Nothing can clean the grime off the Clintons.
Touchy about Bill Clinton’s weak treatment of the growing terror threat on his watch, they threw a fit a year ago over the airing of ABC’s “The Path to 9/11.” They had Democrat senators write a letter to threaten ABC with tough times with the FCC if they didn’t make changes to please the Clintonistas.
The miniseries ran, got excellent ratings and some Emmy nominations. But, because of pressure from the Clintons, Disney has not rereun the series nor released it on DVD. In effect, they are forgoing millions in easy profits because of political pressure.
…one of the miniseries’ many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that “if Hillary weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be a problem.”
No doubt, ABC or Disney will produce yet another tale about some noble artist who stood up to the McCarthy-era blacklist, allowing them to forget their current cowardice.
Exactly what made the Clintons go ballistic? Bill’s failure to kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance. The miniseries depicted then-NSA head Sandy Berger refusing, on Clinton’s orders, to give the order. (Clinton later lied on Chris Wallace about this. Watch him get red in the face.)
In 2002, Clinton asked Sandy Berger to handle things for the 9/11 Commission. Berger didn’t just handle things, he stole classified documents from the national archives and destroyed them. To this day, he has never explained what he was hiding for the Clintons.
Berger received a slap on the wrist ($50,000) and the temporary loss of his security clearance. One would think that such behavior would render him unfit for further public service. But that would be underestimating the corruption of the Clintons.
As Jonathan Adler writes…
A Sandy Burglar Comeback?
In a report on the efforts of Democratic presidential candidates to attract the “best and brightest” policy advisors for their campaigns, Newsweek columnist Michael Hirsh reports that former national security advisor and document pilferer Sandy Berger is one of the three foreign policy experts most relied upon by Senator Hillary Clinton in her White House bid. No word on whether he would have a White House position â€” or security clearance â€” in a potential Clinton Administration.
UPDATE: For prior Sandy Burglar posts, see here.
FURTHER UPDATE: Why do I find the report that Hillary Clinton is using Sandy Berger as one of her key foreign policy advisors so unnerving? Because it shows both poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s legal and ethical breaches. I also find it quite surprising. Hillary Clinton has impressed me as a Senator and as a candidate. Whatever her other faults, she is intelligent, savvy, disciplined, and determined; by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field. All this makes her apparent inclusion of Berger in her foreign policy “triumverate” all the more difficult to fathom.
For those who forget, Berger repeatedly stole and destroyed classified documents, resulting in the temporary loss of his security clearance. Berger has never provided a plausible explanation for his actions. By voluntarily giving up his law license, he avoided a cross-examination from bar counsel, so we still do not know precisely what he was doing and why. Indeed, the only assurance that Berger did not destroy unique copies of classified national security documents — such as copies of reports containing notations in the margins and the like — comes from Berger himself, something that the 9/11 Commission was not told when it was preparing its report (as I noted here).