WHAT’S CLINTON AFRAID OF?
“PATH TO 9/11” - WHAT WAS CLINTON
AFRAID OF? - THE TRUTH!
by
Ken Eliasberg
As most of you already know, the Clintonistas raised quite a ruckus about ABC’s 5-hour docudrama, Path to 9/11 which aired on September 10th and 11th. They bombarded ABC with requests to cancel the program, culminating in letters from Clinton’s lawyer, Bruce Lindsey (requesting cancellation) and Harry Reid, et al (making a similar request, while issuing a thinly veiled threat to yank the network’s license). Setting aside, at least for the moment, this highly objectionable, censorious behavior, how was the film? Excellent!! But before dealing with the film and the efforts to block its being aired, let me congratulate ABC, in general, and ABC’s chief, Bob Iger, in particular for having the courage to stand firm in the face of Clintonista pressure. While they did—in deference to the objections raised by Clinton’s people—edit some of the film’s features, they held firm in their decision to air the film, and, in doing so, earned my respect and, I suspect, that of many others. And this decision came at, in all likelihood, great personal expense to Iger (a confirmed lefty), who will now be a pariah at left-wing cocktail parties. Again, hats off to Iger.
Now to the film—it was excellent!! It was riveting (at least to anyone who enjoys a mixture of history, entertainment, and politics, and is not so compromised by being on the left to be fairly dispassionate in viewing this sort of undertaking). It grabbed you right from the start and held your attention right to the end, filling everything in between with some wonderful acting, some great theatre, and a great deal more than a little reality.
My overall impression of the film was—aside from its excellence—was what was the big deal, i.e. what did you learn from the film that you did not already know if you had consciously lived through this period? By this I do not mean that you were aware of all that was going on—or, unfortunately, as the film makes abundantly clear, what was not going on - behind the scenes. But you certainly knew of all the major attacks on U.S. interests, and the very limited response thereto. That is, we all knew of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (not only did Clinton do nothing, he didn’t even make one of his standard “I-feel-your-pain” appearances); the disaster at Mogadishu (at least in part occasioned by Clinton’s Secretary of Defense’s refusal to meet the demands of the field commander on the ground—a military no no—Les Aspin resigned shortly thereafter); the bombing of the Khobar Towers; the bombing of the USS Cole, and the bombings of our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (after which Clinton got around to launching a few meaningless missiles at a former campsite of Bin Laden’s in Afghanistan and what turned out to be a harmless pharmaceutical factory in Sudan—the efficacy of this response was somewhat clouded by the fact that this gesture was possessed of wag-the-dog qualities since it resulted in a short postponement of impeachment considerations). The point here is that while you may not have known what was going on behind the scenes—indeed, I suspect that none of us knew all the details—you knew that no serious response to these attacks was ever offered during the entirety of Clinton’s two terms as president.
And this film helps you to understand why such a response was not forthcoming. Clinton seemed incapable of making a decision. The difficulties here were, of course, compounded by layers of bureaucracy. The film made it seem clear that, after clearing all of the bureaucratic hurdles, and then factoring in political correctness considerations, the window of opportunity to suitably respond to any situation would have closed. And these bureaucratic concerns were bipartisan in nature, affecting both Clinton and Bush. What was unique to Clinton was his inability to lead—his overriding concern of being loved (on a grand scale as well as up close and personal). Clinton has always seemed to me (once I got to take a careful look—after first voting for him in 1992) as a man who viewed leadership as the result of winning a popularity contest. His insecurities required that you love him, and a leader cannot be hampered by such concerns.
Bush didn’t come off a lot better in Path to 9/11 in that neither he nor his people (in the person of Condalezza Rice) appeared to be taking terrorism very seriously. And the report of the 9/11 Commission (on which this film purports to rely quite heavily) makes this point clear, showering very little praise on either Administration. Of course, one might reasonably argue that greater blame can belaid at Clinton’s door since he was in office for 8 years (during which time these attacks were taking place), and Bush was just settling in by the time 9/11 happened. Nevertheless, neither the report of the 9/11 Commission nor this film was particularly flattering to either president or his personnel.
There were a few public servants who certainly did not gather any glory in this film. George Tenet appeared to be incompetent; Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright appeared too afraid of their respective shadows to make any timely decision; and Condi Rice seemed less than appropriately concerned with the threat posed by the terrorists. The heroes of the film were clearly John O’neill, Richard Clarke, the head of Afghani Northern Alliance,
Ahmed Massoud, and the U.S. civil servant with whom Massoud was in touch (and, of course the American people, in general, and our first responders, in particular). One character, our Ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine, played by Patricia Heaton (of Everybody Loves Raymond), a competent and loveable actress, came across as neither competent nor loveable. For her sake, I hope the film exaggerated; Ms. Bodine came across as an imperious, incompetent harridan—an arrogant, overbearing nincompoop, whose ego trumped national security concerns (in other words someone who the left would probably like to have as our Ambassador to the U.N., where she could prostrate herself before every third world country, while apologizing for all of America’s overreaching tendencies).
That said, then I repeat - what’s the big deal? Why were the Clintonistas so bent out of shape. The film was carefully put together and states right up front that it does not purport to be a documentary. To ask the question is to answer it. What was Clinton afraid of? The truth!! He doesn’t want you to know how little he did to avert the serious threat that Radical Islam posed to America’s national security. Furthermore, Clinton’s disdain for the military (and, as a necessary consequence, our national security) is well known. In this regard I recommend 2 books by Robert “Buzz” Patterson, the retired USAF Lt. Col. who was one of 5 military aides who carried the “nuclear football” for Clinton—Derelection of Duty (2003) and Reckless Disregard (2004), both published by Regnery Publishers. In passing, it is worth noting that Patterson found Path to 9/11 a fairly accurate rendition of what actually happened with respect to the response to the terrorists during Clinton’s terms in office.
One further observation re Clinton’s aversion to the truth, and that concerns Sandy Berger’s trip to the archives. If Clinton had nothing to hide, how could he allow his national security advisor to go to the archives and steal documents? And, folks, this is not a partisan accusation—the man has pled guilty to this offense. Now I ask you again, how could this happen? More to the point, why did it happen? Berger is an honors graduate of 2 of our premier Universities (Cornell and Harvard Law School), a senior partner in one of Washington D.C.’s most reputable law firms (Hogan and Hartson), and a man sophisticated in foreign policy matters, in general, and the law in particular. What would impel him to commit a crime of this nature? And, of course, it was at Clinton’s bidding—to think otherwise is to suggest that you fell off a turnup truck yesterday afternoon. I’m certain that Clinton is armed with all sorts of plausible deniability arguments, but no one over 15 years old should believe that Berger undertook this operation on his own. Grown men with considerably less intellectual equipment than Berger know that you just don’t go in to the Archives and stuff classified documents in your shoes and trousers unless you have something to hide. And maybe that’s what Clinton was afraid of in the airing of this film—something might reveal just how inappropriately he dealt with national security concerns during his time in office. By the way, for this serious criminal indiscretion, Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor and received a slap on the wrist (a $50,000 fine and a top secret time out); if he were a Republican, he’d be found guilty of a felony and would be doing about 5 years of hard time.
One final note—what is it with these Democrats? In our public buildings they are either putting things into their pants which clearly don’t belong there or taking things out which clearly do. Speaking of which, one can’t help but wonder where Osama might be if Clinton had mustered up the same degree of focus, intensity, and passion for his capture as he did for that of Monica, Jennifer, Kathleen, Juanita, Dolly, Paula et al. Perhaps if it had been Osamette, instead of Osama, Clinton made have been moved to greater heights (lower depths?) to secure the prize. Who knows—but, again, one can’t help but wonder.