Still More Swill From ABC

Evidently, one administration didn't do enough to deal with this very obvious threat -- so much so that it's going to be exoriated in a six-hour network miniseries, I mean, docudrama -- while it's unrealistic to expect that the other administration could have possibly done anything about the same very obvious threat because the information wasn't "actionable."

There are all these things Clinton should have done, but there's nothing Bush could have done? You can't have it both ways.

My, who was the pinko commie liberal who gave that counterterrorism assessment during the final weeks of the Clinton administration? I'm guessing it won't be mentioned on ABC.

 

For that matter, I believe it was the Democrats who were up in arms that CBS cancelled the movie. Now they want this movie cancelled.

 

Both administrations dropped the ball. Can we all admit that?

Bin Laden all of the sudden didn't come into existence in November of 2000.

 

You know, the idiotic thing here is that the right continues to try and force blame on the left for the 9-11 attacks, yet only the looniest of the left-wingers have ever attempted to place blame on the Bush Administration for the attack.

The only reason that "Bin Laden determined to attack" report ever surfaced is because of the allegations by the Bushies that the Clinton admin didn't do enough, had no idea what was happening and never passed along any intelligence. The purpose of that report, and specifically its release, has developed into something that was never intended. For the left, it has become ironclad proof that Clinton "tried to tell 'em." For the right, it's a report that's "not detailed enough."

It was never supposed to be either of those things. It was just a report passed along from an outgoing pres to an incoming one on the most serious threats to the country. It wasn't about telling the new administration that these guys were gonna hit the WTC with airplanes and it wasn't supposed to be a detailed plan for stopping any possible attaack.

I do not blame Bush for this attack. I wonder how our defense systems in this country -- the scrambling of fighters, air traffic control, etc. -- could have failed so miserably, but I don't place specific blame on anyone. We got surprised. Plain and simple. They had a good plan, they executed that plan, they got really lucky in a lot of ways and we were very, very unlucky. No president -- Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Roosevelt -- could have stopped it, given the circumstances and the events that unfolded that day.

Now, for this shit about Clinton not going after bin Laden. He did. Several, several times. As a matter of fact, they had him locked down on two occasions, both times he was surrounded by children and innocents. Both times, the decision fell to Clinton. Both times he didn't go for the kill. Were those bad decisions? Well, that depends on whether you're asking the question then or now. Because then, it was the right call. Now, it's not.

It's easy to sit here now and look back at that situation and think about the American lives sliding a bomb in there would've saved. But at the time, with 9-11 not weighing down the scales on the other side, killing a village full of innocent people to get one man wasn't the right thing.

Bottom line: There are a lot of things that both sides can focus on to hate Clinton or Bush. Can we just stop using 9-11? Yeah, mistakes were made, but none of them are severe enough to place blame on any one person or either party.

 

As someone on the right, no, I don't blame the left for 9-11. I blame Al-Qaeda.

I don't mean that to be snide, and please don't take it that way. I think sometimes we lose sight over who the enemy really is.

 

I agree completely with this, which is why I also agree with JPod's column. Neither administration is "at fault." Neither administration took Osama as seriously as it should have, leading to the pitch-perfect phrase "failure of imagination." The ball was dropped by Clinton and Bush. The problem with the mini-series is that it doesn't show it accurately.

 

Thank you, for both statements.

 

1. The movie ws not canceled. It was simply moved to Showtime.

2. By and large, Democrats didn't give a rat's ass what CBS did with the movie. Why should they? It wasn't a hatchet job on Reagan that Democrats could get their jollies about. It just had a couple of unfavorable scenes. Republicans were angry --- and rightfully so --- about some inaccuracies. Democrats simply didn't care.

3. It was the "liberal" New York Times that received a copy of the script and was the first to point out the unfair portrayal of Reagan in the movie. The NYT was the major reason why the movie wound up being moved off CBS. Imagine that.

4. Democrats do not want the movie "canceled." They would, however, rather see it moved off a broadcast network and onto a premium cable network (as was the case with The Reagans). Furthermore, they do not want to see ABC claiming this movie is "based on the 9-11 Commission report" when huge parts of the movie completely contradict the 9-11 Commission report's findings.

 

I was against CBS giving up the Regan movie to Showtime, because it still smacked of censorship. Freedom of the press protects inaccurate, profane, ignorant, one-sided or silly drivel. I'm against ABC making any changes to this movie, or packing it off to a cable network.

I also don't remember the right screaming to ban all the disaster movies predicated on various theories of global warming.

However, I really wish the Clinton camp would get off the Sandy Berger scene in the movie. I don't want to hear any whining from a guy caught red-handed stealing documents from the Library of Congress.

 

Yes, and because of that, ABC has every right to portray Berger as a bumbling idiot in a we've-got-bin-Laden-so-give-us-clearance-to-kill scene that never actually happened.

You know, I'm going to write in my paper tomorrow that George Bush personally supplied the 9/11 hijackers with their box cutters and arranged their flight-simulator training. After all, he had that DUI a few years back, so what right would he have to complain?

 

Berger also didn't steal any documents from the National Archives. He made copies of documents he shouldn't have made copies of and smuggled them out. The originals are still there.
Precision, please. Of course, " Freedom of the press protects inaccurate, profane, ignorant, one-sided or silly drivel. "
Also, it turns out that all the scenes that allegedly were "being edited" ran in the version they showed in New Zealand.

UPDATE -- Of course, the grown-ups are on the bal now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901105_pf.html

 

Sorry, dude, but you're engaging in very Clinton-like splitting of hairs. Making copies of the documents and sneaking the copies out is just as bad, according to the law. And he pled out. Which makes him guilty.

I figured anyone in favor of free speech, regardless of their political inclination, would be aghast at the pressure on ABC. And to repeat, I thought it was wrong for CBS to cave in on the Reagan movie.

Is free speech only for liberals?