The Path To 9/11 – More on the Continuing Debate
[posted by Justin Levine]
Instapundit nails it on the head today. Read his post, along with all the links he provides.
Like him, I most certainly do not blame the Clinton administration for 9/11. I do blame them for constantly trying to distort history by claiming to have been focused like a laser beam on terror throughout their tenure, and then implying that everything was going swimmingly in the anti-terror effort until Bush came into power. That is an out-and-out lie – and one that the “Path To 9/11” powerfully dispels.
But you know who I think comes across as the worst in this film? [Not including the terrorists themselves obviously.] It actually isn’t anyone in the Clinton cabinet. It is
Barbara Bodine – the U.S. Ambassador to Yemen who is portrayed in part 2 of the film as essentially shutting down the FBI’s investigation into the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
The Weekly Standard provides some crucial background here. It shows that there are two sides to every story, but that the filmmakers had enough justification for choosing to portray one side over the other.
Part of the brilliance of ‘The Path To 9/11’ is that it shows how each different jurisdiction of power can work against one another. People normally don’t think of Third World Ambassadors as having a whole lot of power over institutions such as the FBI or the CIA. This film might change your thinking on that. When Third World Ambassadors also happen to have big egos (Joe Wilson anyone?), then the results can be even worse. And yet, the issue of ambassador appointments to Third World countries isn’t usually given a whole lot of scrutiny in public debates.
Meanwhile, a small part of me is actually hoping that ABC yanks the film altogether and buries it in their vault. Then I’d have an opportunity to really challenge people’s thinking on overly restrictive copyright laws…. đ
[posted by Justin Levine]
Hi,
I thought you might like to know about this also:
…..
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE OCT 17, 2000 20:03:41 ET XXXXX
STATE DEPT MEMO: DEATH OF US SAILORS DOES NOT COMPARE TO PALESTINIAN TOLL
The United States State Department believes the â17 or so dead sailorsâ on the U.S.S. Cole âdoes not compare to the 100+ Palestinians who have died in recent weeksâ in Mideast violence, a stunning government memo reveals.
MORE
The Clinton/Gore Administration disapproved a VOICE OF AMERICA broadcast condemning the attack on the Cole. A memo from the Executive Secretariat Staff at the State Department stated:
âThe Department of State does not clear on the referenced VOA editorial.
âThis editorial will reach an audience that is caught up in the violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories. The 17 or so dead sailors does not compare to the 100+ Palestinians who have died in recent weeks where we have remained silent. The people that hear this will not see the separation we are trying to make and relate it directly to the violence.
âEither VOA adds something in there to take the edge off and mention the Palestinians or we should kill this editorial until the violence has calmed for a while.
âS/CT [Secy. for counterterrorism] concurred with this. If you have questions concerning this editorial, please contact NEA/P (unintelligible)
FROM: Swadia Sarkis, Interagency Coordinator [Phone 202-647-6545, FAX 202-647-1533]
TO: Voice of America (VOA), Office of Policy
RE: VOA Editorial: Terrorism Will Fail
OCTOBER 16, 2000
END
…..
Does this shed any more light on the subject of how the State Department thought of Arab reaction first BEFORE they thought of the families of those “17 or so sailors” murdered aboard the Cole? They did a 180 ONLY AFTER THEY WERE CAUGHT!!! Remember…NOTHING was EVER done about the Cole which should have been to the utter shame of the Clinton White House! Instead, the Cole is forgotten! Does THIS explain the Clinton State Department to you?
Carol
BTW I believe the S/CT (Secretary of Counterterrorism was none other than Richard A. Clarke…no?
Carol Johnson (cbe905) — 9/8/2006 @ 1:35 pmUm, what are you talking about in regards to Joe Wilson? He is a Republican, and didn’t do anything but represent the US in a forthright and very brave manner (noose around neck, anyone?).
You just don’t like him ’cause he dissed your Dear Leader. Not because he was ‘an ambassador with a big ego’ or whatever. The only harm that came from his ‘ego’ (disliking the uranium cake LIES), was the ego damage the Bush misAdministration received, along with all their sycophants, such as yourself.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (32d45e) — 9/8/2006 @ 2:36 pmI think we are all lasering in on what is really shocking here: the basic surrender of all freedom of speech–press, books, film, TV–to the government. From this moment forth everything we see or read is actually government approved because nothing can see the light of day without a fear of 1. license revocation, 2. a suspension of franking privilegs so newspapers and book sellers can be hit with higher and ruinous costs, 3. the complete censorship of all movies because any TV outlet showing something the government doesn’t like will lose their license to broadcast. This is the worst thing that has happened since Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court with pary hacks because he didn’t like their decisions, but in that case his own political party rose up against him. Since both parties have an interest in deep sixing Paths of 9/11 we can see the result. Nobody anywhere will stand up this time. This is a very sad day. I commented at length with pix here.
Howard Veit (28df94) — 9/8/2006 @ 2:38 pmThe burying of the USS Cole continues. The Captain of the USS Cole at the time of the attack was recently denied a promotion by the US Senate, even though he was selected for promotion by a US Navy promotion board.
All officer promotions must be approved by the US Senate. Senators sometimes play games with this, e.g., they will put anonymous “holds” on large blocks of promotions to force the Pentagon to approve the use of DoD funds for some senator’s pet project. Somtimes a senator will place an anonymous hold on a particular officer’s promotion to settle a score. For example any officer who was even peripherally involved in the “tailhook” scandal was blacklisted for promotions.
Those who served on the USS Cole at the time of the attack support their former commander almost to a man. The Clinton administration refuses to accept ANY responsibility for the 9-11 attacks, but the Senate has no difficulty destroying the career of a fine US Navy officer who happened to be on watch when his ship was attacked by terrorists. SHAME ON THEM!
Major K (69c469) — 9/8/2006 @ 2:46 pmI’m sure glad that we can all be reliving the past with regard to who F@#ked-up before 9/11, this is EXACTLY what they want us to do so that a: people will watch their film on Sunday and b: we don’t talk about what is happening AFTER 9/11!
Thank God there isn’t a third party in DC, because then we would actually have to work at blaming the other guys!!
Linden (c5d150) — 9/8/2006 @ 3:48 pmBUT
seePea (045bd3) — 9/8/2006 @ 3:54 pmisn’t there someone in charge of overlooking all the interactions between ambassadors and other departments of the government. Someone, like, oh , the Secretary of State ?
Linden,
It appears you did not read Major K’s post very carefully. It is not about “the past”, it is about the continuing interference with the career of a good officer who probably has a family and friends who are also suffering with him.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/8/2006 @ 3:58 pm“… isnât there someone in charge of overlooking all the interactions between ambassadors and other departments of the government. Someone, like, oh , the Secretary of State ?”
The Secretary of State has a lot to do, seePea. Ambassodors have always been crucial positions when the shit hits the fan.
A good ambassador can make all the difference, but you need so many of them it’s hard to test them all first. And as Patterico points out, they are not always given the initial scrutiny the post requires.
Towit people’s lives and U.S.’ reputation once depended on Joseph Wilson.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 9/8/2006 @ 4:39 pmAnd as Patterico points out, they are not always given the initial scrutiny the post requires.
This is the third time you’ve referred to a Justin Levine post as being by me, Chris.
Are you doing this deliberately??
Patterico (de0616) — 9/8/2006 @ 5:00 pmClarification: my last comment was not directed at anyone in particular, I just think we should all be focusing on what can be done today to avoid another attack and not be bogged down in the past, every second we spend fighting each other the true enemy is planning our demise!
Linden (c5d150) — 9/8/2006 @ 5:40 pmShort Arsehole:
tomsyl (8bfc31) — 9/8/2006 @ 5:49 pmExcept for a brief stint when everyone with any sense was leaving Iraq, Wilson was never an ambassador – he was an assistant with responsibility for guest accomodations, housekeeping services, plumbing etc. His entire story has been completely debunked by even the MSM. Did you get a decoder ring when you joined his fan club? And did Wilson give you your name, or did it come from your parents?
tomsyl,
Did you get a decoder ring when you joined his fan club?
I think SRA does deliberately his inflammatory comments as misdirection plays whenever he thinks that “his side” is losing an arg. He’s hoping the subsequent angry back-and-forth will cause the arg itself to be forgotten: grade-school stuff. Best to just ignore him till he grows out of it.
ras (a646fc) — 9/8/2006 @ 5:59 pmtomsyl:
Shorter Arsehole is a pseudonym. His real name is Shorter 007Arsehole. But don’t tell anyone. He’s a covert agent known only to anyone who works at Langley or who drives past the entrance on Chain Bridge Road, or who reads Vanity Fair.
It’s nice to see this mess sucked into a black (Arse)hole, where it belongs.
martin (fb2430) — 9/8/2006 @ 6:02 pmLinden writes:
OK, so what would you do to accomplish that?
Right now, there are two competing ideas for the direction of anti-terrorism policy: the law-enforcement method, which was what the Clinton Administration (and the Bush Administration, up until September 11th) used, and the aggressive, attacking military method, the current Bush Administration policy.
One of the problems for our friends on the left is that their criticisms of President Bush’s policies always seem to revert back to arguments based on the law-enforcement method: gathering evidence, fair trials in civilian federal courts, making sure all of the j’s are dotted and the t’s crossed. The Bush plan is to seek them out and kill them, not exactly the get a warrant methodology.
The big problem our Democratic friends have with this film is not that dramatic license has been used, but that the film is an attack on the law enforcement method, because those are the concerns it (purportedly) depicts, and because they all end in ultimate failure.
This is simply an expansion of the kerfuffle over the NSA’s “wiretapping” program: our liberal friends were just oh-so-worried about a valid warrant and whether some American’s rights had been violated, while most people were more concerned with whether it worked or not.
Our Democratic friends want you to forget that their preferred method just didn’t work, and this film will remind people of that fact.
Dana (1d5902) — 9/8/2006 @ 6:13 pmGood heavens Martin, I thought Shorter’s identity was classified information ?!
You must have discovered his bio in the ‘Who’s Who in America’ book, right next to Joe Wilson’s entry where he named his wife Valleri Plame, and her employer (CIA).
Ha, ha, ha.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 9/8/2006 @ 6:17 pm“Meanwhile, a small part of me is actually hoping that ABC yanks the film altogether and buries it in their vault. Then Iâd have an opportunity to really challenge peopleâs thinking on overly restrictive copyright lawsâŚ.”
You’re going to make your own movie? đ
nk (32c481) — 9/8/2006 @ 7:22 pmYes, Patterico, it’s a poor joke. No offence is intended. I shall cease.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 9/8/2006 @ 9:02 pm(The first time, of course, it was inadvertent. The joke’s on me and my inattentiveness.)
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 9/8/2006 @ 9:03 pmThe Nazis tried rewriting history, so did the Soviets. The Bush regime are doing the same. Fool me twice, Mr President?
Max Gross (2f07be) — 9/8/2006 @ 9:24 pmOh, so now it’s going to be the left-wing meme that President Bush controls ABC and Walt Disney?
Well, blu will probably buy that!
Dana (3e4784) — 9/9/2006 @ 5:10 ammax: “The Nazis tried rewriting history, so did the Soviets. The Bush regime are doing the same. Fool me twice, Mr President?”
I’d like to hear your ‘once’, fool.
Let’s not forget how the Clinton Administration, upon leaving the White House, showed their respect for the Constitutional provision for the transmission of presidential power by trashing the White House, stealing things, and being so petty as to destroy certain keys on White House computers. The Clintons are masters at rewriting history. When the first World Trade Center bombing occurred, and it was a big deal then, Clinton was over in Joisey — and couldn’t be bothered to come to visit the scene of the crime. But he believed in the criminal approach, proven to be ineffectual when facing ‘religious’ criminals, though not criminal according to their ‘religion’. Clinton’s lack of response to Mogadishu was the final proof of America’s ineffectiveness and lack of will; things deteriorated from there. Then two of our African embasies were bombed and the USS Cole was attacked, blatant acts of war (akin to Jimmy Carter’s failed and ineffectual response to the act of war committed by Iran in 1979 when taking over our Embassy). When acts of war are committed against you, there are only two options. We know what option the Democrats always manage to choose. The current Bush Administration Policy/Doctrine of going after terrorists militarily is the right and proper response. That Clinton’s ‘investigate and prosecute terrorism in a criminal manner’ policy was and is a complete failure has a lot to do with the Democratic pressure currently being applied to ABC. Imagine, a news organization was going to give the people it supposedly serves two sides of a very serious argument: The Clinton prosecution of terrorism as a criminal matter versus the Bush prosecution of terrorism by military means. And one side complained about the debate — and threatened to pull ABC’s broadcast license if the debate was aired through a docudrama. Imagine.
RickZ (7d00a8) — 9/9/2006 @ 6:46 am