ABC Mini-series - Path to 9/11

[pourts]

Yeah, because re-aligning bases that were aimed at Cold War threats makes no sense whatsoever.

I will not further this BRAC argument, because I don't think it holds much weight (i.e. squorch is correct here). Far more detrimental was the cannibalization of the Intel agencies and their budgets/ assets that occurred during Clinton's watch.

In defense of the intel agencies, it was incredibly difficult for these agencies to prevent this or any particular attack with a high level of trade craft (like 9/11). That is why a fundamental shift from a "law enforcement" strategy to a "war on terrorism" strategy (however inappropriately named since terrorism is merely a tactic) had to occur.

The bottom line is that Clinton had many chances to get bin Laden, who had attacked the US several times (our ships, embassies, and home soil). Clinton's chances to get UBL in Sudan and Afghan were better than anything Bush had once he came into office, especially after the start of OEF--because SUPRISE was lost. Getting bin Laden before 9/11 was much easier than getting him after.

But, Clinton governed by opinion polls. This caused him to be very popular, but also led him to neglect issues most Americans were not concerned with. By no means is Clinton "responsible" for 9/11, but he was in the best position to prevent it, and it was his responsibility to do so.

 

[thenuge]

...But, Clinton governed by opinion polls.

Some govern by polls, others govern on behalf of the invisible man in the sky. It just depends on what your management style is. I don't judge, I just observe.

This caused him to be very popular, but also led him to neglect issues most Americans were not concerned with.

Like what? Gay marriage, Stem Cells, Teri Schiavo's life and death, overhauling social security, rejecting cheaper prescription drugs for Americans? Things like that?

 

[pourts]

Like what? Gay marriage, Stem Cells, Teri Schiavo's life and death, overhauling social security, rejecting cheaper prescription drugs for Americans? Things like that?

Not sure if I catch your drift. Maybe the problem was my awkward double negative. While the public may only be concerned with the hot issue right now, theoretically their elected representatives should not be as myopic.

 

[thenuge]

I was just trying to stir the pot a little. I was being sarcastic

 

[Flash]

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

Why the rage? Who is to say this really happened? As a matter of fact, there is nothing factual to support this or several other of the scenes that are played out in the mini-series (ABC is looking at possibly editing them before it airs) . I am in full agreement that the Clinton administration fumbled on how to deal with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda but this mini-series potrays several incidents that probably did not happen.

As for the force that would have gone in and killed or captured Bin Laden, it was a native force from Afghanistan and not US personnel. The reliability of the personnel was questioned from the start and the plan was scrapped because those concerns were never resolved. While Afghan militiamen are fierce fighters many lack the discipline that professional military forces do. Who is to say they would have followed the plan to the letter? Cladestine actions like this can get messy when dealing with third-country nationals who are not under your direct control. Anyone remeber the Bay of Pigs? How abotu the original Muhajadein in Afghansitan from the 80's?

Finally, there are plenty of screw-ups in every administration for everyone to take potshots at. What about us allowing widespread looting after the fall of Baghdad? Allowing Ansar al-Islam to fester next to the Kurds we were supporting? WMD in Iraq? I can list many more if you want, for every modern administration.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

What about us allowing widespread looting after the fall of Baghdad? Allowing Ansar al-Islam to fester next to the Kurds we were supporting? WMD in Iraq? I can list many more if you want, for every modern administration.

What about it? It's not like these issues aren't discussed, examined, and soul-searched by the mainstream media ad nauseum. You say you agree Clinton dropped the ball... where's the insightful, retrospective special reports saying "this is how Clinton screwed up and this is how we can avoid being so complacent in the future"?? It's not like there's any shortage of ammunition to hit him with there, give how little he payed attention to national security issues. Billy Boy has gotten a free pass, and that's where the rage comes from.

 

[squorch2]

Billy Boy has gotten a free pass, and that's where the rage comes from.

Ah yes, the free ride of Clinton's entire time in office... I forgot about how everyone in the press rolled over.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/sep1998/sud-s02.shtml

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_1998_Dec/ai_53260533

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/archives/1998/980821.atc.html

http://www.wpb.be/lalkar/lalkar09/0906.htm

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A13FD395B0C738EDDA90994DD404482 (gotta pay, but there's a free abstract)

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/sudbous.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n24_v115/ai_21154870

If I had access to Lexis-Nexis I could get you more articles, but this should do for now.

 

[Flash]

What about it? It's not like these issues aren't discussed, examined, and soul-searched by the mainstream media ad nauseum. You say you agree Clinton dropped the ball... where's the insightful, retrospective special reports saying "this is how Clinton screwed up and this is how we can avoid being so complacent in the future"?? It's not like there's any shortage of ammunition to hit him with there, give how little he payed attention to national security issues. Billy Boy has gotten a free pass, and that's where the rage comes from.

I agree that Clinton and his administration did not do enough to try and go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda but hindsight is 20/20. However, I doubt that any administration; Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, would have gone after Bin Laden and other terrorists with the focus and force that was needed, there were simply more important things to do when it came to national security and international affairs. What did the Bush administration do after it came to power in 2001 about Bin Laden, before 9/11? The same amount that the Clinton administration had done. What did we do to Hezbollah after they bombed the Marine barracks and the US Embassy in Beruit? The Marine barracks bombing was the worst terrorist act inflicted on the US before 9/11, and yet we did nothing but pull out of Lebanon. The priorities were elsewhere for everyone, simple as that. As a matter of fact, can you even tell me the worst terrorist attack committed before 9/11?

The reason I asked about your supposed rage is that the scenes that you supposedly get so mad about are made up, pure fiction. For a mini-series to claim that it is trying to present itself as being as truthful as possible it is a serious flaw. If the writer of the series has this to say about it then I thnk it can be argued that he has an agenda:

"This miniseries is not just about the tragedy and events of 9/11, it dramatizes "how we got there" going back 8 years to the first attack on the WTC and dealing with the Al Qaeda strikes against U.S. embassies and forces in the 90s, the political lead-up, the hatching of the terrorist plots, etc.....It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so. We also reveal the day-by-day lead-up of clues and opportunities in 2001 right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865

How the hell is it suppose to be a history lesson if it 'dramatizes' things for effect? What it does is portray a distorted view of history, doing no good for anyone. That is what gets me riled up (as a History major)........:icon_rage

 

[gregsivers]

On the note of not doing anything after the Marine barracks bombing, how about not doing anything after the attack on the USS Cole? Attacking a US warship is pretty much an act of war, far as I see it. Send in the FBI, that seems like a good response. Anyway, I digress.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

What did the Bush administration do after it came to power in 2001 about Bin Laden, before 9/11?

You're so right! Clinton may have been bad in his 8 years... but Bush should have undone it all in his first 8 months!!

Excellent logic!!

 

[Flash]

You're so right! Clinton may have been bad in his 8 years... but Bush should have undone it all in his first 8 months!!

Excellent logic!!

Well, they didn't do anything do much in that 8 months, their concerns were elsewhere. As were almost everyone else's who was in power up to that point. Show me something the Bush administration did before 9/11 against Al Qaeda. It took just over a month for Kabul to fall.......

Plus, wasn't they just following the example of previous administrations? Tit for tat strikes, if any response at all?

 

[Flash]

On the note of not doing anything after the Marine barracks bombing, how about not doing anything after the attack on the USS Cole? Attacking a US warship is pretty much an act of war, far as I see it. Send in the FBI, that seems like a good response. Anyway, I digress.

What did Reagan do after the Marine barracks bombing? We pulled the Marines out of Lebanon and Hezbollah is now a state within a state in Lebanon. Both were ineffectual responses to terrorist acts. I don't see how one reaction was better than the other.

Plus, wouldn't you want some experts to try and figure out how the bombing was done? Why not send in some professional investigators?

 

[squorch2]

On the note of not doing anything after the Marine barracks bombing, how about not doing anything after the attack on the USS Cole? Attacking a US warship is pretty much an act of war, far as I see it. Send in the FBI, that seems like a good response. Anyway, I digress.

The Cole bombing occurred on Oct 12, 2000. GWB was sworn in about 3 months later. There was a Predator strike on two of the suspected planners in November 2002. In September 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced two of the planners to death for their role in the bombing, along with numerous others to prison sentences.

How much faster can you move? Unless you'd like to start carpet bombing Yemen, even though non-state actors, by definition, can't commit "acts of war."

 

[Flash]

On the note of not doing anything after the Marine barracks bombing, how about not doing anything after the attack on the USS Cole? Attacking a US warship is pretty much an act of war, far as I see it. Send in the FBI, that seems like a good response. Anyway, I digress.

What the hell do you call killing 241 servicemen and 19 other US citizens in two Beruit Embassy bombings?

 

[gregsivers]

What the hell do you call killing 241 servicemen and 19 other US citizens in two Beruit Embassy bombings?

I agree with you. I think its an act of war as well and think we should've done something more as well. I wasn't just trying to slam Clinton with that post.