The Path to 9/11 and Blaming the Clintons

Logic Times ^ | 9/11/06 | Dan Hallagan

[Logic Times]

The Path to 9/11 concluding tonight on ABC is riveting, a superb visceral presentation of the root causes of September 11th. Conservatives everywhere are giddy with excitement that a member of the Mainstream Media chose not to whitewash the Clinton Administration’s confused and ineffectual response to terrorism. The actual record of the Clinton Administration – the disaster in Mogadishu, multiple opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden missed, the Gorelick Wall between justice and intelligence – is profoundly worse than portrayed in The Path to 9/11, but the movie nonetheless makes it crystal clear that the Clinton Administration was criminally incompetent in handling terrorism.

But Conservatives need to be cautious in their euphoria; the takeaway from the movie is not that the Clinton Administration was responsible for 9/11, because emphatically they were not. The events, if not the date, of September 11, 2001 were inevitable.

[bannie]

the takeaway from the movie is not that the Clinton Administration was responsible for 9/11, because emphatically they were not.

Don't interpret for me: I have a brain.

[the_Watchman]

Let's not blame Clinton. Let's not blame Bush. Let's all agree that we are at war!

[A CA Guy]

Without the Gorelick wall that blocked communication, it could be 9/11 would have ever happened, I disagree.

[umgud]

Gorelick needs to change her name to Clintonlick.

[llevrok]

the takeaway from the movie is not that the Clinton Administration was responsible for 9/11

Conservatives were responsible.

Hadn't we badgered Clinton about Monica (after all, they were both consenting adults), he could have focused on Osama (sarc).

[traditional1]

"Don't interpret for me: I have a brain"

Well, obviously now you're disqualified from the Democrat voterbase forever......

[gedeon3]

Wrong. It happened because of the Clintons, and the band of buffoons in his administration. The CIA and FBI of 2001, were an inheritance from Clinton. And of course, the Rats blame Bush for 9/11.

[bannie]

I was innoculated at birth.

;-)

[Richard Axtell]

No need to counsel about Euphoria, I have never been to that part of the country anyway. I think the important point of the article is that the Clinton-Democrat-Leftist way of governing and dealing with national security issues, in particular this new Islamo-Fascist threat, has to be seen as a proven failure, one which we cannot foolish opt to return to. The Democrat's "new direction" is neither new nor a direction, it is simply failure and defeat, the old road to nowhere.

[mathprof]

From the article:

  two important takeaways unrelated to blaming the Clinton Administration:

1. The first stems from the recognition that pre-9/11 American society was structurally vulnerable; that the people of that society – petulant, prosperous, and deluded by soft years of a pseudo-peace – would never permit the measures necessary to stop a determined, suicidal enemy. Perhaps the September 11th plot of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed could have been foiled, but the mixture of Islamofascism, Western freedom and technology was destined to violently explode on American soil. Recognizing this, it is clear that neither the Clinton Administration nor the Bush Administration was responsible for 9/11, debunking once and for all the hysterical attempt by the Left to blame Bush on the heels of Richard Clarke's duplicitous 9/11 Commission testimony.
2. The second takeaway is that Democrats, being creatures of moral relativism and globalism, are incapable of decisive, wartime leadership. The first three hours of the Path to 9/11 gives a breathtaking glimpse into minds paralyzed by the inability to make judgments.  This movie unequivocally demonstrates why the country owes a debt of gratitude to the determination of George W. Bush, and why it should never, ever  place the defense of this country into the hands of people like the hacks in the Clinton Administration, hacks who are still out there, hovering, eager to return for a third Clinton Administration in 2008.

 

[originalbuckeye]

I will always believe that, had we had ANY other President during the run-up to 9/11, we would not have had 9/11 at all. Clinton was nothing but a caretaker President and, when it is all shuffled out, the only person he took care of was himself.

[Chode]

you are right... the HIGHJACKERS are, THEN SLICKWILLIE!!!

[Toby06]

Gorelick needs to change her name to Clintonlick.

Nah, she's an underachiever.

[traditional1]

Good for you !

[pollyannaish]

Of course. That is very clear and I think we all believe that completely.

I think most conservatives are just happy to have ANYTHING treat the subject fairly instead of trying to put all the responsibility on the current President.

This was a long time coming...it will take a long time to solve.

[pollyannaish]

Did you write this?

[Toby06]

Gorelick needs to change her name to Clintonlick.

Nah, she's an underachiever.

[LibLieSlayer]

With the dims wanting to go back to the klintoon doctrine of burying your head in the sand, we must lay blame on the the leader, the party and their philosophy of fighting terror.

Fred Barnes said that dims do not believe in the WOT, they think it is only a Bush Election Strategy.

LLS

[Petronski]

...member of the Mainstream Media chose not to whitewash the Clinton Administration’s confused and ineffectual response to terrorism.

Chose not to whitewash?   It was at least varnished, if not enameled beyond recognition.