Patterico's Pontifications


Investor’s Business Daily on Changes to “The Path to 9/11″

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:32 pm

After complaints from Bill Clinton and his cronies, “The Path to 9/11″ has been edited — and Investor’s Business Daily is not happy:

[N]o amount of script rewrites will change that it was Clinton, not “general indecisiveness,” that let Osama bin Laden avoid capture or death at least three times on Clinton’s watch.

. . . .

Clinton admitted his culpability in February 2002 when he told a Long Island Association luncheon crowd in Woodbury, N.Y., how and why he passed on one opportunity to kill bin Laden and much of the Taliban supporting him.

In May 1999, the CIA tracked bin Laden to Kandahar, Afghanistan, where he was expected to remain for five days. Clinton said he considered bombing Kandahar and that “I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack” but didn’t out of concern that women and children might be killed.

. . . .

At the meeting to discuss a retaliatory strike [for the bombing of the USS Cole], it was met with almost universal opposition. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who charges that her scenes in the movie are “fabrications,” said then that because of troubles between Israel and the Palestinians, “Bombing Muslims wouldn’t be helpful at this time.” So the trigger was never pulled.

Again, I’m not interested in the blame game — but I’m also not interested in allowing Democrats to rewrite history according to the mythology of left-wing blogs. If the lefties stop doing that, maybe we can get back to blaming the real culprits: the terrorists. And maybe we can commemorate the awful anniversary of 9/11 in the sober way that it deserves.

6 Responses to “Investor’s Business Daily on Changes to “The Path to 9/11″”

  1. “… out of concern that women and children might be killed” is what distinguishes us from them, after all. If only I could believe the person who disputes what the meaning of “is” is that that was his real reason.

    nk (2e1372)

  2. This is not about what Clinton did or did not do, it is about right-wing extremists attempting to gloss over the catastrophic and criminal actions of the Bush regime that have left the USA without any moral authority whatsoever. In fact, under Bush, the USA has become a rogue state.

    Max Gross (2f07be)

  3. Another pro-Saddam BDSer heard from.

    Dave (9090dd)

  4. Max will be hearing from the Democratic Party leadership! They don’t like lies being told about presidents. They will demand he edit his remarks and tell the truth.

    Lew Clark (effa64)

  5. “This is not about what Clinton did or did not do. . .” Poor deluded Max. Of course this is what it is all about. It is also all about Carter’s failed response when faced with similar islamic terrorist threats. Hated now? No moral authority now? So how far back will you go, if ever, to give us moral authority to stop terrorist ‘isms’? But, like Dave said, you’re just “another pro-Saddam BDSer heard from.”

    RickZ (7d00a8)

  6. Albright’s gripe is that it was a senior military official (General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff) not her who tipped off the Pakastanis. If Albright was the one who ordered or requested that General Ralston inform General Karamat (Pakastani Army Chief) of the air strike then she is splitting hairs. Regardless, the point of the scene, that Pakistan and thus Bin Laden were tipped off and that Albright was involved in the decision, stays the same.

    Sandy Berger’s gripe is the portrayal that he was solely responsible for calling off an attempt to shoot Bin Laden. The Clinton White House, for various political reasons, clearly dropped the ball on numerous opportunities to kill Bin Laden and Sandy Berger was intricately involved in these decisions. The reasons are certainly more complex then not issuing an order tover a satellite phone connection to a sniper, but the failures in moxy and determination to kill Bin Laden are the same.

    The argument by Clinton is that he was not distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair. Such a portrayal in the movie is not so much one of artistic license as it may be a difference of interpretation of the facts depending on one’s point of view (i.e. Are you Bill Clinton or every other oxygen breathing human being on the face of the earth). No matter what your politics – he was clearly distracted. Anyway, when did Clinton become concerned with the accuracy of a story. You know, it all depends on what is, is.

    If the Path to 9/11 being portrayed as a historical documentary, then some of the inaccuracies should be corrected. If the show is trying to give the American public a dumbed down and entertaining version of very complicated historical events, then it sounds like it may have hit the bullseye. This is television, its supposed to be art, it is the general picture that is being portrayed, the general sense of things – a “you get the picture” type deal. While the exact scenes may not have happened the general sense created by the scenes did happen. After all making a movie in Hollywood is like playing with horseshoes or hand grenades – it does not have to be right on, it’s just got to be close enough.

    DhimmiThis (86e516)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2269 secs.