Thursday, September 07, 2006

The Path to 9/11 Update

When I posted on this docudrama earlier this week I knew it was creating controversy but things have really picked up steam. Every liberal in the known Universe is having panic attacks over this. There is controversy about whether ABC is bowing to pressure by the Clintons and actually editing the movie. Hugh Hewitt says that some changes have been made but that none of them are significant. The Los Angeles Times had this to say:
"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."

Now obviously it is irritating that ABC is doing any editing to appease the Clintonistas but it looks like so far the changes are minor. The liberals are declaring all out war on this so I would recommend sending ABC an email thanking them for airing this.

Dean Barnett who posts on Hugh Hewitt's blog commented today on why he thought the controversy surrounding all of this matters. He says that Bush wasn't that great on terrorism before 9/11 but that he was continuing the Clinton administration's policies. The difference is that once 9/11 happened Bush made drastic changes whereas the Democrats of today are still wanting to apply the pre-9/11 policies of the Clinton Administration. Here are some excerpts:
"After 9/11, the Bush Administration changed. Immediately. Beginning on the day of the attacks, Bush announced a bold new principle saying that the United States would not distinguish between terrorists and the regimes that gave them safe harbor. This meant the Taliban’s days in power were numbered.

From Afghanistan to Iraq to CIA detention cells to Gitmo, the administration has waged an active and aggressive war against Radical Islam. Many of the administration’s actions have been unpopular. Some have left elements of our own population gobsmacked and crippled with heartache. But the following is undeniable: The post-9/11 Bush Administration is an entirely different entity than its pre-9/11 incarnation.

THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID of the Democrats or the left in general. In the past five years, the left has vigorously protested aspects of the war with Radical Islam that have not been to its liking. From Abu Ghraib to water-boarding to Iraq to the way Donald Rumsfeld parts his hair, the left has been lamentably outspoken in expressing its unhappiness about what it considers to be the administration’s shortcomings.

But the left has introduced no ideas of its own on how to fight this war. The Democratic candidate for Senator in Pennsylvania said on Sunday that his “plan” is to double the amount of Special Forces troops (as if doing so could be done with just the wave of a Senator’s wand). But he declines to identify precisely what those newly minted Special Forces will actually do. Probably because he himself doesn’t know.

In 2004, John Kerry ran for President without offering any specific areas where he differed from the current administration. He would stay the course in Iraq he said, but promised to conduct a “more sensitive war on terror,” whatever that meant. In the not too distant past, Howard Dean disowned his party's responsibility to actually outline policies, saying doing so was the exclusive province of the party in power.

It came as no small matter of symbolism that while President Bush was giving a major address yesterday outlining concrete things his administration was doing and would do to safeguard the country, the Democratic caucus in the Senate was having a highly organized hissy-fit just to demonstrate how much they disliked Donald Rumsfeld. Again, it’s the same old tune. Bush is doing things and proposing other things to do; the Democrats just complain.

The sad fact is, from the Clinton Administration to the present day, the Democratic Party has been intellectually bankrupt when it comes to fighting terror. Strangled by their peace-at-any-price caucus and their overarching concern for political correctness, they haven’t come up with a single idea in a decade of how to fight this war.

AND THAT’S WHY THE “PATH TO 9/11” rubs salt in an old wound for them. Even though the current Democratic Party has long since parted ways with Bill Clinton philosophically in most areas of significance (e.g. free trade), when it comes to terrorism the continuum between the Clinton Administration and his Democrat descendants remains clear and intact.

For ten years, the Democrats’ policy has been to treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter – wait until a terrorist crime occurs, and then hunt down the terrorist criminals responsible for the act. This model sort of worked with the 1993 WTC bombing; the terrorists killed a few people, and were then brought to justice like any common killer would have been. The fact that their criminal enterprise attempted to kill 100,000 people and nearly succeeded didn’t dent the Democrats’ worldview.

But 9/11 changed everone else’s world view. It became apparent to most of America that we had to kill the would-be criminals before they actually became criminals. To most Americans, this was disquieting but a common sense necessity.

But the left never escaped its previous mindset. Liberals remain exactly where they were 10 years ago; desirous of a policy that waits for a terrorist act and then lets law enforcement mop up the aftermath.

The fact that people are talking about the Democrats’ attitude towards terrorism is horrifically damaging to the Democratic Party. There is, however, a way out for the Democrats. Truly, it would be best for the country and their party if they could arrive at a clearly articulated policy about what they would like to do, rather than simply loudly express primal emotions about how much they detest their domestic political opposition.

Alas, that’s all they have. And this controversy brings their intellectually bankrupt status into the open

I couldn't have said it any better!!

No comments: