Right Wing Nut House

9/5/2006

AIR BRUSHING HISTORY

Filed under: History, Media, Politics — Rick Moran @ 5:30 pm

Desperate to see that the upcoming ABC mini-series Path to 9/11 places all the blame for 9/11 in the lap of President Bush and holds harmless the Clinton Administration for their massive failures in the 1990’s to kill Bin Laden, the left is in full meltdown over word that one of the incidents portrayed in the film takes some dramatic liberties with the 9/11 Commission report.

The incident, in which Osama was reportedly staying in a house in Kandahar, Afghanistan and was surrounded by Northern Alliance and CIA paramilitaries only to escape because the Clinton Administration never gave the order to attack has been criticized by none other than anti-terrorism guru, the self-important one, Richard Clark:

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

Not having seen the film (That’s okay: Neither has Think Progress), my guess would be that the filmakers decided to do what all docudramas do; combine several similar events into one dramatic take.

Are all three chances Clinton had to kill Bin Laden going to be shown?:

According to the staff report, intelligence indicating that bin Laden was open to attack resulted in military planning by the Clinton administration on three occasions.

In December 1998, bin Laden was reported to be staying at a location in Kandahar, Afghanistan; however, CIA Director George J. Tenet doubted the intelligence and a strike by cruise missiles or bombers was called off.

Then in February 1999, bin Laden was targeted in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, but the CIA was worried that a visiting official from the United Arab Emirates would be killed in an attack.

The CIA’s field officer was quoted in the report as saying the intelligence was “very reliable” that bin Laden was in the camp. “The field official believed that this was a lost opportunity to kill bin Laden,” the report said.

A third attempt to kill bin Laden, who had been seen in the same place for five nights, was missed in May 1999. However, U.S. military officials worried that an attack might kill innocent civilians.

Since I find it unlikely that the screenwriter (who, by the way is not an “extreme” conservative as Jennifer Nix blurts out breathlessly but rather a libertarian naturalized citizen from Iran. Then again, Nix and most lefties think that someone who gets a 95 rating from ADA - Leiberman - isn’t liberal enough) would include all three inexcusable lapses in judgment and courage by Clinton, it would seem that they combined the chances we had to get Bin Laden into one, dramatic scene.

Personally, I would prefer seeing all three failures of Clinton to kill Bin Laden highlighted prominently and accurately. One of the stated reasons they hesitated to capture Osama was their belief that they couldn’t convict him of anything in an American court of law. I would love to see that attitude play out in front of 50 million voters and show them the consequences of bringing the left to power this November.

And of course, there was the incident in February of 1999 - the one that Richard Clark seems to forget:

Intelligence reports foresee the presence of bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan for about a week. Information on his presence appears reliable, so preparations are made to target his location with cruise missiles. However, intelligence also puts an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and members of the royal family from that country in the same location…

Local informants confirm exactly where bin Laden will be in the camp on February 11, and a strike is prepared. But policy makers are concerned that a strike might kill a prince or other senior officials, so the strike is called off…

Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit at the time, will claim in 2004 that “the truth has not been fully told” about this incident. He will claim that the strike is cancelled because senior officials at the CIA, White House, and other agencies, decide to accept assurances from an unnamed Islamic country that it can acquire bin Laden from the Talibn. “US officials accepted these assurances despite the well-documented record of that country withholding help�indeed, it was a record of deceit and obstruction�regarding all issues pertaining to Bin Laden” in previous years. [Atlantic Monthly, 12/2004

We hardly need lectures from Richard Clark on anything relating to 9/11.

So the left has its collective pink panties in a twist because a standard dramatic device used in every mini-series since the genre was invented shows that Clinton hesitated to kill the number one enemy of the United States.

Instead of going ape over this scene, perhaps the left should be thanking the “extreme conservative” screenwriter for not going into detail about all three failures of will by the Clintonistas. Imagine the outcry then!

And lest anyone think that the left only wants to portray history accurately, we have this statement of principle from Christy Hardin Smith:

9/11 happened on George Bush’s watch — and no amount of pointing fingers elsewhere changes that fact. Period.

How true. But the ultimate question is would 9/11 even have happened if Clinton had been doing his job?

I have pointed out on numerous occasions that the “blame” for 9/11 is shared by Administrations going back to the Reagan years. And the real failures of the Bush Administration in getting on top of the terrorism issue as well as their failures in intelligence, in focus, and most especially their failure of imagination should be a large part of the mini series as it was in the movie United 93.

For the left to try and divorce the Clinton Administration from the failures of 9/11 is laughable - like little children trying to cover up the fact that they broke a piece of their mother’s favorite china. It is juvenile and destructive. And they must be stopped.

From those who have seen the movie, we are told that the Bush Administration does not escape their share of blame for 9/11, not by any means. This doesn’t interest the partisan left because what they are really after is a wiping of the historical record and a rewrite that leaves the Bush Administration totally responsible for what happened on that horrible day. Anything less and, as I stated yesterday, The Narrative is in danger of unraveling. That Narrative brooks no alteration lest the American people see it for what it is; a massive exaggeration and bending of history that seeks to undermine the President of the United States during a time of war.

In the final analysis, what the left fails to do most of all is place the actual blame for 9/11 where it really belongs; solely and exclusively on the shoulders of Osama Bin Laden and radical, fundamentalist Islamism. To do so would mean they would lose one of their most potent political clubs that they have beat the President over the head with for the last 5 years.

Osama, I’m sure, is grateful to them.

UPDATE

More conservative push back against the left’s attempt to alter history.

Mark Coffey shows why Richard Clarke may be a wee bit upset over the portrayal of Clinton anti-terrorism efforts.

And Confederate Yankee has a superb piece that shows Sandy Berger’s culpability in the Clinton Administration’s failure to get Bin Laden on 4 seperate occasions (not the three that I described above).

I wonder if in the interest of “historical accuracy” all the whining lefties who are throwing a tantrum over this TV show would be agreeable to showing ALL FOUR OPPORTUNITIES CLINTON HAD TO KILL BIN LADEN in a 6 hour mini-series rather than the one, condensed scene the screenwriter settled for.

9 Comments

  1. As much as I appreciate your thoughts and writing skills, terrorism has been politicized by both the left and the right. Clinton screwed up by not killing Osama. Bush screwed up by invading Iraq. So what? How do these facts solve the terrorism problem?

    Pissing around further in Iraq will not end terrorism, if we stay for 50 years. That said, President Bush has done a lot right with pursuing the financial interests of terrorists, and in domestic and foreign survelliance to prevent attacks.

    It is past time to stop the blame game, and Rick, it pains me to say you play the blame game frequently. It is NOT more important for conservatives to win than to prevent terrorism. And to say that Democratic politicians would not pursue prevention of terror attacks is disingenuous at best. The fruitballs on the left will not make defense decisions, no more that the batshit crazy religious righties will.

    Comment by ed — 9/5/2006 @ 6:07 pm

  2. Ed:

    You are probably right that I attack the left more than I should for a variety of things/\.

    But this and most other cases revolve around a deliberate attempt to alter historical perceptions or, in some cases, history itself. This is a dishonesty that anyone who loves history cannot abide.

    And I disagree that Democrats would pursue the prevention of terrorist attacks with the same vigor as Republicans. They have made it clear that even legal programs (terrorist finance surveillance) are unacceptable. And as far as other, more constitutionally problematic programs like the NSA intercept effort, I find their hypocrisy on the subject extremely troubling. They want it to continue but they want the opportunity to continue their attacks on the President.

    That kind of playing politics with terrorism worries me immensely. Just what would they do to protect the US? Less, it seems, than Republicans.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 9/5/2006 @ 6:15 pm

  3. Amen Rick…and Ed,

    I’m surprised that you would even say that you think that the Democrats would pursue the terrorists as actively as the Republicans given their statements on the war and their activity that actually harms the war effor (against efforts to discover terrorists).

    I guess that either you believe that they will change their attitude when in office or come up with a better plan - neither of which has been expoused to the public.

    I really don’t understand their actions or your understanding on this - seriously…

    Comment by Deagle — 9/5/2006 @ 8:37 pm

  4. Let me clarify… Your leaders are saying these things, not the far left. Polosi, Reid, Murtha, not to mention your DNC leader Dean. Just who is speaking for you?
    If your are serious, you need to be talking to these people, not conservative blogs.

    Comment by Deagle — 9/5/2006 @ 9:16 pm

  5. Bush never missed a chance to get Osama because he never looked prior to 911.

    Given the failures re Osama of BOTH administrations the following article is tragic:

    Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan, press secretary to the president of Pakistan, tells ABC News that — if found — Osama bin Laden won’t be arrested, as long as he promises to behave like a “peaceful citizen.”

    “If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden ‘would not be taken into custody,’ Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, ‘as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen,” report Brian Ross and Gretchen Peters at ABC’s blog, The Blotter.

    “No, as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody,” said Khan. “One has to stay like a peaceful citizen and not allowed to participate in any kind of terrorist activity.”

    “The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a ‘peace deal’ with the Taliban,” reports ABC.

    Pakistan will also be returning many Taliban prisoners and seized weapons.

    According to VOA, “security experts say Afghan insurgents and remnants of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network have managed to establish several bases in the region.”

    The president also said that “we’re working with friends and allies to deny the terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world.”

    If true, very, very, sad.

    Comment by wittwcl — 9/5/2006 @ 9:55 pm

  6. Ah, how soon we forget.

    It may seem obvious in hindsight that those supposed “missed opportunities” were a huge screw-up. Hindsight is like that. You also neglect to mention that an attempt was made on Bin Laden which failed. Finally, even if we killed Bin Laden, it’s no guarantee that 9/11 or a similar attack would not have taken place.

    Comment by Andy — 9/5/2006 @ 11:10 pm

  7. Speaking of 9/11…

    At one time or another during the past month or so, the four or five people who frequent this site may have noticed the new banner to the left that links to The Twin Towers Alliance. If the Alliance’s site is getting much traffic to speak of, it…

    Trackback by A Goy and his Blog — 9/6/2006 @ 9:28 am

  8. Pakistan has never really been with us, they will not allow us in to hunt for binladen and they are gonna let go taliban guys, well just great, but no big surprize guys.
    Nobody has the balls to really go after these guys but the U.S. and we have but with so many countries against us and the moonbats joining in, well I just get more bummed out each day.

    Comment by Drewsmom — 9/6/2006 @ 5:11 pm

  9. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that the “blame” for 9/11 is shared by Administrations going back to the Reagan years.

    I would say it goes back farther yet, to the bumbling Jimmy Carter and his incompetent handling of the Iranian hostage crisis. That incident showed the jihadists that they could punch us right in the nose and get away with it.

    Comment by OregonMuse — 9/6/2006 @ 7:22 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress