Friday, September 01, 2006
|
|
ABC's "The Path to 9/11"
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
3:10 PM
|
|
Andy McCarthy is hearing that fans of the feckless Clinton Adminstration are unhappy with ABC's "The Path to 9/11" which airs on the nights of September 10th and 11th, and he fears that last minutes editing will be performed to keep the former president happy.
I am skeptical. For one thing, that sort of Soviets-on-top-of-the-Kremlin doctoring of photos, or in this case, films in the can would disgust even left-wing Hollywood.
On a more practical note. I, and I am sure many others, have been sent the entire six hour program to preview and review, which I will be doing over the weekend. Edits post-distribution of the review DVDs would invite scrutiny of the very portions sent down the black hole, underscoring the episodes the censors hoped to hide.
No, I don't think ABC would injure its brand that way, and certainly not when they couldn't get away with it.
Instapundit concurs: "It seems to me that enough people have previewed it already that the consequences for ABC of making changes at this point would be disastrous."
The early reviews are very strong for the docudrama based on the 9/11 Commission report. The friends of Bill may not like the truth, but they have to live with it
|
|
"No wonder the left doesn't want the truth known."
Is this an example of the truth the left doesn't want known?
1996: GOP Blocks Clinton Anti-Terror Provisions
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
|
|
Msyself, I think the Clintonoids are most worried that more Americans will learn about the "wall" between the CIA and FBI imposed by Jamie Gorelick, who---incredibly---was allowed to investigate herself as a member of the 9/11 Commission.
This nonsensical restriction, since removed by the Patriot Act, prevented both agencies from cooperating and sharing information about terrorist plots and plotters in the US. Gorelick instead imposed a policy that essentially strew rose petals in Mohammed Atta's path.
Ordinary Americans paid little attention to the details of the 9/11 commission, and the MSM essentially air-brushed Gorelick's role from their commentary. The upcoming documentary is certain to outrage millions at the Clinton administration's fecklessness.
No wonder the left doesn't want the truth known. |
|
On the surface, it appears that some of the amusing lefties are attempting a Stalinist revision of history with their hysterical assertions about Clinton's rabid effort to 'fight' terrorism during his White House years prior to 9/11.
However, it may well be that the lefties are merely confusing Clinton's exaggerated 'fight' against Islamo-fascist terrorism with any number of instances when the Clinton administration asserted force against OTHER 'dangerous enemies' of the state.
And I'm not talking about Monica, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey.
Certainly, there was the Clinton administration's "illegal" war against Serbia---ironically, that same little nation which ACTUALLY HAD been fighting Islamo-fascists for years.
There was no UN authorization to drop bombs on Serbs because the Democrats assured us it they didn't need UN authorization.
Or maybe the lefties are talking about Clinton's authorization of a strategic bombing of that baby formula factory which the Democrats all went on the talk shows in December '98 to tell us was the factory where Saddam was manufacturing WMD---the same WMD which just a few years later the same Democrats were alleging that the Bush administration was fabricating info about.
Of course, the baby formula lost that particular battle.
Maybe when the lefties recall how Clinton was 'fighting terrorism,' they're talking about how snipers surprised Randy Weaver & his family with bullets, as his wife stood holding a baby on their front porch at Ruby Ridge.
Or maybe they remember how the Clintons put their foot down on little Elian Gonzales at 4 o'clock in the morning on Easter Sunday.
Or maybe the lefties are recalling how everyone was killed in the Waco compound, as a result of the issuing of a warrant for an illegal weapons charge which had 'gone wrong.'
Certainly, domestic terrorists such as the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh were rightfully captured, and we enthusiastically applaud the justice each of those two have received.
The totality of all these various episodes probably elicits the lefties into believing the Clinton administration WAS tough with certain adversaries---however, those adversaries just did not happen to be Islamo-fascists.
The lefties are obviously morally confused, but it does appear that some of them are confused about the actual historical record, as well.
Fortunately, we have the current Democrat leadership to remind us of their present opposition to fighting terrorism during the years of the Bush administration, as well as their reluctance to do during the years of the Clinton administration.
Just ask Joe Lieberman how popular 'fighting Islamo-fascism' makes him in his party today---and ask Ned Lamont how popular HE is for his rhetoric as an appeaser. |
|
|
Tomb-Z--try the tax increase of 1993. It enabled us to balance the budget, but in the process, Democrats lost control of the Congress. Or the bailout of Mexico in 1994. The overwhelming sentiment in America was "let them get out of the mess they created." Had we let them go under, who knows what kind of instability it would have created. Standing up to Serbia entailed all kinds of risks as well. I know you folks like to nurse the conceit that Clinton is feckless and Bush knows what he thinks, but it is a bunch of nonsense. Bush reads the polls and plays politics as much as--more than--Clinton. |
|
|
Enforcement of Title VII - His examples brought the problem to the front page. |
|
I've been trying to come up with a single instance where Clinton took the lead on any important issue of the '90s or intentionally risked his popularity over an issue of policy... and have come up empty.
Anyone able to provide an instance? |
|
|
If anyone would like an inside view of what happened about our military during the Clinton Administration, please read the book "Dereliction of Duty". I know, I know, there are hundreds of books out there, but this book tells the story from the view of Lt.Col. Buzz Patterson, who carried the nuclear football for Clinton for two years. He is (or was)a Democrat at that time. An honorable and capable military man, his tale is chilling and will actually make dedicated military personnel (who read it) physically ill. |
|
JB's fact list notwithstanding, the score will always stand:
Terrorists 6, Bubba 0
Terrorists 0, Bush 1
Iraq is still in play, and we could still lose.
This may be the first time I watch a non-sports related program on ABC since the last Columbo TV movie. |
|
"Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism in the period 1999-2001"
Many friends of Bill (and Bill himself) have been revealed to be liars, the most recently exposed one being Joe Wilson. I do not trust the testimony of anyone associated with BJ Clinton; maybe it's my bout of CDS from which I have yet to fully recover. Therefore, any statements in defense of BJ Clinton by members of his administration are inadmissible. |
|
John,
Comparing Clinton to W up to 9/11 is even more embarassing for your analysis. Clinton had eight years to do something about terrorism, during which time he admitted to having an opportunity to take Sudan's offer of Bin Laden but decided to decline due to misplaced concerns about legalisms. Bush was in office for less than one year, much of which was under a dark cloud from the 2000 election. Prior to 9/11 in 2001, many top executive branch positions had not been filled as a result of an administration that had not used the post-election, pre-inauguration to vet candidates to fill upcoming vacancies in an attempt not to appear presumptuous before the actual Supreme Court ruling came out and the election matter cleared. Comparing eight years of inactivity to the mere handful of W's is, in short, is misleading at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. |
|
|
We should have started to think about what was coming since 1987 when Hezbollah dared to kill almost 400 marines and we "cut and run" |
|
Our Rules of Engagement (ROE) caused the USS Cole to be defeated by a dingy.
In Fallujah a group of Arab Teenagers burned and mutillated the bodies of Americans with impunity
Ditto in Mogadishu
There is a big hole in downtown NYC
The question is; Do we really know how to exploit our enemies vulnerability or; are we just going to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result?
This post-morten is fruitless unless we are willing to change and adapt. |
|
Good set of facts, JB. I disagree with you pretty wholeheartedly, but I admire your efforts to bring this to the discourse. TeacherJoeinLA is correct: as the party of Thought (vs. Emotion) conservatives do not have the same luxury of ignoring facts that liberals do. It is incumbant upon us to face both pretty and ugly truths head-on, and modify our views if necessary.
That said:
1) Why shouldn't 9/11 be the subject of political discussion, or "scoring political points" as you characterise it? Politicians should discuss anything and everything over which they have the power to enact relevant policies. A politician's failure to discuss the causes and consequences or 9/11 would, in the current context, be grossly negligent. The Democrats as a species have consistently failed too advance anything resembling a coherent strategy for national defense against Islamic totalitarianism. They need to be called on that deficiency until they correct it.
2) I find the amounts in your laundry list seem extremely small for a nation of our GNP, notwithstanding the fact that any of these amounts would have a substantial positive impact on my household budget. I respect that the Clinton/Gingrich combination lead to a balanced budget (I suspect that GWB perfected his methods of fiscal restraint during his time as a practicing alcoholic), but I think you can see in these numbers the triumph of belt-tightening over serious terror pursuits. If you replaced the millions with bilions and if Clinton had committed Delta Force to the destruction of OBL instead of lobbing missiles at the sand (why did he have to be impotent in all but the one area he shouldn't have?) I'd be convinced of his sincere commitment to fighting Islamic terrorists.
3) I find Cressy's comments unpersuasive. Is it the job of the Leader of the Free World to sit back and rubber-stamp the recommendations of the blind and timid CIA, or the mission-confused post-Cold-War Pentagon? Did Clinton explictly declare: "My friends: success equals the decapitated head of Osama bin Laden in a file storage box on this table within six months. Failure equals any other outcome. You know your task, now deliver!"? Without knowing, I suspect he did not.
Thanks for helping advance the dialog. |
|
The Clinton Administration, when it came to areas of conflict in any matter would stake out a position and triangulate from it. In every case, that meant showing their support with money and rhetoric. That is how they entered their name onto an issue's discussion ledger. This method also allowed them to change their position as the wind blew. They seldom provided oversight or accountability to how the money was spent, they just "worked hard" to get it directed to the issue. Then, the used their chatter and spin machine.
Time and time again, monies were allocated to state and local officials for a defined purpose, but the grants were often not spent on the defined and targeted purpose(s)... Hence the 100,000 cops, which ended up being 10,000 cops for less than 5 years. That is just the low hanging fruit example.
Sadly, allocating money for programs without ensuring the program are implemented, perfected and continued is the definition of a lack of leadership. Blaming Enron *yeah right).... next thing you know it will be Cheney and Rumsfeld's faults because of their ties in the 1990's.
Understand the federal budget process first. Having been through the Federal budgeting process myself over a dozen times, I can confidently say that most of these amounts are not of issue, nor the targets at which they are directed. All monies (and more) could have been allocated AND administered for these programs using a combination of politics, testimony, case studies, the media and executive orders. The amounts listed above, from a government operational standpoint, are trivial.
Look at the list provided above. Obviously it was not too effective when it comes to 9/11. When 9/11 took place, we were on the last year of the Clinton Budget and policies. Most of the airline security monies was for hardware repairs, maintenane and replacement of obsolete equipment. In that area of technology, it does not take much to burn that kind of money.
No, this list is hardly the basis of a comprehensive homeland security plan. Plans are not check of lists for monies and the Clinton Administration NEVER went to the people to took the media over these issues.
Congress did not better.... Everyone was blind.
How often did we see reports from airports AFTER 9/11 about their malfunctioning equipment and undertrained personnel? Constantly (and to this day in some markets) Again, 9/11, though under the first 8 months of a Bush Adminisrtation was on the last year of the Clinton budget and policy watch.
These analysis are available from left and right think tanks so I will not cut and past... GOOGLE
Several of the activites and processes in place during the Bush Administration used to monitor and root out domestic terrorists as well as overseas monitoring had their roots in the Clinton years as small programs. They did not (or could not) share information, but their tactics did exist.. Hence, allocating budget items to silos does not make us safer. It did not. This was a Clark, Burger, Cohen and Albright problem.
Many on the Clinton team were too timid to conduct attacks overseas. This was not just a Bill issue. If Bill would have been impeached, by the time Gore took control and could work the system, it would have been late 1998. He would have also had to replace key administration and intelligence players to gain support, plan and execute an overseas attack because many in the exisating innner circle. with presidential influence, were against it.
As for Richard Clark, the smartest guy in the room that no one would listen to, (his own definition), one has to smile/cry when he provides analysis today. When the plot to use explosive liguids on airlines was turned over a few weeks ago, Dick was on ABC saying that we knew this was an option and threat in 1996. This administration has yet to take the proper actions to prevent such a method. Richard, if it turned up in 1996, YOU were the one who should of taken the proper actions and had the propert methods in place long before this administration EVER took office.
Scary thought, a Democrat wins the White House in 2008 and Clark, Burger and a collection of CLinton era under-secretaries creep into positions of influence and/or standing. They will spend the first 3 years blaming Bush for any and every attack, though their lack of plans and policies in the 1990's planted and fertilized the problem.
President Clinton alone decided to place his adimistrtion and this country at risk through his own behavior. He made the choices he made regarding his conduct with women throughout his career and the choices eventually played themselves out politically, to the harm of all of us. Private matters or not, politics is politics and the character flaws played themselves out.
ABC - show it all.... Let the American people see the links to the 1990's (Bush I's responsiblity too) |
|
|
Check out Shark Cove on Townhall |
|
|
Even if someone wanted to change it it's to late, All we need is a cameo by Ham, I mean Sandy, Burgler, I mean Burger. |
|
You said: "W - for all his faults - has done a lot more to combat terrorism that Clinton ever did. Saying that Clinton tried harder than W is Orwellian in its breathtaking chutzpah."
Your hyperbole is misplaced: I'm talking about comparing their records up to 9/11.
Obviously it's not fair to Bush to compare his errors post 9/11 with what Clinton would have done. |
|
|
The record is clear that Clinton did *not* try to get OBL over the vociferous complaints of Congress. Bush got warnings half a year into his presidency in a time in which many key government positions were not filled due to the aftermath of the Election 2000 mess. W - for all his faults - has done a lot more to combat terrorism that Clinton ever did. Saying that Clinton tried harder than W is Orwellian in its breathtaking chutzpah. |
|
Clinton got the warnings--he tried and failed.
Bush got the warnings--he was uninterested and failed.
Doesn't look good on either of them. |
|
Great set of facts JB. Quite unlike the usual lefty ranting ... in fact Dave, Michael, and "Put"'s responses are rather embarassing to me ... a center righty.
Question: Does Cressy's '99-01 time period include when Bill had to return from Martha's Vineyard?
If my memory serves me correctly that is after OBL was "served-up" to WJC and he refused in part because he was afraid of "wag the dog" criticism.
Yes JB the media gave NONE of Bill's genuine terrorism work any mind. But the right did not drive the MSM to the gutter. They live there (I used to work in the MSM) and love a good sex scandal regardless of party.
However, I hope at least a level-headed you JB can see why the sex scandal WAS important. IT GOT IN THE WAY OF CLINTON DOING HIS JOB. If he had any character and true love for the country, or his party's ideals he would have resigned once it was clear he'd been caught lying under oath. (Had he Gore might have approved the attack on OBL and won the 2000 election.)
I'll stop rambling, but I'd love to see Hugh respond to your post |
|
|
Gotta love 'em. They swallow it whole when Clinton says things like, "I wish I had a challenge like 9/11" to face. He does this junk all the time. If it had happened on his watch, by golly, he woulda shoulda coulda blah blah blah. He and Gore spent 8 years in office. Why didn't they stop Osama and Global Warming and Child Obesity and Shannon Daugherty? |
|
If the list JB spews were half effective the ACLU, the Howard Dean, Michael Moore AND AL GORE would have been screaming about the constitutional violations the items on his list could have opened up.
Budgeting money means nothing without actions. With boobs like Dickie Clark and Sandy Berger on the team, I'm sure there were lots of junkets, sight seeing trips and a whole bunch of armor plated hummers in the expense side of the ledger.
Clinton and his team played low and slow with terrorism. There were too many people to offend by dealing with it and their testies were in other places. |
|
There is a heated discussion in the blog section of ABC's website for this film. The nuts on the left are howling about a film they haven't even seen yet.
JB's commentary is amusing. He asserts that the MSM colluded with the Republicans to somehow cover up all the good deeds Clinton was doing. Really? What news channel was he watching? Nickelodeon?
JB's rant makes Cliton sound more hawkish than Rumsfeld. I find this rather curious. Why do the liberals love someone who was such a war-monger? |
|
Leaving aside the wretched truth that the far right is once again using September 11 to score political points, the facts regarding the still-lingering effort to blame the Clinton administration for the attacks must be brought to the fore. Nowrasteh, at several points in his miniseries, rolls out a number of oft-debunked allegations that Clinton allowed Osama bin Laden to remain alive and free before the attacks.
Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism in the period 1999-2001, responded to these allegations in an article for the Washington Times in 2003. "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda," wrote Cressy. "As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden. The current administration faces many of the same challenges. Confusing the American people with misinformation and distortions will not generate the support we need to come together as a nation and defeat our terrorist enemies."
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
|
|
If it's historically accurate it won't cast either Clinton or Bush in a favorable light on the matter.
Clinton tried (over the vociferous complaints of Congress) but failed to get OBL.
And if George W did a single thing--anything proactive at all--after receiving the Clintonista's warnings and that alarming PDB in the summer of '01 it's certainly been history's best kept secret. |
|
|
Don't be discouraging ABC from trying to doctor the video. It might be too much to hope for, but it would sure be fun if they tried it. |
|
Unlike so many who seem to have spent the 90's in a daze I remember the first attack on the World Trade Center and its aftermath. I even remember that one of the people said to be involved {Yasin} ended up in Iraq, where he vanished in March 2003.
I remember the attack on the Rangers in Somalia, the attacks on the embassies, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole.
I remember the fatwa Osama issued in the 90's declaring war on the US. I remember Clinton not going after him in Afghanistan or Sudan, but threatening to.
This whole thing did not come about overnight. It did not begin when Bush laid his hand on that bible and took an oath.
I don't think that Clinton really thought something like 9/11 would happen and so he just kind of tried to ignore it with the usual cruise missile attacks. Just like passing the Iraqi Liberation Act and saying it was essential to our security to remove Saddam and then making an attack on Baghdad in 1998. It was all for show, but these guys are and were serious whether Bill was or not. |
|
|
Have we forgotten Rathergate? Katrina coverage? Iraq war coverage? The networks believe that the american public is too stupid to know the difference. If caught, they will scream "siwftboat" and "mcarthyism". And the hollywod left? please, they sell themselves for a living. For the cause they wouldnt mind compromising their principles. Hell, most would see it as a moral imperative to protect the Clintons. |
|
|
but if Gorelick and SandyPants and the whole Our Gang crew are actually frightened enough of it to try to dust off their old tricks when their powder has grown so soggy, well, that is like wrapping the whole thing in Christmas paper. Gotta see what's in there now. |
|
|
|