“It’s a total fabrication. It did not happen.”
By on Sep 5th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
“It’s a total fabrication. It did not happen.”
Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger, responding to a key scene in ABC’s The Path to 9/11. (via CQ)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“It’s a total fabrication.”
Rightwingers must have had something to do with it.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:22 pmIt Did Happen! Iraq had WMD’s, too! Saddam ordered 9/11. Vote Republican or Die!
September 5th, 2006 at 4:22 pmI agree that this ABC propaganda piece is outrageous, and that ABC and its executives should be condemned for it, but at the same time I think that their propaganda will fall flat. The only people who are going to buy into this idiocy are the true believers. The Rethugs have lost the middle, and they are barely clinging onto their fanatical base. Blaming Clinton six years into the Bush presidency just makes them look all the more ridiculous. They are flailing in desperation now. Bush has made the Iraq war the centerpiece of his presidency, and most people in this country are sick of going along with it.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:23 pmWas that a voice I heard from the wilderness, saying this movie may not be entirely accurate?
September 5th, 2006 at 4:26 pmNeocons fabricating something?
September 5th, 2006 at 4:27 pmThere are enough ‘truebelievers’ who enjoy being easily led by lies and propaganda, and there are enough ‘truebelievers’ to keep the GOP in power.
We now have a country which is apathetic to the truth.
We deserve every lie they tell us.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:27 pmAh, but why let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a good smear.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:35 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
‘Tom Kean, (chairman of the 9/11 Commission), however, is an official adviser; he says the incident was a fictionalized composite. It was “representative of a series of events compacted into one,†he replied to Ben-Veniste at the time. In a phone interview a few days later, he added, “It’s reasonably accurate.†And he offered a prediction that the show will “get just as many howls from Republicans.†‘
CQ
September 5th, 2006 at 4:54 pmI don’t care who it gets howls from.
The country doesn’t need bullshit being fed to them, especially when it relates to the events of 911.
Maybe right wingers are ok with bullshit, because we have already established loyalty to the GOP and Bush is paramount, but for people like me, I’m kinda fed up with the constant stream of lies.
So, defend the bullshit if you want Exley, real Americans will still be clamoring for the truth.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:59 pmSo, AnAmerican, you are upset that the mini-series apparently does not accurately reflect what the Bush Administration did or did not do pre-9/11, as well as what the Clinton administration did or did not do pre-9-11????
September 5th, 2006 at 5:04 pmwhen Richard Ben-Veniste — one of the 10 members of the independent Sept. 11 commission, whose final report producer Marc Platt credits with supplying much of the mini-series’ detail and narrative structure — rose to denounce the veracity of a key scene involving Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:06 pm==
This docudrama should not, because of such poetic license, be shown in any institute of learning, It is ‘reality based’ dung. keep at at blockbuster as a free rental, for those who wish to see it, can.
Administration did or did not do pre-9/11, as well as what the Clinton administration did or did not do pre-9-11????
Comment by Exley
==
No Exley. It’s what Bush sr and Reagan did and didn’t do when it created the ‘Freedom Fighters’ and gave Saddam WMD.
Its when Rumsfeldm then , looked the other way when Saddam gassed the Kurds.
Learn your history.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:08 pmTONY BLAIR TO LEAVE 31ST MARCH NEXT YEAR
BYE BYE PUPPET – GEORGE BUSH NEXT – Yee Haaaaaaaa
September 5th, 2006 at 5:09 pmAh, so Trinary reveals what is REALLY bothering the posters here. It is not that the mini-series may or may not condense historical events (which is done in everu docudrama)….It’s that the mini-series is not regurgitating the silly little myths that Trinary just posted….Gotcha!
Take your own advice, TS. Learn some history. Everything you said is completely false.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:12 pmComment by Exley — September 5, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
You’re joking right? Just announce here that your fine with a ‘docudrama’ about 911 being presented to the American people that isn’t inaccurate.
Say it loud so we’re all clear Exley, tell us how you have no problem with bullshit being presented to the US public.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:15 pmSo “Lucifer” is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”
And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say ‘Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God’….”
September 5th, 2006 at 5:17 pm==
Exley, you are funny.
You got nothing.
Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: ‘UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq’s chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.’
ake your own advice, TS. Learn some history. Everything you said is completely false.
Comment by Exle
I did, and you still refuse to read it.
Okay Exley, then post something, at least ONCE, rebuking the fact that REAGAN was an appeaser of Saddam and the Osama Terrorists.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:19 pmYou didn’t answer my question, AnAmerican….Are you seemingly outraged because the mini-series may inaccurately depict the actions of BOTH the Clinton and Bush II administrations in making them both look ineffective against Al Qaeda pre-9/11?
Or are you just upset that the film may inaccurately depect what the Clinton administration might or might not have done?
September 5th, 2006 at 5:19 pmYeah, I answered your question.
I’m not ok with bullshit being fed to the American people.
Are you?
September 5th, 2006 at 5:21 pmAh, so Trinary reveals what is REALLY bothering the posters here. It is not that the mini-series may or may not condense historical events (which is done in everu docudrama)….It’s that the mini-series is not regurgitating the silly little myths that Trinary just posted….Gotcha!
September 5th, 2006 at 5:24 pm==
Its not a myth it’s a fact,,as for the rest of your drivel about what bothers me, or anyone here, is just goofy. I posted severa times already I dont care who sees this movie..and to perhaps issue those 100,000 copies to blockbuster so those who want to watch soap opera about 9/11 can. I also said it should not be shown in schools, I have never advocated destroying the docudrama, whatever that is, and keeping it from being produced, as the GOP did on moores film, it seems to me the GOP is once again showing it’s true hypocrite colors.
Okay, TR….1) Read the 9/11 Commission Report and Peter Bergen’s “Holy War, Inc.”. Both clearly states that while the Reagan Administration did indeed provide assistance to the indigenous Afghan resistance against the Soviets, there is little or no evidence that the U.S. ever provided any assitance to the “Afghan Arabs,” one of which was Osama Bin Laden’s group:
“While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don’t make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.
Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency’s Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, “The CIA did not recruit Arabs,” as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were “very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass.” Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs’ holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: “There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.’”
… There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. … the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The ‘let’s blame everything bad that happens on the CIA’ school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency’s powers, both for good and ill.” [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]
September 5th, 2006 at 5:24 pm‘UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq’s chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.’
DID YOU READ IT YET EXLEY??
September 5th, 2006 at 5:24 pmSorry Exley but TS is right and you are wrong. The only person you got was yourself. Perhaps you should do a bit of research to avoid broadcasting your ignorance.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:26 pmLOL Exley, Osamas name was TIM OSMAN.
Besides I have just shown that the US did help saddam with his weapons. Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq’s chemical and nuclear weapons
September 5th, 2006 at 5:27 pmTim Osman (Ossman) has recently become better known as Osama Bin Ladin. “Tim Osman” was the name assigned to him by the CIA for his tour of the US and US …
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/binladen_cia.html
==
he met with high level US government officials at the Hilton Hotel in Sherman Oaks California, under the pseudonym ‘Tim Osman’. …
September 5th, 2006 at 5:29 pmLOL@Exley
September 5th, 2006 at 5:29 pmHey you want to know about ABU NIDAL
NIDAL-Laden
ABU
UBA LADIN
UBA LADEN
USAMA Ben Laden
September 5th, 2006 at 5:31 pm2) The Reagan Administration condemned Iraq’s unse of WMD in the 1980s. Rather than appeased, the Iraqis were quite upset with the Reagan administration’s condemnation:
United States Embassy in Sudan. “Briefing Notes for Rumsfeld Visit to Baghdad [Page Missing],” March 24, 1984.
A State Department background cable for Donald Rumsfeld’s March 1984 visit to Baghdad notes the distress caused to Iraqi officials by the U.S.’s public condemnation of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons “despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later.”
Iraq Reacts Angrily to U.S. Condemnation of CW [Chemical Weapons] Use,” March 7, 1984.
Reports that Iraq’s defense minister denounced the State Department’s condemnation of Iraq’s chemical weapons use. The U.S. interests section comments that “The Iraqis apparently have been stunned by our public condemnation.”
Document 45: United States Interests Section in Iraq Cable from William L. Eagleton, Jr. to the Department of State.
National Security Archive: GWU.
Document 48: Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the
Your turn, daddy-o
September 5th, 2006 at 5:32 pmSo Osama, Tim Osman, has been around since oh Oliver North and the Iran Contra thing??
GOooOoOooOoOoOoOoOo EXLEY!!
‘Tom Kean, (chairman of the 9/11 Commission), however, is an official adviser; he says the incident was a fictionalized composite
That guy that helped keep the 47 pages out of the 911 report about Riggs bank and the Saudis??
September 5th, 2006 at 5:35 pmOh pullleasse..
#23…Oops, Earl! You spoke too soon…You didn’t get a chance to read posts 21 and 28 before you opened your mouth….And now look how embarassed you are! Well, take it as a lesson, junior. Don’t speak before you know what you are talking about.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:36 pmThey condemned it how? By slappin them on the wrist and then using their screwup for a war 10+ years later?
Tell me about those missing 47 pages Exley.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:38 pmOh, wait…I thought Trinary was a semi-normal individual at first….But now we see TS posting lunatic links about Osama Bin Laden having an alias of Tim Osman and visiting the White House….
Okay. Sorry. I didn’t realize I was dealing with a conspiracy nut. I won’t waste my time anymore. Good luck, Trinary. I hope you get better.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:38 pmRummy; “Here Saddam heres some WMD”
Saddam;”Thanks”
Rummy Saddam shake hands.
Rummy:”I will have to condemn you for using them though”
[Wink Wink]
Saddam; “Thanks!!”
September 5th, 2006 at 5:40 pm[Wink Wink]
Okay. Sorry. I didn’t realize I was dealing with a conspiracy nut. I won’t waste my time anymore. Good luck, Trinary. I hope you get better.
Comment by Exley
you know damn good and well that Bush had those pages removed, typical troll, claim conspiracy..and run from the truth.
Hell I was joking about Nidal, I just reversed the letter numbmut
September 5th, 2006 at 5:41 pmI hope you get over your conservative sickness.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:42 pmActually, TS, the Reagan Administration withheld exports to Iraq that could be used for its chemical weapons production:
Document 42: Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Interests Section in Iraq. “U.S. Chemical Shipment to Iraq,” March 4, 1984.
Indicates that a shipment of 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride to Iraq was held back at JFK airport because of “concern over Iraq’s possible intention to use the chemical in the manufacture of chemical weapons.” Washington asks the U.S. interests section in Baghdad to remind Iraq’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.’s grave concern about chemical weapons, and to inform it that the U.S. will publicly condemn their use in the near future. The interests section is to reiterate the request that Iraq not use chemical warfare, and to say that the U.S. opposes Iraq’s attempts to acquire chemical weapons related material from the U.S.: “When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent their export to Iraq.”
Your turn!
(And still waiting for your response to Peter Bergen)
September 5th, 2006 at 5:42 pmOh, wait…I thought Trinary was a semi-normal individual at first….But now we see TS posting lunatic links about Osama Bin Laden having an alias of Tim Osman and visiting the White House….
The facts are the Facts, I see you don’t know much about the cloak and dagger world that your pundit TV allows you.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:43 pmHell I was joking about Nidal, I just reversed the letter
Forgive me for thinking you are a conspiracy nut. But to be fair, my confusion was understandable. There are quite a few posters on this site who post conspiracy theories that 9/11 was an inside job or the work of the Mossad. I apologize for lumping you in with that crowd.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:44 pmWhy would I believe bergen?
I got my info from FOIA
September 5th, 2006 at 5:45 pmOh wait, now TS seems to be going “conspiracy” route again….Let’s settle this so I know with whom I am dealing…TS, do you believe 9/11 was an “inside job,” an attack perpetrated by the U.S. government (or Israel) for some nefarious purpose? Or do you believe 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda against the people of the United States?
September 5th, 2006 at 5:47 pmWhy would I believe bergen?
I got my info from FOIA
Comment by Trinary Suka
As did I ..The postings 28 and 36 are all primary documents obtained via FOIA.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:48 pmNevertheless the Republicans supported Saddam Exley.
Actually from our positions we will never likely know the whole truth of what goes on behind the scenes. The FOIA does show that Saddam was sent weapons.
I don’t think we should support these people in any type of weapon systems or WMD. It’s bad business.
it has been string of screwups by our leaders, Democratic and Republican over a period of decades that brings us too today. If only we had a crystal ball sadly we don’t.
I don’t know what to think of our government any more, the Conservatives aren’t conservative, govermment has grown instead of shrinking and more wars look to be on the Horizon..simply because people are too ignorant to stop hating one another and to stop this stupid shit we have been doing for the last thousand years.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:52 pmThen we agree to disagree on certain points, but really the blame doesn’t lie in you or me but in our elected ones..
September 5th, 2006 at 5:54 pmit has been string of screwups by our leaders, Democratic and Republican over a period of decades that brings us too today. If only we had a crystal ball sadly we don’t.
Well, it seems we DO agree on something. You are correct. Unfortunately, however, it is a mess with which we now have to deal. We can’t ignore it.
Oh well, it’s 6:00….The proverbail whistle has blown. I am outta here. Have a good night, Trinary.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:58 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 6:04 pm“ABC Slams New Iraq Documentary, Ignores Own 9/11 Right-Wing Fantasy.”
Okay, one last joust Exley =0) just for grins and to wake up the people, republican and democratic alike
==
THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
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 6:11 pm==
Exleys turn =(8^P
Okay see ya later Exley
September 5th, 2006 at 6:13 pmI heard that ABC was going to offer this to high schools to use in the teaching of modern history. If that is true, it would be a travesty – a real “catapaulting of the propaganda.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:26 pmFacts don’t do it for conservatives these days. They’ve got to come up with questionable “docudramas.” No matter how many times people like Exley try to obfuscate with selectively pulled, out-of-context quotes from the 9-11 commission report, most of us know what happened:
The Bush people came in more concerned with missle defense than anything else. They dismissed Clinton administration concerns about bin Laden, ignored two separate commission suggestions on dealing with terrorism and didn’t really discuss or meet on terrorism for the entire 9 months leading up to the attack. They ignored over 55 separate warnings from the FAA and ignored a PDB entitled “Bin Laden Determined to strike in the U.S. Bush responded to the system “blinking red” by taking a 30-day vacation. When the attack happened, Bush sat, stunned for 9 minutes while people were dying at the WTC. He then ran and hid for a couple of days somewhere in the midwest.
THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED, EXLEY. YOUR PEOPLE DROPPED THE BALL, SCREWED UP, ALLOWED THE BIGGEST TERRORIST ATTACK IN HISTORY TO HAPPEN ON THEIR WATCH!
September 5th, 2006 at 6:59 pmIn 1996, Clinton went to congress and asked for new tools to fight terrorism. Republicans in congress reacted with suspicion and stated right off that Clinton would not get what he wanted. This would seem to be part of the history of fighting terrorism. Will it be covered in this “docudrama?”
On the day Clinton was 45 minutes late in his attempt to kill bin Laden with a cruise missle, he had spent the entire morning in deposition answering questions about oral sex. This too would seem to be part of the history of fighting terrorism, but my guess is that it won’t make it into this “docudrama.”
September 5th, 2006 at 7:05 pm“Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!” – Homer Simpson.
Who needs responsibility, when you can always blame someone else? That should be the new motto of the neocons and their supporting nutjobs.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:18 pm#21 Exley:
Okay, TR….1) Read the 9/11 Commission Report and Peter Bergen’s “Holy War, Inc.â€. Both clearly states that while the Reagan Administration did indeed provide assistance to the indigenous Afghan resistance against the Soviets, there is little or no evidence that the U.S. ever provided any assitance to the “Afghan Arabs,†one of which was Osama Bin Laden’s group:
Go read Stephen Kinzer’s “Overthrow”. The CIA wasn’t allowed to hand money directly to the mujahedeen. They had to funnel it through the ISI, and the ISI decided who got it and who didn’t. What that means is that Reagan didn’t give money directly to Osama. But it also means that U.S. money and arms went through the ISI to such people; the CIA had just totally lost control….
Cheers,
September 5th, 2006 at 7:35 pmHello Trinary…Just saw that you posted a note just as I left for the evening:
“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 1, 1992″
Nope. The facts don’t support that statement. While it certainly appears true that the U.S. sold “dual use” biological materials to Iraq, there is no evidence that the government sold the above-mentioned finished materials to Iraq. Moreover, as document #42 in posting 36 shows, the U.S. was concerned as early as 1984 about selling materials to Iraq that could be used in the production of chemical weapons and prohibited the export of such dual use materials. If dual-use biological materials were indeed sold to Iraq, obviously, in hindsight, that was an error in judgment and policy. But, as I recall, the U.S. and the world, was not aware of the extent of Saddam’s biological weapons program until after the end of the first Gulf War and UN inspections began. So, the selling of such dual-use bio materials may have occurred, but it appears that the U.S. did not realize that Iraq would be using such materials in the production of bio-weapons. As we see in Document 42, where the U.S. saw the possibility that Iraq may use certain dual-use materials in its chemical weapons program (about which the U.S. knew), the U.S. prohibited such sales. It appears that the U.S. may have allowed the transfer of dual use bio-materials under the mistaken belief that Iraq had no actove bio-weapons program. If the US had known pre-Gulf War of Iraq’ extensive bio-weapons program, it is a certainty the U.S. would not have allowed the transfer of such dual use bio materials to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:49 pmAnyway Exley, as you and I both know, using docudrama to lay blame on one political party or another is, well, it’s crap.
I didn’t ever much care for moores movie, and I don’t much care for this one.
Moores movies or this dockudrama have no place in our schools. As I said before, If ABC want’s to give this away, give it to Blockbuster and other video/Dvd outlets so people can check it out and watch it.
Hell even I would probably watch it…
September 5th, 2006 at 11:45 pmTrinary,
Like I said earlier, one review I saw says that it puts before the Clinton and Bush II administrations in a less than flattering light about how they dealt with threat posed by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before 9/11. I am unclear as to why TP has devoted approximately 10 threads to a mini-series which no one has seen yet….Look, the fact that 9/11 happened at all shows a failue by the government that took place over a period of 10-12 years, encompassing both administrations. To say otherwise is simply silly….
September 5th, 2006 at 11:52 pmCORRECTION: Like I said earlier, one review I saw says that it puts BOTH the Clinton and Bush II administrations in a less than flattering light about how they dealt with threat posed by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before 9/11.
Sorry about that…
September 5th, 2006 at 11:54 pmYo Ex, Lets go back before Saddam came into power because the Cold War is the cause of much of this cloak and dagger ‘blowback’, and again you will see that we, US, you and me,[not really but I am an American and I must accept some responsibility] that Saddam was once again a player, and a puppet for the CIA and the Cold war;
According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.
Little attention was paid to Qasim’s bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that “freaked everybody out” according to a former senior U.S. State Department official.
Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of “real power,” according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was “the most dangerous spot in the world.”
In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed “close ties” with Qasim’s ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party “as its instrument.”
According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim’s office in Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim’s movements.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:59 pm==
One seriously f’ed scenario Exley
I am unclear as to why TP has devoted approximately 10 threads to a mini-series which no one has seen yet.
==
The upcoming elections I suppose..
==
Like I said earlier, one review I saw says that it puts BOTH the Clinton and Bush II administrations in a less than flattering light about how they dealt with threat posed by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before 9/11.
Well, in all fairness the Senate, pubs and crats apparently, didn’t help by blocking the tools that Clinton wanted to fight Al Qaeda. We are paying that price now.
more “Lack of Imagination”…
September 6th, 2006 at 12:07 amTrinary….You have given me a lot at which to look at midnight….I will read it more closely tomorrow when my lids are not quite so heavy. But at this point I am willing to say that undoubtedly the Cold War and the mistakes bred by that conflict helped bring us where we are today….I mentioned the ill-advised Iraninan coup of the 1950s as an example…It is actually quite interesting how history feeds on itself (for lack of a better term). Where we are today can be, in part, traced back to the Cold War…which, in part, can be traced back to World War II…which, in part, can be traced back to World War I…which can, in part, be traced back to the Napoleonic era….And so on…
September 6th, 2006 at 12:10 amTrinary….You have given me a lot at which to look at midnight….I will read it more closely tomorrow when my lids are not quite so heavy. But at this point I am willing to say that undoubtedly the Cold War and the mistakes bred by that conflict helped bring us where we are today
September 6th, 2006 at 12:13 am==
Agreed. Cya Exley.
Good for Berger to trash the ABC phony docudrama, but why does Bill Clinton remain silent about it? Billy if you say nothing then you allow yourself to be swift-boated by the GOP, so speak out like Berger, or be forever pegged as a coward!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:56 am#24- ‘TIMMEH!’ :)
September 6th, 2006 at 6:31 am#57…Okay, Trinary, read the posting. Color me unconvinced. The story is solely attributed to unidentified sources and anonymous “officials” (with the exception of the Roger Morris quote (Morris wrote a very good Nixon bio back in the 80s) and even his quote is nebulous.
May I quote Jason Robards from “All the President’s Men” and ask, if this is true, “When are people going to go on the record on this story?!!!!”
Where is this passage you sent from?
September 6th, 2006 at 9:10 amthe path to 9/11…
the most interesting thing i see about this whole path to 9/11 miniseries controversy ……
September 6th, 2006 at 10:09 am[...] Stanley came to exactly the same conclusions about 9/11 that the authors of “The Path to 9/11″ came to – and want all of America to come to: it’s really Clinton’s fault, facts be damned. This is a case in point as to why this fictional account of the defining event of this century of American life should not be subject to dramatization along partisan political lines. I think it’s time for a Blogger Ethics Panel to sort out how bloggers reporters are reaching their conclusions about what happened on 9/11. Something tells me that Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger and Richard Ben-Veniste would be the right people to set the record that ABC has so distorted straight. [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 9:47 am