ABC Mini-series - Path to 9/11

[The Chief]

September 10 and 11 ABC will air the Mini-series "Path to 9/11"

Those that have attended a pre-screening of the series say it is honest, accurate and very well done.

One scene that is said to be very moving is when the CIA and the Northern Alliance have Bin Laden surrounded in a house, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, refused to give them permission to capture him, afraid of the fall out in the Arab world.

Highly recommend.:icon_rage :icon_rage

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Wasn't Sandy Berger's initial claim to fame campaigning for the US to just let the Khmer Rouge take over? Because they were just a bunch of nice little nationalists, and the US was the real bad guys for supporting the junta in power??

He and John Deutsch may be two of the most indefensible appointments to senior positions in the postwar era.

 

[thenuge]

I can’t tell if this is really supposed to be a thread about the mini series or if it is a facade to bash democrats involved, although I'm sure it will become clear by page two.

 

[MasterBates]

I view it as a Pansy-Bashing thread, but if you take that to mean Democrats, fine with me.

 

[thenuge]

I can’t tell if this is really supposed to be a thread about the mini series or if it is a facade to bash democrats involved, although I'm sure it will become clear by page two.

or by the fourth post...:icon_duck

 

[MasterBates]

Glad to help.

 

[Brett327]

I can’t tell if this is really supposed to be a thread about the mini series or if it is a facade to bash democrats involved, although I'm sure it will become clear by page two.

With very few exceptions, it is right to bash the Democrats at every possible opportunity - especially WRT the Clinton admin's endless parade of foreign policy blunders. Sure, one could argue the merits of the war in Iraq, but Clinton just had one F-up after another x 8 years.

Brett

 

[dodge]

Should be interesting. I'll be watching.

One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24042

 

[thenuge]

I'm, not a Democrat but, come on. And, to my original point- it is now clear
This brings up something I have been curious about. So, you can’t talk sh!t about the President while he is in the chain of command, but you can talk sh!t after he leaves office? Or is that only acceptable when talking about former Democratic leadership? Seriously, there seems to be more tolerance when one bad-mouths a Dem, when it should be technically as unethical as when one talks stool about a Rep. It does not bother me except that there is a double standard.

I repeat, I am not a Democrat.

from Master Bates : I view it as a Pansy-Bashing thread, but if you take that to mean Democrats, fine with me.

The Pansy-Bashing statement brings up another question I have. More of the Democrats have worn the uniform and actually fought in battle than any of the Republicans who strike me as a bunch a fortunate sons (I know many of the Dems are too). So, Max Cleland is a “Pansy” I suppose while Dick Cheney, an expert in draft deferments, is “strong on defense” and defender of freedom? Seriously, I don’t get it. As a serviceman I always took offense to that. Men who fought are now “Pansies” or "Girlie-men" while men who found any possible way not to fight are what, “brave”? Rick Santorum is one badd@$$ MF, too. Would someone please explain this to me.

To get back to the thread, I will watch the mini series-

 

[MasterBates]

Pasy-Bashing is just that. It just happens that I have seen MORE pansy's on the D side of the aisle. There are some on the R side as well.

FWIW, I am a "Realistic Libertarian" who usually votes republican.

 

[Brett327]

So, you can’t talk sh!t about the President while he is in the chain of command, but you can talk sh!t after he leaves office?

Yep, pretty much. The only reason it seems disproportionate to you is because Clinton is the only former President which most people on here remember. For the record, both Reagan and Bush 41 did some pretty boneheaded moves WRT foreign policy, but Carter was a complete cluster fvck. All sides are fair game for critique or ridicule, as the cast may be, when their tenure is up, but active CinCs are another story.

Brett

 

[HighDimension]

Yep, pretty much. The only reason it seems disproportionate to you is because Clinton is the only former President which most people on here remember.

Brett

I was almost 2 years old when Reagan left office

 

[HercDriver]

Rick Santorum is one badd@$$ MF, too. Would someone please explain this to me.

Easy: Rick Santorum's hands are registered as deadly weapons in New Jersey and two boroughs of NY; his hair is, in fact, covered in enough gel to deflect the blow from a police baton, and he has used his beautiful pearly-whites to bite off the nose of a waitress who brought him an incorrect order at the Jersey City TGIFridays.

And his last name is now a euphemism for something to do with badd@$$ (or at least with @$$e$ in general), as well.

I read all of this on the 'net.

 

[squorch2]

Oops.

One scene that is said to be very moving is when the CIA and the Northern Alliance have Bin Laden surrounded in a house, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, refused to give them permission to capture him, afraid of the fall out in the Arab world.

Highly recommend.:icon_rage :icon_rage

from http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030922-090026-8355r.htm:
"Mr. Miniter also alleges that in the spring and summer of 1998 the Clinton administration was deadlocked over the decision to conduct a special forces mission near a bin Laden camp. Mr. Miniter suggests that the president did not want to overrule Pentagon concerns over risks because he could not "stomach sending thousands of troops into harm's way." Mr. Clinton was, in fact, ready and willing to undertake a special forces or other paramilitary assault on bin Laden, particularly after our missile attacks on bin Laden in the summer of 1998, and often pressed his senior military advisers for options. But Mr. Clinton's top military and intelligence advisers concluded that a commando raid was likely to be a failure, given the potential for detection, in the absence of reliable, predictive intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts.
Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda. As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden."

 

[Brett327]

from http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030922-090026-8355r.htm:
"Mr. Miniter also alleges that in the spring and summer of 1998 the Clinton administration was deadlocked over the decision to conduct a special forces mission near a bin Laden camp. Mr. Miniter suggests that the president did not want to overrule Pentagon concerns over risks because he could not "stomach sending thousands of troops into harm's way." Mr. Clinton was, in fact, ready and willing to undertake a special forces or other paramilitary assault on bin Laden, particularly after our missile attacks on bin Laden in the summer of 1998, and often pressed his senior military advisers for options. But Mr. Clinton's top military and intelligence advisers concluded that a commando raid was likely to be a failure, given the potential for detection, in the absence of reliable, predictive intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts.
Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda. As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden."

Just finished a couple of Robert Baer books and the above account of Clinton and his NSC staff doesn't square with what Bob has to say - pretty horrifying really. By his recounting, the Clinton admin's approach to terrorism was to put their heads in the sand. Nice work, Mr. President.

Brett