The Path to 9/11: Clinton Officials STILL On Same Self-Obsessed Path

"The Path to 9/11" is a five-hour dramatization laying out the history of the Sept. 11 plot from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.  It is being be aired over two nights on the anniversary of the attack by ABC Television.

The movie reportedly notes lapses by the Clinton administration that may have contributed to 9/11, along with a few missed opportunities by the Bush White House.

Now the Clinton administration is up in arms about the movie, claiming it to be inaccurate.  Samuel "Sandy Pants" Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time -- and who was caught removing documents from the national archives by stuffing them in his pants -- calls the scenes involving him "complete fabrications."   

Berger and other former Clinton administration officials of course have reason to be embarrassed about having missed some opportunities to stop Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before it was too late.  And something must have embarrassed Berger a great deal for him to have knowingly smuggled classified documents out of the national archives.

If anything, the denials of responsibility by former members of the Clinton Administration only convince me further that the Clintonistas are still on the "path to 9/11," figuratively speaking. 

They are still vastly more concerned with themselves and their own personal political fortunes than they are with the mortal threat to America from Islamic terrorists.

They are still self-obsessed today, just as they were demonstrably self-obsessed before 9/11.  Clinton's abuse of the Oval Office for personasl encounters with Monica Lewinsky is just one of the many forms of embarrassing proof of that point.

Self-obsession is hardly conducive to protection of our national security.  Everything becomes a political calculation.  Threats are not considered seriously, extent to the extent that they have political implications, such as a "wag the dog" opportunity.  Do you remember the Afghanistan "Monica missiles," perfectly timed to distract from embarrassing deposition and grand jury testimony involving Bill Clinton's Lewinsky coverup?:

The cruise missile attack came three days after President Clinton, in a deposition with Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s legal team, finally admitted he had had an “inappropriate” relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton gave a brief television address on August 17 during which he seemed nearly out of control with rage. Lewinsky was returning to the grand jury for additional testimony on the day that Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan — giving rise to the nickname “Monica’s Missiles” for the attacks.

That Sandy "Pants" Berger is allowed to speak any public words on behalf of the former Clinton administration today, after having been convicted of stuffing classified national records about 9/11 into his pants and even destroying some of those records, shows you just how shameless the former Clinton administration was and is when it comes to matters of honesty, and how little value it places on truth and accuracy. 

When you want people to believe what you're saying, you don't put forward someone who has pled guilty to a crime of dishonesty (unauthorized removal and retention of classified material).

In fact, the former Clinton administration modus operandi -- to deny and attempt to cover up anything embarrassing, is still in full swing at this late date.  Members of the Democratic Underground are seeking to distort the historical record by "Google bombing" The Path to 9/11 (that is, attempting to dominate the first several pages of Google and Technorati search results about the movie). 

The protests of The Path to 9/11 from former members of the Clinton administration should be ignored as predictable, self-serving, and untrustworthy.

Besides, we know how we got to 9/11, if you really think about it.

Most Americans, not just its leaders, underestimated the threat from Islamic terrorists.  The Clinton White House took weak and ineffectual steps in response to repeated provocation.  And the Bush White House did not immediately launch a war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban upon taking office (there was no immediate known threat and certainly no national consensus to take dramatic action prior to 9/11). 

What history will ultimately judge us all for is not how we failed to adequately anticipate 9/11.  What it will judge us all for is what were are doing about Islamic terrorism today, now that we know the mortal threat we face.

Are you supporting America, it's president, and all decent, civilized nations in their attempts to stop Islamic terrorism, or are you seeking to undermine them at every turn for your own immediate political or economic advantage? 

Are you offering constructive suggestions and practical help in the war on terror, or are you engaging in pointless negativity? 

Are you lobbying on behalf of the soldiers who are fighting the terrorists, or on behalf of the terrorists?  Are you more concerned about how terrorists are doing at Guantanamo than you are about U.S. soldiers, including those facing court martial for one reason or another?  Have you already excused the terrorist while convicting the soldier?

Do you act as if you love your own country, or are you adding your voice to the forces trying to tear your nation apart from inside and outside?

Answer questions like these wisely and well, and the Path to 9/11 won't matter so much.  It will be left in history, and our future will be bright.  Answer these questions poorly, and history will convict us all.

__________________________

Like this?  Take a moment to Digg it.

Update 9/8/06:

Update 9/9/06:  Recommended reading, laying out the evidence that the Clinton administration had several chances to kill Osama Bin Laden and chose not to: Dennis Byrne, Clinton's Artless Equivocation on 'The Path to 9/11'