They haven’t seen it, but they know they won’t like it.
The netnuts are going net nutty over the ABC mini-series Path to 9/11 because, as far as I can tell:
1. The screenwriter is some kind of conservative.
2. It assigns blame for 9/11 to Bill Clinton (how much depends on how loony the lefty is)
3. No one will return Jennifer Nix’s calls.
4. Rush Limbaugh likes it.
5. Did I mention that the screenwriter may be a conservative?
And for these deep and noble reasons, the left is climbing the walls with angst ridden soliloquies railing against the unfairness of it all. They have tried so hard to reinvent the Clinton years as some kind of golden age of anti-terrorism nirvana and that everything fell all to hell in the 8 months that George Bush bungled his way to 9/11 that anything which challenges that fantasy simply must be attacked and destroyed.
It is, as I’ve said before, a large part of The Narrative which the left uses to tell bedtime stories about the Bush Administration. Challenging The Narrative is challenging the carefully constructed fantasy/history created by liberals to undermine everything this President has done to try and protect the United States in a time of war. The Narrative has become so all-pervasive that even when it starts to fall apart as it has with the Armitage revelations in Plamegate, the resistance in abandoning any of it is as fierce as a mother bear protecting its cub.
Witness the absolute need to discredit how the President led this country in the days and weeks following 9/11. The left doesn’t want anyone to remember how the country rallied to the President immediately following the fall of the towers but rather that he was reading a silly children’s book as the attacks were underway.They don’t wish people to recall what was almost universally vouchsafed by observers as his strong leadership in the aftermath of the attack but rather the failures of his Administration leading up to them.
What is beginning to terrify the left about this 5 year anniversary of 9/11 is that all those old feelings will resurface among the American people and their dreams of taking over the House and Senate in November may be in danger. On that score, they have less to fear than they realize but perhaps their being out of power so long has dulled their political sensibility while heightening their paranoia.
On that score, Think Progress contributes the unbalanced attack of the day on Path to 9/11 despite not seeing the show and relying on a “review” by Salon’s Heather Havrilesky (actually a three paragraph summary) that sums up the “deceptively biased” project as “painting the president (Clinton) as a buffoon more interested in blow jobs than terrorists.” If this were true, I would join my brothers and sisters on the left in condemning the mini series in no uncertain terms.
Unfortunately for Think Progress, we have someone who has actually seen the film; Justin Levin writing at Patterico’s:
The ironic part is, the critics of this movie who haven’t seen it yet are going to have egg on their face. This film in no way “blames the entire event on Clinton†as some falsely claim. “The Path to 9/11″ absolutely slams Bush in a number of ways:1. It depicts Condi Rice ignoring Richard Clarke’s advice about Al-Queda and undercutting his authority within the White House.
2. It depicts the August 6th “Presidential Daily Briefing†wherein Rice is explicitly warned before 9/11 that Bin Laden intends to hijack American airplanes.
3. It makes Richard Clarke look like a tragic hero (even though everyone knows that he later went on to become one of Bush’s biggest critics).
4. It contains an epilogue that cites 9/11 Commission members giving the current government a failing grade in implementing their recommendations.
Few people have seen the whole film. Even the select group in Washington only got to see the first half of the film (which obviously doesn’t deal with the Bush administration, based on how the timeline worked). As a result, there is a lot of misinformation going on about what “The Path To 9/11″ is really about.
Think Progress is used to having egg on its face as they were one of the leading lefty blogs who jumped on the Jason Leopold “Rove will be indicted” bandwagon. No matter. For them and other lefties, it isn’t so much that Clinton is going to be portrayed as a President that helped America sleepwalk through the decade with regards to the terrorist threat it’s that George Bush won’t be blamed enough for the events of 9/11.
The effort to whitewash Clinton’s failures during the 9/11 Commission’s public hearings had conservatives up in arms and for good reason; what we now know about that period in history makes it the height of hypocrisy to try and absolve Clinton of his curious lack of will in going after Bin Laden even after the first WTC bombing and the Africa embassy bombings. It had nothing to do with Monica, of course and any docu-drama that tries to bring that issue up except as a way to show how Clinton may have been distracted by the attacks by Republicans will lose any credibility among serious conservatives. But to not show how close we were to actually killing Osama during that time would do a disservice to history.
It would also be a travesty to leave out the story of FBI Director Louis Freeh and the Bureau’s number one counterterrorism agent John O’Neill whose exasperating turf battles with Freeh (the FBI Chief disliked O’Neill intensely) put numerous roadblock’s in the agent’s way in his hunt to unravel the plot he knew was taking shape. This was a battle that spanned both the Clinton and Bush presidencies and revealed Freeh to be a mountebank of tragic proportions.
And like the other movie that liberals loved to hate United 93, I assume we’ll get plenty of searing scenes of our government – the FAA, the military, and the executive branch – reaching out in first confusion, then frustration, and then finally in a befuddled paralysis as the planes hit their targets one after another.
Blaming Clinton for 9/11? In what universe? What the left objects to is that their favorite punching bag of a President is not coming in for all the blame, a laughable historical construct that only an idiotic liberal could fantasize about.
I would suggest that we all sit back and watch the mini-series and judge for ourselves. An objective observer may just find much to praise in a film that finally gives the lie to The Narrative in which 9/11 was purely the result of Bush incompetence (or for the more unbalanced, Bush perfidy) rather than the fault of America itself and our historical myopia regarding overseas threats.
In the end, how much does it matter in a real sense what portion of blame should be ladled out to each President? Three thousand Americans are dead and the people who did it as well as their numerous off shoots and subsidiaries, are still out there waiting to strike again.
Best that the left concentrate more on figuring out whether to engage the enemy in the War on Terror rather than some silly TV show that might tarnish their carefully constructed Narrative about Bush.
6:06 pm
Warning
Inconvient facts to follow: Data from the Memory Hole approaching….......
In 1966, Republican’t block Clinton’s attempt to strengthen terrorist laws including wiretapping.(see end of citation)
President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
clinton.sm July 30, 1996
Web posted at: 8:40 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN)—President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.
“We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,” Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.
Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.
“What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don’t let it overcome the areas of agreement,” he said.
The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it’s important to get the legislation out before the weekend’s recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.
“The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out—that they give us as much help as they can,” he said.
Hatch blasts ‘phony’ issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president’s call for “the very best ideas” for fighting terrorism.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, “These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they’re not going to get.”
“If they want to, they can study the thing” already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president’s proposals to expand wiretapping.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
rule
Related stories:
7:24 pm
Imagine that – politicians playing politics with national security. Who would have thunk it?
7:59 pm
The ending of your post is so true, Rick. All this finger pointing back and forth is not at all helpful. It sure doesn’t help those souls lost on that day. There is more than enough blame to go around. It only makes sense that the Clinton administration would figure prominently in the story, as they were there for the previous 8 years. President Bush was on in there for 8 months.
The most important thing is for both sides of the political game to finally come together and be Americans first, not Democrats or Republicans, when it applies to our national security.
1:40 am
Got Osama?
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 27, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
Q Ari, according to India Globe, the Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States would drop its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
4:26 am
Let ‘em sqirm.
The collective mind of the nation was gleefully assaulted by the same folks with the massive lie known as Fahrenheit 9-11.
Using a favorite response of the left to conservative complaints over programming, I say: “Relax, nutroots. Its just a TV program. It can’t hurt anybody, right?”
4:59 am
Danger! Inconvenient Democrat WMD hyping approaching…
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry—all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Joe Biden – August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”
Chuck Schumer – October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”
John Kerry – January 23, 2003
“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”
Sandy Berger – February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”
Senator Carl Levin – September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Senator Hillary Clinton – October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Madeleine Albright – November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Robert “KKK” Byrd – October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”
Al Gore – September 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Joe Biden – August 4, 2002
“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.”
Bill Clinton – December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
Hillary Clinton – October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.”
Dick Gephardt – September 23, 2002
“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.”
Russell Feingold – October 9, 2002
“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.”
Johnny Edwards – January 7, 2003
“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”
John Kerry – January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”
Bill Nelson – September 14, 2002
“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.”
Al Gore – September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Tom Daschle – February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
Bill Richardson – May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”
Hillary Clinton – October 10, 2002
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Al Gore – December 16, 1998
“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”
Madeleine Albright – February 1, 1998
We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
Nancy Pelosi – December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Al Gore – September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
John Kerry – October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Ted Kennedy – September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Jay Rockefeller – October 10, 2002
“There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Joe Biden – August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.”
Madeline Albright – February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face—and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”
Jane Harman – August 27, 2002
“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.”
Dick Durbin – September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”
Bill Nelson – August 25, 2002
“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously.”
Nancy Pelosi – October 10, 2002
“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”
Evan Bayh – August 4, 2002
“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.”
Bill Clinton – February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
Hillary Clinton – January 22, 2003
“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.”
Joe Biden – August 4, 2002
“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.”
Johnny Edwards – February 6, 2003
“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where—if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him—it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.”
Joe Biden – August 4, 2002
“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.”
Senator Bob Graham – December 8, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
John Kerry – February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”
5:04 am
Also, try these inconvenient truths from 1999. And then quietly show yourselves the doors, leftwingnuts:
The Guardian, 2-6-99: “The Western nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden versus the world”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
The Herald, 12-28-99: “Iraq tempts Bin Laden to Attack the West”
http://web.archive.org/web/20010714032946/http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/28-12-1999-23-33-25.html
5:59 am
Good Lt, what an excellent lists of things said by our esteemed left. Wow, unbelievable.
I know that there is blame to go around by the moonbats don’t ever wanna take any.
8:02 am
I had to figure that the script would make a hero out of Richard Clarke. He’s an ABC Consultant, for God’s sake.
8:27 am
Perhaps this series will give light to what Sandy Berger what trying to sneak out of the Archives in his pants.
10:02 am
“Able Danger”, anyone?
10:29 am
Hopefully I’ll blog about this later. I’ve read parts of Why America Slept, Legacy and Losing Bin Laden. One thing that occurs to me isn’t that the Clinton administration didn’t get; it’s that no one got it. If Dole had been President 1996-2000 Richard Clarke’s warning likely would have gone unheeded too.
Where Bush differs of course is that he looked at what had been done before and said that he wanted to stop swatting at flies and wanted a comprehensive approach to fighting terror. IIRC, he got his report, Sept 10, 2001.
While Bush can be faulted for not following through adequately, he deserves credit, at least for noticing what was wrong.
( I still can’t figure out why Clarke has been harder on Bush than on Clinton. My best guess is that he takes his failure to get a promotion on the president. That means is that he was a good man who became petty.)
Finally, when discussion the might have beens it’s important to consider Terrorism on Trial by Pipes and Emerson.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/381
It might have been possible to prevent 9/11 even starting late. But no one thought to look at resources available to the government at the time.
12:42 pm
I think the Dem vs. Repub carping on this comment line is missing Rick’s point: 3,000 Americans died in what may have been preventable. Finger pointing at this juncture serves no purpose. With hindsight, one can easily criticize Clinton’s absolutley HORRIBLE handling of foreign policy on terrorism issues. Sorry to all you Dems out there, but Somalia and the “law-enforcement” reaction to terrorist acts of his administration is cited by Bin Laden as proof of a “weak america”. As a conservative, however, I can’t say I disagreed too strongly with his policies. I would not have advocated invading Afghanistan during the 90’s, and i thought terroism should be handled outside of international relations.
With hinsight we can see that these policies led directly to 9-11. The point of whether Clinton could have killed him is irrelevant. Someone with the suppport of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan would have replaced him quickly and another 9-11 event would have transpired. I can’t honestly say that I criticized the Clinton administration (which I did for a “weak” foreign policy in the middle east and Korea) and predicted an attack on the scale of 9-11. Very few(if any) made that prediction. Clinton was just asleep at the wheel while the vast majority of us were asleep in the back seat. He is definitley accountable for that and his recent attempts at censorship tell us quite a bit about the man and his respect for the rights of others.
Likewise, it is irrelevant that Repubs played politics with “anti” terroism policies in the 90’s. Short sighted? Absolutely. But this political gamesmanship had little to do with our missing this attack.
Recognizing that Islamofacism is a war against various nation states and acting on that realization is the one thing this administration has done right. The current decision of the left wing of the Democratic party and a radical element of our society to ignore that fact is what is dangerous. We can fight that battle come November.
7:27 pm
[...] PUNDIT VINCE AUT MORIRE VODKAPUNDIT WALLO WORLD WIDE AWAKES WIZBANG WUZZADEM ZERO POINT BLOG AIR BRUSHING HISTORY THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE WHY DIDN’T I THINK OF THAT? “PATH TO 9/11:” BLAME BUSHHARDER! THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE “TERROR IN THE SKIES” A FEINT? 9/11 TIN FOIL HATS ARE MELTING SITE PROBLEMS THE WAGES OF SIN FOR LOVE OF JUSTICE THE NARRATIVE IS THE THING THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SELF DEFENSE: SUICIDE IS PAINLESS THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN: THE VICTORY LAP EDITION ASSASSINATING BUSH AND OTHER OCCASIONS FOR HUMOR IMPUGNING NOTHING THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE OUR WHOLE ROTTEN, SMELLY, SEWER OF A GOVERNMENT THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE CAR RAMPAGE IN SAN FRANCISCO IT’S GOT TO GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER THE RICK MORAN SHOW - LIVE IT’S ALL ABOUT EYEBALLS SAVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE! CARTER PROVES EXISTENCE OF A MERCIFUL GOD “24″ (65) ABLE DANGER (10) Bird Flu (5) Blogging (95) Books (7) CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS (68) CHICAGO BEARS (9) CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE (25) Cindy Sheehan (12) Election ‘06 (1) Ethics (77) General (296) Government (59) History (69) IMMIGRATION REFORM (11) Iran (29) IRAQI RECONCILIATION (1) KATRINA (26) Katrina Timeline (4) Marvin Moonbat (14) Media (103) Middle East (56) Moonbats (55) NET NEUTRALITY (2) Open House (1) Politics (242) Science (17) Space (13) Supreme Court (23) The Rick Moran Show (39) UNITED NATIONS (7) War on Terror (176) WATCHER’S COUNCIL (54) WHITE SOX (2) Wide Awakes Radio (8) WORLD CUP (8) WORLD POLITICS (46) WORLD SERIES (14) Admin Login Register Valid XHTML XFN 2 Responses to “AIR BRUSHING HISTORY” [...]
6:41 pm
Dream on.
There is no way ABC will pull this series. They have promoted it to death as well as announced that no ads will be shown for the entire 6 hour show.
As for the “inaccuracies” according to what I read at E & P (who summarized both parts very nicely) the idea that they whitewash the Bush administration is a lie being used by the left to discredit the show.
What you guys are worried about is that Bush doesn’t come in for ALL the blame. Well too f**king bad. Grow up and stop acting like a bunch of juveniles. Accept the fact that Clinton had Osama in his sights 4 times during the 90’s and for various reasons failed to pull the trigger.
That is historical fact. The composite scene they use in the TV show to portray this failure of leadership and courage may be inaccurate historically but at the same time accurately reflects the Clinton’s indecision in the matter.
And while we’re at it, when are you on the left going to start blaming Osama for 9/11? He’s smiling knowing that you’re blaming Bush more than him.
12:44 am
This is very interesting site…c