Clinton Slept While Al-Qaeda Plotted…Part 2996
I’m with The Ace at Polipundit on this….. I hope 150 million people watch this ABC docudrama/miniseries, “The Path to 9/11.”
The writing, acting, directing, editing, cinematography, and overall story-telling are first-rate. “The Path to 9/11″ is fast-paced and thoroughly gripping the entire way. The five-hour miniseries (aired over two nights) is based on the 9/11 Commission report, and also on ABC News correspondent John Miller’s book, “The Cell.” ABC is going to air the first three hours on Sunday, September 10, and the final two hours (which culminate in a shattering depiction of 9/11) on Monday, September 11.
It will also show, as the 9/11 Commission Report showed, that the Path to 9/11 weaved throughout the PC-conscious Clinton presidency. Fresh from seeing an advanced screening of the miniseries, Giovundi Murty at Human Events Online says…..
This is the first Hollywood production I’ve seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in “The Path to 9/11″ shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They’re on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they’ll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line – and not his.
The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000. The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility and incompetence.
I wonder if this incident is at all related to Sandy “Stickyfingers” Berger’s stealing of classified documents from the National Archives?
And there’s this from writer/producer of the miniseries Cyrus Nowrasteh…
It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the ’90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks – but lacked the will to do so. We also reveal the day-by-day lead-up of clues and opportunities in 2001 right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson. I think people will be engaged and enlightened.
The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response — or lack of response — to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.
Unfortunately, the American media has not presented the true facts behind the “Path to 9/11″ and they succeeded in spinning the 9/11 Commission Report as an attack against the Bush Administration.
Perhaps we are all fortunate that most Americans “waited for the movie” on this one and will tune into what sounds like an excellent miniseries.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
79 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.
Hey, who cares about dead sailors when you’re busily pimping pardons for presidential library donations. Am I right?
And before any of the Clintonista apologists bring it up, the Y2K bomber plot was not foiled by the Clinton administration. That was the work of one alert border guard who used (horrors!) profiling to detain a middle eastern guy she sensed was up to no good.
Comment by V the K — August 30, 2006 @ 8:05 am - August 30, 2006
Off Topic – but slightly related -
Bruce or Dan, when can we have some red meat from you on the recent utter collapse of Plamegate?
Lots of good articles out there to stimulate thoughts.
Comment by Calarato — August 30, 2006 @ 10:58 am - August 30, 2006
VdaK asks: “Am I right? ”
Unfortunately for America, the answer is Yes.
Bruce, I had no idea that Sandy Berger did what is alleged in the documentary. I don’t doubt it; it boggles the mind and ought to warn those who would put people like that BACK in power as leaders of the US.
That man is a traitor. He should be pistol whipped by all those 9-11 widows; one at a time.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 30, 2006 @ 11:04 am - August 30, 2006
What!? You mean Bubba’s Black Ninjas didn’t rappel down from helicopters and capture Bin Laden?
Comment by Tom — August 30, 2006 @ 11:05 am - August 30, 2006
#2: If Bruce or Dan do, it would be a public service if someone would go back and review some of the choice comments from our left-wing trolls on the subject, now that the truth is out.
#3: One of the prime movers of the mainstream media is the desire to make heroes out of those who would destroy America, and villains out of those who would save her.
Comment by V the K — August 30, 2006 @ 11:40 am - August 30, 2006
Re the Cole bombing: This was a mistake on Clinton’s part. He should have gone all out to get bin Laden even though al Qaeda’s role was not clear until around mid November after the 2000 election http://tinyurl.com/d6w7h. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration mistakenly assumed that the incoming President – still undecided at that time – would determine the time, place, and nature of the response. While that was probably a fair assumtion had Gore eventually prevailed, it turned out to be a fatally flawed one with respect to President Petomane who decided to give bin Laden and al Qaeda pretty much a pass on the Cole attack. Indeed, the new Administration seemed to put the whole al Qaeda terrorism issue on the backburner right 9/10/01. Rather than increase FBI anti-terrorism funding (http://tinyurl.com/3xvws), Bush and Ashcroft apparently determined that FBI funds were better spent chasing down NOLA hookers http://tinyurl.com/zg6dm .
As much as the GOP would like to shift the blame to Clinton, ultimately, 9/11 occurred on Bush’ watch after months of apparently little interest shown by Bush in confronting al Qaeda and terrorism. Almost five years after he PROMISED to get bin Laden “dead or alive” he has failed in that pledge.
Comment by Ian — August 30, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - August 30, 2006
Errr.. Aren’t the makers of this movie also “the American media”? It is even based in part on an ABC news correspondents book?
Whoops. Sorry, Yes, I know, we can’t have any apreciation of complexity or subtly in dealing the world here at this blog. BLACK AND WHITES ONLY. NO GREYS ALLOWED.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — August 30, 2006 @ 12:07 pm - August 30, 2006
#7) The MSM is still liberally biased, but I think they have made progress now that they know people are onto them. There are pressures on them now to be more objective and they know they can’t say whatever B.S. they want without someone calling them on it.
Comment by Dalebert — August 30, 2006 @ 12:17 pm - August 30, 2006
“I know, we can’t have any apreciation of complexity or subtly in dealing the world here…”
One of the cliche sarco-criticisms of… well… of dumb people.
Declaiming it makes the dumb person feel smarter. (Than Bruce, the President of the United States or whoever.)
Kerry is a great example: note that, if you go by a real-world measure like their respective Yale grade point averages, Kerry is dumber than Bush, however glibly articulate he is on the surface.
Comment by Calarato — August 30, 2006 @ 12:25 pm - August 30, 2006
(p.s. but, in the view of Kerry’s dumb supporters, and the man himself, no, it’s that the rest of us just “don’t get the nuance and grays and complexity”…. That’s where I was headed on that one)
Comment by Calarato — August 30, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - August 30, 2006
Bush definately makes some great speech bloopers. I’ve read that Gore’s bloopers put Bush’s to shame but they don’t get the level of coverage. I don’t recall them now. I can check when I get home and post some if I remember. Anyway, I read some of Gore’s and I was thinking “How can this not have been EVERYWHERE on the news?” It was hilarious stuph.
Comment by Dalebert — August 30, 2006 @ 1:49 pm - August 30, 2006
Speaking of Bush and Gore, here’s another look at them. You guys gotta check this out. It’s awesome.
http://www.worth1000.com/cache/gallery/contestcache.asp?contest_id=11680&display=photoshop
Comment by Dalebert — August 30, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - August 30, 2006
Patrick writes at # 7: “Errr.. Aren’t the makers of this movie also “the American media”? It is even based in part on an ABC news correspondents book?”
Bzzzzzzzzzzt. That’s the wrong answer buzzer going off once more for the fast-from-the-hip-and-lip Patrick.
Patrick, even you have to stop the silliness at some point. ABCNews is so inept at even telling the story correctly that they had to go outside their own expansive network of known liberal and biased media types to find Cyrus Nowrasteh –learn about him and the effort to bring this story to the TV sreen here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865
The truth is that former NJ Governor (maybe the last NJ governor who wasn’t corrupt) Kean pressed ABC to make this movie. He was the impetus for ABC going forward with it and it took him 3 years to convince the liberally biased media executives there to go forward with it… his trade off? He has to do PR for it.
Patrick, you really do need to stop shooting from the hip and lips. It makes you even more of a tool than normal.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 30, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - August 30, 2006
OT but this is good news from here in Arizona:
“The poll also found a majority of voters indicate that they will vote against a constitutional amendment that would ban same sex marriages and deny governmental entities from providing benefits to unmarried domestic partners. Thirty-eight percent support the amendment, 51 percent oppose it and 11 percent are undecided.”
http://tinyurl.com/n6zuu
Comment by Ian — August 30, 2006 @ 1:55 pm - August 30, 2006
raj/Ian/blah the sockpuppets: No one here is trying to shift any blame for anything to the Democrats… they haven’t done anything of substance in the last 20 years to make that attempt at a shift credible.
The simple point is, Slick Willy and Sandy-stuff-your-pants-Berger had the best opportunity in 15 years to take out Osama.
They slept at the wheel —it was every bit as bad as when TeddyK or PatrickK go to sleep at the wheel… people die and the Democrat scumbags skate away without meaningful retribution.
I think Americans ought to hunt SandyBerger down, along with Slick Willy, and shout them down at public events. Call them traitors; call them what they are –negligent socio-paths.
The problem isn’t with seeing black and white, as you claim Patrick.
The problem is your people and heroes see Yellow -the cowards.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 30, 2006 @ 2:01 pm - August 30, 2006
I’ve read that Gore’s bloopers put Bush’s to shame but they don’t get the level of coverage. I don’t recall them now. I can check when I get home and post some if I remember.
There was the time Gore was taking a tour of, I think it was Monticello or Mt Vernon, and there were several busts of the Founding Fathers present, and Gore asked “Who are those guys?”
Then, there was the campaign stop in New Mexico, where Gore was telling hispanic supporters “Machismo Gracias,” translates as “Manliness, Thanks.”
Just remember, Gore flunked out of both law and divinity school.
Comment by V the K — August 30, 2006 @ 2:27 pm - August 30, 2006
#12 – Dale, that’s great. “Marlene Churchill” was my fave. Strange obsession with putting Rumsfeld and Tony Blair in drag!
#15 – first line – You’re right. No one has to SHIFT blame for security problems to the Democrats. They already own it – from 35 years of opposition to American security, whether as Congressional majority, Presidential candidates, 2 Presidents, or (today) judges, countless media mavens, and Congressional minority.
Comment by Calarato — August 30, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - August 30, 2006
#16 – Meanwhile, Bush graduated Harvard Business School – in an era when Bushes weren’t famous yet, and HBS was famous for expelling the no-good scions of the wealthy.
Another fact lefties try to ignore.
Comment by Calarato — August 30, 2006 @ 2:35 pm - August 30, 2006
#18:
“Another fact lefties
try to ignoreblatantly distort because they can’t deal with reality.”Comment by V the K — August 30, 2006 @ 2:52 pm - August 30, 2006
Neverthelss, the makes and broadcasters of the docu-drama are still members of the media elite Bruce says he despises. The mere fact that they exist is proof that the “Liberal Media Elite” whom are so often called traitors and liars by this blog and others simply isn’t as monolithic as portrayed.
I will also point to two recent excellent films about 9/11, “Flight 93″ and “World Trade Center”, the latter directed by Oliver Stone of all people.
For that matter, GPW, as a screenwriter, (although maybe I’m mixing him up with Eric in Hollywood) is also a part of the “media elite” so contantly disparaged here.
Bruce’s statements simply don’t mean anything, or they mean as little as other bogeyman catch-phrases such as “The Homosexual Agenda”.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — August 30, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - August 30, 2006
#5 – V, I spent just a few minutes with a search. I didn’t locate the choicest comments from GP’s lefties on Plamegate – remember, I skipped most of them at the time, so I’m not sure what words would help pull them up – but I did find GPW, Christopher Hitchens, me and others being dead right about Plamegate in mid-July.
Or GPW being right about Plamegate in early April. (Another sweet comment thread… Fun whacking the trolls!)
And the search engine gave brief excerpts on – but I didn’t pursue – a couple entries from that obscure GawCowboyBob/ChandlerInHollywood mutual hand-job blog, where they were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG about Plamegate. LOL
I’m wondering what others had said about Plamegate, but I don’t care to check.
Not to gloat further – but it is amazing that certain people could be so wrong and (as a group) waste the nation’s time so colossally, as they spread poison
Comment by Calarato — August 30, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - August 30, 2006
“Bruce’s statements simply don’t mean anything, or they mean as little as other bogeyman catch-phrases such as “The Homosexual Agenda”.”
And yet Gryph compulsively gives Bruce his full attention, again and again and again and again.
Odd that, eh?
Comment by Calarato — August 30, 2006 @ 3:37 pm - August 30, 2006
Thats Entertainment!
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — August 30, 2006 @ 4:11 pm - August 30, 2006
I’ll let you in on a little secret. Gay guys much like straight women are very attracted to conservative men though they’d not want to admit it. I think it’s that vague realization on a subconcious level that we’re the REAL men. It’s made all the more sexy by the fact that it feels so naughty because they think we’re evil, but that’s only because they associate strength with evil. The underdog is always right to liberals.
Admit it, guys!
Comment by Dalebert — August 30, 2006 @ 4:30 pm - August 30, 2006
Dale, I agree and then some. In the 12-15 years I ran with gay liberals exclusively, I found them basically what Ayn Rand called a “second handers”, i.e. always looking to others for cues or to “the community” for validation and their sense of worth. Anyone who seems like they couldn’t care less about all that, scares them and attracts them at the same time.
Of course, their sense of taste (or morality) is not very good, and they are as likely to be fascinated by a gay-hating and otherwise evil dictator (Mao, Castro, Saddam) as by truly independent types. LOL
“The underdog is always right to liberals”… But that’s a trickier concept. The truly independent types, in all economic classes and walks of life, are the real underdogs today. Liberals should favor them. But they don’t. Maybe they favor their personal notion (disconnected from reality) of the “underdog”.
Comment by Calarato — August 30, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - August 30, 2006
Or look at the Middle East situation. Israel only has 6 million people. They stand for democracy, making a desert bloom, women’s rights and gay rights. Exactly because of those things, their very existence is hated by hundreds of millions of backward Muslim (yes, I said it) enemies who surround them. They’re the underdog. Are they favored by today’s left-liberals? Hell no.
Sorry Bruce for going so far off topic – We’re having fun. Hell, I haven’t hit the tip jar in a very long time – when my next job comes through, I will.
Comment by Calarato — August 30, 2006 @ 5:52 pm - August 30, 2006
Well, maybe “underdog” is the wrong term. They favor the weak, even if the weak are wrong. Israel is strong. America is strong. Conservatives are strong of will, choosing the correct answer even if it’s not the easy one. Meanwhile, liberals are always looking for the most expedient solution to problems. Unwanted pregnancy? Abort it. Someone else has more than you? Vote to have the wealth redistributed. Don’t have health care? Vote to get some and have others pay for it. Someone doing something evil? As long as it’s not bothering you RIGHT THIS SECOND, look the other way and hope it passes, or worse, appease them.
The end justifies the means. Liberals want to do whatever floats their boat and will then do whatever logical contortions and acrobatics are necessary to justify the expedient decision as the correct one. Someone comes along with morals and a sense of right and wrong– it makes them look and feel badly, but deep down, they admire that person and that’s what REALLY digs at their soul.
Comment by Dalebert — August 30, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - August 30, 2006
Oh, went off track. My point is, Israel makes the muslims surrounding them look pretty bad by comparison. Israel is morally superior by far, and they’re also strong and have done great things. Misery loves company. Rather than better themselves, liberals would rather drag others down. Much better to blame your problems on someone else, someone stronger who must be “oppressing” you to put you where you are. It’s not your own bad decisions that are to blame. That makes it feel so much better. That’s what I mean by them always favoring the underdog.
Comment by Dalebert — August 30, 2006 @ 6:19 pm - August 30, 2006
I’m not a liberal.
And I don’t think that conservatives are necessarily attractive as potential husbands. I’ve had some relationships along those lines. What I found was that they usually also carried a whole bunch of socially conservative baggage about relationships and gender roles.
Or in short, they wanted me to be their “wife”, not their partner. That didn’t go over too well. And when it comes time for household chores you can tell that a protest of “But that’s womens work!” is always on their minds. I remember my then-boyfriend looking at me with genuine puzzlement when I told him it was his turn to clean the bathroom. Pfft! I’m nobody’s biatch.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — August 30, 2006 @ 8:41 pm - August 30, 2006
it was the republicans who wouldn’t support clinton with the bombing of of the sudanese chemical plant following the east african embassy bombings. orrin hatch opened his mouth and out came the true nature of the gop…”this is clinton’s war…”
lest we forget, it was GEORGE BUSH sitting in that fla schoolroom with the deer-in-the-lights lost look as the planes slammed into the twin towers. had he bothered to do something, anything, on 8/6/01 when his daily presidential briefing outlined it all: “Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US.” It’s this GOP administration which was in charge and it’s this GOP administration that has failed to find OBL five years after the fact.
sorry, you can try to place the blame on bill clinton, but face facts, it was george w. bush and his major errors which emboldened the enemy and we’re seeing further evidence of how disastrous his policies are.
$1.5 billion a week to pay for the iraq war? bush is a criminal. he needs to be indicted, charged and tried.
Comment by rightiswrong — August 30, 2006 @ 8:50 pm - August 30, 2006
#30 interesting….We on the right are waiting for the leftists to get something correct. No Plamegate, no frog marched Rove, looks like Joe L is going to embarrass all the liberals in Conn and at Move ON by winning as a pro war patriot in a BLUE state, now the true story of Clintons sleeping at the terrorist switch is coming out. Oh and btw hurricanes are down 520% from 2005, thanks to George W Bush,
Tsk Tsk. If the Republicans hold the House in November there won’t be enough mental institutions to hold all the over the cliff lefties. Five years after 9/11 and we are only now finding out that the military was a 100 yards from OBL and the Clintonistas waved them off. How very tragic. MSM should give us some interviews with the 9/11 widows and families now that that is public info. God Bless America.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 30, 2006 @ 9:40 pm - August 30, 2006
#31: “No Plamegate, no frog marched Rove,”
So why did Libby lie about it? Plus it took Armitage several months to figure out that HE was the source. Puh-leese. Hopefully, Valerie will add “Loose Lips” Dick to the lawsuit and we’ll get them all on the stand under oath.
“looks like Joe L is going to embarrass all the liberals in Conn and at Move ON by winning as a pro war patriot in a BLUE state”
In your dreams. Turncoat Joe’s polls are heading south – Lamont’s already within a couple of percent – and Joe’s open campaigning with, as and for Repubs won’t go over well in CT. It’s beginning to dawn on CT voters that Joe really is Hannity’s bud not to mention Rove, Cheney and Coulter’s. Joe is showing his true colors and “The Kiss” really nails it.
Comment by Ian — August 31, 2006 @ 12:01 am - August 31, 2006
#30 So I suppose that it’s OK to condem both the Clinton and Carter Administrations because they received dozens if not hundreds of reports from the DEA stating that “criminals are smuggling drugs across the Mexican border” and they failed to effectively stop what they were clearly warned about.
Plus, how many times was Hillary warned the Billy was boinking a blonde dental assistant and refused to take action. How can we trust her when she has so blindly and willfully ignored credible intelligence?
Comment by BoBo — August 31, 2006 @ 12:15 am - August 31, 2006
#32 RajIanSockpuppet – Libby is alleged to have violated the law. Unlike former President/disbarred attorney Billy Clinton, he has not been convicted of any crime. So please confine your comments to the truth, as difficult as that may be for you and yourselves.
Comment by BoBo — August 31, 2006 @ 12:21 am - August 31, 2006
#31. Five years after “Dead or Alive” and the man still walks freely. And this president got a memo ahead of time.
Comment by sean — August 31, 2006 @ 1:02 am - August 31, 2006
#15. Thank the Lord God Jesus Christ!! I’ve been searching for “civil discourse” and I have finally found it:
“I think Americans ought to hunt SandyBerger down, along with Slick Willy, and shout them down at public events. Call them traitors; call them what they are –negligent socio-paths.”
And when people shout down Dear Leader and his friends and call them what they are, what do you do? Shout in cyberspace.
Comment by sean — August 31, 2006 @ 1:05 am - August 31, 2006
#24. That you are even talking about “REAL men” and have to capitalize “real” speaks volumes about smallness.
Comment by sean — August 31, 2006 @ 1:07 am - August 31, 2006
#17. Please tell us one Democrat that opposes national security. Provide a self-evident quote if you can, one without your spin.
Comment by sean — August 31, 2006 @ 1:09 am - August 31, 2006
This post is disgusting. The use of the photo of human beings at their death in the Trade Center to attack a President of the United States…it says so much about what this blog really is about, contrary to GPW’s claims of civil discourse and trite expressions about dialogue and arguments. Absolutely disgusting.
Comment by sean — August 31, 2006 @ 1:12 am - August 31, 2006
“this ABC docudrama/miniseries”
In other words, it’s fiction. But the facts remain: 9/11 happened on President Petomane’s watch and there is NO evidence that anyone in his administration bothered to do much to prevent it. Rather, the focus was on the Star Wars missile “shield” and rounding up NOLA hookers. Oh yeah, Cheney had an antiterrorism task force set up but remind me again how often it met prior to 9/11. Oh that’s right, it NEVER met until AFTER 9/11.
Comment by Ian — August 31, 2006 @ 1:26 am - August 31, 2006
To BoBo, commenting in #34 — Would you please cite the specific crime Bill Clinton was “convicted” of.
I never liked Clinton but I hate to see history distorted to make a partisan point.
Comment by Ashley Hunter — August 31, 2006 @ 3:16 am - August 31, 2006
#35-39: LOL. I love watching Clintonistas throw hissy-fits when exposed to the truth. Like a showing a cross to vampires, it is
Comment by V the K — August 31, 2006 @ 6:01 am - August 31, 2006
The unfounded loyalty of GayLefties to Democrats is only matched by the admiration of black Democrats for Slick Willy. Thank God we know where both are: down on the Democrat Plantation ready to do the Master’s bidding.
Hey sean-of-the-lower-case-clan, I lost track… which sockpuppet are you associated with?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 31, 2006 @ 7:22 am - August 31, 2006
#34:
After all that I said, your scathing critique is that I used caps inappropriately? LOL, oh, I mean lol.
Comment by Dalebert — August 31, 2006 @ 11:55 am - August 31, 2006
#42 – I know. They’re so lame.
#38 – It’s about actions and policies, nitwit sean. Of course no Democrat is ever going to come out and say “I oppose American security”!!!
It would be instant, total electoral suicide. So they have to (and they do) dress it up. Saying, instead, stuff like “America’s actions must be submitted to a global test.” But develop some intelligence, sean. Learn to look toward the real actions and policies they advocate.
There used to be Democrats who did favor American security – Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn, Joe Lieberman. As we know from the history of the last 35 years, including this year’s political events, they are essentially gone.
Comment by Calarato — August 31, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - August 31, 2006
#46 #38 – It’s about actions and policies, nitwit sean. Of course no Democrat is ever going to come out and say “I oppose American security”!!!
Calarato, I think the point is that Democrats have a plan (or in some cases, no plan) for American Security. Obviously, GP and many others disagree with their plan. But does it really mean they OPPOSE American Security. On the other hand, about half the Americans think that Bush has done a crappy job with American Security. Is it correct or fair to say that Bush also opposes American security?
Comment by Pat — August 31, 2006 @ 12:15 pm - August 31, 2006
Pat,
For 35 years, the key voices of the Democratic Party – excepting the vanishing figures I mentioned – have opposed essentially all policy proposals that would defend American security.
Everything from crucial weapons systems… to CIA funding (Kerry voted continually in the 1990s to gut it)… to standing by South Vietnam (we actually won the Vietnam War in 1973; the takeover only happened in 1975 AFTER a liberal Congress voted to completely and officially abandon them)… to standing up firmly to the Soviet Union… to dealing firmly with Iran (both 27 years ago, and today)… to enforcing U.N. resolutions against Saddam Hussein… to ballistic missle defense… to isolating North Korea… to opposing effective border controls… to opposing effective airport security policies using profiling… to…. I could go on and on. As long as that list is, I’ve left out many.
You can say “Well, they honestly thought what they thought”. Fine. But isn’t it funny how they have been wrong on every single defense and security issue for 35 years? (Yes, including Iraq, which was and is the correct second country to deal with after Afghanistan in the War on Terror.)
Isn’t it funny how their “sincere” errors of judgement consistently cut in one single direction: against American power? That’s what I’m pointing out. Republican misjudgement may cut 50-50 between over-defending America, and (as with Dubai Ports, border control, etc.) under-defending America. Two directions. Democratic errors almost always cut in one direction – under-defending America.
Comment by Calarato — August 31, 2006 @ 12:47 pm - August 31, 2006
P.S. And the voters know it. The Democrats are the George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, don’t-fight-for-America, John Kerry, America-is-Genghis-Khan, America-Terrorizes-Others, Submit-America-to-a-Global-Test party.
And have been, since the Vietnam anti-war movement and George McGovern really started gathering steam around, oh, 1971.
Comment by Calarato — August 31, 2006 @ 12:50 pm - August 31, 2006
And 1971, in particular, was the year that an unknown John Kerry launched his personal fame by launching the Vietnam baby-killer myth with malice aforethought, and quite literally claiming America was like Genghis Khan.
Part of why I picked 1971 / 35 years.
Comment by Calarato — August 31, 2006 @ 1:05 pm - August 31, 2006
It was ultimately direct quotes of John Kerry that settled once and for all that I could not support him as president of the U.S. It wasn’t any claims by Swift Boaters about what he did or did not do in Vietnam. It was the fact that he had taken secondhand statements at face value without proof from anti-war propogandists, many of whom turned out to have lied about even being in Vietnam, and he used his position to give validity to that B.S. about our troops. He has ever since and always will be in my mind, a traitor to this country, especially to our veterans whom he overtly betrayed.
Comment by Dalebert — August 31, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - August 31, 2006
Plus the fact that Kerry and his fellow Democrats who take claim for getting the US out of Vietnam invariably ignore the fact that the Communists with which Kerry negotiated ended up killing, imprisoning, and “re-educating” millions of people once the American army was gone.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 31, 2006 @ 1:56 pm - August 31, 2006
#41 Lying under oath. That’s why he had to pay a six figure fine and give up the law licence.
Comment by BoBo — August 31, 2006 @ 2:57 pm - August 31, 2006
#51: True, if lefties must gloat over ending Vietnam, then they must be really proud of the Killing Fields their communist blood-brothers instituted after the US withdrew from southeast Asia.
But, then, so what if a few million people died? The important thing is, America lost and the left got to feel smug in their victory. (Bend over, poot, sniff, sniif.)
Comment by V the K — August 31, 2006 @ 3:00 pm - August 31, 2006
#52 – Bobo, I’d like to understand (or have my memory refreshed) as well: What body convicted him?
I know Clinton was formally indicted by the U.S. House of Representatives, though a Democratic Senate majority did not convict.
I don’t think a court convicted Clinton of perjury either; but I know he absolutely met the definition of the act, and that someone stripped him of his ability to practice law, as you said. What body?
Comment by Calarato — August 31, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - August 31, 2006
#42. No, I’m an American, not a “Clintonista”. (Using Spanish to denigrate someone, too? Interesting.) And I knew someone that was on one of the floors in the photo that has flames pouring out of it.
You might think the photo represents something else, but I see it as an attack on America, on a cosmopolitan world city, and by extention on Western values. I don’t see it as an opportunity to malign half of America and a former president of the United States of America.
Feel free to bash President Clinton all you like; but, please, don’t you dare use the deaths of particular people in a city you most likely despise and inhabited mostly by people you have made clear you despise to do it.
It isn’t a hissy-fit; it is called moral outrage.
Comment by sean — August 31, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - August 31, 2006
#50 – Dale, I agree.
The evidence on Kerry’s actions in Vietnam – how he really got his medals – is powerful; far more than what the media would ever need to convict a Republican politician. But, as a country, we will never go through a formal process of determining that truth.
By contrast, Kerry’s 1971 and other public statements (see Bruce’s new post) stand on their own in the public record. They condemn the man on his own terms.
Comment by Calarato — August 31, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - August 31, 2006
#44. I wasn’t aware that you said anything signficant at all; I was only aware that what you said and how it was said itself said something significant. And sad.
Comment by sean — August 31, 2006 @ 3:28 pm - August 31, 2006
And I knew someone that was on one of the floors in the photo that has flames pouring out of it.
Then you should be outraged that Clinton botched so many chances to get the perpetrator of it.
And before you start spinning that capturing bin Laden would have had no effect on the terrorists who actually committed the act directly, please remember that your party’s mantra is that the capture of bin Laden would end global terrorism and doing anything else is weakening our efforts.
I don’t see it as an opportunity to malign half of America and a former president of the United States of America.
No, but you see it as an opportunity to malign over half of America and the current President of the United States.
If your outrage weren’t so transparently partisan, Sean, we might be able to deal with it. But realistically, look at the difference; as Lieberman shows, Republicans are more than willing to cross partisan lines and support a Democrat who they genuinely believe is better for the country, even over their own candidate.
Democrats ban and kick out from their from their party anyone who says anything nice about a Republican, supports a Republican, or works with a Republican.
As the recent action in Israel shows, Democrats like Jimmy Carter will even defend Hizbollah’s actions — because it’s anti-Republican.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 31, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - August 31, 2006
#29:
Where did you find all these freaky conservatives? And you dated them all!? They sound like the kind of cartoonishly stereoptyical conservatives a liberal mind would cook up in a fever-induced nightmare. Were you on the Forbidden Planet and your subconcious mind caused the alien machines to fabricate a living nightmare Republican husband that then hunted you down and made you do house work?
Comment by Dalebert — August 31, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - August 31, 2006
#54 I got the details off a bit so here’s a link
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/29/clinton.contempt/
He was found in contempt by a Federal Judge for committing perjury in the Paula Jones case and fined $90,000. He also paid Jones about $800,000 and was subsequently disbarred
Comment by BoBo — August 31, 2006 @ 6:34 pm - August 31, 2006
So President Clinton in 8 years did virtually nothing to combat terrorism. But the fact that he gave a file to the incoming administration covers it eh? To illustrate the unserious, almost criminal nature of the out going Clintonistas….they trashed the White House, removed priceless art, vandalized computers and telephones. But are we to believe that they walked out the door saying “btw OBL is a huge threat, you better get him really quick, we think he may kill thousands of Americans any day now. (HAHA try to use the phones or computers HAHA)” Conservatives pay attention and have long memories.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 31, 2006 @ 10:26 pm - August 31, 2006
Actually, GIP, everyone knew OBL was up to something. In the summer of 2001, I was working on an Army Intelligence Counter-Terrorism program, and in the sample task order, OBL was cited by name as the target of the program. Everyone knew he was up to something… he had declared war against the United States back in 1998… but nobody, despite the rantings of conspiracy theorists, knew exactly what. The Clintonistas act as though Bill Clinton made some special point of warning Bush about OBL and Bush ignored it. This is complete BS. The truth is that military intelligence was looking out for OBL pre-911, and that the Clinton Admin did not take out OBL on at least two occasions when they had the chance.
The other way the Clintonistas re-write history is to leave out the fact that in May 2001, Jim Jeffords switched parties, gave control of the senate to the Democrats. Under the leadership of Tom Daschole, the Democrats made the strategic decision that they were going to cripple the Bush presidency by stalling on the confirmation of administration nominees. (Revenge for Florida 2000.) So, the Democrats deliberately stalled on filling key posts in the administration, including intelligence posts. So, the Bush Admin throughout Summer of 2001 had to devote attention, time and energy to getting appointees through the Senate that might… and I emphasize might … might have otherwise been devoted counter-terrorism. Although, given the walls the Clinton Administration had erected in the intelligence community, and the severe degradation of intelligence resources under Clinton, and the prevailing domestic disinterest in terrorism, probably not.
Comment by V the K — September 1, 2006 @ 8:34 am - September 1, 2006
Lest we forget, it was bush in the white house on 9/11. It was his failed policies that led to that fateful day.
And the ‘93 WTC bombing?…hmm, we seemed to track down those terrorists and bring them to justice. Meanwhile, bin Laden remains on the lam as bush outsourced the effort to find him to warlords. That was criminal.
Comment by rightiswrong — September 1, 2006 @ 10:07 am - September 1, 2006
And the ‘93 WTC bombing?…hmm, we seemed to track down those terrorists and bring them to justice.
And as a result, terrorism was thwarted forever and no one ever tried to blow up the WTC with a rental truck again.
Comment by V the K — September 1, 2006 @ 10:35 am - September 1, 2006
Oh dear. Don’t bring up the ‘93 WTC bombing…. unless you want to get hammered, wrongandwrong.
For starters – what about Saddam’s hand in it? What about that Iraqi national who was a key mover, who then fled to Iraq and was sheltered there until the day the Coalition invaded, 10 years later? The fact that he (for one) wasn’t brought to justice is the least of it.
Comment by Calarato — September 1, 2006 @ 11:15 am - September 1, 2006
The ‘93 WTC terror attack was emblematic of the Clinton approach to terrorism: treat it as a crime, a property crime, vandalism on a large scale. Never treat terrorism as a threat to national security, much less as part of a war waged by Islamo-fascists hell-bent on destroying Western Civilization.
Comment by V the K — September 1, 2006 @ 11:51 am - September 1, 2006
this is how republicans are “celebrating” 9/11: bashing their favorite ex president. sick
Comment by lester — September 1, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - September 1, 2006
Lest we forget, it was bush in the white house on 9/11. It was his failed policies that led to that fateful day.
“Failed policies” of an Administration that was barely EIGHT MONTHS old? Just whom do you think you’re kidding with this twaddle?
Dalebert: Just where the heck are these conservative gay guys hanging out in the Washington DC area? I mean, the decent ones of course.
Comment by John — September 1, 2006 @ 6:38 pm - September 1, 2006
Eight months, AND with a Democratic Senate deliberately, dare I say viciously, holding up Bush’s anti-terrorist and security appointees.
Yup. Bush, with 8 months in office and an incomplete team being systematically blocked/burdened by Senate Democrats and therefore containing a mixed disarray of Clinton leftovers like the incompetents George Tenet and Richard Clarke, was supposed to magically clean up what those same Clinton leftovers had screwed up for 8 long years; or to know via psychic powers what Osama had been carefully preparing for at least 5 of those 8 years.
Yup, that REALLY makes sense.
Comment by Calarato — September 1, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - September 1, 2006
I can’t believe I’m being allowed the last word on this one. So far.
Where is the traditional final spew of rajIan comments?
Are we in another one of those lulls where the rajIan elements go away at roughly the same time, and will later come back at the same time? LOL
Comment by Calarato — September 2, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - September 2, 2006
clinton tried, but was greeted by resistance over every step. let’s review, from ‘96:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
forget it repugs, it was bush who was in the white house on 9/11; it is his legacy that was forever damaged that day as he sat, with his deer-in-the-headlights look, doing nothing beforehand. history will show this pathetic excuse as the fraud he is.
Comment by rightiswrong — September 5, 2006 @ 9:38 am - September 5, 2006
“One astonishing sequence in “The Path to 9/11″ shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. ”
So astonishing it didn’t even happen! Supposedly the biggest most dramatic scene in the production and it’s complete FICTION. See http://tinyurl.com/qdxtn or even better, go to the 9/11 Commission report upon which this “docudrama” was supposedly based and read about what really happened http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm:
“Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.”
Read the rest of the section in the report. No CIA team or Northern Alliance anywhere near bin Laden’s camp. No CIA call to the White House from the ground in Afghanistan and no nixing of the imminent operation by Berger let alone Clinton. You’ve all been punked.
Comment by Ian — September 5, 2006 @ 12:07 pm - September 5, 2006
Um….Ian….why not reproduce the WHOLE paragraph?
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.30
Isn’t it AMAZING that so many people have no bloody clue of who actually killed the operation — and that their accounts contradict?
Furthermore, the “CSG” referred to in that paragraph is the “Counterterrorism Security Group”. According to Clintonistas in the 9/11 report, this was a special group that reported directly to Cabinet principals, and was chaired by the National Security Council — which presumably would include Sandy Berger. The report makes it clear that the CSG saw this operation and this plan — and given the amount of access to the administration that Berger and Clarke claim was taken away from them when Bush took power, it is inconceivable that the White House did not see this or rule on it.
In short, you are expecting me to believe that senior White House staff like Berger and Clarke, who claimed that their direct access to the President was taken away in the Bush administration, did not share this with Clinton — especially since Clinton had already signed a memorandum authorizing such actions.
What this looks like is a bunch of underlings trying to point fingers at each other in a fashion that doesn’t implicate their boss.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 2:13 pm - September 5, 2006
#73: Your additional quote changes nothing. Tenet and Berger agreed as to what happened and they are the ones in a position to know. The fact remains that the “docudrama’s” “astonishing” scene is pure hokum: the plan was axed, most likely by Tenet with no objection from Berger, long before any CIA team was within “just a few feet ” of capturing bin Laden.
I would just add that we’re going to be pushing this propaganda right back in ABC’s and the Right’s collective face. We’re not taking this bogus crap anymore. bank on it.
Comment by Ian — September 5, 2006 @ 2:35 pm - September 5, 2006
Go right ahead and push, IanRaj.
The fact that you deliberately ignore information that doesn’t fit your claims is blatantly obvious, as I pointed out. Add to that the fact that you can’t even solidly prove your argument — as exemplified by your claim that Tenet “most likely” did it — and it’s not really a concern.
You really must stop thinking that all Americans are as ignorant and biased as the Democratic base.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - September 5, 2006
#75: Still no getting around the fact that the “astonishing sequence” is bogus. It. Never. Happened. You’ve been punked! LOL!
Comment by Ian — September 5, 2006 @ 3:19 pm - September 5, 2006
Of course, that claim depends on you ignoring information that, as I pointed out, is clearly outlined in your own source.
Furthermore, reading the chapter involved in the 9/11 report makes obvious two things:
1) Contrary to your statement, there were CIA teams and members in Afghanistan operating directly with the tribal groups in numerous direct attempts to kill/capture bin Laden.
2) The tribal groups not only attempted their own ambushes, but continued to tail and provide excellent information on bin Laden’s whereabouts, almost “real time” — an impossible task without being in extremely close proximity to him.
Add to that the fact that the stories of who canceled what vary depending on which principal in the affair you ask, and the magic word “cover-up” comes immediately to mind.
Why is it so important, IanRaj, that you cover up the fact that the Clinton administration had plenty of chances to get bin Laden even before the African embassies were bombed — and yet chose not to do so? The historical record, as outlined in the 9/11 report, makes it obvious that they had the elements and the plan — yet Clinton’s handpicked counterterrorism and intelligence personnel who claimed they reported directly to him can’t even agree on who killed it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 6, 2006 @ 12:27 am - September 6, 2006
Ian claims: “You’ve all been punked.”
I guess that depends on how you define punked, raj/Ian/blah. But to apply that term to the above thread is simply, flatly, patently incorrect and intellectually dishonest.
But those are two conditions you often find yourself(ves) in. Wrong and dishonest aren’t family values even on the Left.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 6, 2006 @ 2:13 pm - September 6, 2006
Wow, rajian actually knows a term from the lexicon of this century? Wow. I’d be even more impressed if he could use it properly, but stil…
Comment by V the K — September 6, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - September 6, 2006