Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« When Metaphors Attack! | Main | Armitage Speaks! »

September 07, 2006

Comments

Sue

In all fairness to Clinton, the republicans in Congress would have never given Clinton the necessary tools to wage a war on terrorism involving the military, short of an attack on our own soil. The same reason the democrats supported Bush. And I might add, the only reason. The country demanded it.

I don't blame Clinton anymore than I blame Bush. I blame a bunch of terrorists that were able to pull off a strike against us that probably surprised them more than us. After 9/11, everything changed. It was no longer a police action, but a military action. We went on offense. Or at least part of the country did. The rest remained in defense, or as Cheney loves to remind them, a pre-9/11 mindset. It is no longer an option to hunt down and prosecute those that strike us. We have to stop it before it happens and to do that, you have to be on offense.

Sue

As to whether or not 9/11 would have happened had Clinton been able to kill or capture him before, as someone else said, it doesn't matter. But it would have prevented him from becoming the icon he has become.

lurker

In case, anyone wants to build an argument against the media's false reporting of the Phase II report:

Partners in terror

Hopefully, this site is accurate.

Sue

I also don't think without 9/11 Bush would have gone into offensive mode. As he himself has said, 9/11 changed his mindset. Prior to that, he was against the US getting involved around the world. He campaigned against nation building. I don't believe he would have done anything differently than the previous presidents did. And that is why I am glad Bush was president and not Gore. Bush allowed events to change his mind. Gore would have stayed the course (pun intended).

Sue

And how cool do I think I am? Rudy agrees with me. ::grin::

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/>Hugh Hewitt

lurker

Sue, I think you are right. However,

The Project for the New American Century may have a lot of influence as it had been planning for many years before Bush became our US president.

Sue

Test. I have installed what ajacksonian recommended and I am about to see if I can post without being considered an automated robot. Ignore the signs that I might be, like 4 or 5 posts in a row. ::grin::

ajacksonian

Sue - Glad it works!

Just a bit of dinking forward and back after posting gets the site to remember my info... but it looks like something is just a bit fubar, probably a cookie or interfering setting on the site itself.

Beyond me, at any rate. The simple solution works... 'good enough for government work'.

Sue

And it worked. The speed seems to be okay. Woohoo!!!!

boris

never given Clinton the necessary tools to wage a war on terrorism

While no reasonable pre-911 security measure would have prevented 911, the Gorelick wall did kill several possible chances to intercept it. Clinton could have removed it all by himself under circumstances that seem obvious in hindsight.

But, short of 911, invading Afghanistan and targetting terrorist sites in Pakistan was impossible no matter who ran congress.

Sue

lurker,

That is assuming Bush has no mind of his own and is truly run by the cabal in Washington. I don't agree. He was my governor before he became president. He pretty much said what he meant and meant what he said. 9/11 changed him. He went on war footing. He might have been more agressive with regards to Iraq than Clinton had been, but I don't believe he would have used military force to overthrow Saddam. (A bullet in the head, mabye. ::grin:: )

boris

Suppose despite the Gorelick wall the 911 plot had been intercepted during BJ's term and exposed in all details? What then? Maybe let the CIA take Bin Laden out? Invade Afghanistan (ha)?

boris

Suppose despite the Gorelick wall the 911 plot had been intercepted during BJ's term and exposed in all details? What then? Maybe let the CIA take Bin Laden out? Invade Afghanistan (ha)?

boris

Suppose despite the Gorelick wall the 911 plot had been intercepted during BJ's term and exposed in all details? What then? Maybe let the CIA take Bin Laden out? Invade Afghanistan (ha)?

Sue

Boris,

As someone pointed out last night on H&C, Gorelick didn't build the wall, she merely took it from 3 feet high to 9 feet high. We will never know if Bush would have brought the wall back to 3 feet had 9/11 not happened. Or demolished it altogether. 9/11 happened before Bush policies were in place.

boris

Yikes! maybe I am an automated robot!

Sue

I was about to ask you if you were trying to steal my thunder. ::grin::

boris

Point is the Republican congress was not standing in the way of removing the wall.

"Hello Jamie ?"

"Yeah?"

"BJ here ... "

"Cool!"

"Ya know that wall of yours ? ... "

"Sure"

"Ha ha, might be a little too high girl ..."

"Oh ... should I ... "

"Whatcha wearing right now ? "

Pofarmer

"the republicans in Congress would have never given Clinton the necessary tools to wage a war on terrorism involving the military,"

I'll have to disagree here. The military was very busy with the "War on Drugs" in SA in that timeframe. I don't recall any objections. Notice how lot's of those countries are leaning strongly Socialist now? They were justifiably pissed by our actions there.

How strong was Republican criticism of Clintons unilateral action in Kosovo? The inefectual 3 day bombing in Iraq? Would the Republicans have opposed sending more troops to Somolia to clean up that mess? I doubt it. Now it's an Islamic State, brilliant. And Bush's policies of being less involved in world affairs would have certain taken a lot of steam out of the Jihadi's efforts.

Clinton would have had all the tools he needed to do what needed to be done.

However. During his tenure CIA funding was repeatedly cut. The military was reduced by, what, a fourth? Maybe more. It was under incredible financial strain during this whole period. Clinton not only didn't do what needed to be done, but he actively pursued policies that would have allowed those closest to the action to be effective, including collecting accurate intelligence that might be used to good effect. Now, with the intelligence failures of the '90's we get the whole "Bush lied" fiasco, when it was generally based on Clinton era intelligence and policies. "Blame to go around"? Hardly.

Pofarmer

Oh, and by the way, if you haven't already, you really need to go to Democrats.org and check out the headline. It's priceless. The Dims are finally being honest.

Sue

Okay. I am easily persuaded these days that Clinton was a bafoon. Especially when they try and misremember what they said in the 90s.

boris

Now, with the intelligence failures of the '90's we get the whole "Bush lied" fiasco, when it was generally based on Clinton era intelligence and policies. "Blame to go around"? Hardly.

One side tries to blame Bush for something neither president had a decent chance to prevent. Blame for being unserious about the issue is somewhat pointless. So it's really just a rhetorical foodfight they started and went crybaby now that something might set the record a little straighter.

But yes it is obvious, blame for being unserious goes 99% to BJ.

boris

Is bafoon the clarice spellchecker verion of baboon?

Sue

I probably misspelled it. But, loosely translated, a clown.

Jane

The Dims are finally being honest.

I find their whole "this does a disservice to the victims" meme funny. How on earth are the victims disserviced?

Pofarmer

Boris

Clinton wasn't just being unserious, which I might sorta consider in regards to Bush pre 9/11,(although it's hard to deny he got signifgantly more serious rather quickly when he recognized the error;) Clinton was enacting policies which were actually obstructing activities which might have helped folks understand what was going on. Would better intelligence have prevented 9/11? No idea. Would standing and fighting in Mogadishu have halted 9/11? Probably.

Pofarmer

Also, you can't deny the Clinton administration as a whole fundamentally misunderstood the problem of Islamic terrorism. He still does, and an awful lot of Democrats still do, unless you somehow don't beleive their rheotoric.

Pofarmer

Also, you can't deny the Clinton administration as a whole fundamentally misunderstood the problem of Islamic terrorism. He still does, and an awful lot of Democrats still do, unless you somehow don't beleive their rheotoric.

"How on earth are the victims disserviced?"

Isn't it obvious? By making the "Party of Perinial Victimhood" look bad, you are obviously doing a disservice to the victims of 9/11!!!!!

boris

Would standing and fighting in Mogadishu have halted 9/11? Probably

A pattern of not just standing, but vicious lethal pursuit starting with the Beruit barracks ... yes

My counterpoint is that was not and has not ever been the mindset of this country. Until attacked and angry.

boris

loosely translated, a clown

I know, buffoon, it was a deliberate pun.

windansea

ABC Stands By Its 9/11 Story — Almost
After minor edits in response to Democratic critics, the miniseries will air as scheduled. It's already set off a bitter election-year dispute.


Docudrama
(Peter Stranks / ABC)
Dec 15, 2005

Politicized
(Frederick M. Brown / Getty Images)
Jul 19, 2006


RELATED
On Dangerous Ground
Sep 9, 2006


ABC follows a path to shame
Sep 9, 2006


The continued mauling of the National Mall
Sep 9, 2006


Unseemly Memorials
Sep 9, 2006

Enter your ZIP code to find complete local listings.

Registered Users Log In


Need a password reminder?

>> Register Now
>> Find Current Listings >> Search Listings

TV & Radio
On Dangerous Ground
Everybody likes Ellen, especially Oscar
'Simpsons' creator: 'Let's keep doing it'
Amazon.com Offers Digital Films and TV
Tooting Its Own Horn, NBC Hits a Sour Note
TV & Radio section >

Most E-mailed
Comic-book duo re-create unlikely story: 9/11
ABC follows a path to shame
Mystery Fuels Huge Popularity of Web's Lonelygirl15
> more e-mailed stories


By Scott Collins and Tina Daunt, Times Staff Writers


Walt Disney Co.'s ABC is forging ahead with plans to air a miniseries starting Sunday despite controversy over its efforts to dramatize — and some say unfairly politicize — the events leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Producers said late Friday that they had finished making minor edits to "The Path to 9/11" amid a firestorm of protests from leading Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who warned that telecasting "right-wing political propaganda" might violate the terms of ABC's government-mandated broadcast license.

LATimes

Pofarmer

"Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who warned that telecasting "right-wing political propaganda" might violate the terms of ABC's government-mandated broadcast license."

I gotta tell ya folks. The Democrats are scaring me a little here. I think now I know why the 2nd ammendment was included. I fail to see in any way how this program could be considered "right wing political propaganda" unless your head is, well, somewhere dark.

"A pattern of not just standing, but vicious lethal pursuit starting with the Beruit barracks ... yes

My counterpoint is that was not and has not ever been the mindset of this country. Until attacked and angry."

I'll not argue there Boris. My other point would be that by the end of the Clinton administration a definate pattern had emerged. The Beirut bombing was seen as an isolated incident. By the time of the bombing of the USS Cole, it should have been apparent to anyone that action was called for, especially those with the proper intelligence. Instead, the Clintons chose to actively obstruct the Cole investigation when the facts pointed to Iran and Al Queda. Ditto for the 93 WTC bombing and Iraq. In response to some questions about the Cole bombing, Gen Zinni responded with "what should we do, attack Afghanistan?" Well, yes, that would be a good start!!!!

Would a Democratic administration finally have prosecuted this war after the 2nd WTC attack? Somehow I doubt it, and there are no facts that would point to that conclusion.

Jane

It occurred to me this morning, while reading Hugh Hewitt, that the real opposition of the democrats in seeing this movie is that it will reiterate the seriousness of our enemy how important fighting this war is for our safety. My guess is that Clinton/Dean et. al are triangulating. They are worried about the impact on the election -

And in the last week I've also sensed a small shift in the electorate. Has anyone else?

Pofarmer

"And in the last week I've also sensed a small shift in the electorate. Has anyone else?"

The MSM is restructuring the "Dems may take the House and Senate" story, as if they haven't been talking about it all summer already. Somebody is working. The poll numbers are getting better for the 'Pubs in the "close" races. Even here in MO, the Dem rival to Talent said at a speech the other night that Bush "left people to die on rooftops because they were poor, and they were black, and they were Democrats". This is in MO, and we aren't known for being moonbat central. We are known for being largely non-partisan. If anyone is driving this, it's the Dems. Anyone paying any attention whatsoever to Clair McCaskill, no matter what her other positions, has to ask themselves, "Do I want to vote for that?" This current resort to desperate extremism from the left is dangerous, who knows what thrashing about there could be after the elections. We could look like old Mexico.!?

Jane

Bush "left people to die on rooftops because they were poor, and they were black, and they were Democrats".

I just have to believe that a majority of the electorate is not moonbats. I really believe in my heart of hearts that on some level most people are saying: "These guys are fruitcakes". I just don't think everyone is taken in by the rhetoric.

Of course I may get a real commuppance come November.

Pofarmer

"Of course I may get a real commuppance come November."

That make two of us. I was planning on voting for a Dem of my State Senate seat. After this little episode with the Path to 9/11, no way. No way I want the current crop of Dems to have any claims to power. The candidate for my District is a good guy. However, I don't want the national Dems to point to these state races as some source of vindication or power.

Pofarmer

"Of course I may get a real commuppance come November."

That make two of us. I was planning on voting for a Dem of my State Senate seat. After this little episode with the Path to 9/11, no way. No way I want the current crop of Dems to have any claims to power. The candidate for my District is a good guy. However, I don't want the national Dems to point to these state races as some source of vindication or power.

boris

the real opposition of the democrats in seeing this movie is that it will reiterate the seriousness of our enemy how important fighting this war is

Absoloutly.

The choice is not: Do It Perfectly Right or Don't Do It At All

The choice is: Do It Right Way, Wrong Way, Any Way or Die

Sue

Wow. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/09/in_new_letter_clintons_lawyer_demands_abc_yank_film>Clinton is really freaking out over this movie.

Jane

The candidate for my District is a good guy. However, I don't want the national Dems to point to these state races as some source of vindication or power.

profarmer,

You know, you should write him a letter and let him know the reason behind your decision. If he is a "good guy" that is good information for him to have.

Jane

Sue,

Again with the protection of the victims. I just don't see the relationship at all. And Bruce Lindsay spelled "project" wrong. I guess he was truly livid.

Sue

I don't care that democrats are complaining about the movie. I don't care that they are writing letters to ABC. What I do care about is senators threatening ABC and no one on the left seems to care. Hell, Jane Hamsher called for them to do it. If they weren't so afraid of their record on terrorism, before and after 9/11, they would just shut up and let the damn thing run. You don't hear Condi Rice screaming to take it off the air and, as I understand it, she is not portrayed accurately or very nicely.

Pofarmer

"Of course I may get a real commuppance come November."

That make two of us. I was planning on voting for a Dem of my State Senate seat. After this little episode with the Path to 9/11, no way. No way I want the current crop of Dems to have any claims to power. The candidate for my District is a good guy. However, I don't want the national Dems to point to these state races as some source of vindication or power.

Pofarmer

"What I do care about is senators threatening ABC and no one on the left seems to care. Hell, Jane Hamsher called for them to do it. If they weren't so afraid of their record on terrorism, before and after 9/11, they would just shut up and let the damn thing run"

Exactly

They are trying to run on this "strong on security" platform. It's really a laugh.

"The choice is not: Do It Perfectly Right or Don't Do It At All

The choice is: Do It Right Way, Wrong Way, Any Way or Die"

boris

I'd rather have an administration that would prosecute this war willingly, than to have one that will have to be drug by the heels.

The problem is, either we'll fight it over their, or we'll fight it over here. Fighting it over there will have far fewer consequences to our freedoms, although, in the long run, it might be good for our society.

cathyf
Would better intelligence have prevented 9/11? No idea. Would standing and fighting in Mogadishu have halted 9/11? Probably.
My bumper sticker: WEAKNESS IS PROVACATION Why? Because Osama told us that our weakness provoked them.

Another thing to understand -- the NSA surveillance program leaks were a concerted effort by the DOJ and FBI to put the Gorelick Wall back up. Now that the wall isn't there any more, too much damn work keeps getting shoved through the breach.

Sue

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog.aspx>Read what Michael Medved has to say about the Path to 9/11. He has seen the movie.

JM Hanes

From the Linsey letter:

Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed.
Talk about a logical fallacy! It clearly indicates not only that putative flaws can, in fact, be remedied, but also that ABC is undertaking the repairs.

What's really notable about this letter, though, is that Clinton used a surrogate to write it, instead of writing it himself.

Sue

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/08/meltdown-dean-berger-albright-lefty-historians-demand-path-be-edited-cancelled/>Allah seems really ticked off. ::grin::

Barney Frank

JMH,

Doesn't he always use a bag man while he stays above the fray?

Unless of course it someone with a skirt, then he's a hands on kind of guy.
Hands on what I won't touch with a barge pole.

Pofarmer

"the NSA surveillance program leaks were a concerted effort by the DOJ and FBI to put the Gorelick Wall back up."

Not to mention those places are chock full of career liberals.

JM Hanes

Sue:

I liked Medved's piece on Death Wish Republicans even more.

JM Hanes

Barney: That would be yes and no comment.

Neo

Last night, I saw a piece on MSNBC that had Olbermann hosting a dude from Think Progress talking about the connections of an Evangelical Christian group to the TV movie "Path to 9/11." The piece just foamed with "guilt by association" in the film industry and Olbermann just lapped it up.

If you had replaced all the references to "Evangelical Christians" with "Communists", it would have been easily recognized as prue McCarthyism.

If nothing else, "The Path to 9/11" has truely shown adults acting badly, more than once.

boris

Had Dan Rather rather than present 5 fake memos as real news instead presented one "composite" reconstruction as dramatizaqtion of Burkett's memory, he and Mapes would still have their old jobs.

Total joke for a "news" segment of course and they might have been laughed off the air ... nah ...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame