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.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
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 means. Your depiction of both is a poor caricature at best.
Interestingly enough, you have described your “lefty” friends before as having some -or all- of this traits, which in turn means your liberal acquaintances exist only in your head -much like your family, and your legal practice.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:07 pmFinally, a major network comes out with the truth about 9/11. Clinton had many opportunities to get bin Laden but wimped out every time. Thank God we have a President in Bush that will fight for his country. You idiots that oppose him are just that- idiots. We had terror attack after terror attack including the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 (have you Clinton boot lickers forgotten that?) Slick Willy did nothing then or when the USS Cole got bombed as well other attacks on American interests. I just hope ABC doesn’t wimp out under pressure from the Clinton machine that has hushed thousands into silence.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:07 pmBruce, Exley praised Mighty aFraudite on an earlier thread. It seems those two appreciate each other.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:07 pmike
WTC attack 1? Clinton caught the guys and they are currently rotting in prison. So in other words, you have to make crap up to make Clinton look bad, all we have to do is point out that Bush was in office when 9/11 happened.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:10 pm•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.
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. – Ok, most of them are pretty much irrelevent in terms of what they actually contributed (mostly nothing). Several (including Japan) only offered to help on reconstruction. The UK is always ASSUMED to be on board. It’s effectively a political vassal “Yo Blair!” right? Many were involved in the hopes of favorable treatment from the US. Trade, aid, whatever.
•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.
Well where to start. How about Saddam was SECULAR in his fascist nature and that him and OBL were best of enemies, religious fundamentalism was brutally crushed and he was a US good friend until the Kuwait affair. Also, it’s really not very hard to show the terrorism and chaos there occurred AFTER the “coalition of the USA and UK” went in and dismantled the law and armed forces structure of the country.
•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.
It’s very deniable and I’ll repeat, Saddam was on friendly terms with the US until he got pissed that Kuwait was crossdrilling into his oil fields, and also thought about making more money by shifting over to the Euro.
•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.â€
However you word it, it was proven to be a pack of lies. But of course the UN inspectors already knew that beforehand as did BushCo. You want a real threat? Take a look at North Korea, which HAS WMD and HAS test fired missiles, and laughs at the face of BushCo.
•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.
As mentioned several times Saddam was a nice little tinpot dictator, until he no longer served his purpose. Don’t make me dig out reels and reels of footage going on about WMD and so forth. Not to mention Powell’s presentation to the U.N. Speaking of U.N. resolution violations, how’s our good friend Israel? Still ignoring far more resolutions I see? That’s ok, send them more money and aid and weapons. In reality, U.N. resolutions are worth about as much as the paper they’re written on, which is very cheap. It’s called, wait for it, AN EXCUSE.
•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.
Keyword: 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.
So how about the two times he was offered officially by the Taleban? Also the disassembling of the unit which was responsible to find him? How about the (recorded) quotes of Bush, Rice and one or two others all saying “Bin Laden isn’t important” how about that? The man supposedly responsible for the terrorist attack isn’t important? Hmmm….
•On the hyped Wilson/Plame nonscandal – don’t get me started.
Ok then, I won’t mention how exposing her also wrecked the entire operation and front shop which WAS responsible for looking for WMD.
•Most unforgivably, they’ve lied in painting President Bush as a liar on Iraqi WMD.
Because, BushCo looked at the receipts of the WMD sold to Saddam previously? Can I see those receipts too?
September 5th, 2006 at 1:10 pmExley, are you ducking out on answering the questions in #109?
September 5th, 2006 at 1:11 pm#59
Just wondering if the information Berger stole would refute Clarke’s CYA comments that TP presents as gospel.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:12 pmTracy
The original documents are still there, so my guess is no otherwise it would have been “Leaked” already.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:14 pm500 munitions of WMDS were found in Iraq. Hello, media and Clintonistas, are you listening?
September 5th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#
I 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.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier — September 5, 2006 @ 10:45 am
Hmm. Who knows more about what military and intelligence assets were on the ground in the days leading up to 9/11? The Counterintelligence Czar, or a member of the entertainment community that has never served in the military? Hmm?
Why don’t you mull that over, and get back to us when reality sets in? Imbecile.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#143, Ike – it’s amazing how you are able to puke out the talking points and ignore the facts. Every one of your allegations have been debunked. Repeatedly.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#143
Ike,
Don’t confront the libs with those pesky things called “facts.” They don’t like it.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:17 pmThey said Bush attacked Iraq “unilaterally†when he built a coalition of over 30 nations, including Great Britain
Oh, Great Britain. Couldnt found another former empire to coally with? Yeah, Spain. Go Team Terror!
Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, like Saddam’s Iraq.
Comment by Cheeks
Then they should bomb Rumsfeld.
only two of which mentioned WMD and 12 of which concerned Saddam’s violations of U.N. resolutions.
How many UN resolutions has been vetoed by US and Israel? Shut up.
Most unforgivably, they’ve lied in painting President Bush as a liar on Iraqi WMD.
Thats right. You have like 5,000. And havent found one in Iraq. Again. Shut up. ITs embarrasing.
Anyone who supports this war is a murderous a-hole. Think about that when looking in the mirror. In order to live in peace, you change your liberties for security. YOur government is a genius while you a bunch of bedwetters. Be scared, buddy. Its what you do best. Wait, whats that! A raghead! run! Moron.
(sorry other bloggers. Im in a bad mood)
September 5th, 2006 at 1:17 pmI cannot say that anyone is “smeared†or not.
Comment by Exley — September 5, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
Point taken.
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.
Interesting. I didn’t like Oliver Stone’s JFK, and I have the eery feeling WTC runs along the same creative lines.
Having said all that, what was the point behind you posting the information on Berger’s conviction? Were you looking for a “flame war”?
September 5th, 2006 at 1:17 pmike
Munitions that were so badly decayed as to be worthless as weapons. Hello media and Bushites, are you listening?
September 5th, 2006 at 1:18 pm#140 .. Juan
Believe me, I more than understand the terror the citizens of those nations faced or currently face in having to live under the totalitarian communist regimes like Vietnam, Fidel Castro’s Cuba, Allende’s Chile, the former Sandinista government in Nicaragua (now mercifully gone thanks to the United States) and other nightnmarish regimes of monsters like Saddam Hussein (now gone thanks to the United States) and the mullahs in Iran, as well as those nations that had to suffer through vicious communist insurgencies, like El Salvador in the 1980s (until defeated with help from the U.S.)
I think we are on the same page here. Thankfully, the U.S. was there to alleviate much of the suffering in many of those nations,
September 5th, 2006 at 1:18 pmIt’s startling. Those of us who actually lived in the Northeast at the time of the attacks voted strongly for Kerry and those who lived in NYC and DC voted VERY strongly for Kerry. Well, maybe more like sort of for Kerry, but quite against Bush, because among many other things, he failed to defend us and our neighbors against a threat he had been made aware of by *gasp* the Clinton administration.
Those of us who have come closest to terrorism seem to be the boldest in its face. We still rode subways and went in big buildings after 9/11.
My family back in Texas asked me to please consider driving to work in DC – as late as 2004! It seemed like Central Texans both believed strongly in their protector Bush and also that there were terrorist monsters lurking under the bed. Those of us on the East Coast accepted the risks and went on with life. We came to the conclusion that stirring a stick around in a hornets’ nest was not the most effective way to avoid getting stung by hornets. Leave the crazy ass bugs alone, unless you’re prepared just to wipe out the whole hive – and any other ill-tempered stinging insects’ homes you run into and stir up in the effort.
Then I moved to Germany to work for a US Army training base. Germany has generally had the sense to stay out of dumb shit like the Iraq War, even though they cheerfully let our military train for it here. So far, they’ve had one failed train bombing plot.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:21 pm#155 — Gregor, I brought up the Berger information here to bring a little “balance” to this thread. Many of the posters here seem to have blinders on when it comes to the Clinton Administration and refuse to see that it did make some questionable decisions in the fight against Al Qaeda. I am not a reflexive Clinton-basher. Just the other day on a separate thread, I was praising Clinton for stopping the genocide in the Balkans in the 1990s and helping to bring Milosevic to justice.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:23 pmHaven’t read all the comments so forgive me if this has been dealt with. But is it supposed to be just a coincidence that this excrement is coming out just before the elections which the Republicans are going to get screwed in? Is this propaganda any different to hiring Leni Riefenstahl to make the movie?
September 5th, 2006 at 1:24 pm#158 Exley. Um. You know, Saddam was helped into power and maintained by the USA.
The Iranian situation arose because the US decided they didn’t like the Iranian DEMOCRACY which had developed and wanting to nationalise their own oil. So that DEMOCRACY had to be destroyed and a puppet named Shah was put in. Which ultimately backfired as the people of Iran decided they didn’t want to be vassals of the USA (thus paving the way for the mullahs)
You do know that right? Also the funding of opposition groups to the popular democratically elected leader Chavez, as well as funding and support of other organisations – including at least one which was a designated terrorist group?
I’m really hoping you know this. That halo is being propped up by horns.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:26 pm147…Sorry, BnF, I did not see your question in #109.
There is nothing “brave” in a Hollywood studio releasing a Bush-bashing, liberally-biased film. That is par for the course in Hollywood.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#123
If Clinton doesn’t speak out that only means that it’s true.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:27 pmThank goodness a little bit of the truth is finally getting out. I almost fainted when I heard ABC was doing this, wonders never cease. Of course it hasn’t aired yet and it will be interesting to see if Bill is able to scare anyone into censoring this. Those above who have referred to the 911 commission as if there was any real fact finding, don’t waste your breath trying to tell us that a biased commission came up with the truth. That would be like putting Ken Lay’s lackeys in the jury when it came time for trial.
I do support Bush, but I don’t think the administration has been perfect by any means.
The middle class is the sleeping power in the country and it needs to wake up and take it’s nation back from the elites.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:28 pmGreat work Exley. The avoidance is strong on this one. You will make a fine Republican Master one day, as you’ve already mastered the art of ignoring anything which shows you up. I see your powers of changing the topic are well honed too.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:29 pmI think we are on the same page here. Thankfully, the U.S. was there to alleviate much of the suffering in many of those nations,
Comment by Exley
So, you hate democracy? Now I get it.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:29 pmFast, buddy, get a book. Have you taken the trip I told you to? No?
I used the contact form supplied by ThinkProgress to inform ABC that I have called my cable television provider and have had the signals to ESPN, ESPN2, ABC Family, ABC and Disney removed from my cable package. And I also told them that my family is through vacationing at all Disney owned resorts.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:29 pmI urge everone else to do the same.
Actually I take that back. Neocon Master young padawan. The schwartz has corrupted Conservatism in the USA.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:30 pmExly,
OK i took off the blinders, ok Clinton had some of the responsibility.
Ok now what?
September 5th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#135
“•On the hyped Wilson/Plame nonscandal – don’t get me started.”
Amazing how this BS story isn’t talked about anymore….damit,Rove didn’t do it.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:31 pmI am not a reflexive Clinton-basher.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:31 pmComment by Exley
Nope. You are just ignorant and scared. I can understand that.
#146
“Because, BushCo looked at the receipts of the WMD sold to Saddam previously? Can I see those receipts too?”
You are another one of those who thinks that the U.S. sold WMDs to Iraq?
September 5th, 2006 at 1:34 pmExley
September 5th, 2006 at 1:34 pmName some “liberal Bush-bashing” movies coming out of “liberal” Hollywood to back up your comment.
# 161.
You are quite incorrect when you say that Saddam was helped into power by the United States. As for the rather limited assistance the U.S. provided Iraq in its war against Iran in the 1980s, I would say it is quite a stretch to say he was “maintained” in power by the U.S.
As for Iran, as I have said on other postings, the U.S.’s policy towards Iran in the 1950s was both wrong amd wrong-headed. It is a mistake the consequences of which we are still facing today. However, that fact does not absolve the current Islamic regime of its crimes against its own people.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:35 pmNo Tracy it means that Bill Clinton has been paid off, or during his heart surgery his air supply got cut off to his brain! Hillary is acting weird too!
September 5th, 2006 at 1:35 pm#149
Leaked classified information? Not if it exposed any of the failings of the Clinton administration.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:36 pm#135…Excellent summation, Cheeks. Fact-filled and correct. Well-done.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#170
Now isn’t that special! What happened to all the frogmarching talk? Your not going to hear the libs talk about it because it exposes their hypocracy and their lynch mentality. After all, why let the truth get in the way. They owe Rove and others an apology.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:41 pm[...] The upcoming ABC dramatization of the road to 9/11 has been drawing all kinds of fire from lefties and former Clinton officials for making the drop-dead obvious point that the man in office for eight months can’t be blamed for the failures of the prior decade. Think Progress has an indignant Richard Clarke: 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.†[...]
September 5th, 2006 at 1:41 pm#175
So there is absolutely no way the Clarke is full of crap?
September 5th, 2006 at 1:41 pmit exposes their hypocracy
September 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pmComment by Cheeks
What kind of government is that?
# 173. Tracy? New ID same old person I’m guessing. Thank you for showing the classic technique of ignoring everything else in a vain effort to try to nitpick on one aspect – which you’ll then want to try to hold aloft as a means to dismiss the entirety.
After the Gulf War, congressional investigations revealed the Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq.
You will also hopefully recall that when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1987, though there was some anger in Congress a certain memo was issued by then Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy “The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is … important to our long-term political and economic objectives…. We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis”
Though certain other countries also supplied him, the US administration (including our good friend Donald Let’sGetReadyToRumblesfeld) was quite involved in the whole thing too.
Well shucks. Guess I spoiled your little plan there didn’t I.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pm[...] Since the left is all a flutter about ABC’s “The Path to 9/11″, calling it a fraud and even bringing forth Mr. Fraud himself, Richard Clarke to refute the movie. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pmPoor Exley. You should talk about Dems and Reps and domestic things. Quit talking about foreign affairs, you know nothing about Chile, Iran, Nicaragua, Panama or Kosovo. You are kicking your own ass, buddy.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:47 pmJuan…Now, now, Juan. Don’t get all huffy. Just because you don’t know as much about history as I do shouldn’t make you ashamed. You should seize this opportunity and learn from me.
It is quite clear to me that you have been indoctrinated from a very early age by your relatives who adhered to an ideology that has been pretty much rejected by all civilized peoples and tossed on the ash heap of history….(I believe you stated on an earlier thread that your father was a member of the Communist Party at one point until he resigned in disgust when he saw how corrupt and evil communism was)
September 5th, 2006 at 1:49 pm#185
Either one.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:56 pmSounds like a “docudrama” brought to you by the people who want to spread fear and a desire for all to vote republican!!!!
I think most Americans are tired of all of this crap.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:57 pmIncidently you may wish to look up what happened from 1963 onwards, starting with John F Kennedy signing off a plan to overthrow the then Iraqi government. Saddam and the Baath party were favored CIA assets. If you follow the trail you’ll see that quite clearly.
You don’t see the pattern here do ya? Manipulate and engineer coups and place assets/puppets in charge (including OBL) and when those assets don’t toe the line, take ‘em out with military action. It’s been done several times over.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:58 pm#187
“After the Gulf War, congressional investigations revealed the Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq.”
This is well known, but big thanks for refuting the other poster’s BS claim that the U.S. sold Iraq WMDs.
“Well shucks. Guess I spoiled your little plan there didn’t I.”
No you helped me point out a lie by the other poster.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:59 pmNow the agent provocateurs have blown their load I’ll get back on the original topic.
What kind of leadership is it, that can’t ever seem to take responsibility for anything? 9/11 HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH. It’s compounded by the fact that they would have had information from the previous administration regarding potential threats too.
If Clinton’s administration knew about possible threats, what, somehow Bush’s one DIDN’T know??
But then again it’s not surprising. Mindless cheerleading at its best. Don’t bother holding the current administration to account, after all it has done no wrong and never can. If I ever end up in a warzone with Bush in my squad, I’ll be praying he never gets assigned to be on guard duty while I sleep. We’d all end up dead, and him and his supporters will be blaming someone else, because it was Clinton’s fault Bush was asleep.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:03 pmI’m sorry Tracy but you’re not making any sense whatsoever. The evidence is there to show WMD and the means to produce WMD were in fact sold to Iraq by the USA.
Published on Sunday, September 8, 2002 by the Sunday Herald
Reports by the US Senate’s committee on banking, housing and urban affairs — which oversees American exports policy — reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
The Senate committee’s reports on ‘US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq’, undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis — the micro-organism that causes anthrax — were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.
One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers’ City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
The Senate report also makes clear that: ‘The United States provided the government of Iraq with ‘dual use’ licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.’
This assistance, according to the report, included ‘chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment’.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:09 pm#193
Oh, I am quite willing to concede that the U.S. has helped engineer coups and the overthrowing of governments in order to bolster its national security. I am also quite willing to say generally that I have ZERO problem with that.
However, you are incorrect when you say that this was the case in Saddam’s rise to power in Iraq. The U.S. has made mistakes in its Mid-East policy over the past 60 years. But bringing Saddam to power was not one of them.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:10 pmI wish I could edit that and bold the first section too. In fact I’ll repost that bit, since “Tracy” is evidently insane.
Reports by the US Senate’s committee on banking, housing and urban affairs — which oversees American exports policy — reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs,
September 5th, 2006 at 2:11 pmIs it just me or the thread is slow?
Exley, whats huffy?
So explain me how a totalitarian regime was voted democratic and pacifically in Chile or in Iran or in Nicaragua…mmm. Not a clue, right? And you know why US had to crush those democratic elected governments? So socialism wouldnt spread.
Socialism, as you probably know, seeks better ways to distribute wealth instead of the exclusionist free-market. So it is true they were a danger to the pathetic american way of life. Again, communism, no matter how many fairy tales you learned from Reagan, has not existed in this planet. Look for communism definition.
Its ok if you say you know more history than I do. Probably thats true, however saying that, makes you look like a loser.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:11 pmOh, I am quite willing to concede that the U.S. has helped engineer coups and the overthrowing of governments in order to bolster its national security. I am also quite willing to say generally that I have ZERO problem with that.
Good. I wanted to get to this point. So you are OK with the hundred of thousands dead people the US has left on its bloody trail? OK. I wish the same for you. You are completely discredited. You were making progress, buddy. You flunk.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:16 pmDon’t worry, these idiots will just come back with different IDs. Every day.
Because they’ve some crippling mental condition which causes them to keep coming back for more punishment, like some kind of sadomasichist. That’s the only real explanation.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:17 pmJuan …”Its ok if you say you know more history than I do. Probably thats true, however saying that, makes you look like a loser.”
As opposed to your posting #171 in which you called me “ignorant????” Come on, Juan. If you are going to dish it out, you are going to have to learn how to take it.
Now, if you want to keep our discussions civil, don’t start in with the insults. Because if you do, believe me, I am not above retaliating in kind!
“Huffy” means overly-defensive, easily offended, sulky…
September 5th, 2006 at 2:18 pmRove didn’t do it.
Comment by Tracy — September 5, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
If you mean that he did not resign for his PROACTIVE role in compromising American Security Operations for purely political purposes… then yes you are right he didn’t do it.
If you mean that he had no part in the disclosure of an undercover agent’s identity and the subsequent closure of an entire counter terrorism operation… then you are wrong… really really wrong!
September 5th, 2006 at 2:18 pm[...] Think Progress – Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 2:21 pmThere is nothing “brave†in a Hollywood studio releasing a Bush-bashing, liberally-biased film. That is par for the course in Hollywood.
Comment by Exley — September 5, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
followed by:
Name some “liberal Bush-bashing†movies coming out of “liberal†Hollywood to back up your comment.
Comment by PLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian) — September 5, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
followed by: (cue the crickets)
September 5th, 2006 at 2:23 pmAs an addition, those chemical agents including anthrax etc. were sold as shown, and had also degraded to the point of being unusable or were used up (as proven by the U.N inspections since) so that point about BushCo lying about WMD is still true. Oh yeah. Niger. Uranium. Lied.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:24 pmI’ve seen a few comments saying WTC 1 happened 2 months into Clinton’s watch. Actually it was 38 days. Whereas, Bush was there for, what? 7 months? Yet 1993 was Clinton’s fault, and so was 2001. WTF?
Hasn’t anyone heard? The Clintons were responsible for the fall of Rome. Oh, wait, maybe even the fall of man. If you believe in talking snakes, that is.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:25 pmActually Juan, Of the very few “coups” and government overthrows engineered by the U.S., most have inured to the benefit of the people in those nations, as well as bolstering the national security of the United States….Look at Nicaragua. Thanks to U.S. aid to the freedom-fighters, the brutal Sandinista regime was forced from power and in its place emerged a democracy that stands today. Look at the U.S.’s assistance in helping overthrow the communist governments in Eastern Europe.
In fact, I would say the Iranian “coup” of the 1950s was only time a U.S. intervention has “backfired” and had an unfortunate impact on both U.S security and the people of that nation.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:25 pmHmmmm, I wonder if Disney will have a theme park tie-in with “Path to 9/11″ like they did a theme park tie-in with “Pirates of the Caribbean”?
I can see it now, a new section of Disneyland and Disneyworld called:
TerrorismLand.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:27 pmTrolls (The lot of you)
Right if you are going to talk about hypocrisy let me ask you a question: Which government is it that has made a big thing about being the party of responsibility? The Democrats or the Republicans, whose line was that?
Republicans.
Which party is currently being handed the responsibility for all of its opposing parties screw-ups, crooked deals and outright acts of deception?
The Democrats.
Which party has repeatedly used patriotism to the “Ideals of America” to keep up its supporter base?
The Republicans.
Which party has then gone on to violate the American constitution, America’s abhorrence for torture, and the basic precepts of honest government?
The Republicans.
Which party accused its opposition of being “Tax and spend” Liberals?
The Republicans
Which party has record-breaking deficits, which even when corrected for inflation are only bettered by WWII?
The Republicans.
So come talk to us about hypocrisy, we aren’t afraid.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:29 pm#205
I mean it was not Rove who outed Plame. Post you proof that he did. I have mine that it was Armitage.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015593.html
September 5th, 2006 at 2:30 pm#207….Oh, Juan…Posting a quote from an author whose works appear regulary on Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA Web site????
That is so weak and pathetic, Juan….Even for you.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:30 pm212
September 5th, 2006 at 2:30 pmActually, the theme park ride “Pirates of the Caribbean” was the inspiration for and pre-dated the movie, but I see where you’re going anyway!
If we really care about this we’ll all threaten to boycott Disney and the show’s sponsors and make good on the threat.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:32 pmTracy,
You are right. Here is my apology to Karl Rove: Dear Karl,
Please accept my apolgy for calling you a lying weasel who would be willing to not only out a CIA agent for political purposes, but also a treasonous toad who would expose a cover company which had spent many years being carefully crafted to follow the worldwide sale and distribution of WMDS. I apologize for calling you the lowest of snakes for putting our intelligence operatives at risk because you didn’t like an op-ed piece in a newspaper. Now that I know that it only took 5 appearances before the grand jury to finally recall that, Yes, indeed you knowingly disclosed classified CIA information to Novak the troll, I will henceforth refer to you as the unindicted, yet admitted, lying weasel who knowingly blew all US intelligence regarding WMDs.
My deepest apologies, Karl
September 5th, 2006 at 2:33 pmIt’s so cute how the right wingers here keep patting each other on the back. As the great Pee-Wee Herman one said, “WHY DON’T YA MARRY IT?”
September 5th, 2006 at 2:36 pmThe thing that bothers me most about the thoughts of “Retired Republican Solider” is that he doesn’t think of himself as a “Retired American Solider.” You mght as well rename the US Army the Republican Guard, for cripes sake. Read Clarke’s book of a couple years ago: “Against All Enemies.” Clarke worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations. He’s all about getting the terrorists, not getting someone elected. He knows his stuff and he’s believable, and right there he’s two steps ahead of George W. Bush.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:37 pmJust to remind everyone, MA’s rant was basically anti child welfare. She was saying that 10 year olds should be self reliant.
Yep, that thar is some real compassionate conservatism.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:46 pm#219
Outed second, third, fourth whatever. The fact that it was known WELL before Rove mentioned Plame makes her blown cover irrelevant. Sorry, you can’t have your cover blown but once.
“Sorry, but every government official who spread this act of Terrorism against the Wilson family is guilty.”
Armitage will get a pass as will Wilson for lying about who set up his trip to Niger.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:51 pmTracy
That it was well known within the administration is irrelevent. that it was leaked is more important.
Oh yeah, and Wilson hadn’t lied about who sent him. He just didn’t out his wife, a CIA agent, thereby committing treason and ruining her job.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:54 pm#220
“Yes, indeed you knowingly disclosed classified CIA information to Novak the troll,”
Armitage spoke to Novak first, so it really no longer is classified information is it?
September 5th, 2006 at 2:54 pmActually, it was. The president has to declassify information before it is deemed unclassified, otherwise everyone could download the schematics of a atomic bomb whenever they wanted (Several leaks throughout the century, indeed that is how Russia got the bomb, someone leaked it.) The fact that a given piece of information has been leaked before does not have a real bearing on whether it is classified or not.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:57 pmPLC,
Off the top of my head:
Obviously, “Farenheit 9/11″
“The Day After Tomorrow”
“American Dreamz”
Various episodes of:
“Boston Legal”
“E/R”
“The West Wing”
“Law and Order” (one of my favorite shows)
“Curb Your Enthusiasm”
And that is not to mention the generic conservative / Republican bashing that goes on in movies and TV shows on an almost daily basis.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:58 pmMighty Aphrodite
September 5th, 2006 at 2:58 pmI don’t believe in equal outcome without confiscatory government. What????
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 “favoredâ€.â€
*******I agree! But our poorest people have access to many public programs and private charities (funded by “evil†rich people). Some day yuou may accept the fact that not EVERYONE enjoys the responsibility of marriage, parenting, showing up for a job, paying bills, attending PTA, reffing the soccer game, taking out the trash….etc….. Then, why don’t you agree with tax policies that are consistent with this (”money where your mouth is”)?
I believe that anyone who is TOOO stupid to express themself verbally and resorts to burning a flag is TOOO stupid to form a coherent thought Pretty arrogant and bigoted response, there. Sometimes, visuals and actions are necessary to gain attention for the verbal message of the marginalized to be heard by those in power.
I find your opinions interesting, sweet, politically correct, self-congratulatory, etc. Thank you, I want to be interesting, sweet, correct politically and otherwise, and able to look in the mirror and approve of what I see.
I mean, come on, PLC..Even the liberal New York Times acknowledges that anti-Bush bias of Hollywood:
TV Shows Take On Bush, and Pull Few Punches.”
By JIM RUTENBERG
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif., March 31 — Galvanized politically in ways they have not been since the early 1990’s, Hollywood’s more liberal producers and writers are increasingly expressing their displeasure with President Bush with not only their wallets, but also their scripts.
In recent weeks, characters in prime time have progressed beyond the typical Hollywood knocks against Washington politicians to calling out the president directly or questioning his policies, including the decision to go to war in Iraq, the support of the antiterrorism law and the backing of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
On the NBC show “Whoopi,” the hotelier played by Whoopi Goldberg delivered an anti-Bush screed when the president, played by a lookalike, appeared at her establishment to use the facilities. “I can’t believe he’s in there doing to my bathroom what he’s done to the economy!” she said.
One of the wise-cracking detectives on the NBC show “Law & Order,” played by Jesse L. Martin, referred to the president as the “dude that lied to us.” The character went on to say, “I don’t see any weapons of mass destruction, do you?” His cantankerous partner, played by Jerry Orbach, retorted that Saddam Hussein did have such weapons because the president’s “daddy” sold them to a certain someone “who used to live in Baghdad.”
But the season finale of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” on HBO arguably best conveyed the growing sentiment. On that episode, the main character, played by the comedian Larry David, backed out of a dalliance sanctioned by his wife after noticing that his prospective paramour had lovingly displayed a picture of Mr. Bush on her dresser.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:01 pmExley
September 5th, 2006 at 3:03 pmThat was very weak – especially trying to include New York produced TV shows.
And yet none of the trolls has yet to come forward and have the balls to actually say “yes, the person(s) supposedly running the show are in fact the ones responsible for what happens on their watch”
Interesting. Basically, none of you can take responsibility for anything. You’re always blaming someone else (typically, democrat). I’m sorry I must have missed something, because what exactly is the purpose of having a leadership which is always blaming someone else and never at fault for anything at all?
Hypothetical situation. Two people – One is Alex, other is David.
Alex is responsible for guarding a glass of water. It’s “his” room since he got the straw to guard it.
David had previously guarded it, but had information that possibly someone wanted to knock the glass over.
Someone does in fact come along and knock the glass of water over.
Alex puts his hands up and says “It was all David’s fault!”
Alex then goes on to blame everything on David.
Alex: “David did this wrong. David did that wrong. David forgot this. David forgot that. David had a blowjob from some girl!”
David: “I did some things wrong ok fine.”
Alex: “David broke that glass. David closed the door as he left. David’s fault the room is white. David’s fault I fell asleep. David’s fault I didn’t hear the door being broken. David is to blame because it took me a while to hear the alarm. David David David!”
You see, after years of this, most sane people would come to think of Alex as a pathetic whiner who isn’t fit to lead or look anything. David might not be perfect but he sure isn’t as pathetic as Alex. Who’d in their right mind blindly defend that kind of spineless wonder? Would YOU want someone like Alex in charge?!
Perhaps if you’re clinically insane.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#227
“Oh yeah, and Wilson hadn’t lied about who sent him.”
He absolutely did lie. Plame’s cover was already blown when he gave his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/013490.html
September 5th, 2006 at 3:09 pmmean it was not Rove who outed Plame. Post you proof that he did. I have mine that it was Armitage.
Comment by Tracy — September 5, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Armitage may have been the first to disclose her identity to Novak but he was not the last… also it was not him that talked to Miller and Cooper.
If it is okay with you for Rove and company to actively destroy a WMD surveillance program for purely political purposes… then you are blind follower that does not love your country or your fellow man.
You are aiding and abetting the enemy and should be tried for crimes against America!
September 5th, 2006 at 3:10 pmCome on TracyExleySoldierPersonWithManyIDs, why won’t any of you really answer the main point. If something breaks while you’re supposedly looking after it, you just blame the last person to look after it? You can’t do it can you, you just can’t take responsibility for anything. That kind of person is not fit to lead.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:12 pm“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…”
This seems like something that could be brought to court. Since it is televised nationally, it seems that the Dems could choose the appropriate friendly court to do so.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:13 pmMichael Moore’s movie was not really Hollywood, it was independent so it doesn’t count.
“The Day After Tomorrowâ€
The president was largely nameless, competent, and not appearing in that movie. Indeed the vice president was in fact the guy who got it wrong, and he got it wrong it wasn’t a matter of malice. While it is critical of the view that we should do nothing about global warming, that was about as far as it got on the real political commentary.
For a counter-movie, watch Independence Day. President Jet-Fighter saves the world. It covered politics in about as much depth.
American Dreamz, well I haven’t watched but it looks to be political satire, which is always critical of the current government. For a counter-movie, watch Wag the Dog.
For syndicated TV: Law and Order is about a bunch of lawyers and cops busting criminals and dealing with it. In fact I can probably cite as many examples of it being conservative as you can of it being liberal. It does not treat liberal judges well. The rest, well I don’t watch TV that much but I am betting they are the same.
Your examples are weak Exley. So weak they are really non-existant.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:16 pm[...] ABC’s planned docudrama The Path to 9/11 contains numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Here’s another one. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 3:17 pmABC’s parent company, Disney, attempted to kill Michael Moore’s movie “Fahrenheit 911″ because it was deemed to politically partisan.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:17 pmWhy, now, has Disney become so willing to air the partisan works of a right wing extremist?
There is a shameless duplicity at work here.
Riiiiiiight… Like Richard Clarke has never lied about this subject before.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:21 pm#237
“If it is okay with you for Rove and company to actively destroy a WMD surveillance program for purely political purposes… then you are blind follower that does not love your country or your fellow man.”
I guess the same go goes the same for the NY Slimes and company to actively attempt to destroy a NSA program that has already proven it’s worth no thanks to them.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:21 pmIf something breaks while you’re supposedly looking after it, you just blame the last person to look after it? You can’t do it can you, you just can’t take responsibility for anything. That kind of person is not fit to lead.
Comment by Go Back To Sleep America — September 5, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
It’s funny that Goergie Boy worked long enough to have earned himself a months vacation… but not long enough to have taken responsibility for things that happened after he got back from it.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:22 pmThe “Clinton Conspiracy Theorists” are out in force today. Put on the tin-foil hat with the neon “Its all Clinton’s fault” sign.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:22 pmAnd Exley
If you want to include TV – let’s not forget the “journalists” list: Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Carlson, Beck, etc. who have made careers out of Clinton bashing and Bush clinging.
I do not advocate censorship, as long as the work is presented as advertised: political satire, documentary, history/news inspired fiction, news, political talk. It’s when a work is offered (directly or indirectly) as something it is not that I take offense. And I don’t care if it’s from Hollywood, New York, or Kansas.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#233, 239
PLC and Bruce,
I dunno…I thought my off-the-cuff list along with The New York Times article (TV Shows Take On Bush, and Pull Few Punches.‖ WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif., March 31 — Galvanized politically in ways they have not been since the early 1990’s, Hollywood’s more liberal producers and writers are increasingly expressing their displeasure with President Bush with not only their wallets, but also their scripts.) was satisfactory…But you are entitled to your opinion.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:24 pmWhen? I mean, the Brittish terror plot was foiled by legal means, not by illegal wiretaps. So tell me Tracy, when did the NY Times set out to destroy a NSA program that had proven its worth?
Indeed the NY Times set out to destroy a NSA Program that was working in direct contradiction of US law, but otherwise, what is the backing to your argument?
September 5th, 2006 at 3:26 pm#246,
Don’t get my started on the liberal bias of the news media!
As for “Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Carlson, Beck (who I think is a buffoon),” I would not call them journalists (I am not even sure they would call themselves journalists). They are commentators.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:26 pmExley
Get started. Go ahead. Tell us all about who this Liberal Media is. It certainly isn’t ABC, FOX or CNN. Tell us who is this fantastic Liberal Media?
September 5th, 2006 at 3:29 pmBruce,
ABC News
NBC News
CBS News
CNN
MSNBC
PBS
The New York Times
The Washington Post
Newsday
The Los Angeles Times…
to start.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:31 pmI guess the same go goes the same for the NY Slimes and company to actively attempt to destroy a NSA program that has already proven it’s worth no thanks to them.
Comment by Tracy — September 5, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
The “slimes” did not disclose the information to themselves… nor they did take an oath of office… but then I guess if you think what the slimes did was bad then you must be conceding that what the administration did is deplorable.
By the way – the administration confirmed the NSA program… they could have just said such a program does not exist… but they thought it would work for them with their base so they let that secret go too… what self serving criminal prick bastards!!!
September 5th, 2006 at 3:33 pmWell if Richard Clarke says so, it must be so. He couldn’t possibly have a dog in this fight:
Clarke implodes
September 5th, 2006 at 3:35 pmExley
Nice list. Now tell me, what exactly is it that makes each of them liberal rather then conservative? Come on, back your accusations and then we will have an argument.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:35 pmRight. That’s it. I’m done with the bigs. No more ABC “news” for me…
September 5th, 2006 at 3:37 pmEisner has previously denied that there was anything sinister about Disney’s (ABC) decision to block distribution (of Fahrenheit 911). “We’re such a nonpartisan company,” he said. “[People] do not look for us to take sides.”
September 5th, 2006 at 3:40 pmBruce,
Fortunately, I don’t have to compile the evidence myself. Please check out:
http://www.mrc.org
and
timeswatch.org
Both are excellent sites that provided comprehensive examples and analysis of the liberal bias running through most of the mainstream news media.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:41 pmOkay, I will start the fight with two of the most obvious examples: CNN and ABC.
ABC News – Current hoohah is all about ABC releasing a rightwing propaganda piece so to be honest, you just made yourself look like a complete twit.
CNN, well Nancy Grace anyone? Come on Exley, you aren’t even trying to come up with anything real, you are just bullshitting.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:42 pmExley
Your “liberal media” list is weak, also, although I would tend to give you PBS, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times generally. The others you list may have liberal journalists but certainly conservative ownership. Further, MSN, Time, FOX (obviously), many local newspapers (my local Columbus Dispatch, for example) counter your list.
But, to be honest, I really don’t care if media people have a bias – as long as we know what it is and can take in their news reports and commentaries with that knowledge. This is for both owners (who can dictate the topics) and the journalists themselves who can dictate the presentation. During this countries early days, newspapers were decidedly partisan and this served us adequately.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:44 pmBruce,
We are talking about the news divisions, so the “hoohad” about “The Path to 9/11″ is irrelevant. Don’t be a dolt.
“Nancy Grace” again is a commentator and analyst. We are discussing the liberal bias that is communicated under the guise of objective reporting.
Stick with the program, Bruce.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:45 pmGeez “countries” should be “country’s” – stupid, slow fingers!
September 5th, 2006 at 3:45 pmPLC…I absolutely agree with you when you say, “But, to be honest, I really don’t care if media people have a bias – as long as we know what it is and can take in their news reports and commentaries with that knowledge.”
I don’t mind media outlets having a bias. But don’t tell me you (media outlet) don’t have one and you are being objective when anyone and everyone can SEE that you have a bias!
September 5th, 2006 at 3:47 pmExley
To be honest your site does not surprise me. The fact that a large number of people whose job it is to be in the know on current events consistently vote liberal, is not exactly a shock to me. That Reporters (Whose bread and butter is basically what is going on) don’t support the Republican candidate in most cases, shows that maybe they might KNOW about the Republican candidates.
That said, your list is extremely weak. Even the most Liberal of those sources have conservative columnists of the die hard variety. The same cannot be said of conservative media.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:49 pmWe have a problem. The link to the Rush quote has very different information than is quoted in the post here.
It is imperative that we clear this up, and quickly. Why is the transcript at the Limbaugh site giving a different version than the quote here?
September 5th, 2006 at 3:50 pmWe are talking about the news divisions, so the “hoohad†about “The Path to 9/11″ is irrelevant. Don’t be a dolt. …We are discussing the liberal bias that is communicated under the guise of objective reporting. Comment by Exley
We are????
There is nothing “brave†in a Hollywood studio releasing a Bush-bashing, liberally-biased film. That is par for the course in Hollywood.
Comment by Exley — September 5, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
And then, you list a bunch of TV fiction shows. And not you say Path to 9-11 is irrelevant as are any TV shows that aren’t news.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:52 pmExley
ABC and ABC News are under the same ownership, so tell me, would the reporter’s boss (Who blocked Farenheit 9/11, yet releases this garbage) be at all pleased with a liberal bias in his station?
September 5th, 2006 at 3:52 pmExley
I don’t mind media outlets having a bias. But don’t tell me you (media outlet) don’t have one and you are being objective when anyone and everyone can SEE that you have a bias!
Comment by Exley
Therefore, you agree that Path to 9-11 should have a “bias disclaimer”.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:54 pmGo back and read the 9/11 Commission report. You’ll see that Clarke is not correct in his statements.
This picture is not going to make either party look good. It will though remind people who the bad guys are, and that they are trying to kill us.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:54 pmBruce,
Your argument pre-supposes that people who go into journalism are political tabula rasas with no ideology or political preference before they become reporters, who become “enlightened liberals” when they see what is going on in the world.
That obviously is nonsense. No, the truth is that for the past 40 years or so (certainly since the Vietnam-era), journalism has overwhelmingly drawn liberals into the profession and journalism schools. That could be changing now with more and more conservatives going into journalism, having seen the tremendous influence the liberal news media has had over the past several decades. So, perhaps, we are indeed getting closer to a news media that is (to borrow a phrase from somewhere) “fair and balanced.”
September 5th, 2006 at 3:54 pm[...] Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 3:55 pm[...] Update: Aravosis at AmericaBlog has some choice words for ABC and links to a ThinkProgress post that explains why ABC is, in essence, lying. We could have a long talk about media effects theory, but in a program supposedly “based on the 9/11 Commission report” it’s certainly audacious to–and I’ll use the technical term here–make $*&^ up. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 3:56 pmExley
September 5th, 2006 at 3:57 pmnews media that is (to borrow a phrase from somewhere) “fair and balanced.†= the same ones you said were only “commentators” and not news journalists?
#265, PLC…”We are????”
Yes, if you see postings #246, 249, 250 and 251, you’ll see that the discussion had evolved into a conversation about liberal bias in journalism. We have moved beyond the “Is Hollywood liberal?” debate.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:57 pmExley
No actually my argument presupposes that people who go in for Journalism are not all carbon copies of each other and may hold a variety of differing views before entering the profession, and that those views might change. That they become more liberal, and that they don’t become dissalusioned with the liberal end of the spectrum, shows that maybe there is something wrong with conservatism.
It is your belief that Journalism only attracts liberals that is nonsense.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:59 pm#267,
Again, we are discussing “journalism” now — not the entertainment divisions.
Having said that, I am sure the mini-series will have a disclaimer saying that it is “baed” on actuall events and a dramatized version thereof.
If you are going to require a “bias disclaimer” in front of all entertainment programs, you will be seeing tons of them acknowledging a liberal bias in front of many prime-time shows.
Moreover, I think it is quite possible TP and its posters are making a mountain out of a molehill. From a review I read, the films shows the failures of BOTH the Clinton and Bush II administrations to pursue Al Qaeda aggressively enough pre-9/11.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:01 pmDon’t forget that Anne Sweeney, the President of Disney/ABC-TV, is a Republican! Here is a link to her 2004 donation to W
September 5th, 2006 at 4:01 pmExley
discussion had evolved into a conversation about liberal bias in journalism
Back to familiar territory and, therefore, off the thread’s topic. I’m bored and I’ve got to go anyway. I enjoyed the debate.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:03 pmWe have a problem. The material quoted from Rush is not what you get when you follow the link.
Is this an accurate quote, or did the Rush crew change the transcript. Or something else that I haven’t thought of?
Accuracy is really important here. I can’t slap the opposition around the head and shoulders with this stuff if I can’t explain these differences.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:03 pm#274, Bruce, No, it is not my “belief that Journalism only attracts liberals.” I didn’t say that. I said (or meant to convey) that in the past 40 years until recently journalism has overwhelmingly attracted liberals to the profession. As I said, I think that might be changing and we are beginning to see more of a diversity of viewpoints in America’s newsrooms (although I believe at this point they are still largely staffed by those who are left-of-center.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:05 pmHave a good one, PLC.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:06 pmthe truth is that for the past 40 years or so (certainly since the Vietnam-era), journalism has overwhelmingly drawn liberals into the profession and journalism schools. That could be changing now with more and more conservatives going into journalism
Comment by Exley — September 5, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
That’s because journalism used to require fact checking and coherent thought… every since media competition went the way of the dinosaurs those things have become detrimental to a career in journalism… hence the increase in conservative journalist.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:07 pmWhat would give anyone reason to believe Richard Clarke? He is nothing but a partisan anti-Bush who sold his integrity for a book deal.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:12 pmExley
But my point is: Why are they liberals? If liberalism doesn’t work, why are they still liberals? These are people whose bread and butter is knowing what is happening, knowing about current events, scandals, and publicity stunts. These are people who are paid to report facts, and it is driven into them from early on that getting discredited is a major issue, so why are so many of them left of centre?
I don’t think you have ever actually asked yourself what admitting a liberal bias in your reporters means. I don’t think you have ever looked at what it implies for your side of the political aisle for all of these reporters to constantly vote liberal. People change their political affiliations, their political views and their idealogies all the time as they get more information, so why does this well informed group of people seem so dominantly liberal?
September 5th, 2006 at 4:13 pmThat obviously is nonsense. No, the truth is that for the past 40 years or so (certainly since the Vietnam-era), journalism has overwhelmingly drawn liberals into the profession and journalism schools.
Comment by Exley — September 5, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
So where did Fox’s journalists come from?
It is irrelevant if “journalists” are liberal – they aren’t the ones to decide what is aired; the slant, tone, etc – that’s management’s decision. Your “MSM” is really “CCM,” but you’re too partisan to admit it. That’s “Corporate (conservative) Controlled Media.”
September 5th, 2006 at 4:15 pm[...] Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger, responding to a key scene in ABC’s The Path to 9/11. (via CQ, subscrip. required) 4:15 pm | Comment (0) [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 4:16 pmzak822
It is probably accurate, they just sometimes screw up the links. Check back tomorrow and it will probably be fixed.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:16 pm[...] read more | digg story Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: . [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 4:20 pmWow! From Richard Clarke’s comments to correct one scene of the movie to a form-letter being altered with a different view, to Republican v. Democrat, to Conservative v. Liberal, to the demographics of journalism. Impressive.
[sarcasm] It’s nice to see everyone stay on-point.
[sarcasm] It’s nice to bash ABC about a movie yet aired.
Regardless your political party affiliation, your left- or right-leaning, your God- or God-less beliefs, your level of education, your income bracket, etc., there’s one thing we all have in common: We’re all incredibly polarized into labeling things either “left” or “right.”
Instead of a movie on the path to 9/11, how about a movie on the path to the polarization and divide of this country’s citizens?
If we don’t pull our heads out of our assess and start working towards the pragmatic good of this country and this planet, no terrorist act will do more damage than that being done by ourselves to ourselves.
Take a deep breath, remember the basics, build from there, and then progress. Perhaps we need to start fresh.
As far as the movie goes – aired or not, it won’t sway my ability to check the facts and vote the way I believe I need to vote. If one movie gives you all the credence you need to pick your representatives in D.C., I can only offer my condolences to you.
APB for 2008
September 5th, 2006 at 4:24 pmhttp://www.LogicalParty.org/
It’s time to start thinking anew. If Iraq gets to rebuild, why don’t we?!
Bruce,
Actually, it is an excellent question. I too have asked myself why the news media is so dominated by liberals nowadays. I think it has to do with the political environment of the last 40 years. Before the days of Vietnam and Watergate, I don’t think you could say the news media was overwhelmingly liberal, as it is today. Vietnam and Watergate and the media’s impact on both events likely drew a large number of liberals into the profession in the late 60s-early/mid-70s. Those who were news reporters back then are now the editors who do the hiring. Thus, it is likely that liberal editors will hire liberal reporters and thus the cycle continues to this day.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:27 pmHere is an excellent rebuttal to the movie (and it really is more of a movie, isn’t it?)
September 5th, 2006 at 4:32 pmhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml
September 5th, 2006 at 4:32 pmExley,
Journalism and news reporting is SUPPOSED to be liberal. It’s watch-dog whistle blowing mechanism designed to prevent runaway ideological (neocon) messaging. Just as the Democratic party was brought into being as a means for preventing unregulated corporate activity, and eventually, oligarchy and/or aristocracy.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:33 pmJournalists once were proud of their role of afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. Some of that equates to liberalism, which advocates tolerance and helping the needy (sort of like Christianity used to be). Now, rather than question government officials (the comfortable), mainstream media types cozy up to them and (with a few exceptions) don’t give a rat’s behind about the afflicted (the Gulf Coasters affected by Katrina).
September 5th, 2006 at 4:34 pmMark, I understand what you are saying when you write, “Journalism and news reporting is SUPPOSED to be liberal. It’s watch-dog whistle blowing mechanism…”
I agree with that sentiment– although not your wording. I don’t think you can equate liberalism with being vigilant over government excesses. Moreover, you go too far when you write the news media is “designed to prevent runaway ideological (neocon) messaging.”
Are you saying that the media has no role in overseeing “runaway ideological liberal or progressive or leftist messaging?”
Journalism should serve as a responsible watchdog over government, noyt over one political ideology.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:40 pmI’m with DTW. Threatening to boycott Disney would be far more effective than simply not watching ABC.
And I’m also wondering: since the movie puts words into Berger’s mouth that, according to witnesses who were present, he never spoke, can he sue for libel?
Similarly, by ascribing to Clinton decisions that were the exact opposite of his expressed policy (according to Cressy), doesn’t the movie also give Bill a case?
After all, what this program amounts to is an accusation of dereliction of duty hurled at Clinton, Berger, and the whole team. It has to be answered. And I can’t think of a better forum than one in which people like Iger and Nowrasteh are compelled to testify under oath.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:45 pmIt doesn’t make sense, if Clarke is a consultant to ABC, why would he then come back and blast them?
September 5th, 2006 at 4:49 pmClarke is a proven liar. Even the New York Times has given up on him.
The entire 2001 plot occured on his watch. There is little wonder as to why he doesn’t want the public to know what happened.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:58 pmIf you think of “liberal” (before it was used to refer to a specific political party, i.e. Democrat — because there are lots of liberal people who are not Democrats) as “the common people,” then you realize there is no ideological liberal messaging.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:05 pm[...] Clarke is currently a counterterrorism consultant for ABC.read more | digg story permalink | trackback uri| [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 5:06 pmThose who were news reporters back then are now the editors who do the hiring. Thus, it is likely that liberal editors will hire liberal reporters and thus the cycle continues to this day.
Comment by Exley — September 5, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
And also likely that both editors and reporters must get approval from corporate before either reporting on air, or publishing – making your contention both wrong and meaningless.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:16 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 5:23 pm[...] Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger, responding to a key scene in ABC’s The Path to 9/11. (via CQ) 4:15 pm | Comment (20) [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 5:24 pm[...] ABC lies According the Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, key scenes in ABC’s “Path to 9/11,” an upcoming docudrama about the attatck on the Trade Center are 100 percent, unadulterated gahr-bage. Here’s Think Progress: 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. Sounds like something out of a RW fever-dream, am I right? Karl Rove, take a bow. Think Progress continues: 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. I encourage anyone who cares about truth to call ABC ( 212-456-7777) and complain. Loudly. (Mighty moralists from the right, in fact, should be leading this charge. You folks oppose lies, right?) Let ABC know that if they are going to trivialize 9/11 by making it into a cheap, movie-of-the-week, they sure as hell should not also be using it to diseminate pro-Republican lies. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 5:39 pmHow sad, as a person affect by the events of 9/11 it saddens me greatly that ABC is doing this. I work as an RN and had to see many, many dead bodies brought to my hospital from the twin towers. If people experienced what I did that day, they would much more reluctant to make such programs. I pray for them…
September 5th, 2006 at 5:40 pmCyrus Nowrasteh is an anagram for “Wry trash cones.”
September 5th, 2006 at 5:46 pm[...] As far as I can tell discussion of the ABC Freeper Fantasy “The Path to 9/11″ is the issue of the day, particularly Richard Clarke’s statements at ThinkProgess. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 5:48 pmHow sad, as a person affect by the events of 9/11 it saddens me greatly that ABC is doing this…
Comment by Walter Aolares — September 5, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
finally… you are the first person with a first person experience of that day that i’ve read on this site’s ABC threads… i’ve been wondering how the families feel about this propo-drama… hope to hear more…
September 5th, 2006 at 5:58 pm[...] After I learned that Richard Clarke found serious problems with a key scene in the upcoming ABC docudrama, “The Path to 9/11″ I decided to check out the project’s website. The Path to 9/11 has a blog, which is an interesting choice. It demonstrates a willingness on the part of ABC, director D. Cunningham (who writes posts) and others involved in the project to engage the public about the project. Too bad the blog is full of contradictions. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 6:00 pmWe could look in the official record to see if this were true but, of course, Mr. Berger stole several pages of official notes pertaining to NSA meetings from the National Archives and destroyed them at home. Later he claimed he stuffed them down the leg of his pants by accident and assumed that the archive had a second set. He plea bargained a deal.
Maybe this is why Dick Clarke can say whatever he wants and nobody can check the veracity. Maybe Dick Clarke is also covering his own ass on this one.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:00 pmGo to the 911 report starting on page 137 (pg 154 of the PDF file). Read “The Desert Camp, Febuary 1999.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:02 pm[...] This weekend ABC is airing a so-called “docudrama” directed by a conservative activist and close friend of Rush Limbaugh’s. ABC is billing the the program The Path to 9/11 as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11″, but in fact it contains various inaccuracies aimed at creating the impression that the Clinton administration was primarily to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter has already spoke out against it. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 6:02 pmWith this weekend’s upcoming mockumentary “The Path to 9/11,” Disney and ABC are breaking dangerous new ground in the conservative propaganda war. Even as the ABC network follows in the footsteps of Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ in “mobilizing the base,” ABC News on Sunday declared Robert Greenwald’s new documentary “Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers” a left-wing hatchet job “produced like a political campaign.”
For the details, see:
September 5th, 2006 at 6:05 pm“ABC Slams New Iraq Documentary, Ignores Own 9/11 Right-Wing Fantasy.”
#225 – “Just to remind everyone, MA’s rant was basically anti child welfare. She was saying that 10 year olds should be self reliant.
Yep, that thar is some real compassionate conservatism.”
Comment by Bruce Gorton
********Bruce, Quit trying to project what you “feel” conservatives think – you have enough difficulty reciting the progressive talking points to get bogged down with our philosophy.
I AM saying PARENTS should (I repeat, SHOULD) take care of their children and if they need help, I am all for a safety net until they get on their feet. But many liberals in la-la land should flagellate themselves REGULARLY for the way they have ruined American cities, inflicting crime ridden “public housing” on the poor and been backed by the corrupt and inept National Education Association, which helps doom some of these poor kids to economic limbo. If progs were for helping poor children and their families, they would treat them with RESPECT and quit thinking they know what’s BEST for them. Your patronizing, condecension is pathetic…..
September 5th, 2006 at 6:20 pm#198
The U.S. did sell the elements necessary for Iraq to make WMDs, but again the U.S. didn’t sell any weaponized chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons to Iraq.
From you quote:
“The Senate report also makes clear that: ‘The United States provided the government of Iraq with ‘dual use’ licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.’ ”
The fact that Sadamm used these materials to make WMDs and then use those WMDs in an offensive way is not something to overlook here.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:30 pm#197
My expertise on WMDs is common knowledge as to what constitutes weaponized chemical and biological weapons. Yours and his lack of common knowledge as to what the U.S. actually sold to Iraq in the 1980s is what is lacking.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:35 pmthe U.S. didn’t sell any weaponized chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons to Iraq.
oh, i feel much better about it now. someone we knew was gassing not only his enemies, but his own people — and we only gave him the biological weapons starter kit!
what’s that i hear conservatives complaining about? moral relativism?
September 5th, 2006 at 6:42 pmI will be watching your movie The Path to 9/11 for the names of ALL of the sponsors of this blatant pack of lies. They will hear from me about their support for pro-Bush propaganda masquerading as a documentary. I’m not buying it, and I won’t be buying their products in future either.
I’m ashamed for you when I realize how far you’ve sunk from the great broadcasting company ABC was when I was growing up. We could depend on ABC for honesty & integrity then.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:44 pmYou’re a disgrace now.
Exley – To your liberal list of media hacks add:
INDY Media
Boston Globe
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
San Francisco Chronicle
Detroit Free-Press
Madison Capital Times
Austin American Statesman
Catholic Worker
Revolution newspaper from the RCCP
Overseas we have:
The Guardian
Der Spiegel
le Monde
Pravda
Must be running….
September 5th, 2006 at 6:46 pm#200
It was materials that were sold not the WMDs themselves.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:48 pmsupposedly common knowledge about the 1993 wtc bombing:
so, the informant wants to build a fake bomb, but the “fbi supervisor” says, no, let’s go ahead and build a real one. that’s how our government protects us — because the government surely wouldn’t benefit from a terrorist attack on american soil, would it?
September 5th, 2006 at 6:52 pmonce again, tracy, moral relativism on display.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:53 pmwe gave them the gun and the bullets, but we didn’t put the bullets in the gun for them!
September 5th, 2006 at 6:54 pmpaul shauder:
Maybe this is why Dick Clarke can say whatever he wants and nobody can check the veracity.
well, since, as the article reprinted in this thread clearly states, “Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost,” my guess is that they can check the veracity, friend.
perhaps you ought to verify the veracity of your own statements before you launch into blind speculation?
September 5th, 2006 at 7:00 pm#252
“…but then I guess if you think what the slimes did was bad then you must be conceding that what the administration did is deplorable.”
No what the NY Times did is just bad…period. The NY Times was asked by the Bush admistration not to publish the story. What the administration did by setting up this program has helped thwart multiple attacks since 9/11.
You were a schmuck, now you are bin Laden’s butt buddy?
September 5th, 2006 at 7:00 pmMost of the responses to the posting of the Richard Clarke blast are another example of leftist propaganda designed to influence the
largest group of brain dead people in the country. I actually got a
laugh after reading some of the crap written by people whose one and
only intelligent thought died a lonely death when puberty drained the
blood from their head. Think about it, this stuff is written by people who
believe everything Michael Moore and Spike Lee call DOCUMENTARIES.
Can’t you idiots figure it out? There is no way the CIA, FBI, NSA or any
of the military intelligence services are going to release or make public
any highly sensitive classified information. Some respondees actually
quote or defend Sandy Berger who got caught saving his own and
Clintons ass. Now Richard Clarke can say anything kowing full well
that the Intell Services will keep their mouths shut.
By the way, give my regards to Elvis when you see him
September 5th, 2006 at 7:03 pmoh no… wordpress troubles…
September 5th, 2006 at 7:13 pmsee ya later…
The NY Times was asked by the Bush admistration not to publish the story.
and merely the bush administration asking is enough to make the action illegal? there were two reasons to ask, tracy — either it was a) vital national security information that was illegal for the ny times to print, or b) embarrassing for the administration because they were engaged in illegal activity themselves.
and we are in the process of finding out which. but if you’ll have me believe that terrorists sophisticated enough to carry out 9/11 don’t know that we might be monitoring their phone calls, then you’re clearly just using this as an excuse to attack those critical of the administration. the partisan argument does not fly.
What the administration did by setting up this program has helped thwart multiple attacks since 9/11.
list them. i want evidence. and i’m sorry, but a guy trying to cut down the brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch (a plot so ridiculous even he gave up on it), is only one very weak and insubstantial example.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:16 pm#284
“So where did Fox’s journalists come from?”
They were the one’s who didn’t post “liberal” on their resumes and couldn’t get a job at the big networks because of it. LOL!
September 5th, 2006 at 7:17 pm“Tell me Exley, how many reporters and/or editors identify as liberals?”
That would be self insulting.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:20 pm[...] After I learned that Richard Clarke found serious problems with a key scene in the upcoming ABC docudrama, “The Path to 9/11″ I decided to check out the project’s website. The Path to 9/11 has a blog, which is an interesting choice. It demonstrates a willingness on the part of ABC, director D. Cunningham (who writes posts) and others involved in the project to engage the public about the project. Too bad the blog is full of contradictions. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 7:20 pm#319
To actually use them is not the same as moral relativism.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:23 pm#325
And we sure as hell didn’t pull the trigger for them. You must think that an unused weapon is a useless weapon.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:25 pmSome respondees actually quote or defend Sandy Berger who got caught saving his own and Clintons ass.
don’t you get it? these documents were copies. and you only make yourself look stupid by continuing to claim he stuffed the documents in his pants (as you do in 312, above). from the previously referenced article:
and clarke can say whatever the hell he wants to say. the documents are about him; they contain his own statements. one would assume richard clarke already knows what he was doing and what statements he has made, and that berger tampering with copies of documents would have no effect on that.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:27 pmyou can try to justify it all you want, tracy, but we already knew saddam was a ruthless dictator who butchered his own people.
and, as you admit here, we gave that ruthless dictator the biological weapons starter kit.
i think most reasonable adults understand what that means.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:31 pmWhy do these trolls keep ignoring the posts about responsibility and who actually has that when they’re in charge? It’s a trainwreck of changing topic and avoiding the reality.
Perhaps they might bite if I were to suggest: the President of the United States and his administration are not responsible for anything that goes wrong in the country or any attacks on the nation while they are in charge. This applies particularly if they are neocons. It’s always somebody else’s fault. You trolls actually support, or at best ignore, this laughable notion of “responsibility” that’s the tragic part.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:35 pmActually I’d love for them to run for election with that slogan: “It’s always somebody else’s fault when something goes wrong. Never ours. No, never. We’re always right”
I wonder how many people would actually believe that and want that kind of person running the country.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:42 pmyes, the apologists and truth revisers are out in full force today.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:46 pm#330
“a) vital national security information that was illegal for the ny times to print”
The illegality is not the the NY Time published the story. I just said it was a bad thing to do. The illegality part is the jerk who leaked it.
“…but if you’ll have me believe that terrorists sophisticated enough to carry out 9/11 don’t know that we might be monitoring their phone calls,”
If you as a Times editor KNEW that this was an illegal act by the Bush administration then be all mean you should publish the story. Since you as a news paper are not a legal scholar for you to compromise national security programs is totally wrong. Yes as you said the the terrorists probably know that the U.S. is listening to their conversations but since this is true there was no reason to give specifics on the program as the NY Times did.
“list them.”
The recent 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot…well known the that NSA surveillance helped.
The foiled terrorist plot to strike a skyscraper in downtown Los Angeles in 2002. Not responsible but most definately helped.
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=6167
the Holland Tunnel plot
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2093
These are just the few that have been released.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:49 pm“responsibility” = the ability to respond
September 5th, 2006 at 8:04 pmTherefore, elected officials who hold the decision making and funding power have the ability to respond to world events and must be held accountability in direct proportion to their relative ability to respond.
So the liar Richard Clarke says black is white, so, ipso fatso, black becomes white in the deluded minds of the mindless lefties. So what else is new?
September 5th, 2006 at 8:14 pmMirriam Webster dictionary defines “responsiblity” along similar lines PLC:
Main Entry: re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
Pronunciation: ri-”spän(t)-s&-’bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being responsible : as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : RELIABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS
2 : something for which one is responsible : BURDEN
Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: ri-’spän(t)-s&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Anglo-French responsable, from respuns
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent (2) : being the cause or explanation c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one’s conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability
4 : politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the electorate if defeated by the legislature — used especially of the British cabinet
- re·spon·si·ble·ness noun
- re·spon·si·bly /-blE/ adverb
synonyms RESPONSIBLE, ANSWERABLE, ACCOUNTABLE, AMENABLE, LIABLE mean subject to being held to account. RESPONSIBLE implies holding a specific office, duty, or trust . ANSWERABLE suggests a relation between one having a moral or legal obligation and a court or other authority charged with oversight of its observance . ACCOUNTABLE suggests imminence of retribution for unfulfilled trust or violated obligation . AMENABLE and LIABLE stress the fact of subjection to review, censure, or control by a designated authority under certain conditions .
Based off the dictionary definition it seems pretty obvious to me the current administration have failed their responsibilities and seemingly think they’re not to account for anything. The current administration failed in its duty to keep the USA safe from attack that’s for damn sure.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:18 pmSince you as a news paper are not a legal scholar for you to compromise national security programs is totally wrong.
if you think for one moment that the ny times didn’t consult with its lawyers on this matter, you are more hopeless than you display here.
if you can’t acknowledge that there are PLENTY of legal scholars from all parts of the political spectrum today that will state, unequivocally, that the eavesdropping is illegal and unconstitutional, you clearly are only analyzing this issue in a myopic and partisan fashion.
personally, if and when this is determined as an illegal act by the bush administration (and contrary to your position, i don’t care whether it’s a republican or democrat that’s breaking the law) — then i applaud the leakers as patriots and defenders of the constitution.
on the other hand, if the program is determined to be legal, then the leakers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
sorry, tracy, the very article you link to says this about the library tower plot:
and here’s the lede from another story about that non-event:
and the holland tunnel?
the article you link to say the nsa surveillance “could have been” the method used (pure conjecture on its part), but other articles clearly state that, “The FBI discovered the plot by monitoring Internet chat rooms, where the aspiring terrorists discussed striking the U.S. economy, rather than causing mass casualties, a source said.”
and internet traffic isn’t part of eavesdropping on phone conversations. sorry, try again.
and the recent transatlantic plot?
where’s the evidence? where’s the link? there is nothing that substantiates this claim.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:21 pmre post # 341…
so now you must ask yourself if any of those victories would have been foiled if the administration had to get a court order AFTER they got the information?
Answer: NOT ONE.
OPERATE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION AND NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM.
OPERATE OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION AND EVERYONE LOOSES FREEDOM.
Simple.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:26 pm[...] Richard Clarke — former “counterterrorism czar” for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II — explains why scene in the ABC docudrama “Path to 9/11,” which makes the claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden, is totally inaccurate and misleading. Clarke is currently a counterterrorism consultant for ABC.read more | digg story [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 8:28 pmtrue enough, sonny,
but those examples aren’t victories of fighting terror, they’re victories of the administration public relations campaign.
if this administration spent half of the time doing its JOB that it spent creating propaganda and giving speeches, maybe more than 30-some odd percent would still believe them.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:30 pmMaybe somebody should remind Mr Clarke about the Saddam-bin Laden connectons that he is now lying about:
from page 134 of 9-11 report:
If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible†to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared. Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with†Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.†Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:42 pmFor a good read on the faillures of the Clintonistas to kill or capture bin Laden and disrupt al Qaeda:
U.S. Pursued Secret Efforts To Catch or Kill bin LadenU.S. Pursued Secret
Efforts To Catch or Kill bin Laden
by James Risen
The New York Times
September 30, 2001
The United States had only a hazy understanding of Mr. bin Laden’s growing significance before 1996, when an Al Qaeda insider, Jamal Ahmed Al-Fadl, defected to the United States and began to describe the extent of Mr. bin Laden’s plans and objectives. Based largely on Mr. al-Fadl’s information, a federal grand jury indicted Mr. bin Laden on terrorist conspiracy charges in June 1998, just two months before the twin bombings of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Remember Mr Clarke? The Iraq-al Shifa-bin Laden connection your wrote about in your book?
Clinton administration lawyers determined that the United States could
legitimately seek to kill Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants despite the
presidential ban on assassinations, according to current and former American officials. The lawyers concluded that efforts to hunt and kill Mr. bin Laden were defensible either as acts of war or as national self defense, legitimate under both American and international law. As a result, President Clinton did not waive the executive order banning assassinations.
But he didn’t!
There have been an array of unsuccessful attempts to target Mr. bin Laden and disrupt or destroy Al Qaeda, American officials say. The Clinton administration even considered mounting a secret effort to steal millions of dollars from the bin Laden terrorist network by siphoning it out of the international financial system, but discarded the scheme because of objections from the United States Treasury about the implications for world finance.
One consequence was that Mr. bin Laden drastically improved his own security measures. Realizing that the United States had collected solid intelligence about his physical movements, he cut back on his use of electronic communications.
After a leak to the press about our survellience methods!
Washington has also attempted to target Mr. bin Laden’s finances. One idea briefly considered by the Clinton administration called for a clandestine effort to drain money out of bank accounts that could be tied to Al Qaeda. But former Clinton administration officials said that Treasury Department officials opposed the idea, fearing that it might damage the integrity of the financial system.
Translation: Clinton was more concerned about his political image than the threat of al Qaeda! Hey Monica, blow me!
September 5th, 2006 at 8:56 pm#341 Yeah, Tracy, released, like evacuated, or “I have dropped the kids off at the pool”. Pure crap.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:02 pmgo take a nap hulk
September 5th, 2006 at 9:09 pm[...] In fact I’m told that there will even be some appearances by a couple of CIA ops who – in spite of Richard Clarke’s denial – WERE on the ground that day in Afghanistan surrounding the safehouse where Osama Bin Laden was believed to be holding up. They would sure like Clarke to meet them personally and tell them they weren’t there. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 9:17 pm[...] Republicans are running based upon the myth they created that they have a better record than Democrats on fighting terrorism. A number of blog posts this week have refuted conservative claims. One false story which conservatives have spread the last couple of yeras is that Bin Laden would have been captured if not for Bill Clinton. It is quite ironic that they would invent such a story, considering that in reality it was George Bush who allowed bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora. Think Progress report that Richard Clarke has given a different story than the upcoming ABC miniseries on 9/11. The miniseries claims that the Clinton Administration denied the CIA permission to capture bin Laden. Even the conservative Washington Times has refused to go along with spreading this right wing lie. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 9:17 pmin other words, glad, you’re still seeking excuses for the fact that 9/11 happened on bush’s watch.
and let me think back here… i seem to remember that somebody was obsessed with blowjobs back in the late 90s… hmmm, who was that?
perhaps it was the party that lost seats in the 1998 elections…
…and the same people who are still obsessed with clinton, 14 years running, and 6 years after he’s left office. i don’t even know a single democrat who talks about bill clinton as much as you blowhards do. as near as i can figure, you think the guy was one of the most influential americans that ever lived.
where would you be without clinton?
oh yeah, you’d actually be having to take accountability. what a novel concept.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:18 pmWant to kill the ratings??? Send your complaints to the advertisers, then Boy Cott them
September 5th, 2006 at 9:24 pmmartha,
there won’t be ratings. it seems i read somewhere (but now i can’t find it) that abc is airing the fake-umentary without commercials so nielson won’t be monitoring it.
doesn’t stop anyone from boycotting abc advertisers in general, though… or expressing displeasure in the airing of a politicizing 9/11 fiction so close to elections.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:34 pmI think we need to pressure our LOCAL ABC AFFILIATES as well – maybe even protest outside their stations. That’s the only way your neighbors will know something stinks here.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:48 pmABC should change their name to APL for ‘All Pathetical Liars’. Scum that is all that any company or body who believes or promotes this unpatriotic horse manure. I say run ABC and Fox out of this country and tri (as in trial) them for crimes against humanity and crimes against intelligence.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:10 pmHow desperate is ABC for decent ratings? The Bush Cheney Admin. and their cronies have benefited politically and financially from September 11, yet they are trying to blame the Clinton Admin. After 5 years, how come we don’t hear those “dead or alive” or “smoke them out” statements from Bush anymore? How come this Admin. has not found Bin Laden yet?
The entire right wing conservatives are nothing but bunch of whiney, irresponsible, and unpatriotic people.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:16 pm#354….Well-researched and well-put. That (and other statements by Mr, Clarke in the 1990s) are quite illuminating and illustrative of what he believed and the information he acted on BEFORE he began shilling for his book in 2004 and before his best friend Rand Beers became John Kerry’s presidential campaign’s national security adviser.
Shockingly, (well, not really) I have never heard any reporter from the liberal media ask Mr. Clarke about the stark inconsistency between his statements in the 1990s while working in the Clinton administration and his comments made in 2004 when his book was coming out.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:58 pmexley, i refer you to my comments in 359
get over it, and take accountability. you sound like crybabies.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:29 pmprogressaurus rex ….Heh! WE sound like crybabies?! That’s hysterical! I see on the front-page on this Web site not one, not two, not three, but SEVEN different threads devoted to this mini-series, which no one here has seen yet, but which has got so many of you apoplectic because it may dare to say that the sainted Bill Clinton may not have done everything he could have done to get Bin Laden in the 1990s before Al Qaeda had the opportunity to kill thousands of innocents on 9/11….I would say the vehemence and amount of denunciations of this film before you have had a chance to see bespeaks a guilty conscience by many on the left.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:46 pmshockingly, i have yet to see a right-winger acknowledge that richard clarke is the ONLY official that was in a position of public service on 9/11 that has had the balls to say, without caveat: your government failed you.
not a single official fired.
not a single official demoted.
not a single official reprimanded.
hell no, they got medals of honor hung around their failure necks by the head failure himself, george w bush. it’s all part of operation enduring failure, didn’t you know?
don’t be a hypocrite, exley. if you’re going to take one official to task for contradictory statements from years past, you’d better be consistent.
go ahead, ask for examples. i dare you.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:47 pmI believe that ABC should explain to the rest of America that the Clinton Administration gave the CIA complete freedom to do what they thought was best.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:58 pmfirst: if you can point out where i’ve displayed either vehemence or denunciations of this film, do so.
second: i hardly think clinton is, or was, a saint. i never voted for the guy.
third: although i never cared for clinton, the right-wing absolutely sounded like crybabies about him in the 90s, and by now it’s just ridiculous. the word “obsessed” comes to mind.
fourth: accountability. accountability. accountability. i can’t say it enough. that’s why i’m here, and that’s why, for the first time in my life, i’m voting a straight democratic ticket. republicans run the game, they write the rules, they have all the pieces, and yet they still have the audacity to try and complain that the other side isn’t playing fair.
if you can’t win with all of that in your favor, you deserve to lose.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:59 pmProgressaurus…I could not agree with you more that some people should have lost their jobs after 9/11….starting with George Tenent…From the day that Bush said he was retaining Bill Clinton’s DCI, I thought it was a mistake. Of course, I never conceived how tragic a mistake it would turn out to be.
Clarke was absolutely right when he said our government, including himself, failed us on 9/11. I have never disagreed with that.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:59 pm#371…Progressasaurus….When I wrote: I would say the vehemence and amount of denunciations of this film before you have had a chance to see bespeaks a guilty conscience by many on the left, my use of the word “you” was not intended to refer to you personally. I meant “you” as a collective term, meaning the powers that be behind Think Progress, who have put up about eight threads on this mini-series, and many of its posters.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:03 amWith all the lib wacko posts in here, its good to know who frequents this site with loser Daeschle. Sort of reminds me of how we get all the illegals to march in one place, so that one day we could just bring in the busses. With the libs though, its more like lemmings to themselves. Not including others in any kind of civil discourse…and as a perennial minority they constantly predict victory then get trounced…they scream liar liar, and in the end get proven wrong. And then never apologize…just like the Plame falsities. This too might fire your ass when the truth be told.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:04 amdo you actually have a point, musing? or are you just another hopeless partisan that wants to exhibit baseless malice towards your fellow countrymen?
you do understand that your irrational hatred of “libs” is rooted in fear?
it’s a shame, for as edward r. murrow said, “we are not descended from fearful men.”
also, you did hear that plame was an undercover agent working on iraqi wmds, didn’t you?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:18 amsince that happened to be a crucial issue in 2003, perhaps outing her was a danger to our national security. the cia sure seems to think so.
my use of the word “you†was not intended to refer to you personally
yes, exley, i may have surmised that.
incidentally, i, too, find the glut of left blog denunciation of this program a bit perplexing… it all looks like free publicity to me.
it’s clearly a coordinated effort, though.
and i shouldn’t have to remind you about janet jackson’s breast, so this certainly isn’t a left-wing phenomenon.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:23 amProgressaurus….Allow me to say that I — as a conservative — but also as a man — had and would have absolutely NO problem with catching a glimpse of Janet Jackson’s breasts….
September 6th, 2006 at 12:29 ami wouldn’t have thought that you did, exley. i tended to see that one as fitting into the exceedingly strange category of right-wing morality enforcement (like the schiavo thing), which doesn’t square with my own interpretation of what a conservative is.
as a former libertarian (who still holds many of those beliefs), i find it vexing.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:48 am… As the other posters have said, hit ABC WHERE it HURTS – in the pocket! Everyone contacting the sponsors, and threatening NOT to purchase their products – Ahhh, THAT’S going to get their attention, INDEED! ;) …
September 6th, 2006 at 1:00 amcyn-
September 6th, 2006 at 1:04 amthe program is airing commercial free. looks like abc is anticipating a backlash.
[...] Why? Because of that crap mini-series on 9/11 they are airing just before the election. But you must know about this if you visit other sites, Think Progress has had excellent coverage. Scroll through the recent posts there, there are too many to link to individually. (Not really, I’m just being lazy, but definitely see this one). This post at Jane Hamsher’s FDL is very good and gives you hints how to hit their sponors up. This is crap is really whitewash of Bush and a false smear of Clinton and there is no doubt about why. Effect the Election. Your “so called liberal media” in action again. I told ABC I no longer watch them anyway, (John Stossel’s nasal whine was making me sick), but now I intend to boycott all their sponsors. ALL. I did say I would make an exception if they aired that old 20/20 episode of Stossel getting the crap kicked out of him by that wrestler. That was good TV. Digby has a good post on why ABC and Disney are playing footsie with the wingnuts. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 1:25 amABC needs no advertisements to fund the bogus docudrama, because it’s already funded by Bush cronies and GOP affiliated scum > shame on ABC!
September 6th, 2006 at 1:34 amI wondering how long it will be before people start making up fake schools, lol, and start asking for free copies Progressaurus….Allow me to say that I — as a conservative — but also as a man — had and would have absolutely NO problem with catching a glimpse of Janet Jackson’s breasts….
Comment by Exley
That chinese throwing star thing she had glued to her boob looked pretty scary..she might just take that thing off and whapisshh!
September 6th, 2006 at 1:48 amStupid ABC Why did they make something Up Why Not Just Show the Real Times Clinton let Bin Laden Slip Away or How Bush could have gotten him from the Taliban after 9/11.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:53 amI guess the same go goes the same for the NY Slimes and company to actively attempt to destroy a NSA program that has already proven it’s worth no thanks to them.
Comment by Tracy — September 5, 2006
Umm Bush talked about this program several times himself before NYT ever did. Besides that stuff is not that great of a secret, google ‘Menwith Hill’ Tracy.
Plus if you look back thru public congressional documents you will also find mention of these programs, ‘Pen Taps’ and other such things. The secret lies in the dissemination of the Data, not so much in the collection…Plus the NSA has two divisions, one civilian one military. You won’t hear about what the military collects =) You are safe Tracy and the sky isn’t falling..
September 6th, 2006 at 1:56 amStill no comment here on why, after six years, Bush has not found and captured bin Laden. If he was so easily within that incompetent Clinton’s grasp, why hasn’t your hero Boy George snatched him up and brought him to justice.
I’ll tell you why. Because W. is holding the map UPSIDE DOWN!
September 6th, 2006 at 2:20 amThus, 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.
Comment by Exley
==
Whoa! Did you just call the ‘Liberal’ media brave or are you calling the GOP media brave?
And how Exley is showing this documentary in any way help those that had members of their families perish on that day?
I can think of no greater insult than to remind someone on the day they are grieving the loss of loved ones to show this ‘tragimentary’. It’s Despicable.
Comassionate Conservatives my ass.
So which is it Exley, is the media liberal or isn’t it?
September 6th, 2006 at 3:14 amThus, ABC is brave — in the context that a television network can be brave
September 6th, 2006 at 3:17 am==
Despicable, immature, self-serving and deluded is more like it.
These people can walk under the belly of a snake.
9/11 was an inside job, using Pakistani ISI to controll and fund the patsy hijackers.
Why the HELL are liberals so keen to support the neocon version of 9/11, this “incompetence” crap?
WAKE UP! If you support the official story, you might as well support the neocons war on terror.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:23 amABC [Always Bogus Crap] is Brave -Exlax
September 6th, 2006 at 3:24 amBush doesn’t want anyone to take pictures of the flag draped coffins, but he uses the tragedy of 9/11 for Political gain again and again.
Any man, or woman, who uses the demise of another man, or woman, or child for ANY type of gain, especially political and monetary, is surely a sick demented and twisted individual, party or corporation.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:30 amArrogant, irresponsible, crass, self-serving, war mongering, lying, misleading, scandal ridden, cronyistic and downright rotten bunch of people in this GOP house of haters that blame America first -Exlax
==
Dang Exlax, wha’ happn’d? I leave for a while and you go all flip floppy on us..
==
So the media ['liberal' media] wasn’t Brave by not showing the Reagan docudrama?
Or were they ['liberal' media] Brave by kowtowing to the pressure from the GOP and not showing it?
Really Exley, I begin to wonder if you have one of those Sybill things going on..
September 6th, 2006 at 3:55 amThey were the one’s who didn’t post “liberal†on their resumes and couldn’t get a job at the big networks because of it. LOL!
Comment by Tracy
More like bottom of the journalistic barrel -LOL!
September 6th, 2006 at 4:13 amLet me see…Micheal Moore, OK but Path to 911 propoganda. Yeh, right!
September 6th, 2006 at 7:00 amjohn
Farenheit 9/11: Well documented, Moore stood by what he said, what bias existed was in interpretation not in the facts presented. (In other words, basically everything in it is true, it is just not as damning as Moore wanted it to be. This is because Moore didn’t make shit up, go watch it sometime and you will see what I mean.)
Path to 9/11: Isn’t even out yet and major errors and outright lies have been spotted just from the promotional stuff. ABC’s executives have stressed that this is not a Documentary but a Docudrama, and therefor not a representation of the facts. It is pretty damning, but only because lots of the shit in it is completely made up.
The Former was blocked from airing on ABC and Disney refused to distribute it because of its partisan slant. The latter is made by ABC and distributed by Disney, despite its obvious partisan slant and several outright falsehoods.
The former was not marketted as a teaching aid to kids. The latter is.
There are several real issues with this mini-series you rightwing blow hards are trying very hard to play down. Unfortunately, those of us on this site are a touch less then patient with you guys nowadays, because we are sick to death of being lied to, and blamed.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:19 amRight wing? 30+ years a Democrat and now I’m a right winger! All I can say is: bovine excrement.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:27 amRichard Clarke is a scorned and tainted sole, who has no truth or integrity left, he just has hate because he was passed over for a promotion his ego thought he deserved and his continual attacks on G.W. prove it. He thinks his view is the only truth there is. He definitely has gone bye-bye. Hes one of those characters in a Steven Segal movie know as a unknown quanity.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:30 amWho needs to smear Richard Clarke? He has smeared himself badly enough. Typical left wing tactics, claim that the right will smear the guy who is actually doing the smearing. Clarke is not a credible source.
I welcome the debate on this and the comparison of facts (oh yeah, those inconvenient facts) and I have the utmost confidence that Clarke will come up short.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:30 amWhen someone tries to claim that Micheal Moore’s ‘Farenheit 911′ is “well documented”, or that it was not used as a “teaching aid”, after all the college campuses it was pushed on, it is a waste of time trying to reason with that person.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:36 amJohn, that is a rightwing comment, and besides the Democrats are a largely rightwing party, the only difference is the Democrats aren’t a stupid rightwing party. Call yourself a Democrat if you want, but frankly, your statement here ignores the basic differences between the two movies. One is still partisan, but true, the other is a smear job, whose only occasional bouts of truth are due to coincidence, not conscious effort. The latter is propaganda, and the former, just a leftwing opinion on film.
The former gets called propaganda, Path to 9/11 however, gets called the true story.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:40 amplease see comment #398 above
September 6th, 2006 at 7:43 amjohn
Go watch Farenheit 9/11. Just go watch it, and then come back and talk. The rightwing is scared of that movie because it didn’t make shit up and all of what is showed was actually the truth, the thing is, that truth was not as damning as you would think.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:49 amjohn
Seriously, go watch the movie and think about it. The facts are correct, the footage is real, the documentation is real, the basic launching point actually happened.
The main problem with F 9/11 is that it does not prove its case. It tries to draw conclusions with insuffecient data, and it tries to make a lot of things look sinister, when really they weren’t. To a thinking person it is the biggest collection of “So what” moments in movie history. So Bush was chummy with the Saudis, for a oil exec this isn’t exactly unusual. So Bush’s Grandpa was a Nazi supporter, last I checked Bush isn’t his Grandpa. So Bush ducked the Vietnam war, so did anybody else who could get away with it. So Bush wasn’t born in Texas, well who cares he is still an American.
While the movie does raise the concern that serious questions need to be asked about 9/11, it doesn’t really have any more substance then that, and a lot of the conclusions it leaps to aren’t valid. Go watch the movie, look at the facts presented (This is if you can seperate fact from opinion) and tell me that Moore was lying. He jumped to conclusions, but he wasn’t lying.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:10 am#1, saw it. #2 Joeseph Goebbles would be jealous. (Repeat your lies, no matter how outrageous, often enough and loud enough. Add just a tiny bit of truth, to make your ‘truth’ easier to swollow. Eventually you can get the public to believe your message.) #3, I am still amazed at how fast being a free thinking moderate Democrat has placed me on the distant right of my own party! #4, Didn’t you notice a bitter taste to the Cool Aid? Wake up: it’s time we took our party back from the cliff our current leaders seem intent on leading us off!!!!
September 6th, 2006 at 8:12 amWhen the House and Senate are returned to Democratic hands, the first hundred days must include reinstatement of “the Fairness Doctrine” for public media. ABC’s truthiness infotainment piece is a textbook example of the Doctrine’s necessity.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:13 am911 HAPPENED ON BUSH’S WATCH
911 HAPPENED ON BUSH’S WATCH
911 HAPPENED ON BUSH’S WATCH
911 HAPPENED ON BUSH’S WATCH
911 HAPPENED ON BUSH’S WATCH
911 HAPPENED ON BUSH’S WATCH
PERIOD.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:20 amMaybe somebody should ask Sandy Berger what was in the documents he stole from the National Archives.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:38 amjohn
The bitter taste you have noticed in Liberals is this:
1: We tried being nice. Hell, most Democrat Congressmen voted to go into Iraq because they thought Bush wouldn’t lie about something as serious as that. It didn’t work. Liberals still got blamed for everything.
2: We tried being polite. What ended happening was everyone from Arnold to Limbaugh calling us wussies. We tried being reasonable, we got called traitors anyway.
3: Every time we have tried to criticise the current American government on anything at all, we have anti-American. Every time a question has been raised on 9/11 we have been equated to conspiracy theorists despite the fact that not all of us actually believe the theory. We get called sheep, and then get called disunited. If you are one logically, you aren’t the other.
4: We get accused of being doomsayers when we say something is going to go horribly wrong, and when it actually does, we are sick of getting blamed for it going horribly wrong. Take Iraq as the ultimate example. We all said America would get bogged down there, that the peace would be hellsa hard to maintain, that we would be giving terrorists a new breeding ground, that there were no WMDs and there was no real threat to warrant a war. Years later, all of what we said has been proven true, it is the biggest “I told you so” ever, and we still get to hear about all of those Democrats who voted for it.
5: We are sick to death of being called irresponsible by a bunch of frat boys who have comitted frauds on the scale of K Street.
6: Joe Lieberman, biggest follower of Onan in politics. We are sick to death of hearing Republicans telling us that Joe Lieberman’s loss in the primaries was anything more then the Democrats in his district choosing the representative they liked better. We are sick to death of Republicans we are so stupid that we will elect a guy who they have spent more time talking up, then their own candidate.
7: We are sick to death of people claiming that two wrongs make a right. This is you John. If you think Farenheit 9/11 was propaganda, and that the Path to 9/11 is Propaganda, there is nothing wrong with opposing both. When you use F 9/11 to excuse Path to 9/11 you are being a rightwing hypocrite. I personally, don’t feel F 9/11 was propaganda, but guess what? You are free to disagree with me.
8: We sick to death of every decision that goes against the president and his congress being called “Liberal bias.” We are sick of it. We are sick of the accusation of “Liberal Media” we are sick of the old sob story entitled “Liberal Hollywood” and we are definitely sick to death of having a bunch of torture loving yahoos telling us that they are more moral then those “Liberal Degenerates” who feel that gay people should get the same rights as straight people.
9: We are also sick of those conservatives who have disowned Bush. He was their boy, he did everything they wanted, and when it was a complete screw-up, they call him a liberal. Cow Feces.
10: We are tired of conservatives blaming Clinton. We have had six years of it, it has worn itself well thin. It is time to get in a government that actually knows where the buck should stop.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:39 am6 should be “Republicans who think we are so stupid”
September 6th, 2006 at 8:42 amWes,
You couldn’t shine Clarke’s shoes. You should do a little research and see how highly regarded Clarke is by people who actually have work in counter-terrorism. Find out that he is known as highly non-partisan. Find out that he tried and tried to warn Dumbya about Al Kaeda and how Dumbya wouldn’t listen. Find out about how he took over in the WH during 911 because Condi flipped out. Find out about how he and Clinton thwarted a major 911-like attack during the milenium. Then, go back to your minimum wage job in Alabama.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:43 am#392 Trinary…I am not sure to what you are referring when you write:
Really Exley, I begin to wonder if you have one of those Sybill things going on..
Actually, I am not sure I understand your post in its entirety.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:46 am1) Country
2) Government
3) Political Party
IN THAT ORDER.
Republicans think their Party = Country as in, “Blame America First!” they say.
No…blame Republicans first. Leave my Country out of it!
Political Parties are the last refuge of the weak and stupid.
After 9/11, anyone who voted in 2004 for ANY President who presided over the events of 9/11 has mental problems at best and is a traitor at worst.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:49 amPaul
Nicely said. It is time for the independents to have a go, the Republicans have proven they can’t run their way out of a paper bag and the bulk of the Democrats aren’t even willing to stand up for themselves, never mind America. It is time to go smaller.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:52 amThe right wing has taken a page right from Hitler Mien Kempf – propaganda is everything. Unfortunately the loyal Bush base will swallow this whole story line hook-line-and-sinker!
Another good example is the Use of the term Islamo-fascist. Now there is a word that is PURE PROPAGANDA!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines
elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism,
anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
Corporatism, Nationalism, Militarism and ANTI_LIBERALISM.
DAMN does NOT sound like Muslims but it DOES sound like the people in the
Whitehouse!!!!!
If the people in this great country do not wake up and demand the TRUTH, our days as the world leader are numbered.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:28 amThe story I saw about the best chance to get bin Laden was July 2001. He got on his cellphone to call his mother. The US intercepted and knew exactly where he was. Clinton had sent that cruise-missile firing sub to the Indian Ocean to get him and it could have put one right in his ear, but Bush had called the sub back (an economy move?).
September 6th, 2006 at 9:40 amJohn (With the big J) Well said.
john (with the little j): Here is the difference between F 9/11 and Path to 9/11:
Moore took what was actually there, and put forward his criticism based on that. There is nothing you can really say to it, it was his interpretation of events, you can call him mistaken, you can disagree with him, but you can’t really call him a liar based on that. Even his toughest critics have pointed out that what he shows is in fact what happened, its just that it isn’t as sinister as he tries to make out.
ABC on the other hand is just making shit up.
Now I think the thing you don’t realise is we aren’t really bothered that much by the propagandising that is being done with this, so much as the fact that it is in fact a pack of lies. It is a case of Disney going back on what it said was the reason it didn’t distribute F 9/11 and demonstrating a clear double standard when it comes to Path to 9/11.
Lastly, while Moore did go for having 9/11 in the colleges, here is a question for you, who has more money, and which side is in government? If you were a real Democrat you would be screaming just as loud as the rest of us are about Path to 9/11. Indeed it is for your passive acceptance of this movie that I think you are lying about that, because if you are a Democrat then you realise that this movie, by blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11 for the disaster, is also blaming you.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:55 amthe path to 9/11…
the most interesting thing i see about this whole path to 9/11 miniseries controversy ……
September 6th, 2006 at 10:11 amIs it possible for the neo-con wingnuts to go far enough back in human history to blame Clinton for Adam and Eves’ (alleged) ejection from The Garden of Eden? You have to know that they would cast Bill as The Serpent himself!! I mean according to the “leading lights” of the right-wing fundie faux “Christian” ilk, the planet is ONLY 6000 to 8000 years old (and nevermind that skeleton of the T-Rex at your local Museum of Natural History). Maybe ABC can make a series of docudramas about EVERY historic villain. Imagine if you will, Bill as Caligula, Bill as Attila, Bill as Rasputin or Hitler. Hell, why not Bill and Hillary as Boris AND Natasha!!! This is truly getting pathetic. The Bush cartel was given 52 separate and increasingly urgent warnings from the moment they transitioned into the White House up until that fateful day when the PNAC wet dream became a reality. I guess it’s a good thing that FDR was President on Dec. 7th, 1941 because if anyone named Bush had been “Commander-In- Chief” we might have attacked Canada!!
September 6th, 2006 at 10:20 amFINALLY, THE TRUTH COMES OUT AND NO ONE LIKES IT. IF YOU HAD TO BLAME ONE PERSON FOR THIS WHOLE MESS, IT IS NOT G.W. IT IS BILL CLINTON. HIS FAILURE TO ACT CAUSED OUR ENEMIES TO GET BOLDER. FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY THE TRUTH COMES OUT AND IT WILL SET US FREE.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:30 am#345
“if you think for one moment that the ny times didn’t consult with its lawyers on this matter, you are more hopeless than you display here.”
To the NY Times only the appearance of impropriety would have been enough for them to pulbish the story. If you think that they thoughly examined the legality of of the NSA program you are even more hopeless.
“…if you can’t acknowledge that there are PLENTY of legal scholars…”
Yes I do, that is also why they aren’t judges.
“sorry, tracy, the very article you link to says this about the library tower plot:”
If you think that the NSA wiretapping program didn’t play a part in foiling the attack…once again you are hopeless.
“and internet traffic isn’t part of eavesdropping on phone conversations. sorry, try again.”
Eavesdropping on phone conversations isn’t the only part of the NSA’s surveillience program. If you think that phone tapping is that only thing that the NSA does you are once again hopeless. Monitoring e-mails sent from those chat rooms is on the same plane as phone tapping.
As far as the transatlantic plot is concerned, where do you think that the British and American officials go the information that detailed the plot? The details were revealed BEFORE the suspects were arrested. If not by eavesdropping how was the information gathered?
September 6th, 2006 at 10:33 amWhat you all seem to forget, including Mr. “Go Back To Sleep America” is that the final decision of the 9/11 comission was that the blame is shared equally by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. They (the comission)chastised both for not thinking creatively in their individual dealings with terrorsim. GBTSA insists that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch and is his fault. I agree. Just like the previous WTC attack happened on Clinton’s watch and was his fault. Therefore, every ensuing attack on American soil is the fault (or responsibility if you will) of the acting administration. Bush’s handling has resulted in no further atttacks on American soil or American civilians. Clinton’s did not. I really don’t care any more about what Clinton did or did not do. What I do care about is what’s happening now. Maybe we’re safer maybe we’re not. The single grreatest indication of how well a policy works is it’s history. Bush’s policies have kept American civilians safe for almost 5 years now. I challenge you to find a period of time when the same can be said for Clinton’s policies. This is simply a comparison of what works and what does not based on track record. Clinton is the only Democrat president in more than 20 years, so we have little else to compare to.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:59 amI just woke-up and noted that RAW Story has a piece this morning all should read:
So, with ABC owned by Disney, a boycott of ABC and Disney would both be appropriate – and who would have ever thought that Disney supported the Neo-conservative agenda and was instrumental is fostering propaganda right in our own country?
I write occasional articles about Wal-Mart and was banned from ABC’s Political Forums last year – even though I had one of the longest running threads ever to appear on their forum – but then found out that ABC was getting Mega-bucks from Wal-Mart in advertising fees, so money to ABC and Disney is the ultimate motivator – not freedom of speech or truth.
Who would have ever thought that Disney was supportive of this kind of fascist propaganda? This is the place we have traditionally brought our children to – and I’ll admit, I feel hood-winked and angry as hell! As soon as I wake-up it’s an article I’ll be writing – and attempting to expose to all the complicity of Disney and ABC in their quest to steal the American dream and support the Neo-conservatives that refuse to honor our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rule of law!
I hate to have egg on my face, to be deceived, yet lately I have wondered why there have been so many hits on my site originating from Disney.com – but now the cats out of the bag – and Disney is fair game as well as ABC, the Grinche’s who are trying to steal our American Dream! I wonder if Disney will make an animated movie of that? Grrrrr…
I’ll be back later with a link to an article that will appear here, there, and everywhere so we can alert the American people that the benevolent Disney Corporation is also in on the theft of American ideals and support lies rather than truth. It’s time for the Blogosphere to get in high-gear again and unmask these traitors for all to see, and Disney, as far as I’m concerned, you’ve gone to the Dark-side and deserve nothing but contempt!
William Cormier
September 6th, 2006 at 11:21 amhttp://www.Justanothercoverup.com
[...] In fact I’m told that there will even be some appearances by a couple of CIA ops who – in spite of Richard Clarke’s denial – WERE on the ground that day in Afghanistan surrounding the safehouse where Osama Bin Laden was believed to be holding up. They would sure like Clarke to meet them personally and tell them they weren’t there. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 11:37 amcoachjason
Actually another serious attack hasn’t been attempted for a while, which if you look at the record is more or less how it goes. Now you could take this to mean the terrorists are afraid of Republican Retaliation, or you could take it to mean the opposite, that they just couldn’t be bothered because their attacks have already had the desired effect. America has marginalised itself from its allies, you have landed in deep debt, and Iraq is a very lucrative terrorist training ground.
Why would Usama want to ruin all of that?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:42 amWho Cares It is true Clinton did have many times to be given Bin Laden or have him killed it is true. But Bush had the chance as well after 9/11 the Taliban would have given him to a neutral country for trial so both presidents screwed up.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:45 amGeorge
Actually Clinton tried. Those many times were single source incidents, and on the advice of his chief of intellegence. Otherwise he said yes to anyting the CIA wanted in order to catch Usama (Unlike Bush, who closed down the branch of the CIA that was hunting Usama.)
September 6th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#346
“If the Liberals control the media, why would they be afraid to self identify?”
They do see themselves as liberals. That’s the point! LOL! They BS themselves by identifying themselves as “objective journalists”.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:15 pmOK Clarke disagrees, I hope he makes a lot of noise about those parts but I’m not condemning the “mouse’s network” till the show airs. Y’all have no idea what you’re complaining about till you see it.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:15 pmFYI-I’m a total progressive, boy-loving, Bush-hater that believes in free speech. I encourage your readers to give ABC a chance.
#384
“Umm Bush talked about this program several times himself before NYT ever did.”
He didn’t give specific details as the NY Times did.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#392
I am assuming that you are also upper part of the barrel like Dan Rather?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:24 pmAs a former Disney employee..I am not surprised. Remember..the thing that Disney does best..>is tell animated fantasy storiesstrong>!!!! I am sorry to hear that there is such great effort being made to deceive the American public about a truly horrible tragedy. All that everyone wants and deserves is closure and the truth. I sincerely hope that someday the innocent victims and beloved public will be given that opportunity.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:33 pmEveryone is entitled to an opinion..but that doesn’t make it factual!
The aftershocks of Israel’s inability to crush Hezbollah continue to send their political tsunamis round the globe. After the ceasefire the Forward newspaper in New York said Bush is bad for the Jews, meaning Israel. The editorial in this influential megaphone of Jewish opinion stated that “Bush has been convinced by self-appointed spokesmen for Israel and the Jewish community that endless war is in Israel’s interest”. Forward calls for regime change among the Zionists directing U.S. foreign policy. Hardliner unilateralists out! Peace processors in! Bush “needs to hear in no uncertain terms that Israel is ready for dialogue, that the alternative – endless jihad – is unthinkable”.
It almost makes you feel sorry for Bush. He’s always been convinced that it was the loss of Jewish support that finished off his father in ‘92, after Bush Sr had publicly attacked the Lobby. He vowed never to suffer the same fate, whatever it took. Now this, after all he’s done for them.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:34 pm==
Oh My !!
INALLY, THE TRUTH COMES OUT AND NO ONE LIKES IT. IF YOU HAD TO BLAME ONE PERSON FOR THIS WHOLE MESS, IT IS NOT G.W. IT IS BILL CLINTON. HIS FAILURE TO ACT CAUSED OUR ENEMIES TO GET BOLDER. FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY THE TRUTH COMES OUT AND IT WILL SET US FREE.
Comment by gregorypolley
September 6th, 2006 at 12:37 pm==
Well I wouldn’t go thinking that, because it is not the truth ergo you will not be set free, beside this is just more of the liberal media right? right? I mean all the media is liberal right?
Are you saying the liberal media is telling the truth?
#411
Are you insinuating that 9/11 was planned by the U.S. government?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:37 pm9/11 Conspiracy
Here are some 9/11 conspiracy videos. The first is a link to a full-length documentary called “Loose Change” (click on the link and follow the link to the video):
http://www.loosechange911.com/
Other shorter 9/11 conspiracy stuff I also found interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc2lih2qjEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXpcnhwFlIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8-8Kaa8jo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmvGFVr6KNk
September 6th, 2006 at 12:38 pm#413
“DAMN does NOT sound like Muslims”
I does sound like Iran’s president.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:39 pmGregpolley this is a not a factual documentary, you should read the 911 report [pdf] before you watch this..and also remember that bush had 47 pages of the 911 report removed from public scrutiny…
September 6th, 2006 at 12:40 pmHe thinks his view is the only truth there is. He definitely has gone bye-bye. Hes one of those characters in a Steven Segal movie know as a unknown quanity.
Comment by wes
==
Seems to me you think you KNOW that your view is the only truth there is.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:43 pm#346
“If the Liberals control the media, why would they be afraid to self identify?â€
They don’t see themselves as liberals. That’s the point! LOL! They BS themselves by identifying themselves as “objective journalistsâ€.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:43 pmThe Clear Channel executive who now runs the radio arm of the mega-corporation, for sexual harassment. This became a major story in 1992 that aired on ABC’s 20/20, prior to Michaels being hired by Clear Channel. The suit was settled out of court, so the truth of the accusations may never be known. But the statements made by the accusers on the ABC broadcast are disturbing at best. Statements that have Mr. Michaels roaming the halls with a dildo,[AKA Seixon Might Aphrodite] accosting female employees
Man these Neo-Cons are like major perverted, I guess this is why they hired falafel boy..
September 6th, 2006 at 12:49 pmThis bull that Clinton was guilty of the 911 attacks is exactly that! In fact, it was the GOP that halted President Clinton from doing his damn job – yet when Bush came into power, they had a field day in expanding Clinton’s original “legal” request with one’s that violate our civil rights and the Constitution of the United States!
How about a little truth in the matter as long as it is being discussed!
William Cormier
September 6th, 2006 at 12:56 pmhttp://www.justanothercoverup.com
Which amazes me is that they want to bring back the events of 9-11 to keep scaring the public over and over so the people will not ever heal its a shame
September 6th, 2006 at 1:21 pmAnd to distort the truth is even more shocking to me .A real high time low
The investigation of the 9-11 proved the guys on the flight were all alive and didnt do the killing ,now more proganda
They never studyed the steel from the building but built a new ship out of it for war games. The truth will never be told ,as much like the kennedy assisination ,always will be lies and speculation
Not one video from any of the towers or the pentagon , that were planted all over the streets for protection ,,
Where are the videos and why are they kept secret
If they blame CLinton knowing Hillary is running in the next election ,that helps them smear her and MR Clinton ,,
[...] ABC plans to distribute flawed 9/11 docudrama to schools. (More: here, here, here and here.) Propaganda anyone? [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 1:58 pm[...] First up, let’s turn to Richard Clarke, counterterrorism offical under Daddy Bush, Clinton, Shrub and ABC’s own terrorism expert: 1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 2:09 pm[...] There is a fury of debate on this obvious attempt at deceiving the American public, and I suggest to all you go to ThinkProgress.org, and view the discussion and an abundance of evidence contained in this segment: Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 4:08 pmI compiled as much information as I could, and below is an article that is a call to action – and you and I, your neighbors, and everyone else you know of can stop this “Docudrama” right in its tracks!
What it will take is solid proof and information, and a plan for Americans to protest this perversion of reality and propaganda from reaching those who are unaware – which could influence the November elections! Don’t let them get away with it, and for once, we can make a difference – and fast!
It’s up to all of us who want to make a difference – and in this case, it very well could be the difference that will help to swing the November elections solidly to the Democrats! Don’t allow Bush, ABC, and the Disney Corporation to get away with this – and fight like you’re fighting for the America we all remember – the one we had before President Bush took office!
William Cormier
September 6th, 2006 at 4:19 pmhttp://www.justanothercoverup.com
By the people .For the people. You fail to do that.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pmABC
September 6th, 2006 at 8:07 pmTo say that I am disappointed in your decision to air a documentary drama that is knowingly biased and fraudulent is putting it mildly. I will not be watching this garbage…nor anything else aired on your channel that pretends to be news.
It is odd how some people fight and lie about things that they do not like. Almost everyone on this site hates Bush so they believe all the crap their friends spout. Dick Clarke is so against the fight for our safety that he will say anythng. He is the liar in this. He keeps making the statements that clinton did everything right and President Bush did nothing right and missed every sign. If you would read his actual report to clinton see
The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an “urgent” threat, while President Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, “ignored” it.
If you guys would get off your high horse and do some real reading and studying for yourself instead of listening to the spinmasters, you might actually learn what is going on. Of course, that might cause you heartburn when you learn that you have been duped.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:06 pmWell you democrats sure have “CYA” down! Why don’t you all resign in mass and go to Anbar for a week and clear mines for the Marines? I am sure they would finally believe you support the troops! Never mind, you would be blowing so much hot air, a dust storm like no other would be created and once again nothing would be accomplished as usual! Besides, none of you have the Balls to show up!
September 6th, 2006 at 9:24 pmOne broadcast from the mainstream media that does not fit your crazy views and you go nuts. I came across this link when checking into when to watch to program. One crazy person went on and on how this happend on Bush’s watch. You’re the same people that don’t understand economics. Economics and teorism have something in common. It takes years of Republican economic policies to take effect – 12 years of Reagan and Bush I, provided BJ Clinton with a windfall when he did nothing. Then Bush II has to go in and try to clean it up. Do you really believe that the 9/11 terorists took action when Bush II took office. You are clueless about the real world. Please stay in your crazy left wing moveon.org/ thinkprogress.org world and I will pray to God (yes God) that you people never ever have control over national security.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:12 pmYou notice I called no-one names. Normal response from the robots of the left. No valid argument, just name calling. I did not count the words. That was from a newspaper item discussing The Dick Clarke and how he has a hard time telling the truth.
But I assume that you have a closed mind and only want to believe in and follow the hatered by many in the democratic part of President Bush.
It is always “Bush Lied”. If you would open your eyes and try to read and think for yourself the actual documented items presented to congress related to taking out Sadam, you would see that everyone had the same information and came to the same conclusion that we needed to take him out.
If you would also go back and look at the comments made by current Bush haters in the Senate, They had seen the same raw information that the White House saw and made public comments about the dangers there.
One of many good things about this president is he does what he believes is right and stands by his actions. That is more than can be said about most of the democrats.
You are so concerned about the press “leaning right”, you seem to forget that if there is anything negative about the White House the press is all over it. But once it is proven wrong they do not report that, they just let it go and hope their blind followers do not see the correct information. Look at Mr. Libby. As long as it was thought that he “leaked” information about a left wing operative, the press was all over it. When it was proven that it was another left wing, non-patriot, out to get Bush liberals that actually leaked the information, and a left wing “independent” counsel that knew about it even before he started his “investigation” (also known as a witch hunt), the press says noting about it. They just hope thay you blind followers do not get the real truth.
Wake up and see what your party is doing to you and the country.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:18 pm#453
Don,
You are absolutely correct. Why did the prosecutor continue the investigation when he knew all along that Armitage was the leaker. Why wasn’t Joe Wilson brought before the grand jury? This whole Plamegate fiasco was all about the politics of smear and the undermining of the President in a time of war. The media ran with it and didn’t look back because they had a shot at getting their target “Bush.†When the media can influence the masses by imposing their ideology we are in big trouble in this country. The drive-by-media…..shot into a crowd and speed off and nobody holds them accountable. Once again, to undermine a President in a time of war is extremely irresponsible and the media and left-wing in this country should pay the price at the voting booth. I for one question the patriotism of these people. They are the enemy from within.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:56 pmSo you blame Clinton of 9/11? That’s admirable. But I think you are mistaken. You should blame Abraham Lincoln, or JFK or Jefferson. Why not? Idiocy is allowing you to go far.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:19 pmBut do you think the whole country is that stupid? Probably not. So, go ahead and do this kind of thing, that helps us to get rid of you, idiots.
[...] It gets better: ABC insists the film is based on the 9/11 commission report. Richard Clarke says they’re full of shit. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 11:32 pmBush and Clinton 2 of the Worst Presidents of All Time
September 7th, 2006 at 12:26 amRichard
Yea I guess You Are Right we need some one like Ronald Reagan or JFK Will their ever be another great president?
September 7th, 2006 at 12:28 amI doon’t see a problem with this movie. Moore created Fahreneheit 9/11. He also based his movie on “the facts”. I have also seen movies where the Bush administration inploded the WTC as well as shot missles at the pentatgon.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:36 amI have and will watch them all and make my own decisions. Boycotting this film is destroying our freedom of speech, just as it would have been to ban Fahreneheit 9/11.
Disney CEO’s emaill address
Robert.Iger@disney.com
September 7th, 2006 at 1:08 amfrom Wikipedia
While President Bush and Vice President Cheney did ultimately agree to testify, they did so only under several conditions:
* They would be allowed to testify jointly;
* They would not be required to take an oath before testifying;
* The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers;
* These notes would not be made public.
The commission agreed to these conditions, and the President and Vice President gave their testimony on April 29.
[edit]
Commissioners Suspected the Pentagon was Deceiving the Commission
For more than two years after the attacks, officials with North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington, D.C..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/1…9/ 11_Commission
Bush and his crew lied their way into and around the commission so how the heck can one get to any truth from the results/ | 09.07.06 – 1:01 am |
September 7th, 2006 at 1:12 amThere is a difference between releasing a documentary, such as Farenheit 911, in theatres and broadcasting a clearly biased piece of propaganda on the PUBLIC airwaves. Without the fairness doctrine in effect, ABC has the right to broadcast the film. They may however have a responsibility not to. If the film contains the inaccuracies we have heard regarding its factual basis in the 9/11 report, ABC should stop claiming the report as the basis for the film. Also, we as American citizens have the right to protest to ABC and express outrage over their further politicizing the events of 9/11. Part of the freedom of speech is to NOT REMAIN SILENT when lies are being told.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:25 amHow many times have you seen movies portraid as “BASED ON AN ACTUAL EVENT” or “BASED IN FACT” when it is totally fiction? This IS A MOVIE! HARVEY KEITEL IS THE STAR. GET OVER IT!!!
September 7th, 2006 at 1:41 amFarenheit 911 may have been a documentary but it was totally opinoin based on certain facts where Moore changed to suit his own needs.
***ABC will present “The Path to 9/11,” a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.***
dramatization…..: the action of dramatizing
dramatizing……. to adapt (as a novel) for theatrical presentation
Where doess it say docu-drama or documentary? It doesn’t! If it contains ONEFACE from the commission report, it can say it is based on that report. It is meant to be a movie not an exact depiction of the facts.
What difference does it make to this administration, truth or lies? If the democrats take the house and/or the senate this fall and launch investigations into just what really happened and to hold people accountable, this administration will definitely orchestrate something to reinvigorate and raise the fear level in most Americans. If a democrat wins the presidency in 2008 you can bet your entire savings and worth that the neocons will instigate something so they can puff out and beat their chests and say, “see, we are the only ones that can prevent terrorist attacks and keep you safe”. And then the next elections go to republicans.
It’s such a shame that that is what our country has come to. One half and one political party (more or less) is ridiculed daily as being pussies and traitors while the other political party and the other half of the nation (once again, more or less) portray themselves as saviors and patriots of the highest order while running on basically one premise, a constant barrage of fear.
I’m not afraid. I fear the trampling of our rights and freedoms by this administration more than I ever will the possibility of being attacked by a dipshit muslim that straps a bomb to his body at the behest of another man. People who are living at that level of stupidity are equal to the ones in this country that buy into the Bush Administration’s constant fear mongering and how the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. The only ones I see doing everything possible to take away our freedoms are the neocons within and connected to the Bush Administration.
I’ve had enough of this complete and utter bullshit. Katherine Harris said recently that (i’ll paraphrase) not voting for christian candidates is a vote for sin. With the last 5 1/2 years as an indicator of what it’s like to vote for (so-called) christian candidates, I’m ready to vote for all the sin I can stand.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:41 amI also have not said people should remain silent and just allow this to happen. People want it to be one way. If they are allowed to show the movie, people should be allowed to complain and vice versa.
***correction*** Docudrama should not have been include in the previous….
September 7th, 2006 at 1:49 amFor all that do not know, politicians lie! Not just one party or one person. THEY ALL LIE!!! The ones you don’t think lie, just haven’t gotten caught. How many times has the US supported current terrorists and former terrorists become our allies?
September 7th, 2006 at 1:55 amIf you have not found this out yet, united we stand, divided we fall. Without unity in the US WE WILL LOSE!!!
[...] MyDD’s Matt Stoller and others have developed Open Letter to ABC, a blog that seeks to persuade ABC to admit its $40 million fictional docudrama “The Path to 9/11″ is filled with inaccuracies. The site traces the source material for the mockumentary back to Bush administration PR flack John Miller, catalogues a number of significant fabrications, and provides links to sites that promote citizen action. [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 1:58 amIf you haven’t seen the movie with your very own eyes – don’t castigate the movie out of ignorance.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:04 am[...] For example, Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism official for both Bushes and President Bill Clinton, has issued a statement indicating a key scene in the movie was pulled from thin air. The action is set in the Clinton years, but Clarke sets the record straight (via Think Progress): [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 2:20 amYes it’s called a movie… Made to make money, al you are doing is getting people (like me who would normally not watch this crap) interesting in the controversy. I have heard of it but it is one opposite Sunday and Monday night football. Now I have to record it to see the inaccuracies for myself as I have read the commission report.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:28 amOK, here the names, titles and email addresses for a number of key senior Disney decision makers I found, starting at the top
with the CEO and board of directors are at the bottom.
Let’s make our voices heard and see if we can get these guy to pull this blatantly obvious Bush propaganda. ABC may profit from the predictable controversy but airing a film designed to obfuscate Bush’s responsibility for 9/11 will cause ABC to suffer greatly in the estimation of serious people.
Disney and ABC should leave the RNC propaganda to Fox, it’s not ABC’s demographic.
Robert Iger – CEO – robert.a.iger@disney.com
Rich Ross – President of Disney Channel Worldwide – rich.ross@disney.com
Sean Cocchia – VP/Business Development, Disney Channel Worldwide- sean.cocchia@disney.com
Gary Marsh – Disney Channel Worldwide President of Entertainment – gary.marsh@disney.com
Sarah Shelton – Assistant to Gary Marshsarah – shelton@disney.com
Scott Garner – SVP/Programming, Disney Channel – scott.garner@disney.com
Karen Myer – Assistant to Scott Garner – karen.myer@disney.com
Meredith Metz – Senior Vice President, Creative Affairs, Walt Disney Television Animation – meredith.metz@disney.com
Lisa Salamone – The Head of Animation Production, Disney Channel – lisa.salamone@disney.com
Joanna Spak – The Head of Finance, Planning, etc., Disney Channel – joanna.spak@disney.com
Mark Kenchelian – The Head of Business and Legal Affairs, Disney Channel -mark.kenchelian@disney.com
Jewell Engstrom – CFO and Executive VP for Disney-ABC Cable Group – jewell.engstrom@disney.com
Olivia Stafford – Assistant to Jewell Engstrom – olivia.stafford@disney.com
Albert Cheng – EVP/Digital Media, Disney-ABC Television Group – albert.cheng@disney.com
Karen Hobson – Digital Media Communications Office, Disney-ABC Television Group – karen.hobson@disney.com
George Bodenheimer – Co-Chairman Media Networks Group – george.bodenheimer@disney.com
Nicole Nichols – Senior VP of Entertainment Communications, Disney-ABC Television Group – nicole.nichols@disney.com
Aime Wolfe – Assistant to Nicole Nichols – aime.wolfe@disney.com
Patti McTeague – VP of Kids Communications – patti.mcteague@disney.com
Siobhan Kenny – Acting Head of International Communications – siobhan.kenny@disney.com
Paul Lee – ABC Family Channel – paul.lee@disney.com
Annie Fort – ABC Family Media Relations – annie.fort@disney.com
Alex Wallau – President of Network Operations & Administration – alex.wallau@disney.com
David Westin – ABC News President – david.westin@disney.com
Mike Shaw – ABC Sales and Marketing President – mike.shaw@disney.com
Fred Kuperberg – Disney/ABC Executive VP of Business and Legal Affairs – fred.kuperberg@disney.com
Kara Rousseau – VP of Ad Sales Marketing for Disney/ABC Kids Networks – kara.rousseau@disney.com
Kim Harbin – Buena Vista Media Relations – kim.harbin@disney.com
Anne Gates – Disney Consumer Products Executive VP & CFO – anne.gates@disney.com
James Fielding – Senior VP, Retail Sales and Marketing for DCP – james.fielding@disney.com
Deborah Dugan – President of Disney Publishing – deborah.dugan@disney.com
Graham Hopper – Senior VP and General Manager of Buena Vista Games – graham.hopper@disney.com
Angela Emery – Director of Public Relations, Buena Vista Games – angela.emery@disney.com
Chris Bess – Buena Vista Home Entertainment – chris.bess@disney.com
Peter Murphy – Senior Adviser to Mr. Iger – peter.murphy@disney.com
Judy Estrin – Board of Directors – jestrin@packetdesign.com
John Bryson – Board of Directors – john.bryson@edisonintl.com
Monica Lozano – Board of Directors – monica.lozano@laopinion.com
John Chen – Board of Directors – john.chen@sybase.com
Gary Wilson – Board of Directors – gary.wilson@nwa.com
Leo Odonova – Board of Directors – leo.odonovan@mbna.com
Thomas Staggs – CFO/Senior V.P. – tom.staggs@disney.com
David K. Thompson – Senior Vice President – David.K.Thompson@disney.com
September 7th, 2006 at 3:12 am[...] You’ve probably heard about the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11, which has been criticized by the people portrayed there as inaccurate and biased. ABC has distributed advance copies to conservative pundits and bloggers, but not to liberals. [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 5:40 amABC = Always Blame Clinton
September 7th, 2006 at 7:43 amThis movie is another timely propaganda piece. It does not matter if the information about UBL and the terrorists is correct. That is EXACTLY what they want you to debate about.
This distracts from who the real perpetrators are: the U.S. government
So, any bologne or propaganda put out is a diversion tactic to get people to debate about topics that lead to nowhere. They want you to debate about who’s fault it was (UBL, terrorists, etc.), who’s to blame for not stopping the (falseley) accused terrorists (CIA, FBI, DoD, any other three lettered agency, the heads of any of these for scapegoat purposes, and now Clinton).
These are all deception tactics to shift the focus away from real killers – themselves.
September 7th, 2006 at 9:13 am[...] http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/ 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: [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 9:39 am[...] http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/ 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: [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 9:55 amI want to make my own wing nut version of the “docudrama”
EXT NEW YORK STREET
Jet hits World Trade Center
INT BASEMENT TV ROOM BEN LAUDEN’S MOM’S HOUSE
Ben Laden and Saddam Hussein watching TV.
We hear the sound of the second jet hitting the building.
Ben Laden turns gravely to Saddam and than after pause hi-fives him as the two men break into an unmanly hug.
Suddenly balloons drop from the ceiling and girls in bikini’s appear as the Journey song Anyway You want It, plays loudly from nowhere.
Cut to Bill Clinton entering caring a giant bowl of freshly popped popcorn.
CLINTON: Oh man did I miss it. (yells off camera) Hey thanks a lot Monica you made me miss it!
INT PRESIDENTIAL WIEGHT ROOM.
Quick cuts of weights slamming to Top Gun music
The pres is blasting his Pecks.
Condi Rice enters is momentarily taken by the presidents rippling muscles.
CONDIE: Mr. president the second jet has …
BUSH: Hit the World Trade Center? Condi America is under Attack.
CONDIE: We have to get you to safety sir.
BUSH: Not Yet, Get me SAC and NORAD
A giant American flag descends
Or just show Bush stunned and drooling for Nine minutes in the classroom as My Pet Goat is read by third graders.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:03 amCut to Bush senior having breakfast with Ben Laden’s brother. Or was it Ben Laden’s Cousin. Does anyone know if the Ben Laden Bush was having breakfast with was the same Ben Laden that bailed out W when he ran his company bankrupt?
[...] ABC is marketing its docudrama, The Path to 9/11, as “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.” It is defending the films multiple inaccuracies by claiming some scenes were “drawn from a variety of sources.” [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 10:17 am[...] The Demoncrats are just whining about this all over the place. Media Matters has one article about the show, and a second about the teaching guide being produced by Scholastic Books that is going out to 100,000 high school students. (Scholastic is obviously doing this to atone for their printing of the Satanic Harry Potter books, which have warped so many children that the Hogwarts Charter School of Mysteria, AR has been overwhelmed with applications.) Think Progress even has an article in which Richard Clarke, former advisor on security issues to both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, blasts the ABC program for its inaccuracies. The Demoncrats whined further when preview copies of the film were made available to right-wing blogs and people like Saint Rush Limbaugh for their vetting and praise. [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 11:22 amClinton Bad
September 7th, 2006 at 11:35 amBush Worse
I’m what you’d call a Conservative. After reading most of the comments on this subject I realized that this is a left-wing site… pretty obvious!
September 7th, 2006 at 12:15 pm…you know, it is wrong enough that Hollywood seems to want to capitalize this horrible incident with their movie(which, in my opinion, they have not been creative in a LONG time anyhow) now Disney??? UGH…..
September 7th, 2006 at 12:35 pmAnd now, President Bill Clinton is weighing-in on the matter, demanding that ABC either change the “docudrama†or pull it alltogether. Make those calls to Disney and ABC and help stop this terible piece of propaganda. The Neo-cons even plan to show it in our Schools!
This is a matter of great importance to our country! It’s time to make a difference!
JAC
September 7th, 2006 at 1:00 pmhttp://www.justanothercoverup.com
[...] http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/ 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:Â [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 1:53 pmCORRECTION:
I got a bad number from the Internet for Disney Corporation:
September 7th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
IT’S ABOUT TIME ABC COMES CLEAN WITH THE TRUTH RATHER THAN BE A MOUTHPIECE FOR THE HOWARD DEAN LUNATIC SOCIETY!
September 7th, 2006 at 3:48 pmToday has been my first visit to this blog and is most probably my last. The mean-spirited posts have been quite discouraging. You may respond to this post with unbridled ferocity, as I am very unlikely to read your response. Rather, I will more probably be in some public place, following a compulsion to find a remindance that the American citizenry is really decent and civil toward one another, even those with differing views.
If there is one thing I will not stand for, it is intolerance.
I am glad to see that President Clinton has expressed his dismay.
The only balanced journalist that I know of is Cobert.
September 7th, 2006 at 5:51 pmWouldn’t it be nice if people at this website even had a clue about anything. Clinton and Berger and Clarke had a dozen chances to go after Bin Laden but of course little fairy democrats are to afraid to do anything worthwhile.
September 7th, 2006 at 6:02 pmRichard Clarke may have been the czar but he had no first hand knowledge of anything, he only knew what others told him. If you read his book like I did you would see that he is an egomaniac who thinks he is the only person capable of understanding the terror threat and is obviously ticked off at the Bush admin for not giving him the same seat at the table he had previously. The intelligence “failure” that led to 9/11 is the fault (if it is actually the fault of anyone) of all previous administrations and congresses, not the sole fault of the 10 month old Bush adminstration. the fact is that the same attack could be carried out today and not uncovered until after the fact as happened on 9/11. all intel is sifted by humans who will make mistakes if there is even any intel to make a mistake with.our intel would have to have contacts with every terror cell out there and that is simply impossible.
September 7th, 2006 at 6:24 pmI have real problems with the re-writing of history — but also, as I remember from the 9/11 Commission hearings, there was a significant disconnect between what the Clinton White House understood the ground rules to be (i.e., full permission to kill Bin Ladin, and incidentally, why hasn’t that been acocmplished yet???) and what the CIA understood it to mean.
September 7th, 2006 at 6:39 pm[...] Miniter singled out a key scene in the film involving former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger as having “zero factual basis”: “If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.” Watch it: var flvminitercnn320240 = new SWFObject(’/wp-content/plugins/flvplayer.swf?file=http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/flv/2006/09/minitercnn.320.240.flv&autoStart=false’, ‘em-flvminitercnn320240′, ‘320′, ‘260′, ‘6′, ‘#ffffff’); flvminitercnn320240.addParam(’quality’, ‘high’); flvminitercnn320240.addParam(’wmode’, ‘transparent’); flvminitercnn320240.write(’flvminitercnn320240′); [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 7:03 pm[...] A lot of people have been getting all worked up about ABC’s “The Path To 9/11” $30 million RNC contribution docudrama, claiming that it makes shit up in order to blame everything on Clinton. True, some of the people who are criticizing the miniseries were high-level counterterrorism officials in the Bush administration, and some wrote the official report on which the show claims to be based, and one was a terrorism expert hired to work on the production, but have any of them actually seen the show they are criticizing? Of course not – only Rush Limbaugh and right-wing bloggers have been allowed to see it! As ABC/Disney says: No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 8:23 pmWe have to realize, folks, that this is the game plan. It’s fascism, the govt-corporate state at work. ABC’s action is deliberate and political. It’s too blatant and significant. It can’t be construed as just a money-making venture. It’s amazing, though, that ABC can get however many people were involved in the production to buy into this kind of deceit.
September 7th, 2006 at 8:49 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 9:16 pm[...] Richard Clarke — former “counterterrorism czar” for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II — explains why scene in the ABC docudrama “Path to 9/11,” which makes the claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden, is totally inaccurate and misleading. Clarke is currently a counterterrorism consultant for ABC.read more | digg story Digg this [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 3:25 amConservatives Should Hate Disney’s Path to 911 Too…
When I heard that Disney was making The Path to 9/11, I thought it was too soon to be making a cartoon about September 11….
September 8th, 2006 at 7:30 am[...] Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke offers an even more pointed rebuttal: 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 nowhere 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. posted by John at 8:19 am [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 10:17 amHave you read the 9-11 commission report?
September 8th, 2006 at 11:25 amMuch of this was taken right out of that and that is why ABC felt safe.
I remember Bill Clinton and the search for Osama, so that was certainly going on.
This didn’t start 5 years ago, this is a long time happening.
There is the free speech issue too, we can’t have it both ways, you can’t say what we don’t like, but we can say whatever we want.
People need to take a deep breath here and think clearly about the entire issues at stake.
You guys are amazing. I am sure you were all quite silent on the Farhenheit 911 movie since it fit perfectly within your hate Bush mind set.
Farhenheit 911 is all true, and this movie that you have not even seen yet is all false ? You all are pathetic.
quote from above…
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.
So…they passed up a chance, not a sure fire hit. Not sure sure fire hits into Afghanistan ever happen. And does’nt the left beat Bush over the head for “letting Bin Laden go” in Afghanistan, I guess that chance was sure fire.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:06 pmOHMYGHOSH!! The Dimocrats aren’t talking CENSORSHIP here are they? They seem to be TERRIFIED by this show.
I saw Harry Reid just about peeing his pants he’s so upset?
What are they AFRAID of?? The TRUTH perhaps??
-that’s the view from the Wet Mountain Institute for Conservative Thinking.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:13 pmIs this the same Richard Clarke that authorized the Saudis to leave the country after 9/11 and sat silent as Michael Moore insinuated Bush did it? Nice!
September 8th, 2006 at 12:17 pmFabulous that this is published and SOMEONE is FINALLY putting the dots all together.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:18 pmIt appears that our “empire” is moving forward despite the “official this and the unofficial that”-
Bin Laden- and all the hoopla surrounding him-there’s an elemental truth behind every action-success leaves clues – order and chaos are part of the same bigger picture-certainty is what everyone aspires too.
I am ceratin that Bin Laden and others who support him are on the forefront of the next world-
When you look at the world as a hammer everything you see looks like a nail!
I am a world citizen – I work, I live I breathe, I love, I laugh and dream as I wax the fields of intuitional reality.”
The world is coming together on every front…
Be good-
Phil Brown
Contacting ABC is not enough. We need to contact the companies that buy advertising time on ABC and tell them that we will stop buying their products unless they succeed in pressuring ABC to abort “Path to 9/11.”
September 8th, 2006 at 6:18 pmWhy is this fiction so bad? Where was the protest from you about the fiction of Michael Moore?
September 8th, 2006 at 6:35 pmABC–
Go ahead. Run your twisted and fabricated version of 9/11.
The foot you are shooting is your own, and ABC will not occupy space in my home in the near future.
September 8th, 2006 at 8:44 pmEveryone is missing the point here. The real story is not that ABC is distorting facts. Everyone with a brain knows that the media always distorts the facts. The real story, and yes this is scary, is that a sitting party with political power, namely the Democrats, is desperately trying to censor the media. I guess they must think ABC is Pravada and we live under the hammer and sickle. Beware of the Government-Media complex!
September 8th, 2006 at 9:19 pm[...] Here’s the lineup. Professors of History from many of the finest universities in the country have said fix it or dump it. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, together with former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, says hogwash. Richard Clarke, counter terrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now, ironically, counter terrorism expert for ABC, says hogwash. Even Harvey Kietel, star of the movie, says hogwash! [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 11:00 pmWake up people!
The 9/11 Commission Report has the same kind of fiction.
They were caught in 3 different lies when the ABLE DANGER story hit the news.
2 government hearings underway regarding Able Danger.. one that frequently goes ‘closed door’… dis-inviting C-SPAN to cover AND C-SPAN GOES ALONG WITHOUT SAYING A WORD… BUT WHERE’S THE MEDIA COVERAGE?
Ever wonder why the Czecks still claim Atta met Al-Ani in Praque despite the 9/11 Commission findings?
Gorelick-Snell-Zelikow on The 9/11 Commission?? WTF?
ABLE DANGER is the giant elephant both DEMS & REPUBS WANT YOU TO FORGET.
Team Clinton, CIA ‘lifers’, and BushCo, have finished the horse trading. Now, they are desperate for the sheeple to move along.. cuz there’s nothing to see.
Curious about Fitzgeralds motives? ———–> +Fitzgerald +Ali-Mouhamed
baaaaaa….
September 9th, 2006 at 6:19 amGood God. You people crawled all over that stupid Farenheit 911 movie that had spliced together and out-of-context quotes that a 10-year-old could forge, then act all p-o’d when someone else comes out with a movie that doesn’t agree with your view. Then the liberals in congress send threat letters telling ABC to stop it or they’ll revoke their license to broadcast, and you think that’s ok. You guys claim to be pro-First Amendment. I guess that only applies when you want to smear conservatives.
Since when did the left start identifying Disney and ABC as being extreme right-wing, anyway? I guess they were shocked that after 40 years of being leftists, one of the major networks broadcast something that might have some truth in it.
September 9th, 2006 at 8:31 am[...] Richard Clarke. [...]
September 9th, 2006 at 11:58 amthe clinton administration deserves quite a bit of the blame here. 8 years of escalating violence, 8 years or relative inaction. clinton was afraid to offend anybody, bush is not. a president can’t be blinded by extreme political correctness. bush deserves some blame of course, but had clinton been more proactive in take your pick- 1993? 1995? 1999? – perhaps 9-11 would not have occured. one thing the clinton’s have always detested is any criticism.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:41 pmWTC building 7. Larry Silverstein stated on CNN News that we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is… is pull it. Then we watched the building collapse.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:50 pmWho designed the explosion sequence?
How much explosive?
Where to put the explosives?
Who timed the explosion?
Who put the explosives in the building?
Where did the explosives come from?
How did they get past security?
How did all this things happen in less than 6 hours?
Find the answers to these question and you will find out who destroyed the World Trade Centers!
After carefully going over most of the available information, it now is apparent that right-wing Evangelical Christians were behind much of the ABC/Disney Docudrama. It took some correlating, but most of the most current info is here:
Right-wing Evangelical Christian’s War on Democracy!
It looks as if the Blogoshpere is having a major impact – but the fight isn’t over yet!
September 9th, 2006 at 5:53 pmIf you Air that movie tommorrow I will release all documents (BELIEVE IT)regarding your disgusting ignorant involvement behind the 9/11 attacks that killed many. You know what I’m talking about. This is to ABC and Disney you know who I am. I will fax and e-mail every document to all reporters across the world. Go ahead and try to use President Clinton to cover Your Country Hating Punkasses.
I’ve been waiting for you MOFO”s to do this again your so stupid you went and waisted money again. Oh ya- you have money to waste! All the degrees you punkasses have and your still as Blank as they come……. If every American wrote it in a sky scraper across the country telling you to pull this movie you would still act Blank…. Hard Heads first soft asses next.
Pull the Movie period.
Jennie Tavares
September 9th, 2006 at 6:54 pmYa its me and Like it!!!!!!!!!!
[...] “Official True Story.” How Path to 9/11 is being marketed in Europe. The commerical also features the scene slandering Sandy Berger. [...]
September 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pmThis absolutely kills me…when Farenheit came out, did President Bush, 41 or 43, or any other Republican member of Congress hold a press conference blasting the movie? No, because they, meaning the Republicans, have more important issues to worry about like TERRORISM. Does it not mean anything to all of the left-wing, liberal, Democrats, that there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? Give Bush some credit for that, and to those stupid liberals, quit your wining!
September 9th, 2006 at 11:00 pm[...] on Berger. The network made minimal edits to a scene that has no basis in the 9/11 Commission Report or reality. Watch the video here. Other scenes from the New Zealand version here. 2:27 pm | Comment (0) [...]
September 10th, 2006 at 2:27 pm[...] Path to 9/11 is an ABC miniseries airing tonight and tomorrow and billed as a docudrama based on the 9/11 Commission Report. The series has been reported to contain scenes that are inaccurate and misleading, and has prompted an outcry from liberal (and even some conservative) bloggers and commenters. Many prominent public figures have spoken out against the film, including Bill Clinton, Richard Clarke, and the film’s star Harvey Keitel. One former FBI agent refused to work on the film as an advisor once he had read the script, and another quit when the producers failed to correct a list of inaccuracies. [...]
September 10th, 2006 at 4:56 pmComrades Bravo!
These traitors at ABC are betrayers of our new mother land. Where I come from, this Robert A. Iger would be dragged through the streets in front of the tomb of our glorious leader Vladimir Lenin and shot in public. The producers, directors, writers and anyone associated with this propaganda would be picked up in the early hours of the morning by our State Security Chief Lavrenty Beria (The Black Hand) and taken to a Siberian labor camp never too be heard from again.
For many years I have been loyal to ABC and the Pravda (truth) that our Socialist Liberal ally has put forth in order to progress our ultimate goal; the decline and absolute destruction of America and the capitalist traitorous pig’s like ABC.
I ask you Mr. Robert A. Iger, “Have you no shame Sir�
Comrades, we must not give up the fight. It has taken us many years to groom you and your elected leaders.
Remember what our great leader Nikita Khrushchev said:
“ We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism ”
It’s more important now then ever before that we stand together and stay focused! We can not allow this abomination of propaganda to go forward.
We must do whatever it takes to keep this film from airing on Sunday the 10th, 2006, we only have a few hours left.
It is your duty as loyal Liberal Socialist Democrats to rise up in solidarity and put a stop to this immediately!
Senator Harry Reid, one of our courageous and distinguished Senatorial leaders from the state of Nevada, reminded the capitalist traitorous pigs at ABC of their license from the FCC. Please Senator Reid, we’re your loyal comrades in arms and begging you to use all the glorious power you possess. You must stop this film! You must push forward with an iron fist and crush this despicable display of propaganda.
If this film isn’t stopped from airing on ABC, Sunday night, I’m afraid all our efforts since the cold war and the aspirations of our great leaders from glorious years past and Nikita Khrushchev’s dreams and predictions will have been lost.
If we loose now, the great Liberal Socialist Democratic Party, we have nurtured, will decline into the ash heaps of history never too be heard from again.
You must!…. I repeat, you must contact our comrades in arms at their offices in Washington.
Now I’ve done all the work all you have to do is contact our comrades below by e-mail or call:
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D – NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/contact
Reid, Harry- (D – NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
Kerry, John F.- (D – MA) Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D – LA) Class II
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Levin, Carl- (D – MI) Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D – WV) Class II
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
Web Form: rockefeller.senate.gov/services/email.cfm
Schumer, Charles E.- (D – NY) Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D – MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
Feinstein, Dianne- (D – CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
Leahy, Patrick J.- (D – VT) Class III
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Stabenow, Debbie- (D – MI) Class I
133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm
Durbin, Richard- (D – IL) Class II
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D – AR) Class III
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html
Feingold, Russell D.- (D – WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Harkin, Tom- (D – IA) Class II
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Bayh, Evan- (D – IN) Class III
463 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D – DE) Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov
Boxer, Barbara- (D – CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact
Menendez, Robert- (D – NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Nelson, Bill- (D – FL) Class I
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Obama, Barack- (D – IL) Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/
Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV) Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html
Cantwell, Maria- (D – WA) Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Conrad, Kent- (D – ND) Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/webform.html
Dayton, Mark- (D – MN) Class I
123 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Dodd, Christopher J.- (D – CT) Class III
September 10th, 2006 at 6:24 pm448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130
I know we’re a bit past this point now, but did anyone else notice that the events jumped from the millennium celebrations to the the morning of the attacks? Isn’t it funny how this so called ‘documentary’ went into minute detail over Clinton’s supposed faults, but completely skipped the dodgy circumstances of the 2000 election, and everything else between Dec 31, 1999 and Sep 11, 2001?? You’d think this period of time would be the most crucial and climactic time regarding the ‘path to 9/11′!! I can’t believe NOTHING is even MENTIONED of the Bush Administration before the attacks occur in the film! Its as if they are trying to say Clinton was still running the country on the morning of Sept 11, 2001… because that is exactly how it would appear to anyone who doesn’t know when George W actually came into power…
September 10th, 2006 at 7:13 pmI have read all the comments and I want to thank all of you for making me feel not so alone. We all need to vote in the next election and get rid of these people once and for all.
I was awake the morning the planes hit the towers and cried and cried and cried, but I was also awake the night “Bush” hit the inocent folks on the ground and had the same feeling he was doing the same thing.
September 10th, 2006 at 7:50 pmOh, and the Bush administration didn’t even think to cricitize Michael Moore for Fahrenheit 911.
When will you phucking libbys realize and understand that (A) we have been under attack (B) we will continue to be under attack and (C) only when we learn Arabic and profess faith in Islam will the attacks (maybe) cease. Geez! What is wrong with you people?! We are at war with an enemy that want’s to kill us because we are infidels. Don’t you get it? Whether this movie is accurate or not, the fact remains that Billy was too busy gettin lil willy blown in the Oval Office to pay attention to what was going on.
September 10th, 2006 at 11:26 pmClinton was getting his knob pollished while our country was getting destroyed by those stinking bastards… Thanks a lot.
BTW. Albright is a tripple bagger and Bush is a moron too. If you don’t vote then you need to shut the hell up because your opinion does not count in America.
September 11th, 2006 at 2:11 amAs I watched the show last night I was frustrated that I could not be sure what was fact and what was fiction. In the end, though, I found some real value in the tone and energy of the film. It shows you just how chaotic and dangerous it is to combate terrorism. I tip my hat to the people who are brave and committed enough to stick with the fight day after day.
To those of you who keep yelling at liberals… a) we get it, we are under attack, b) we know we have to be strong and use force to protect our country, c) we also know that there are more than just two options – lay down our arms and surrender vs. “stay the course.” If your only answer to the belligerent drunk down the street is to punch him in the face, you aren’t much better than he is and you aren’t making yourself any safer.
September 11th, 2006 at 8:41 amTo number 519 above.
This is typical. A lib just hanging on the edge of his seat for something to pounce on to help him make his pathetic point.
Just watch tomorrow. It warped ahead to the plane scene as a teaser to get people to watch tomorrow. All that nice blank time that you think was just skipped because after all this is a big lie…will be filled in.
Ok ? just calm down, take a breath, and pounce on the next little thing that catches your fancy.
We need the same type of movie made about the whole Valerie Plame thing. Talk about libs pouncing and landing on a bunch of thorns. But, we will wait patiently for that movie, just like this one.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:03 amTo number 523 above, I think everyone is waiting for someone to layout all these other options … where are they?
One thing the libs need to do is get the guts to actually make suggestions, layout options, describe some other way. It’s tough out there, as soon as you put your neck out and actually suggest something (like redeploy to Okinawa), there are plenty of people ready to jump on you. But that is the nature of the game.
Typically libs do not like controversy or disagreement, so the best thing to do is punt, don’t suggest anything, let someone else do it. Like let the UN handle it.
I think the world would love to find a way to “convince” the jihad’ists out there to stop trying to kill everybody. I definitely would.
So lets hear it ? ok ? oh yea, and hopefully something other than a) be nice, negotiate with them, and hope they abide by any agreements b) give them money, aid, and hope they abide by any agreements c) ignore the whole thing, and hope they don’t get there act together
But alas, we know it is easier to stand up and blame Bush, Rove, and whoever else you can think of.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:11 amOh Sandy Berger, you got off so easy here.
I would have loved to watch a seen showing you with your pants full classified documents.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/
Here’s his quote, this really shows you stupid these people thing we are…
“I’m glad that the 9/11 commission has made clear that it received all the documents that it sought, all the documents that it needed, and I’m pleased to finally have this matter resolved”
What a masterful head fake, he deflects the whole point to something “good”, the commission got there documents, all is good, nope, nothing bad happened here. Uhh…perhaps they got there documents because you got caught ? Perhaps your plan was to change the outcome, but you got caught ? Oh yeah, did we mention you got caught ? that’s the point right ?
Exagerated analagy:
FBI: you nasty terrorist, we caught you at the airport gate with your pants full of explosives, your plan to kill everyon on board is toast.
Terrorist: well, some of those explosives in my pants were duplicates, and American Airlines just made it clear that the plane landed safely, and I am glad that this matter is finally resolved.
FBI: ok then, you can go, you can pick up your belongings on the way out, don’t forget the explosives, that’s not allowed in this building
September 11th, 2006 at 9:20 amWow! Liberals seem upset…I’m sure Clinton did everything in his power to take out Bin Laden – yeah right! He doesn’t have the balls to take the heat that comes from fully committing the USA against these international terrorists that will stop at nothing to kill the GREAT SATAN!
Like it or not, you should all be thankful that President Bush has the balls to protect our country…do the math, no major hits on us since 9/11/01…how many hits did we take during Clinton’s reign??? and UBL just kept getting stronger and stronger, now all that we hear is a speach from his #2 on the 5th anniversary of the disaster…
September 11th, 2006 at 10:14 amTo #525 above:
Thanks for the reply. I put more faith in directly engaging the “enemy” than you do. I think it is possible to negotiate and offer aid, while at the same time showing your strength by demonstrating your willingness to take decisive action. We could have done exactly that in Afghanistan by putting enough troops on the ground to complete the job. (Read Jonathon Alter’s fictional article on line today to see what Bush could have done. Start reading Tom Friedman of the NYT. Get some more exposure to those “liberal ideas†you seem to discount.) We could have brought the vast majority of Muslims onto our side and isolated the jihadists. What an opportunity we had!
Here’s my biggest problem. Conservatives/Republicans are completely ignoring the issue of accountability here. The strategic mistakes have been enormous on all fronts, but rather than demand changes from this Republican administration, conservatives paint any criticism as liberal whining and avoid meaningful debate by insisting that liberals just don’t get it.
I do get it. This administration dropped the ball because they hated Clinton so much. They ignored the warnings and 9/11 happened on their watch. While the danger continued they embarked on a bold plan that, if done correctly, could have put the world on a remarkably better path than the one we are on today. Instead, they looked at it as a chance to make money and stay in power and they blew it. Today there are more terrorists in the world. Iraq is a total mess. And N. Korea and Iran loom as even more dangerous threats than Iraq. This administration screwed up beyond most people wildest dreams and we will be paying for their mistakes for at least 40 years. On this evidence alone the simple fact is that Republicans don’t deserve another chance. Would you keep on a CEO or manager or foreman who screwed up so badly? NO! You’d fire him. You wouldn’t sit around and criticize your other choices and stick with the guy who ruined all your best opportunities. You’d FIRE HIM! Geez, my seven year old could have done a better job.
The hole this administration has dug is so deep that none of the answers will be easy, though there are plenty of Democrats who have loudly and publicly offered their ideas for real solutions – Biden and Feingold are at the top of my list. Do you mean to say that those ideas don’t count just because you don’t like them? Or is it because it’s just too much effort to actually think?
Go ahead and have fun calling me a wimpy liberal. But after you are done, offer some real substance.
September 11th, 2006 at 1:11 pmThanks 528, brilliant move, this is fun. So your suggestions are…
- negotiate
- aid
- and “it all could have been done better”
- oh yes, and Bush did it for the money
And then ask me to offer substance, deflecting my request to get some suggestions right back at me. Brilliant.
Great talking point usage as well
- “on his watch”
- “enough troops on the ground to complete the job”
- etc
Do you really think we missed a chance to have all the muslims on our side. Really ? These guys have wanted to crush everything western, christian, democratic, jewish (basically everything non-them) for a while. Hell, there latest “warning” is that they are going after there own less worthy muslims in the middle east. They have been blowing us up all thru the 90’s. It is just pure HOPE that keeps you saying things like we could have had the muslims on our side, and lets negotiate.
From my side, I think Bush screwed up as well. We have not allowed the military to go in there and really clean up. We are too worried about collateral damage and world opinion.
I like the stratfor.com folks, pretty un partisan I think. One dilemna they point out using Israel/Lebonon is…
If the bad guys are hiding in a shool with a bunch of weapons, and you blow up the school, who is responsible for the collateral damage ? The PC view is that the good guys are, the ugly truth view is that the bad guys made that choice.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:31 pmForgot to ask…what does this mean…
…while at the same time showing your strength by demonstrating your willingness to take decisive action…
Its a bit vague for suggestion, again more a talking point. Is that PC speak for bombing something ? or just placating hawk talk so people think you can do something more than negotiate. I am worried you mean lobbing a few tomohawks into the theater after an Embassy bombing or the like, and then just going back to negotiating (whether or not the target was hit or not).
September 11th, 2006 at 3:35 pmThe criticism of the film, however valid, misses the point: We face a determined and capable enemy in a worldwide war! However long it took us to wake up–there is no longer any excuse for action to protect our country wherever and whenever necessary.
September 11th, 2006 at 4:06 pmAgree with 531, Bush will get reamed tonight, Clinton last night. Not much changes. The Al Qaeda folks must get such a kick out of this. American responds…they make a movie. And we can’t even agree weather to kick there butt or kiss there butt.
I wonder how China will respond when/if they are attacked.
September 11th, 2006 at 4:21 pmJust thought you Liberals were forgetting something…lol
On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for taking as many as fifty classified documents, in October 2003, from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were commissioned from Richard Clarke about the Clinton administration’s handling of terrorist threats. When initially questioned, Berger claimed that the removal of top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets was accidental. He would later, in a guilty plea, admit to deliberately removing materials and then cutting them up with scissors.
September 11th, 2006 at 5:51 pmThe biggest lie in the movie is when Clark reads the purported quote from bin Laden’s fatwa.
the ABC miniseries “The Path to 9-11″ lies to serve Israel’s agenda
It didn’t say, as they portrayed, “There is no room for negotiation, unless, and until, America converts to Islam.”
It is clear why the ABC movie lied.
September 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pmClinton Bad President Bush Worse President
Their you have it the truth!!
September 11th, 2006 at 9:29 pmClinton and Bush are both 2 of the worst Presidents of All Time!!!!
September 11th, 2006 at 9:30 pmso its ok to have a movie like mike moores Fahrenheit 911 in which he lied so much he almost turned into pinocchio with a 100 foot nose. But you can’t have a movie about things that real people confirmed. Of course the Clinton people would say it was false, it makes them look bad. If Bill Clinton and friends would have bombed and killed Bin laden and the others then 9/11 would never had happened. End of story. Clinton did nothing after the U.S.S Cole was attacked.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:33 pmThe truth is that no matter who was president the attacks still would of happened because the Damn lawyers always get in the way. Too much red tape to deal with before 9/11. Now with can kill the jerks anyway we want to. I can’t understand why the airport would let a guy go through with out a photo id and a big warning screen popped up saying don’t let him on board.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:38 pmAndrew,
Many liberals, dems, Bush detractors and even conservatives believe that we should have finished the job in Afghanistan while rallying the world against the fanatical minority of the Muslim world. Yes, I believe we could have gotten the vast majority of the Muslim world on our side. In fact, they were on our side for a while after 9/11. Unfortunately, Bush wanted a war in Iraq in order to establish a western-style government in the region to prove that our system works best and he failed. He was given bad advice and made bad decisions about how to execute the war in Iraq. Thus, we find ourselves 5 years later debating this mess. And instead of looking at results, you fascists spend your time screaming at the critics and calling them unpatriotic.
So, here I am, a liberal, saying we should have kicked ass thoroughly in Afghanistan, erased Bin-Laden from the picture, established a strong presence in Afghanistan, and worked with the leaders of the Middle Eastern states to see what we could do to keep them on our side including fighting the jihadists that threaten their own security. We should create smaller fighting units capable of taking out this smaller enemy, rather than having a huge military approach to destroying an entire country. Oh what a wimp I am. I guess I just don’t get it that it is a different kind of war, a different world, and everyone is out to get us! I don’t even have any specific ideas! Gimme a break.
Someday your whole position will fall apart completely and no one will be able to keep a straight face when saying that conservatives/republicans are the ones who keep us safe. It has nothing to do with the party. It has everything to do with heart and integrity. The guys on the front line have tons of each. The guys in charge these days have none.
Republicans are all about power, money and winning at all costs. Democrats aren’t perfect, but they get my vote this time around simply to remove the current a-holes from power.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:40 pmBTW, Andrew, thanks for the tip on stratfor.com. It looks interesting.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:42 pmCan we really get Bill Clinton or Sandy Berger to tell the truth? Remember, Clinton didn’t have sex, oh, and wasn’t that Sandy Berger they caught stuffing important 9/11 documents in his shorts!! Get real troublemaker!!
September 11th, 2006 at 11:08 pmThe level of hatred that the libs have toward Bush is kind of scary. I can just see them sputtering and spitting. And yet, not one of them has anything constructive to say. That we are under attack is fact. The Islamists won’t rest until we are all dead or converted. They are raised to hate us, and until that stops there will be ever larger numbers of terrorists willing to die to kill a few of the infidels. If this conflict is ever to end, moderate Muslims must take an activist approach to redirect the anger and hate so the energy is spent on something more positive.
September 11th, 2006 at 11:08 pmThe libs have been challenged to come up with some workable, worthwhile ideas and have failed, and therefore should hold their venom.
Throughout my voting life, I have always tried to vote for the best candidate. However, this regime has so completely abused the public and the system that I cannot in honestly contemplate voting for a single Republican for any level of government.
September 11th, 2006 at 11:29 pmSad that ones ideals are shattered by the injustice of one corrupt government.
My only hope at this point is that the next governing body will think globally and chose to make friends; rather than enemies.
Those that have most recently written have presented a solid non-partisan approach. It is not Left vs. Right, but instead should be for the people, by the people. No matter what party the representatives belong to.
Sorry for the poor spelling. I am frustrated and tired.
September 11th, 2006 at 11:32 pmGood night and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Anybody reading the 9/11 Commission Report p. 112 para. 22 will see that Richard Clarke is full of ‘it’.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:03 pmIf Michael Moore and Oliver Stone can do it, why can’t this producer?
September 12th, 2006 at 12:33 pmWhat an interesting set of comments. I appreciate the intellegent thoughts brought forth, primarily by Ed and Andrew, but there are others as well. However there is a LOT of senseless name calling from both sides of this issue.
The name of this website is Think Progress. If there is really to be any progress, name calling and finger pointing is not the way to get there. In fact, the “us against them” mentality is a lot of what has gotten us into this position.
If you look objectively at the message of Path to 9/11, you can see that there is a lot of blame to go around, on both sides of the aisle. The question we should be asking, for the sake of progress, should be “what can we learn form this?”
The one thing that jumps out at me is the timing of the two attacks on the WTC. Both of them came less than a year after a regime change. The terrorist organizations are not stupid, and they have figured out that there is a time of transition, where the new people in town don’t trust the former administration, and have not yet gotten their own feet wet in the awesome responsibilities of their new jobs. This is a time of vulnerability that the terrorists have learned to exploit.
If there is to truly be “Progress”, we need to look at the fact that there very well may be another regime change in two years. What can we do to make the transition phase smoother, and safer for the American public? The mudslinging that has become a staple of politics as we know it contributes more to the problem than the solution. As we move forward on the course we are on, I fear that we will see another attack on the United States, of horrific proportions, in the summer of 2009.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:26 pmWASHINGTON – President Clinton (news – web sites)’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is the focus of a criminal investigation after admitting he removed highly classified terrorism documents from a secure reading room during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings, The Associated Press has learned.
Berger’s home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI (news – web sites) agents armed with warrants. Some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration’s handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing.
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had taken from classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said.
“I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced,” Berger said in a statement to the AP.
Berger served as Clinton’s national security adviser for all of the president’s second term and most recently has been informally advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news – web sites). Clinton asked Berger last year to review and select the administration documents that would be turned over to the commission.
The FBI searched Berger’s home and office with warrants earlier this year after employees of the National Archives told agents they believed they witnessed Berger put documents into his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers, officials said.
When asked, Berger said he returned some of the classified documents, which he found in his office, and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but said he could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report
September 12th, 2006 at 3:33 pmGood admonishment for the name calling :)
Another way to look at this, to focus energies and perhaps find common ground…
Now that it is almost 24 hours after the movie finished, there are a couple of things I think about, and notable some I don’t.
- I think the movie did a good job of showing us what life is like in these parts of the world, yemen, parts of Africa, afghanistan, etc. It’s so different from my life and routing, Wendy’s, Starbucks, waiting at a stoplight in a nice car, coming home to a house with green grass, browsing the internet in the evening, watching some sci-fi show etc. Whlie I am sure the protrayal is not 100%, it was a pretty good view IMHO. Also, the grainy filming just reinforeced the wildness.
- The movie was pretty emotional, made me mad. But at who or what. 2 things mainly…first the bad guys, and the god be willing brainwashing that came thru, and willingness to just be bad. Second was us (the good guys), more specifically our beuacracy (sp?). This is not democrat/republican problem. Every organization bigger than a dozen people has there share of fiefdoms and beuacracy, and it just gets worse with size, this applies to private/public companies, teams, and yes government. I do not know if the Massoui seen and the laptop were real, but if they were not, I am sure something as rediculous happens all the time. That makes me mad also.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:12 pmDuring the scenes with Prince Masood, I kept expecting Peter O’Toole as Lawrence of Arabia to show up.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:53 pmFirst of all I think we should be proud to be in a country where people can freely bring forth their ideas. Does anyone thing such a broadcast was possible in China? The second is that assuming John O’Niel depicted in the movie is all real, the regime changes should be careful enough to retain and listen to O’Niels all around. The third is that fighting terrorism is not a war based on the rules of war.. its human survival.. survival and prtection of human beings.. No government can wage it alone or proclaim its destined to do so.. Its a combined effort with intelligence sharing across nations
September 13th, 2006 at 12:37 amLove to sit down with a cup of coffee with andrew and paul. We could resolve a lot of the problems on our own.
This is the first time I’ve engaged in a blog debate and am surprised how quickly i was drawn into using name calling to make sure my point was heard. i am usually very reasonable in tone and often get brushed aside as a wimpy liberal.
I wish someone (other than John Stossel!) would do a thorough study on what makes someone inherently liberal or conservative or in-between. My position seems so correct and logical to me that when i run into someone who thinks exactly the opposite it disturbs me on many levels. I agreed with 100% of Andrew’s last post. If we sat down and talked we would agreed on 95%, probably. What is it that divides us to the point where we can’t have a civil debate?
Cheers to you all for participating. We are in for the long fight!
September 13th, 2006 at 11:43 amWelcome to the society that we have become, Ed. When discussions are reduced to 30-second sound bites, name calling seems to be what rises to the top.
This is also my first time participating in a blog discussion, and to be honest, I have a hard time believing that I am doing this! I found this site looking for information about Richard Clarke, and in reading through the comments, I couldn’t remain silent.
As far as what makes someone liberal or conservative, I think that environment and human nature have a lot to do with it. The question isn’t really that different from what makes a person a terrorist. The answer is that once someone is leading one way or the other, it is very easy to lead them to the extremes, and get into an “us against them” mentality. Which leads to the name calling, and the breaking down of civil debate.
As for me, I refuse to be categorized. I attend an evangelical church on a weekly basis, which could lable me as an extreme right wing religious fanatic. I have also opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, which would put me into the wimpy liberal camp. While registered as a republican, that does not guide the way I vote, and i have never contributed to a political campaign. That would label me as apolitical, even though I am intensely interested in politics and the direction this country is taking.
I guess my bottom line is that i agree that we should be in this for the long fight, we just shouldn’t be fighting each other.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:24 pmwould be interested in responses to this thought…
note that I have note solution to this dilemna…
Stepping way way back…It seems to me that the core tenets behind democracy is that individuals cannot be trusted. If you let someone have too much power, eventually that person, or the person who succeeds him/her, etc…will go to far with that power. So…take the power away…let the masses decide thru voting…have checks and balances to keep power from being abused. Ok, sounds good to me.
The dilemna seems to be that you really still cannot trust the individuals, and the problems has really just shifted. And lately that shifting problem has seamed to really rear its head. The problem is that now the people we elect are basically driven to lie, distort the truth, flame mistakes, and all sorts of other things. There a bazillion examples from both sides. Balancing the budget will never happen, it requires spending less, which is not popular, which means you will not be elected, which means you won’t do it. Prime example was during that 30-90 second period when it looked like we had a surplus. Man, people lined up to spend it so fast, why, it’s popular. Thats when I realized reducing the debt is never going to happen, when extra $$ was there to make a tiny dent, we did’nt want to do it.
Hmm…did not mean to digress into budget land, but my point is still there…our system encourages polarization, name calling, and promising the moon. It is so so so rare for both parties to agree on anything. Why, because we are truly so far apart ? or more likely, because the system punishes you for agreeing with the opposition.
September 13th, 2006 at 4:35 pmIt is more Clintons fault than Bush’s but they are both responsible for not doing enough.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:28 pmI wonder what was on those documents Sandy Berger put in his socks…
September 18th, 2006 at 2:26 amWhat really happened in the run-up to September 11th? How did we go from being a relatively secure nation to a very insecure and fearful nation?
I had a close-up view of the mistakes and wrong turns of national security policy makers whose negligence led America to turn her back on the very worst of our worst enemies.
Was it the Democrats or Republicans who let our guard down allowing us to be attacked by a ruthless cult of Jihadists? The fur has been flying ever since 9/11 and the answer of course, is both. The catastrophic failure of intelligence leading to 9/11 is evidence our national security has been so thoroughly and completely compromised that both the Democrats and Republicans are scrambling for cover from a rightfully suspicious and offended public.
To understand why, I would suggest you read Four Things About September 11th.
In short, under the guise of hiding our vulnerabilities, the Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group led by Philip Zelikow, Ashton Carter, and John M Deutch proposed that policy discussions surrounding the most credible terror scenarios should be centralized, tightly controlled by “small groups of knowledgeable officials and expert consultants” and NEVER BE PUBLISHED AT ALL.
Instead of improving our security, over time it likely had the effect of creating a list of scenarios that security analysts traded details about with as much passion as young baseball fans trade in prized baseball cards – the scenarios themselves became a prized commodity for those in power – a commodity they could not dare speak about publicly. The end result was an intelligence nightmare and LESS security for the public not MORE.
Why? As long as secrecy within a tiny power click reigned supreme, there was no oversight to insure that those workers on the frontlines who stood the best chance of stopping those credible threats were receiving the necessary warnings and training to intercept the attackers. The best evidence of our compromised national security is our government’s non-reaction to Sullivan and Elson’s desperate pleas. They were tired of sitting on their hands waiting for their superiors to act on their recommendations to end the catastrophic Islamist threat to our airports – and so – against protocol – they took their battle to the public and to congress. If I heard Sullivan’s Boston-based plea broadcasted in Los Angeles in the summer of 2001, certainly some Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group Members must have heard about it in Washington DC or New York. And yet, as far as I’ve heard, not one of these members or members of our National Security Agency called the DOT or the FAA and said, “If the public knows – the terrorists will know – We’d better intervene and make certain this security gap is closed.”
92% of the 9-11 casualties were caused by two hijacked airliners which departed from Boston’s Logan Airport – the same airport whose poor passenger screening performances the Boston TV station exposed in their report in the late Spring of 2001.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pmBerget did not put documents in his socks or underwear. And, they were copies
September 21st, 2006 at 1:35 am
Bill Clinton did have efforts to kill Asama Bin Laden, but did not take advantage of many opportunities to take out the most dangerous person in the world. His administration could of put an end to the terror in the world but President Clinton was to busy with the whole Lewinzky scandal. I do agree that it is both the presidents faults, but you can not look back at a situation and say what went wrong and say it should of been handled a certain way when it is not that easy. As for the war in Iraq, it very well justified due to our country has not had a terrorist attack since 9-11 and there is always going to be liberals no matter what war, protesting it and trying to make the current President look horrible. Liberals are blind and want to get out of Iraq, which is the wrong move allowing a base for terrorists to get control of. I am sixteen years old and I am not blinded by the lies of Bill Clinton and feel that people need to look at the big picture and realize that this situation in the Middle East needed to be taken care of a long time ago. You can not just target certain areas in the area when the whole area is dangerous and needs to governed the right way so they can have a future of control and freedom. President Bush said that this war is not going to short and will be a long process, so liberals need to look how to solve the solution and work together and not take sides, splitting the country apart.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:52 pmThey can scream and yell and wag fingers all they want. The more they clamor with no corroborated fact in their defense only digs them in deeper. They deserve every scrutiny thrown at them, and they know it. They laid this country bare with a liberal congress that did not allow the intelligence community to blossom productively, and brow beat them into indifference and ivy league risk aversion where they were forced to choose between a career and making waves. The Democrats do not have the best interests of our tomorrows foremost, and they would be quite content if we were no longer a world power or overthrown.
This is not the party of FDR, and hasn’t been since the 1960s-and we have the harvest-bloodletting of American lives that nobody gave damn about until Bush engaged. Bush is courage, and it pisses them off that their cowardice was trumped. They need to go home and study the people who in selfless example gave everything they had when they signed the Declaration of Independence.
I think malfeasance hearings are in order. Accountability is being slaughtered in this go along, get along, leave this all behind decpetion.
September 28th, 2006 at 8:57 amIs it just me, or has Larry King had like 5 heart attacks and 5 divorces. I guess that’d be a broken heart for each.
October 21st, 2006 at 11:11 amClarke and Cressey now write for http://www.GoodHarborReport.com.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pmI think 9/11 was a tragedy, just as was sunami, world war 2, spanish masacre, jewish holocaust and many many more where innocent people died because of political strifes. Sounds like (if i listen to this) that the Americans are going to have another civil war the “democratic” and “republican” parties are going to gulge each others eyes again like in the movie “gangs of New York” or is that movie also just fictionalized. As for if you dont vote your opinion doesnt count in America, then America should stop pressing there opinion on the world. But America is opne of the Leading Super Powers of the world so with great power comes great responsibility. Your leaders are so scared of losing that power, so they will try anything to keep it. Your country is safe away from the rest of the world (or it was safe). If America stops now focus’s on its own country and get most people to aggree on a topic. Your country is almost dived on every topic. Your country has more race issues than any country in the world. Leave the rest of the world alone. Its not Clintons fault, its not Bushes fault, its your fault, its Americas fault. Propaganda will always be there, always, but educate your selves so you can see the difference. The media will always sensationalize thing always… Peace be with you. Find peace in your own country before trying to enforce it on others.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:34 am