People keep talking about how the world changed on 9/11.
It didn’t. The world was filled with terrorists, and bombs, and people living in fear, and attacks on home grounds. The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world.
It’s five years later. Anyone feeling safer?
I also find it interesting that the Democrats have surrendered the moral high ground in terms of TV presentation. Here the GOP managed to get the Reagan biopic banished to cable because they didn’t like the way it presented their political saint, and now the Democrats managed to get the miniseries on 9/11, based on the findings of the bi-partisan committee, re-edited so that it wouldn’t seem as if President Clinton was too distracted by Monicagate to go after bin Laden…except I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person could think that the harassment over Lewinsky didn’t impede Clinton’s effectiveness on any number of levels.
Quick, kids. There’s some history. Let’s rewrite it.
PAD
• 
Ok, off-topic once again, and at the risk of becoming “that annoying guy” (who knows, maybe I crossed that line a long time ago!)… have I done or said anything to cause offense PAD? You told me to send those interview questions, but I’ve received no response to my e-mails, or my posts here on the blog. If I have done something to offend, please let me know, as I am sincerely unaware. Thanks PAD.
The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed.
While I agree with you, I also think this is quite splitting hairs – not to mention presupposes that there is some “real” version of the world that we can return or otherwise go to.
If we don’t perceive something, does it exist? It’s a question people have been tossing around a lot longer than Descartes.
For a lot of folks, I think the world did change – it became a bigger, nastier place. I don’t think we can discount that, even if we fundamentally disagree with the premise behind it.
Yeah, I feel a lot safer five years on, knowing that poorly-paid government workers are checking my toothpaste before I board a plane, while most of the cargo that comes into this country goes unchecked.
I totally agree with you Peter, the Democrats continue to infuriate by not offering an alternative or by challenging the Bush party line. Watching Ðìçk Cheney on Meet the Press yesterday trotting out that old chestnut that the justification for, well, just about everything the Bush administration have done the past six years is the fact that we haven’t been hit by terrorists again. I’m not quite sure how you prove a negative, but I keep thinking it’s like saying the fact that American hasn’t been overrun by giant African killer bees is due to the Bush administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration. I know I’m exaggerating for effect here, but why are the Democrats not challenging the Republican administration on this issue? It’s infuriating.
I think the HAS changed, not because of the events of 9/11 but because of the reactions to that horrible day.
Priorities are different. Lives have been forever altered. Foriegn policy has starkly changed. The social climate has changed. The cementing of the 24-hour news cycle has reeked untold social change, both good and bad. And economic fallout from the ramifications of that day continue to plague the US. More than mere perception, there has been a clear shift throughout the world.
A domino effect of events post-9/11 has driven the world into a different direction, and that you would suggest otherwise … THAT is what makes me feel less safe.
And that the President has been hampered, instead of helped, in effectively executing a necessary ‘war on terror’ by domestic politicization and jihadist elements, like the Council for American Islamic Relations, makes me feel less safe, too.
except I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person could think that the harassment over Lewinsky didn’t impede Clinton’s effectiveness on any number of levels.Richard Clarke is of the opinion that it didn’t. As is the rest of Clinton’s staff.
Even if you assume they are just protecting their old boss for political reasons, there’s no evidence that there was anything he could have done that he didn’t do to catch Bin Laden.
Gee, and here I thought that most of the complaints the last two weeks were over issues bigger then Lewinsky.
I kinda thought that the complaints were about all the scenes that were written to be 180 degrees from what really happened. Or how ABC spent months claiming that this was a just the facts kinda thing, something that they worked hard at to get right, and then turned around at the last minute and admitted that it was filled with fictions cooked up by the writer. But they still aired it and billed it as a fact based program based on the 9/11 report (which contradicts many of the films scenes) and let many of the fictions stand as facts.
Nah, Lewinsky was nothing but a minor quibble.
Actually, the events they were complaining avout were not entirely made up, they combined several events into one, much like a movie based on a true story will sometimes combine several people. But then, that Reagan TV movie Peter mentions made up stuff out of whole cloth as well.
It floors me that people rush to defend the Democrats on this. Face it, they went the route of censorship. They decried Republicans for doing exactly the things they did.
i flew from belfast to scotland during the recent terrorist scare and was not allowed onto the plane with hand baggage. i had brought some sweets and a star trek novel, by none other than yourself, to read on the plane. i was disgusted that my sweets and book were confiscated by airport security. at first i thought it was a joke and made a retort about giving cabin crew a paper-cut which did not go down at all well. i was told that if i did not hand over the book/sweets i would not be allowed onto the plane. i asked if i could have an envelope and post the book back to myself but was told staff were too busy to comply so my book/sweets were thrown into a bin. i agree that airport security should be tightened but we must retain some common sense. i now have to track down another copy of the book as i was only 3 chapters into it. bloody terrorists!!!!!
BILL
I think ABC is perfectly within their rights to air their 9/11 mini-series, but if you’re going to label it a dramatization (meaning you can pretty much change anything) you should make it clear to the viewing public that what they’re watching is about as accurate as last week’s Different Strokes TV movie. If on the other hand, you’re trying to pretend that this is an accurate representation of real-life events, then maybe you should try to make them accurate.
And I’m not sure the Republicans have any moral high ground here, having applied enough political pressure to get the Reagan TV movie pulled, or at least consigned to a time and place that nobody would ever see it.
“Quick, kids. There’s some history. Let’s rewrite it.”
Oh yeah, as though it would be the first time.
When I brought my junior high history text home that first time, my parents (historians both) took a look through it and laughed a lot. They then dug up photocopies of period documents they’d amassed through part of their working lives and showed me just how inaccurate, or outright incorrect the text was. Not exactly reassuring. Texts from later grades weren’t quite as bad, but also needed a lot of work before they could be genuinely called “history” instead of “inspired by”.
“Quick, kids. There’s some history. Let’s rewrite it.”
Oh yeah, as though it would be the first time.
When I brought my junior high history text home that first time, my parents (historians both) took a look through it and laughed a lot. They then dug up photocopies of period documents they’d amassed through part of their working lives and showed me just how inaccurate, or outright incorrect the text was. Not exactly reassuring. Texts from later grades weren’t quite as bad, but also needed a lot of work before they could be genuinely called “history” instead of “inspired by”.
Sorry for the duplication. Something went awry in posting.
Billy, as for your airport experience? People will tell you “you should just put it with the ‘checked in’ luggage.” Feel free to then ask them “So tell me, when was the last time you had YOUR baggage go astray? Hmm? Never? Thought so. You might feel differently about not having carry-on otherwise.”
I kinda thought that the complaints were about all the scenes that were written to be 180 degrees from what really happened.
ABC said that this movie was based on the 9/11 report.
Which is amusing, because at least one 9/11 Commissioner said that the movie seems to be anything but based on their report.
I can understand the Republicans being upset about the Reagan biopic (although, let’s face it, they want to canonize him; nobody’s really talking about doing that to Clinton).
And if Rush Limbaugh basically says that this film will lay the proper blame at Clinton’s feet, then I can understand the Clinton administration being upset about it.
Even worse is that, unlike what I recall of CBS and their biopic of Reagan, ABC WANTS this film to change people’s perceptions of what lead to 9/11, even if it’s so farking wrong on so many levels.
It’s been a while back, but I had a copy of Stephanopoulis’ book about working in the West Wing, and he referred to Bill’s peckerdillos as “bimbo eruptions”, which I actually thought was kinda cute… There are a lot of reasons why both parties failed on the bin Laden end of things, not the least of which is the fact that Binladen Brothers construction and the Saudi royal family pump a hëll of a lot of money into the Republican party. Why do you think we didn’t go after the real base of operations for Al Queda? It’s in Riyadh, not Baghdad…
As for Bill and his fooling about, well, if he’d gotten what he wanted from Hillary, he wouldn’t have had to screw around. It’s not like he’s the only one who’s done this; every other president from Washington on down has had some sort of sexual shenanigans while in office, with Warren Harding, a Republican, being one of the worst. When he went up for reelection, the party put all eight or however many of his mistresses on a boat for an around the world cruise to get them out of the way, so that he could focus on the campaign.
The Dems have blown it, and blown it badly, of late. What we need is a really strong independent to run and win. And even though some of you will laugh, who we need is Jesse Ventura and Kinky Friedman. Those two kiss no áššëš, have no hidden agendas, and would work hard to get the country on the right track again.
But that’s just my tuppence worth.
Miles
“…except I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person could think that the harassment over Lewinsky didn’t impede Clinton’s effectiveness on any number of levels.”
Wow. I find myself feeling sort of disappointed in Peter David’s words. This has never happened before.
I can certainly agree that the partisan harrassment of Clinton likely hampered his effectiveness. We can only ponder what might have been accomplished during his presidency if the Republicans had cared to work together with Clinton for the greater public good.
But I am not aware of any factual evidence that Clinton’s job performance fell below the competent level on any policy issue, notwithstanding the Republican witch hunts that were launched against his administration from day one.
If you really want to make the argument that (due to his preoccupation with the Monica Lewinsky scandal) Clinton made specific screw-ups in his job as Commander in Chief, please cite facts. Mere speculation sometimes leads to misinformed or inaccurate revisionist nonsense.
“And I’m not sure the Republicans have any moral high ground here, having applied enough political pressure to get the Reagan TV movie pulled, or at least consigned to a time and place that nobody would ever see it.”
Well, no…but the problem is, neither do the Democrats.
“Wow. I find myself feeling sort of disappointed in Peter David’s words. This has never happened before.”
He states an opinion contrary to your own, which “disappoints” you? I find myself disagreeing with almost every political statement PAD makes, but I’m never disappointed. It’s his opinion, which is just contrary to mine.
“I can certainly agree that the partisan harrassment of Clinton likely hampered his effectiveness. [sic] But I am not aware of any factual evidence that Clinton’s job performance fell below the competent level on any policy issue”
So, in a world where the Lewinsky scandal never took place, every single one of Clinton’s decision would have been exactly, 100% the same? Wait, that first sentence of yours actually is what PAD said. So, why the argument?
“We can only ponder what might have been accomplished during his presidency if the Republicans had cared to work together with Clinton for the greater public good.”
A loaded statement, which depends completely on the subjectivity of one’s definition of “the greater public good.” Someone from the Right could make the same argument against Democrats. Social Security reform anyone?
“Mere speculation sometimes leads to misinformed or inaccurate revisionist nonsense.”
Heh. PAD is promoting inacurrate revisionist nonsense. Heh.
Has anything changed? No, I don’t think so. The overwhelming majority of people I know still are incapable of stepping outside of their own hardheld perceptions to consider other possiblities. How many people watch the news and ask themselves “How does an Iraqi/Palestinian/Talib/Chechnyan/Tamil/Isreali/ordinary Joe herding his sheep feel when the bombs fall/detonate/kill all he has ever known?” Empathy seems to be dead. The ability to consider the possiblity that we are wrong about anything vanished, if it ever existed.
I listen to people say things like I have been a conservative/liberal/Republican/Democrat all my life and wonder “How is that possible? Has nothing changed during your entire existance? Can you truly believe that one philosophy can address all the problems of humanity? The answer, for most people, is apparently “Yes”.
9/11 was monstrous but so was supporting a dictator and then bombing his people when he was no longer flavour of the month. If flying an airplane into a building is terrorism, what is dropping bombs from 30,000 feet? Some days, I just dispair. I used to say semi-jokingly “I love humanity; it’s people I can’t stand.” I no longer do. It is simply too close to the truth.
I hold out little hope for our species. If there is indeed an omniscient God who micromanages the universe, then frankly I think he should just delete this particular creation – we’ve been a disaster since the very beginning and only a God who revels in morbidity would allow the experiment to continue to play out.
That being said, I sympathize and mourn with all those who lost someone that day and more,with those who continue to suffer from its after-effects. My thoughts are with you all from my relatively safe haven up in Canada.
The Rev
First, someone sent me this link. The rest of you might want to check it out:
http://ragingblaze.homestead.com/remember.html
I’ve listened to an unabridged audiobook of AFTER, by Steven Brill, which is about life after the attacks of 9-11 and how life eventually did continue as it was — for better or worse.
I’ve read microfilms of newspapers, including the CHICAGO TRIBUNE for December 8, 1941. As some may remember, the TRIBUNE was an extremely anti-New Deal, anti-Roosevelt paper. (Those who think Clinton or Nixon were the most hated presidents of the 20th Century need to go back and read some of the vitriol aimed at Roosevelt.) The TRIBUNE for the first seven days of December 1941 were filled with accusations that Roosevelt was trying to involve us in a war that wasn’t the business of anyone in America. (A front-page editorial cartoon showed ships representing earlier wars wrecked on a reef, including one ship labeled “Wilson’s War.”) Isolationism was a good and wise policy for America.
Then came Pearl Harbor. And the TRIBUNE, in a front-page editorial, said it was time to cast aside doubts and suspicions, because we were at war.
Just as important, there was no attempt by the administration after 12-7-41 to point fingers at anyone. Instead of “We told you so,” the attitude was “Come and join us in this fight.” We were united.
That feeling lasted all too briefly after 9-11. In too many editorial pages, on too many talk shows, I saw liberals being blamed for what happened and told that such people should stay away from the “true Americans” supporting the President. Never mind that all but the most extreme liberals fervently supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Similarly, there were liberals who immediately decided the Bush administration knew in advance about the planned attacks and “allowed” them so all of the administration’s programs could find support.
And, then, when the invasion of Iraq was proposed, the divisions became wider as more people questioned Iraq’s involvement in 9-11. Depending on political preferences, we ended up dividing more than ever.
Yes, things changed, but things remained the same. Except, perhaps, the divisions intensified.
One of the disadvantages of having principles is that when you find yourself being true to them at the expense of one’s usual allies you don’t get any credit from your usual opponents while catching all kinds of hëll from your usual supporters.
So congrats to PAD for telling it like it is vis a vis the clumsy Democratic Party attempt to censor the miniseries. He’s being consistant, which is more then many others can say.
Personally I dislike it when they put words into the mouths of people who are still alive and can convincingly say that they said no such thing. I thought it was in poor taste to do it to the Reagans and it’s equally wrong to do it even to a scumbag like Sandy Berger. But it would be far worse to allow political parties to threaten, overtly or not, an entertainment company. So, as with The Reagans, I think the production company deserves criticism from anyone who feels they were malaigned (though they might want to be careful–if they REALLY wanted to make Clinton look like an ášš they could have portrayed the famous “ninja” quote. And Sandy should just be thankful they didn’t show him stuffing classified documents down his pants).
zIf it’s any consolation, I think the campaign against the show backfired. It would have simply been another low rated 9/11 show. Now folks are thinking about the 9 years Clinton had to do something about Al Qeada, which, frankly, is not to his advantage. (Unfairly, I think–it’s not as though terrorism was a major issue in the minds of most people, any more than the upcoming Big California Earthquake is. But when it happens watch for all the folks who will say something should have been done.).
This is probably the most important part of your post, Bill, which I highly agree with as a whole.
Everybody wants to play hindsight, when it’s pretty obvious that the Republicans during the Clinton Administration, who had control of Congress since 1994? weren’t doing much either.
And yeah, it’s pretty straight forward: the President is usually the one to take the blame, fairly or unfairly.
In this case, Clinton will never win on the issue of terrorism during his administration.
Either he is accused of ignoring terrorism (which he wasn’t), or if he did try and do something, he was merely trying to bring focus away from Lewinsky (which is absurd).
Even though, as Bill said, the country as a whole wasn’t concerned about fighting terrorism at the time.
I posted this on a few other sites. Please let me share it here as well.
We, University EMS in Newark N.J. just broadcast this at 8:45AM (authored by yours truly):
September 11 2006
“Five years ago today, this hour, this minute, we the people of the United States of America suffered an unprovoked attack in our best known metropolis.
Five years ago today, we the people of Emergency Medical Services across our country responded to that travesty to do what could be done to fight off death and alleviate suffering.
Five years ago today, as a result of that response, many of our Public Safety family were lost to this life.
In their honor, we must never forget this day.
In their honor, we must never forget their sacrifice.
In their honor, we must never forget the privilege we share in carrying on their legacy.
In their honor, we must simply never forget.
On this day of days University EMS in conjunction with many agencies will be observing a moment of respectful silence to mark that day of devastation and heroism.
Your patient care situation permitting, we invite you to join us.
God Bless America
God bless Dave LeMange, our fallen brother.
Never forget.”
******
From the EMS family, thanks for all your prayers and good wishes. May we NEVER be heroes again!
All I can say is that this about kills Clinton’s efforts to get re-elected in a couple years.
Bobb– that’s funny!
Me- 9 years??? Um, 8 years. Poly sci obviously not my forte.
I think this is the outcome when two things happen;
1. People expect Hollywood to make a show that puts all types of truth before ratings and sensationalism. TV is about making people watch your show, and controversy is alway a way to get viewers.
2. Expecting that your truth is the only truth. On both sides of the aisle there is plenty of blame to go around. Whether it is a black-faced Joe Leiberman, or a Willie Horton type ad. Both parties often forget we are supposed to be a people united, and not just partisian tribes.
It is sad that we forget the people who died in the 9/11 attacks, the Bombing of Pear Harbor, or the Battle of Little Big Horn, come from all sides of the political spectrum. But that is what America is Millions of disunited people United in our love for this country.
Someday to twist a phrase from two Presidents from both sides of the aisle, “Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country with malice towards none.”
Bobb from Irving, Texas
“who we need is Jesse Ventura and Kinky Friedman”
I’d vote for them fo no other reason to have President “The Body” in office
But then I also wanted Gore to win mainly so we’d have President Gooorrrre!!!!
JAC
What I find fascinating is the media’s insistence that we “remember” 9-11–as if we were in danger of forgetting. I keep thinking that there’s some sort of political motive behind this, to remind us why we’re fighting and to reduce the number of voices in dissent. Pretty soon, Bush will be reminding us that the events of 9-11 are why we must “stay the course.” And the democrats and republicans will be blaming one another for exploiting people’s vulnerability to achieve their own political ends.
PAD, I have to disagree. The world has changed because of 9/11. Instead of being a lame-duck president, GWB capitilized on 9/11 to promote whatever program he wants, from illegal wire tappings to the invasion of a certain country and the removal of a certain dictator from power. Huge change!
I’m surprised we haven’t heard the following from our president.
Bush: “I don’t think we should do this stem cell research.”
Reporter: “Why’s that, mister president?”
Bush: “9/11!”
Reporter: “Yes, I see now. Stem-cell research is bad.”
Random thread thoughts…
I do feel safer taking an airplane. Some of the security measures are foolish but overall I am happy that it has become more difficult to hijack an airplane. I also love how anyone who acts like a dìçk on or near an airplane is unceremoniously kicked off. Some of the worst behavior I’ve ever seen has been on airplanes. Nice to see it no longer tolerated. Almost makes me wish the terrorists would next attack the express lane at a supermarket.
Yeah, I feel a lot safer five years on, knowing that poorly-paid government workers are checking my toothpaste
I don’t know about everywhere but at some places these “poorly paid” workers make some pretty nice bread. I wouldn’t want the job because of the utter boredome involved but I don’t see too many help wanted signs there.
Even if you assume they are just protecting their old boss for political reasons, there’s no evidence that there was anything he could have done that he didn’t do to catch Bin Laden.
Oh there’s evidence. How definitive it is may be open to debate. Whether any of the plans would have actually worked is something we can’t answer.
Personally…I don’t find it terribly useful to worry about it. As Bobb pointed out, it isn’t like Clinton is running. If Hillary wins rest assured she will do anything to make sure that the “soft on terrorism” tag will not apply to her (3 years into Hillary’s term some people will be talking about the good old days of Bush multilateralism). From a a strategic point of view I think this was a foolish move by the DailyKos gang to make a big deal out of this–it allows Republicans to frame the argument in a way that helps them. I still think teh Democratic party will win big this November but not by as much as I once thought (And if they fail to take the house or senate I will not be as amazed as I would have been).
Watching Ðìçk Cheney on Meet the Press yesterday trotting out that old chestnut that the justification for, well, just about everything the Bush administration have done the past six years is the fact that we haven’t been hit by terrorists again. I’m not quite sure how you prove a negative, but I keep thinking it’s like saying the fact that American hasn’t been overrun by giant African killer bees is due to the Bush administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration. I know I’m exaggerating for effect here, but why are the Democrats not challenging the Republican administration on this issue? It’s infuriating.
Joe, if another attack happens–God forbid–the administration will catch hëll for it. Fairly or not. As long as it doesn’t happen they will get credit. Fairly or not.
One other point–it may be that there have been sevral attacks that have been thwarted and the Democrats know it. If they try to pretend that the admistration has done nothing those accounts may trickle out, making them look bad and the administration look good.
Face it, they went the route of censorship. They decried Republicans for doing exactly the things they did.
I seem to recall the NYT saying something to the effect that the scent of fascism was in the air. Haven’t seen the same level of concern in this instance.
but if you’re going to label it a dramatization (meaning you can pretty much change anything) you should make it clear to the viewing public that what they’re watching is about as accurate as last week’s Different Strokes TV movie.
Um, isn’t calling it a dramatization making that clear? As opposed to some of the factually challanged “documentaries” floating out there.
And I’m not sure the Republicans have any moral high ground here, having applied enough political pressure to get the Reagan TV movie pulled, or at least consigned to a time and place that nobody would ever see it.
“Nobody”? You’re breaking the heart of Showtime’s president. You can also get it on DVD. Getting an unedditted copy of the 9/11 miniseries may take some more work.
There are a lot of reasons why both parties failed on the bin Laden end of things, not the least of which is the fact that Binladen Brothers construction and the Saudi royal family pump a hëll of a lot of money into the Republican party. Why do you think we didn’t go after the real base of operations for Al Queda? It’s in Riyadh, not Baghdad…
How that’s a reason why “both” parties failed on the bin laden end of things escapes me. But it’s based on faulty logic. The Bin Laden family is not Osama Bin Laden. And I seriously doubt any amount of money his family has donated would stop Bush from grabbing him and parading him around in chains before the november elections. (I still think he’s dead and has been for a while. The CIA disagrees. We’ll see.).
As for Bill and his fooling about, well, if he’d gotten what he wanted from Hillary, he wouldn’t have had to screw around.
C’mon. That’s ridiculous. Don’t blame the victim.
Wow. I find myself feeling sort of disappointed in Peter David’s words. This has never happened before.
I can certainly agree that the partisan harrassment of Clinton likely hampered his effectiveness.
Well, that’s what he said, so why are you disapponted? It’s obvious to me that Clinton did not do everything he could have to combat terrorism. Neither did Bush, in his first 8 months. I’m less likely to call what the Republicans did “harassment” than PAD but there you go. I would also be less inclined to call anyone who disagrees with the notion “unreasonable”…Bill Clinton has said that the impeachment didn’t affect his ability to govern…ok, bad example but there ARE reasonable people who may disagree.
I hold out little hope for our species. If there is indeed an omniscient God who micromanages the universe, then frankly I think he should just delete this particular creation – we’ve been a disaster since the very beginning and only a God who revels in morbidity would allow the experiment to continue to play out.
This right after you bemoan our lack of empathy. Mixed meassages, Rev.
The Rev. Mr. Black: “I hold out little hope for our species.”
Rev, I’m afraid that sort of nihilism is nothing more nor less than an all-too-easy cop-out.
You’ve omitted the amazing acts of kindness that co-exist with the acts of barbarity our species commits.
Acts like those of Bill Gates, who is giving away huge chunks of his vast fortune to provide immunizations to children in underdeveloped nations, and who has vowed to give away the bulk of his fortune in such a fashion before he dies.
Acts like those of the U.S. Government and the U.S. citizens who donated large sums of money to aid the victims of the tsunami that ravaged Thailand in 2004.
Acts like those of the firefighters who sacrificed their lives on 9/11 in the service of strangers.
People engage in acts of kindness and generosity every day, in large and small ways. That you choose to ignore those acts doesn’t in any way mitigate their existence.
“I hold out little hope for our species.”
Rev, what you mean is that the fight is too much for you, the idea of trying and failing is too daunting, and thus you’d rather give up on our species. Sorry, but that won’t absolve you of anything. Each and every one of us in some way, big or small, can and will have an impact on humanity’s ultimate fate.
A passage from the lyrics to the song “Freewill” by Rush sums it up nicely:
“If you choose not to decide / You still have made a choice.”
Do I feel safer than September 10? No. But I was oblivious to the danger.
Do I feel safer than September 12?
Yes, yes I do.
As for The Path to 9/11, I thought it was fair. It wasn’t really about Clinton anyway.
I did find it odd that for years I’ve been hearing that because of a stupid oral sex thing, the Congressional Republicans distracted Clinton from dealing with terrorism, and now, hearing “No, no distraction.”
That said, while everyone made mistakes, hindsight is 20/20. We have an American tendency to believe the best, and we have Presidents distracted by 10,000 things.
I wish they had stopped this, and it was possible, but something slips through eventually. If we had stopped it, it is odd how we never would have really known the scope of what it was. Never really felt it. So many times things almost happen and we never really how bad it would been if it did happen
My condolences to any who lost a loved one on 9/11. I mourn for all of you.
Oh there’s evidence. How definitive it is may be open to debate. Whether any of the plans would have actually worked is something we can’t answer.
Care to point this evidence out? And that Monica Lewinsky was at least part of the reason why such actions were insufficient and/or failed?
Even if you assume they are just protecting their old boss for political reasons, there’s no evidence that there was anything he could have done that he didn’t do to catch Bin Laden.
****
Sure there is. In the 9/11 Report, it clearly idetifies 3-5 times that it might have been possible to kill Bin Laden, but we chose not to for one reason or another (and one time, we tipped off Pakistan that tipped off Al Quaeda, apparently) There are geo political reasons why not, but they happened. THere was confusion among people whether they could kill or just capture knowing he would be killed in the capture.
There was also the decision that attacks on our embassies and the harboring of Bin Laden did not jsutify bombing the Taliban
There were reasons that were in good faith at the time, but choices were made.
This isn’t politics. Just history.
At any rate, I felt the controversy was overblown. The movie was good and factual from what i could see. Bureacratic bumbling occurred. It goes pretty high up. But it wasn’t purposeful. THe movie is about the terrorists and our people in the field more than anything.
Tonight, it will be Bush’s peoples turn to feel uncomfortable.
But the screwups go back to Carter’s day, at least.
By the early hours of the morning of August 20, President Clinton and all his principal advisers had agreed to strike Bin Ladin camps in Afghanistan near Khowst,as well as hitting al Shifa.The President took the Sudanese tannery off the target list because he saw little point in killing uninvolved people without doing significant harm to Bin Ladin. The principal with the most qualms regarding al Shifa was Attorney General Reno. She expressed concern about attacking two Muslim countries at the same time. Looking back, she said that she felt the “premise kept shifting.”45 Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles.
Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed.Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours.Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin.46 The air strikes marked the climax of an intense 48-hour period in which Berger notified congressional leaders, the principals called their foreign counterparts,
and President Clinton flew back from his vacation on Martha’s Vine-yard to address the nation from the Oval Office. The President spoke to the congressional leadership from Air Force One,and he called British Prime Minister
Tony Blair,Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif,and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from the White House.47 House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott initially supported the President.The next month, Gingrich’s office dismissed the cruise missile attacks as “pinpricks.”48 At the time,President Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal,which continued to consume public attention for the rest of that year and the first months of 1999. As it happened, a popular 1997 movie, Wag the Dog, features a
118 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
president who fakes a war to distract public attention from a domestic scandal. Some Republicans in Congress raised questions about the timing of the strikes. Berger was particularly rankled by an editorial in the Economist that said that only the future would tell whether the U.S. missile strikes had “created 10,000 new fanatics where there would have been none.”49 Much public commentary turned immediately to scalding criticism that the action was too aggressive. The Sudanese denied that al Shifa produced nerve gas, and they allowed journalists to visit what was left of a seemingly harmless facility.President Clinton,Vice President Gore,Berger,Tenet,and Clarke insisted to us that their judgment was right, pointing to the soil sample
evidence.No independent evidence has emerged to corroborate the CIA’s assessment.50 Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton’s problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President
saying to him “that they were going to get crap either way,so they should do the right thing.”51 All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations.We have found no reason to question
their statements. The failure of the strikes, the “wag the dog” slur, the intense partisanship of the period,and the nature of the al Shifa evidence likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against Bin Ladin. Berger told us that he did not feel any sense of constraint.52
In July 1999, President Clinton authorized the CIA to work with several governments to capture Bin Ladin, and extended the scope of efforts to Bin Ladin’s principal lieutenants.The President reportedly also authorized a covert action under carefully limited circumstances which, if successful, would have resulted in Bin Ladin’s death.189 Attorney General Reno again expressed concerns
on policy grounds. She was worried about the danger of retaliation.
Qaeda was in pre-attack mode, perhaps again involving Abu Hafs the Mauritanian.
On June 25, at Clarke’s request, Berger convened the Small Group in his office to discuss the alert, Bin Ladin’s WMD programs, and his location. “Should we pre-empt by attacking UBL facilities?”Clarke urged Berger to ask his colleagues.182 In his handwritten notes on the meeting paper,Berger jotted down the presence
of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility,which could mean 60–65 casualties. Berger noted the possible “slight impact” on Bin Ladin and added, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”183 The NSC staff raised the option of waiting until after a terrorist attack, and then retaliating, including possible strikes on the Taliban. But Clarke observed that Bin Ladin would probably empty his camps after an attack.184The military route seemed to have reached a dead end. In December 1999, Clarke urged Berger to ask the principals to ask themselves:“Why have there been no real options lately for direct US military action?”185There are no notes recording whether the question was discussed or,if it was,how it was answered.
Kandahar, May 1999 It was in Kandahar that perhaps the last, and most likely the best, opportunity arose for targeting Bin Ladin with cruise missiles before 9/11. In May 1999, CIA assets in Afghanistan reported on Bin Ladin’s location in and around Kandahar
over the course of five days and nights.The reporting was very detailed and came from several sources. If this intelligence was not “actionable,” working-level officials said at the time and today,it was hard for them to imagine
how any intelligence on Bin Ladin in Afghanistan would meet the standard.
Communications were good,and the cruise missiles were ready.“This was in our strike zone,” a senior military officer said. “It was a fat pitch, a home run.”He expected the missiles to fly.When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said,“we all just slumped.” He told us he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad gamble. Bin Ladin “should have been a dead man” that night, he said.173 Working-level CIA officials agreed.While there was a conflicting intelligence
report about Bin Ladin’s whereabouts,the experts discounted it.At the time, CIA working-level officials were told by their managers that the strikes were not ordered because the military doubted the intelligence and worried about collateral damage.Replying to a frustrated colleague in the field,the Bin Ladin unit chief wrote:“having a chance to get [Bin Ladin] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry…. [T]he DCI finds himself alone at the table, with the other princip[als] basically saying
‘we’ll go along with your decision Mr. Director,’ and implicitly saying that the Agency will hang alone if the attack doesn’t get Bin Ladin.”174 But the military
officer quoted earlier recalled that the Pentagon had been willing to act. He told us that Clarke informed him and others that Tenet assessed the chance of the intelligence being accurate as 50–50.This officer believed that Tenet’s assessment was the key to the decision.175
Again, not blaming Clinton. There were reasons they did what they did, and not what they didn’t do. And, like Iraq showed, intelligence is never 100%.
So it is okay for Democrats to demand censorship? CBS shouldn’t have caved in for the Reagans, neither should ABC cave in this matter.
CBS did cave; ABC didn’t. Who gives a freak. And this was a made for television docudrama – not a freakin’ documentary – and any normal person should have been watching the Manning Bowl on NBC.
And yes, I feel safer. We have overthrown two terrorist sponsored states in Iraq and Afghanistan. Libya also gave up their evil ways.
Like 2001, we still have issues with Iran and North Korea among others that we will eventually face. There are people out there that want to kill us because we do not accept their belief system. Whether or not you want to perceive that is up to you.
-bh
And Sandy should just be thankful they didn’t show him stuffing classified documents down his pants).
hopefully that tale has been put to bed by now.
Berger’s already plead guilty removing copies of classified documents. thought apparently they were in his jacket pocket not his pants pockets.
according to the National Archives, the originals were never removed.
just for fun, i’m going to quote Bill O’Reilly on this. O’Reilly said, “I want to stay away from the speculation. But even so, he’s not going to cover up anything because the 9-11 Commission had access to all of the original documents. They were going to see what Berger saw, whether he took these copies out or not.”
the 9/11 commission has also stated that no documents were missing.
Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department’s public integrity section also says that only copies were removed.
i realize you were making a joke and i’m not accusing you of misrepresenting this Bill, but it does seem that a lot of people still don’t know the truth on this one.
“CBS did cave; ABC didn’t.”
Hmmmm… and which party controls the FCC and broadcast licenses in each case?
CBS made the republican’s “God” look bad, ABC made the most recent democratic president look bad. Funny how the controlling party got their movie pulled…
Me- Oh there’s evidence. How definitive it is may be open to debate. Whether any of the plans would have actually worked is something we can’t answer.
Blaine-Care to point this evidence out? And that Monica Lewinsky was at least part of the reason why such actions were insufficient and/or failed?
Blaine, you’re kind of moving the goalposts here. Originally you just said Even if you assume they are just protecting their old boss for political reasons, there’s no evidence that there was anything he could have done that he didn’t do to catch Bin Laden.
There’s no way anyone will ever prove that the Lewinsky mess was affecting Clinton’s mind because none of us are mind readers. Clinton says it didn’t. You can think he’s lying or accept it but there is nothing you can do to prove either case.
Now, as to the evidence–there are the claims by former U.S. ambassador to Sudan Tim Carney that he and others had negotiated a deal with the Sudanese to deliver Bin Laden and the USA turned it down. This has been denied by Clinton officials and by Clinton himself. As there has been, to my knowledge, no proof either way it seems to me that one must give Clinton the benefit of the doubt here. I don’t subscribe to the theory, popular among both Clinton and Bush haters, that one must always assume the worst of politicians one dislikes, until proven otherwise.
Spiderrob does a good job of listing other situations (but I wish there were references for those who want to check–are these from wikipedia?). I note with approval that he does not claim Clinton was influenced by the Bin Laden family or some other conspiracy nonsense.
CBS did cave; ABC didn’t.
I thought that parts did get editted out.
Indestructableman–I was joking, yeah, but let’s not reduce the severity of what berger did– (from wkipedia– On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for taking as many as fifty classified documents, in October 2003, from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were commissioned from Richard Clarke about the Clinton administration’s handling of terrorist threats. When initially questioned, Berger claimed that the removal of top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets was accidental. He would later, in a guilty plea, admit to deliberately removing materials and then cutting them up with scissors. Some suggested that Berger’s removal of the documents constituted theft and moreover had serious national security implications, while others claimed that the documents taken were only drafts and all were flattering to Clinton and Berger (relating to the failed 2000 millennium attack plots). Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department’s public integrity section, asserted that the documents Berger removed were only copies, and government sources have said that no original material was taken. [1]
The document theft raised questions about whether Mr. Berger was attempting to cover up the Clinton administration’s anti-terrorism policies and actions. The records he took were related to internal assessments of the Clinton administration’s handling of the terrorist threat in December 1999 to bomb airports in the United States. [2]
According to the Wall Street Journal, “After a long investigation, however, Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn’t exactly know how to return the documents once he’d taken them out…We called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. ‘There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals,’ said Mr. Hillman. ‘There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission.'”[3]
Yet it remains unclear exactly what was removed from the National Archives. “What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation’s most sensitive secrets?” House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said. [4]
>It’s five years later. Anyone feeling safer?
Let me play the Dave Sim card on this: Do I *feel* safer? No. Do I *think* I’m safer? Yes. Ignorance was bliss.
I know a heck of a lot more now about the holes you could have driven a fertilizer-filled truck through back in 2001, and about the ones you still could drive one through today. Unnerves me, doesn’t make me feel safe, etc. But I also know that we’ve plugged (or at least made smaller) many of those holes, and found and dealt with ones that we didn’t know about before.
Safe, no. Safer, yes. But only when I give it conscious thought.
But I don’t attribute “safer” to anything specific by the current administration or anyone in it (nor to the previous one). An ideology doesn’t get credit for the changes, since 98% of them would have happened no matter who was President (and I include 9/11 in that).
PAD, got the e-mail, thanks, sorry for the pestering! Yeah, I definitely think your AOL account is filtering out e-mails too heavily.
Jim–good post.
Here’s something that will hopefully cheer everyone up–somecongressional nitwit, giving a speech that was supposed to commemorate 9/11, decided to get political and got booed for it. Good. Ðámņ good.
http://www.sungazette.net/articles/2006/09/11/arlington/news/nws868.txt
Right/left, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, I hope any politician that uses this day to try to rip on their opposition gets the same treatment.
Easy to give up on the species? Too daunting? Perhaps. Yes, there are exceptional people, people of true courage and selflessness, people willing to die for strangers. But, you see, they are exceptional.
You cannot, obviously, know anything about me but I am not one who as lived my life indifferent to others. I have often found hope in places that I did not expect.
What grinds me down is what I see as the casual indifference, even meanness, in daily interactions. People seem to chose to treat people badly when it would be just as easy to treat them nicely. Few people seem to want to provide the social lubrication needed for civilisation to function, let alone survive. Giving up to easily? Perhaps. But when you put the kite in the air a thousand times and it falls to the ground a thousand times, you start to believe that it will never soar.
The Rev
For the record, I don’t believe in a God who micromanages the universe. The boredom would drive him to suicide.
Rev. You’re hanging out with the wrong people.
Blaine, you’re kind of moving the goalposts here. Originally you just said Even if you assume they are just protecting their old boss for political reasons, there’s no evidence that there was anything he could have done that he didn’t do to catch Bin Laden.
No moving of the goalposts. I’m not saying that he couldn’t have killed/done something Bin Laden. I replied to PAD when he said he wasn’t as effective in dealing with Bin Laden BECAUSE of Monica Lewinsky. If you don’t think he did all he could about BL, fine, I don’t care. I have seen no evidence that that happened because of his “little” scandal though, which was the original claim being discussed.
Bill Myers –
Acts like those of Bill Gates
Bill Gates, philanthropist. LOL.
It’s all his wife, you know. 😉