« Our Weakness is Iran's Strength | Main | On Refusal To Assimilate - 'Female Muslim Teacher In Netherlands Dismissed For RefusIng To Shake Hands With Men' »

September 8, 2006

Hugh Hewitt's ''Why Does the Left Hate "The Path to 9/11"?'' - And Other Things The Left Doesn't Want You To Know

[Click image for more info - unrelated to Hewitt's article, but a reminder of part of the story that the Left doesn't want publicized]

The Democratic Left is "disturbed" (to put it lightly) over "The Path to 9/11", but truth often hurts - especially when it's close to election time, which is of great importance to those who place power, money, and influence over national security!

Which is why it's important that Hugh Hewitt helps explain why the Left is very unhappy about the upcoming ABC series:

On Sunday and Monday nights at 8 PM, ABC will air a five hour mini-series, "The Path to 9/11." I have watched it, and it is a riveting and in some respects horrifying recreation of the events from the hours before the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 through the awful events of 9/11. Rarely does television reach this level of drama, and director David Cunningham and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh deserve great praise from left, right and center for a masterful retelling of the crucial events leading up to the devastation of five years ago.

A five hour show that must condense eight years by necessity will not be complete, but it is very accurate. As a very accurate docudrama, "The Path to 9/11" has drawn the deep anger of the Clinton political machine. Representatives of that era have been demanding at a minimum edits and some outright cancellation of the program. Monica Lewinsky makes an appearance, you see, as does Bill Clinton's videotaped testimony about his perjury. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is portrayed as indecisive, Madeleine Albright as misdirected, George Tenet as sputtering. The film does not spare the Bush Administration its shots either, but for the left in the US the most damning thing possible is a recounting of the deep slumber concerning al Qaeda that overcame not just President Clinton but all parts of the national security apparatus throughout the '90s. The film does not damn those in charge during those years. It does however deliver a indictment of criminal negligence from which there is simply no escape.

By attempting a programming coup against the series, the Clinton forces have brought enormous attention to the film, and for that I thank them. The program is not primarily about the Clinton stewardship --or lack thereof-- of the national security. It is not even secondarily about that.

Rather the mini-series is the first attempt --very successful-- to convey to American television viewers what we are up against: The fanaticism, the maniacal evil, the energy and the genius for mayhem of the enemy.

In the self-serving complaints about this scene or that take delivered by Richard Ben-Veniste and other proxies are replayed again the deadly narcissisms of the'90s. The program's great faults are --they say-- in the inaccurate portrayal of Bill Clinton and his furrowed brow and continual efforts to track down bin Laden.

It is all about them, you see. Just as it was in the '90s. To hell with O'Neill or the victims of 9/11, and forget about the worldwide menace that continues to nurse its hatred, though now from caves and not compounds.

Not a word from these critics about the program's greatest strength, which is in the accurate rendering of the enemy, and the warning it might give about the need for continual vigilance.

And about the image: Years before the public knew about bin Laden, Bill Clinton did. Bin Laden first attacked Americans during Clinton's presidential transition in December, 1992. He struck again at the World Trade Center in February, 1993. Over the next eight years the arch-terrorist's attacks would escalate, killing hundreds and wounding thousands--while the FBI and CIA feuded, and Clinton failed to wage a real war on terror.

Posted by Richard at September 8, 2006 11:43 AM