<p>
</p>
<p>usna09mon, this is just a bunch of left-wing BS (Barbara Streisand). You must be a member of moveon.org; this is right out of their talking points.</p>
<p>The truth is that we are in a war against Islamic fascism because of inaction by the Clinton administration. If you are interested in the truth, which I highly doubt, I suggest that you watch ABC’s mini-series “The Path to 9/11” airing September 10th & 11th at 8/7c. The film is five hours in length without commercials and fortunately ABC is going to run this without commercials.</p>
<p>After this film was screened in Washington last week, Richard BenVeniste and a number of Democrats who were at the screening were just outraged at the way the Clinton administration is portrayed, and they were going to do everything they could to raise hell about it. The liberal blogosphere is going nuts over the film. They’re countering it with “truths” they say they have about how hard Clinton fought terrorists and so forth.</p>
<p>The truth is that the Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Ladens head on a platter three times by Sudan. Madam Not-so-Brite (Madeline Albright) the former Secretary of State declined the offer. On another occassion, our special forces/CIA (Christians in Action) had an opportunity to kill Osam bin Laden and were not given the green light by Sandy Burgler (Sandy Burger) the former National Security Advisor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Lewinsky situation is referred to three or four times in this piece. ;)</p>
<p>Cyrus Nowrasteh, who wrote the script for the mini-seriest, says he bases its on the 9/11 Commission Report, and in the opening credits it mentions this. And quite a lot of the movie does come from the 9/11 Commission Report. The thing that struck me was the people I disliked the most are the enemy, and that’s as it should be. The people that come under the most harsh criticism, the people that are made to look really evil and bad are the ones who should, and that is Al-Qaeda terrorists and their supporters.</p>
<p>The run-up to the movie starts in the early 1990s with plots hatched in the Philippines to blow up airliners over the Pacific Ocean. It goes through every attack. Well, it actually opens with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This movie makes it abundantly clear – and you know how people in this country are conditioned now to believe pictures: You see it, you think it’s true. This movie makes it unarguable that all during the nineties, we didn’t do diddly-squat, that nobody took this seriously. There were some people trying to: John O’Neill, who was with the FBI, who later got fired, a number of agents in the CIA. A lot of people were doing their damnedest to get this taken seriously and they were ignored, or they were opposed by various branches of government, various people in government, and it runs the gamut from the administration to the National Security Council, to the CIA and the FBI. George Tenet is portrayed here alternately good and pathetic. </p>
<p>Richard Clarke, as portrayed in this movie, comes across as one voice trying to get everybody to pay attention here. Sandy Berger comes across as gutless. In this one episode where bin Laden in 1998 is surrounded in his digs over in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance and the CIA team have the house surrounded. They know exactly what building in this complex he’s in. They are ready to go in and either kill him or capture him, and they don’t get the approval from Washington. Berger says (summarized), “Nope, can’t do it. If you guys do it you’re going to do it on your own and if it falls apart you get the blame.” In another incident similar to this where it was possible to take out bin Laden and perhaps other terrorists who were – and this is before 9/11 – planning 9/11, Madam Not-so-Brite and Sandy Bergler both refused to allow the CIA and the military to take any action whatsoever. </p>
<p>Not-so-Brite says, “The president is deeply involved in peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and if there is an attack on any Muslim or Islamic people right now, it will set that back.” This is stunning because those negotiations never led to anything! It was all about fear. That administration was afraid of failure and what it would mean to their approval ratings, but there were problems throughout. All of the information that the FBI offices in Phoenix and in Minneapolis had that were transferred to New York FBI office and then the CIA, but they couldn’t share the information. The Zacarias Moussaoui case is well gone into. </p>
<p>They had his computer. He was the 20th hijacker. His computer had the data on the plans. It didn’t have the date, but had the plans. The justice department said, “Nope, we can’t open the computer. We don’t have a warrant. We’re not going to get a warrant. We’re not going to violate this man’s rights this way, so forth.” It makes it clear that nobody was serious about dealing with this prior to 9/11. As for the Bush administration, they don’t get off the hook here. They are not let off the hook. They, too, are portrayed as – well, they’re caught up and sort of hamstrung by the existing procedures that are in place. They haven’t had a chance to change them, such as getting rid of the wall and this sort of thing. </p>
<p>In the hindsight, in the aftermath, when you watch the movie, you ask yourself, “Does some of this stuff still go on?” Well, we know it does. There’s a whole party, the Democratic Party, which doesn’t want to take this threat seriously at all (i.e., the Murthas of teh world). They’re doing everything they can to sabotage any victory over this enemy, for purely political purposes. They are acting exactly as you will see government officials throughout the nineties in this movie act: unconcerned, gun-shy, afraid, political correctness ruling the day. Some of the CIA agents in this movie are really portrayed as frustrated and just beyond belief. Great intelligence came in from the leader of the Northern Alliance, and he had pretty good data on a major attack happening in this country within, you know, 30, 40 days from the time he gave it. He didn’t know what it was going to be or where it was going to be, and nobody in government wanted to take it seriously. </p>
<p>Tenet, none of them wanted to believe it because there weren’t dates, there weren’t times, there weren’t names, and so, “Until that, I can’t take it anywhere. I can’t take this to the president! I can’t take this anywhere else. You gotta get me names.” This is our best ally! This is a guy who has told us everything that’s going to happen, has happened. Nobody want the to deal with it. Nobody wanted to deal with it: hitting the aspirin factory in Sudan is covered. Hitting the empty terrorist camp where bin Laden was supposed to be (Clinton administration moves here), both of those are covered, but you really come away from watching this with the idea that we face an evil enemy that hates our guts, and that’s who you end up disliking the most. It’s a tough call because when you see portrayals of inaction and obfuscation and cowardice and indecision. That’s infuriating as well. Now, we watch this with hindsight knowing full-well what terrorists are capable of.</p>
<p>Everybody needs to watch this movie!</p>