20060910 KDDC Path not taken

Path not taken

September 10^th, 2006

No – I have not watched the ABC docudrama “Path to 9/11.” Nor do I approve of it – no matter who it portrays in a negative light. I’m not sure where there is a place in public discourse for media phenomenon such as “Fahrenheit 9/11” or “Path to 9/11.”

I only wish the folks who have been so aggressive in denouncing “Path to 9/11,” would have been as equally damning of “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Both “Path” and “Fahrenheit” trivializes and bastardizes a necessary discussion that needs to take place in our nation about what to do, now and in the future, about folks who want to kill us and our way of life.

If you haven’t “got it” by now - - I am not a fan of docudramas. They always remind me of the famous quote about history that I have always attributed to American Anthropologist Ernest Albert Hooten (1887 – 1954): "History is principally the inaccurate narration of events which ought not to have happened."

To repeat a wonderful observation by the Washington Post some time ago – that I sure wish I had written: “The numbing repetition of uncorrected falsehoods creates a phony atmosphere of uncertainty around key questions... Eventually voters throw up their hands and accept the fact that they’ll never know for sure what the truth is, and confusion ensues.”

While the liberal lefties and their sycophant megaphones in the liberal media harass President Bush, I say a prayer that we’ve had President Bush in the White House in the five years since 9/11. I think that when it comes to public safety and national defense, most contemporary Democrats cannot be trusted to defend our nation or my family.

I like it whenever I view a television ad in which the candidate says that he or she “will stand up to President Bush…” It makes casting my vote that much easier as that is a candidate for whom I cannot vote.

And a word to all candidates who wish to “run away from” the Bush Administration in the upcoming fall elections. I’m not voting for you. If your core constituency voted you in office, than it very well may be that same core constituency that could vote you back in office because you stood for something.

Being against the President is not the same as being for something. Come up with a plan that I can vote for or shut up. If you want to be mealy-mouthed at this important juncture in history, I can only assume that you will be mealy-mouthed when it comes to standing up to the purveyors of the politics of appeasement that threatened the safety of our nation.

As far as Path to 9/11: a post on Michelle Malkin links to an entry on Betsy’s Page entitled, “It's about time that people remember Sandy Berger,” that summed it all quite well for me. Including, but certainly not limited to the following paragraph (which I have reformatted for readability on a blog…):

“Think for a moment about the concerted action by Democrats, their lawyers, former White House operatives, Bill Clinton, sympathetic historians, and lefty bloggers to stop this show.

Remember that this was the same crowd that was full of praise of for Fahrenheit 9/11 for crystallizing their opposition to George Bush. Accuracy and versimilitude didn't bother them then. And they weren't saying a word about 60 Minutes "fake but accurate" story on Bush's National Guard service.

Now, ask yourself. If this crowd were to control the White House, how many more of these attempts to stifle any criticism of them would we be seeing?

Think of how much has been aired during Bush's tenure, even a movie depicting him being assassinated and more denials of civil liberties gets made without Bush's White House unleashing its lawyers. But, for this thing, the Democrats go to the mattresses. Are they perhaps modeling for us what their response would be to further criticism if they should gain control of the White House - or even of Congress? Don't forget those not-so-veiled threats to ABC's license. Ponder that chill wind.”

“Ponder that chill wind” indeed.

####