Replies

The BIG difference is that Bush, humbly, admitted that they made a mistake in not taking the threat more seriously, however, it was Clinton's mistake, IMHO, in not being more emphatic in their warning regarding the threat. For all we know, Clinton left a Post-It note on the desk in the Oval Office.

Remember, President Bush did not take office under optimal conditions. I'm certain Clinton was not really forthcoming regarding all the hot button issues on the immediate agenda. Anything to make Bush look bad.

According to richard Clarke, we had a "very elaborate" plan to hit OBL....so we hit an aspirin factory and a tent in Afghanistan.....what am I missing here?

Just finished up and here are my observations:

1. Our enemy is not fooling around. They have been at this a lot longer than we have and they are determined and not afraid of death. This is spiritual for them. That was clearly and dramatically portrayed. I appreciated the fact that they took the time to show that there are indeed some Muslims who do not believe in what the terrorists are doing, even if they hate Israel and by extension the US. I believe there are more like that who are way to afraid to come forward.

2. There are thousands of heroic people in the field working their butts of every day to protect us. They get exasperated with the arrogance of the bureaucracy and the politicos. God bless the people on the ground. This film reminded me to give thanks for them, even though their names will never be known.

3. The Clinton administration was lawyer heavy. Everything that administration did, was seen through a legal lens. While I'm sure that President Bush's administration was just as incompetent pre-911, he was smart enough after the attack to dump the hyper-lawyering and use common sense.

4. Madeline Albright is an embarrassment to the United States, an arrogant, self-important, sneering, idiot. Sandy Berger is a man racked with fear and indecision. Of course, we already knew both of those things.

5. Clinton was not the President of the United States. He was the figurehead, he made public appearances, he raised money. But he is a lazy, risk adverse, popularity seeking, self-indulgent child better suited for the streets of Hollywood. He would rather talk than do, avoid than confront. Of course, we already knew that as well.

6. The Democrats have made a HUGE blunder regarding this film. If they had just shut up, the ratings would have been lower and, most important, people would have watched it thinking about the heroes vs. the evil terrorists. Instead, everyone concentrated on the behavior of the Democrats. The greatest irony is that I KNOW the names of the people involved and I could barely keep them straight. Non-political junkies would have seen them simply as "government people" and completely forgotten they were Democrats despite the titles. It's hilarious. By pointing this out, most people sat there and said, "Why sure enough, the Democrats ARE more interested in rights for terrorists than in getting the bad guys." HAHAHA. What idiots.

7. I'm looking forward to tomorrow night. It wasn't deep, it wasn't a documentary. But it told a good story, stuck pretty close to the truth...and I got used to the shaky camera about a third of the way through.

Ok...that's it. FWIW. See everyone tomorrow evening.

I like your "post-it" analogy. I have also been of the opinion that Clinton didn't share information with Bush because from the very beginning Clinton wanted to undercut Bush any way he could. And he is still doing so with the assistance of the MSM. It is too bad Bush's speech tonight is timed for the middle of ABC's Path to 9-11 Part II. I think I will have to cut away from ABC to watch Bush. Why couldn't the Bush people schedule his speech for 6:00? It is these kind of mistakes that get to me.