The Talk Of The Town: "The Path To 9/11" And The "Inconvenient Truth" The Left Is Trying To Censor.
**Scroll down for updates. The Left isn't playing games, and they're making veiled threats. This post will remain at the top for the rest of the night!!**
I never thought a movie could generate the buzz like this one has. On the right, there are pundits--like us--that were breathing a sigh of relief that somebody took note of the idiocy of the previous administration. Then we saw the stories today (and Marcie did a decent job confronting this issue) where ABC might be bowing to pressure. Let me say that if they do, they will reap what they sow.
See we remember 11th September. She watched part of it on TV. I watched it from beginning to end, and was absolutely shocked that morning. I had been up all night, working on my fiction writing, and had turned on FOX News that morning to listen to Man-Cow on Fox and Friends. Little did I know that my life was about to change. But as I watched the attack unfold, I realized that my calling was no longer in the realm of fiction, but in one of non-fiction; commenting on the current events and world affairs that went on daily. I, for one, will NEVER forget that day. I won't forget the emotion. I won't forget the images. I'll never forget those who died willingly, and those who went down fighting. (And when I talk about the "willing" ones, I'm not referring to the terrorists. I'm referring to the victims who believed it was a standard hostage taking.)
When I heard that the September 11th Commission was being formed, I thought that we would finally get to the bottom of what happened. How had we missed these people preparing to attack us. And when I heard that the commission was going back no further than 2001, really, in their investigations, I was outraged. President Bush had been in office for all of about eight months before that attack occurred. An attack of that scope could not have been assembled, trial runs executed, and all the right people in the right place at the right time in eight months. Their job included being able to fly, and eight months still isn't enough time to gain the experience needed to do that. So this went back further. But there was, in our humble opinion, some DC CYA going on with the Commission. Their report, which I have read through twice now, shows that the Bush administration had some lapses; some warnings that went unnoticed until it was too late.
Fine, you want to lay some blame at Bush's feet, then you're entitlted to do so. Marcie and I recognize that some things were botched early in his administration. It didn't come from the lack of attention the Left hass assigned to his administration. He knew, but there is a different between being aware, and knowing the facts. The PDB that everyone made an issue out of was inconclusive. It contained no details at all. The only thing that was confirmable in that whole memo was that our enemies were still intent on attacking us. Thanks for the update, but we knew that already. Got anything new?
Marcie tried to point out that much of the blame for 11 September lies at the feet of the Clinton administration. She is dead-on right. The administration, from 1993 forward, refused to treat the attacks the way they should have been. These were acts of war committed by a determined enemy of the United States. Subpoenas, warrants, and indictments were scoffed at by our enemy. Clinton's disastrous mission in Somalia only emboldened our enemy; bin Laden himself proclaimed the US a "paper tiger" because of the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident. And under Bill Clinton, he was right.
Bin Laden knew that as long as Clinton was in office, the worst he might have to face is pressure from an ally to leave so the US wouldn't get angry with them. Sudan proved it. So did Saudi Arabia. The taliban in Afghanistan cared nothing for our ire. As a tribal region, they knew the US would overlook them, for the most part, and the administration did. The occasional missile strike into Afghanistan would go virtually unnoticed. And bin Laden would be free to do as he pleased there. He was never asked to leave by Taliban members, and it was because they didn't care if the US was ticked at them for harboring him.
But in all the terrorist attacks in the 1990s, the Clinton administration did nothing. It was all treated like it was a crime. And on the surface that might have been true, but each and every attack was an act of war. We just weren't prepared to deal with the fact that our enemy was ready for war, and we weren't interested. So people died, and thei idea of justice the Clinton administration offered had little to do with the real concept of justice. As we have seen in the Moussaoui trial, the concept of justice--removing a piece of garbage like that from the breathing populace--is still there. The criminal courts can't deal with an issue like terrorism. Remember that in that trial Moussaoui's lawyers pointed to an "abusive childhood," and stated that such abuse led him down the path to jihad.
If we're going to use that as an excuse--that a bad early life is to blame--then are we to excuse people like Geghis Khan, or Attila the Hun? How about Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? I think not. Mass murderers are evil, regardless of what drove them to that point. There is no excuse for such acts, and his lawyers tried to do exactly that. And had Clinton's idea of enforcement worked, the same would have happened to bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. They would have received slick defense lawyers that would have blamed their deisre for jihad on a bad upbringing, thereby excusing their actions.
And that, folks, is the damnable thing about this. Under the Clinton administration, we were willing to excuse people like this. If we just roll over, and take it easy on them, they'll leave us alone. That's nice. That's sound. Hell, that even makes sense. But on 11 September our enemies delivered a message--in spades no less--that they didn';t care. They hadn't cared throughout the 1990s, and they didn't care now. They wanted blood, our blood, and they wanted it now. They wanted capitulation. They wanted surrender. They wanted to deliver to us the reciprocity of all atrocities purported to have been carried out by America. They had a legitimate gripe, in their eyes, and this was the only way they could convey it. Pres. Clinton ignored it, and in the worst possible way.
He opted to use tactics that he knew would never deliver a final reply. It continued to draw attack after attack. Pres. Bush, despite all of his faults, treated 11 September as it should have been; an act of war against the United States of America. He asked for, and received, a declaration of war from Congress, and we engaged our enemy abroad. Since then, our enemy has been on the ropes. It may not seem like they have been, but they are. The engaged us directly, we destroyed them. They were forced to change their tactics, and started targeting civilians in an effort to turn opinion on America. That hasn't worked. In Iraq, the civilians don't want us to leave yet. They want us to stay. Why? Because they know that when we're around, they're safe.
We can't stay there forever, and they know that. But they are happy we're there, and they're thankful we came. The same goes for those in afghanistan. And now that NATO is there, the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters there know that their days are numbered. Two serious pushes by them in the last three months, and each time they've taken heavy casualties while NATO forces barely suffer a scratch. (The last engagement, NATO forces killed over 200 Taliban compared to the half-dozen casualties they took.) But Clinton obviously, due to his loathing of the military, didn't understand the capabilities of the US military. Maybe he didn't have faith in them, or didn't want to face the public backlash, but they should have been used and in their proper capacity.
To destroy the enemies of the United States, and protect its citizens.
He decided it wasn't right, and continued to pursue his plan. And who can fault him, really? He was the president, and had that right. But at some point, someone had to believe that such a strategy wasn't working. If they did (and Dick Morris has admitted that he raised this issue a number of times to Pres. Clinton) hen it was kept on the hush, or it wasn't very loud to begin with. The Clinton administration treated terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war. He refused to dispatch America's military to defend the nation, and eliminate it's enemies. And according to the docudramaon the odd occasion when he did have people in position, he refused to pull the trigger. Why? Only he can explain that. I can only speculate.
Clinton's action back then might have prevented 11 September from ever happening. Let me repeat that so there's no misunderstanding. MIGHT HAVE; nothing is certain. It might not have. But would n't it have been worth the try? When you see that a particular plan of attack isn't working, isn't it time to switch up tactics? And despite the carpings and arguments of the Left, yes we have switched up tactics in Iraq. But Clinton didn't do that. He stuck with the law enfrorcement route instead. And even though it's not definite that any serious action would have prevented 11 September, an attempt at such a move might have been the difference in preventing it. That is a fact the Left has decided to ignore.
I disliked Pres. Clinton. But I gave him the respect that the office demanded. But he is out of office now, and at the mercy of historians. If ABC sticks by it's "minor changes" policy on this movie, then Pres. Clinton is about to receive a serious black eye. If they cave in, then this is nothing more than a puff-piece that's barely worth noticing. We will see. There are plenty of people who have already seen the advance copies, and they are stating nothing more than what we have. This movie is not kind to Bill Clinton's legacy, but it is compiled through reliable sources, and serves only as a dramatization of the events leading up to the worst attack on American soil, ever. If ABC Entertainment decides to cave in, then they have not shown bias; they have shown that when people with a lot of influence whine, they are willing to surrender.
Surrender was exactly the tactics adhered to by the Clinton administration. Surrender, in this war, is exactly what we're trying to avoid, on our side. The image the administration portrayed was no harm, no foul, and it cost us dearly. This movie should serve as a reminder that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and that is a lesson from the past that we should never forget.
Publius II
UPDATE!!--Via Hot Air
This is a copy-paste of the begining of Allah's update. Read it, then go there and read the rest. You're not going to believe this crap. (Emphasis mine)
Via Spruiell. I forget the context, but I remember Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee saying a while back how disappointed he was in the Democrats over something, and I told him there’s an easy fix for that: expect nothing from them, like I do, and you’ll never be disappointed. Turns out I was wrong, though, because even with zero expectations, I can’t quite believe they’d stoop to this. As naked an example of intimidation as you’ll see this side of British Muslims playing good cop/bad cop with Tony Blair. If the GOP pulled this crap, it’d be top of the f’ng fold tomorrow in the Times. As it should be.
Wonderful network you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it:
[T]he manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC… Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation…
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events…
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows…
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Funny how the Left reacts to "inconvenient truths."
First, my answer back to them would be "That's nice; roll the dice and take your chances." No offense, but the Left doesn't have the guts to push this one forward. To actively and openly attack a broadcast outlet for what it's about to show. When CBS was deciding to run the Reagan docudrama, the people spoke up, and got the venue changed to cable. We had heard enough of the blatant misrepresentation of Pres. Reagan that it mattered to us that CBS would accept such a terrible depiction of a former president.
"The Path to 9/11" doesn't address the Clinton presidency the way the Reagan docudrama did the former president. This one deals with how this happened. It is based, in part, on the September 11th Commission's final report, and on interviews conducted by the director and writers. This was not some nutter project. These people wanted to get the truth the historical record reflected. The Left has a problem with someone citing such recent history, and it's because it's going to tarnish the legacy of "their man."
Reagan was, perhaps, one of the three greatest presidents of the 20th Century. (And by my own bias--and I admit it--I place his as the best president of the 20th Century.) BUT, even Reagan had dings in his legacy. EVERY president has them. And it comes in policy and personal life, as well. Nancy's fortune teller stint didn't help the president personally. He disliked attacks on his wife. He had no problem with people making fun of him, but Nancy was supposed to be off limits. Is it the nation's fault that Clinton had quite a few scandals in his presidency? Is it our fault that he failed to deal effectively with Al Qaeda? The answer to both questions is no. And despite the high opinion the media hog may have of himself, his presidency was far from perfect. To my knowledge no president has EVER had a PERFECT presidency.
But this sort of high school games needs to stop. This is childish. The Left doesn't seem to mind whitewashing the Clinton presidency, but it doesn't help the nation. Let me put it to people this way: What Clinton did in his personal life I could care less about. But his job when sworn into office was to protect and defend this nation and it's Consitution. He failed. Deal with it. ABC Entertainment needs to stand its ground, and tell these fools to shut up. Nothing will be changed betyond the minor tweaks a couple days ago. The show will go forward, and if they have a complaint, let thgem lodge it in Congress. They don't have the power to rip the license away, and they don't have the power to keep ABC out of the news loop. The public won't stand for it.
Publius II
**Scroll down for updates. The Left isn't playing games, and they're making veiled threats. This post will remain at the top for the rest of the night!!**
I never thought a movie could generate the buzz like this one has. On the right, there are pundits--like us--that were breathing a sigh of relief that somebody took note of the idiocy of the previous administration. Then we saw the stories today (and Marcie did a decent job confronting this issue) where ABC might be bowing to pressure. Let me say that if they do, they will reap what they sow.
See we remember 11th September. She watched part of it on TV. I watched it from beginning to end, and was absolutely shocked that morning. I had been up all night, working on my fiction writing, and had turned on FOX News that morning to listen to Man-Cow on Fox and Friends. Little did I know that my life was about to change. But as I watched the attack unfold, I realized that my calling was no longer in the realm of fiction, but in one of non-fiction; commenting on the current events and world affairs that went on daily. I, for one, will NEVER forget that day. I won't forget the emotion. I won't forget the images. I'll never forget those who died willingly, and those who went down fighting. (And when I talk about the "willing" ones, I'm not referring to the terrorists. I'm referring to the victims who believed it was a standard hostage taking.)
When I heard that the September 11th Commission was being formed, I thought that we would finally get to the bottom of what happened. How had we missed these people preparing to attack us. And when I heard that the commission was going back no further than 2001, really, in their investigations, I was outraged. President Bush had been in office for all of about eight months before that attack occurred. An attack of that scope could not have been assembled, trial runs executed, and all the right people in the right place at the right time in eight months. Their job included being able to fly, and eight months still isn't enough time to gain the experience needed to do that. So this went back further. But there was, in our humble opinion, some DC CYA going on with the Commission. Their report, which I have read through twice now, shows that the Bush administration had some lapses; some warnings that went unnoticed until it was too late.
Fine, you want to lay some blame at Bush's feet, then you're entitlted to do so. Marcie and I recognize that some things were botched early in his administration. It didn't come from the lack of attention the Left hass assigned to his administration. He knew, but there is a different between being aware, and knowing the facts. The PDB that everyone made an issue out of was inconclusive. It contained no details at all. The only thing that was confirmable in that whole memo was that our enemies were still intent on attacking us. Thanks for the update, but we knew that already. Got anything new?
Marcie tried to point out that much of the blame for 11 September lies at the feet of the Clinton administration. She is dead-on right. The administration, from 1993 forward, refused to treat the attacks the way they should have been. These were acts of war committed by a determined enemy of the United States. Subpoenas, warrants, and indictments were scoffed at by our enemy. Clinton's disastrous mission in Somalia only emboldened our enemy; bin Laden himself proclaimed the US a "paper tiger" because of the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident. And under Bill Clinton, he was right.
Bin Laden knew that as long as Clinton was in office, the worst he might have to face is pressure from an ally to leave so the US wouldn't get angry with them. Sudan proved it. So did Saudi Arabia. The taliban in Afghanistan cared nothing for our ire. As a tribal region, they knew the US would overlook them, for the most part, and the administration did. The occasional missile strike into Afghanistan would go virtually unnoticed. And bin Laden would be free to do as he pleased there. He was never asked to leave by Taliban members, and it was because they didn't care if the US was ticked at them for harboring him.
But in all the terrorist attacks in the 1990s, the Clinton administration did nothing. It was all treated like it was a crime. And on the surface that might have been true, but each and every attack was an act of war. We just weren't prepared to deal with the fact that our enemy was ready for war, and we weren't interested. So people died, and thei idea of justice the Clinton administration offered had little to do with the real concept of justice. As we have seen in the Moussaoui trial, the concept of justice--removing a piece of garbage like that from the breathing populace--is still there. The criminal courts can't deal with an issue like terrorism. Remember that in that trial Moussaoui's lawyers pointed to an "abusive childhood," and stated that such abuse led him down the path to jihad.
If we're going to use that as an excuse--that a bad early life is to blame--then are we to excuse people like Geghis Khan, or Attila the Hun? How about Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? I think not. Mass murderers are evil, regardless of what drove them to that point. There is no excuse for such acts, and his lawyers tried to do exactly that. And had Clinton's idea of enforcement worked, the same would have happened to bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. They would have received slick defense lawyers that would have blamed their deisre for jihad on a bad upbringing, thereby excusing their actions.
And that, folks, is the damnable thing about this. Under the Clinton administration, we were willing to excuse people like this. If we just roll over, and take it easy on them, they'll leave us alone. That's nice. That's sound. Hell, that even makes sense. But on 11 September our enemies delivered a message--in spades no less--that they didn';t care. They hadn't cared throughout the 1990s, and they didn't care now. They wanted blood, our blood, and they wanted it now. They wanted capitulation. They wanted surrender. They wanted to deliver to us the reciprocity of all atrocities purported to have been carried out by America. They had a legitimate gripe, in their eyes, and this was the only way they could convey it. Pres. Clinton ignored it, and in the worst possible way.
He opted to use tactics that he knew would never deliver a final reply. It continued to draw attack after attack. Pres. Bush, despite all of his faults, treated 11 September as it should have been; an act of war against the United States of America. He asked for, and received, a declaration of war from Congress, and we engaged our enemy abroad. Since then, our enemy has been on the ropes. It may not seem like they have been, but they are. The engaged us directly, we destroyed them. They were forced to change their tactics, and started targeting civilians in an effort to turn opinion on America. That hasn't worked. In Iraq, the civilians don't want us to leave yet. They want us to stay. Why? Because they know that when we're around, they're safe.
We can't stay there forever, and they know that. But they are happy we're there, and they're thankful we came. The same goes for those in afghanistan. And now that NATO is there, the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters there know that their days are numbered. Two serious pushes by them in the last three months, and each time they've taken heavy casualties while NATO forces barely suffer a scratch. (The last engagement, NATO forces killed over 200 Taliban compared to the half-dozen casualties they took.) But Clinton obviously, due to his loathing of the military, didn't understand the capabilities of the US military. Maybe he didn't have faith in them, or didn't want to face the public backlash, but they should have been used and in their proper capacity.
To destroy the enemies of the United States, and protect its citizens.
He decided it wasn't right, and continued to pursue his plan. And who can fault him, really? He was the president, and had that right. But at some point, someone had to believe that such a strategy wasn't working. If they did (and Dick Morris has admitted that he raised this issue a number of times to Pres. Clinton) hen it was kept on the hush, or it wasn't very loud to begin with. The Clinton administration treated terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war. He refused to dispatch America's military to defend the nation, and eliminate it's enemies. And according to the docudramaon the odd occasion when he did have people in position, he refused to pull the trigger. Why? Only he can explain that. I can only speculate.
Clinton's action back then might have prevented 11 September from ever happening. Let me repeat that so there's no misunderstanding. MIGHT HAVE; nothing is certain. It might not have. But would n't it have been worth the try? When you see that a particular plan of attack isn't working, isn't it time to switch up tactics? And despite the carpings and arguments of the Left, yes we have switched up tactics in Iraq. But Clinton didn't do that. He stuck with the law enfrorcement route instead. And even though it's not definite that any serious action would have prevented 11 September, an attempt at such a move might have been the difference in preventing it. That is a fact the Left has decided to ignore.
I disliked Pres. Clinton. But I gave him the respect that the office demanded. But he is out of office now, and at the mercy of historians. If ABC sticks by it's "minor changes" policy on this movie, then Pres. Clinton is about to receive a serious black eye. If they cave in, then this is nothing more than a puff-piece that's barely worth noticing. We will see. There are plenty of people who have already seen the advance copies, and they are stating nothing more than what we have. This movie is not kind to Bill Clinton's legacy, but it is compiled through reliable sources, and serves only as a dramatization of the events leading up to the worst attack on American soil, ever. If ABC Entertainment decides to cave in, then they have not shown bias; they have shown that when people with a lot of influence whine, they are willing to surrender.
Surrender was exactly the tactics adhered to by the Clinton administration. Surrender, in this war, is exactly what we're trying to avoid, on our side. The image the administration portrayed was no harm, no foul, and it cost us dearly. This movie should serve as a reminder that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and that is a lesson from the past that we should never forget.
Publius II
UPDATE!!--Via Hot Air
This is a copy-paste of the begining of Allah's update. Read it, then go there and read the rest. You're not going to believe this crap. (Emphasis mine)
Via Spruiell. I forget the context, but I remember Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee saying a while back how disappointed he was in the Democrats over something, and I told him there’s an easy fix for that: expect nothing from them, like I do, and you’ll never be disappointed. Turns out I was wrong, though, because even with zero expectations, I can’t quite believe they’d stoop to this. As naked an example of intimidation as you’ll see this side of British Muslims playing good cop/bad cop with Tony Blair. If the GOP pulled this crap, it’d be top of the f’ng fold tomorrow in the Times. As it should be.
Wonderful network you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it:
[T]he manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC… Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation…
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events…
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows…
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Funny how the Left reacts to "inconvenient truths."
First, my answer back to them would be "That's nice; roll the dice and take your chances." No offense, but the Left doesn't have the guts to push this one forward. To actively and openly attack a broadcast outlet for what it's about to show. When CBS was deciding to run the Reagan docudrama, the people spoke up, and got the venue changed to cable. We had heard enough of the blatant misrepresentation of Pres. Reagan that it mattered to us that CBS would accept such a terrible depiction of a former president.
"The Path to 9/11" doesn't address the Clinton presidency the way the Reagan docudrama did the former president. This one deals with how this happened. It is based, in part, on the September 11th Commission's final report, and on interviews conducted by the director and writers. This was not some nutter project. These people wanted to get the truth the historical record reflected. The Left has a problem with someone citing such recent history, and it's because it's going to tarnish the legacy of "their man."
Reagan was, perhaps, one of the three greatest presidents of the 20th Century. (And by my own bias--and I admit it--I place his as the best president of the 20th Century.) BUT, even Reagan had dings in his legacy. EVERY president has them. And it comes in policy and personal life, as well. Nancy's fortune teller stint didn't help the president personally. He disliked attacks on his wife. He had no problem with people making fun of him, but Nancy was supposed to be off limits. Is it the nation's fault that Clinton had quite a few scandals in his presidency? Is it our fault that he failed to deal effectively with Al Qaeda? The answer to both questions is no. And despite the high opinion the media hog may have of himself, his presidency was far from perfect. To my knowledge no president has EVER had a PERFECT presidency.
But this sort of high school games needs to stop. This is childish. The Left doesn't seem to mind whitewashing the Clinton presidency, but it doesn't help the nation. Let me put it to people this way: What Clinton did in his personal life I could care less about. But his job when sworn into office was to protect and defend this nation and it's Consitution. He failed. Deal with it. ABC Entertainment needs to stand its ground, and tell these fools to shut up. Nothing will be changed betyond the minor tweaks a couple days ago. The show will go forward, and if they have a complaint, let thgem lodge it in Congress. They don't have the power to rip the license away, and they don't have the power to keep ABC out of the news loop. The public won't stand for it.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home