I am watching Pathway tonight.

Why?  Because the Democrats tell me not to.

The question of the hour is:  Is it biased against Clinton unfairly?  In order to be so, it must falsely give the impression that Clinton was inept and did not miss chances to get Bin Ladin.

But…

Is that untrue?  Or, is there other documented proof that Clinton had a chance to get Osama and did not, as the movie suggests?  If so, then the Demoratic complaints are just a smoke screen to protect the reputation of their ideal president.

You decide.  Courtesy of Sister Toldjah and Ann Althouse , here are some clips and testimonies to consider.  And please note that the movie does not paint Bush any better.   But the left is only concerned with Clinton’s reputation. 

They claim they want to protect the truth.  The truth is, they are afraid of it.

First up, the Main Stram Media and Clinton’s record on OBL:

Next, Clinton damned by is own words, though he would later claim this was a misquote.

Micheal Schuer, the CIA operative mentioned in the 9-11 Commission’s report (named “Mike”) says in this video:

“His [OBL’s] innards, sir, should be splattered all over the desert of southern Afghanistan. There’s no reason why Osama bin Laden is alive today except President Clinton and his national security advisors refused to press the button.”

And finally, Col. Buzz Patterson, USAF Retired, and carrier of the ‘nuclear football’ during the Clinton admin from 1996-1998, from his book Dereliction of Duty via Flopping Aces:

The White House Situation Room was buzzing. It was fall 1998 and the National Security Council (NSC) and the “intelligence community” were tracking the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the shadowy mastermind of terrorist attacks on American targets overseas. “They’ve successfully triangulated his location,” yelled a “sit Room” watch stander. We’ve got him.”

Beneath the West Wing of the White House, behind a vaulted steel door, the Sit Room staff sprang into action. The watch officer notified National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, “Sir, we’ve located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike.”

Characteristic of the Clinton Administration, the weapons of choice would be Tomahawk missiles. No penetrating bombers or high-speed fighter aircraft flown by our Air Force and Navy forces. No risk of losing American lives.

Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the President. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk crews were ready. For about an hour Berger couldn’t get the commander-in-chief on the line. Though the President was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was shomehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient.

Finally, the President accepted Berger’s call. There was discussion, there were pauses- and no decision. The President wanted to talk with his secretaries of defense and state. He wanted to study the issue further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The president evenutally called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching the clock.

The NSC watch officer was convinced we had the right target. The intelligence sources were conclusive. The President, however, wanted a guaranteed hit or nothing at all.

This time, it was nothing at all. We didn’t pull the trigger. We “studied” the issue until it was too late- the window of opportunity closed. Al-Qaeda’s spiritual andorganizational leader slipped through the noose.

This lost bin Laden hit typified the Clinton Administration’s ambivalent, indecisive way of dealing with terrorism. Ideologically, the Clinton Administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the Administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for “show” than for honestly eliminating a threat.

The lesson we should have learned from this whole period of history was that in regard to terrorism, we didn’t take it as seriously as we should have in the Clinton Years, nor in the years before and after, leading up to 911.

And sometimes, to me, it seems the Democrats want to return to a happy go lucky pre 9/11 mentality, and not take the present threat seriously either.

Regardless, the movie does not misrepresent Clinton at all, it shows him as exactly what he was:  Ineffective and distracted by his mixed up priorities and personal whims.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS