Posted on 09/11/2006 5:55:33 AM PDT by radar101
It must be understood that the outcries over "The Path to 9/11," penned and produced by Cyrus Nowrasteh — a contributor to JWR's sister site Political Mavens — has much to do with this being the first time that Bill Clinton has found himself on the wrong side of Hollywood's creative pen. "Wrong" in this case meaning not the flattering or sycophantic treatment he's come to take for granted from the entertainment community.
If history will find fault with "Path," it will be that it lets the Clinton administration off easy, hardly scratching the surface of the aggressive non-vigilance, the willful incompetence and outright contempt for matters of national security that the frat party running the country for eight years displayed. Between focusing almost exclusively on domestic pandering priorities, and fixating on the Palestinian-Israeli brokering that brought us to Intifadah 2 (plus making a last-ditch attempt at a legacy by bombing Europe), only Jimmy Carter outdid that administration in castrating the country's security and intelligence apparatuses, tying America's hands behind her back and having a cavalier overall attitude toward matters of security.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Bump
The 9/11 Commission is full of hubris. They are the commission that won't die--at least until a Dem is in the WH. Right now, they are an arm of the DNC.
Great editorial. Worth following the link for the whole thing!
More on Cyrus Nowrasteh
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2005/July/nowrasteh.html
http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/author/cyrusnowrasteh/
This "docudrama" is almost as big a joke as the 9-11 commission. In order to assign blame for the intelligence breakdown, the criminal liberal news media would HAVE to acknowledge that Clintler (Heil Clintler!) committed treason.
There was a Dilbert cartoon a few months ago that said something about a successful CEO looks decisive without actually making a decision. I thought I saw that theory in action last night. I wish I had time to find the strip.....
Julia nails it in this must-read essay. She just doesn't hit that nail quite hard enough. Where she wrote, "That pretty much sums up foreign policy under Bill Clinton," describing the menue at a meeting hosted by Clinton at Camp David with Barak and Arafat in attendance, she doesn't even mention how both Barak and Arafat went home in a huff because Bubba allowed Chelsea to sit in on sensitive meetings and arbitrate with the middle eastern leaders.
I would have gone home in a huff too, had I been treated that way. The nation hadn't seen anything like it since Jimmah Cartuh proclaimed that he had consulted Amy about nuclear war!
Geeesh!
I agree Clinton got off easy. I found the fact that the numerous attacks during Clinton's reign were fairly glossed over.
Inaction has consequences
Were there equals of Gore-lick, Ben Veniste for the Reoublican side? I do not recall them...
I, like many others, think there is plenty of neglect and blame to put on both the Clinton and Bush administrations for the 9/11 attacks on our nation. The real questions are what are we doing now to prevent another one, and which political party is pro-active, and which politcal party is reactive? It is obvious to me which is which, and though President Bush isn't perfect, at least he has defined the problem and taken actions to correct them. So many things have gone wrong in the world, and the USA is almost in the position of having to fight fire with fire, and not diplomats. Our intelligence agencies were castrated by Carter, neglected by Reagan and Bush I, totally ignored by Clinton, and we expect Mr. Bush II to have at his fingertips the pulse of the whole world? This is/was insane, and within those departments of OUR government, we have seperate cabals of pro/anti Americanism at work. We are a divided nation, and we will fall if not corrected, and corrected fast! I think Mr. Bush is on the right path to helping us out of this mess we find ourselves in.
I'm sure what you say is true but all the Bush stuff has been rubbed in our face for years now while Clinton's culpability has been left to conservative internet sites. As far as I know this will be the first time Clinton has been held up MSM-style for public scrutiny.
I am reminded of a George Will quote
"Bill Clinton may not be the worst president we've ever had, but he is the worst man we've ever had as president"
That is not a "problem" for me. I do my own analysis and make up my own mind. I watched last night's revised version [not the one Rush saw] and came away with the conclusion that Clinton was pretty much given a pass. Berger, Albright, and Tenet were the main players and decisionmakers. Clarke, the paid ABC advisor comes across as a hero. That is really not how our government works when it comes to these issues. Clinton has stated that he was almost "obsessed" with getting UBL.
Tonight, we will see the attack on the Bush administration. I am sure we will have the President's Michael Moore moment at the school in Florida. We will learn about all of the indications in the months leading up to 9/11 that an attack was imminent. And we will see the Bush administration's report card for its performance after 9/11. The result will be that Bush had not made this country safer and has not carried out the Commission's recommendations. It is no coincidence that Kean is executive co-producer of the film. It is also fair to assume that the Dem attacks of Bush not doing enough to secure the Homeland because of the "distraction" of Iraq fit nicely to the film's conclusion.
It is easy for us who know the facts to view the first night positively, mainly because we can't believe that the MSM would even include anything critical of the Clinton administration. However, most Americans don't know the "facts" and can't put them into context. As an aside, I found the film to be disjointed and the camera work terrible. This could be a product of the major editing that went on. They tried to make it like an episode of "24."
I found the "scrutiny" sadly wanting.
LOL. I am sure that is a rhetorical question. There was not one GOP political attack dog to rival Gore-lick, Ben Veniste, Kerrey, and Roemer.
The 9/11 Commission was a farce. I am beginning to wonder if the Dem reaction to the docudrama was feigned somewhat to ensure a wider viewership. Tonight will tell the tale about what lasting impression the producers want us to take away from the film. I heard Kean say this morning that the Commission report card will be the last thing shown.
I'm beginning to think that the tampering took place weeks ago, while the film was still in final edit and that the whole brouhaha was confected. It wouldn't be the first time the Clintonazis managed things ahead of time, then inoculated the situation and then it got released for public consumption. These people are professional propagandists, far better than the Nazis ever were.
We're in for a peck of trouble if any of them ever get within screaming distance of any effective power. Look how effective they are with no power other than media mouthpieces? This generation of Democrats must be kept in the corner until they pass away and God can take up their final disposition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.