Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama
Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama
On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a “docudrama” called Path to 9/11, billed by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”
The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,” reviews the action:
So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.
So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”
Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.
ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.
In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.
The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
This movie almost sounds like a Bush State of the Union speech, so maybe ABC should be required to give equal time to Democrats for rebuttal. Don’t plan your TV watching for it, though.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:15 amHulk not like ABC fictionalize 9/11. Hulk get angry.
Hulk smash rightwing lies!
September 5th, 2006 at 10:17 amThanks for bringing that to my attention. I have sent the request to ABC. How do these things happen? Where are ABC’s fact-checkers? Can we get Clinton and/or Berger to publicly refute this revisionism too?
September 5th, 2006 at 10:19 amNow that Clarke has said this is bunk, I can’t wait to see the spin from the right. And he’s even ABC’s advisor! ABC should be embarassed.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:19 amHas anyone contacted Senator Clintons office? If I were her I’d personally be on the phone to Disney making a really big stink!
September 5th, 2006 at 10:21 amWow the Bush Regime will try anything to blame Clinton for 9/11, but Bush himself is 100% at fault for failing to heed warnings of an attack! Bush and Cheney must resign immediately and be tried for war crimes in attacking and occupying Iraq for NO damn legitimate reasons, since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11! Bush has failed for 5 years to find Osama, but many believe he died of kidney failure a year or so ago?!
September 5th, 2006 at 10:21 amWill this backfire on the Repigs? you know all the Cable (Except faux) will be carring Point & Counter Point. How will the wingnuts be able to challenge facts? A lot of people will learn the real facts about what Clinton did and what Bushbag didn’t do prior to 9/11. If the Dems play their cards right!!! If.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:26 amClarke should get ready for a fast ride on a swift boat.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:26 amWho put up the money for this “docmentary” film that is not a “documentary?” It has a familiar “swift boat” feel to it. Whoever is behind it isn’t concerned with facts, but with confusing the facts so that the repubs have a place to hide.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:27 amPath to 9/11: Day Three — the Shit Storm Continues…
Have fun, ya’ll, and remember, the time for playing nicely is over.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:28 amMaybe Bab’s can explain all of this.
W may need his Mommy more in these coming days,
but given her take on New Orleans a year ago, she
is obviously qualified to explain her ek-uh-lek-tic reasons.
Boycott ABC.
We’ll only get attention when ratings decline.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:28 amModerated by Admin.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:31 amI’m sure the ABC execs are telling themselves they are “just like” that Michael Moore feller. Just from the “other side.”
September 5th, 2006 at 10:31 amHey ABC, look what happened to Fox’s ratings as they remained a political tool for the backwards sliding Mr. Bush and this administration.
My advice. Back away from this stance unless you can prove the Path to 9/11 is NOT a political fabrication and label it as such.
Get a clue! Times are changing the real giant, the American people, are not very happy and I don’t think they are as willing to be quiet about it.
Don’t forget how easy it is to change the channel on a TV.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:34 amThe “dramatization”’s website says it will take viewers “through the events leading up to 9/11.” If that isn’t damn close to claiming documentary status, I don’t know what is. The show also lists Tom Kean as a ’senior consultant’, has anyone tried to contact him to ask him about this MAJOR revision of history?
September 5th, 2006 at 10:36 amPrequels are always lame.
It’s the path since 9/11 that worries me the most.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:38 amI contacted ABC. Spread it around!
September 5th, 2006 at 10:38 am“THE DRAFT IS COMING” all you moms and dads protect you sons
September 5th, 2006 at 10:38 amand daughters.
Yeah, how can we miss another chance to make America look bad. Let’s get on this right away so we can convince people that America brought 9/11 on itself.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:40 amLook, it’s simply time for Sandy Berger to sue. For too long, the right has chosen to simply make things up and they get away with it because we won’t fight back. Despite the fact he’s a “public person,” Berger should easily be able to prove this is a false attempt to smear him. Not only could he clear his name, but the trial could highlight Bush-era failures and right wing attempts to pass off their blame on others.
Sue, Sandy, Sue!
September 5th, 2006 at 10:40 amI know this is going to be a good movie because all the usual suspects are trying to discredit it. How would Richard Clarke know what U.S. forces were in Afghanistan and the location of Northern Alliance forces? He was not in charge of them and I don’t think his duties would grant him access to that information. I thought he was some computer/electronic security under secretary for State or was he also in charge of CIA operations? FYI they “compartmentalize†high level clearances so that if you decide to turn bad you can’t know EVERYTHING. IE if you work in the cafeteria at NSA you are not privy to codes being broken on the 7th floor. Also if you work in the computer security office you aren’t regularly given briefings on CIA operations and Northern Alliance Operations.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:45 amGood for Richard Clarke… he’ll need to fasten his seatbelt in the coming days, however - I’m sure that the rightwing smear goons will come out swinging.
Bill Clinton himself should make a statement.
I’ve emailed ABC, and will encourage others to do the same.
Power in numbers, peeps.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:47 amYeah, how can we miss another chance to make America look bad. Let’s get on this right away so we can convince people that America brought 9/11 on itself.
Comment by B. Mitchell — September 5, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Do you actually read the blog entry or just cut and paste retarded talking points from some list you have? The whole issue is about this asshole filmmaker trying to make Clinton look bad. Where the f*ck do you think Clinton’s from? Mars?
Actually, don’t answer that…
September 5th, 2006 at 10:49 amRRS: (#21) - While I’m sure that clearances are as you describe - that is, no one person knows “everything” - the fact that Richard Clarke was considered the “counterterrorism czar” in three administrations, I’d figure that he’d have some pretty specific information related to terrorism - and the three items listed above would all be things that he *should* know since they’re all related to anti-terror operations.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:50 amRichard Clarke on ABC’s 9/11 Fabrication…
Courtesy of Think Progress:…
September 5th, 2006 at 10:51 amEverything’s Clinton’s fault of course. Nevermind BushCo had Bin Laden offered to them TWICE by the Taleban. The first time on condition of seeing some proof (sounds reasonable), the second time they offered to hand him over to a neutral country, even without any proof. BushCo refused. Then later on BushCo went on to disband the unit responsible for finding OBL.
That’s all Clinton’s fault too of course. He made BushCo do it.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:52 amFormer President Bill Clinton should defend his administration on this ABC scam docudrama > if Bill remains silent, then it means he has sold-out to the Bush Regime, and his balls have shriveled up?!
September 5th, 2006 at 10:55 amIn future posts re this ABC tripe, maybe you can make the recommendation that readers also write to their Democratic Senator and Representative, demanding that investigations be opened into the making of this movie (in an election year, which may be construed as a campaign contribution) as well as corrective regulatory/punitive action to ensure that ABC/Disney does not engage in such obvious partisan maneuvering in the future (networks are supposed to be non-partisan, the creation of a partisan movie in a key election year with fabricated scenes posing as “docudrama” seems to be in violation of that, if not in the letter of the law (I don’t know this), certainly in the spirit of it).
Given the likelihood of a Democratic majority in one or both Houses, a concerted message from the Democratic leadership that such illegal partisan maneuvering in an election year will not be tolerated might have more effect than threatened boycotts, etc.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:56 ami would suggest including that specific example in the letter to iger, no?
September 5th, 2006 at 10:57 amHow would Richard Clarke know what U.S. forces were in Afghanistan and the location of Northern Alliance forces?
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier — September 5, 2006 @ 10:45 am
OK Retired Republican Wackjob, here’s a question for you - how would Cyrus Nowrasteh know what U.S. forcs were in Afghanistan and the location of the Northern Alliance forces?
September 5th, 2006 at 10:58 amI took advantage of TP’s like to provide feedback to the CEO of ABC Disney, but chose to compose my own letter, which is reproduced below….
Robert A. Iger
President and CEO, The Walt Disney Company
Dear Mr. Iger:
We already know that screening copies of your upcoming docudrama “The Path to 9/11″ were sent to a host of far-right pundits, broadcasters, and bloggers — and that not only was no effort made to provide copies to moderates and liberal bloggers, but that requests for copies have been turned down because of a supposed “lack of supplies” (which, of course, is nonsense…. it would take very little effort to create additional copies from existing ones.) This, in and of itself, raises serious questions about the integrity of what is being promoted as an “unbiased” look at why 9-11 happened.
We also know that the writer and director of Path to 9-11 is well known as a staunch political conservative, and that while the GOP co-chair of the 9-11 commission (Tom Kean) acted as an advisor on the film, the Democratic Co-Chair (Lee Hamilton) was not asked to provide input.
Now that Richard Clarke — National Security Advisor to four Presidents, and currently a National Security Consultant for ABC News — has described as pure bullshit (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/) a key scene in the ABC docudrama “Path to 9/11″, it is incumbent upon you to pull this biased screed from your schedule immediately.
Should you choose not to do so, I would like a list of the advertiser/sponsor of this program immeidately, so that they can be informed of the highly politicized nature of this program, and the strong possibility that they will be subjected to an economic boycott should they not withdraw their support. Clearly, failure to disclose the names of the sponsors of this program would be violation of your fiduciary duties to the stockholders of ABC, insofar as these companies are likely to be extremely angry with ABC for its failure to provide them with the means to avoid a boycott of their products and services by tens of millions of Americans.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:58 amis the phrase ‘wag the dog’ uttered at all in the abc docu-drama. are cokie roberts, sam donaldson, ted koppel, chris vlasto or wee george included in any scenes of their sunday morning yukking it up that the actions taken by clinton were nothing more than distractions from a blow job. wasn’t it abc that sniffed out the semen-stained dress story…
ah, the mouse, a class act all the way…
September 5th, 2006 at 10:58 amDocudrama=propaganda
September 5th, 2006 at 11:00 amMax Berkowitz,
Can you elaborate?
September 5th, 2006 at 11:00 amHey, Retired Republican soldier, did you read this part?
According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.â€
No matter, I’m sure you believe that Limbaugh has more credibility than the 9/11 Commission.
Phylo out
September 5th, 2006 at 11:01 amWill the mini-series contain an epilogue in which we see Sandy Berger later destroying classified anti-terrorism documents written by Richard Clarke, for which Berger was later convicted, fined $50,000, and his security clearance revoked???? If they are going for historical accuracy, I hope so:
Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper
By John F. Harris and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01
Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration’s record on terrorism.
Ex-Clinton Official Draws Higher-Than-Expected Fine
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Samuel R. Berger was ordered to pay $50,000 but received no jail time for removing and destroying copies of classified documents from the National Archives.
September 9, 2005 U.S. News
September 5th, 2006 at 11:01 amMore disturbing is that Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission endorses the movie as accurate and claims to have consulted throughtout the making of the movie. http://www.scholastic.com/ ems/ SMP/ 082506/ images/ ABC_EducatorLetter.pdf
Mr. Kean must be challenged on this.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:02 amWow! What a shock, It’s a GOP propaganda film.
IMO, Former Pres. Clinton will just ignore this until asked.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:03 amDear Retired Republican Soldier,
How would Richard Clark know where the soldiers were? Good question. Here’s another question: Who would know better where the soldiers were, Richard Clark or some hollywood movie producer?
I gotta go with Clark on this one.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:04 amContact Kean’s son’s Senatorial campaign and ask why his father is undermining his credibility by fronting for such a slanted version of the “Path to 9/11.”
Here is the info:
Tom Kean for U.S. Senate
187 Mill Lane
Mountainside, New Jersey 07092
Tel: 908-789-2100
September 5th, 2006 at 11:05 amFax: 908-789-2109
E-mail: info@tomkean.com
Email sent. Enough is enough. They should tell the truth or shut up.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:06 amTypical Publican response. If the truth won’t work for you, make shit up.
Or even if it does. Just for shits n’ giggles. Gotta stay in practice.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:07 am#36
September 5th, 2006 at 11:08 amYes he made copies of the documents and left the origionals that are still there today. He paid the price and the world can still look at the origionals. Unless they are Classified by the bushie administration as they hide everything from the public. But it had to do with Clinton so they probably wont touch it. They only clissify things that will inciminate themselves. And at least he had his secutiry clearance revoked after abusing it. Can’t say the same for anyone in the bushie admin. No accountability for their actions.
Can’t these guys take responsibility for ANYTHING?! The FACT is 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch.
Clinton wasn’t the man in charge on that day. Bush was.
If you agree with the idea of a “docudrama” or not, the fact is you’re not in the least bit concerned or worried that the people who are supposed to be in charge and responsible for the country, are in fact NOT taking responsibility for anything? Seemingly always trying to blame someone else?
Would you accept that kind of blame game if it were a democrat? Or is it just because it’s a republican (well, neocon, I don’t believe they truly represent conservatism) - for once stop cheerleading for “your side” just to spite “the other side” and look at that issue and that word: responsibility. Can anyone really hand on heart believe this current regime really takes responsibility for anything? Let alone things like 9/11 happening ON THEIR WATCH?
September 5th, 2006 at 11:09 amPerhaps because he was the coordinator for counter-terrorism for four years and has all sorts of specialized permissions granted to perform their functions? His information has been vetted already…Bush and company have tried to discredit Clarke already, and that backfired in spectacular fashion.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:10 amAll Along the Trade Towers (All along the Watchtower; Bob Dylan)
“There has gotta be some way outa this” Said the liar to the thief
“There are too many conclusions, I can’t get no reprieve
The people ignore my whine, reporters see no work
My performance is below the line, not one success of any worth”
“No reason to get indicted” The thief he kindly spoke
“There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke
You and I, we can profit from that, and jail is not our fate
so lets all talk falsely now, the hour has gotten late”
All along the trade towers, the princes kept no view
September 5th, 2006 at 11:10 amWhile office workers came and went, their clients too
Outside in the distance, warnings began to growl
Two airplanes were approaching, their engines did but howl
What’s next? Will we find out that Clinton paid for the hijacker’s plane tickets with his frequent flyer miles?
September 5th, 2006 at 11:11 amI heard Clinton shook hands with Saddam too. Oh wait….
September 5th, 2006 at 11:12 amExley 36 - did you read what you pasted? destroyed COPIES of, not the original documents.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:18 am“Single sourced informatin” see that’s where we went wrong. If Clinton hadn’t been so busy “verifying facts” and “vetting sources” we would have invaded several countries by now, and then we’d be safe for sure! And conservatives would be singing his praises, wouldn’t they?
Bush never bothered to check his sources, or get a warrant, he knows there’s no time for that.
/sarcasm
September 5th, 2006 at 11:19 amRICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don’t remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.
BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”
Now, the…
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
That is one of the most famous exchanges in American political history — right up there with “at long last sir, have you no decency” and “there’s a cancer on the presidency.” Do you suppose it’s in the fabulous new docudrama?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2006 at 11:20 amMr President! Terrorists have just attacked the USA by flying a plane into the World Trade Center! “Don’t bother me right now, can’t you see I’m trying to read this upside down book? That’s far more important!” But Sir! “I’ll deal with it when I’m good and ready. First I must stay here and finish reading with these kids….”
8:13 1st hijacked jet
8:18 Stewardess reports shooting
8:23 2nd hijacked jet
8:27 Passenger reports stabbings
8:30 Bush leaves hotel
8:40 3rd jet hijacked
8:45 Bush arrives at Booker school
9:05 4th jet HJ - Fl 93
9:30 Bush speaks to nation
9:45 Bush leaves school
Because, you know, things like planes flying into towers isn’t important enough for him to leave immediately or cancel his visit.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:21 amhow come clinton didn’t blame bush 1 for the first WTC attack, even though it happened just 2 months into his term? the cuplrits were also caught, tried and convicted.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:23 amAnyone ever find out what Berger stole from the national archives?
September 5th, 2006 at 11:25 amWhy is Disney part of the “Blame America” crowd? Do they hate America so much that they blame a terrorist islamofascist attack on the President of the United States? These people should be charged with treason! They should also be charged with leaking secret information such as specific conversations between our CIA operatives on the ground and the White House. Don’t they know there’s a global war on terror going on?
The CIA leaker should also be prosecuted for treason for even releasing this secret information to journalists for the sole purpose of politically embaressing the President. If this “movie” is released the terrorists win!
September 5th, 2006 at 11:30 amBush taking responsibility during and after the attack. Oh wait, just time for more photo ops before finally leaving
That’s right, he actually stayed even longer (after it was all over) to have more photos taken. Sounds like someone in charge being responsible for a major attack on the USA? Having time to take even more photos??
September 5th, 2006 at 11:32 amBush continued to ignore the warnings on 9/11 up to and including the actual act of terrorism. Then, in response, first he froze, then he ran, then, when it was safe to come back to Washington he began to politicize the act for his own ends. From there we have domestic spying on opponents, AbuGharab, Guantanamo, Iraq and a resurgent Iran. Now that it’s all falling apart, he returns to form….blame Clinton and Daddy. He’s a disgrace. If he was a democrat he’d already be in jail!!!
September 5th, 2006 at 11:32 amNot quite an October surprise, but Disney/ABC is showing their true colors here. Nothing like making Clinton look weak (using a work of fiction that many will take as fact) to make all Democrats look weak several months before an election.
And it’s all made up… I hope the public doesn’t buy into it.
Which TV station is going to be brave and air Farenheit 911 before the election?
September 5th, 2006 at 11:32 am#54 - Not yet Tracy, we’re still busy looking for the relevancy of your question.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:32 am#55 You’ve not actually read anything here have you, let alone what the docudrama is about?
Unless you’re being sarcastic of course in which case good one, that was funny.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:35 amAll correct thinking Amurkuns can and must watch this program.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:36 amThey must then accept the story as the absolute truth about what occurred five years past.
All questioning of authority and sanity must cease with the acceptance of this important truth.
For there is only one truth.
The one the authorities tell you is correct.
You may now return to your own reality.
Thank you, TP for the opportunity to contact ABC/Disney. Unfortunately, I didn’t like the scripted “form letter”, so after erasing it, I sent my own sincere message. My note was very concise but I did thank them for reminding the American public of the horrors of 9/11 - and assured them we would be watching it.
Happy Tuesday, Progs!!
September 5th, 2006 at 11:37 amGo Back To Sleep America
Clinton was president of America, so he was actually being quite deadly with that satire.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:38 amBy “responsible” I don’t mean it was his fault anything happened. More that it’s his responsibility in the same sense that people could have been courtmartialled (and even shot) for falling asleep when they should have been awake on guard duty while the rest of the squad sleeps. I’m sure chickenhawks will appreciate the military analogy.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:38 amMA you are needed at the hair salon in DC this afternoon > Karl Rove needs his few head hairs trimmed badly > lol.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:39 amI spent about half an hour finding an appropriate phone number to call to protest this idiocy….
Kevin Brockman
ABC VP for Publicity
1 818 460 6655
let him know that this show is going to be a publicity DISASTER for ABC….
September 5th, 2006 at 11:39 amThanks for clearing that up Bruce. I’ll be sure to remember, that in fact, it was President Clinton who was responsible for the countrys safety on 9th September 2001. What was I thinking, who that Bush pretender was…
September 5th, 2006 at 11:39 am11th September even, sorry just having a bad day here.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:41 amClark was the counter-terrorism czar up until June 2001, when he asked to be put in charge of cybersecurity instead because the Bush administration refused to take terrorism threats seriously and basically stopped listening to him.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:41 amwhat really…and I mean, really irks me here is that ABC is “playing political propaganda” on the 5 year anniversary of that tragic event. So, instead of remembering the victims, ABC chooses to smear Clinton? The victim’s families deserve better!
September 5th, 2006 at 11:43 amAnd by the way, Mr.Clarke is still the only one from both administrations to officially apologize. Remember “I failed the American people”? No, Mr.Clarke, you didn’t fail the American people. You warned time and time again that an attack was imminent. It is this current administration, who repeatedly ignored your warnings, that failed the American people. And all they can do is the standard “What,huh, who me? Nuh uh, no way jose! It was that oral sex receiving dude’s fault, not ours!!!”
Nice
Go Back To Sleep America
He wasn’t president on 9/11, but he was president before then. Dick (no, not that one) was basically pointing out that if you cannot criticise a sitting president for his shit, you shouldn’t be able to criticise one that is out of office either.
Of course, everything is still Clinton’s fault. He even went back in time and killed all of the dinosaurs by introducing them to tobacco and kinky sex.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:43 amBush should blame VP Al Gore for the 9/11 attack, since he was the real president, but hey Bush cheated to get the presidency in 2000, so therefore Dubya Dunce Decider Despot gets all the blame for 9/11/01!
September 5th, 2006 at 11:44 am“Anyone ever find out what Berger stole from the national archives?”
No, he was just taken to court, fined $50,000, and had his security clearance stripped.
They never thought to ask what “he stole from the national archives”.
(gah!)
September 5th, 2006 at 11:44 amWhat companies are advertising this hit piece? Its time to start contacting them and to get them to pull their ads NOW.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:48 amThis is presented as entertainment, not news. That alone should tell you what to expect. Still, a few disclaimers about art vs. fact should be run regularly before, during and after each episode, sorta like the War of the Worlds.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:50 am…instead of remembering the victims, ABC chooses to smear Clinton? The victim’s families deserve better!…
Comment by DRxJ — September 5, 2006 @ 11:43 am
i wondered the other day, what do the 9/11 families think about this?
September 5th, 2006 at 11:50 ami don’t recall hearing any word from the jersey girls, or anyone… yet…
hope it is soon!
What companies are advertising this hit piece? Its time to start contacting them and to get them to pull their ads NOW.
Last TV ad I saw for it, ABC was hyping the program as airing “without interruption”. Translation: “the sponsors all backed out but we’re committed to airing the thing.” Anyone here know anything more about that chain of events?
Could be a good sign though…
September 5th, 2006 at 11:52 amWill the mini-series contain an epilogue in which we see Sandy B–
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
September 5th, 2006 at 11:54 am#71 Thanks Bruce, not having a good day myself (as you saw I even typo’d the wrong date!) but can see the message now :-)
I find it disturbing that once again instead of holding the Government of the day to account, as any dutiful true Patriot should, people are once again just burrowing away on their little “side” to cheerlead them mindlessly and blame the others.
I’d expect no less criticism and wanting accountability if it were a Democrat in charge on 9/11 personally. This isn’t about which team you’re cheerleading, it’s bigger than that and if some people can’t see that more’s the pity.
I suspect the ones who come out to defend BushCo are the same ones who’d be yelling loudly and pointing fingers if it were a Democrat in office on that fateful day. That would just prove my point. Actually, they do it anyway, as this “docudrama” shows.
Bottom line is, why support these people, who are supposed to be responsible for the nation - but they shirk their duty at every opportunity and never take responsibility for anything?
September 5th, 2006 at 11:54 amHere’s the Disney Exec offices’ Phone#
You can tell them what you think. Take action!
September 5th, 2006 at 11:54 am[…] Wow, that description by radio windbag Rush Limbaugh sounds pretty bad. You mean we had bin Laden surrounded and Sandy Berger wouldn’t let us take a shot? Terrible. Or at least it would be, if it were but true: ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC: 1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden. […]
September 5th, 2006 at 11:55 amABC is proving that they are 100% owned by the Bush Regime, so nobody should watch any more ABC programs > completely boycott them untill the station goes bankrupt!
September 5th, 2006 at 11:56 ammr.ed
It is being presented as entertainment based on fact. This makes it much less acceptable to have such gross inaccuracies as the one represented here. If I watch a docu-drama on Rome I do not want to see Ceasar being represented as a abolitionist, nor do I want to see a docu-drama on 9/11 where Clinton is being handed all the blame.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:57 amIf ABC airs this fake-u-mentary, it will only serve to infuriate the public against the repubs when the facts will stack up against the obvious propaganda. Let it air…not only will ABC look like a fool but the Repubs will actually lose footing because of it. It may be the actual ’straw that breaks the public’s back” and will turn that 21% into demo votes. I say - ABC WILL BE HOIST ON THEIR OWN PITARD ALONG WITH THE GOP! Let it air….it’s sure to do more damage than good for their campaigns.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:00 pm…
September 5th, 2006 at 12:01 pmBAGHDAD BURNING…OUR THROATS
I agree that Berger should sue. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that just making stuff up to smear a public official should be actionable. We’ve seen over the last few years that you can’t shame the current crop of GOP wingnuts, but you’ll get their attention if you go after them financially.
I’d also like to see Kean nailed for this. Up until now he’s pretty much stuck to the bipartisan line in public. I guess this time he was offered too much money. How typical that ABC didn’t even *bother* to consult their own terrorism expert (Clarke).
Finally, the FEC should be contacted to see if this can be classified as political advertising. I’d love to see ABC obligated to provide equal time to and opposing view…
September 5th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#62
Well-done, Mighty Aphrodite…I too have sent my comments to ABC, commedning them for their bravery in reminding America of the horrors of 9/11 and who was responsible for that atrocity.
I know quite a few others who have done and are doing the same.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:02 pm….NOT TO MENTION THE OBVIOUS: ABC’s total lack of sensitivity for the families of lost loved ones. Have they no scruples at all???? They should be ashamed of themselves and are showing the american public that they are a ‘trash’ station. It will show up in future ratings no doubt. They’re putting a nail in their own coffin in my estimation.
SHAME ON ABC! shame on ABC!
September 5th, 2006 at 12:02 pmWell-done, Mighty Aphrodite
Comment by Exley
That discredits you at all. You used to make sense when you argued. To be allied with a senseless poster, makes you one. Keep your flag waving, buddy and dont think, thats not patriotic.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:04 pm#3 - There’s no fact checking needed—-it’s a fictional account. (But, of course, it’s entirely fact-based, thus suitable for propaganda.)
This movie is going to be a Godsend for the right-wingers.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:05 pm87 exley
September 5th, 2006 at 12:06 pm?????????bravery???????? How brave is it to air this “documentary”? To use such a word for a broadcast is an attempt to equate it with our truly BRAVE soldiers putting their lives in danger for a political agenda. Despicable.
But, but, but, you’re talking about you know, facts. The truth. The movie will no doubt cover itself by stating at the beginning, “Any resemblance between this movie and reality is strictly coincidental.”
September 5th, 2006 at 12:06 pmThis gets even worse. Just today, there is a startling new revelation that even Bush Sr. and several psychiatrists are worried that the President is close to a mental breakdown!
I am more concerned about this than any other revelation that ha previously been made about President Bush!
Bush Sr., Psychiatrists worry President is having Mental Breakdown!
As far as our national security is concerned, this is possibly the most pressing matter that concerns the American public and the world!
September 5th, 2006 at 12:07 pmOn a serious note, not even the repug jocks will be watching this piece of crap. It’s on at the same time as the opening night of NFL on NBC. They’ll all be watching Madden and his meat puppet, Al Michaels.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:08 pmSummary of the ABC show:
Good guy: I love America
September 5th, 2006 at 12:09 pmBad guy: I hate America
Good guy: How could this happen if we are so good with everybody?
Bad guy: Bwahahahaha.
Good guy: Im gonna get you, punk! (while loading a shotgun
Van Halen´s guitar while a jet cruises the sky with a flag waving.
Good guy: God, how I love America
Bad guy: I still hate America
End.
Propaganda is never bravery, just concocted stupidity to fool imbeciles, which means the 35% to 40% of Americans who still back Bush Regime!
September 5th, 2006 at 12:10 pmWilliam Cormier
Bush must not break down before he is impeached. Impeachment and finding Bush guilty is the No 1 goal right now, because if his actions are allowed to stand as they are they will form a precedent, and in the hands of a more capable future dictator, that precedent will spell doom for America.
This makes needing a non-Republican congress and senate deathly urgent. Make sure that whatever party gets your district, it is not the Republican party.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:11 pmWill the mini-series contain an epilogue in which we see Sandy Berger later destroying classified anti-terrorism documents written by Richard Clarke, for which Berger was later convicted, fined $50,000, and his security clearance revoked???? If they are going for historical accuracy, I hope so.
Comment by Exley — September 5, 2006 @ 11:01 am
I find it odd that there were employees of the Nat’l Archives who say they saw Berger take the documents, knew that he had them, yet didn’t bother to stop him as he left. This is not some shoplifting crime in which they had to wait until he left the building before they could charge him with stealing.
And, as has been pointed out, the original copies of the documents are still intact.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:13 pmI am more concerned about this than any other revelation that ha previously been made about President Bush!
Dont worry. BUsh Jr. has never run the US. They are not that dumb.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:14 pmGot this from a friend of mine. Copy and paste and spread the word:
September 5th, 2006 at 12:15 pm#91…People generally don’t like to be reminded of tragedy and horror. Nor are political docudramas particularly great “ratings-grabbers.”
Thus, ABC is brave — in the context that a television network can be brave — for airing this program. It is a controversial reminder of the darkest day in U.S. history.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:15 pmEveryone I know who is appalled by this blatant propaganda so shamefully schedule for the anniversary of this tragic event has made complaint to: info@FEC.gov who regulates campaign laws. If this is not based on fact (and is instead political fiction) ABC is misrepresenting it by labeling it a documentary or docudrama.
If the facts of this presentation are disputable and provable, then every american needs to express their chagrin that they are being portrayed as verifiable fact.
submit a complaint at - info@FED.gov. ABC needs to know that this behavior is unacceptable.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:15 pmComment by Retired Republican Soldier — September 5, 2006 @ 10:45 am
Well, I trust you will set all of us terrorist-loving liberals straight by proving that Clarke is a liar.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:16 pmPost 93 William > interesting link about Bush’s metal health > Dubya has Napoleon Complex: an irrational belief that he alone knows what is right! Bush has slipped into madness, so our nation is probably doomed, just like Rome under the rule of insane Caligula!
September 5th, 2006 at 12:16 pmIt’s about time one of the MSM’s show the American people and the world how passive the Clinton Administration was on fighting the war on terror. Poor Bubba is going to be exposed for his many failures as a leader. Maybe he can send Sandy “burglar” Berger over to ABC to steal, and stuff the film down his pants so he can protect his former bosses failed legacy.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:16 pmHere is the email that I sent to ABC.
Dear Mr. Iger:
I am writing to ask that “The Path to 9/11″ be reviewed for inaccuracies and corrected according to the commission report in which it is claimed to be based, or that it not be aired. At the very least, a disclaimer should state at the beginning and several times throughout the presentation that the movie was written by an avowed conservative and is not supported by experienced counter-terrorism officials, including individuals portrayed in the movie. While there has been much talk in striving for balance, anything this polarizing which is based on a recent event should focus on facts rather than balance.
I would appreciate a prompt reply to my e-mail.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:16 pmmental not metal in post 104, but funny typo > lol.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:20 pmCheeks
Yes, well, you guys have to lie in order to make Bubba look bad.
Meanwhile those of us on the other side of the aisle? We don’t have to get nearly as creative when it comes to Dubya.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:22 pmComment by Exley — September 5, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
Question, would you have called Disney “brave” had it gone ahead and distributed Fahrenheit 9/11?
Or was it cowardly to have done so, forcing Mr. Moore to find a new distributor?
September 5th, 2006 at 12:25 pmI wonder how the right wingers would react if this same docudrama were handled slightly differently. If it highlighted the Bush administration as being mainly at fault. Highlighting things like totally ignoring any advice from the out going administration, or highlighting their almost immediate obsession with star wars rather than the real threats facing America. Or their focus on tax cut above all else, or their obsessive secrecy from the beginning, with their oil company, ooops I mean energy task force meetings of 2001, or the filing of a lawsuit to seal Regan era records (which Bush did on or about 9/12 citing national security reasons). Or if the film showed the Bush team discussing Iraq and what to do about it. I wonder if the centerpiece scene was Bush telling the CIA that they have covered their ass with by showing him the Binladen determined to attack US PDB. And if the film was sent to Daily Kos and Media Matters, I just wonder how the right would react to it? Nah, I don’t need to wonder, I know how they react to truth and reality.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:25 pmIt all ties in perfectly. Truth always prevails….
September 5th, 2006 at 12:26 pmMeet The Bush Family!
http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/cia/cia3.html
#105. Sandy “burglar†Berger
Aw, that’s cute. Did you make that up all by yourself or did mommy help? Because it’s really not nice to descend to that level of argument, even when all of those troublesome facts don’t agree with you. Or because they don’t.
The point is, the… um… “events” depicted in the ABC flick that have leaked out differ so greatly from the facts — and from the 9/11 Commission Report on which the movie is supposedly based — that there’s no question of the propagandistic nature of the film, and no doubt which side benefits from the propaganda. No surprise that this has got Disney’s hands all over it. The same company that has got a real sweetheart deal in Florida via a certain presidential relative.
I guess the fifth anniversary of 9/11 coming so close to an election is just a happy coincidence…
BTW, for anyone in Los Angeles, the local ABC affiliate (KABC-7) apparently has their license up for renewal. This might be a good time to comment on that application process, and the appropriateness of airing unlabeled campaign material at the behest of their corporate overlords.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:26 pmYou are kidding, right? Darkest day in the last few decades, for sure. But hardly the darkest day in US history. Unless you are speaking of the aftermath and erosion of civil rights and liberties.
I wasn’t alive at the time, but the attack on Pearl Harbor I would feel would have trumped 9/11 in how scary and dark it was. That was a time when the world was not sure if any form of democracy or civil liberties would exist a decade later. When the USA was dragged into the war, it was not 100% certain if the country would win.
Remember after 9/11 when we were told to buy buy buy so that the terrorists wouldn’t have won? Compare that to war bonds and rations during WWII…
And that is just another example from the same century.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to belittle the events of 9/11/01. I just really don’t like it when people refer to it as the “darkest day” in American history. I disagree with that assessment. Darkest day of our generation, okay, but not in all history.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:27 pmI wonder how the right wingers would react if this same docudrama were handled slightly differently.
Hm. I dunno. Probably about the way they did when a certain British company announced a docudrama about a hypothetical assassination of a certain world leader?
September 5th, 2006 at 12:30 pm[…] The latest case in point comes from ThinkProgress. The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,†reviews the action: […]
September 5th, 2006 at 12:31 pmExley
September 5th, 2006 at 12:33 pmSo, “brave ABC” gives out advanced copies of the “documentary” to conservative bloggers but shuts out progressive bloggers (see newest TP thread). Sounds more like cowards surrounding themselves with their fellow gang members.
The Clinton fun house simply didn’t want to tackle the issue of terrorism, except for lobbing a few missles into an empty desert for show. I’ll give him this; he did arrest and convict the leader of the first trade center bombing. That’s it!
Lets face it, they were happy for the nineties to be thought of as a happy-go-lucky, carefree time, where there were no threats, because, of course, Bill Clinton was loved universally, adored universally all over the world. All through the nineties we had repeated terrorist attack after repeated terrorist attack with no action taken to stop them. Now, you talk about what party is serious about security. What party is willing to confront evil?
Here is a tape of Bubba confessing
http://newsmax.com/ archives/ ic/ 2004/ 7/ 11/ 115514.shtml
September 5th, 2006 at 12:34 pmlinda, Good point (#32). The mavens of the press never own up to anything they say.
You people who think Clinton is going to speak out against the lies in this movie do no understand the natures of politics in the corporate age. No one, least of all someone who has reached high places, is going to rock the corporate media boat.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:35 pmPoor mighty,
On her way to defend her country against terrorists she got waylaid into a letter campaign to ABC. Fight the good fight, mighty! We’re with you all the way!
Somewhere a neocon is polluting your air fixing the price of gas and giving away your job and murdering people. This is what mighty fights for.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:39 pmso let me get this straight…
The Repubs witch hunt Clinton for gettin his b@lls washed by an intern. Causing Clinton’s focus on his legal problems, instead of ensuring the country was being run/protected as it should have been.
Yet it’s still Clinton’s fault that the U.S, was attacked on Bushie’s watch.
mmm, yeah makes perfect sense to me.
(WTF??
September 5th, 2006 at 12:40 pmParrotlover77,
I was hardly “kidding.” But arguing about which day was the “darkest” is like debating is pointless since it is so subjective, I suppose. If you tried to quantify it, one could say that while Pearl Harbor was unquestionably a horror, fewer people were killed and while despicable it was an attack on a military installation, whereas 9/11 was the deliberate slaughter of defenseless civilians, including children, on the mainland of the nation…Of course, others could argue that certain Civil War battles constituted the “darkest day” in U.S. history. Like I said, it is pointless to debate which is the most dark. But you are right in that we can certainly agree that 9/11 was the darkest day of our generation and certainly one of the most horrific days in American history.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:40 pmCheeks
Like I said. You guys need to make up shit to make Clinton look bad, we just have to use the truth to make Bush look bad. 9/11 was nine months into Bush’s reign. The first WTC towers attack? Two months into Clinton’s. Did Bush Snr get blamed for the first attack?
September 5th, 2006 at 12:41 pmWell post 118 > If Bill Clinton fails to speak out against ABC’s lies, then Bill has been castrated by the Bush family, and means Hillary is worthless too!
September 5th, 2006 at 12:41 pmHere’s the contents of my second email. The first I sent from the ABC website, didn’t copy the contents…
Robert A. Iger
President and CEO, The Walt Disney Company
Dear Mr. Iger:
This is the second email I have sent you. I feel that your airing of the slanted pseudo documentary is a blatant attempt to provide the American people with a biased version of what really happened on 9/11.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:42 pmIf you go ahead and telecast this pack of mistruths I will boycott every sponsor after emailing them and explaining why I will never again purchase any of their products. Ever.
Please reply at your convenience.
Thanks for listening.
Exley
Cuban Missile crisis. Nobody was sure there would even be any Americans to talk about what the darkest day in American history was during that baby, and while nobody died, the potential for a nuclear WWIII was closer then ever before in history.
Also, the Civil war was pretty dark. Ditto the war of 1812, when the Canadians sacked Washington. That had to be right up their on the list of “Bad days in American history.”
9/11 was a dark day in infamy, but not the worst America’s faced.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:44 pmBut you are right in that we can certainly agree that 9/11 was the darkest day of our generation and certainly one of the most horrific days in American history.
Comment by Exley
I think you should push that date back to January, 2001.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:46 pm*****Exley, I appreciate the fact we live in a place which ALLOWS the expression of alternative views - even as some of our “progressive” friends find those views despicable and wish to silence those who disagree with them. In the last ten years, I have concluded the only thing “progressive” means is a semantic softening of the term “socialism”.
The intolerant Left applauds moral lapses on film as “brave”. Filthy language is “expressive”. Believing in a “Power” greater than oneself is ignorant, tacky, superstition. Sex is just another exercise and kids are definitely handicapped having two married parents - especially one of each gender. Loving your country and it’s ideals is “ignorant” - and too prevalent among the “corn-pone” set. The Left views social “progress” by the number of children signed up for welfare - and keeping them beholden’ to the Leftist party apparatchik is the goal of this insidious movement. With this in mind, they weild control. S/he Responsible, self-reliant, compassionate people are the bane of the Left - they are “compassion” junkies who need “the fix” of “fixing” others.
I have a BUSY schedule today - Keep up the GOOOD work, Exley!!
September 5th, 2006 at 12:46 pmMA you just cut hair for a living, so cut out the crap of being a busy lawyer > lol.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:48 pm# 118 that recording isn’t very clear, but from what I can make out it sounds like “at the time he had committed no crime against America… so couldn’t bring him here… because no basis to hold him” It’s difficult to make out the rest of it, something about “knew he wanted to commit crimes against America” maybe, but just wanting something isn’t enough to bring someone in. Also, if anything it reflects badly on the subsequent administration because surely they would know this information too??
As such, just WHO is responsible for the safety of the country? If ultimate responsibility does not rest with the President then who hmm? If you were a manager for some store and your store gets ransacked, YOU are held accountable. You can’t just shrug and say “well it wasn’t my fault, the previous manager saw someone suspicious once and maybe let them go”
Again: responsibility. Something BushCo supporters seem to be severely lacking in.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#125
Yeah, those are also “good” examples…I wasn’t born during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I remember my mother telling me she had tears in her eyes when she sent my older brother off to elementary school during those days, wondering whether they’d ever see eachother again.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:49 pm[…] Richard Clarke, one of the guys who was actually trying to accomplish something while King George sat in that classroom in blank-faced, doe-eyed panic, lists a few of the ABC film’s more egregious lies at ThinkProgress. […]
September 5th, 2006 at 12:49 pmExley,
Now that we have agreed 9/11 was the darkest day in our generation, and one of the darkest in US history -can we also agree it needs to be re-told accurately, and that smearing a senior government official is way out of line?
September 5th, 2006 at 12:51 pmWe need to use tactics from the right wing. We need to contact ABC and let them know that we will be watching the miniseries and recording the names of all of the advertisers so that we can write each one of them and tell them we will NOT purchase their products. ABC has to know this.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:51 pmDocu-drama or Doctored-drama?
September 5th, 2006 at 12:52 pm#122
Truth hurts. However, I understand your need to spin and distort facts. But what the hell it’s politics right? Perhaps you recall the spin on these:
•They said Bush attacked Iraq “unilaterally” when he built a coalition of over 30 nations, including Great Britain, and tried hard to persuade the rest of Old Europe to join. To their discredit, they refused. A unilateralist wouldn’t have bothered.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:52 pm•They deny Iraq is part of the war on terror – never mind that terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, like Saddam’s Iraq.
•They claim Bush asserted a connection between Saddam and 9/11 when he explicitly said otherwise. He said Saddam had close ties to terrorists, including al-Qaida and the Taliban, which is undeniably true and which Democrats also persist in falsely denying. Indeed, Iraq was on Clinton’s watch list of terrorist nations.
•They say Bush called Iraq an “imminent threat” when he called it a “great and gathering threat.” The Bush Doctrine called for attacking threatening nations before they could become an imminent threat, when it would be too late. But some anti-war Democrats, like Jay Rockefeller, did call Iraq an “imminent threat.”
•They say Bush’s sole reason to attack Iraq was its WMD. In fact, David Horowitz notes there were 23 “whereas” clauses in the Iraq War resolution, only two of which mentioned WMD and 12 of which concerned Saddam’s violations of U.N. resolutions.
•They say they were duped into voting for the resolution by administration hype on WMD. But the intelligence Congress received in the National Intelligence Estimate was much less alarmist and more nuanced than the intelligence the president received in the Presidential Daily Briefings. But, hey, they had to give their anti-war base some excuse.
•They say we had Osama surrounded in Tora Bora and let him go, outsourcing the job of capturing him to Afghan warlords so we could pursue our quixotic junket in Iraq. Gen. Tommy Franks put the lie to all of this malicious nonsense.
•On the hyped Wilson/Plame nonscandal – don’t get me started.
•Most unforgivably, they’ve lied in painting President Bush as a liar on Iraqi WMD.
By:D. Limbaugh
Mighty Fraudite, as an alleged lawyer, you should know about responsibility and culpability more than the average person. Do you also think that the person in charge of the country shouldn’t take responsibility for it and what happens on his watch? If so, I’d like to know what law school you graduated from, because I’d like to go ask them their thoughts on this kind of thing.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:53 pm#132,
Gegor, I haven’t seen the film (and neither has anyone here (as far as I know)), so, despite some of the rumors about what may or may not be in the teleplay, I cannot say that anyone is “smeared” or not.
Like I said, I haven’t seen it. Nor is it likely I will watch it. And that is for the same reason I did not see “United 93″ or “World Trade Center.” I simply find the topic all too depressing and enfuriating. My memories of that day are crytsal clear. I don’t feel the need to re-live them in a dramatization, no matter how well done the dramatization may be. I mean, “United 93″ is supposed to be outstanding, but also gut-wrenching.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:57 pm…
Comment by mighty aphrodite — September 5, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
wow… really? if that’s what the right believes, no wonder they are crazy and delusional… wow… where do these ideas come from? surely not historical facts…
September 5th, 2006 at 1:01 pmActually, we tend to disagree with movies that pass themselves off as being based on fact (Such as this one) and in fact being nothing more then lies. Big difference between Farenheit 9/11 and this movie? Michael Moore didn’t hide behind the lable of it being a docudrama and he certainly didn’t just make shit up.
Oh believe me we despise filthy language too. Language intended to spread hate and derision, words like “Tree Hugger” “Peacenick” and “Pinko” set our backs right up. Of course, you deride this as being “Political correctness.” Funny that.
You forgot that it is childish too.
Here I disagree. Sex is fun. Always has been. Exercise, well, not so much.
Actually we believe children are handicapped by not having enough to eat. We don’t particularly care about them being…
Well, it is when you don’t know what any of those ideals are. I quite like the revolutionary ideals set forward in the American constitution, and will argue in their favour every time. I just don’t like it when people claim to like those ideals and preach their direct opposite.
Actually we view regress as being the number of children we see begging on the side of the road.
Why? We want them off the welfare rolls and getting looked after. Looking after them is a hassle and we are actually quite lazy.
Yeah so 10 year olds should be self-reliant and just starve to death because the “Compassionate” right doesn’t want to make them dependent on social welfare. Nice one.
Exley, I would feel insulted right about now.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:02 pmbut I remember my mother telling me she had tears in her eyes when she sent my older brother off to elementary school during those days, wondering whether they’d ever see eachother again.
Comment by Exley
Hope you can relate now with citizens from Vietnam, East Timor, Iraq, Iran, Haiti, Nicaragua, Chile, Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Panama, etc… I bet you wont. Tell your mother she is not the only one once terrified.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:05 pmMighty Mouth
Obviously your day isn’t too busy for your typical “hit and run” rant. As usual, I take great exception to your cartoon characterization of liberals and FYI I will reveal some of my true characteristics which counter your garbage:
1. I firmly believe in a movie rating system and prohibiting under age children from seeing certain movies.
2. I abhor filthy language (and lying, which is particularly filthy)
3. I believe in a triune God and consider it intelligent to do so.
4. I’ve been married for 30 years to the same woman, I also believe homosexuals have the same right to that institution
5. I love my country and its (correct spelling, counselor) ideals and wish to see them “liberally” distributed among all free people and not “conserved” for the corporatist-set.
6. I believe progress in and overall health of a country is measured by the well-being of the “least” of its citizens, not its richest or “favored”.
7. I believe the collective power of citizens, through its government, to
guarantee opportunity for all and to assist those who cannot assist themselves is true compassion, social responsibility, and patriotism.
8. I firmly believe in the freedom of expression in all forms, including flag burning if necessary, and defend your right to your opinion. This does not mean, however, that I allow you or anyone else a free pass to be slanderous, libelous, or bigoted and will use my freedom of expression to call you on it.
You throw out your labels indiscriminately and without context, as if this makes them a reflection of reality. Instead, it shows only that you are an attack dog.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:05 pmIn the last ten years, I have concluded the only thing “progressive†means is a semantic softening of the term “socialismâ€.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — September 5, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
And then, right after this, you go on a long, inane rant on what the “Left” stands for, leaving no doubt you have no clue what Socialism, or Left mea