated shabbily to the benefit of his successor. They will anyway.
This stage of the story emphasizes the "wall" that barred information sharing between the FBI and CIA, as illustrated by a CIA operative's meeting with Agent John O'Neill. The CIA has pictures of suspects of the Cole bombing that may be in the U.S. However, he won't share the identities of these men nor will he let O'Neill's staff keep the pictures.
Political correctness ruled the day. And if there is one perfect example of idiocy that the 9/11 commission uncovered in its findings, it is this ridiculous impediment to communication that most contributed to our inability to prevent the attacks. This policy, immortalized by the infamous "Gorelick Memo", has since been discarded. Thank God for that.
The film ends with a re-enactment of the events of that morning as many of the players, upon hearing the news, know immediately that it must have been the work of Bin Laden.
Actually, the fact that Democrats raised such a fuss over "The Path To 9/11" probably resulted in the mini-series registering such high ratings. As I stated in my previous post on part one, the importance of this presentation was its focus on the mindset this country had on September 10th and how we can never allow ourselves to return to that mindset.
This is THE issue of our time: the protection of America from further attacks and the destruction of those forces who would launch and support those attacks, wherever they may be. This is a war and it's being fought all over the world, on many different fronts. Even the enemy acknowledges this. I encourage Democrats to pull their heads out of their sphincters and get with the program. There's no use in whining about a film that they think makes them look bad. They're doing a good enough job of that all on their own.
September 13, 2006
I watched part one last night. Sunday was reserved for watching the Giants blow their first game to the Colts and Monday was my wedding anniversary, so I'm just now getting to it.
First point: The film is well made. The pacing is not too slow or too fast. The editing and cinematography keep you riveted. The use of hand-held cameras gives it an air of authenticity.
Second point: The portrayal of Richard Clarke is very positive (so far). He's actually one of the few higher up White House types that take this threat seriously. Why is Clarke so upset about this film? Doesn't make sense. Maybe he objects to being played by Milton, the red stapler guy from Office Space?
Third point: No, Sandy Burglar and Maddy Albright are not presented in a favorable light but neither is George Tenet or anyone else at a level of significant responsibility. Their words and actions (or lack thereof) are not so much indicative of individual character flaws as they are of a particular mindset that our government had at the time.
The film is more of an examination of what happens when you treat counter-terrorism as a "Law and Order" episode. We did this from Nixon to Bush 43, until 9/11/01. At that point, the current President and his cabinet realized that this is really a war - one like we've never fought before - that requires treating it like one.
It also provides a better understanding of the vastness of the terror network and how hard so many people have worked to track it down. The people in the CIA, FBI and other agencies who get their hands dirty understood the threat. It's the politicians and the bureaucrats who didn't. The agents didn't fail us, their bosses did. I'm amazed at what they were able to accomplish even in that restrictive environment.
If we give these folks the tools that they need and support what they do, we will defeat the terrorists almost every time. As Harvey Keitel's John O'Neill says "Nobody bats 1.000." But we need to recognize what we're dealing with and accept what we need to do to fight it.
If our government holds true to a "post-9/11" perspective we have a chance. To go back to a "pre-9/11" mentality would be suicide. And the problem with Democrats is that they desperately cling to a "pre-9/11" mentality. They prefer treating terrorists as criminals with Constitutional rights. They'd rather have court victories than military victories. They think negotiation is a viable tool in dealing with these animals. We can never go back to that old mindset.
And this reason above all others - the reminder that this approach is what doomed us to failure - is why Democrats should be most worried about this film, not the affect it will have on individual legacies and reputations.
Only by accepting responsibility and demonstrating that lessons have been learned can Democrats ever hope to convince the American people that they can be trusted with their safety. By demanding that "The Path To 9/11" be pulled in an attempt to cover-up their shortcomings, they have done more damage to their credibility than any movie ever could.
September 12, 2006
September 08, 2006
If they succeed, Liberals everywhere will chalk it up as a political victory. What will be totally lost on them however is the political damage they are inflicting on themselves by allowing voters to see just how petty, thuggish and hypocritical they really are.
I don't know about you but I feel a "chill wind" on the back of my neck when I look at these guys.
Sanctuary blog has a graphic that says it all.
September 07, 2006
Part One is here. Click the link that says "The Resistance: Part One" in the archives. After it runs, it will automatically advance to Part Two, which premiered today.
Very reminiscent of Nazi-occupied Europe during WWII. Cool stuff!
September 01, 2006
The hotly anticipated third season of Battlestar Galactica will premiere on Friday, October 6, SCI FI Channel has announced.
According to previous reports, the new season will kick off with a 2-hour episode, made up of two formerly stand-alone episodes: "Occupation" and "Precipice."
The story picks up several months after the conclusion of Season Two, revealing that the Cylons have occupied the rough Colonial settlement on New Caprica. While some live with and even cooperate with the Cylons, others have started an insurgency against them.
Meanwhile, having fled the planet when the Cylons arrived, the Battlestars Galactica and Pegasus plan to return and rescue the last remnants of their civilization.
As Wordsmith so aptly pointed out, no BSG Friday posting would be complete without an obligatory Lee Adama picture.
122 queries taking 0.0965 seconds, 249 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.