One of the problems of traveling when the blogosphere is all abuzz over a certain topic is that by the time I sit down to write about it, it seems some other bloggers have already said pretty much everything I wanted to say. Given the malfunction of my cassette player somewhere in the Rockies, I listened to much talk radio during my return journey of well over 1,000 miles. (For some reason when I drive long distances I prefer to hear voices, be it talk radio or books on tape than to listen to music.)
As I listened to the news and commentary on how Clinton’s people were trying in Roger Simon’s words to “suppress ABC’s 9/11 miniseries,” The Path to 9/11, I thought the Democratic former president and his supporters were giving the show free publicity. The controversy the former President was helping generate would make more people aware of the program. On returning home, I found that Roger had already made that very point when he asked, “Is Bill Clinton in the pay of ABC?”
Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds referenced a comment with which I also agree “This firestorm is a lose-lose for Dems. Any rational voter can compare the Bush reaction to Farenheit 911 and the current Clinton reaction, and draw appropriate conclusions.“
As I headed home on the various interstates of the Southwest, I heard some talk show hosts, who had seen the entire miniseries, point out that the part which focused on President Bush’s first eight months in office showed that that Republicans was also “asleep as the wheel.” In other words, it painted both Administrations in a less-than-favorable light. And only the Democrats were getting upset.
To be sure, as one talking head noted, the Clinton Administration came off worse because that Democrat was in office for nearly eight full years after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. That is, the miniseries devoted more time to that Administration than to the current one for the simply reason that it covered a time period beginning just over a month after Clinton began the first of his two four-year terms and ending less than eight months after his successor took office.
Instead of raising a ruckus over the supposed inaccuracies in the docudrama, Clinton might have better served his Administration’s legacy by pointing out all that his Administration had done to fight terrorism, perhaps asking ABC for time after the docudrama aired to “set the record straight.” By behaving in the manner he has, Clinton comes across as a whiner who can’t take criticism, hardly the statesman he aspires to be. As the commenter cited above noted, Bush’s people didn’t get as upset over the distortions in Michael Moore‘s movie.
In Friday’s OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription), John Fund suggested a way Clinton’s people could have better handled the film’s supposed distortions:
Perhaps one way to handle the objections is to follow the example of Showtime, the cable network that eventually aired “The Reagans” after CBS decided the film was too slanted to be salvageable. After the movie aired, it showed a live panel discussion featuring former Reagan administration officials Martin Anderson and Linda Chavez along with Reagan critic Hilary Rosen and the film’s co-producer, Carl Anthony. The group offered much thoughtful commentary on the historical liberties taken by the film and discussed the risk that docudramas might distort the way Americans remember real-life events. It’s fine for Sandy Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to complain to ABC, but here’s hoping they are also willing to step forward and publicly defend their actions regardless of the final version of the film that ABC airs.
Had Clinton requested such a panel, he might have come across more as a statesman and less as a whiner. At the same time, he may have prevented the miniseries from generating the publicity it did.
And people say President Bush is averse to criticism. At least doesn’t dispatch his people to suppress criticism of his Administration. Nor does he badmouth them publicly as does his predecessor.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: In his post on 9/11, Michael Barone, one of the most sober columnists on the right, offers a somewhat sympathetic view of the Clintonites’ protest, concluding that few people, including himself, were really aware of the danger. He cites those who did warn us and concludes:
I don’t feel entitled to furiously condemn the Clinton and Bush administration officials who failed to see what I failed to see. The 9/11 attacks alone were condemnation enough. And not just of certain public officials but of all of us in a position to have an impact on public opinion who did not alert others to the danger we unknowingly faced.
Now just read the whole thing!
UP-UPDATE: Now blogging at Pajamas, thus becoming officialy the Gandalf the blogosphere, Victor Davis Hanson wonders what the furor was about:
This was not a faux-documentary of the typeMichael Moore foisted as truth on a naïve public at election time, purporting to show reality through actual film clips, its corrupt director to be greeted with a prize seat at the Democratic convention.
I heard no Democrat ever complain about Oliver Stone’s numerous mythodramas. And Bob Woodward writes docu-books all the time, with the inner most thoughts of his characters expressed when there is no way a reporter could ascertain their thoughts—and wins a Pulitzer. Look at the recent Cobra II and discover pseudo-footnotes like “unnamed senior official” or “Pentagon staff.”
And with anything by Victor Davis Hanson, the best advice is to read the whole thing!
The Path to 9/11. Look we’re not dumb. We know 9/11 changed everything. Some of Clintons lack of action on UBL is because we had no idea anyone was capable of committing a 9/11. But now that we know, there’s no excuse for the leftists to view America as more of an enemy to their freedom than the terrorists. I thought the docudrama was very compelling. And proves something I’ve known for a while…serious people must have control of the levers of power during serious times.
And by the way without all the who hah from the left I would have been content tonight to watch the Giants vs the Colts. But God and country comes first.
[Comment deleted.]
Wow, monty. If that’s what you call *trying*.
I think that the commentary I’ve been seeing on “right” blogs like this one is about 50/50 with people saying that Clinton and Bush both blew it pre 9-11, as Gene said, because no one really thought such a thing was possible. Luminaries no less luminous than Glenn Reynolds and James Lileks have said that, in essence, anything pre 9-11 gets a pass, that policy post 9-11 is what matters.
If roughly half the commenters I see (not even counting obvious “left” commenters) are saying *no one* took Islamic terrorism seriously enough before 9-11, what *exactly* would you consider schism healing?
Or is it just that incredibly impossible to give Bush the same pass when he was guilty of the same failure the first 8 months of his presidency?
Is admitting that *everyone* failed, including Clinton, really that devistating? Is it that making that admission means it’s necessary to view Bush’s similar failure in the same pre 9-11 context, or is it that the Democratic ideas *today* about what to do about Islamic terrorism haven’t changed? In that case, admitting that Clinton (understandably, from a pre 9-11 context) mistook the seriousness of the threat would be admitting that Democrats *today* mistake the seriousness of the threat.
Meet us half-way, monty.
What monty and other anonymous posting, lower-case-clan dysfunctional lapdogs of the GayLeft fail to understand is that accountability is what drives many in this country to attempt to pierce the “whitewashing spin” of the Democrats on their role leading up to 9/11.
Elliot Richardson used to say: “The only people worried about History’s assessment are the people who have good cause to worry about History’s assessment.”
One of the terrorist characters last night offered “We must (terrorize) in order to get America to change policies. Hurt Americans and they will change policies.”
At that very moment, I thought of how willingly the Democrats and other cut&run types play into the hands of the terrorists these days.
In that connection, it is indeed unpatriotic to hammer the President with cries of incompetence for cheap partisan gain (real dissent and debate welcome), use the ACLU to hamstring our intelligence gathering efforts, and provide legal sanctuary for terrorists in our courts –when those safeguards should be the sole province of citizens of the US.
I came away last night understanding what motivates and animates the GayLeft lower-case-clan here –like monty– and it’s that they resist accountability at every turn. The record on “their watch” is so miserable that for them to do otherwise would bring greater mental dysfunction to their daily lives of spin, prevarication, and deception.
How true with the Sept 10th Democrats like monty, sean, raj, blah keogh and the balance of the lower-case-clan circus.
“The only people worried about History’s assessment are the people who have good cause to worry about History’s assessment.”
I started watching due to the controversy and then realized why I never intended to watch it in the first place. I hate network shows. I couldn’t sit through it and watched Flight 93 instead. Much better movie. It should also be suggested that we do have a very expensive Congress sitting around up there as well and they (Dem and Rep) were as unbothered as the two administrations. I was as furious in the ’93 World Trade Center bombing as I was devestated from the 9/11 attack. Few others seemed to be that bothered back then. The important thing to remember is we did it the Leftwing way back in ’93 and what did it give us? The Left is no inspiration to anyone and our enemies consider them the biggest joke of all.
What has to happen before the Left hates terrorists with the same desperate venom with which they hate Americans (Bush, his voters, other)?
Incidentally, monty-of-the-lower-case-clan, my full name is Peter Hughes. I shorten it to “H” out of expedience for posting my comments.
But since you are so preoccupied with how I became “small” (oh, the rich irony of that statement you made, if you ever knew me in the Biblical sense!), I will print my full name for you so that way you will know with whom you are dealing.
Scribe, Pharisee and hypocrite thou.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
…but here’s hoping they are also willing to step forward and publicly defend their actions regardless of the final version of the film that ABC airs.
The last thing Ma, Pa and the Clinton Gang want to do is answer questions about the events leading up to 9-11. The main contention was that the writers portrayed The Black Ninja as preoccupied with the “Lewisky thing”. Can you imagine Clinton actually saying he was not?
It struck me today. The reason the Dems and the leftists can’t agree and be more cooperative. Compliment those that are doing well in making us more safe. If they did all that, if they weren’t obstructive and critical…there’d be no reason to elect a Democrat. This isn’t free school lunches or a highway project or who can best make the tax system more fair. This is the priority of our age. This is our generations responsibility. If 90% of the people and polititians were all united on this one the Dems know they’d be fighting future elections about new sewers and smaller classroom sizes. They simply can’t agree that W and the current administration is right and doing a good job in this fight. It makes me sad.
yes, Bush doesn’t badmouth them in public – his aides use whispering, covert campaigns to get at their enemies, like Wilson. Or there’s the ever popular “going to spend more time with my family” excuse we see people use when they can’t stand the moron in chief anymore.
Kevin, I expected comment such as yours in #10.
Um, there was no whispering campaign to get at Wilson. Or haven’t you been following the news? Or perhaps you get your information from the left-wing blog which hold onto an anti-Bush theory even after it has been discredited by the evidence.
Despite the many theories of Karl Rove’s malevolence, no one has come up with any evidence to buttress the left-wing claim of his using the White House to destroy critics of the president. Or of any Administration official doing the same.
I have no clue what the second sentence of your comment means, though it does, once again, show the juvenile nature of your commentary.
[Comment deleted.]
Well put Gene.
Same to you, monty python.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
[Comment deleted.]
[Comment deleted.]
Personally, the furor reminded me of the bouhaha over The Regans (wasn’t that also an ABC creation?) which was also a docudrama…but that was a different ox being gored.
I watched the all of the first part and some of the second. Ikept clicking back-and-forth between that and the redskins/vikings game—good game, btw — even though my redskins lost:(
For a made-for-network-tv movie, I thought it was pretty well done (consider the source). I thought that the first episode pretty much brutalized the clinton administration, and that the 2nd episode was just as brutal to the bush administration. Both got a good slammin,’ and with good reason. The incompetence and complacency of both administrations allowed 9/11 to happen.
however, I do still think that the campaign in Iraq is/was completely misdirected, and that we should have focused those same efforts on Afghanaistan and Pakistan (it’s sooo clear to me now, more so than before). If we’d done that, IMHO, we’d be farther along in winning the war on terror by now. How much farther along is a big question mark — no matter how/where we direct our efforts, this will be a long and protracted war, and tragically with many, many more casualties. Also, IMHO, If a democrat had been elected president (i.e. Gore), I’m not so sure he would’ve done a better job (but that’s also a big question mark).
I wonder if the troops had been sent to Afghanistan, instead of this diversion in Iraq, the Taliban wouldn’t have been around for Pakistani Pres. Musharif (sp?) to make peace with. They are now set up and protected in the tribal areas of Pakistan on the condition of “good behavior.” Where is our ally is now?
I would say, Br.Katana, that, based on the fact that 100,000 Soviet troops were unable to eliminate the mujahadeen in nine years of warfare, your assumption is not supportable.
What HAS been done is that the Taliban has been chased far, far, far away from power, and is allowed to remain in one spot unharassed only on the promise of good behavior — while under constant surveillance and observation by US, Pakistani, and Afghan forces.
Terrorist and extremist groups are, from a strategic standpoint, a bit like mercury. You can deliver a puddle of it a crushing blow, but in the process, you spread it everywhere. Far better to contain and encircle it.
For Iraq, the simple fact of the matter is that it was a regime with the means, will, and record of supporting terrorism and terrorist groups — plus a violent hatred of the United States. Furthermore, it was a humanitarian disaster, kept alive only by a corrupt UN administration and the connivance of European governments addicted to its smuggled oil and bribes.
NDXXX, the Left’s canard that Br K raises (if we’d only not diverted troops from the real mission in Afghanistan, the WOT would be finished by now) is about as credible as we went into Iraq for the oil, we went into Iraq because Halliburton execs told us to, we went into Iraq to avenge Bush 41’s honor, we didn’t have enough boots on the ground, Bush deliberately lied about the intelligence, this was a Republican war and no Democrat really supported it and –for me, the biggest Left canard– we can be disloyal to the mission and still support the troops.
Br K offers what I hope will be the last Left canard of the WOT: Iraq was a diversion that strengthened the Taliban.
AndersonCooper, posterboi for dysfunctional reporters and gloryhounds, says the Taliban is in ascendancy and America is losing the WOT because the howlitzer he stands next to while on “secret location” fires off 3-5 105s per day 10-12 miles in the distance.
Right. That’s some ascendancy. Maybe with all that insurgency, the Democrats could use the Taliban to assist them in GetOutVote drives? Oh wait, they’re already helping out NancyP and HarryR.
M-Matt, well said.
Also, I’ve never trusted Anderson Cooper. For starters, he’s a tool of the Left. Secondly, the man is as queer as they come and is in total denial. Open his mouth and a purse falls out.
Regards,
Peter H.