NYT Falsely Claims 9/11 Commission Concluded Lewinsky Distracted Clinton Admin From Terrorism
By on Sep 7th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
NYT Falsely Claims 9/11 Commission Concluded Lewinsky Distracted Clinton Admin From Terrorism
From the New York Times review of Path to 9/11:
The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat.
What the 9/11 Commission actually says (pg. 118):
Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton’s problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him “that they are going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing.” All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations. We have found no reason to question their statements.
This is what happens when people learn about the 9/11 Commission by watching Path to 9/11.
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
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
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
Oh Crap, I thought blaming Clinton for stuff was restricted to the conservative bloggers.
Well at least we can’t refer to the NYT as a liberal rag any more.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:45 pmThis pos cannot see the light of day!
I’m trying, Judd!
I copy email addresses and post them on other sites. I even copied my email on TP.
We just can’t lose momentum!
It’s almost 9/8 here.
That means 2 days! (Why did “The Ring” just pop in my head? Anyway…)
This CAN be stopped! We organized through TP and other sites. Let’s carry this through to the end!!
It’d be such a great vindication.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:51 pmWell didn’t somebody make a really big deal out of the Lewinsky thing, to the point the accused had to spend a hell of a lot of time dealing with it.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:52 pmCould somebody in the media get a clue and maybe start doing their job?
How about a little actual research? A few facts, just for fun.
How about not trying to think for me?
How about something different — like behaving like the press?
September 7th, 2006 at 11:04 pm9/11 was an inside job, plain & simple! Watch Loose Change, free on google, to get you started on the truth.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:05 pmWTF!!!???!!!
It was the republicans that cried “Missiles for Monica” when Bill went after WMDs with cruise missiles. The rightwingers are the ones who distracted the nation with Lewinsky.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:07 pmFor Truth,
We should all know by now that getting or giving oral sex is the absolute worst thing anyone has ever, ever, ever done.
I feel awful about it….
September 7th, 2006 at 11:09 pmCould somebody in the media get a clue and maybe start doing their job?
Comment by Zooey — September 7, 2006 @ 11:04 pm
every time one of those shows like 48hours-mystery, or a marital murder who-done-it ( i can’t remember the names, never watch them ) comes on the tv, i always wish that those resources and energy would be put to use trying to bring the political criminals to justice and save this country…
September 7th, 2006 at 11:19 pmIf only Bin Laden was a jizm stain on a dress, the Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich would have indeed found him and brought him in for questioning.
-GSD
September 7th, 2006 at 11:22 pmEver since the NYT admitted it sat on a relevant story during an election cycle, I’ve been using it for only one thing – replacement for my toilet paper. NYT is now a hasbeen hobscrabble operation. -Kevo
September 7th, 2006 at 11:24 pmPersonally, I’m OK with the ABC movie “Path to 9/11. All ABC has to do is to put a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie and during intermission(s), stating that this movie is piece of fiction (y’know, a big, fat lie) in big fat and bold letters. And make sure this disclaimer remind on the screen for at least 8 seconds. Also, repeat the disclaimer at the end of the movie.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:29 pmI feel awful about it….
Comment by Zooey — September 7, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
Yes its a vicious cycle, after the guilt subsides, then it happens all over again. Maybe there’s a way to desensitise oneself to the guilt? :>
September 7th, 2006 at 11:29 pmSeems to be a lot of extra steps in posting tonight, never got over that “heavy traffic” from earlier?
September 7th, 2006 at 11:31 pmI cant see my posted bullcrap until I come back after checking other threads, damn I like to hear myself talk.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:32 pmIs anyone else having problems posting? Or Im being banned?
September 7th, 2006 at 11:32 pmSpeaking of distractions, all those brush-cutting vacations provide a wonderful distraction from the drudgery of managing a failed war and not chasing down Osama bin Laden.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:38 pmRove could stop this whole messs but the evil one is grinning and his smear is workng again he thinks. Bush is not smart enough to know what is going on. He used Clinton during the Tsunami because he couldn’t go to any foreign country. He used Clinton THEN repays hi with this crap. Rove is still the sneaky snake.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:40 pm“Personally, I’m OK with the ABC movie “Path to 9/11. All ABC has to do is to put a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie and during intermission(s), stating that this movie is piece of fiction (y’know, a big, fat lie) in big fat and bold letters. And make sure this disclaimer remind on the screen for at least 8 seconds. Also, repeat the disclaimer at the end of the movie.”
Most Democrats want a lot more than a lousy disclaimer. Do you think a disclaimer would appear when they repeat this swill on the next 9/11 anniversary? I don’t. This could be around for a long time, doing tons of damage, unless it can be stopped.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:45 pmyou’re not banned, juan…
still major problems posting, takes a lot longer to get “there”…
but i’m not seeing the word press windows any more…
i was hoping when judd returned from his MSNBC appearance he would fix this thing… but he is probably justifiably celebrating at this time…
kudos to judd and all the TP crew for keeping on this important story…
September 7th, 2006 at 11:48 pmthere’s not much time left to make it right…
[...] From Think Progress: From the New York Times review of Path to 9/11: [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 11:51 pmOy. And of course, I knew even before I clicked thru that the article was written by Alessandra Stanley, the Times’ notoriously inaccurate TV writer.
Gawker has done a great job of covering her various mistakes. I trust they’ll hear about this one too. Especially if the Times runs a correction.
Here is some of Gawker’s coverage.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:54 pmMaybe there’s a way to desensitise oneself to the guilt? :>
Comment by For Truth
We just have to keep trying…
September 8th, 2006 at 12:03 amI sent the reporter of the NYTimes the following:
>In your article about “The Path to 9-11″ you state:
>”The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat.”
>My understanding is that the opposite is true: the 9-11 Commission found that Clinton’s actions were not diverted by the sex scandal. In fact, he drew much criticism from the right about “Wagging the Dog” in the only attempt to kill Osama.
>I assume that you have seen a “pre final edit” copy of the show. It is a shame (literally) that President Clinton, Secretary Albright and Mr. Bremer were not allowed such access by Disney/ABC. I also assume that you have seen the challenges to the show presented by the Democratic leadership in the Senate.
>This is a biased, fictional portrayal of an event that is still raw in the American psyche.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:06 amI think Bush was “confessing” to the CIA’s implementation of extraordinary rendition yesterday so that he looks tough on terrorism in comparision to the weakness of Clinton as depicted in Path to 911.
The Path to 911 is being presented in Australia as straightforward fact. The ads are saying things like find out how the US had missed opportunities to take out bin Laden.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:11 amAs someone else noted, the lady who wrote this review, Alessandra Stanley, gets ripped on by Gawker on a weekly basis for all the mistakes she makes. The running joke, funny because it’s probably true, is that she doesn’t even watch the shows she reviews. There’s usually a talley of how many mistakes she makes in a month, and how many corrections she has to issue. So, you know, of course she’s going to muck this one up.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:26 am*
Mr. Iger’s new boss
*
September 8th, 2006 at 12:37 amshear and unabated revisionism
September 8th, 2006 at 12:38 amThis is a “heads-we-win, tails-you-lose” situation for the right. No matter how much kvetching progressives do, it will be heard by only a small minority of the TV-watching public. That minority may then see the movie for what it is, but the majority will believe the twisted version of events as portrayed.
So this is a rigged game where we can win exactly nothing, and the other side cannot help but pick up a big pile of chips.
Crime does pay…
September 8th, 2006 at 12:39 am[...] UPDATE: ThinkProgress confirms what I suspected. Contrary to Stanley’s reporting, the 9/11 Commission did not find that the Lewinsky scandal distracted Clinton from the terrorist threat. (If it had, it would have been on the shoulders of hypocrites like Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde.) This is tremendously sloppy reporting at best, an outright fabrication at worst. The questions come fast: Where do these “mistakes” come from? Why do they simply flow into our most credible media outlets? Whose idea is it to propagate these ideas? And if you’re just making wildly inaccurate “assumptions,” don’t people get fired for that eventually? What is Stanley thinking? Is it so worthwhile to her to try and score those points, to toe the neocon line, that she’ll willingly undermine her own professional credibility? I guess we’ll have to keep blogging. Explore posts in the same categories: Misdirection, Foreshadowing, Color Commentary, Phantom News, Kabuki [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 12:48 amFINALLY THE TRUTH BE TOLD, I THINK ITS GREAT!!!!!!
September 8th, 2006 at 12:49 amEveryone who wanted a job had one under Clinton. Everyone was upwardly mobile under Clinton. I don’t care if he got a thousand hummers…he worked more than any president in recent memory. Bush won’t anything interfere with his vacations. Talk about that!
Plus everyone was making more money not having to work 2 jobs to make the same or less money!
Go Big Dog!
September 8th, 2006 at 12:57 amWouldn’t that make Republicans look bad though? It would make the Republican witch-hunt look even worse than it does now.
As I said before, I think Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot because they’re discouraging people from watching a film that seems to criticize Republicans and the current administration. ABC should definitely change the scenes that unfairly criticize Clinton. But I think calling for a boycott is unwise.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:59 amHow is a disclaimer satisfactory? This is simply an attempt to revise history. No credible network takes living historical figures from a well documented historical event and attributes to them words which they did not say and actions which they did not take. Further, one must question the motives behind such revisions when the actual events are sufficiently riveting and exciting enough entertainment as they actually happened.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:01 amThis bad flaw in all these progressive responses persists. It is not enough to simply play defense. It is not enough to simply defend the Clinton administration and point out all they did and said. It is not enough to logically lay out the facts in defense of the truth.
Don’t get me wrong, by all means do so, however IT MUST ALWAYS COME AFTER YOU KICK YOUR OPPONENT IN THE TEETH. Yes, fine defend Clinton. You should do that, you need to do that, you will do that. His administration deserves that. But first pick any one of the following bombs and right off the bat shove it down their throat.
1) Right wing conservatives and their darling puppet dictator the Shah of Iran are the ones who sparked the whole Islamic revolution in the first place.
2) Ronald Reagan funded and trained the same radical Islamic fighters that threaten us today, including possibly Osama Bin Ladin himself.
3) The Bush family, Jim Baker, and many other stalwarts of the Republican party have long standing personal and spectacularly profitable relationships with a Saudi Royal family that funds Madras schools, terror groups, and runs a country that produced Osama Bin Ladin and 19 of his 9/11 hijackers.
4) Dubya and his Republican enablers in congress lied about the need to start a war with a country that was not a threat, the prosecution of which has greatly strengthened the radical Islamic terrorists and increased their number while at the same time killing or maiming tens of thousands of our soldiers and drastically depleting and diverting our precious national defense resources away from the real threats.
(Note last part of number two. It may not be true. In fact, I don’t think it is. But if you get it out there, it’s out there. And we would be happy to spend as much time as they like talking about exactly what murderous, hyper-religious, Muslim armies Reagan did fund and arm and train. See how that works? Now you have them playing defense).
In any politically competitive narrative, you don’t have to come out great. You only have to come out better than your opponent. The best way to do that, the most efficient way to do that, the most effective way to do that – is to demonize your opponent. Make him/her radioactive, unacceptable, dangerous. Attack first, always attack first and hard. Then if you have time, and remember you don’t have much time, play defense.
If Bush compares Democrats to Nazi appeasers, don’t just point out how ridiculous that is. First says how ironic that is given that the Bush family aggressively ran the US fundraising and money laundering operations for Hitler and the Third Reich (right up until the US Sized their assets under the Trading with the enemies act in 1942). Oh yeah, all of a sudden we’re not talking about the Democrats anymore, I can assure you of that. Then go ahead and defend yourself, make a logical argument about how their analogy fails and that kind of rhetoric is textbook fascism in action, etc, etc, etc. But you know as well as I the main point people will take from that exchange, no matter what else is or is not said.
Dems just need to nut up and start using the big guns. There is enough ammo to shatter the Republican party.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:02 amWhat the right wing is capable of is bone-chilling.
The TRUTH can never be destroyed, because it is real. A lie has to ride piggyback on the truth. It can’t exist without the truth.
This administration’s sick attempt at propaganda is despicable. This is the most telling thing, the worst thing. How can they hoist blatant propaganda on an unsuspecting people? How can they declare America is a democracy, if the very government put in place to protect us from totalitarianism, is using propaganda to win elections!
‘
Just met John Dean the other night at a C-SPAN Progressive Dems event, and he told me that these conservatives will stop at nothing to gain power. They are beyond corrupt; they are amoral, malicious and sociopathic. In his new book “Conservatives without Conscience” he describes another book published by St. Martin’s Press which completely fabricated and rewrote the entire Watergate history, including making up lies out of whole cloth and accusing his wife Mo of knowing about a DNC call-girl ring, responsible for the Watergate break-ins. Total lies, yet a major publisher put a great deal of money into it — and Time and 60 Minutes believed it too! All because Gordon Liddy had a vendetta, among other things.
I have recently been slandered, smeared and threatened repeatedly by several right-wing hackers as well. These people must be stopped at every level. Truly sick people. They and the hackers who have tried to destroy my family’s life, need our prayers.
Thank you for your amazing progress in combatting this propaganda.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:12 amThis is a prime example of how the Bush administration screams about the liberal press, specificly The New Yourk Times, and then uses it as the point release for their version of the truth. I thought that they were just playing Judy Miller, but it must be a bigger tie.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:14 amAh, the paper of record, huh? How the might have fallen.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:19 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
Clinton was actively working on peace negotiations in the mid east at the same time!!!! Where the hell have all of the statesmen gone.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:24 amI believe that it was the congress, the majority being Republican, that was obsessed with the Lewinsky affair to the point they could do nothing but try to impeach the President. When he did try to go after Osama Bin Laden they proclaimed “Wag the Dog”…yes I do remember that happening. How could the liberal media be so wrong?
September 8th, 2006 at 1:27 amHey new guy, you left out the part where conservative-hero Reagan provided ARMS to the Iranians *after* they held Americans hostage. Iran-contra wasn’t just appeasement, it was a treasonous act that sent the message to the Iranians that the US (or at least Republicans) would cut a deal to their benefit in secret.
How do you suppose that’s helping us NOW?
September 8th, 2006 at 1:29 amABC’s exploitation of the events leading to 9/11 are not only inaccurate, they are a political ploy by this administration to lay the blame on someone else, namely former President Clinton. This administration has used 9/11 in the most insidious way since it happened. It was used to mislead the people so it could justify the war in Iraq which incidentaly had nothing to do with 9/11. This is outrageous. President Clinton may have lied about a personal matter for which he was impeached, however this administration’s lies have actually caused the death of many of our servicemen and women, the wounds of over 18,000 and 1,800 wounded with life altering injuries. Put that on the Path to 9/11. This is a Karl Rove manuver to take the eye of the American people off the real issues in the election of November 2006. Wake up American, you are being lied to again by this administration.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:30 amOh boy I knew they would drag Monica into this ABC piece of pure crap! The gloves are off > Democrats must expose Bush’s paid sex with Jeff Gannon the male hooker!
September 8th, 2006 at 1:30 amAbsolutely it was the repugs who were obsessed with the Lewinsky affair. And Ann Coulter was the one who had the Linda Tripp tapes in her possession. Here is an excerpt from
“Mr. Bush, my children have lost their innocence because of you. They have to watch me cry every night during fervent prayers for our dying troops and countless children lost in this war. I have to explain to my kids what good morals are: the opposite of yours. I would rather my sons have an appetite for love, not war. People who have morals do not do what our president does. You have destroyed the very definition of moral values. And just for the record, your party’s irresponsible Ann Coulter-led witch-hunt/persecution/media blitz exposing the consensual affair of Clinton and Lewinsky, two adults, was in itself immoral and damaging to kids. In painstaking detail you paraded these blow-by-blowjob horrors for the press, not caring what effect it had on childhood innocence. And yes, we were all rightly appalled by the president’s behavior. But where was the right-wing morality brigade in keeping this porn out of the mainstream for our children’s sake? I still hear Republican mothers talk about how shameful Clinton was, yet they never see how the media salivated and profited at the sex appeal of it all. These same mothers never castigate you, Mr. Bush, for moral corruption on a life-threatening scale.”
AND BTW, WHY ARE RIGHT-WINGERS THE ONLY ONES WHO WANT PEOPLE KILLED FOR THEIR THOUGHTS?
September 8th, 2006 at 1:46 amMaybe if everyone boycotted their sponsors, ABC would think twice about spreading propaganda.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:49 amThat was from BUSH’S LAST WILL AND TESTICLE
September 8th, 2006 at 1:56 amOOPS SORRY, I didn’t mean to use block letters earlier; am learning how to do links here.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:00 amIt’s about perceptions
The general perception in voterland is that the Democrats are soft (the mummy party) and the Republicans are hard (the daddy party). This docudrama will nail home that view in the following way:
“The Democrats are soft in a bad way (they make America vulnerable), and the Republicans are hard in a good way (they strongly defend America).”
Someone above said that the Democrats should fight dirty to set the agenda. This is true in current politics. The Democrats are falling for their own naïve idealism: ‘Don’t go down to their level; the people will see the truth.’
This Path to 9/11 propaganda piece is going to succeed I suspect. The Republicans will win more than they lose.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:56 amtesting testing
September 8th, 2006 at 6:15 amPlease send an email to Alessandra, the writer of the NYT review before 8 AM eastern time. Let’s hope she hears your response to her failure to read the 9/11 commission report.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:37 amIs this really the same movie that the BBC secured back in May?
September 8th, 2006 at 6:48 am
“Conservative commentators tell us about wage gains for one-eyed bearded men with 2.5 years of college, or whatever — and conveniently forget to adjust for inflation.”
Paul Krugman tells right wing economic commentators, “Bring ‘em on!”
September 8th, 2006 at 7:07 am#42 Actually the Gannon thing is potentially worse than just being a male prostitute. Google “Johnny Gosch” and “Noreen Gosch”. Frightening stuff.
September 8th, 2006 at 7:07 amFrom Americablog:
Tomorrow, Friday morning, we’ll explore why Steve Jobs, who is on the board of Disney, is aiding and abetting Disney’s partisan effort to steal the election by permitting the free download of the fictitous 9/11 TV show via iTunes. Hard to believe that little deal was struck without board member Jobs – the largest shareholder of Disney, thank you – having a hand in it.
So Steve Jobs isn’t just someone who can help fix this problem. He’s someone who helped create the problem.
This new Mac user thinks it’s time we heard from Steve as to why he’s letting Disney use Apple to disgrace the memory of 3,000 dead Americans.
September 8th, 2006 at 7:26 amClinton should really be impeached for allowing 9/11 to happen on his watch.
oh. right.
September 8th, 2006 at 7:28 am[...] Democrats are going nuts over the ABC docudrama “Path to 9/11″. The idea that some of the mini-series is fictionalized is for some reason driving them crazy. As if any drama based on true events is entirely accurate. Sort of makes you wonder why it’s such a big deal. [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 7:39 amso the thousands upon thousands of govrnment workers were doing what as some very dangerous diabolical persons set about to attck an open democracy? And some how it was a President besieged by a scandal launched by the very peopel who now launch yet another when the nation turns to remeber an event that ought best be regarded with dignity?
September 8th, 2006 at 8:08 amPoor pathetic republican hacks, it is htere downfall from the halls of the peoles house that comes now, not the specious look backwards citnf a moments indicetion by a mortal?
Here is my letter to the NY Times ‘reviewer’:
Ms. Stanley,
You write: “All mini-series Photoshop the facts. “The Path to 9/11†is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place. It relies on the report of the Sept. 11 commission, the King James version of all Sept. 11 accounts, as well as other material and memoirs.”
What a horribly cynical way to apologize for this travesty of a hybrid of fiction and the commisiion report. If the producers intended to depict key players in crucial events, why couldn’t they contact those people in order to ‘get it right’?
You make no mention that the movie, though now claimed to be ‘unfinished’, was sent out to hundreds of mostly conservative pundits, most of whom are not film critics by trade. Despite that, they all somehow manged to give the movie glowing reviews, some slipping up and admitting it is an indictment of the Clinton administration.
Your analogy about the new teacher is faulty, the situation is more akin to the savvy adults warning said teacher about the problem child but the teacher ignores the warnings and stays in the teachers lounge during the shooting. That’s better.
Best regards,
September 8th, 2006 at 8:29 amThe neocons sure are obsessed with Clinton’s penis… What are they REALLY trying to say??? Hmmm….
September 8th, 2006 at 8:33 amAll of you folks who have kids. I heard they want to distribute this Rove propoganda to the schools as a learning video about 911. Ah, the art of historical revisionism.
They scream “fight facism!” while they use those very tactics against us.
September 8th, 2006 at 8:39 amhttp://www.veteransforpeace.org/Bush_Sr_Clinton_060404.htm
Hey isn’t this liebermans group now?
==
2001, Bush Jr,. DU weaponry Afghanistan. uranium
concentrations at 400% to 2000% above normal,
2003 Bush Jr, Iraq, US and British 1,100-2,200 tons of depleted uranium weaponry
1999 Clinton, UN, Balkans, 11 tons of DU
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Iraq,Sanctions 500,000 children died. [Sanctions may have killed more than the war itself]
Bush, Sr. Iraq, 375 tons DU
Nine years after the war, veterans afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome ailments still had DU traces in their urine as wiil the soldiers from Afghansistan and Iraq and the Balkans.
==
Seems to me they have ALL killed many terrusts, the GOP should be happy with this much destruction to others and to our own troops.
I can’t see where the GOP has any room to complain, but who else would complain that not enough people are dying? The GOP of course.
Nevertheless that little old head job that lasted all of a few minutes cost the taxpayers 10 million dollars..and didn’t really stop the terrusts dying under the sanctions.
[DU estimated remain radioactive for 4.5 billion years].
September 8th, 2006 at 8:47 amOk, it’s not true but let’s think about this and turn it around. If you stupidly say Lewinsky distracted Clinton , then why did the republicans persecute Clinton and distract him? There were no national security, economic loss issues involved with a hummer.
September 8th, 2006 at 8:51 amIf you really wanted to investigate, ok but then why completely embroil him in an impeachment to the point he can’t run the government.Maybe, if you’re truely worried about “distractiing” the President, you don’t harass him 24/7 and let him do his job. Oh, yeah that’s exactly what you were trying to do. Then frickin admit your guilt, the republicans tried to tie up Clinton’s every waking moment with this to sabotage his agenda. So who’s really at fault?
This argument is stupid, Bush spends more time on vacation clearing brush than Clinto spent on the Lewsinky affair.
In fact bush took one month off before 9/11 and ignored the PDB
September 8th, 2006 at 8:56 amAnd AND Afghanistan has just produced the lagest opium crops in a long while and the Taliban is again harassing women and making them wear those Burkas again [Remember that spate of stories about the women?]
Pakistan has just offered Osama a new home, after bush signed missile deals with Pakistan.
I gotta say heckuva Job Dubya
September 8th, 2006 at 9:00 amHey New Guy:
I LIKE you! You should stick around.
I actually saw a comment here yesterday that said the only thing we’d accomplish was pissing off the GOP so they really get out the vote in November.
Crap, I hate that!!
First of all these Kristian Nationalists were BORN pissed off and second, it’s them should be worried about pissing US off! We’re the MAJORITY in this country. Let’s kick them out if they don’t like it.
September 8th, 2006 at 9:02 amNYT Claims 9/11 Commission Concluded Crawford Ranch Distracted George Bush Admin From Terrorism by Ignoring the PDB on Terro Alert
September 8th, 2006 at 9:03 am==
There I fixxed the title =8^]
This whole thing STINKS of Carl Rove, I am saying to everyone ‘Carl’s days are done, this administration is done’
SPREAD THE WORD, SPREAD THE TRUTH!
- Thanks Think Progress
September 8th, 2006 at 9:04 amLooking back at what the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v Jones,
The possibility that the President could be distracted from his job by the Jones lawsuit was shrugged off by the Court. The right-wing punditocracy endorsed the opinion. The Lewinski scandal, of course, grew out of a perjury trap set in a subsequent deposition in Jones. I have yet to hear any convincing argument that the political right believed it could win the subsequent impeachment trial of Clinton, an example of absurd, opportunistic political theater. But isn’t it peculiar…. maybe the Supreme Court was right, as there is no actual evidence that Clinton was actually distracted.
That’s apparently not good enough for the proponents of this film. If the stuff they previously argued wouldn’t or shouldn’t distract a President in fact didn’t distract the President, it’s time to fictionalize the history. Did they ever believe that the Jones lawsuit wouldn’t be distracting, or did they in fact anticipate and hope that it would be distracting? Because if, despite their protestations to the contrary, they always believed it would serve as an incredible distraction to the President, they are at least consistent in their underlying belief. That would also make them consistently dishonest, but that’s another subject.
September 8th, 2006 at 9:06 amI work with people who claim to be liberals, but still blame Clinton for 9/11 because he didn’t ‘get Osama’… The propaganda is so strong that even some liberals are hearing it often enough to think it’s true.
The reality is that it only takes someone seeing incorrect information three times without correction before they store it as a fact. We liberals cannot let the neocons tell their lies without standing up and correcting them. We have to be mature about it, so we don’t look like even bigger idiots that we are labeled…
I cannot believe what these selfish people have done to our country. It is truly they who are un-American.
September 8th, 2006 at 9:08 amNYT Claims 9/11 Commission Concluded Crawford Ranch Distracted George Bush Admin From Terrorism by Ignoring the PDB on Terro Alert
Comment by Trinary Suka — September 8, 2006 @ 9:03 am
Now that’s more like it… :)
September 8th, 2006 at 9:10 amhttp://www.chrisstorms.com/blog/?p=162
Hey TP you can ban #56 chrisstorms at any time Plz.
I am not a democrat Chrissstorm nor have they gone crazy, you are a terrible writer..and its not about the fictionm it’s about the lies and using this as a scholastic aide.
And no, we don’t read your blog.
Heres his IP nummie.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop>ping chrisstorms.com
Pinging chrisstorms.com [209.197.77.249]
Heres the net range
NetRange: 209.197.64.0 – 209.197.127.255
Thanxx!!
September 8th, 2006 at 9:15 amDear Senator Mitchell,
I recently learned that you are Chair of the Disney Corporation. I am distraught by the lack of objectivity in the upcoming “Path to 911″ on ABC. No, I have not seen the entire movie, but I have viewed fake scenes that have been objected to by the likes of Richard Ben-Viniste, Richard Clark, and President Clinton.
As I remember 911, that was the day that Bush read “My Pet Goat” for several minutes after being told that our country was under attack. It was also the day that we, the public, did not know were our president was for many hours. I also remember when Clinton ordered the attacks on Bin Laden and as I commuted home from work, thinking, like many, that he was playing “Wag the Dog”…only years later realizing that the strike was important, if ineffectual.
I also remember your work in the Senate and in Ireland. Accomplishments that bring honor to our political class.
Please, Senator Mitchell, don’t let this horrific lie take place. It seems that hoaxes and “truthiness” have become the coin of the realm in our political discourse today. Many people still believe that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on 911. Others believe that John Kerry lied about his Vietnam experience and that John McCain has a black illegitimate child. I am sick of the lying.
Please stand up for the truth, as I know from your own history that you believe in it.
September 8th, 2006 at 9:18 amgood to see you’ve come around to join the fight, un…
September 8th, 2006 at 9:23 amit’s a worthy cause…
#6
No, Clinton did by having an affair with her…among others.
September 8th, 2006 at 9:44 amAfter watching Loose Change via google, it is pretty clear that we have been the victums of Spin since 9/11. The best advice is to turn away from the media and think for yourself, put it all together, regardless of what political party you belong to, 9/11 was staged and preplanned, open your eyes people
September 8th, 2006 at 10:13 amIn 1998 the neocons wanted Clinton to do something about the Iraq:
September 8th, 2006 at 10:25 amhttp://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Richard – Good point (#6). Elle- #41 — And it’s so obvious. There’s no other way to interpret all this frenetic activity. They’ve got W on uppers again, getting rave reviews from the CIA Post for setting the terms of debate with his new sales campaign for CIA prisons, they’ve got Armitage falling on a plastic sword in a lame and futile attempt to get the message across that Cheney & Libby didn’t do anything wrong (as if blowing Wilson’s cover was the farthest thing from their minds), the PR blitz for The Path to 9/11 is on full blast, even Sports Illustrated has a Rusty Tillman cover story…….. DO YOU SEE THAT WE CANNOT HAVE A POLITICAL DISCOURSE with this kind of disinformation flying around?
September 8th, 2006 at 10:30 amWhy does the NYT hate America?
September 8th, 2006 at 1:49 pmFrom the NY Times, October 21, 2004
October 21, 2004
TV REVIEW | ‘STOLEN HONOR’
An Outpouring of Pain, Channeled via Politics
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
tolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,” the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.
This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry’s reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state. But it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry’s candidacy and his claim to heroism.
Sinclair, the nation’s largest television station group, reaching about a quarter of United States television households, backed down this week and announced that it would use only excerpts from the 42-minute film as part of an hourlong news program about political use of the media, “A P.O.W. Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media.” That’s too bad: what is most enlightening about this film is not the depiction of Mr. Kerry as a traitor; it is the testimony of the former P.O.W.’s describing the torture they endured in captivity and the shock they felt when celebrities like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden visited their prisons in North Vietnam and sided with the enemy.
The former prisoners – now old and graying – are not just talking about their sense of betrayal by fellow Americans. They also seize the Kerry candidacy as a chance to recall their experiences: the kinds of torture they endured and the ruses they invented like tap-code communication between cells to boost morale. Illustrated with black-and-white film clips of prisoners in the “Hanoi Hilton” and sepia-toned re-enactments of starving men being led through dank, dark prison corridors, those recollections resemble the slow-paced, detailed documentaries that fill the History Channel.
But the History Channel tends to focus on the heroic moments of World Wars I and II. The Vietnam War is almost always revisited through its moral and strategic ambiguities and its effect on American society in the 1960’s and 70’s.
This film is payback time, a chance to punish one of the most famous antiwar activists, Mr. Kerry, the one who got credit for serving with distinction in combat, then, through the eyes of the veterans in this film, went home to discredit the men left behind. The film begins with dirgelike music and a scary black-and-white montage of stark images of soldiers and prisoners as a deep voice sorrowfully intones, “In other wars, when captured soldiers were subjected to the hell of enemy prisons, they were considered heroes.” The narrator adds, “In Vietnam they were betrayed.”
The imagery is crude, but powerful: each mention of Mr. Kerry’s early 1970’s meeting with North Vietnamese government officials in Paris is illustrated with an old black-and-white still shot of the Arc de Triomphe, an image that to many viewers evokes the Nazi occupation of Paris. The Eiffel Tower would have been more neutral, but the film is not: it insists that Mr. Kerry “met secretly in an undisclosed location with a top enemy diplomat.” Actually, Mr. Kerry, a leading antiwar activist at the time, mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.
The film’s producer, Carlton Sherwood, a former investigative reporter and a Vietnam veteran, gives his own testimony, explaining that even though he has uncovered all kinds of misdeeds in his career, the history of Mr. Kerry’s antiwar activism is “a lot more personal.” He recalls listening to Mr. Kerry’s testimony in 1971, saying, “I felt an inner hurt no surgeon’s scalpel could remove.”
That pain is the main theme of the documentary, which can be seen in its entirety on the Internet for $4.99. One former P.O.W., John Warner, lashes out at Mr. Kerry for having coaxed Mr. Warner’s mother to testify at the Winter Soldier Investigation, where disgruntled veterans testified to war crimes they committed. Calling it a “contemptible act,” Mr. Warner, who spent more than five years as a prisoner, tells the camera that Mr. Kerry was the kind of man who preyed on a mother’s grief “purely for the promotion of your own political agenda.”
The documentary shows Mr. Kerry’s 1971 Senate testimony, in which he famously reported that fellow soldiers had “cut off ears,” among other atrocities. But the filmmakers were not able to dig up more indicting material from homemade movies or news clips from the era. The picture from an antiwar demonstration, where Mr. Kerry stood a few rows behind Ms. Fonda, is blown up portentously, but there are no shots of them together. The only candid shot of Mr. Kerry gathering material for the Winter Soldier hearings shows him solicitously asking a veteran why he felt the need to speak.
Instead, the film shows lesser-known young, long-haired antiwar activists preparing witnesses to testify to war crimes. In the film these men seem to be prompting a fellow veteran to describe a massacre he did not witness. But one of the veterans, Kenneth J. Campbell, a decorated marine who is now a professor at the University of Delaware, recently sued the filmmakers, claiming the film was edited to take out clips in which Mr. Campbell made clear that only soldiers who witnessed the atrocities firsthand would be allowed to testify.
Those kinds of distortions are intended to hurt Mr. Kerry at the polls. Instead, they mainly distract viewers from the real subject of the film: the veterans’ unheeded feelings of betrayal and neglect.
Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal
Excerpts from this program will be shown on various stations, but not in the New York metropolitan area; elsewhere check local listings. The entire program can be seen on the Internet on a pay-for-view basis and its audio can be downloaded online, both at http://www.stolenhonor.com.
Carlton Sherwood, producer. A Red White and Blue Productions Inc.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:04 pmgood to see you’ve come around to join the fight, un…
it’s a worthy cause…
Comment by katy — September 8, 2006 @ 9:23 am
I haven’t changed my mind on anything. I’ve always been against Bush’s handling of 9/11, I just refuse to support the outrageous theories that are not based on the reality of building design (Loose Change, Inside Job stuff, etc).
Now, just leave me alone katy. I don’t know why you are unable to control yourself and stay away from me like I’ve asked you to do, but try harder. I am not interested in anything you have to say to me. Please just accept that and leave me alone.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:03 pmHere is the letter I sent to the NYTimes about this review:
Dear Editors:
I am writing about today’s (9/8) piece by Alessandra Stanley’s piece about the ABC miniseries “The Path to 9/11.”
I am a bit confused, I’m afraid.
I had thought Ms. Stanley was a television critic — perhaps the fact that the vast majority of articles you print by her are reviews of TV shows gave me that impression.
Yet in today’s piece in the television section, Ms. Stanley reveals herself to apparently be a historian of recent events in the Middle East, on the war on terrorism, and on the inner workings of the Clinton Administration. This is fascinating. A number of the statements she so confidently makes in the piece in fact helpfully explain for Times readers just how they should think about foreign policy errors of the Clinton Administration in comparison with those of the Bush Administration.
Given that Ms. Stanley offers no evidence or grounds for what are her most extraordinary assertions in the article, I think it is incumbent on you to give her more room — perhaps on the front page of the main section, since she apparently knows the truth far better than, say, any of your foreign policy experts — to elaborate and expound on her revelations.
I especially urge this as Ms. Stanley, in addition to knowing everything there is to know about the hunt for Al Quaeda, also apparently has the gift of clairvoyance, as she fearlessly makes assertions about how any possible future miniseries about the current Iraq conflict will turn out.
I can only, dumfounded, ask you, “Why have you been hiding Ms. Stanley’s psychic gifts and her broad-ranging knowledge away on the TV page?!” For shame! Clearly, Ms. Stanley is the long-awaited for successor to Judith Miller and HER proud tradition of assertion-based journalism unencumbered by distractions like facts.
I look forward to future examples of Times’ writers/reporters weighing in on topics heretofore seen as lying far outside their beats. I am sure, for example, the Sports staff will have some terrific insights into the Korean missile crisis, just as I suspect the people over in Real Estate will illuminate the Darfur conflict for readers who have until now had a hard time of keeping all the players in that tragedy clear. And I can hardly contain myself in expectation of your crossword puzzle maker Will Shortz taking control of the Editorial pages!
You know, earlier this summer when the film critic for your tabloid rival (”rival” only in the sense that you are both New York City dailies, of course — no comparison with their laughably dogmatic bias is intended whatsoever) the New York Post instead of discussing AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH in his review of that film proceeded to explain to Post readers that global warming is a liberal myth, tens of thousands of scientists be damned, I thought to myself, “How bold and iconoclastic of the Post to have a MOVIE reviewer summarize climate change in a dismissive sentence or two, despite the fact that he is not a meteorologist himself. If only the nation’s paper of record would similarly embrace ‘boundarylessness’.” Well, you have truly surprised me — you really are emulating the Post now! I am sure Rupert Murdoch is secretly tickled pink at the influence he has had on you, without even having to take you over!
In the meantime, since Ms. Stanley has apparently decided to cover both foreign policy and political news in her TV columns, maybe you should hire somebody else to actually review TV shows. I believe a former employee of yours, Jayson Blair, is currently seeking employment. Trust me when I say that I am confident I am far from the only person to believe that Mr. Blair has as much business — and will be as knowledgeable — reviewing network programming as Ms. Stanley does explaining recent history to the rest of us.
Very sincerely,
Daniel Baig
September 9th, 2006 at 4:06 amTwo main ideas come to mind after the intoxicating developments as a result of ABC’s (continued) attempt to politicize 9/11:
One, and perhaps the oldest trick with this un-American group of people, the so-called “Conservatives”, is that they have been, for several decades now, slamming the “Liberal Media”; the Media either disagrees with their unconscionable actions, or doesn’t cover enough of their side of the story. This de-bunked myth of Liberal media, has now swung way to the extreme right, and is under the control of this very group who continues to label anything they don’t like – “Liberal”. Remember … “you’re either with me or you’re against me†(i.e. the enemy).
It dawned on me, finally, that with their tactics: lying, smearing, hate mongering, division, us vs. them, corruption and the most villainous ways of survival and power-grab, that it is no wonder they were ostracized by the Media and the majority of society, and have felt like they have to own all the means of mass media communications in order to “catapult their propaganda†as W once said.
So in the most relentless campaign to control the American way of life, unfortunately, and through every possible means, a Machiavellian way of the end justifies the means, and through immense masses of money, they have managed to bamboozle millions of ignorant followers. As is the case with every destructive cult, so has the GOP, which has nothing Grand about it as far as I’m concerned; Except for Fraud in a Grand way.
Secondly, as part of the same venal group of so called “Conservativesâ€, is the so called “Christian – Evangelicalsâ€.
You can’t help question how the most vicious attack dogs can call themselves Christians. People like Jack Abramhof (indicted criminal) , Tom DeLay (Indicted & II Greatest threat in the US Senate), Newt Gingrich (I Greatest threat in the US Senate), James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Randy Cunningham (Indicted) etc… the entire arsenal of (millionaire) criminals. They are just simply un-Godly, not just un-Christian.
As it turns out, once again, the Evangelicals are behind this whole ABC’s political-drama scandal. Why !!
Never have they enjoyed themselves so much! Of course, with projects and outfits like Jack Abrhamof’s K-Street Project revolving door, Faith-Based Initiatives, etc… it is the perfect cornucopia. Mobsters and Government, now Church and Government, partners in crime, they both have corrupted each other.
So the conclusion they have helped us reach, once again, is that they can’t be trusted; neither Evangelicals nor Republicans (”Conservatives”).
September 9th, 2006 at 4:17 pmAnd they will pack up and go home this November.
[...] Remember this post? Looks like someone was listening: “The TV Watch column in Weekend yesterday, about the ABC mini-series The Path to 9/11, referred incorrectly to a conclusion of the commission that investigated the terror attacks. The commission said the accusation that President Clinton had ordered air strikes against Osama bin Laden in August 1998 to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal was one of several factors that ‘likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force’ against Mr. bin Laden. It did not conclude that the scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat.” 11:25 pm | Comment (0) [...]
September 9th, 2006 at 11:26 pmY’know, I’m pretty sure that nobody tried to pipe Michael Moore into the nationa’s taxpayer-funded classrooms, a la Kim Jong Il. There is a special place in hell for the people behind this blatant attempt to propagandize our chilldren.
September 10th, 2006 at 1:37 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 5:32 pm448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130
[...] not to kill Osama bin Laden. And even though the program has yet to hit the airwaves, the media is already repeating the program’s [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 8:06 pm[...] not to kill Osama bin Laden. And even though the program has yet to hit the airwaves, the media is already repeating the program’s [...]
March 31st, 2007 at 4:50 pm[...] not to kill Osama bin Laden. And even though the program has yet to hit the airwaves, the media is already repeating the program’s [...]
March 31st, 2007 at 5:00 pm[...] not to kill Osama bin Laden. And even though the program has yet to hit the airwaves, the media is already repeating the program’s [...]
March 31st, 2007 at 5:07 pm[...] not to kill Osama bin Laden. And even though the program has yet to hit the airwaves, the media is already repeating the program’s [...]
March 31st, 2007 at 5:22 pm