The President’s speech and part 2 of Path to 9-11

Posted by: ST on September 11, 2006 at 7:17 pm

Here’s the comment thread for the President’s speech, which he will give tonight at 9 ET, and part 2 of Path to 9-11, which airs at 8 ET. There will be a 20 minute break in P2911 in order to air the President’s speech.

Update 9:18 pm: Wow. That’s one of the best speeches the prez. has given on the WOT in a long time.

Update 10:21: Here’s the transcript of the President’s speech.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

11 Responses to “The President’s speech and part 2 of Path to 9-11”

Comments

  1. CavalierX says:

    Excellent speech, and I hope people finally listen to what he was saying. I’m not sure I can say the same for the P2911 movie, however… ABC was sure going out of its way to make Richard Clarke look like some kind of hero and prophetic genius.

  2. Lorica says:

    It was a fantastic speech. :) I think Richard Clarke was better at anti-terrorism than we give him credit for. Yeah he is a cocky sob, and yeah he is a pretty irritating individual, and yeah he is a near “going postal” employee, but lets give the man some credit. – Lorica

    P.S. Is anyone else having problems with the transmission?? My Dish loses the signal every so often.

  3. Karl says:

    Considering Clarke is an ABC consultant, is this surprising? They just wanna make their boy look good. Then when he comes on afterward, and slams Bush and Tenet, it continues to defelct from Clinton.

    At least that was how last night felt.

  4. Lorica says:

    Now comes the ABC hooplah. /sigh I am tempted to just change the channel. – Lorica

  5. CavalierX says:

    >I think Richard Clarke was better at anti-terrorism
    >than we give him credit for.

    Richard Clarke has excused his repeated failures all through the 90’s by pointing the finger at everyone around him, from Clinton to George Tenet to Sandy Berger and Bill Cohen. It was always someone else’s fault; he was never responsible for the constant failures to stop al-Qaeda, though he was the “terrorism czar.” Then he turned around and blamed 9/11 on the Bush administration’s removing him from the position in which he’d done nothing for years. And, according to him, he took total command of everything on 9/11 while everyone else just stared at him, open-mouthed. Lo and behold, this movie tells the Clarke version of the events. I call BS.

  6. Lorica says:

    I won’t disagree Clarke is a partisan hack, especially now, and maybe he was incompetent. I just think that maybe, just maybe, he pieced this thing together abit better than most. – Lorica

  7. G Monster says:

    I actually fell asleep in Part 1, due to a long weekend. I did watch Part 2. I am curious how much of a part Richard Clarke had in the making this movie. Because from what I saw, Richard Clarke was portrayed as knowing it all. He was practically running the show. If I were a lefty I’d be curious about Richard Clarke’s part in telling this story also.

  8. Drewsmom says:

    Part 2 was blame Bush night and deflect away from the clinonestas but they did take a few hits in part 1.
    I was pissed that we didn’t help the Afganistan resistance general, who was really trying to help us and I felt for the American agent trying to get this guy some help, I liked how his loyal follower blew about 30 rounds in the fat photograher’s assistant, I should have enlisted in my 20’s I tell you.!!!! It really pointed out that thanks to Jamie Gorelik, who shold have been a witness, but was placed on the commission to cover her ass, really made it nearly impossible for these guys to share, I was reminded of kindergartners, “I’m not gonna share my crayons with you BS”, I pray this has really gotten better.
    And Bush’s speech rocked, but the moonbats will trash it today, hell, jay rockerfeller, mega richman, has already said we’d be better off it sadammmmm was still sitting in power……God grief.!!! :-@**==

  9. omapian says:

    Hindsight is marvelous. In real time, numerous composite ‘Kirks’ and ‘O’Neil’s promoted their own collection and arrangement of the available dots of data bits. In fact there may have been too many dots, and competing interpretations, for the decision makers to handle.
    P2911 featured the dots that were much later demonstrated to be accurate. The composite O’Neil, who is friendly with the composite journalist, and the composite Richard Clarke, ‘knew’ the undeniable truths while elected officials and bureaucrats were still fumbling with ambiguous facts. Those who use P2911 to fix blame on either the Clinton or Bush administration are diverting attention from a very significant, continuing problem: Is the US Constitution a suicide pact?
    From 1993 through 2006, the American people have tolerated a set of artificial rules, imposed by a split decision of Supreme Court Judges, to prevent self-defense.
    Our ‘rights’ to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are valid only when other people respect them. Judges have imposed artificial restrictions that prevent those who collect the dots from sharing those dots with those who are responsible for the safety of American citizens. If ‘tainted’ dots contribute to the safety of citizens, the agents who ‘tainted’ the dots will be lambasted in the media and subjected to prosecution for violation of the artificial rights.
    Our two party system has spent too much time pointing accusatory fingers across the aisle and too little time in serious analysis and debate. A nation of 300 million people is poorly served when 435 elected representatives in Congress allow a series of split decisions reached by unaccountable jurists to stand as the law of the land. When courts protect the sensibilities and feelings of fanatics who have dedicated their lives to our destruction, Congress has an obligation to balance the feelings of felons with the safety of citizens.
    It is up to the congress to decide if those who reject government by consent should be afforded every protection of the Constitution. American citizens know when they visit other countries they are subject to the laws and protections afforded to foreigners and may be subjected to harsh penalties for minor offenses. Each candidate for office should make his/her feelings known on this issue and let the voters send their choice to congress. If congress makes the wrong choice, later voters will have an opportunity to change the congress and the law. Allowing artificial barriers to stand without recourse is a sure formula for our destruction.

  10. CavalierX says:

    Actually, the portrayal of John O’Neill was right on the mark, possibly even underplayed his relentless devotion to duty. You may wish to check out the piece PBS did on him, called “The Man Who Knew.”