Friday, September 08, 2006

Dems doth protest too much, methinks

Well, it sure looks like ABC struck a nerve with their 9-11 miniseries.

Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and other congressional lefties—in addition to Bill Clinton’s barking lapdogs—are out in force, throwing their weight around, bullying, intimidating and stabbing fingers into chests like they’ve got something to hide.

These Washington tough guys are giving Tony Soprano’s crew a run for their money.

Perhaps, after all their attacks on President Bush, the soft-on-terror Dems are worried that their chicken’s come home to roost?

After all, lefties have complained for years that the Bush administration missed an opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora back in 2001, while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge their own failed efforts in offing bin Laden during Clinton's tenure.

"People in both parties didn't particularly like the commission report, and I think people in both parties aren't going to love this one," former New Jersey Gov. and 9/11 Commission co-chair Tom Kean said about the ABC miniseries.

According to Kean: “The basic fact is that on a number of occasions, [The Clinton administration] thought they might have been able to get bin Laden, and on those occasions, the plug was pulled for various reasons.”

Dems don't want Americans to know this. This is why they are pulling out all the stops in their efforts to can ABC's 9/11 miniseries.

Aside from one scene involving former NSA advisor Sandy Berger hanging up a phone and refusing to authorize American and Afghan operatives to take out Osama bin Laden, the movie does apparently offer a balanced version of events.

Berger wrote Disney’s Bob Iger earlier this week and said, "no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it...complete fabrications." Sandy Berger, heck, wasn’t he the guy caught stuffing documents from the National Archives into his pants? Isn’t that a felony? Hot Hands Berger ought to be voicing his protestations to Mr. Iger behind bars.

Dems prefer to point fingers at Bush. They lay all the blame at his feet, while jumping into bed with the security saboteurs over at the ACLU and New York Times. These are the good people working night and day to undermine our national security. But, try as they may, they cannot sweep the Clinton administration's own documented failures with bin Laden and al Qaeda under the rug.

As pointed out in Investors Business Daily:

"[The] first missed chance to capture or kill bin Laden came in February 1998, when "Clinton's aides scuttled a CIA plot that had been eight months in the planning to kidnap Osama." The plan would have used Afghan tribesman to capture the al-Qaida leader for a later trial in the U.S.

Believe it or don't, Clinton's aides worried that bin Laden might be killed in the process, making it look like a political assassination.

According to the 9-11 commission report, they were worried of "recriminations" in the event "that bin Laden, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive."

The second chance came on Aug. 20, 1998, in the famous "wag the dog" attack at the height of le affaire Lewinsky, when cruise missiles were actually fired at a bin Laden encampment in Afghanistan. The problem was that Clinton ordered that the Pakistanis be told of the attack, lest they think it was an attack from India.

The news was leaked, and bin Laden dodged our bullets.

The final missed chance came in May 1999 when the CIA reported bin Laden would be in Kandahar, Afghanistan. As the 9-11 commission report said: "If this intelligence was not 'actionable,' working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence could meet that standard."

Now might also be a good time to point readers of this blog to this video.