« The Path To 9/11 | Main | Karl Rove is my hero »

Random thought on "The Path To 9/11"

I have a great compromise for those upset about the "Sandy Berger hanging up on the agents about to get Bin Laden" scene in "The Path To 9/11," one that far better blends fact and fiction.

Why not instead have Berger just stuff the phone down his pants?

I'm still puzzled why people are so eager to take the word of Berger, who pleaded guilty to stealing and destroying government documents, and Clinton, who gave up his law license in Arkansas after admitting to committing perjury (lying under oath), that the version of events in the movie are false...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Random thought on "The Path To 9/11":

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Ex-Taliban chief details Massood slaying

Comments (38)

Profiles in courage by Berg... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Profiles in courage by Berger, et al.

Now that the children are no longer playing hide and seek with the Nat'l. Security Archives, they're throwing a temper tantrum about their legacy.

Below despicable.

Sandy Berger's trip to the ... (Below threshold)

Sandy Berger's trip to the National Achives was my favorite part of the "National Treasure" flick. How he got that copy of the Constitution into his socks I still haven't figured out!

The fact the media has not ... (Below threshold)
Chris is Bliss:

The fact the media has not ran this story into the ground like the Plame case is nauseating, but not surprisinng

Berger, former NSA, is relegated to stuffing documents in his pants and socks right before his testimony to the 9/11 commission. That in itself should spur some curiosity among the media as to why a former high ranking member of a president's inner circle is stuffing documents in his shorts relating to the most traumatic day in Amercian history, and said president's concerted efforts to derail a movie that speaks about the event.

Details such as, was Clinton getting a blowjob while Bin Laden was running a terror training camp are not the issue, nor are they relevant. What is relevant is eight years of policy that was predicated on 1.Populariity polls 2.Public Relations benefits 3. And ignore that which cannot be solved in a sound bite.

As a member of the US Air Force, I had stayed in Khobar Towers from 1991-1993 over several deployments, a few buildings over from the dorm that got hit. Clinton's limp-dick speech about "bringing to justice those who are responsible" is the same speech he gave when the USS Cole got bombed, when the African embassies got bombed. What was really said in the conference rooms at the WH duriing those times were "If you bitch slap me again Mr. Islamic Terrorist, I will really retaliate. I will and you know I will. Bitch slap me one more time and...*SMACK!!!* (Sound of Bitch Slap) Okay, now I'm really mad. You've pushed the Ole' USA to far, now you will face our...... *SUPER INDUSTRIAL SMACK!!!*

Clinton felt he was tough where it counted... By haviing the IRS audit his crtics and having Pellicano dig up dirt and intimidate his threats. Now, talking through his lawyers to try and muscle ABC execs (Democratic donors to begin with) into pulling the 9/11 movie. Always getting someone else to do your wet-work huh William!?

I could care less if Bush is a Rhodes Scholar or has the I.Q. of drying paint. As long as he is smart enough to know what to do when someone bitch slaps him. If his options are A) Let's get to the botton of this conflict through diplomacy or B) Take a poll; then he is a Democrat ... and probaly from the West Coast or New England

However, if his options are A) Put a boot in bitch slapper's behind or B) Carpet bombing bitch slapper's village; then he might be a Republican.

I might remind that W. had ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I might remind that W. had better grades than Kerry or Gore, and a study was done by a pretty impartial researcher that W's IQ was probably higher, too.

He just sounds like a cowboy. But I like cowboys. Especially those with some common sense, which Bush has in spades.

Any one surprised at ABC's ... (Below threshold)
JF:

Any one surprised at ABC's last minute edits under the pressure of Democrats? Tomorrow, they won't edit any bashing of President Bush. Meanwhile, we have a terrorist in my homestate speaking at Harvard (at their invitation). Makes me sick...

I'm still puzzled why pe... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I'm still puzzled why people are so eager to take the word of Berger... and Clinton... that the version of events in the movie are false...

And I'm puzzled that you could make a statement like that. Do you even read your own blog comments? Aside from Berger and Clinton, here are other sources that are on record as saying the version of events in the movie are known to be false:

-Thomas Keane
-Cyrus Nowrasteh
-ABC/Disney
-The 9/11 Commission Report

Do you believe any of them?

Brian,The stuff th... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

Brian,

The stuff that the Clintons and the Democrats wanted ABC to edit out or "tone down" is in the 9/11 Commission report, hun.

Of course you have no knowledge of this because it isn't in your talking points memo from the DNC.

Brian,None of thos... (Below threshold)
ordi:

Brian,

None of those people were there. Listen to someone who was. Michael Scheuer was the Head of the CIA unit in charge of hunting UBL.

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E20060909203602/

Do you believe any of him or people that were not there?

Opps, should beDo ... (Below threshold)
ordi:

Opps, should be

Do you believe him or people that were not there?

Umm, no it isn't, "hun". Pl... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Umm, no it isn't, "hun". Please cite where in the Commission Report it says that Berger vetoed the CIA's request to kill OBL. While you're in there, look for this passage:

Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.

Of course, you have no knowledge of this because... hmm, actually I can't think of any reason you could have no knowledge of this, assuming you've been reading anything in the news or blogs for the past week.

Do you believe him or pe... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Do you believe him or people that were not there?

I believe the consistent story told by all involved, as summarized in the Commission Report, which makes no mention of Michael Scheuer's involvement.

By the way, this is a man who says Al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization, the invasion of Afghanistan was terribly bungled, the invasion of Iraq was a gift to bin Laden, the War On Terror is bogus, and the US should be less supportive of Israel. Not that any of that is relevant to the issue at hand, but something to know, nonetheless.

Brian, no matter how it is ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Brian, no matter how it is acted out, and no matter how or what was said, we know the outcome. No action. The exact wording of what they said about not getting Osama really doesn't mattter much. It is kind of like willy's (lower case used as a matter of disrepect) silly statement about what is is. Actions speak louder than words, clintons words came in volumes his actions did not match his words. That makes him a what? Liar.

So BrianWhat did y... (Below threshold)
ordi:

So Brian

What did you think of this?

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E20060909203602/

He was the Head of the CIA unit in charge of hunting UBL.

I must admit, it is a rare ... (Below threshold)
robert:

I must admit, it is a rare pleasure seeing Albright, Berger & Co. get their due from the MSM.

ABC no less, who went out of their way to "get" the swift boaters not so long ago.

It is entirely too soon to conclude that the ABC exec's have become born again neocons, so what to make of this event?

It is possible that this is all a ratings thing, and it is also possible that the other shoe is about to drop - a boot maybe - closer to the election.

But it is also possible that a few on the left have noticed that the Dem's have been lurching to the left; lynching the moderates, while all who voted for Iraq are recanting and backtracking.

The real concern would be the growing number who think Bush blew up the WTC, including candidates for national office, university professors and MSM members.

Democratic consultants must fear this above all else after already being pulled McGovernward for some time now. The cliff nears...

People forget there's a str... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

People forget there's a struggle for the Democratic Party. The Clintonistas want Hillary in the White House while the Michael Moorons don't want Hillary because she supports the idea of the War in Iraq.

Having Clinton's legacy undermined especially in respect to the war on terror is exactly something that they want to see happen.

Here I’ll help you Brian</p... (Below threshold)
ordi:

Here I’ll help you Brian

From Heartland, September 9 2006:

From beginning of interview:

John Kasich: How are we going to get him (Speaking of UBL)? How are we going to caught him. What’s it going to take?

Michael Scheuer: Right now Sir, it’s going to a great deal of luck. You know America is suffering from Mr. Clinton’s failure, ah complete and utter failure to use the TEN (10) occasions that the CIA provided him to kill Osama Bin Laden before Osama Bin Laden become a movement and a philosophy rather than just a man.


From end of interview:

John Kasich: .Michael, were about out of time but do you really believe in the depth of your soul we could have had him(speaking of UBL)? .

Michael Scheuer: .Ah! (laughing) His innards Sir, should be splattered all over the the the desert of Southern Afghanistan. There’s no reason why Osama Bin Laden is alive today except that President Clinton and his National Security Advisers refused to press the button.

He was the Head of the C... (Below threshold)
Brian:

He was the Head of the CIA unit in charge of hunting UBL.

Is that the unit that Bush disbanded after 5 months? Is that decision in the movie?

Brian, no matter how it ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, no matter how it is acted out, and no matter how or what was said, we know the outcome.

Ah, I see. "Fake but accurate" is your new standard, it seems.

Here I’ll help you Brian... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Here I’ll help you Brian

Once again, an irrelevant excerpt. The issue is the truth. I have no problem with the truth of Clinton's failures. Let Scheuer substantiate his opinion with factual corroboration, put that in the movie, and I'll have no problem with it. The only issue here is a depiction that is directly contradicted by the facts.

Brian,It is not th... (Below threshold)
ordi:

Brian,

It is not the facts you are after. Admit it, this is all about your "emotions". In your emotional state all you see is your Saint Bill was attacked unfairly and Bush was not. Maybe you should wait until after the reminder of the movie airs. Bush will be in the dock tomorrow night and rightly so. However, Saint Bill has to take his lumps too.

Scheuer has substantiate and corroborates the facts he asserts. He wrote the book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror

http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888625/sr=8-1/qid=1157848609/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4403012-7219006?ie=UTF8&s=books

Michael F. Scheuer is a 22-year CIA veteran. He served as the Chief of Alec Station, the Osama bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November.

Brian,Just because... (Below threshold)
Bob Jones:

Brian,

Just because it's not in the commission report means it didn't happen or was not said? The 9/11 Commission was the biggest partisan joke and continues to be. They, and you, continue to look the other way in regards to Clintons inability or lack of will to act when he should have.

Why is Sandy Burglar never ... (Below threshold)
914:

Why is Sandy Burglar never grilled by the media about what He took/destroyed?

Just because it's not in... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Just because it's not in the commission report means it didn't happen or was not said?

Not necessarily, but the scenes in question were admitted by the producers themselves to not have happened. Exactly what source are you using to make you believe that they did? Please share, because no one else has offered one.

It is not the facts you ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It is not the facts you are after. Admit it, this is all about your "emotions".

Make the facts accurate, then you can attack me for relying on emotions. When the facts are inaccurate, then your assertion is baseless.

For this reason, I don't understand why you don't want the facts to be accurate.

Scheuer has substantiate... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Scheuer has substantiate and corroborates the facts he asserts.

Fine, then there must be many factual accounts he can provide of Clinton's failures. Put those in the movie and you remove my ability to complain.

He wrote the book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror

By the way, that's the book in which he states:

Al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization, the invasion of Afghanistan was terribly bungled, the invasion of Iraq was a gift to bin Laden, the War On Terror is bogus, and the US should be less supportive of Israel.

Brian :"..here are... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Brian :

"..here are other sources that are on record as saying the version of events in the movie are known to be false:

-Thomas Keane
-Cyrus Nowrasteh
-ABC/Disney
-The 9/11 Commission Report "


Brian, is ABC/Disney on record as saying the version of events in the movie are 'known to be false 'or are they on record as saying the version of events in the movie are 'dramatized' ?


Nice try at spinning, though.

Make the facts accurate<... (Below threshold)
Slartibartfast:

Make the facts accurate

Um...sorry, facts are facts. Facts are by definition accurate. If you're fixated on the idea that some inaccurate narrative in some TV docudromedary all by itself negates things that actually happened...well, that's just crazy talk.

Path to 9/11 Part 1 was abo... (Below threshold)
clearwaterconservative:

Path to 9/11 Part 1 was about as interesting as watching bread dough rise. Dry and hard to follow.

Hope the docu-drama ABC does on Bush when he leaves office is more interesting (and more accurate).

Brian,You wrote: <... (Below threshold)
ordi:

Brian,

You wrote: Not necessarily, but the scenes in question were admitted by the producers themselves to not have happened.

You insist on accuracy but yet your description concerning what the producers said is NOT quite accurate. The producer said the scenes are composites of TEN different LOST chances to get Bin Laden, NOT that it did not happen. But of course you knew that.

Then you wrote: Exactly what source are you using to make you believe that they did? Please share, because no one else has offered one.

Boy, you are really short on accuracy on this one. I sighted Mr Scheuer book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. It is apparent that was not enough for you. NOTE I am hereby sighting a source that WAS used for documentation in the movie. Dereliction of Duty by Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson. As a career Air Force pilot seeing combat duty in far flung locales such as Grenada, Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, Somalia and Rwanda, and serving as military aide at the right hand of President Bill Clinton, he has impeccable military bona fides. As the Air Force Aide to Clinton, he carried the "Nuclear Football." http://www.buzzpatterson.com

Here is what he has said about the movie last week.

Patterson said he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.

"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared.

In other words, he was there! He was an eye witness!

Then you wrote: Make the facts accurate, then you can attack me for relying on emotions. When the facts are inaccurate, then your assertion is baseless.

The movie is 100 percent factually accurate, DEAL WITH IT!

Then you wrote: Put those in the movie and you remove my ability to complain.

Knock, Knock, Knock, Brian are you in there? No poster on this site had any connection to the production of this movie.

While were quoting Mr. Scheuer:

I do not profess a broad expertise in international affairs, but between January 1996 and June 1999 I was in charge of running operations against Al Qaeda from Washington. When it comes to this small slice of the large U.S. national security pie, I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden — either by capture or by U.S. military attack. I witnessed and documented, along with dozens of other CIA officers, instances where life-risking intelligence-gathering work of the agency's men and women in the field was wasted.

Because of classification issues, I argued this point only obliquely in my book "Imperial Hubris," but it is a fact — and fortunately, no American has to depend on my word alone. The 9/11 commission report documents most of the occasions on which senior U.S. bureaucrats and policymakers had the chance to attack Bin Laden in 1998-1999. It is mystifying that the American public has not been outraged over these missed opportunities.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/eliminatebinladen

Jeez CCC,Do you post... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Jeez CCC,
Do you post anything that isn't pasted into multiple threads?
It's bad enough you have the most disingenuous handle of all the trolls here at Wizbang, you're also too lazy to contribute in a meaningful or at original way.
For all the scorn we heap in Lee, at least his spew is new each time (well, new way of saying it, at minumum)

Brian :" 'Brian, n... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Brian :

" 'Brian, no matter how it is acted out, and no matter how or what was said, we know the outcome.'

Ah, I see. "Fake but accurate" is your new standard, it seems. "

Heh. If it was a standard, it would hardly be new. The Dems/MSM gladly used that 'standard' in the Bush National Guard debacle. Remember?

More importantly, they used that 'fake but accurate' standard just before the presidential election in a *NEWS STORY*. This docudrama isn't trying to pass itself off as a straight news story. The 'TANG memos' story did try to pass itself off as a straight news item.

The changes done to the TANG memos were done to decieve and were not admitted to. The script of the docudrama was done for dramatic purposes and it was admitted to right from the start.

I wish you Dems would hold the MSM news departments to the same standards you are holding this Hollywood-produced docudrama to.

Brian, is ABC/Disney on ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, is ABC/Disney on record as saying the version of events in the movie are 'known to be false 'or are they on record as saying the version of events in the movie are 'dramatized'?

They are on record as conceding that the scene in which Berger called off the attack never happened.

Nice try at spinning, though.

How sad when setting the truthful facts straight is dismissed as "spin".

"They are on record as conc... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"They are on record as conceding that the scene in which Berger called off the attack never happened."

Very slippery, Brian. Hard to get a straight answer from you. They didn't 'concede' anything, as they were up front from the beginning about dramatizing scenes. So you should agree that they 'dramatized the scene' and never 'went on record as saying the version of events in the movie are known to be false'.

Again, if only the Dems held the 'news' to the same exacting standards you are holding this Hollywood production.


ordi, your citations are vo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

ordi, your citations are voluminous, but unrelated. You are supporting your position of "accurate" (which I have never disputed), while I am criticizing the position of "fake but". If you want to address the issue, that's great, but I don't see the reason in keeping two parallel and nonintersecting arguments going.

Les Nessman, a few posts above, admits that he sees nothing wrong with embracing "fake but accurate", the reason apparently being that others have done it, so it's OK. I suppose you can join him in that position, though I suspect you were against "fake but accurate" before you were for it.

Very slippery, Brian.</i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Very slippery, Brian.

I'm slippery? Each time I give an answer to one of your questions, your response is "yes, but" and then some spin about why the question itself is flawed. If you don't like how my answers shut down your questions, try asking better questions.

When Brian says above : "Le... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

When Brian says above : "Les Nessman, a few posts above, admits that he sees nothing wrong with embracing "fake but accurate", the reason apparently being that others have done it, so it's OK. "
..he is again being very oily.

I in fact DO see something wrong with embracing 'fake but accurate'...IN NEWS REPORTS. (Like when CBS showed fake documents that were supposed to be real; and then denied it.)

I don't mind docudramas and other Hollywood films dramatizing scenes, especially when they are 'up front' about it. (Like when 'The path to 9/11' combined several scenes of Sandy Berger repeatedly passing up the chance to get UBL into one scene.)


Yes Brian, you are slippery. You mischaracterize other people's statements, which is dishonest.


Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton,... (Below threshold)
Glenn M. Cassel, AMH1(AW), USN, RETIRED:

Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Madeline Albright: Tango-Romeo-Alpha-India-Tango-Oscar-Romeo. Nuff Said.

Brian,Your debatin... (Below threshold)
ordi:

Brian,

Your debating skills stink. You ask questions then when your questions are answered you change positions! When one has as weak of arguements as you and the left have it is really hard to win a debate, that is why you shifted your position.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy