Path to 9/11: The Hypocrisy of the Democrats

The Democratic Party is one of the most skilled and most Machiavellian manipulators of news and public opinion. To hear them now caterwauling over ABC's planned miniseries "The Path to 9/11" is truly laughable. Even more so when you consider that ABC is merely portraying the findings of the 9/11 Commission, hardly a pro-Republican body.

Democrats affect me like Muslims do. They are so outrageously wrong and immoral that they are off the scale. I am incredulous at their antics, but since I expect them to be outrageous, I find it hard to be offended. It would be as useless as being offended by comments from someone with Tourette's Syndrome, and so I am not.

Back in 2004, Sean Hannity wrote that one of the strategems of the Democrats was to demand and obtain the resignation of a key Bush administration official. The demand would not be based on the performance of the official, but merely an attempt to manufacture a scandal that the Dems could exploit to undermine Bush's credibility. They have periodically demanded the resignation of both Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfield, the latter as recently as last week. The lesson here should be obvious: Democrats don't give a rat's ass about protecting the nation from terrorism. They care only about getting back their political power, and will run over anyone or anything that stands in their way.

Also in 2004, when the 9/11 Commission was holding its hearings, the phony known as Richard Clarke, a Democrat and former Clinton official who was demoted under Bush, released his highly biased book Against All Enemies. The book release was almost simultaneous with Clarke's testimony before the Commission where he lauded Clinton's "preparedness" and denigrated Bush's lack thereof. Clarke even dishonestly stated:

"as I briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard of the term before."

Clarke was, of course, lying through his teeth. Rice produced a speech made a year before 9/11, in 2000, in which she discussed al-Qaeda and warned:

"[To deal with] Osama bin Laden, do two things, the first is you really have to get the intelligence agencies better organized to deal with the terrorist threat to the United States itself. One of the problems that we have is a kind of split responsibility, of course, between the CIA in foreign intelligence and the FBI in domestic intelligence. There needs to be better cooperation because we don't want to wake up one day and find out that Osama bin Laden has been successful on our own territory."

Her words were utterly prophetic, while Clarke's were merely pathetic. It was obvious that Clarke's disingenuous machinations before the Committee in March 2004 were merely a Democrat's attempt to influence the coming 2004 presidential election. Even more despicable, Clarke pretended to apologize to the families of 9/11 victims on behalf of the Bush administration, saying he was sorry that "we failed you." His apology, like every other public utterance he made in 2004, was an insincere and cynical attempt to lay the blame for 9/11 at Bush's feet.

Then there was the problem of former Clinton official Sandy Berger, who stole around 50 highly classified terrorism-related documents from the National Archives before testifying before the 9/11 Commission. Berger later admitted to cutting up some of the documents with a pair of scissors. Wikipedia states:

"The document theft raised questions about whether Mr. Berger was attempting to cover up the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism policies and actions. The records he took were related to internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the terrorist threat in December 1999 to bomb airports in the United States."

The Justice Department later stated that no originals were destroyed and all originals were made available to the 9/11 Commission. However, Wikidedia adds:

Yet it remains unclear exactly what was removed from the National Archives. "What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?" House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said.

Obviously, when it comes to the question of terrorist acts against the United States, the Democrats have something to hide. Perhaps, if the Dems can't persuade ABC to shelve "The Path to 9/11," they can send in Sandy Berger with a new pair of scissors.