|
|
September 7, 2006The Path to 9/11 - obfuscation strewn?One of the things we all used to say about President Clinton was that he never learned that the cover-up was always worse than the scandal. Had he come out straight on Monica Lewinsky and said, “yes, I did it, it’s between me and my wife and it’s none of your business,” the whole story would have disappeared quickly. Same with about ten other scandals surrounding him or his administration. When it comes to this film, The Path to 9/11, it seems to me Clinton and his pals would be wiser to simply let the thing play, than to do the freak. People will watch the movie, shrug and say, “well, that’s pretty much what we always thought,” and they’d forget about it the next day. By panicking and demanding revisions to the film, and by sending out his usual minions to talk the thing down, Clinton is just making the whole thing a much bigger story. He is creating red headlines on Drudge and turning this film into a national incident. A stupid move. For such a smart man he’s never understood Gertrude’s economy of language in Hamlet when she said, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.” He also never seems to understand that it’s not all about him, all the time. Reader Sean emails: I think we should thank the left for bringing this docu-drama so much attention. If it wasn’t for them I wouldn’t have known it was going to be on since I don’t watch the main stream channels. We should congratulate them on their fine advertising campaign to get this docu-drama the attention it deserves. So, why are the Clintons freaking out about this movie? Did not Bill Clinton himself say that he regretted not taking Osama bin Laden when he could have? Well, yes, he did, according to Al Kamen in the WaPo:
So, here’s how it works: Bush has been known to brag that he doesn’t read the newspapers. But Clinton does and, worse yet, actually believes what he reads! Oh, wait, that’s not the same “Osama opportunity,” as the one they’re discussing in the Path to 9/11, right? Sorry, my bad. The scenario dramatized in The Path to 9/11 sounds more like the one written about by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson in his 2004 Book Dereliction of Duty; The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America’s Long-Term National Security, in which he charges “Clinton was soft on terrorism and missed a chance to get bin Laden with cruise missiles.” (Quote from Publisher’s Weekly review at Amazon). If I remember that story, per Patterson, Berger had operatives on the phone, ready to take out Osama and Clinton, watching a golf game, would not engage and make the decision. It sounds to me like The Path to 9/11 has created a composite that is representative of the spirit that story but can do no more since it has not - to my knowledge, anyway - ever been verified. Now, the Clintonistas are huffing and puffing that these sorts of stories should not be dramatized because people like Sandy Berger - a bastion of truthfulness - say they are “not accurate.” And the press is - of course - giving them lots of room. You know, the press…which just spent three years promulgating the “not accurate” story of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson (and toward whom David Broder shakes a finger of admonishment for their dreadful role in that story.) Funny - when the “what if Bush were assassinated” film was all the news (last week!) I recall reading lefty bloggers who were kvelling about “free speech” and “artistic license” and deriding folks on the right (it’s just a dramatization!) for their lack of sophistication, and their “intolerance” for not appreciating the premise. I have a question…if the Clintonistas arenow going to carry on now about how Bill Clinton was fighting terrorism “every day” and was concerned about it “every day” how come he talked about terrorism so infrequently while he was president? Yes, he “mentioned” terrorism in his State of the Union addresses, but beyond that? No, terrorism wasn’t a subject he liked. From the the 1993 attack on the WTC, (a site he never visited), to the 2000 attack on the USS COLE (an attack he never answered), terrorism seemed to make Clinton uncomfortable and he tried very hard to change the subject. The only terrorist attack he ever seemed to get mad about was the Oklahoma City tragedy…and even then, he used it to make political hay. Even now, terrorism is barely a blip on his radar. He has lately declared that “Global warming is the biggest challenge we face.” During his Clinton Global Initiative he identified four issues of grave and immediate concerns for the world - poverty, religious differences, governance in developing countries and global warming. Notice the world terrorism ain’t there. His final policy paper on national security, submitted to Congress, never mentioned Al Qaeda. In December of 2001, National Review’s Byron York took a look at terrorism throughout Clinton’s time in office and declared that on this issue Clinton has no clothes Dr. Sanity says: “…to be perfectly honest, I don’t think that Hollywood offers any special insight into reality; objectivity; or that people from that neck of the woods have much sense to begin with. Hence I factor that into my assessment of whatever I happen to be watching.” HALLELUIAH, EXACTOMUNDO! DING, DING, DING, she gets the prize. That’s EXACTLY right. The majority of people take everything they see from Hollywood with a grain of salt - people can and do think for themselves. Only a Clinton-type would think the public incapable of doing so, and thus try to ensure some control over what they may think. Pat Santy is brilliant! Mac’s Mind links to a letter to ABC written by a few Democrats demanding accuracy in the film. I have no memory of them demanding accuracy of Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11. Then again, I have no memory of anyone trying to shut that film down, either. Instapundit remarks succinctly that all of this carrying-on by the Clintons simply makes them look like they have something to hide. Seriously. Imagine if Bush freaked out everytime someone printed something that didn’t make him look sterling, or you know, suggested, President Bush should be killed. Come to think of it, I don’t think the Bushies made half the stink over a film dramatizing Bush’s assassination that these Clintonistas are making. Hmmmmm. Alexandra suggests that the left claims indoctrination as a right and points to some very unedifying spin and intimidation/suppression tactics from the left over all of this. I think the left has been very comfortable with believing it owned all media for a long time. Blue Crab Boulevard is rather amazed at the rancor of Sandy “Pants” Berger. Ed Driscoll writes, astutely:Imagine the howls from the left–not to mention the laughter on the other end of the phone line–if Karl Rove called up the president of ABC and asked him to censor a television show critical of the Bush administration. Exactly right. Ed also wonders: …considering whom the chairman of ABC’s parent company is, it should be very interesting to watch how much of their way [the Clintonistas] get. Kobayashi Maru calls the Clinton move “imperial” and tells Clinton to grow up. Conservative Yankee calls it the muzzling of free speech. And you have to admit, if the Bushies had made a fuss over the snuff film, they’d be accused of it, too. Michelle Malkin notes that the usual minions are rousing the usual crowds into helping the Clintonian obfuscation of The Path to 9/11. They’re going to Google Bomb the topic. Siggy says this entire episode can only have happened in a dumbed down America Harold at Called as Seen writes: I find it very telling when someone doesn’t like a message… and then threatens the messenger. And make no mistake about it, this letter is a threat. Congresswoman Slaughter’s decision to have a part of this letter is doubly hypocritical…Slaughter was a major supporter of the “Hush Rush” Act back in the 1990s. I guess her idea of meaningful discourse doesn’t include anything to the right of the CBS Evening News or the New York Times. More here: http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/09/07/the-path-to-911-obfuscation-strewn/trackback/ 7 Responses to “The Path to 9/11 - obfuscation strewn?” |
September 7th, 2006 at 11:25 am
[...] So is The Anchoress. Filed in: 9/11/2001 by newton at 12:18 on Sep 7th, 2006 | No Comments » [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
“Bride at Every Wedding, Corpse at Every Funeral”
Anchoress zeros in on Bill Clinton and his supporters as they frantically try to get ABC to pull or re-edit its Path to 9/11 for “grossly misrepresenting his pursuit of Osama bin Laden.” “By panicking and demanding revisions to the…
September 7th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Neville Chamberlain Demands 1930s Miniseries Be Rewritten
Imagine the howls from the left–not to mention the laughter on the other end of the phone line–if Karl Rove called up the president of ABC and asked him to censor a television show critical of the Bush administration. But…
September 7th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
“The Path To 9/11″ is taken straight from the 9/11 Commission Report. Keep this in mind when you’re trying to reconcile what you see with what was reported after the report came out. The fact that ABC has ALREADY changed the program somewhat is a MAJOR blow to their credibility. The fact that what you should see won’t jibe with was was reported in already etched in their tombstone. Keep these things in mind when you hear the media say that the Dems are poised for unprecedented election victories in November. That’s what they were saying in 2004. And 2002, and during the Clinton years for the House and Senate. Why do they say this? To get you to stay home and not vote. Then it will come true. The Anchoress mentioned the ongoing campaign since 2002. Do you remember when it started? The Dems launched their “Talk Down The Economy” campaign(formulated in invitation-only meetings, attended by representatives of the Media as participants, not reporters, in Nov. and Dec of 2001-when the rest of the Nation was planning out response to 9/11). They stated that they would gain 6 seats in the House and I forget how many seats in the Senate for every 100-point drop in the Dow. Also recall that the Dow HAD recovered from its post-9/11 lows and we had a strong Christmas season before the campaign began. Also recall how much money YOU lost when the market declined. And recall how reporters never asked Dems to justify this campaign or whether they(the Dems) sold out their portfolios before they launched the attack on the American economy. Now recall that all the Dems were saying that we can’t invade Iraq because George Bush WON”T do what is necessary and commit US troops to Iraq for maybe the decade necessary to insure security in the region.(see Charlie Rose tapes and transcripts). That would make Iraq MORE dangerous that it was under Saddam. Now vote in November. Tell the Democrats YOU remember.
September 7th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
[...] Clintons successfully pressure for their edit Couric’s Notebook goes classical liberal Media Events overtake News Gosh, and Mike Wallace loved this guy! 5 Easy Rules and a quick “look” I have a HOME button! The Opera at your Multiplex! Ahmadinejad needs a Giuliani to face The Path to 9/11 - obfuscation strewn? 2006: A choice between control freaks? Can the Dems get serious, soon? Clintonistas clueless, here - UPDATED Couric and Company - Reviewing the Blog Sanity, insanity, distortions and questions First reviews of Couric Faith and Reason and Forced Conversions It is never easy to lose a parent What are you doing on 9/11/06? The Launch of the CBS Couric Tutto Mozart document.write(”); if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf(”Mozilla/2.”) >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf(”WebTV”)>= 0) { document.write(”); document.write(”); } By Category All those vaginas! (3) America (381) Baseball (34) Benedict XVI (57) Benedictine (12) Blogs and Blogging (349) Bookchat (97) Bride at every wedding, corpse at every funeral (31) Bush Bad? (100) Bush Good (143) Buster (73) Catholicism (208) Culture of Life/Death (88) Culture of Treason? (15) Dialogue re Islam (2) Don’t try me too high (24) Dumb Democrat moves (120) Dumb GOP moves (65) Education (39) Election 2004 (9) Election 2006 (11) Election 2008 (17) Euthanasia (3) Faith (213) Feminism (59) Here and Queer (4) Hoo-Ha (10) Illegal Immigration (12) Islamification/Islamofascism (40) It’s all about me! Me! ME! (192) John Paul II (57) Katrina/Rita (90) Litigious Society (4) Mary (4) Medical (27) My brother S (27) My Irish Aunties (4) Our Hillary! (62) Parenting (58) Prayer (7) Questions about Catholicism (6) rants (42) Recipes (6) Serving up hot links (89) Social Security (3) Socialism doesn’t work (35) Terri Schiavo (50) The 9/11 Commission (4) THE ANCHORESS BOOKSHELF (16) The Fourth Estate (445) The Perpetual Adolescents (29) Touch of evil (39) TV/Pop Culture/Music (80) Uncategorized (219) US Military (100) War on Terror (228) War, What it good for? (76) Why can’t weeee be friends (265) document.write(”); if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf(”Mozilla/2.”) >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf(”WebTV”)>= 0) { document.write(”); document.write(”); } Blogroll Meta [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Random Musings
Don’t you get the feeling that quite a few folks wish that the Clinton Administration attacked the terrorists with such vigor as he and others on the Left are attacking ABC for the upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, which appears to portray the Cl…
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 am
Alas Fair Anchoress, Fair Is Foul, And Foul Is Fair:
Set the Wayback Machine for 1991, on a warm afternoon at San Jose State University, Bill Clinton, running against George H.W. Bush and H. Ross Perot, tells California educators the “Peace Dividend,” should be used to beat swords into plowshares.
In order to plunder the “dividend,” Bill Clinton sets up a college. In 1993 Clinton appoints Congressman Leon Panetta, OMB Director and Panetta puts Fort Ord on the block. At Panetta’s behest, Congress passes the Pryor Amendment. That is, Fort Ord without use restrictions; the amendment also appropriates money for legal defenses. Les Aspen, slated to head the campus, passes away unexpectedly. Clinton appoints Panetta chief of staff in 1994. And, The Presidential Search Committee picks Vermont’s Peter P. Smith. Currently, former Arkansas Governor David H. Pryor (D) serves as Dean of the Clinton School of Public Service, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Ushered through the California Legislature, as a San Jose State, Salinas, extension campus (with help from newly appointed CSU Chancellor Barry Munoz), the politicos co-opt the proposed extension on Fort Ord, and christen it their own personal residential campus, CSU Monterey Bay. Bill Clinton dedicates CSU-MB, Labor Day 1995. Leon Panetta also knows the Clintons “20-year plan.” First order of business: help train Middle Eastern flight-students.
November 2001, Bill Clinton speaking at Georgetown University says, “Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent.” “This country once looked the other way when a significant number of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed.” Clinton went back centuries to regale Georgetown students with Crusader atrocities against Moslems, “we are still paying for it.”
At CSU-MB’s dedication, when Bill Clinton called the nonprofit sector “a political gold mine,” few knew the politicos had already purchased several large tracts of military housing from the DOD, for $1-dollar. That, nonprofits use “foundations” to funnel profits wherever they desire. Nothing is greedier than a California landlord; Fort Ord’s new owners were no exception. They ruthlessly misrepresent the campus and pocket untold millions of dollars in student rents. As the years progress, the politicos employ every education scam imaginable.
Bill Clinton concluded his Georgetown speech, by saying that the issue revolves around “the nature of truth.” Maybe so, but that’s a straw man: an argument set up to be defeated. As early as 1993, the Clintons began siphoning off the so called “Peace Dividend” to elect Hillary Clinton president, and create the paradigm best suited to return Bill Clinton to the White House, a wartime co-president. Truth is, nobody games the system like the Clintons: http://theseedsof9-11.com