Recall
the time that President-elect Clinton came to Washington
in 1992 to meet with the House Democratic chairmen,
and future 9/11 Commission co-chair
Lee Hamilton said, "Well, Mr. President, we have China. Whatever you do on
China, you're only going to please half the people. Then, there's Saddam
Hussein—" Clinton cut him off and answered, "Lee, I've been traveling
around our country for a year and no one cares about foreign policy other
than about six journalists."
Among the Clintonites objecting to the mini-series are
Madeleine Albright and Sandy "Socks" Berger. Aside from Albright's fight to ally us with al Qaeda
in the Balkans (which the mini-series doesn't get into), here is a reminder
of how serious Albright was about national security: After it was brought
to her attention that lax security at the State Department left it crawling
with spies posing as journalists, Albright joked at a press conference, "If
anyone here is a spy, please raise your hand." Meanwhile, about North Korean
Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun, Albright had this to say: "I must say the
Foreign Minister was very nice....We had not spoken to each other. He did
tell me, however, that I looked younger this year."
And here is what a foreign policy press briefing sounded like during the Clinton
administration. White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart, at Camp David in
2000:
The president,
the two leaders, and their delegations—somewhere
around 40 people—had dinner together in the Laurel Cabin.
The president, Prime Minister Barak, and Chairman Arafat
sat at one table with about 15 or so of their aides. Secretary
of State Albright hosted another table. National Security
Adviser Berger hosted the third table, filling out the room.
They dined on tenderloin of beef with sun-dried tomatoes,
fillet of salmon with Thai curry sauce, roast baby Yukon
potatoes, steamed green beans with almonds, a mixed garden
salad, fresh fruit, and assorted desserts.
That pretty much sums up foreign policy under Bill Clinton.
If the Clintonites' complaint is that "Path" portrays their administration
as incompetent, they should keep in mind that the truth is much worse — and
be grateful that the film's implications stop where they do. The much uglier
reality is that the administration — from Clinton to Albright to Berger — hadn't
even any interest in being competent. As I outlined here in 2002, for eight years the words "national security" weren't
uttered, except in the context of AIDS. Clinton didn't answer terrorism, but
boy was he tough on that AIDS. (He has since extended the classification "national
security threat" to climate change, which he and his former vice president
tout as a greater threat than terrorism.)
One wonders what Bill Clinton even needed a security adviser
for. To advise him on which brand of condoms was safest?
(Just kidding — Clinton doesn't
use condoms, according to Gennifer Flowers.)
When blaming Bush is the order of the day, it's understandable
how this mini-series could be considered "controversial." A
Cox and Forkum cartoon last week said
it best: a CAIR representative yells, "Stop associating 9/11 with Islam!" A
Democratic Donkey brays: "And don't blame Clinton!" And an incensed peacenik
concludes, "Bush did it!"
But three days before the fall of Baghdad, Uday Hussein
had this to say to Iraqi television: "This time I think
the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton."
Recall that Clinton's biggest public frustration surrounding 9/11 was that
he didn't have a bigger role playing grief counselor to the nation, and he
repeatedly stated how much better he'd be at dealing with the disaster. (Though
he didn't even bother visiting the World Trade Center after the first attack
in 1993.) In other words, the regret wasn't that the disaster happened, but
that he wasn't in charge when it did.
Despite outward appearances to the historically shallow,
George Bush works to prevent death. Bill Clinton, with
his non-confrontational approach to
foreign policy — from North Korea to Israel-Palestine to terrorism against
America to allying us with al Qaeda in Bosnia and Kosovo — did everything
to enable it.
I understand what the Clintonites must be feeling right
now — a heretofore
alien sense of powerlessness and lack of control, as potential disinformation
is proliferated and planted in the public mind. Welcome to the club, Clinton
et al. Now you know how it feels to be Republican. How do you like the shoe
on the other foot?
The glaring difference, of course, is that — unlike the way show business
turns truth on its ear in portraying conservatives, "The Path to 9/11" conveys
the essence of the truth. Individual facts that have been objected to — such
as who said what, and where he was when he said it — are consolidated
and altered out of dramatic necessity. As political cartoonist Allen Forkum writes, "If it's essentially accurate in the required summation
and fictionalization of events, then the movie should stand whether the particulars
match history or not. 'Fake but accurate' is not an acceptable standard for
journalism, but it is absolutely necessary for art. And this is a movie not
a documentary." CRO
This piece first appeared at JewishWorldReview.com
The America Show
