Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Larry Elder :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why the Clintonistas did not want you to see "The Path to 9/11"
by Larry Elder
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Are Barack Obama's friends -- like Bill Ayers -- legitimate political issues?

"I don't want any lies in there parading as the truth, that's all." With that, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, former President Bill Clinton (the man impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath), struck again.

Before the airing of ABC's docudrama "The Path to 9/11," former members of the Clinton administration and several Democratic senators complained about the docudrama's "fabrications" and "lies" in letters to Robert Iger, CEO of Disney, ABC's parent company.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright urged ABC to cancel its scheduled airing on September 10 and 11. She called a scene in which she alerted the Pakistanis to an impending strike against bin Laden "false and defamatory." Implicitly threatening to yank ABC's broadcast license, several Democratic senators wrote, "Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law. . . . " Where's the ACLU when you need them?

Okay, the Clintonistas criticize conversations or actions that never took place. And, true, an earlier version of the docudrama -- not aired -- stressed that the research came from the 9/11 Commission. In fact, the docudrama also used a couple of books about 9/11, as well as interviews.

Let's review.

The first attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993, Clinton's first year in office. For the next eight years, his administration squandered several opportunities to kill bin Laden. Besides, the docudrama comes down hard on the Bush administration for dawdling during its eight months before 9/11.

In one scene, for example, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice demotes counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, clearly showing the Bush administration's failure to give bin Laden top priority. But did anyone in the Bush administration send letters to ABC demanding revisions -- or else?

What about when Clinton himself, speaking to the Long Island Association in February 2002, admitted that he declined at least one chance to get bin Laden? "He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991," said Clinton, "then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." (Clinton later, in testifying before the 9/11 Commission, called his admission "inappropriate," according to Commissioner Bob Kerrey.) Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Larry Elder is host of the Larry Elder Show on talk radio and author of Showdown : Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests That Divide America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Larry Elder's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Subject: For Lisa -- Thank you!
A little politeness goes a long way.

I will again remind you that what happens now isn't necessarily what's going to be in the next month, year, decade.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember when Japan was THE global economic powerhouse.
Japanese real estate developers were buying up huge investment properties in the US. Huge buildings formerly built and owned by Americans were suddenly owned by Japanese. Japanese products were out-competing similar products all around the world, not just American autos. Everybody was jumping up and down predicting doom and gloom about how "Japan Inc." was going to "take over the world financially."

Well, it didn't happen.

For one thing, just because the Japanese were buying up all the real estate didn't mean they were all good investments. They lost a bundle on a lot of properties. It turns out they were willing to pay so much more than what the properties were really worth, probably fooled by how ridiculously expensive real estate is in Japan.

Then, for another, their version of "mercantile capitalism" has government and corporations and banks so very tightly intertwined. They aren't called "Japan Inc." for nothing! That system just couldn't hold up under inevitable stress. Mixing capitalism with government force gives the capitalists a "welfare mentality," where they begin to expect that profits are an "entitlement." So they don't work as hard (or as smart).

And, being the government, it's virtually impossible for them to leave it behind.

This and any number of other factors caused Japan's economic explosion to turn into a simmer, and, nearly two decades later, they have yet to recover.

In hindsight, this should have been predictable. Government involvement in the economy is bound to go wrong. You can't always predict how or when, only that it certainly will.

Note that if you do a little research on Japan, very few people will make this claim. This is because most people, even Republicans, think the only thing wrong with a government-run economy is that they sometimes make mistakes -- and if you get a "smart" government that doesn't make those mistakes, then everything will be all fine and dandy. A "smart" government tends to be defined as "run by people like me."

Wrong.

It's impossible to have any sort of centralized controlling authority with the wisdom, intelligence, or omniscience to not make mistakes. And when they make those mistakes, by nature of being the government and using the Strong Arm of the Law, they inflict and perpetuate those mistakes on everybody.

Now then -- Europe.

As to the people of Europe freely deciding to give up their liberties in exchange for, oh, whatever it is they think they're getting in exchange, well, sure, yes, of course. They do have that right. Nobody said they didn't.

Only thing is, though, they might not know it now, but sooner or later they're going to wish they didn't. Just like Japan's "partial capitalism" was doomed from the get-go. Socialism *ALWAYS* fails. Government meddling in the economy *ALWAYS* makes things worse. Maybe not right away, maybe not in any predictable fashion, but it is bound to happen.

Again, that's why we fight so hard to keep it from growing any more than it already does in *this* country.

To UncaAlby
When I said that I was tired of the invective, I was not
pointing directly to you. It is what I find all over this website, including several of the columnists themselves.

Your response to me was so polite, I am almost inclined to really want to agree with you. However, since I go over to Europe on a yearly basis and as a stamp collector I buy from European post offices on a nearly monthly basis, I can remember the change clearly. One year I was buying a set of stamps at a certain price. The next year I bought more of the same stamps before they went off market. The price didn't change but the cost to me did. There are occasional dips, but it has never gone back to the $ being worth more than the Euro once it started.

And this has been the case through most of the Bush administration.

This leads me to believe that at least part of the
problem is that we are financing a war with money we
don't have. The government has never asked us to
contribute with more taxes, and whatever Bush's other
monetary policies are they are not working sufficiently to make up the difference.

I also think that it is quite possible that the multitude of European governments which many claim to be near
bankruptcy are probably not as bad off as we sincerely
hope them to be. We demand proof that socialism is as
evil as the old communism, but in all likelihood it isn't. It just isn't our cup of tea, and doesn't have to
be. But if it is what they want, let them have it
without the continuous griping on our part.


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.