I disagree. Freedom of speech must prevail, and those who speak untruths will be exposed, unfortunately it takes time. The type of people who put this movie together have been with us for thousands of years. They have rewritten history dating back to Biblical times, up and through the early days of American history and are now busy at work attempting to repoint the blame for failures that cause people to kill themselves and others flying airplanes into buildings. They are the same people who have made Africans “slaves” and called the American Natives “dumb savages, ” they also produced the Colin Powell presentation at the UN on Feb.5, 2003.
These people are everywhere, they are part of our society and they always have an agenda. They think with the other side of the brain, the side that ignores truth and fact, the side that embraces “belief” and “gut” through the repetition of falsehoods at the expense of others. Timing is key, they are not dumb.
The movie is said to focus most of its attention on the Clinton administration and their activity to destroy Al-Quada or kill bin Laden. Without seeing the movie and relying on historical fact one can safely speculate that the Bush Administration has only a bit part because, President Bush was completely oblivious to the middle-east pre-911 and was not engaged in any activity whatsoever to confront bin laden or his movement. Bush’s absence of activity here, to carry on where Clinton left off is the real story. But how do you film absence?
Kathleen Parker:
The 9/11 Commission determined that Clinton’s 1998 missile attack was not, after all, a wag-the-dog attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal. But the commissioners also said that the intense partisanship of the time, “likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Laden.”
It’s real easy to say that now about Clinton’s missile attack. What is more important was how we felt then. I clearly remember discussing the missile attack at my family dinner table and I too thought Clinton was really stretching here, that he was willing to do anything to divert attention, and I am a Democrat. The Republicans and some Democrats wondered aloud why the president is chasing some unknown raghead by the name of bin Laden. While politicians, newspapers and the television media blitzed the public about Clinton’s affair, they belittled his decision to bomb some two-bit outfit called the Taliban. The worst information I heard about the Taliban at the time was their destruction of Buddist monuments in the mountains of Afghanistan.
In the late 90’s, Americans viewed this entire episode to strike at bin Laden as non-sense, because the press declared it was. Protecting their own, now the commissioners can say this partisanship had an effect on future (Bush) decisions to use force? But during 1998 in real time, the partisanship to impeachment was to be ignored by Clinton? The 9/11 commission report amounts to an opinion report if not a travesty as the movie will probably show, but that doesn’t stop those from rewriting history because after five years, few know the truth and for their own reason, keep it to themselves.
The movie "The Path to 9/11" chose the 1993 WTC bombing as a starting point for the "path". Since the 1993 bombing failed to accomplish what the airplanes did in 2001, it was the 9/11 terror plot of its day. How can the years before the 1993 bombing largely be ignored?
22 comments:
There is no doubt about the fact that the terrorist menace grew and became increasingly obvious during the Clinton administration. To note just a few highlights:
* January 25, 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Virginia, killing two CIA employees.
* February 26, 1993: Islamic terrorists try to bring down the World Trade Center with car bombs. They failed to destroy the buildings, but killed 6 and injured over 1000 people.
* March 12, 1993: Car bombings in Mumbai, India leave 257 dead and 1,400 others injured.
* July 18, 1994: Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, kills 86 and wounds 300. The bombing is generally attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran.
* July 19, 1994: Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 is bombed, killing 21. Generally attributed to Hezbollah.
* July 26, 1994: The Israeli Embassy is attacked in London, and a Jewish charity is also car-bombed, wounding 20. The attacks are attributed to Hezbollah.
* December 11, 1994: A bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. It develops that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for the larger terrorist attack he is planning.
* December 24, 1994: In a preview of September 11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who planned to crash the plane in Paris.
* January 6, 1995: Operation Bojinka, an Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean, is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after a fire occurred in the apartment. Noted terrorists including Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are involved in the plot.
* June 14—June 19, 1995: The Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, in which 105 civilians and 25 Russian troops were killed following an attack by Chechan Islamists.
* July—October, 1995: Bombings in France by Islamic terrorists led by Khaled Kelkal kill eight and injure more than 100.
* November 13, 1995: Bombing of OPM-SANG building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 7
* November 19, 1995: Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan kills 19.
* January 1996: In Kizlyar, 350 Chechen Islamists took 3,000 hostages in a hospital. The attempt to free them killed 65 civilians and soldiers.
* February 25 - March 4, 1996: A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 60 dead and 284 wounded within 10 days.
* June 11, 1996: A bomb explodes on a train traveling on the Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line of the Moscow Metro, killing four and unjuring at least 12.
* June 25, 1996: The Khobar Towers bombing, carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian support. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed and 372 wounded.
* February 24, 1997: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from several countries. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".
* November 17, 1997: Massacre in Luxor, Egypt, in which Islamist gunmen attack tourists, killing 62 people.
* January 1998: Wandhama Massacre - 24 Kashmiri Pandits are massacred by Pakistan-backed Islamists in the city of Wandhama in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
* February 14, 1998: Bombings by Islamic Jihadi groups at an election rally in the Indian city of Coimbatore kill about 60 people.
* August 7, 1998: Al Qaeda bombs U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.
* August 31 – September 22, 1998: Russian apartment bombings kill about 300 people, leading Russia into Second Chechen War.
* December 1998: Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb American and Israeli tourists in Jordan, and arrest 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.
* December 14, 1998: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.
* December 24, 1998: Indian Airlines Flight 814 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi, India is hijacked by Islamic terrorists. One passenger is killed and some hostages are released. After negotiations between the Taliban and the Indian government, the last of the remaining hostages on board Flight 814 are released in exchange for release of 4 terrorists.
* January 2000: The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.
* August 8, 2000: A bomb exploded at an underpass in Pushkin Square in Moscow, killing 11 people and wounding more than 90.
* August 17, 2000: Two bombs exploded in a shopping center in Riga, Latvia, injuring 35 people.
* October 12, 2000: AL Qaeda bombs USS Cole with explosive-laden speedboat, killing 17 US sailors and wounding 40, off the port coast of Aden, Yemen.
Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.
However Path to 9/11 portrays the Clinton administration, it can be no worse than the reality.
That long list of achievements by terrorists was handed to George W. Bush when he took office. With a new beginning and a fresh outlook, what did he do with all the warnings?
It's so easy to say things now about who is to blame. Were you jumping up and down on Sept.10th, 2001 warning people at the WTC they are about to die?
The path to 9-11 originally began during the time of King David, if ABC/Disney claim it started during the 20th century, they are spreading propaganda.
That long list looks like a global war was taking place, not one solely directed at the U.S.
What the hell are we doing in Iraq?
The Iraq war was done because the UN had sanctions against Iraq. Saddam failed to comply for 12 years. The United States had to do enforce the UN resolution against Iraq.
I watched the first part of the movie and it was real interesting on how we actually took the terror attacks as a police situation instead of a national security threat. All the legal b.s we have to jump through to get these guys that want to attack us. To blame Bush for his 8 months in office compared to Clinton's 8 years in office while doing nothing about terrorism is laughable. That's what the liberal democrats are good at pointing fingers and not taking responsibility for their own actions.
The movie showed that the Clinton Administration was fully engaged nearly to the point of obsession with bin Laden. During that time, our Republican led Congress was obsessed with the Monica scandal and was fully engaged in its efforts to impeach Clinton. In hindsight, THAT was laughable.
Once Bush took office, he was not only absent from middle-east/bin Laden concerns, he was in the process of dismantling the progress and efforts already accomplished by Clinton's team.
The apparent message of this movie seems to promote the idea that our Constitution ties our hands in the war against terrorism. There were at least six different times in the movie that showed failures ocurred because of the cumbersome bureaucracy. Its a bogus argument because "Time" isn't a concern with warrants when FISA rules permit eavesdropping activity so long as warrants are applied for afterwards. The difference between the Bush way and the legal way is - the legal way leaves a trail.
If they tell a judge, "We're spying on Hillary - she might be helping Al Qaeda," the FISA judge says, "I refuse to allow you to spy on your political enemies," so they bypass the warrants so there's no proof of identification on who they're watching, snooping and listening in on.
The biggest disappointment in the movie is the premise that the plans of 9/11 began with the first bombing of the WTC. When in truth, those wanting to punish infidels, modernity and the West began hundreds of years ago.
To anonymous 6:00 am
Since when is it the U.S job to enforce the laws of a different entity onto another country. UN Resolutions enforcement is the responsibility of the UN, whether we agree with it or not. Our military must never be used to enforce the laws of other governmental bodies or non-US constitutions.
The UN never sanctioned the Bush request to invade Iraq. Afterwards, Bush deemed it irrelevant and unilaterally decided to invade.
Bush abused his war powers and should be held accountable.
It was a very interesting movie I thought. It showed flaws in the government and how we deal with people that don't care about innocence or freedom. They fear freedom and they do it in the name of Islam. These people are out to try and destroy our way of life. It's a shame that the tradgedy happened and how it lead up to the disaster. An interesting part was where the northern alliance in Afganistan and the CIA had Bin Laden in their sights and we couldn't do anything to him. Another point in the movie was interesting was where we were getting ready to bomb a safehouse where Bin Laden was know to be and we were going to send over cruise missiles to take him out. But, we were to worried about what other countries thought and we sent them a heads up that we were going to strike. This got through to Bin Laden loyalists and he left the building that was struck in Sudan. Maybe the previous administration was actively seeking Bin Laden and terrorism but, they seemed like it wasn't as serious as it actually was. They were more concerend about how other people in the world would view us and not what we should do to protect the American people. The wall that was built between the government agencies really hurt our efforts. There is plenty of blame to go around in BOTH administrations. I just hope we actually learned something about the way these people operate. We need to win this war against terrorism and we need to come together as Americans and work together to rid these Islamic extremists from existance. We can point fingers until we are blue in the face but, that isn't going to do anything to help our cause. These bastards laugh at us the way we operate. They use our policies against us. They use our media to promote THEIR cause.
I would agree with most of what 8:48 AM anonymous wrote providing that those encounters with bin Laden happened as the movie dramatized it did.
Although the WTC attack in 1993 happened after one month of Clinton's inauguration, it never attained the impact 9/11 achieved regarding the mandate that is necessary to go after the perpetrators.
The only thing that kicked Bush into action was the full collapse of the towers. That's the sad part. Had he made bin Laden an obsession like he did with Saddam, he may have gotten him before 9/11. Of course, it may not have mattered, but it's the principle that counts.
I would rather not point fingers, but other people keep bringing up the past in Clinton, and the only fair response is to bring up the present in Bush.
I believe their is a right way and a wrong way to battle this enemy, if we come together doing it the wrong way, we all lose together. That's not good enough. We can't expect a victorious plan of action to defeat this kind of enemy from any one man, president or his advisors.
Our enemies in the past were relatively easy to locate because they had a country. I think our country needs to form a collective body of leaders dedicated to form a cohesive plan of action to defeat the anti-west aggression that is taught to Muslim children everyday. We can tell our children to "never forget", while in their own culture, the Islamic militants are telling their children the same thing. We've got to reach the Muslim women first somehow, but not with bombs or bullets.
Muslim woman have no say in the muslim community let alone a terrorist state. I don't see how talking to these terrorists is going to help anything.
TO ANONOMOUS 1:06 A.M
It's the rresponsibility of the UN to INFORCE the laws that they place upon a country. Iraq was sanctioned in 1991 at the end of the Gulf war to comply with the UN. They didn't. I agree we shouldn't have to enforce the UN sanctions. The UN should actually have the strength and integrity to enforce it's own sanctions and rules. They had 12 years to comply with the sanctions. Looking in hindsight I can now see why the UN didn't enforce the sanctions as they should. It was because of oil for food scandal going on in the security council. They were making money hand over fist with Saddam. Why ruin a good thing?
Dropping more bombs and bullets will only spur more attacks by acting as a motivator and incubator for radical jihadi terrorism. The last thing the terrorists want are liberal democrats in power. Bush and his kind keep the fires burning. bin Laden came out with videos and statements to instill fear right before the Bush elections in 2004. They are doing it again to get the same results. Sound crazy?
They would love to have liberal democrats in power again. They had it made setting up terrorist training camps where ever they pleased. Bin Laden wasn't on the run. Life was good for terrorists when democrats were in power.
The years before 1993 weren't really that important to us. The bombings of the world trade center in 1993 was on our soil. It showed us that we were targets on our soil.
The years before 1993 weren't important to us!! If those towers fell in 1993 like the bombers expected them to, the years leading up to it are more important than the years in between 1993 and 2001. If you agree 9/11 was an extension of 1993, then the anger leading up to it really came to a head in the generation of terrorists previous to 1993.
Putting low priority on pre-1993 is a big mistake, and one of the reasons why we don't really know who we're dealing with.
You are just making excuses for the Clinton administration that wasn't focused on national security.
I guess a cabal of terrorists suddenly appeared from out of nowhere in February of 93' and out of the blue they decided to bomb the WTC.
To the contrary, ignoring pre-93 is a good reason to blame Clinton.
Meanwhile the Bush administration says "Osama's no big deal. He's just one guy,
killing or capturing him won't make that much of a difference,"
To...
"If Bill Clinton would have killed or captured Bin Laden when
he had the chance 9-11 never would have happened?"
So, which is it?
It's hard to figure out what the Bush supporters want.
If the Bush administration gets Bin Laden you lefties are going to come up with some sort of excuse. 9/11 wouldn't have happened without the financial backing of Bin Laden. He bank rolled the operation. I'm not sure where you get your information but, I have never heard the Bush administration saying that Bin Laden is no big deal. That's just liberal B.S.
Funny you should mention bin Laden.
The latest report out says the Saudi's(Bush friends) think bin Laden was dead a month ago and released a report on Sept.4th. Bush came out on the 5th with a long rambling speech warning Americans about Al Quaeda and reminding us of bin Ladens goals, AS IF HE WERE DEAD. IF Bush knew he was dead, why does he want to keep the bin Laden legacy alive?
He doesn't know if he's dead or not. That's nonsense. If he was dead I'm sure Presdient Bush would say that he was dead. Come on us some common sense. What purpose would President Bush have in keeping Bin Laden's death a secret?
Oddly again just today, the No.2 man in al-Quada released another video tape. Why not bin Laden?
Bush might not know for sure about bin Laden, but if he was told from very reliable sources that he is dead, Bush probably would want absolute proof before he tells the public. In the meantime, Bush will keep reminding us of bin Laden and echoing his words, knowing there's a good chance that he may be dead. Ask him why?
Post a Comment