Right Wing Nut House

Part one was outstanding. A little too much exposition at times. But that could be some late editing due to what they took out as a result of the pressure from the left.

In fact, there were some sequences that it was pretty obvious they tacked on a few extra seconds here and there. But the story moved fairly well anyway, much better than we were led to believe by some critics.

Now for the controversy. I thought the entire sequence surrounding Osama’s “hideout” was a travesty. I see the screenwriter’s device - it was done to give all the arguments why they never gave the order to capture or kill Osama. I realize that the screenwriter tried to present a composite scene that examined the issues facing the government because there were, by last count, 8-10 chances that we had to get Bin Laden (or to be fair, attack a location we thought he was hiding at). There was simply no way to dramatize that many scenes and give the arguments for why we never pulled the trigger for each of them. Those arguments look pretty lame in hindsight. But the policymakers were not operating with the benefit of glasses that could see into the future. Their inaction was justifiable looking at it through their worldview.

And it was way over the top in blaming the policymakers for their failings. Some of the jibes about “courage” were insulting. Wahlberg’s character was so far out of his paygrade in criticizing his boss or the White House it’s unbelievable. And some of the criticism from other characters was gratuitous. The entire sequence could have been deep sixed and the film would not have suffered a bit.

As could the scene with Patricia Heaton busting in on Tenet’s meeting and weeping about how it was their fault the embassies blew up. Stupid and unnecessary.

But I fail to see why such a big stink was made about the Albright scene. She actually came off completely rational and made a strong case for why Pakistan had to be notified.

The film is not nearly as hard on Clinton as its going to be on Bush. That said, I thought that the Clinton government looked pretty competent in getting Yousef and the terrorist in Africa. And it’s obvious that Clark (the self serving bastard) had the right idea about Osama and what we were up against.

All in all, while not bending over backwards to deify the Clinton Presidency (probably why the left is so incensed), I thought that it was a fairly balanced portrayal of that crew’s efforts against terrorism - except where I note otherwise above.

The left certainly can’t complain when O’Neil spat out his dig at the Administration for treating the problem of terrorism as a law enforcement matter. They supported that approach then and they support it now - even though it makes their man look like a fool in retrospect.

I thought the acting was good, the writing not so much, but good direction kept the story moving nicely. I can’t wait to see how it played on lefty websites. Should be good for a laugh or two.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Tomorrow while much of the country pauses to remember the victims of 9/11 on the five year anniversary of that horrible day, it will occur to many of us what those attacks signified; the day that the United States awoke from its decades-long slumber and finally faced up to the fact that we were at war with a grimly determined, fanatical enemy hell bent on destroying us.

For others, especially for those on the left, 9/11 will be remembered as a tragedy, a day when our “chickens came home to roost” and nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens paid the price for our folly. In this historical construct, rather than remembering 9/11 as a wake up call, the left sees the anniversary as a day of atonement, a day to make amends for our past sins.

Michelle Malkin has an interesting piece about one aspect of this phenomena and its weird manifestation in Washington state:

Moonbat America is beyond parody. Yesterday, I told you about Bremerton, Washington’s 9/11 commemoration–commemorating “diversity” and immigration and anything except the actual events, heroes, victims, and villains of 9/11.

Well, here’s more inanity from the Pacific Northwest.

First, take a look at a few of the King County (WA) library system’s Sept. 11 programs (hat tip: reader J.S.):

Yes to the World: Songs of Peace, Unity and Healing for the Whole Family
Presented by Lorraine Bayes and Dennis Westphall. The founding directors of Tickle Tune Typhoon sing songs to celebrate the beauty of life. Come sing and dance at a family concert that supports friendship, peace, cooperation and caring for all living things.

This has become known as “9/11 Denial” where the full implication of the attacks are simply put out of mind and the comfortable bromides and somnolent fantasies about the brotherhood of man and world peace are eagerly substituted. Harsh realities that require one to look into the abyss and accept the fact that evil men wish to do us enormous harm are carefully placed in a box and hidden away lest the children (and those with child like minds) be exposed to the discomfort of a smashed worldview, battered and broken by the exigencies of history and the materiality of events.

This is only part of the equation, of course. Living in a world where quite literally there never was a 9/11 appeals to only a certain segment of the left - aging hippies and the radical sophists who have abandoned reality and created their own personal gulags of politically correct ideas and actions. For them, 9/11 is one more opportunity to demonstrate what they believe is their moral superiority over the rest of us.

But for the majority of the left, it is the yearning for a return to a 9/10 fantasy world that occupies their thoughts this weekend. These thoughts include a determined effort to carefully construct a historical narrative that proves that 9/11 was a gigantic mistake and that rather than moving on to face the assault on the west by radical Islamists, it would be better if we learned from our errors and repaired to the safety and security we believed were ours on 9/10.

There is obvious comfort in this historical fallacy. And there is political gain as well. For this reason, the left has built a storyline about 9/11 that takes the form of both a Chaucer-like cautionary tale and Hollywood conspiracy fable, all the better to appeal to the confusion many Americans are feeling about the aftermath of 9/11 and our response to terrorism in general.

That response - the invasion and overthrow of two regimes in the Middle East that supported terrorism - seems to many on the left to supply verification for Ward Churchill’s thesis that 9/11 was the result of America’s bullying and our insatiable desire to dominate. To the mountebanks who have spent the last 5 years spinning conspiracy theories about Haliburton and secret neocon cabals, the challenge became one of trying to translate their distrust of American power and loathing of American purpose into a palatable mix for the masses to latch on to and embrace.

While not completely swallowing the Ward Churchill view that 9/11 happened because we were hated throughout the world for policies promulgated before the attacks, the left has taken the bare bones of Churchill’s critique and pasted it on to the aftermath of 9/11 to posit the notion that in the months following that awful day, “the world was with us” and it was only because of the policies put in place since the attacks that the nations now despise us. This has the virtue of cleansing the historical record of any mistakes made by Bush’s predecessor while blaming the President for the virulent strain of anti-Americanism that has infected the planet from Europe to the Middle East and beyond.

This myth of worldwide solidarity with America following 9/11 has been successfully advanced thanks to a stubborn refusal by most of us to look carefully beyond the outpouring of genuine feeling for the plight of New Yorkers and the American people as a result of the catastrophe and examine the long held anti-American feelings of most of the rest of the world who saw the attacks as both a punishment for our transgressions as well as an occasion for joy that the mighty USA had been brought down a peg or two in the scheme of things.

One need only look to our closest ally Great Britain for proof that the solidarity myth is a crock. Less than 48 hours after the attacks, former Ambassador to the Court of St. James Philip Lader appeared on the BBC program Question Time where he was roundly booed and “slow handclapped” after his defense of American policy, reducing that worthy almost to tears. And despite the fact that the BBC apologized, William Shawcross, who was in Europe at the time of the attacks wrote on September 17, 2001:

But the response of some of the Question Time audience reveals a darker side and shows the awful truth that these days there is just one racism that is tolerated - anti-Americanism. Not just tolerated, but often applauded. Like any other nation, the US makes mistakes at home and abroad. (I wrote about some of those in Indochina.)

But the disdain with which its failures and its efforts are greeted by some in Britain and elsewhere in Europe is shocking. Anti-Americanism often goes much further than criticism of Washington. Too often the misfortunes of America are met with glee, a schadenfreude that is quite horrifying.

Even the proof most often cited by “The World Was With Us” crowd - a front page editorial in the French newspaper Le Monde entitled “We are All Americans” - is, after close examination, nothing more than a rehash of American sins and an expression of the widespread view held by both elites and commoners that we got what we deserved.

John Rosenthal writing in The Wall Street Journal on October 17, 2004 on “The Myth of ‘Squandered Sympathy:’

Thus are legends born. For the solidarity ostentatiously displayed in the title of Mr. Colombani’s editorial is in fact massively belied by the details of the text itself.

By the fifth paragraph, Mr. Colombani is offering his general reflections on the geo-political conditions he supposes provoked the attacks:

“The reality is surely that of a world without a counterbalance, physically destabilized and thus dangerous in the absence of a multipolar equilibrium. And America, in the solitude of its power, of its hyperpower, . . . has ceased to draw the peoples of the globe to it; or, more exactly, in certain parts of the globe, it seems no longer to attract anything but hatred. . . . And perhaps even we ourselves in Europe, from the Gulf War to the use of F16s against Palestinians by the Israeli Army, have underestimated the hatred which, from the outskirts of Jakarta to those of Durban, by way of the rejoicing crowds of Nablus and of Cairo, is focused on the United States.”

The editorial that headlined the idea that “We are all Americans” then degenerated into conspiracy mongering:

In the following paragraph, Mr. Colombani went on to add that perhaps too “the reality” was that America had been “trapped by its own cynicism,” noting that Osama bin Laden himself had, after all, been “trained by the CIA”–a never substantiated charge that has, of course, in the meanwhile become chapter and verse for the blame-America-firsters. “Couldn’t it be, then,” Mr. Colombani concluded, “that America gave birth to this devil?”

Almost from the start of the War on Terror, the left’s critique of the President has utilized this myth to both rail against Administration actions and point to a time when our policies fostered good will around the world and a morality of purpose here at home. That time turns out to be 9/10 and the golden age that preceded it or, more specifically, anything that happened in America before January 20, 2001.

This is why Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the showing of ABC’s The Path to 9/11. Any countervailing narrative that shows President Clinton in anything less than a flattering light, especially as it relates to his Administration’s response to terrorism, must be suppressed. The shocking response by Democratic legislators in threatening The Disney Company, parent of ABC, with nothing less than yanking it’s license to broadcast has at bottom, a fervent desire to prevent any information that might show the truth of how the United States spent the 1990’s sleepwalking through history.

And the outpouring of invective directed against the program has another cause as well; the belief that the Clinton-Albright policy of treating terrorism largely as a law enforcement problem would be revealed as the monumental failure it turned out to be. Viewing the terrorist problem as a “nuisance” as John Kerry famously averred (as if bloodthirsty jihadists were nothing more than “muggers”) may be comforting to those who believe that our problems are a result of not stopping the world from spinning on 9/10. And the attraction of this narrative in a political sense may be that it resonates with voters who have become weary of the conflict and wish to elect those who would play along with the fantasy that 9/11 was a fluke and that we can all return to a time when we didn’t have to think about annihilation and Armageddon.

In short, the left is opposing the showing of this film because 1) Clinton actions are criticized and 2) Bush’s actions aren’t criticized enough. The latter being the main point of anger for liberals in that it goes against everything they have tried to obfuscate for the past 5 years. They want the enduring image of 9/11 to be George Bush sitting in a classroom reading a children’s book not the towers collapsing or people jumping out of buildings. Anything that goes against The Narrative is a threat to expose the entire tissue of lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, conspiracy fantasies, and deliberate falsehoods perpetrated over the last 5 years with the help of an all too willing media and a vast network of former government officials always willing to shift blame for their own inadequacies in the face of Islamic terrorism.

The great divide in American politics between 9/10 liberals and 9/12 conservatives may prove to be our undoing in the War on Terror unless some kind of consensus can be reached that bridges the chasm between those days. Whether that can be accomplished at this point is extremely doubtful. It may take another wake up call to bring about the kind of unity that is so sorely lacking thanks to the polarization of our politics and the outright denial of so many of the simple, incontrovertible fact that we are at war and the conflict began what seems so long ago on a stunningly beautiful September morning.

What are the left’s talking points for today on The Path to 9/11?

In the rarefied atmosphere of “respectable” (we have to call them something) lefty blogs, the drumbeat today will be over a post by Max Blumenthal at HuffPo that reveals the shocking truth about the “fakeumentary” and it’s connections to (wait for it)…A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!

In fact, “The Path to 9/11″ is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11’s director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to “transform Hollywood” in line with its messianic vision.

This is a bald faced lie. There is no “well honed propaganda operation” of right wingers except in the fantastical imagination and paranoid mind of Max Blumenthal. And only liberals would have the naivete to swallow such a gross twisting of the facts that Blumenthal does throughout this incredibly shallow and extraordinarily thin conspiracy theory about the making of The Path to 9/11.

In his laughable scare piece about the reach and extent of conservative influence in Hollywood, Blumenthal makes an ass of himself by highlighting the most tenuous of connections between people and organizations and passing them off as proof of conspiracy while sprinkling his “indictment” with words and phrases so overly dramatic and uproariously conspiratorial in tone that one would think the piece was penned by a 12 year old little girl breathlessly revealing secrets to her friends at a slumber party:

Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film’s director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father’s group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is “dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry.” As part of TFI’s long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission’s in film industry jobs “so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out,” according to a YWAM report.

Last June, Cunningham’s TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled “Untitled History Project.” “TFI’s first project is a doozy,” a newsletter to YWAM members read. “Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!” (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted yesterday but has been cached on Google at the link above).

That “mysterious” title has been used dozens of times by dozens of studios to describe a work on the boards. The only thing mysterious about it is Blumenthal’s ignorant posturing that it somehow denotes something evil.

But it is in Blumenthal’s revealing notion of who and what YWAM is that we see not only a towering intellectual conceit about people of faith on the part of the left but also the reason Democrats will continue to lose national elections as long as they have such childish, shallow, and indeed despicably condescending views of people who believe in God.

In perusing the YWAM website, one finds that the group’s foundational mission is to spread the gospel. They are missionaries. World class missionaries I might add. There are left wing missionaries. There are right wing missionaries. There are non partisan missionaries. There are Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, and host of other protestant missionaries. There is nothing sinister or even extreme in this. In fact, having spent some time around Catholic missionaries in my youth, I know for a fact that these are some of the most down to earth and practical people on the planet. You don’t convert people by getting in their face and preaching. Not anymore. These days, missionaries are much more likely to win converts by pitching in and digging that new water well for the village or working with other groups to bring electricity to the area.

Of course, Blumenthal only brought up YWAM because the son of the founder of that group, David Cunningham, is the director of the project. Blumenthal is under the impression that by pointing out the father is a missionary, he is hoping to tar the younger man as some wild eyed evangelical nutcase. All Blumenthal does is embarrass himself. Not only is YWAM one of the most respected worldwide gospel outreach groups on the planet, it is funded largely by mainstream protestants and protestant organizations.

And this brings us to the left’s unbelievable stupidity when it comes to dealing with people of faith. They don’t have a clue. People who believe so strongly in something that can’t be touched, can’t be smelled or felt, are a total and complete mystery to our lefty friends. They have no personal experience with faith - faith in anything at all - so they tiptoe around those whose quiet and unassuming faith in something larger than themselves first frightens them and then makes them envious and resentful.

I am not talking about the small, vocal group of Christians whose politics and fundamentalist faith scares both liberals and many secular libertarian conservatives. People like Loren and David Cunningham are pretty ordinary in their beliefs. And to see Blumenthal quaking in his boots over the younger Cunningham’s group, The Film Institute, only shows how truly myopic one can be when preconceived notions meet up with reality.

That reality is that Blumenthal did not continue to quote from TFI’s mission statement. If he had, much of the scare effect he was trying to achieve would have been blunted:

Our next big project is to assist in the development of the new YWAM auxiliary - The Film Institute (TFI). The Film Institute is dedicated to a Godly transformation and
revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry;

TO it, by serving, living humbly with integrity in what is often a world driven by selfish ambition, power an money - transforming lives from within,

and THROUGH it, by creating relevant and evocative content which promotes Godly principles of Truth married with Love.

Gee. Batten down the hatches and lock up the wife and daughter. HERE COME THE CHRISTIANS! Imagine the gall of these people. Trying to change Hollywood from “a world driven by selfish ambition, power and money” (as fair a critique of Hollywood as you’ll find anywhere) to a place that creates “relevant and evocative content which promotes Godly principles of Truth married with Love.”

I don’t know about you but those people should be LOCKED UP! Truth in Hollywood? Married with Love? What can they be thinking?

Too radical. Much too radical.

As Blumenthal is unable to distinguish mainstream Christan thought from fringe skirting fundamentalists, he is also having definitional problems with figuring out exactly who and what a conservative is:

Early on, Cunningham had recruited a young Iranian-American screenwriter named Cyrus Nowrasteh to write the script of his secretive “Untitled” film. Not only is Nowrasteh an outspoken conservative, he is also a fervent member of the emerging network of right-wing people burrowing into the film industry with ulterior sectarian political and religious agendas, like Cunningham.

Nowrasteh’s conservatism was on display when he appeared as a featured speaker at the Liberty Film Festival (LFF), an annual event founded in 2004 to premier and promote conservative-themed films supposedly too “politically incorrect” to gain acceptance at mainstream film festivals. This June, while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo — both friends of Nowrasteh — announced they were “partnering” with right-wing activist David Horowitz. Indeed, the 2006 LFF is listed as “A Program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.”

Who is Cyrus Nowrasteh? Well, Cy wrote and directed The Day Reagan Was Shot who had another, more prominent member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy serving as Executive Producer on the project.

Oliver Stone.

Yes, that Oliver Stone. And one thing Max doesn’t mention is that right wing partisan hack Nowrasteh was skewered by conservatives across the country for his screenplay:

“But for Hollywood, admirable actions by people associated with the Reagan White House are not the stuff of drama. So Messrs. Stone and Nowrasteh depict certain cabinet members as uninformed weaklings and Mr. Haig as a brooding, swaggering, cursing, face-slapping coup-plotter. Other cabinet members and senior White House staffers are cowering wimps.”

(Former Reagan National Security Advisor James Allen)

Gee, Max. Looks like conservatives thought that Nowrasteh was a Hollywood liberal back in the day that he was, much to your satisfaction I’m sure, trashing the Reagan White House and Al Haig in particular. The fact that he is now “burrowing” into the film industry must raise the hackles of conservatives even more, eh?

No matter. Nowrasteh has identified himself time and again as a libertarian rather than a conservative. But don’t tell that to our Max. It will only confuse him further. And these “sectarian, political and religious agendas” are about as “ulterior” as the nose on Blumenthal’s face. The “agenda” - if there even is one - is out in the open for all to see. Who’d ever thought promoting values like honesty and integrity could get one in so much trouble?

The real nitty gritty of Blumenthal’s imaginary conspiracy is in the connection to David Horowitz whose David Horwitz Freedom Center (it is no longer the Center for the Study of Popular Culture) has become a liberal bete noir ever since the lefty apostate began to target liberal professors in an attempt to highlight the jaw dropping left wing bias in the academy.

Blumenthal mentions the wildly successful Liberty Film Festival and the fact that Horowitz has given the conservative event a huge boost by bringing it under the auspices of the DHFC. Why it makes one whit of difference that “while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo — both friends of Nowrasteh — announced they were “partnering” with right-wing activist David Horowitz” is a total mystery. Is Blumenthal seriously trying to connect the Liberty Film Festival to The Path to 9/11?

In Blumenthal’s conspiratorial world, Nowrasteh, who is a “friend” of the founders of the LFF, can now be made a key cog in plot to take over Hollywood because of this third person removed connection to Horowitz. It’s loony. And it doesn’t wash. Blumenthal’s feverish attempt to smear Nowrasteh continues with this unbelievable bit of dishonesty regarding an interview in Horwitz’s Frontpage Magazine:

With the LFF now under Horowitz’s control, his political machine began drumming up support for Cunningham and Nowrasteh’s “Untitled” project, which finally was revealed in late summer as “The Path to 9/11.” Horowitz’s PR blitz began with an August 16 interview with Nowrasteh on his FrontPageMag webzine. In the interview, Nowrasteh foreshadowed the film’s assault on Clinton’s record on fighting terror. “The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response — or lack of response — to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests,” Nowrasteh told FrontPageMag’s Jamie Glazov. “There simply was no response. Nothing.”

There’s no other way to say it. The quote is a deliberate attempt to twist Nowrasteh’s words and what he was trying to say. Here’s the actual quote from the interview:

The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response — or lack of response — to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. COLE in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.

Any objective observer would be forced to concede that the italicized portion that Blumenthal deliberately left out changes the meaning and intent of Nowrasteh’s critique of the Clinton response entirely. Blumenthal owes Horwitz and Nowrasteh an apology for his deliberate attempt to obfuscate what was said in the interview.

And by the way, the statement is true. Clinton did nothing in the aftermath of the attack on the Cole:

In early leaks from Losing bin Laden, Richard Miniter, an investigative journalist, claims Mr. Clinton allowed the Sept. 11 attacks to happen by squandering more than a dozen opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. In two cases, the terrorist leader’s exact location was known, the book says.

Although Clinton supporters would doubtless reject the implication of responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, senior members of the Clinton White House did confirm, in interviews for the book, that they shied away from an attack immediately after the Cole bombing for reasons of diplomacy and military caution.

Blumenthal delivers more misrepresentative twaddle when he delves into the film’s promotion:

A week later, ABC hosted LFF co-founder Murty and several other conservative operatives at an advance screening of The Path to 9/11. (While ABC provided 900 DVDs of the film to conservatives, Clinton administration officials and objective reviewers from mainstream outlets were denied them.) Murty returned with a glowing review for FrontPageMag that emphasized the film’s partisan nature. “‘The Path to 9/11′ is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I’ve ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible,” Murty wrote. As a result of the special access granted by ABC, Murty’s article was the first published review of The Path to 9/11, preceding those by the New York Times and LA Times by more than a week.

Murty followed her review with a blast email to conservative websites such as Liberty Post and Free Republic on September 1 urging their readers to throw their weight behind ABC’s mini-series. “Please do everything you can to spread the word about this excellent miniseries,” Murty wrote, “so that ‘The Path to 9/11′ gets the highest ratings possible when it airs on September 10 & 11! If this show gets huge ratings, then ABC will be more likely to produce pro-American movies and TV shows in the future!”

The “conservative operatives” (Gee…when is someone going to invite me to be a conservative operative?) who got a sneak peak of the film are a mystery. Is Blumenthal talking about the screening of Part I of the film at that hot bed of right wing conspiracies The National Press Club on August 23? This is almost exactly “a week later” than the FPM interview with Nowrasteh.

If he has another, more private event where the film was screened, perhaps he could enlighten us with some details. Considering the fact that the rest of his article is so full of gross misrepresentation and wild flights of fancy, he owes it to the reader to be a little more specific in his charges about a special screening for “conservative operatives.”

On this score - that “conservative operatives” screened the movie - I think it safe to conclude that Blumenthal is demonstrating that he either doesn’t know what kind of an organization The National Press Club is or that he is deliberately misrepresenting the kinds of people who were at the screening, including that well known right wing conspirator Richard Ben Veniste who first brought to light the inaccurate portrayal of the composite scene where Bin Laden was surrounded and not captured.

And what of Murty’s “glowing review” that emphasized the film’s “partisan nature?

Fortunately, Nowrasteh and the producers of this miniseries have gone out on a limb to honestly and fairly depict how Clinton-era inaction, political correctness, and bureaucratic inefficiency allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to metastasize. Let me say here though that “The Path to 9/11″ is not a partisan miniseries or a “conservative” miniseries. It simply presents the facts in an honest and straightforward manner (the producers have backed up every detail of the miniseries with copious amounts of research and documentation), and the facts are that for seven years, from 1993 to 2000, the Clinton administration bungled the handling of the world-wide terrorist threat. The miniseries is equally honest in depicting the Bush administration. It shows a few points where administration officials, following in the tradition of the Clinton years, do not follow certain clues about the terrorist plot as zealously as they should have. Nonetheless, “The Path to 9/11,” by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster.

Only in the world inhabited by liberals like Blumenthal would a review that highlights the non partisan nature of the film be considered some kind of right wing imprimatur. What Blumenthal and the rest of the left are so excised about is that conservatives are excited that finally, after 5 long years, The Narrative the left has constructed about 9/11 is being challenged by the truth. They successfully whitewashed the public discussion following the release of the 9/11 Commission Report thanks to a massive amount of finger pointing at the very real and disgusting failures of the Bush Administration both before and on the day of the attacks. Lost in the shuffle were not only Clinton’s failures in killing Osama but also the entire law enforcement strategy used by the Clintonistas that was such an abject failure. That, and a curious blindness about the nature of al-Qaeda and the challenges posed by the terrorists from an ideological point of view.

This also is apparently brought out in the film which of course, affects our current politics. Hence the savage effort to deny the American people an opportunity to judge. Conservatives are not making a huge deal out of scenes that show Bush Administration officials sleepwalking toward disaster. We’ve pretty much accepted the failures and moved on. Democrats cannot accept the failures of the Clinton Administration because to do so gives the lie to their entire critique of the War on Terror and especially the War in Iraq. They appear to be stuck in a pre-9/11 world where the Clinton Administration emphasis on arresting Osama and al-Qaeda was the preferred method in dealing with the terrorists. Anything that exposes that fact must be destroyed.

Finally, Blumenthal believes that his “conspiracy” is nothing less than a bunch of “political terrorists:”

Now, as discussion grows over the false character of The Path to 9/11, the right-wing network that brought it to fruition is ratcheting up its PR efforts. Murty will appear tonight on CNN’s Glenn Beck show and The Situation Room, according to Libertas in order to respond to “the major disinformation campaign now being run by Democrats to block the truth about what actually happened during the Clinton years.”

While this network claims its success and postures as the true victims, the ABC network suffers a PR catastrophe. It’s almost as though it was complacent about an attack on its reputation by a band of political terrorists.

We should be used to this kind of scurrilous, calumnious, hysterical, over the top rhetoric from liberals by now. But somehow, it never gets old seeing liberals brand dissent from their worldview as “terrorism.” The truth about the Clinton years and their efforts against al-Qaeda is contained in the 9/11 Commission Report. It is there for anyone willing to look. No amount of name calling, conspiracy mongering, lies, distortions, misrepresentations, or even threats will change what has already been uncovered about those years of relative inaction and confused policy choices.

We slept. Osama plotted. And our government - both Clinton and Bush - failed miserably to protect us. If this is the only thing people come away with from watching The Path to 9/11 the overwhelming majority of conservatives will be happy.

It says something profound about the left that if in fact, this is what people think after watching the film, that they will be livid with anger - an anger born of frustration that their carefully constructed version of the “truth” has been revealed as the sham it has always been.

UPDATE

Let me make something perfectly clear - something I have said in other posts talking about the film but not touchd on here.

I abhor the inaccuracies in the film. I agree with one conservative who said that putting words in Albright’s mouth - especially since the film is supposedly depicting real life people - is close to libelous.

But the reaction by the left to this film has been so exaggerated, so over the top as to be beyond belief. The overwhelming number of people who reviewed this film have said that it does NOT blame Bill Clinton for 9/11. My point has always been that the left is opposing the showing of this film because 1) Clinton actions are criticized and 2) Bush’s actions aren’t criticized enough. The latter being the main point of anger for liberals in that it goes against everything they have tried to lie about for the past 5 years. They want the enduring image of 9/11 to be George Bush sitting in a classroom reading a children’s book not the towers collapsing or people jumping out of buildings. Anything that goes against The Narrative is a threat to expose the entire tissue of lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, conspiracy fantasies, and deliberate falsehoods perpetrated over the last 5 years with the help of an all too willing media and a vast network of former government officials always willing to shift blame for their own inadequacies in the face of Islamic terrorism.

As Hugh Hewitt says today, this film needs to be seen even without any scenes showing anything the Clinton Administration did or didn’t do. It needs to be seen so that people understand the nature of the threat posed to our country. When so many see the War on Terror as nothing more than a political ploy being used by the Bush Administration to gin up fear in order to win elections, or more laughably, establish some kind of neo-conservative super-state, a movie like The Path to 9/11 is vitally necessary if only to disabuse those casually interested in politics of the left’s dangerous myopia.

In perusing the left blogosphere looking for reaction to the ABC mini-series The Path to 9/11 one would think that the project was chock full of lies, historical inaccuracies, and pro-Republican propaganda.

But look a little closer and you find that all liberal blogs highlight the same 3 scenes as proof of bias by Disney and the writers. That’s three scenes in a 5 hour movie. Is that reason enough to condemn the entire project with the most outrageously exaggerated, end of the world rhetoric imaginable? One would think that the film they are talking about was a Republican campaign commercial by the wild flights of hyperbole they’re throwing around.

The left’s condemnation of the few minutes of admittedly historically inaccurate scenes (that if ABC can’t cut or fix will probably doom the show entirely) represents only one half of the forces who are critiquing the film. The complaints about the portrayal of Clinton and his people failing to act are being made by the cadre of Clintonistas who see any revelations regarding this aspect of 9/11 as a direct threat to Hillary’s candidacy. Some of these same actors who are yelping the loudest have dreams of serving in the Clinton II presidency. And aside from the evident license that the screen writer took with the specific scenes under attack, there is a sense that Clinton and his people would rather the entire project disappear down the rabbit hole.

But there is a whole other side to the liberals efforts to tear this show apart. This is the faction that is screaming that the film doesn’t blame Bush enough for 9/11. How do they know if they haven’t seen it? The know because The Narrative that they have been using for 5 years to undermine his Presidency is a tissue of lies, half-truths, deliberate exaggerations of the facts, and hysterical intimations of evil. In short, the truth - even if it is revealed in a flawed docudrama - threatens the alternate reality they have created about 9/11.

Go to any 5 lefty websites and you will probably see the same picture on a couple of them. It’s a shot of Bush sitting in the classroom (now with a Mickey Mouse Club hat on his head) as the planes hit the towers. This is the image of 9/11 the left wants the American people to remember. Not the falling towers. Not people jumping to their deaths. They are using ridicule to belittle the President because they know that memories of 9/11 will revive feelings from that time that would be unhelpful to their efforts in November.

Bush himself is attempting to resurrect those feelings during this anniversary. His travels that day will take him from Washington, D.C., to New York, to Pennsylvania. And he is going to give a prime time speech that night.

This, the left can deal with. They can rightly point out that the President is playing politics with the anniversary. But the feelings of solidarity with the President that the American people demonstrated in the aftermath of the attacks scares the holy living beejeebees out of the left. And that’s why they are attacking this film with more energy and vigor than they have ever demonstrated attacking the enemies of the United States.

The film has the potential to undermine both the Clintonista’s whitewashing of history and the BDS-enraged bloggers who seek to save their threatened Narrative of events from being challenged by reality. And the pressure they are putting on ABC will more than likely succeed. Watch for ABC to announce the cancellation tomorrow morning and instead offer the film for release on DVD.

And then watch the heads roll at ABC over this $40 million boondoggle while the left goes back to denying the very essence of what 9/11 meant.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

More this morning on developments over The Path to 9/11 flap. Censorship, unprecedented bullying by an ex-President - I’ll have it all. Stay tuned for RANT CENTRAL as I go off on these jokers.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

Those crickets you hear chirping is the sound of silence from every single broadcast TV network, newspaper, magazine, book publisher, E-Zine, blog, tip sheet, gossip rag, author, actor, actress, director, producer, janitor, and 12 year old drama queen who has warned us all over the past 6 years that the President of the United States is trying to stifle a free press and establish de facto censorship over the media.

When confronted with a real attempt by Democrats in the Senate to turn the United States into an authoritarian state by threatening to yank the broadcast license of ABC unless they make political changes to their mini-series The Path to 9/11, the above gaggle of weeping, whining chicken littles either nods their approval or are too intimidated themselves to make a stink.

Where are all the civil libertarians weeping over our lost freedoms because the FBI aimed a Geiger counter at someone’s house? Where are all those heroic fighters for democracy who complained about Republicans stifling free speech because they removed a half crazed woman from the Senate gallery for displaying a political message on a T-Shirt? Where are all the hand wringing, exaggerating, hyperventilating, bed wetting lefties who scream “dictator” every time Bush opens his mouth?

I’ll tell you where they are. They are on the sidelines cheering their heroic mini-Adolf’s in the Senate on as the Democrats issue the bluntest, the most vile, the most open call for political censorship in almost two hundred years:

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Lefty John Aravosis raises his arm in slavish salute and gleefully sums up what the Senate Democrats are attempting to do:

The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney’s broadcast license. Not the use of the word “trustee” at the beginning of the letter and “trust” at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.

This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.

I can remember when any threat to yank the broadcast license of a major media outlet for any reason whatsoever would be met by a solid wall of liberal opposition and outrage. When it came out in the Nixon impeachment hearings that the White House had threatened CBS and the Washington Post over their coverage of Watergate, the condemnations from most of those same sources I listed at the beginning of this post was immediate and passionate.

My, my how times have changed, no?

Hugh Hewitt thinks that this will hurt the Democrats at the polls in November. I’d like to think so. I’d like to believe there is still a sizable segment of the populace so much in love with liberty that they will rise up and smite the Democrats at the polls for their thuggish threats.

I’m afraid Hugh and I are bound to be disappointed. As long as you don’t yank The Sopranos or 24 or American Idol, people will tolerate just about anything these days.

Allah rounds up reaction and adds laconically:

My only question is this: was that letter typed, or did they use letters cut out from magazines?

Fair enough. Everything is a precedent. There’s nothing anyone can do except remember and use it when Michael Moore’s new movie comes out and someone on the Republican side criticizes it as inaccurate and the droning about dissent-crushing begins. Here’s a post to help memorialize it for future reference. I hope others will do so too.

I fully expect over the next 48 hours the cancellation of The Path to 9/11. No network or media outlet can stand up to the unprecedented bullying of an ex-President and the unprecedented threats of a group of very influential politicians.

And so the netnuts will be able to celebrate their “victory.” Perhaps they should ask exactly what they “won.” Another whitewashing of history? A lovely little taste of what it’s like to be a dictator? Perhaps a fantasy interlude where they can dream of crushing their political enemies as easily as they have now intimidated and crushed ABC?

Welcome to the Brave New World…

The results are in for this week’s Watchers Council vote and carrying home the prize for first place in the Council category is Gates of Vienna for “Empire and Apocalypse.” Finishing in a tie for second was Soccer Dad for “Targeted Killings, Moral Consideration” and “Meanwhile in Darfur” by Joshuapundit.

Finishing first in the non Council category was “Check or Checkmate? Death by Cop on the Global Stage” by Kobayashi Maru.

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watcher’s Council vote, go here and follow instructions.

I will be appearing on Mike Reagan’s nationally syndicated talk show at 6:20 PM Central time tonight.

We’ll be discussing Musharraf’s sellout to the Taliban. Don’t miss it.

Might have a podcast of it later.

It should not surprise us that once again Bill Clinton has disgraced the office he so callously and corruptly filled for 8 years. Nor should it surprise us that he would stoop to use his influence in order to attempt to alter a TV show that portrays him in anything less than the warm, soft light of angelic perfection. After all, anyone who could embarrass himself the way Clinton did has the evolved sensibilities of my pet cat Aramas. And at least Aramas has a slight idea of when to keep his wick dry and his pants zipped.

Clinton’s brazen and inappropriate interference in the debate over the showing of Path to 9/11 has no precedence of which I am aware. Presidents are supposed to be above this sort of thing. But apparently, Clinton has never met a challenge where the bar was placed too low for him to descend either morally or in the common decencies of public behavior and national tradition. Sanctity of the office meant nothing to him while he served. Why should we expect anything different now that he’s a private citizen?

One can understand Clinton’s trepidation at any rehash of the history of those times. With Hillary weighing a run for the White House, any rewrite of the carefully manufactured Narrative that Democrats have carefully, lovingly constructed block by lying block over these last 6 years that absolves Clinton of any responsibility for the fact that America was sleepwalking toward disaster during his entire term of office could hurt her chances for a return engagement at the Executive Mansion.

The bullying ex-President sent an angry letter to Disney chief Bob Iger demanding that he whitewash history by changing the show or pull the $40 million project completely:

A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series “The Path to 9/11″ grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network “pull the drama” if changes aren’t made.

Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

“The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely,” the four-page letter said.

Howard Kurtz handles the debunking of Clintonian complaints. As for Albright’s contention that she personally did not warn the Pakistanis of the strike on Bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan, she is factually correct. But that doesn’t change the fact that someone else did:

Albright said she never warned Pakistan. The Sept. 11 commission found that a senior U.S. military official warned Pakistan that missiles crossing its airspace would not be from its archenemy, India.

Giving such a warning was the responsible thing to do under the circumstances as anyone with half a brain knows. Pakistan is a nuclear power and would take a dim view of missiles of unknown origin flying over its territory. It is Tenet who comes off looking like a mindless drone in this scene if what Kurtz has is accurate.

As for Clinton’s claims that he was not distracted by the Lewinsky mess, the 9/11 Commission once again had a different take on the matter:

The Sept. 11 commission found no evidence that the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal played a role in the August 1998 missile strike, but added that the “intense partisanship of the period” was one factor that “likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Laden.”

This is hair splitting of the worst sort. My understanding from reading this piece in E & P that gives a detailed synopsis of the film is that shots of Clinton talking about the Lewinsky scandal are coupled with comments from characters to the effect that Republicans believe Clinton is taking the military action in order to deflect attention from the Lewinsky imbroglio.

Duh. And the idea that Clinton would deny that this charge didn’t color his decision making is an out and out lie, something we know Clinton does very well and does so routinely.

The Clintonistas have a point about the historical inaccuracy of the scene that shows CIA/Norther Alliance forces outside a house where Bin Laden is hiding failing to get a go ahead from Sandy Berger. But as it has been pointed out by former 9/11 Commission co-Chair Thomas Kean, this scene is a composite of several incidents where we had intimations of Osama’s whereabouts but failed to follow up.

From my own perspective, I would like to see that scene deleted to be replaced by four new scenes showing in excruciatingly accurate detail the 4 missed opportunities we had to kill Bin Laden. I’m sure our friends on the left would want to see history portrayed accurately in this regard.

Buzz Patterson, conservative writer and talk show host, paints a scene in his book Dereliction of Duty from one of those missed opportunities. And our lefty friends will be happy to know that in the interest of historical accuracy, I will reproduce it below:

It was fall 1998 and the National Security Council (NSC) and the “intelligence community” were tracking the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the shadowy mastermind of terrorist attacks on American targets overseas. “They’ve successfully triangulated his location,” yelled a “Sit Room” watch stander. “We’ve got him.”

Beneath the West Wing of the White House, behind a vaulted steel door, the Sit Room staff sprang into action. The watch officer notified National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, “Sir, we’ve located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike.”

[snip]

Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the president. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk crews were ready. For about an hour Berger couldn’t get the commander in chief on the line. Though the president was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was somehow unavailable.

Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient. Finally, the president accepted Berger’s call. There was discussion, there were pauses—and no decision. The president wanted to talk with his secretaries of defense and state. He wanted to study the issue further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The president eventually called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching the clock.

The NSC watch officer was convinced we had the right target. The intelligence sources were conclusive. The president, however, wanted a guaranteed hit or nothing at all. This time, it was nothing at all. We didn’t pull the trigger. We “studied” the issue until it was too late—the window of opportunity closed. Al-Qaeda’s spiritual and organizational leader slipped through the noose.

Since Buzz Patterson has more integrity in his little finger than all the moral midgets and lying weasels who worked in the Clinton White House put together, who you gonna believe? Sandy Berger, whose clumsy attempts to alter history by stealing documents from the National Archives landed him the docket or a decorated combat pilot who was so trusted by the United States that he was granted the honor of carrying the nuclear “football” - the satchel containing our nuclear launch procedures and codes.

(As an aside, read about the jaw dropping incident in Patterson’s book where Clinton actually loses his codebook containing the instructions for launching a nuclear strike. Our Brave Sir President however, had no trouble taking Osama and his threats seriously, right?)

But it is Clinton’s blatant use of his status as an ex chief executive for his own self aggrandizement that is so shockingly out of kilter. It is one thing to have his high level ex-officials lobby appropriately on his behalf. It is quite another to throw his own weight around personally in an effort to bully ABC into taking out portions of the film that he finds objectionable. The unspoken threat of retaliation given his wife’s status as both a Senator and probably Presidential candidate drips from every word in that 4 page letter he sent to Iger. And the Disney chief ignores such warnings at his and his network’s peril.

Apparently, Iger and ABC are walking a tightrope by agreeing to alter the most egregious historically inaccurate scene involving the Berger refusal to give the go ahead to CIA people on the ground in Afghanistan while trying to maintain the integrity of the story:

After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton’s national security advisor, Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.

“That sequence has been the focus of attention,” the source said, adding: “These are very slight alterations.”

In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based “in part” on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply “based on” the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended.

ABC, meanwhile, is tip-toeing away from the film’s version of events. In a statement, the network said the miniseries “is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews.”

These disclaimers should have been placed in the credits from the beginning. There has never been a docudrama in the history of television that did not take liberties with history by telescoping events or creating composite characters and scenes. And while ABC wants to underscore the care they took in trying to represent events accurately, they should have realized any deviation from history would have placed them in hot water with either liberals or conservatives.

In the end, Clinton will probably not get his way. Nor will the wailing and gnashing of teeth by liberals about the cracks that will now appear in their carefully constructed Narrative that holds blameless their Saint Bill while making Bush and not Osama Bin Laden the villain of that tragic day matter much in the end. The start of Monday Night Football will guarantee a limited audience for the film, something that the netnuts will gloat about for days following the airing of The Path to 9/11. So after all the left’s bloviating and after Bill Clinton’s shocking interference, we will be back to the reality of what 9/11 meant.

As long as the left sees 9/11 in isolation and not as part of the larger threat we face, these same arguments will echo across time and space awaiting the day that liberals engage the enemy as the enemy engages us; hand to throat and to the death. Until that day, we will be a divided nation, a weak nation, ripe for defeat.

Could The Path to 9/11 have altered their view? Not as long as they see the current political battles as more important than future battles to be fought in the War on Terror. For that change to occur, they will probably need another wake up call to convince them there are some things beyond politics, beyond the grasping for power that matter.

Maybe by the 5th anniversary of that attack, they will finally and forever get it.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

The agreement announced yesterday between the Pakistani government and representatives of the Taliban Council in North Waziristan appears on the surface to be an equitable arrangement that addresses the serious problems of Taliban and al-Qaeda incursions across the border into Afghanistan to fight NATO troops as well as bringing an end to the fighting between Pakistani forces and the fierce, independent tribesman in the region.

Indeed, most accounts of the deal in the western press highlighted the fact that the agreement would prevent al-Qaeda and the Taliban from using North Waziristan as a safe haven for their fighters in Afghanistan. President Musharraf, in a meeting with Afghan President Karzai yesterday boasted that the treaty was a boon to the embattled Afghanistan government. “No militant activity, no training activity, they have accepted this,” General Musharraf said. “This is the bottom line of the peace agreement.”

Western analysts however, have taken a much more alarming view of the treaty. Counterterrorism experts have called it a “surrender.” Some aspects of the treaty are clearly unenforceable. And judging by previous agreements made with the Taliban, this deal is also likely to be honored in the breach.

Bill Roggio sums up the agreement and grimly analyzes the fallout:

* The Pakistani Army is abandoning its garrisons in North and South Waziristan.
* The Pakistani Military will not operate in North Waziristan, nor will it monitor actions the region.
* Pakistan will turn over weapons and other equipment seized during Pakistani Army operations.
* The Taliban and al-Qaeda have set up a Mujahideen Shura (or council) to administer the agency.
* The truce refers to the region as “The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.”
* An unknown quantity of money was transferred from Pakistani government coffers to the Taliban. The Pakistani government has essentially paid a tribute or ransom to end the fighting.
* “Foreigners” (a euphemism for al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadis) are allowed to remain in the region.
* Over 130 mid-level al-Qaeda commanders and foot soldiers were released from Pakistani custody.
* The Taliban is required to refrain from violence in Pakistan only; the agreement does not stipulate refraining from violence in Afghanistan.

In effect, the Taliban has carved out an independent enclave in “The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan,” a safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists, and a base of operations secure from interference by the Pakistani military to better carry out their murderous raids across the border into Afghanistan. They have already established their own harsh brand of Sharia law in the area and allowed training camps for various extremist groups to be set up. And most importantly, they have humiliated the government and weakened Musharraf’s tenuous hold on power.

More ominously, another country now has a terrorist state within a state operating virtually free of the control of the central government but with one potentially catastrophic difference:

This nation has at least 60 nuclear weapons that could potentially fall into the hands of Islamic extremists.

The American government is not happy with the agreement and understandably so. Shockingly, Secretary of State Rice was briefed on the outlines of the deal back in June when she visited Pakistan. Although it is unclear how much President Musharraf was forced to concede in the interim, this deal is similar to a treaty signed with another Taliban group in South Waziristan last February. In response, the Taliban pulled up stakes and moved into North Waziristan. A similar move into other nearby tribal regions including Bajaur and Tank is probably in the offing. What the Taliban leaves behind is infrastructure including training camps, hospitals, and safe havens for fighters fleeing NATO forces in Afghanistan. There will also almost certainly be continued infiltration into Afghanistan by small groups of Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda terrorists.

And lest anyone be under the impression that the withdrawal of Pakistani forces green light’s NATO troops for cross-border “hot pursuit,” President Musharraf made it clear yesterday that such operations would not be tolerated:

“On our side of the border there will be a total uprising if a foreigner enters that area,” he said. “It’s not possible at all, we will never allow any foreigners into that area. It’s against the culture of the people there.”

What would possess President Musharraf to sign such a humiliating retreat? The war against the Taliban in North Waziristan was forced on Musharraf by the United States when it became clear that the terrorists were using the region as a staging ground for their attacks against Afghan troops. In response to the US request, Musharraf sent 80,000 troops to the region. The tribes rose up and in a series of fierce, small unit engagements, inflicted many casualties on the Pakistani forces. After a few months, it became clear that the historically independent minded tribes would not submit and in June, a cease fire was declared so that a deal could be hammered out.

In the last few weeks however, several events have occurred that may have forced Musharraf’s hand in North Waziristan while threatening his hold on power.

First, Musharraf may be calculating the limits of American power as he watches the Taliban grow stronger in Afghanistan as well as the slow progress of American arms in Iraq. Perhaps he doesn’t feel quite as secure and believes that a deal with the Taliban in North Waziristan (and other tribal areas as well) is better than relying on the American military to defeat the terrorists.

Secondly, and more significantly, Musharraf created a huge problem for himself on August 26 when he ordered the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti, the tribal leader and former governor of Balochistan. The octogenarian rebel leader was a revered tribal elder among the fiercely independent Baluchis and his death at the hands of Pakistani security forces may have been a colossal blunder.

Balochistan is Pakistan’s largest province and also its most troublesome. There has been an independence movement in existence even before the partition with 4 major rebellions since the 1950’s. Each insurrection was brutally suppressed by the government along with a crackdown on Baluchi traditions and culture. Blessed with abundant natural resources as well as some large natural gas fields, the restless province has proven to be virtually ungovernable. Some Baluchis resent the government taking so much wealth from the province and putting very little back in the form of government services while others agitate for outright independence.

The killing of Bugti set off a wave of unrest all across Pakistan but especially in the rebel leader’s home province. If another uprising is in the offing, Musharraf may have need for many of those 80,000 troops he sent to North Waziristan. As it stands now, Bugti’s militia and other tribal forces have carried out a few attacks against the gas pipeline but have not directly challenged government troops in the area. The prospect of another rebellion could have spurred Musharraf to make peace with the Taliban so that he could turn his attention to a growing insurgency in Balochistan.

Finally, Frederic Grare, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out the tenuous hold Musharraf has on power:

If the consequences of Bugti’s death on the ground are still difficult to predict, some of them are already apparent in the political arena. Every political party, even Musharraf’s own political allies, has condemned the killing. The division between the civilian leadership and the military is widening—a frightening trend in any country where the military has such a stranglehold on political life. If this rift continues to widen, the Pakistani military might demand that Musharraf, who is still simultaneously—although unconstitutionally—the army’s chief of staff, choose between his two positions.

The killing of Bugti has exposed a Pakistani president both unable to fulfill his commitments in the war on terror and only able to act decisively against his own people. Musharraf’s actions have reversed decades’ worth of slow progress toward national integration.

Reporting restrictions will guarantee that we will not hear much from Baluchistan in the coming months. But the next thing we hear might well be an explosion that reverberates as far as Washington.

Beset on all sides by a growing list of problems including open opposition by some of the more religiously conservative elements in the military and the brazen support for the Taliban by the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI - support the Musharraf denies but that every western intelligence analyst in Afghanistan has confirmed - the Pakistani President is finding that his grip on power may be slipping away. With elections scheduled for next year, it is unclear whether he will allow a vote given what might emerge in his stead - an extremist Islamic regime with its fingers on a nuclear trigger. And if Musharraf fails to step down, there are many who may feel he has outlived his usefulness anyway.

Meanwhile, the Taliban will enjoy its safe haven in The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, virtually free to carry out operations against NATO forces in Afghanistan while harboring al-Qaeda terrorists and training the next generation of jihadists to attack western targets.

There have been some dark days recently in the War on Terror. And yesterday was certainly one of the darkest.