September 8, 2006

‘They Can Run, But They Can’t Hide’ Update (‘Buzz’ Patterson Elaborates)

In the update at this previous post, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson (author of “Dereliction of Duty“) was reported as claiming that in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden, ABC’s “The Path to 9/11″ is “100 percent factually correct.”

Patterson, who has seen the uncut version of “The Path to 9/11,” was just on Michael Savage tonight from about 8:40 – 9:00, and emphasized that the Clinton Administration had eight chances to get Bin Laden and in each instance, Bill Clinton chose to pass on it or to make no decision (which in essence was a decision, as the opportunity passed).

Further elaborating in the World Net Daily article, Patterson says:

The scene in “The Path to 9/11,” as Patterson recalled from the preview version, unfolds with CIA operatives at the camp on the phone with Berger, who is expressing concern that an attack could result in innocent bystanders being killed. An agent says he sees swing sets and children’s toys in the area. The scene ends with Berger hanging up the phone.

Patterson says his recollection is that Clinton was involved directly in several similar incidents in which Berger was pressing the president for a decision.

“Berger was very agitated, he couldn’t get a decision from the president,” Patterson said.

Patterson noted (he) wasn’t sure what Berger wanted to do — whether the national security adviser wanted the answer to be yes or no — but the frustration, at the very least, was based on the president making himself unavailable to make a decision.

“The Path to 9/11″ does not show Clinton himself ever pulling back; in that sense, it’s very inaccurate, and very much in his favor (wayyyyy too much, IMO). And yet, he and his party want it pulled. They should be thankful for the relative pass Clinton himself appears to be getting.

Here’s a suggestion that should make everyone interested in historical accuracy happy: Instead of showing a composite situation, ABC should run individual scenes accurately portraying ALL EIGHT, complete with Clinton’s passive or active halts!


UPDATE: Savage’s first hour plays after his third hour here, and he says this is unprecedented in American history. I certainly can’t remember anything like it.

UPDATE 2: Allah’s roundup at Hot Air definitely shows that the all-out push is on for cancellation. Patterico says we shouldn’t be surprised. I’m not surprised; I’m shocked at the clumsiness and the risk of a backlash the intimidators are running. I would have thought they’d have quietly been on this at least 60 days ago.



  1. Ironic is it not that when Michael Moore makes a deliberately slanted and biased presentation or supports similar the lefties ignore the complaints and criticisms concerning the perversion of the truth. Now, when a major media outlet exercises it’s right of Freedom of Speech (and Expression)to portray historical events, these selfsame protagonists raise a hue and cry before it’s even released. What do they fear? Let’s have a free airing and let us INSIST that the ACLU take up our cause, for ABC’s rights are being threatened and violated. it’s “intimidation” on a grand scale.What a grand opportunity for the ACLU to prove they do NOT have a partisan political agenda! Can you hear it now? The silence is deafening. Don’t hold your breath on that one though, dear hearts.

    Comment by Robert 'Bob' Weiss — September 9, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

  2. #1, with *Clinton Lawyers Demand ABC Yank Film* (top story at Drudge), this has crossed the line into a level of seriousness I haven\’t seen in a long time. The ACLU has never cared about the civil liberties of all, just the people who agree with them or get them free publicity.

    Comment by TBlumer — September 9, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.