The past victims of terrorist activity related deaths are now and have been lawyering up to “get some of the American Pie” since it’s generosities have reached the amount of zeros at the end of the number. Now before the heavy breathing and panting blossoms into rage, one should consider another aspect. Ask why these primarily civilian deaths are owed such extensive payoffs, while the men and women who volunteered to protect the freedom of free people everywhere are granted a TAXED monthly stipend that by design, simply prevents drowning in poverty. Meanwhile back at the harbor, too many are complaining about the size and type of engine in their yacht.

Is this the valued difference in being a volunteer to fight the invasions of evil and being unlucky to be in the wrong place and wrong time? Wrong place, wrong time for the civilians and no volunteer status separates them for some indeterminate reasoning. They all have/had families, futures and/or plans. They have all suffered the same loss. They have all endured the tragedy of a life stolen, but they do not all have big brother ensuring (dependent largely on what legal counsel one is privy to) their financial care and consideration.

Entitlement anything is a dangerous precipice. Politics aside (and that’s a lot) this is not about L/R issues. As harsh as this sounds (callousness is neither intended or should it be presumed), this is not about getting a fair share or a cut as it were. It’s about thoughtful distribution and honoring all that have met the same fate that none of them deserved. Litigators like alligators snapping up a free meal, should have no business in this involvement. Appropriate payment(s) for what should be an automatic decision, should’ve already been disbursed, as it it done with most of the military families, especially those who simply cannot afford a legal gunslinger.

Lopsided and out of balance falls so short of this entire surreal venture down the rabbit hole. Alice is more than lost here folks. She’s jumped into another story book, yet undefined.

And yes, You Tube RULES!

I have been debating the criticisms of my liberal friends on my site, and they seem stuck on the part that dramatic license was used, and that it’s not 100% factually accurate. That is a legitimate criticism, as far as it goes. But that’s a criticism which tells you all about the trees, but misses the forest — and the forest is that the Clinton Administration’s (and pre-September 11th Bush Administration’s) counter-terrorism policies were so consumed with the legalistic and law enforcement mentalities that they could not be effective. Law enforcement is a means of tracking down and arresting criminals after they have committed a crime; it is frequently less successful at preventing a crime in the first place.

However, I do not criticize either the Clinton or early Bush Administrations for using a primarily law enforcement policy in counterterrorism, because the other option, the current aggressive hunt them down and kill them policy, would not have had much public support before the September 11th attacks. It is against the law for the President to simply order an assassination, and it’s real difficult to imagine that President Clinton could have given an order to assassinate Osama bin Laden without some real problems.

To me, the real impact of this film is that it demonstrates that the law enforcement method of counter-terrorism simply does not work to prevent terrorist acts. The criticisms of our liberal friends about President Bush’s policies have all been in that vein: the NSA program didn’t get warrants, we haven’t given the prisoners at Guantanamo lawyers and charged them in federal courts, we haven’t followed the letter of the Geneva Conventions, thinmgs like that. Whether our liberal friends realize it or not (and I’m not certain that they do), their criticisms are all arguing for a return to the Clinton policies — and this film shows that those policies didn’t work. Without that available to criticize the President’s counter-terrorism policies, what do they have?

Nothing.

They know it, and that’s why they are so POed about this film.

- As far as Bush not picking up the ball, I can just imagine Clarke and Tenet, and all the other Liberal moles, working hard to make sure the “Oh it’s nothing folks, just move along” mind set going at the end of slick Willey’s term. Who knows what these snake oil politico’s were telling him and Condi.

- Bang

The Path to 9/11 ended 20 minutes early so that ABC could straighten out the “controversy” surrounding the movie by letting the public know, with the help of Richard Clarke, no less, that during the Clinton adminstration it was all George Tenet’s fa…