The Path To Tedium

I watched ABC's controversial "Path to 9/11" last night.  Well, I watched parts of it - I tuned in late because I had the silly idea that "The Path to 9/11' would be aired from, well, 9 to 11; check your local listings.

The 'docudrama' did not exactly hold my interest, although others surely found the endless third World vistas fascinating - my personal path to 9/11 took detours through Las Vegas (for the World Series of Poker) and Bristol, Connecticut (for some sports scores.)

But one thing was clear - there is a place for me in Hollywood as a writer for these big-time dramas!  Just for example, I did catch the BITTERLY CONTROVERSIAL scene where some CIA and Northern Alliance chaps are awaiting permission from Washington to go and whack Osama, and Sandy Berger freezes up and just stares at the phone rather than yelling "Green light!  Get Osama stat!"

Anyway, the Afghani leader of the Northern Alliance stares at his CIA counterpart and asks something like, "Are there no men left in Washington, or is everyone in your country a coward?".

To which the CIA contact did not reply, "I am afraid to answer that".

But he should have.

I can't wait for tonight.

Comments

[gscotb]

How about "The Path to Eyestrain"?
All that jittery hand-held camera work made my peepers sore.

[sbw]

Jane, from the previous thread: I think Hugh Hewitt is right. The left doesn't think we are really at war.

The sharper point is, rather, that the left doesn't understand what is worth fighting for.

[sbw]

I wrote an editorial that will be published today as a 9-11 memorial: On what does society depend?

What sets humans apart from the rest of the animals is their ability to project different futures and to plan to reach the better one. Do you prefer to live in a jungle or society? Now that science has put such power in the hands of anyone who chooses to learn to use it, you cannot escape making the choice. The future of society depends on you understanding that "warp" of humility and "weft" of reciprocity are cornerstones for civilization. Then society depends on you to race to convince others that the umbrella of society is the wise choice. Finally, society depends on you to defend against those who prefer to live solely by the law of the jungle.

From such simple understanding as this spring courage, resolve, and perseverance. Society is the best permanent memorial for those stricken by our earlier failure to achieve it.

[larwyn]

Dear Tom,
You wrote:
But one thing was clear - there is a place for me in Hollywood as a writer for these big-time dramas!

We absolutely agree! And you've already written most of the "complicated" script. Just fill in with the sexy parts (Joe's wives and that 3rd date come to mind). You've got senic locations all over the world. It has everything. Just write it.

Can't believe you're going to let EW tell the tale.

In the meantime Doug Ross has begun titles
for 3 espisodes of what I'm sure could be another Emmy winning FOX series. Only needs 19 more:
Ideas for more Dramatizations of the Clinton Era at
DougRoss

Given all of the interest and attention paid to the docudrama The Path to 9/11, other networks are certain to follow in ABC's footsteps. Helpful chap that I am, here are some suggestions for additional mini-series that center on the Clinton legacy:

The Path to Chinese ICBMs -- a dramatization of the fascinating story of Johnny Chung, the DNC, and the Clinton Administration -- details of how Chinese organizations "funneled" cash to the Democratic National Committee. According to CNN, "...after [the Chinese] passed illegal money to the D.N.C., Clinton approved the transfer of commercial satellite-launch technology to China--technology that might have helped China improve the accuracy of its long-range ballistic missiles that threaten the U.S..." Review: Pulse-pounding drama at its best!

[Dwilkers]

I watched most of it and have it DVR'd so I can watch the rest as time allows. It is extremely rare for me to sit through 3 entire hours of television of any sort.

It was about what I expected. A depiction of the series of attacks over a long time period with various feckless folks making cameo appearances.

Pretty much the way our government works or at least that's how my cynical self sees it.

[Bob]

nah... I think the left know we are at war... they also know that the true patriots in this country will continue to fight this war, while they stay on the side lines criticizing every move that's made and taking credit for any successes.

Their strategy is purely political. They can second guess every decision while never risking anything - and of course keeping the moonbats happy. Then when we succeed, they'll rush to the front of the line claiming victory... and the press will not only let them get away with it, but confirm that it was them all along, who fought the good fight.

This is exactly how Clinton fought terrorism... just enough to show activity, but never once risking political capital.

They're all a bunch of losers, and I'm only sorry we have to fight for their freedom as well.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Bob: those who complain the loudest, criticize the most, and whine the shrillest, conbribute the LEAST!

It's always been that way, always will be!

They know it too, and their actions reflect that fact that what they do, is out of fear that general public will finally "get it", and turn on them.

Their whole agenda is aimed around preventing that from happening!

Keep everyone on the defensive, by calling them racists, sexist, homophobic, chickenhawks, murderers, ad naseume, ad naseum...

However, we've become so PC, we been so inculcated with their Leftist PC BS, over the past 35 years, with major contributions from the MSM and Leftist Academia, that it does in fact, work!

So, what incentive do they have to change, now?

[lurker]

None but it is no longer as effective as it used to be as more and more Americans eventually see through them. There will always be a group of hardcore that they won't change one bit but one more moderate will swing away them over time.

[JM Hanes]

TM:

If you thought that scene was missing a little je ne sais quoi, you can see it as it was meant to be over at HotAir. That's if YouTube is the way anything was really meant to be seen.

[JM Hanes]

Do you suppose Reid, Schumer et al feel like idiots this morning?

[MayBee]

I saw Hotair's two versions of that scene. It is hard for me to imagine that's what all the fuss has been about. How infallible does the Clinton admin want to look? If they are complaining about that, they've become hostage to their own mythology.

[sbw]

Bob: nah... I think the left know we are at war... Their strategy is purely political.

Let's split the difference. If we are at war, the consequence of losing isn't appreciated. I liken it to a craps game with its games within games, where who wins the dice thrower's game is irrelevent to those playing independent side games. It's not precisely that other players couldn't care less about the main thread of issues in the world, but that they don't know enough about the underlying importance to care more.

Congressional staffers, one of them observed to me, fight tenaciously over even minor points of legislative issues, and then, when the votes are all over, treat the issue as if they had been playing nothing more than a game.

[JM Hanes]

Sorry about the piecemeal posting, but I'm not sure Clinton has much to be unhappy about, all told. Berger & Albright are really taking the fall here (though Paul Kessler was positively creepy!), and the film does make it look like someone was focused on fighting the terrorists.

[Dale in Atlanta]

If you want to see how effective their lies and propaganda have been over the past 4 years, just take a gander at this "Poll" released over at the CNN website!

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

Bush was in office 8 Months; Clinton was in office 96months; Clinton didn't respond to Somalia, WTC '93, Khobar, East African Embassies, USS Cole, etc., Bush responds to 9/11, and goes one better into Iraq, and he STILL gets the majority of the blame!

Tell me who the greatest enemy is, the Jihadis, or our "Left"??

Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.

Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks.

That's only slightly less than the 45 percent who blamed his administration in a poll carried out less than a week after the attacks.

Still, most Americans appear to be fatalistic, with more than half -- 57 percent -- saying they think that terrorists will "always find a way to launch attacks no matter what the U.S. government does."

The poll was carried out August 30 through September 2 by Opinion Research Corp. with 1,004 American adults questioned by telephone. The sampling error for the questions was 3 percentage points.

[MayBee]

JMH- from the tiny bit I've been able to see, I agree. That's why I think it goes to the myth of Clinton that has built up in the last few years. As Bush's poll numbers have gone down, Clinton's admin has become retroactively more perfect.

[jerry]

TM, that Berger scene is the one that is highly disputed as totally false (and over the top - with that anguished woman blaming her bosses for the Nigeria bombing)... and the implication that the Clinton administration was cowardly in the film is outrageous. In fact it's cowardly and outrageous to highlight that scene here IMO. It will be interesting to see tonight what the filmmakers consider courageous behavior in DC.

[Rick Ballard]

MayBee,

They even dug up Schlesinger to do a couple of stanzas of Camelot for President Droptrou. It is delightfully amusing to watch the Dems use a Kennedy hagiographer to provide cover for another serial philanderer. Nothing ever changes for the Dems, it's always the '60's - a decade long Ground Hog Day that they believe will come again if they just wish hard enough. Like the imaginary 'Democratic wave' that is building somewhere, too far offshore to register in polls for actual live candidates, but if you're senses are tuned to the supernatural, it's there. Can't you feel it?

They really need to put down the bong.

[lurker]

"As Bush's poll numbers have gone down, Clinton's admin has become retroactively more perfect."

And Bush adm will become retroactively more perfect in ten year's time.

I don't see how Bush could've prevented 9/11 but while Bush made this country safer, this country will never be safe. The trick is to make it more difficult for the terrorists to attack us but as last night's part I showed us, there will always be another Ramzi Yousef and his uncle, Khalid to become creative with technology to attack us.

After all, their attacks need not be nuclear. It could be cyperattacks against our financial, electricity, and water systems.

[JM Hanes]

Have I mentioned how much I despise Madelaine Albright? I've always thought she was the most unctiously political of the lot of them. Her revisionism was so blatant after 9/11 that it was almost crass.

I still associate her with the lame excuses that were offered for doing nothing back when it became clear that Saddam had no intention of allowing inspections to resume. I thought it was stunning, and stunningly stupid, at the time, and I continue to believe it should be added to the list of key failures to respond right up there with the USS Cole etc.

[lurker]

"and the implication that the Clinton administration was cowardly in the film is outrageous."

Although confirmed by "Buzz Patterson" and Michael Schuer. So, it appears to indeed happen as the truth.

Mary Jo White's name cropped up as a name faintly familiar to me. Apparently, she fought Janet Reno and Gorelick. It appears that the Clinton adm did not appear to fully understand the consequences of OBL's indictment or not following it all the way through.

[lurker]

Madeline's comment about the "500,000 civilians killed by Saddam" versus Clinton's adm lack of willingness to accept the risk of civilian casualties versus the terrorists' view of civilian casualties....

Captain's Quarters showed the difference between Israel's treatment of terrorists versus Palestinian's treatment of terrorists.

The recent Abu Ghraib story is also another comparison but I'm with Clarice on this one. These terrorists did it upon themselves and they had no idea how green "our pasture / country" really is until they were in prison under our military control.

[maryrose]

Lurker:
I agree. One scene with Mark Wahlberg Ramzi and an Afghan leader where the leader said"Give me one hour with Youssef and I will get you all the information you need" was chilling. They don't know how good they have it at Guantanamo.

[maryrose]

JMHANES:
I also dislike Madeline Albright. Recently after being invited to the WH to discuss strategies on fighting the WOT she emerged to regale reporters on how many mistakes were made and to totally trash the Bush administration. Of course her finest hour was chasing Yasser Arafat with her high heels clicking trying in vain to get him to agree to a plan for peace in the Mideast. Absolutely useless. Clinton put cronies in positions of power not statesmen.

[Florence Schmieg]

Whenever my husband talks about Madeline Albright he mentions her hat.

[boris]

chasing Yasser Arafat with her high heels clicking trying in vain to get him to agree to a plan for peace in the Mideast

Among those whose perception of their success is limited only by their awesome powers of self delusion, Maddy Halfbright shines like a beacon of monumental incompetence.

[clarice]

I cannot ever think of her without envisioning the scene outside the WH just after CLinton had called together his cabinet to deny he had had an affair with Monica. Her's was the first hand to go up in the air as she swore she believed him.

Yes, if there ever were a person who overestimated her own talents and accomplishments, it is Albright.

[lurker]

"Lurker:
I agree. One scene with Mark Wahlberg Ramzi and an Afghan leader where the leader said"Give me one hour with Youssef and I will get you all the information you need" was chilling. They don't know how good they have it at Guantanamo."

Or the Egyptian Secret Police - via the Abouhalima scene in NYC?

[lurker]

Well, we can certainly let Dale in Arizona go after Albright instead of Jane, can we?

[JM Hanes]

jerry:

"It will be interesting to see tonight what the filmmakers consider courageous behavior in DC."

I see you've swallowed the propaganda meme whole. From what I hear, the film is not exactly kind to the current administration either. We'll find out soon enough, I suppose. I'm not sure why you think "it's cowardly and outrageous to highlight that scene here" though, since apparently TM simply found it tedious. While I can imagine you might think it outrageous, how on earth does it qualify as cowardly?

MayBee:

I think one of the reasons Bush polls lower in re 9/11 is a concerted effort on the part of Clinton apologists, like Albright, at shifting blame. Rick's reference to Cameloting the Clinton years seems particularly apt.

One of the constant themes post 9/11 was that the Clintonistas tried to communicate the depth of their concern to the new administration. I expect they'll have Clarke playing that role in tonight's edition. The screenwriter seemed slightly ambivalent about him in last night's segment, perhaps because, IIRC, he actually had a reputation as something of an alarmist inside the last administration itself. Of course, it's possible that might have been post hoc spin from the current White House.

On the other hand, the Clinton folks were originally pushing Sandy Berger as the official messenger of doom. From everything we've learned about him in the interim, the idea that he was fairly beating down Condi Rice's door to fill her in on the threat is less than convincing. His purloining of documents seems entirely in character, as well as emblematic of Clinton's approach to foreign policy. It was always about how things looked.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Lurker: I don't even know what that means, and I'm in Atlanta...

That said, when I lived in Egypt, they had a "low-key", very effective method of making people talk; we in the Embassy were always warned, that if we did something "stupid" on the local scene, and we got arrested, not to be surprised if it was used on us!

They would take a length of rope, about two feet in length, and tie each end, to one of your thumbs!

Then, they'd put the rope up over a hook in the ceiling, or even over an open door, and walk away!

I'm told that about 95% of all "tough guys" start talking after about 24hrs...

Fortunately I never had it tried on me. Of course, we'd never be able to utilize a similar effort here, even to disrupt some plot that would kill thousands of Americans, because we're "better than that..."

[JM Hanes]

jerry:

"It will be interesting to see tonight what the filmmakers consider courageous behavior in DC."

I see you've swallowed the propaganda meme whole. From what I hear, the film is not exactly kind to the current administration either. We'll find out soon enough, I suppose. I'm not sure why you think "it's cowardly and outrageous to highlight that scene here" though, since apparently TM simply found it tedious. While I can imagine you might think it outrageous, how on earth does it qualify as cowardly?

MayBee:

I think one of the reasons Bush polls lower in re 9/11 is a concerted effort on the part of Clinton apologists, like Albright, at shifting blame. Rick's reference to Cameloting the Clinton years seems particularly apt.

One of the constant themes post 9/11 was that the Clintonistas tried to communicate the depth of their concern to the new administration. I expect they'll have Clarke playing that role in tonight's edition. The screenwriter seemed slightly ambivalent about him in last night's segment, perhaps because, IIRC, he actually had a reputation as something of an alarmist inside the last administration itself. Of course, it's possible that might have been post hoc spin from the current White House.

On the other hand, the Clinton folks were originally pushing Sandy Berger as the official messenger of doom. From everything we've learned about him in the interim, the idea that he was fairly beating down Condi Rice's door to fill her in on the threat is less than convincing. His purloining of documents seems entirely in character, as well as emblematic of Clinton's approach to foreign policy. It was always about how things looked.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Lurker: I don't even know what that means, and I'm in Atlanta...

That said, when I lived in Egypt, they had a "low-key", very effective method of making people talk; we in the Embassy were always warned, that if we did something "stupid" on the local scene, and we got arrested, not to be surprised if it was used on us!

They would take a length of rope, about two feet in length, and tie each end, to one of your thumbs!

Then, they'd put the rope up over a hook in the ceiling, or even over an open door, and walk away!

I'm told that about 95% of all "tough guys" start talking after about 24hrs...

Fortunately I never had it tried on me. Of course, we'd never be able to utilize a similar effort here, even to disrupt some plot that would kill thousands of Americans, because we're "better than that..."

[boris]

</repeat>

[topsecretk9]

They can second guess every decision while never risking anything

The Left.

Sorry about the piecemeal posting, but I'm not sure Clinton has much to be unhappy about, all told. Berger & Albright are really taking the fall here (though Paul Kessler was positively creepy!), and the film does make it look like someone was focused on fighting the terrorists.

Missing in action?

[topsecretk9]

They can second guess every decision while never risking anything

The Left.

Sorry about the piecemeal posting, but I'm not sure Clinton has much to be unhappy about, all told. Berger & Albright are really taking the fall here (though Paul Kessler was positively creepy!), and the film does make it look like someone was focused on fighting the terrorists.

Missing in action?

[maryrose]

Dale in Atlanta;
I can't believe the torture level you are reporting. Remind me never to visit the countries mentioned.

[lurker]

Dale, sorry about the wrong state. I was referring to the comments about women in the other thread.

One other thing about last night's movie has to do with Judge Kevin Duffy stating that Islam has nothing to do with Ramzi's hatred and anger and that Ramzi's god is death.

Kevin is right and he regretted not having the power to sentence Ramzi to death.

[JM Hanes]

This photo has taken on a whole new meaning, hasn't it?

[Jane]

Well, we can certainly let Dale in Arizona go after Albright instead of Jane, can we?

You know I didn't mean to rag on Dale. As I said last nite I'm not terribly big on isms. But after watching that movie last night, about this war, which to me, at its heart has always been a woman's war, it just seemed like the perfectly wrong analogy.

[lurker]

I never understood the brouhaha over our own torture methods when other countries' torture methods are far worse than ours. McCain and others need to back off and let CIA and FBI do their own jobs.

PBS's Frontline has a link about John O'Neill. Mac Ranger has the link. It would behoove us to read it.

[JM Hanes]

boris:

LOL!

[Lurker]

"But after watching that movie last night, about this war, which to me, at its heart has always been a woman's war, it just seemed like the perfectly wrong analogy."

While it's every woman's war, some women just don't know how to fight it. Likewise with men...like Dean, Rocky, Kerry, Rooney, KOSkids, etc.

[JM Hanes]

boris:

LOL!

[Pofarmer]

"and the implication that the Clinton administration was cowardly in the film is outrageous."

You sure you wanna go with that? What this thing shows is exactly what I remember from the Clintoon years. Everything was a political calculation. That's a hard argument you're trying to make.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Jane: it's alright, you can pick on me, I thickskinned enough to take it, I live at home with Four women, and I get it from all sides every day!

Last night, the scene where they are doing the snatch of Ramzi Yousef in Pakistan, and the guy who turned him in, his wife's reaction as they have to pack up, and get out of town....??

That sums it up perfectly!

The men fight the wars, and kill people; the Women and children suffer....that has always been the case, and unfortunately, it always will be the case....

[Rick Ballard]

If you post a comment - DO NOT REFRESH until you have closed the page completely and reentered.

TypeKey has the drunks on duty again.

[Sue]

I have only read bits and pieces of the SSIC Phase II report, all dealing with pre-war and post-war intelligence on Saddam and ties to terrorism. Since when did terrorism stop at AQ?

Page 85 of the document; page 89 of the pdf file:

(U) The Iraq Survey Group found that an Iraqi intelligence directorate, M14, which was responsible for training and special operations missions, used the Salman Pak facility to train Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Yemeni, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Sudanese operatives in counter-terrorism, explosives, marksmanship, and foreign operations.228

Isn't 20/20 hindsight a wonderful thing? Has anyone seen anything in the pre-war intelligence that indicated Bush should not have been concerned about Saddam and terrorists? Be they AQ, or say those in Lebanon that have been trained somewhere. And who threatened to unleash them around the world if certain conditions weren't met?

[Dale in Atlanta]

MaryRose: unfortunately, that's mild...

When I was in Nigeria, "punishment" consisted of making people eat ground-up Coke Bottles; 10lbs of Palm Kernals inserted into the anus, until the instestines exploded, and raping to death of women, if you were on the "wrong" side...

In Turkey, some Marines got drunk one night, snuck off base, and stole a Turkish Flag from an Attaturk Memorial being guarded by the Turkish Marines.

The next morning, the Turkish commander called all the top US Military officers over to their base, marched the entire Turkish Marine unit that had been on guard that night, out in front of them, lined them up, and shot them to death! Just to show us...

When I was in Korea, the ROK Marines, would hold "training" exercises, one ROK Marine, made a "mistake" on his rapelling exercise, and thus made the unit "look bad"; his Unit leader, walked up behind him, and in front of the crowd, delivered a Taekwondo blow to the back of his neck, that literally snapped his neck! They boxed him up there, and shipped him home...

Back to Egypt again, a guy I was in University with there, he got drunk, and climbed up a flagpole, and stole an Egyptian flag! Unlucky for him, he got caught! He was picked up by the local police, and taken to the local prison. It took the US Embassy 24hours to get him out, unfortunately because it was over an Egyptian Holiday weekend; he had been gangraped by over 20 Egyptian Police, when they got to him; I never saw him again; he was flown immediately back to an Institution, stateside...and that was the last I heard of him. His parents also left the country, to care for him....

These are NOT urban myths, all first hand experiences, and I'm not alone.

Ladies and Gents, the fact is, MOST of the rest of the world, doesn't MESS Around...

We do...

I'm not saying that any, or all of these things I describe above, are "right", or "correct", or that we should do them ourselves!

I'm just saying, that we need to quit seeing the whole world with blinders on, and thinking that if we "appease" them, they're going to respect us for it, and let us live in peace!

That is certainly not the case!

[Sue]

Look at Google's homepage. Then check Dogpile's homepage. I think I'll send my querries through Dogpile. Why give Google my numbers when they dont' even bother to acknowledg this date in history?

[TexasToast]

I though we had agreed on this board quite a while back that there was plenty of blame to go around for 9/11. Nobody expected it, IIRC. The blame game is politics as usual, IMHO.

I thought our disagreement was this administration's response - i.e., going to war in Iraq which the new SSCI report says again had nothing to do with AQ.

Am I wrong?

[LurkandLearn]

Sorry to be late to the party with this, but I did want to correct the following from 6:30 am:

jerry - "TM, that Berger scene is the one that is highly disputed as totally false (and over the top - with that anguished woman blaming her bosses for the Nigeria bombing)..."

From "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll (page 405):
"Some of them were devastated and angry as they watched the television images of death and rescue in Africa. One of the bin Laden unit's female analysts confronted CIA director Tenet: "You are responsible for those deaths because you didn't act on the information we had, when we could have gotten him," she told him, according to an American official familiar with the accusation. The woman was "crying and sobbing, and it was a very rough scene," the official recalled. Tenet stood there and took it. He was a boisterous, emotional man, and he did not shrink from honest confrontation..."

Rather than "over the top", this scene was actually documented.

[Sue]

SSCI report says again had nothing to do with AQ.

Yeah, but as I am finding out, it doesn't say Saddam wasn't training foreign sources for foreign operations. Kind of strange, no?

[boris]

had nothing to do with AQ

It's not the war on Bin Laden.

It's not the war on AQ.

Iraq has strategic importance and was a legitimate target based on Saddam's own behavior.

Further to say "had nothing to do with" is inaccurate. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What the dems, Snow, and Chafee consider absence of evidence is different than others.

[maryrose]

I just finished reading on the ABC web-site reaction to the movie "Path to 9/11" All they have up are the letters from Democrats, Maddie Halfbright, Bruce Lindsey{since when is he a person of importance?} Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger. So the 3 stooges and a Clinton lawyer weigh in and we are supposedto be intimidated? Also the Dems weigh in with their pitiful cry of PARTISAN POLITICS about 9/11. Boo Hoo. They are just clueless about the terrorist threat.
Good articles today by Mark Steyn, and Donald Lambro as well Michael Barone.

[JM Hanes]

TexToast:

I'm not sure agreeing that no one expected 9/11 is the same thing as saying everyone is equally responsible for it.

We certainly seem to disagree on the importance of the Sadam/AQ connection. I believe this administration has been unfairly accused of conflating Iraq and Al Qaeda, when in fact the problem is that those who level such charges conflate the terrorist threat to America with Al Qaeda exclusively. For some reason, they seem to think that it's necessary to prove a link between Saddam & bin Laden to justify calling Iraq a legitimate front in the WOT. To those of us who support the mission in Iraq, that whole controversy seems like an artificial, myopic strawman.

One of the things that the Path to 9/11 makes clear, but which may well escape general attention, is that Ramzi Yousef & Kalid Sheik Muhammad were already in business and looking for funding before the hookup with bin Laden. Those who believe our quarrel is with Al Qaeda alone simply fail to comprehend the basic nature of the terrorist threat.

[clarice]

JMH, The problem has always been state supported terrorism and the old OBL and AQ fixation both ignores that and diminishes the necessity of going into Afghanistan and Iraq, doesn't it?

[clarice]

Another stupid thing, is the argument that if we respond by killing enemy forces we will just be inviting the recruitment of more of them? As if trained terrorists could just autmatically spring up to replace those lost.

I don't remember this being argued in any other battle. Can you imagine the BBC saying, we shouldn't attack the Wermacht because even if we're successful, Hitler will just replace them with fresh troops?

[lurker]

Thought that the SSCI report shows that there were no connections between Saddam and 9/11.

Although Saddam did have training camps that prepared terrorists like the 9/11 terrorists, Saddam offere 25K to suicide bomber's families, and had meetings with AQ in the past, Saddam is seen as harboring and supporting terrorism.

Saddam also violated ten year's worth of UN resolutions.

US had years of wanting to liberate Iraq from Saddam and going alone.

I never saw this as misleading the public for the reasons for invading Iraq.

[lurker]

"JMH, The problem has always been state supported terrorism and the old OBL and AQ fixation both ignores that and diminishes the necessity of going into Afghanistan and Iraq, doesn't it?"

Sounds like a game the democrats are playing, huh? By trying to convince the public that Bush is indictable for such crimes for misleading us to war against Iraq.

Dean claims that they have new direction and can do better than Bush adm. But he never provided details. Dean said he wouldn't pull all troops out because it would be precipitous. Sounds like Dean and the dems aren't willing to change anything that are being done today.

[lurker]

I thought that Bush's argument is war against terror. A global war. This argument includes going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan.

But I don't blame Bush for hesitating on Iran and Hizbollah. Think he's had enough wars in 8 years and it may be time to let the next president handle Iran ahd Hizbollah.

[Barney Frank]

Who cares about the path to 9/11?
If we were serious about winning we would be making movies called "The Path to Avenging 9/11" or "The Sands of Iran Jima".

I have brought this up a few times but I think its on point and I see very few people talk about it. This era is similar to the thirties, but our enemy is most similar to Shinto Japan not Nazi Germany.
We faced a religiously fanatical ideology that launched a surprise attack on our country, was convinced infidels were inferior and needed to be subjugated, that considered suicidal warfare an honor, that combined conventional and guerilla warfare and that treated captives brutally.
The pacific islands are somewhat analogous to the various terrorist groups and the numerous small national sponsors. Japan itself is most analogous to Iran.
And what proved the only way to finally crush the fanaticism of Shinto? Do we have the belly for it this time, should it prove necessary again? I'm not optimistic; unless they overplay their hand.

[Tom Maguire]

From the often reasonable jerry:

TM, that Berger scene is the one that is highly disputed as totally false (and over the top - with that anguished woman blaming her bosses for the Nigeria bombing)... and the implication that the Clinton administration was cowardly in the film is outrageous. In fact it's cowardly and outrageous to highlight that scene here IMO.

Well, I sort of trust the JOM readership to (a) be aware of that controversy, and (b) have their own opinion about the plausibility of it.

However, I did toss in a "BITTERLY CONTROVERSIAL" to warn anyone out there who is really, well, out there.

[lurker]

I have been seeing the comparisons between this era and the pre-WWII era. Bernard Lewis confirmed it.

After being attacked by the dems and leftwingers on so many facets, e.g., Repeal of the Patriot Act, "Impeach him!" meme, "Bush Lied, people died" meme, PlameGame, CIA secret prisons, NSA terrorist surveillance program, SWIFT, and so on, I think Bush is wading carefully in dangerous waters while waiting for the November election results.

If he retains both Houses, I am not optimistic that Bush will go after Iran militarily. But he did make sure that we are in position to go after Iran so he actually is helping the next US president.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
"Can you imagine the BBC saying, we shouldn't attack the Wermacht because even if we're successful, Hitler will just replace them with fresh troops?"

Yes.

[lurker]

But I didn't see the comparisons between Japan and today's terrorism until your post, Barney Frank.

[clarice]

PUK, I've whacked you so often with my marble handled walking stick, it's now cracked. *thwack* You owe me a new one, buster!

[Lurker]

Anyone take note of how busy AJStrata was at his site? Great posts there.

[maryrose]

If Clintonites look deep in their souls they know intrinsically that they didn't do enough. Their outrage today is based on the guilt feelings they have for totally misreading and misunderstanding the world terrorist threat. They were ineffective and a day late as well as a dollar short.
Barney Frank:
I agree with your Japan analogy and unfortunately I now Believe we will have to deal with Iran inthe same way we dealt with Japan. Also we need to put North Korea on notice.

[Bob]

JM Hanes... I love the photo!

We now have....

See no evil - Hear no evil - Speak no evil - and I guess the 4th monkey must be - "stuff the evil down your pants"

[PeterUK]

Barney,
The similarity does not end there,the code of the Knights of Bushido was analogous to the medaeival code of the Jihad, though the latter are far inferior and much degraded,in that there was no provision for surrender.The Japanese even made a pistol which could shoot backwards so that the officer could commit suicide when offering his pistol in surrender.Those surendring were regarded as fit only for slavery.
It is whether we can summon the will to fight the old enemy in the same way our forebearers did the Japanese.

[sbw]

Lurker: Dean claims that they have new direction and can do better than Bush adm. But he never provided details.

Dean must have taken lessons from Nixon's ploy during his campaign: Nixon had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War.

[lurker]

After reading Rick Moran's article, I feel more anger after seeing what and how much damage the democrats and leftwingers have done to keep us from showing strength as a united country and making progress with GWOT.

"But while we may not be able to summon the demons that caused the anger, the sadness, and the tears 5 years ago, we should now be able to call forth the angels who can aid and protect us from our own folly; the fearful belief that the job is too big, too fraught with uncertainty for us to even try and win through to victory.

It is to this endeavor that we can rededicate ourselves on this 5th anniversary of 9/11. The tears may be gone, unable to bridge the mists of time and the healing salve of forgetfulness. But the cause remains. The purpose lives. And while our tears may have dried, the reason we wept in the first place will never, ever be forgotten."

First we have to win the internal battle before winning the GWOT.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
"Can you imagine the BBC saying, we shouldn't attack the Wermacht because even if we're successful, Hitler will just replace them with fresh troops?"

Actually the Wehrmacht grew larger as the war progressed,finally conscripting old men and little boys.
Germany's army broke on the Russian front,like the Grande Armee of Napoleon before it,no military can withstand the continuous degradation of its skill base.

[clarice]

No. It can't. PUK. Odd that many of the same people see the economic pie as static--one simply to be divided up differently rather than baked bigger--see armed forces as capable of infinite expansion.

[Jane]

This is a test to see if I am still forbidden from posting. What is going on with your server TM? I thought the robot thing sucked but sheesh...

[maryrose]

Jane:
that happened to me as well this morning.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
It's called socialism.

[windansea]

I thought the film was pretty good.

1. made me remember how brave people are busting in on the fanatics bomb factory apartments

2. how crazy that agents in the field with terrorists in their sight calling DC for permission

3. most telling scene to me: when one agent told another "Osama doesn't think that Regan defeated the Soviet Union, he thinks that he did it"

[Dale in Atlanta]

Windansea: trust me, after having lived there on and off since 1977, the entire Arab/Muslim culture has been in denial and suffering from delusions since 1492, actually!

[clarice]

Why don't serious people everywhere simply purchase liability insurance for soldiers and FBI field agents engaged in tracking terrorists so they won't feel constrained to call lawyers before acting?
The Berger lesson is clear--everyone wants them to act but no one wants to be responsible in case it goes wrong.

[Bob]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2006/09/11/jihad_this!>Good Read...

In 1943, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team was formed. It consisted of young Japanese-American men. In spite of the fact that the Nisei faced widespread prejudice in America, and in spite of the fact that their own families had been imprisoned by the federal government at Manzanar and various other concentration camps, these volunteers became the most decorated combat unit of its size during World War II. It was thanks to their sacrificial efforts that over 200 members of the 36th Texas Division, the so-called Lost Division, were rescued from certain slaughter at the hands of the Germans. It was during this battle in France’s Vosges mountains that Second Lt. Daniel K. Inouye, later to be elected to the U.S. Senate, lost his right arm and earned the Congressional Medal of Honor. Astonishingly, his was only one of 21 such medals won by the relatively small group. The unit became legendary, known as the “Go for Broke” guys who fought for their country and their honor, collecting nearly 10,000 Purple Hearts and a nation’s gratitude along the way.

On the other hand, what do we hear from America’s Muslims? Silence when it comes to military service, bellyaching when it comes to ridiculous claims of racial profiling.

Quite honestly, I suspect that the only way we could get the Koran crowd to go fight in the Middle East is if the United States declared war on Israel!

[maryrose]

What's the worst thing that could happen to someone if they go ahead and capture a terrorist or make the decision to do so? They would lose their job. Better to lose a job than have thousands killed because we are afraid to capture or kill terrorists.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
Strategy Page agrees on the degrading of al Qaeda.

[Enlightened]

Hey now, it was OK for Clinton to bomb the crap out of the Serbs, a country that was no threat whatsoever to the US, and never killed Americans on our soil, and had nearly two thirds of Dems and even Barbara Boxer squirming in marvellous joy as they voted for the air strikes.
http://www.counterpunch.org/viet.html

As a direct result of that action, on Clintons watch while Monica was on her knees, the plot to murder innocent Americans came to horrific fruition on this very day 5 years ago.

There is no possible way any educated, civilised human cannot link those dots.

I did not watch the P2/911 - so correct me if I am wrong, but it should have depicted that incident to get a true picture of what led to an act of war on American soil that annhilated 3000 innocent Americans.

[Jane]

Better to lose a job than have thousands killed because we are afraid to capture or kill terrorists.

I think it revealed a true lack of committment to the issue. Easier to kick it down the road, because it wasn't really going to happen. ~Lots of other things to worry about, so let's not bother with this.~ I actually can understand that with all that was going on in that Whitehouse.

What exactly did Berger do for 8 years?

What I still can't figure out is why Clinton went to such lengths to stop it. I spent the whole first half looking for CLinton errors. I mean how pathetic does that get.

This is what the lefties chose to watch instead: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secrethistory/

[Enlightened]

I wonder why the Clintonistas were so scared of capturing/killing OBL? Hmmm.

They sure weren't scared of doing business with Islamic Terrorists....ie: Iran to Bosnia arms deal.....

[Syl]

Well, seems to me the BIG lesson of 'Path to 9/11' is not being discussed enough. But, hey, the KosKids figured it out.

Actually, I think we simply assume it, therefore don't feel the need to talk about it. I guess that's what's known as an elephant.

Anyway, besides the fact Clinton was a wimp and more frightened of poll data than terrorism, the real thrust of the film was that up until 9/11 terrorism was treated as a police matter.

In other words a terrorist had to have committed a terrorist act BEFORE we could even consider taking him out!

There was surveillance on certain groups (like the group who carried out the '93 WTC bombing, which had actually ended by the time of the attack) but nothing could be done BEFORE the terrorist act occurred.

Unless, by chance, explosives were found in the trunk of a car!

The policies of the Clinton admin are the policies the Dems want to go back to. That's why they refuse to think of this as a real war. Because in a real war there is a certain degrading of civil liberties and they will NEVER allow that.

It's fortress America and a hope to detect a dirty bomb before it blows up. And that's all it is. A HOPE.

Homegrown terrorists would never be found before it's too late.

Both in fighting an insurgency AND in protecting America, intelligence is the only way to win. That means finding out who the bad guys are BEFORE the plots are hatched.

And that intelligence comes from surveillance among other things. It's fine when we, through some other means, already know who to surveil and can get a warrant to do so.

It's the terrorists we don't know about who will kill us.

The Dems understand that but their argument is that it's ONLY al Qaeda that is the enemy and there aren't all that many of them so we don't need the surveillance all that much...especially the NSA stuff!

That's wjy they poo-poo the significance of the British plane plot recently foiled. Well, they didn't have their passports yet! so nothing to see here. And their emphasis on the importance of whether those guys had links to al Qaeda or not!

You see, they HAD to be all al Qaeda and not be homegrown otherwise the Dems entire argument crumbles. Well, there were connections but it wasn't all al Qaeda so the whole thing is poo-poo'ed.

That's also why the Dems keep screaming we are making more terrorists! They only want al Qaeda, specifically, to be the enemy so they can count the numbers and say 'not all that much to worry about. we can handle it without all that icky surveillance'.

This is their biggest problem: it's not just al Qaeda, it's a whole totalitarian movement of extremists, and they do not want to admit it. They still pretend it's just al Qaeda and everyone else involved is our own damned fault because we're fighting back and making them angry.

Gitmo and secret prisons are necessary things in war. But since the Dems refuse to believe in war, they attack anything we do regarding prisoners.

And oh the horror, the terrorist prisoners will not be allowed to see secret evidence against them! That means all of OUR civil liberties are down the crapper.

Not treating this as a WAR simply means it will go on longer and longer and longer and more Americans will die, not fewer.

All because they're afraid a non-law-enforcement agency might listen in to their conversation if a terrorist calls the wrong number!

Almost every criticism the Dems make about 'Bush's war' leads back to their wish that it's all only a law enforcement issue therefore nothing to see here.

[Sue]

There was surveillance on certain groups (like the group who carried out the '93 WTC bombing, which had actually ended by the time of the attack) but nothing could be done BEFORE the terrorist act occurred.

Did you notice that Yousaf was captured because of an informant? Who came to us? I would like to thank that man.

[Verner]

Clarice, I don't understand why we can't sue Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton for malpractice, or negligent homocide. They were so damned concerned about Bin Laden's human shields--well what about the children who died in those planes? They would be alive today if they had allowed Massoud to capture him when they had the chance.

[clarice]

Ah, Verneer, the law cannot be used to resolve all disputes and to recompense all injuries--for that there are elections and wars.

http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6078

[Other Tom]

Meanwhile, in other news: GOP majority for both Senate and House climbing nicely on Tradesports.

[Syl]

Clarice

I LOVE this!

Why don't serious people everywhere simply purchase liability insurance for soldiers and FBI field agents engaged in tracking terrorists so they won't feel constrained to call lawyers before acting? The Berger lesson is clear--everyone wants them to act but no one wants to be responsible in case it goes wrong.

[Rick Ballard]

"for that there are elections and wars."

Which are often indistinguishable.

[clarice]

Thanks, Syl--Just speaking truth to cant.

[Tom Maguire]

"As Bush's poll numbers have gone down, Clinton's admin has become retroactively more perfect."

And Bush adm will become retroactively more perfect in ten year's time.

Actually, I think forward looking Reps ought to be pounding the table in criticism of this ABC docudrama and forward looking Dems (other than commited Clintonistas) ought to more or less keep quiet.

Bill Clinton won't be on any ballots, and plenty of Dems would like to Stop Hillary, so they should let this slide (except those directly peeved, like Albright and Berger).

But if Hollywood could produce *this*, what will their dramatization of the Road to War in Iraq look like?

I imagine scenes with Cheney cackling with glee as he rips up reports titled "NO WMDs in Iraq", or Libby waterboarding CIA analysts until they slant the intel.

Or Hollywood might even resort to making stuff up...

From long time, gone too long Texas T:

I though we had agreed on this board quite a while back that there was plenty of blame to go around for 9/11...

I thought our disagreement was this administration's response - i.e., going to war in Iraq which the new SSCI report says again had nothing to do with AQ.

Am I wrong?

The fluidity and heterogeneity of opinion at JOM is beyond prediction. But I agree - no one has enough fingers to do the appropriate pointing.

[clarice]

Shiva does.

The thing is , I see the Clintonistas doing the pointing, but I have no recollection of anyone in this Administration doing so.

Am I wrong?

Does class tell?

[boris]

Cheney cackling with glee as he rips up reports titled "NO WMDs in Iraq", or Libby waterboarding CIA analysts until they slant the intel.

Or Hollywood might even resort to making stuff up...

LOL

agreed on this board quite a while back that there was plenty of blame to go around for 9/11

Neither agreement nor plenty of blame to go around for 911. Short of 911 the country was not willing to make war. Pre-911 blame for unseriousness is blame the victim, "should have known", "provocative clothes", "bad neighborhood" etc.

After 911 there is plenty of blame for unseriousness. "says again had nothing to do with AQ" Case in point. Tex can toast in hell.

[Soylent Red]

Sorry to check in so late...

Lotsa tales of torture and mayhem. Hmmm.

Didn't watch PT9/11. I'm waiting for the DVD and an accumulated 5 1/2 hours of ironing to watch it end to end. But the discussion has brought several things into my mind...

First, the movie is entitled "The Path to 9/11". Thus, it seems to me, it is by nature going to focus proportionately on the Clinton Admin, since that is the time period when most of the key events leading up happened. As has been pointed out, 8 years tends to contain a lot more incidents than 8 months.

In order to truly do the title justice, the docu-drama would really have to go back into the late 60s and early 70s when the real seeds of made-for-TV Islamic terror were planted. Or better yet, back to the 1930s to chronicle the roots of A-Q via Muslim Brotherhood.

But I suppose the execs at ABC weighed "fairness" and "plenty of blame to go around" against "potential viewership of a 16 week miniseries" and acted with an eye to the latter. Tough break for Clinton, but certainly not a conspiracy. This was a snapshot in time, and one in which the Clinton Administration played a primary role.

Second, the 9/11 Commission was a gang CYA session perpetrated by both parties. Anyone who followed as it was happening or read the subsequent report should know that. Thus, any blame for either Clinton or Bush 43 pales in comparison to what probably could have been in the report, had the commission done due diligence. As I said before, we'd been ignoring the problem for 60-odd years running up to 9/11.

So as a foundational piece for a based-on docu-drama, why not? It is incomplete anyway.

Third, WRT the SSCI report...

I'd tend to believe it more if it weren't based largely on the testimony of Saddam and Tariq Aziz, who surely watch CNN and know the correct cards to play. I'd also believe it more if it had given even a cursory nod to the several independent reports giving evidence of an active Iraqi courtship with A-Q. As it is, it is just one more piece of shoddy investigation.

Finally, while I suppose I can understand the motivation for making a memorial movie, I think it is safe to say that by the end of the day on 9/11/01 most people understood all they needed to about how successive administrations failed to address the problem.

What concerns me now, and I don't think I'm alone in this, is not the path to 9/11, but the path to victory. And it is in that way that Clinton, the Democrats and their ilk have failed. Whatever blame lies with Bush 43, at least he is now taking steps toward wiping out the problem. The Dems on the other hand seem obsessed with wiping out the Bush administration.

So you can fault people for failing to act from lack of information or imagination, or you can fault people who now know better but still don't do better.

That's where this series is going to hurt the Dems in November.

[clarice]

Well said, Soylent.

[DRF]

Given the court decisions, Hamdan, unconstitutionality of NSA,
the glee with in our Court system to treat combatants as defendants,
all the inherent problems associated with our law enforcement dealing with
foreign nations. The idea that terrorism is a law enforcement issue must
simply be a canard to stop the GWOT.

That frustration comes through in the Path to 911
To that I say bravo.

DRF