Specter
User
Platinum Board Member
| Posts: 1116 |  |
|
Re:The Path to 9/11 - 2006/09/18 11:35
Did any of you watch this show? I did not really see what the fuss was all about in the scene that got re-edited. I have a link to the before and after if you would like to see.
I did find some problems with the movie though. First - it made Sandy Berger into the "stabilizing hero." This is the guy who stuffed secrret documents down his socks and then destroyed them to protect Clinton.
Second - While I agree that not enough was done by the Clinton administration to quell the rising of islamofascism, trying to equate him ducking getting bin Laden because of the Lewinsky stuff was plain ridiculous. It had nothing to do with her. I really think the Clintonistas handled the terrorism problem the way they did due to having more concern for the public relations (no pun intended) consequences and fallout. That fits in well with his administration and the way they did things. Remember, he spent more money on PO Polls than any other president. I also think the second biggest problem - and it is probably a consequence of the first - is that the issue was treated as a law and order problem rather than a military one. According to Scheuer, Clinton had 10 opportunities to get bin Laden and ignored them.
Third - A lot of the movie pinned the mistakes made on the State Department. That might be true. If Maddy AllBright did indeed inform a foreign government (Pakistan), and if they informed OBL (at least through leaks in their government), then the fact OBL got away in that strike clearly rests on the State Department's shoulders. And - When Condi Rice took the FBI Counterterrorism guy - O'Neill - off the case it was a huge mistake. Here was one of the guys who knew most about what was going on.
Fourth - Were they tough on Bush? No. Even though - and this is brought out very clearly in the movie - the declaration of war against the US happened and was unfolding during the Clinton years, Bush did not pick up the ball or do much different than his predecessor. There are probably a lot of excuses (new admin, new rules, new policies, etc.), but the fact is that the Bush group did not see the clues either. So in my opinion, the movie treated them to easy.
Overall the movie was fairly factual. I was fascinated as somebody actually drew many of the disparate pieces together. I suspect that the lessons learned will help in the future. Just getting rid of the Gorelick Wall will probably help immensley - as long as the intelligence agencies play well together.
Anyone Else?
___________________
Talk atya L8r,
Specter
The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth. - Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964); SHARE (2005 - ) |
Specter (1116)
