Why the Hysteria?
It's impossible to listen to the radio today without hearing how upset all the Clintonistas are about the docudrama "The Path to 9/11" being aired on Sunday and Monday nights. Funny how people who have judged, blamed, and scrutinized the Bush White House so intensely are strangely sensitive about having their own actions put under a microscope.
As this piece in Investors Business Daily points out:
Based on the 9-11 commission report and ABC News correspondent John Miller's book, "The Cell," the film strips away the conventional wisdom that somehow the fledgling Bush White House was responsible for 9-11 through neglect or indifference.
The film strips bare the Democratic talking points, exposing them for the fraud they are, accurately depicting the chances the Clinton White House missed to kill or capture bin Laden and the barriers they put up to connecting all the information.
Democratic partisans are seizing on dramatic liberties (someone doing something on one day that he actually did on another, for example) to claim that the docudrama is inaccurate. Most offensive is Sandy "Docs in Socks" Berger's insistence that he never refused to authorize the capture of Bin Laden. If not, he should take it up with the 9/11 commission report, because it's in there, too.
Methinks the liberals protest too much, especially when the Senate leadership is effectively threatening ABC -- the shape of things to come should Democrats regain control of the Senate?
They strike me as analogous to a thief who isn't sorry he stole, but is terribly, terribly sorry he's going to jail: They blithely let Osama bin Laden slip through their fingers, and really weren't worried about those facts appearing in the 9/11 Commission report because they weren't terribly publicized. Now that these facts may receive an airing in a larger forum -- well, that can't be tolerated.
It's all about the politics for these guys.
As this piece in Investors Business Daily points out:
Based on the 9-11 commission report and ABC News correspondent John Miller's book, "The Cell," the film strips away the conventional wisdom that somehow the fledgling Bush White House was responsible for 9-11 through neglect or indifference.
The film strips bare the Democratic talking points, exposing them for the fraud they are, accurately depicting the chances the Clinton White House missed to kill or capture bin Laden and the barriers they put up to connecting all the information.
Democratic partisans are seizing on dramatic liberties (someone doing something on one day that he actually did on another, for example) to claim that the docudrama is inaccurate. Most offensive is Sandy "Docs in Socks" Berger's insistence that he never refused to authorize the capture of Bin Laden. If not, he should take it up with the 9/11 commission report, because it's in there, too.
Methinks the liberals protest too much, especially when the Senate leadership is effectively threatening ABC -- the shape of things to come should Democrats regain control of the Senate?
They strike me as analogous to a thief who isn't sorry he stole, but is terribly, terribly sorry he's going to jail: They blithely let Osama bin Laden slip through their fingers, and really weren't worried about those facts appearing in the 9/11 Commission report because they weren't terribly publicized. Now that these facts may receive an airing in a larger forum -- well, that can't be tolerated.
It's all about the politics for these guys.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:24 AM
2 Comments:
They blithely let Osama bin Laden slip through their fingers,
Hey, c'mon, Carol. Clinton was found to be "deeply concerned" about it, okay?
Remember back to the days after the November 2000 election.
What was the Clinton Administration doing with respect to a transition team? I mean, back when they weren't popping the W's off the keyboards and such.
Post a Comment
<< Home