WHY IS ABC HOLDING BACK THE DVD ON PATH TO 9/11? AND WHY WAS KATHLEEN WILLEY’S HOUSE ROBBED? BECAUSE THE CLINTONS CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH
WHY IS ABC HOLDING BACK THE DVD ON PATH TO 9/11? AND WHY WAS KATHLEEN WILLEY’S HOUSEROBBED? BECAUSE THE CLINTONS CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH
By
Ken Eliasberg
The Path to 9/11 was a docudrama that was written and produced by Cyrus Nowrasteh for ABC. As its name indicates, it purported to deal with events leading up to 9/11, and it aired, after much fanfare and opposition from the left, in general, and the Clintons and Harry Reid and some of his worried colleagues in particular, on September 10th and 11th of 2006. The reason the film gathered such an opposition following was that it painted a less than flattering (but accurate, I strongly suspect) picture of the Clinton’s pursuit (or, more accurately, the nonpursuit) of Osama bin Laden. You may recall that Bill Clinton recently reminded us of his “obsession” with capturing Osama; unfortunately, he was much less successful in pursuing this particular obsession than he was in pursuing his many other obsessions—ah, luck of the draw, I guess. Thongs might have been different if the object of his obsession was named Osamette.
As noted, the Clintons and their acolytes did all that they could to prevent the film from airing, threatening ABC with God knows what if the film aired. While unsuccessful in blocking the airing of the film, they did succeed in getting ABC to make certain editorial adjustments. However, the film, as aired, was still a less than flattering portrait of Clinton’s ineffectual pursuit of his obsession. The portraits of Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor, and Madeleine Albright, were of people who were pathetically weak and ineffectual (which, in my opinion, they were). I was fortunate in that I had an opportunity to view the unedited version of the film, and, needless to say, Berger comes off looking even worse—a timid and frightened man who, when placed in a leadership position, refused to lead. When the opportunity came to do bin Laden in, Berger just didn’t have the guts to pull the trigger—and, voila, 9/11! The portrait of Berger makes his theft of archival documents understandable (as well as unpardonable). Indeed, if the picture painted an inaccurate picture of Berger (and, consequently, Clinton) and the two of them had nothing to hide, then what the hell was Sandy Berger doing in the archives stealing original historical documents? Why would a man with Sandy Berger’s status and reputation, risk surrendering all of that and going to jail if he (and/or his principal) had nothing to hide? The answer is obvious—they had something to hide.
Which brings us to the current status of the film—where’s the DVD, and why is ABC holding up its release? Guess! Because the Clintons don’t want it released, and ABC is caving to the pressure that the Clintons have exerted. Hold on—what happened to the First Amendment? The Public’s right to make their own determination? To Freedom of the Press? What happened? Simple, the Clintons stepped on our freedoms, and I’ll bet that they had good reasons for doing so. What might those be? At the top of the list is that the film adds much fuel to the fire of the notion that the Dems are weak on national security. And national security is the issue that will play a critical role in the 2008 election. And, Hillary Clinton is the Dems front runner. And we have no reason to believe that she will be any stronger on national security than her lethario of a husband was.
As noted, the film aired in September of 2006, and Nowrasteh was advised that the DVDwould be released in January, then April, then this summer, and, as of now, he has not been notified as to any release date. What do you think happened? Is there really any doubt about what happened. I’d lay about 10 to 1 that Hillary Clinton’s people brought tremendous pressure to bear on ABC, and that ABC caved to that pressure. That amounts to a suppression of free speech; if there is an error in the film, the Clinton’s recourse is to put out their version of the events in question. Of course, the proof of what happened, as far as I’m concerned, is that Bin Laden lived to kill another day. Clinton could have had him or could have killed him; he did neither, and now he wants us to believe that he was “obsessed” with the man (and he might have gotten him too if only Osama was hiding out under some woman’s dress). I don’t buy it. Even on the left there are those who are not happy with ABC’s conduct. Oliver Stone, for example, a well known lefty, said that