Thursday, September 14, 2006

Democrats offer fallacious arguments

I've been told that the film "Path to 9/11" is a "concoction of lies that ignores the 9/11 Commission Report."

I disagree, it has been shown to follow that report to a T.

First, ABC withdrew the controversial scenes. They were not aired. The only remaining scene that was not withdrawn was the one line from Clinton's own mouth: "I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."

Even the scenes they cut were very close to the 9/11 Commission Report. That is a fact. The only so-called revisions to history that the filmmaker made were not the things that were said (like the one scene where it was said that they would not apprehend Bin Laden, for whatever bogus reason), but who in the Clinton administration that actually said it. The scene had Sandy Berger saying it (the same Sandy Berger who was convicted of stealing classified terror documents from a reading room of the National Archives prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission), when in real life it was another administration official. Big deal, that certainly falls within the realm of cinematic license, the facts are objectively still true, the only subjective part is who said them. The important fact is that Clinton had opportunities to apprehend Bin Laden, and did not. I myself do not fault him for that, because hindsight is 20/20, but it is a fact, and the idea that the Democrats want to hide that fact is fallacious.

What is not necessarily certain to me, is how many true facts actually exist in the 9/11 Report, or more likely, how many omissions were purposefully left out, or to what degree that incident in the National Archives played a role in shaping the output of the 9/11 Commission (and who sent Sandy Berger in there to change 'history'). One thing is glaringly true: Clinton did nothing to stem the upcoming security threats posed by terrorism. Even after the '93 WTC bombing, he did nothing. Bush is the only president to do something about terrorism. And the left vilifies him for it. The world is becoming inverted to normalcy.

How can Bush be blamed for 9/11? I say both administrations did little up to that point, and more blame must rest squarely on Clinton's shoulders, because measures to prevent terrorism must be planned very far in advance to be effective. Bush was only in office 8 months, not much time to do something at that point, but he has surely made up for it in the mean time! It is time for the D's to stop playing politics and to reunite behind all Americans in the common defense.


Post a Comment

<< Home