The Path to 9/11

[Jim]

I have to admit I am enjoying this immensely.

The ABC television network in the US is frantically re-editing its $40 million mini-series about September 11 amid a blistering backlash over fictional scenes that lay the blame on the Clinton administration.

 

How dare they suggest St. Bill might have some responsibility?

 

It will be interesting to learn to what extent ABC ultimately bows to the democrats. The dems problem is that it's impossible to do a story on the path to 9/11 which doesn't emphasis the multiple years of failure before Bush took office more than it does the eight months he had in office pre 9/11/01.

 

Note how Clinton used his charitable foundation to press his demand:

 

While Mr. Clinton has not commented publicly, a demand that ABC do still more came from his foundation, through which he advances his humanitarian work around the world.

 

The entire matter has me chortling in my margarita tonight.

 

How many times have we heard about the respected sanctified 9/11 commission report yet this film has the head of that commission as a paid consultant.

 

ABC is frantically recutting its $40 million miniseries about 9/11 amid a blistering backlash over fictional scenes that lay the blame on the Clinton administration.

Also feeling the heat was Scholastic, which yanked a classroom guide tie-in to the program.

 

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, the former head of the 9/11 commission and a paid consultant on the ABC miniseries, told the Daily News yesterday that some controversial scenes in "The Path to 9/11" were being removed or changed.

 

"ABC is telling me that the final version I'll be pleased with," said Kean, softening his own previous defense of the movie.

 

Unmollified, Democrats continued to demand that ABC yank the two-night docudrama that former President Bill Clinton's spokesman called "despicable." It is scheduled to start airing Sunday.

 

And Clinton's lawyer sent Kean a chiding letter expressing "shock" that a man so dedicated to accuracy had worked on a movie "that has been widely criticized for its libelous historical inaccuracies."

 

The chorus of outrage - ranging from Clinton cabinet members to liberal bloggers to 9/11 families to ordinary moms canceling trips to Disneyland - put ABC and parent company Disney under tremendous pressure just days before the movie's premiere.

 

*chortle*

[Pangloss]

And Clinton's lawyer sent Kean a chiding letter expressing "shock" that a man so dedicated to accuracy had worked on a movie "that has been widely criticized for its libelous historical inaccuracies."

 

God forbid they should actually WATCH the movie before making a decision about Kean's bias or lack thereof!

[ParanoiA]

I wouldn't celebrate until you know whether or not the inaccuracies are true. I suspect they are. I suspect they hung onto their paid consultants' words, just to find that they're not quite as reliable as you'd think.

 

And with the number of investigations and testimonies from people that all have something to lose, it's no wonder fabrications find their way into the script.

 

I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference though. Clinton clearly dropped the ball from the very beginning. There's no covering up all of his administration's and the democrats' mistakes or else there wouldn't be much of a movie left.

 

I'm still enjoying it myself a little though, regardless, because all I've heard from half the people I know - which are mainly liberals - is how so-and-so and so-and-so screwed up and blah blah blah concerning 9/11.

 

Hindsight is twenty-twenty, and we always seem to use it to hang somebody...

[Jim]

I wouldn't celebrate until you know whether or not the inaccuracies are true. I suspect they are. I suspect they hung onto their paid consultants' words' date=' just to find that they're not quite as reliable as you'd think.

 

And with the number of investigations and testimonies from people that all have something to lose, it's no wonder fabrications find their way into the script.

 

I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference though. Clinton clearly dropped the ball from the very beginning. There's no covering up all of his administration's and the democrats' mistakes or else there wouldn't be much of a movie left.

 

I'm still enjoying it myself a little though, regardless, because all I've heard from half the people I know - which are mainly liberals - is how so-and-so and so-and-so screwed up and blah blah blah concerning 9/11.

 

Hindsight is twenty-twenty, and we always seem to use it to hang somebody...[/quote']

 

It's a given that any movie based on any historical event will have inaccuracies. In this case, merely by focussing on the time frames involved (years of control for Clinton vrs. months for Bush), the movie will do a service to bring some rationality back into the national discussion.

[Pangloss]

I think the real issue here, from a political perspective, is that this is falling during the very time when Democrats/liberals are launching their effort to "retake the White House". The mid-term election in a few weeks, and the 2008 presidential election, will form a two-prong attack on that goal.

 

The situation is identical to how it was with conservatives in the late 1990s. That's when they were at their most vociferous, argumentative and unilateral (not to mention popular).

 

The prime focus of that effort will be the attempt to portray the Bush administration as not only a failure, but a commonly accepted failure. Mark my words, the position will be that "everyone thinks so", regardless of what everyone actually does think. They'll use the a standard brainwashing tactic -- say something enough times and sooner or later everyone thinks it's actually true.

 

That, also, is no different from what conservatives did at the end of the Clinton era. Didn't work then. Won't work now.

[Skye]

I don't like attributing responisibility to either person, since it's not as though either of them decided to allow it to happen. I think it took the attack to make it feasible for the changes to happen to domestic policy to make another attack more difficult.

 

If people are going to blame Clinton for anything it should be for pulling out of Somalia, which was an actual decision. Since then there's been a civil war and a month ago an Islamist group has took control of the capital.

[Sisyphus]

As long as it goes back to the Reagan Administration supporting all these people, I don't see what any Democrat would be complaining about. There's clearly enough blame to go around, and little enough difference between adminstrations that it would be hard to say either Democrats or Republicans are especially responsible.

[Jim]

I think the real issue here' date=' from a political perspective, is that this is falling during the very time when Democrats/liberals are launching their effort to "retake the White House". The mid-term election in a few weeks, and the 2008 presidential election, will form a two-prong attack on that goal.

 

The situation is identical to how it was with conservatives in the late 1990s. That's when they were at their most vociferous, argumentative and unilateral (not to mention popular).

 

The prime focus of that effort will be the attempt to portray the Bush administration as not only a failure, but a [i']commonly accepted[/i] failure. Mark my words, the position will be that "everyone thinks so", regardless of what everyone actually does think. They'll use the a standard brainwashing tactic -- say something enough times and sooner or later everyone thinks it's actually true.

 

That, also, is no different from what conservatives did at the end of the Clinton era. Didn't work then. Won't work now.

 

 

I hear what you are saying and I agree that the same dynamic is in play where many people desparately want the other side to be nothing short of evil. We've even seen it on this board with Bush being compared to Hitler. Nothing sates the emotional need to simplify a complex world than the belief that those with whom you disagree are bad guys.

 

I respected Clinton's intellect and political gift just not his character. While impeachment would have set a terrible precedent, it will not do to underestimate Clinton's offenses.

 

I continually marvelled at the ability of the left to give him a pass for committing perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit, hiding behind Hillary and then Albright's skirts (who he sent out to the cameras to lie for him) and villifying women with whom he was alleged to have relationships ("I did not have sex with that woman!"). It was a sordid affair and it did diminish the office of the Presidency. Say what you will, but at least Bush hasn't used the office to extract his own ... neck off of the chopping block of a forceful wronged wife.

 

At the core of the Clinton/Lewinsky mess was Clinton's core misdeed - not sex in the oval office but perjury in a federal court building in front of opposing counsel and a federal district court judge. It was no defense to say the lawsuit did not have merit (which was an open issue when Clinton paid $850,000 to settle the appeal). Every litigant is entitled to have his questions answered fairly in the discovery process and the Judge in this case concluded that Clinton had, in fact, committed a serious misdeed for which she referred him to the bar authorities.

 

Judge Susan Webber Wright ultimately sided with Clinton on the legal question involved (e.g. that the Lewinsky issue would not be admitted in the Jones v. Clinton case). Judges are often reluctant to permit a side issue to develop in the trial. It delays the case and you end up with a trial within a trial on side issues. However, this is a decision which could have gone either way and Jones was entitled to have her questions in the initial discovery phase of the litigation answered honestly. This same judge, having made the call as fairly as she could and, as it happened, in favor of Clilnton, still held Clinton in contempt of Court for a "willful failure to testify truthfully."

 

At the time and still today, I believed the constant mantra of the left in defense of their man that this was all "just about sex" to be intellectually dishonest in the extreme. None of this would have gone anywhere if Clinton hadn't lied under oath in a serious proceeding which he ultimately was forced to settle. Clinton intentionally committed a serious crime and I think it is hillarious how so many give him a pass (not talking about you now Pangloss). This is undisputed.

 

 

Despite the constant slander of the press and the left, I do not think Bush intentionally exaggerated intelligence information nor do I think the existence of WMDs at the precise moment of an invasion was particularly germane.

[Sisyphus]

To be fair, though, do you really not think there's a difference between perjuring in a private lawsuit and being (alright, allegedly) dishonest with regards to matters of war and peace?

[Jim]

To be fair, though, do you really not think there's a difference between perjuring in a private lawsuit and being (alright, allegedly) dishonest with regards to matters of war and peace?

 

I've not heard any convincing evidence that Bush intentionally lied to lead the nation to war. I think he genuinely believed what he was saying and, perhaps, was relying on his advisors with respect to the overblown 16 words. I seriously doubt he was intimately familiar with the aluminum tube story in any detail. However, as you say, at most Bush's dishonesty is an alleged fact whereas Clinton's dishonesty was first under oath in a very serious lawsuit. This is an undisputed fact as established in the case by an express ruling by Judge Susan Webber Wright.

 

To answer your question even more directly, I agree there is a huge difference. Bush honestly believed that Saddam had to go on his watch and was fulfilling his Constitutionally mandated function of leading a nation against what he, rightly or wrongly, perceived to be a threat to the nation.

 

Clinton was using all of the resources of office of the presidency for personal reasons. As I said, I would not have impeached Clinton and at the time worried that he was completely distracted by the Jones/Lewinsky mess. However, I give a lot less slack to a President misusing the office for personal gain (or, in this case, to avoid personal loss) than I do to a president who is acting against what he perceives to be a threat to the national interest.

[ParanoiA]

I've not heard any convincing evidence that Bush intentionally lied to lead the nation to war. I think he genuinely believed what he was saying and, perhaps, was relying on his advisors with respect to the overblown 16 words.

 

Not to mention that Iraq was a repeated theme in his campaign for the presidency to begin with. He said several times he was going to deal with Iraq - well before the primaries and well before he would have been aware of any of the intelligence that suggested WMD's.

 

So, I'm not sure why it was such a surprise to anyone. Suddam violated at least 9 of the agreements that kept us from running over his country a decade before. I think the Bush administration got overzealous, caught up in the wake of 9/11 and eager to believe the worst.

[padren]

Let the movie roast him for lying under oath about sex I guess, but fabricating entire incidents to portray him as an incompatent leader who's actions allowed the worst act of terrorism ever in the US to occur is both partisan and wrong.

 

I would oppose any movie that inserted completely factitious incidents to paint Bush's actions as worse than they were - no matter how much I dislike the guy.

[john5746]

I find it interesting that some people are willing to believe that an Administration would be distracted by a lawsuit, but not a war.

[ParanoiA]

Let the movie roast him for lying under oath about sex I guess' date=' but fabricating entire incidents to portray him as an incompatent leader who's actions allowed the worst act of terrorism ever in the US to occur is both partisan and wrong.

 

I would oppose any movie that inserted completely factitious incidents to paint Bush's actions as worse than they were - no matter how much I dislike the guy.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I'm all for getting the innaccurcies corrected. There's plenty of truth to roast the guy. And since we apparently enjoy using hindsight to blame people and shift responsibility around, it should be a nice compliment.

 

I hope the movie doesn't bring up the sex crap. I know some want to get all shocked and awed that a guy would lie about an affair, but I just could care less. Yes the principal of the fact blah blah blah - he lied to save his butt getting carried away by a naughty young chick. That describes the realities of at least half the men out there, in terms of sexual indiscretion and cover up.

 

Most of the leaders the history channel glorifies had all numbers of women for sexual appeasement - a spoil of leadership. Sounds cool to me. Kind of like an ultra-alpha male.

 

I guarantee you if I had a chance to get a BJ in the oval office I wouldn't hesitate, even if I had to lie about it...

[Jim]

I find it interesting that some people are willing to believe that an Administration would be distracted by a lawsuit, but not a war.

 

When in doubt, ask the Washington Post:

 

At the White House and in Clinton's traveling party in Africa, officials maintained a consciously subdued tone [upon receiving word of Judge Wright's ruling dismissing Jones' claim], in part out of concern for appearing to gloat and in part out of the realization of the great toll the Jones case has already taken on his presidency.

 

"The reactions here are more mixed and complicated than the official line," said one senior aide. "We're all sort of surprised at the emotion this is bringing out. But it's not jumping up and down, it's not popping champagne corks. It's ranging from vindication to almost sort of bitter anger – why something this baseless occupied three years of our lives."

[Jim]

Yeah, I'm all for getting the innaccurcies corrected. There's plenty of truth to roast the guy. And since we apparently enjoy using hindsight to blame people and shift responsibility around, it should be a nice compliment.

 

The Berger scene sounds out of line. It is fine to present a synthesis of events but a program shouldn't lay an amalgam of events on one guy.

 

Beyond that, it's kind of basic. A show which starts with the first World Trade Center bombing and goes forward from 1993 to 9/11/01 is going to come off as more critical of Clinton because Clinton had years to deal with the problem while Bush had only months.

 

As is illustrated by their reaction when the case was over (see Washington Post article above), I also think Clinton was mightily distracted by the Jones/Lewinsky debacle.

 

I hope the movie doesn't bring up the sex crap. I know some want to get all shocked and awed that a guy would lie about an affair, but I just could care less. Yes the principal of the fact blah blah blah - he lied to save his butt getting carried away by a naughty young chick. That describes the realities of at least half the men out there, in terms of sexual indiscretion and cover up.

 

LOL. Can we at least get one fact correct: The problem with Clinton wasn't that he had an affair and lied about it. His problem was that he had a couple of state troopers bring an employee up to his hotel room and then, allegedly, exposed himself to her. Then, when the woman filed a sexual harassment suit, he lied under oath in front of a Federal Judge. I remain baffled as to how this didn't become common knowledge.

 

Jones lost the case because she hadn 't suffer any damages. She got the same job promotions she otherwise would have recieved. The Lewinsky affair would have been relevant IF Judge Wright had accepted Jones' argument that offering and withholding a benefit in exchange for sex constitutes harassment (and not just suffering a detriment for rebuffing the boss). In other words, Jones wanted to show that if she had accepted the sexual invitation, like Lewinsky, she would have received certain favors. When Clinton lied under oath no one knew that the Judge would take this view of the law and it was anything but certain her view would have been affirmed on appeal. This is why Clinton paid Jones $850,000 to settle the matter. The seriousness of Clinton's offense is underlined by the Judge finding him in contempt, sanctioning him around $80K (as I recall) and referring the matter to the state bar.

 

This from a Judge who had just ruled in his favor.

 

This was never just about the affair. It was a wierd combination of events which created a nexus between Clinton's affair with Lewinsky and the claims of Paula Jones. Many times in litigation a case will turn on far less than this kind of wierd confluence of events. I read a transcript of Clinton's deposition once and his lawyers objected mightily to the questions about Lewinsky. However, the Judge denied those objection in the discovery depostion and required him to answer. Clinton had a choice and his choice was to lie under oath.

 

As I said before, I don't think Clinton's perjury warranted impeachment and it certainly shouldn't be a focus on a story about the path to 9/11 but it was a damned sight more serious than the guy having sex with a staffer.

 

Most of the leaders the history channel glorifies had all numbers of women for sexual appeasement - a spoil of leadership. Sounds cool to me. Kind of like an ultra-alpha male.

 

Yes, I'm sure Stalin had his pick of the litter.

 

I guarantee you if I had a chance to get a BJ in the oval office I wouldn't hesitate, even if I had to lie about it...

 

Would you lie under oath in a civil lawsuit?

[john5746]

When in doubt, ask the Washington Post[/url']:

 

OK, so the Iraq war has been a HUGE diversion from the war on Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden and making Homeland Security a working, viable agency.

 

Fair enough?

[Jim]

OK' date=' so the Iraq war has been a HUGE diversion from the war on Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden and making Homeland Security a working, viable agency.

 

Fair enough?[/quote']

 

The United States did not invade Iraq either to catch Osama or to create a more viable Homeland Security agency. We invaded Iraq because it's leader had invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, agreed to disclose his WMD program as a condition to retaining power, failed to honor his agreement for over a decade, attempted to assassinate a former US president, and continued to fail to come clean about his WMD program even as US forces gathered to remove him from power. His danger wasn't just that he was brutal. He was dangerous not merely because he funded terrorist families with fortunes and used chemical weapons against his own people.

 

Saddam was capable of wildly self-destructive irrationality. How could he think that we would let the invasion of Kuwait stand? Did he even pause to think of what would be the US response if he had succeeded in assassinating George H? Even Clinton would have had to have acted without mercy.

 

The Iraqis are better off without Saddam as is the US and the entire world. The forceful US action led Libya to scrap a surprisingly advanced nuclear program. In this process, we have given an entire nation a chance at freedom. This may be passe to say yet I do believe that giving millions \a chance at freedom is an idealistic good thing.

 

Whether the Iraqis take advantage of this opportunity remains to be seen.

 

I have no idea whether our efforts in Iraq consumed resources which would have caught Osama or whether the attention focussed on these objectives has somehow hindered homeland security. I would need to see more than anecdotal evidence to agree with your conclusion.

[bascule]

When in doubt, ask the Washington Post

 

Sure you're not confusing them with the Washington Times?

 

Well, maybe you aren't...

[ParanoiA]

Can we at least get one fact correct: The problem with Clinton wasn't that he had an affair and lied about it. His problem was that he had a couple of state troopers bring an employee up to his hotel room and then, allegedly, exposed himself to her. Then, when the woman filed a sexual harassment suit, he lied under oath in front of a Federal Judge. I remain baffled as to how this didn't become common knowledge.

 

Ok, this is just strange. And this was my problem with all of this when it happened years ago. Clinton is not a weirdo. He's more of a cool cat. He's going to basically force some chick into his room and flip out his jimmy in hopes she's going to bite? (pun intended...)

 

This sounds like something you might pull in college, but a grown man with alot to lose? I just don't see that strange turn of events anywhere in Clinton's personality. It just doesn't fit.

 

I believe there's more to the story than that. I wouldn't be surprised if they were both extremely flirtacious with each other for some time before all of this. She may have even been quite suggestive with him. Or maybe it was just him doing the flirting, and misinterpreted her smiles and giggles as uncomfortable reactions to his advances.

 

I'm not saying it flat out isn't true. I'm just saying it sounds awfully weird for a level headed hound like Clinton to just send his guards to retreive a subordinate and display his jewels - without any prior reason to believe she might like that.

 

 

Would you lie under oath in a civil lawsuit?

 

Honestly, no. Especially since I already received it. But since Hillary told him to...

[padren]

Ok' date=' this is just strange. And this was my problem with all of this when it happened years ago. Clinton is not a weirdo. He's more of a cool cat. He's going to basically force some chick into his room and flip out his jimmy in hopes she's going to bite? (pun intended...)

 

This sounds like something you might pull in college, but a grown man with alot to lose? I just don't see that strange turn of events anywhere in Clinton's personality. It just doesn't fit.

 

I believe there's more to the story than that. I wouldn't be surprised if they were both extremely flirtacious with each other for some time before all of this. She may have even been quite suggestive with him. Or maybe it was just him doing the flirting, and misinterpreted her smiles and giggles as uncomfortable reactions to his advances.

 

I'm not saying it flat out isn't true. I'm just saying it sounds awfully weird for a level headed hound like Clinton to just send his guards to retreive a subordinate and display his jewels - without any prior reason to believe she might like that.

 

 

 

 

Honestly, no. Especially since I already received it. But since Hillary told him to...[/quote']

 

 

Personally I seriously doubt the claims against Clinton in that matter, but at the same time it is not up to the defendant to simply say "since I know I am innocent, I'll cover up the stuff that could make me look guilty" when compelled to provide it by law.

[john5746]

I have no idea whether our efforts in Iraq consumed resources which would have caught Osama or whether the attention focussed on these objectives has somehow hindered homeland security. I would need to see more than anecdotal evidence to agree with your conclusion.

 

Forget if Iraq was worth it or not, what I am saying is that the invasion and occupation of it far overshadows the lewinski affair. So, if that affair was so overwhelming to an administration, the Iraq war is 10 times as much. I am sure I could find a quote from a paper somewhere, but it could just be dismissed as politically biased anyway.

[ParanoiA]

Did anyone watch this last night? I didn't get it turned on until after Bush's speech. Did they take out all of the "bad Clinton" stuff like the democrats wanted?

[john5746]

Actually, last night they were harsh on the Bush Administration. I didn't watch all of it, but they were tough on the Clinton Administration on Sunday. Not sure how much they changed, etc.

[ParanoiA]

Actually, last night they were harsh on the Bush Administration. I didn't watch all of it, but they were tough on the Clinton Administration on Sunday. Not sure how much they changed, etc.

 

Well I must have missed all of the good stuff. I was impressed with the part that I watched though. They seemed to be tough on all involved really - at least from the point I started watching it.

 

I also didn't realize the FBI had that kind of information leading up to the attack and had agents actually focused on UBL. I thought they dismissed him and much of the intelligence surrounding him up til 9/11. If that's true, I'm far more disappointed in my countrymen than I was before.