The Path to 9/11 – obfuscation strewn?

One of the things we all used to say about President Clinton was that he never learned that the cover-up was always worse than the scandal. Had he come out straight on Monica Lewinsky and said, “yes, I did it, it’s between me and my wife and it’s none of your business,” the whole story would have disappeared quickly. Same with about ten other scandals surrounding him or his administration.

When it comes to this film, The Path to 9/11, it seems to me Clinton and his pals would be wiser to simply let the thing play, than to do the freak. People will watch the movie, shrug and say, “well, that’s pretty much what we always thought,” and they’d forget about it the next day. By panicking and demanding revisions to the film, and by sending out his usual minions to talk the thing down, Clinton is just making the whole thing a much bigger story. He is creating red headlines on Drudge and turning this film into a national incident. A stupid move. For such a smart man he’s never understood Gertrude’s economy of language in Hamlet when she said, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

He also never seems to understand that it’s not all about him, all the time.

Reader Sean emails: I think we should thank the left for bringing this docu-drama so much attention. If it wasn’t for them I wouldn’t have known it was going to be on since I don’t watch the main stream channels. We should congratulate them on their fine advertising campaign to get this docu-drama the attention it deserves.

So, why are the Clintons freaking out about this movie? Did not Bill Clinton himself say that he regretted not taking Osama bin Laden when he could have? Well, yes, he did, according to Al Kamen in the WaPo:

Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, explained that “the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment,” according to a footnote in the Sept. 11 commission report.

“But the president told us that he had ‘misspoken,’ ” the report said, “and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read. After reviewing this matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States.”

So, here’s how it works: Bush has been known to brag that he doesn’t read the newspapers. But Clinton does and, worse yet, actually believes what he reads!

Oh, wait, that’s not the same “Osama opportunity,” as the one they’re discussing in the Path to 9/11, right? Sorry, my bad. The scenario dramatized in The Path to 9/11 sounds more like the one written about by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson in his 2004 Book Dereliction of Duty; The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America’s Long-Term National Security, in which he charges “Clinton was soft on terrorism and missed a chance to get bin Laden with cruise missiles.” (Quote from Publisher’s Weekly review at Amazon).

If I remember that story, per Patterson, Berger had operatives on the phone, ready to take out Osama and Clinton, watching a golf game, would not engage and make the decision.

It sounds to me like The Path to 9/11 has created a composite that is representative of the spirit that story but can do no more since it has not – to my knowledge, anyway – ever been verified.

Now, the Clintonistas are huffing and puffing that these sorts of stories should not be dramatized because people like Sandy Berger – a bastion of truthfulness – say they are “not accurate.” And the press is – of course – giving them lots of room.

You know, the press…which just spent three years promulgating the “not accurate” story of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson (and toward whom David Broder shakes a finger of admonishment for their dreadful role in that story.)

Funny – when the “what if Bush were assassinated” film was all the news (last week!) I recall reading lefty bloggers who were kvelling about “free speech” and “artistic license” and deriding folks on the right (it’s just a dramatization!) for their lack of sophistication, and their “intolerance” for not appreciating the premise.

I have a question…if the Clintonistas arenow going to carry on now about how Bill Clinton was fighting terrorism “every day” and was concerned about it “every day” how come he talked about terrorism so infrequently while he was president? Yes, he “mentioned” terrorism in his State of the Union addresses, but beyond that? No, terrorism wasn’t a subject he liked. From the the 1993 attack on the WTC, (a site he never visited), to the 2000 attack on the USS COLE (an attack he never answered), terrorism seemed to make Clinton uncomfortable and he tried very hard to change the subject. The only terrorist attack he ever seemed to get mad about was the Oklahoma City tragedy…and even then, he used it to make political hay.

Even now, terrorism is barely a blip on his radar. He has lately declared that “Global warming is the biggest challenge we face.” During his Clinton Global Initiative he identified four issues of grave and immediate concerns for the world – poverty, religious differences, governance in developing countries and global warming. Notice the world terrorism ain’t there. His final policy paper on national security, submitted to Congress, never mentioned Al Qaeda.

In December of 2001, National Review’s Byron York took a look at terrorism throughout Clinton’s time in office and declared that on this issue Clinton has no clothes

Dr. Sanity says: “…to be perfectly honest, I don’t think that Hollywood offers any special insight into reality; objectivity; or that people from that neck of the woods have much sense to begin with. Hence I factor that into my assessment of whatever I happen to be watching.” HALLELUIAH, EXACTOMUNDO! DING, DING, DING, she gets the prize. That’s EXACTLY right. The majority of people take everything they see from Hollywood with a grain of salt – people can and do think for themselves. Only a Clinton-type would think the public incapable of doing so, and thus try to ensure some control over what they may think. Pat Santy is brilliant!

Mac’s Mind links to a letter to ABC written by a few Democrats demanding accuracy in the film.

I have no memory of them demanding accuracy of Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11. Then again, I have no memory of anyone trying to shut that film down, either.

Instapundit remarks succinctly that all of this carrying-on by the Clintons simply makes them look like they have something to hide. Seriously. Imagine if Bush freaked out everytime someone printed something that didn’t make him look sterling, or you know, suggested, President Bush should be killed.

Come to think of it, I don’t think the Bushies made half the stink over a film dramatizing Bush’s assassination that these Clintonistas are making. Hmmmmm.

Alexandra suggests that the left claims indoctrination as a right and points to some very unedifying spin and intimidation/suppression tactics from the left over all of this.

That kind of militant rhetoric, based on utter deception, did however do the trick. Scholastic Books was cowed into silence, leaving a blank page, where before over 100,000 high school teachers had been made aware of its resource series for educators to use when discussing the ABC docudrama with students and parents…

I think the left has been very comfortable with believing it owned all media for a long time.

Blue Crab Boulevard is rather amazed at the rancor of Sandy “Pants” Berger.

Ed Driscoll writes, astutely:Imagine the howls from the left–not to mention the laughter on the other end of the phone line–if Karl Rove called up the president of ABC and asked him to censor a television show critical of the Bush administration. Exactly right. Ed also wonders: …considering whom the chairman of ABC’s parent company is, it should be very interesting to watch how much of their way [the Clintonistas] get.

Kobayashi Maru calls the Clinton move “imperial” and tells Clinton to grow up.

Conservative Yankee calls it the muzzling of free speech. And you have to admit, if the Bushies had made a fuss over the snuff film, they’d be accused of it, too.

Michelle Malkin notes that the usual minions are rousing the usual crowds into helping the Clintonian obfuscation of The Path to 9/11. They’re going to Google Bomb the topic.

Siggy says this entire episode can only have happened in a dumbed down America

Harold at Called as Seen writes:

I find it very telling when someone doesn’t like a message… and then threatens the messenger. And make no mistake about it, this letter is a threat. Congresswoman Slaughter’s decision to have a part of this letter is doubly hypocritical…Slaughter was a major supporter of the “Hush Rush” Act back in the 1990s. I guess her idea of meaningful discourse doesn’t include anything to the right of the CBS Evening News or the New York Times.

More here:
Clintonistas Clueless, Here
What are you doing on 9/11
Friday Night Round-up: Clinton’s not used to not controlling media.