« "Traddutore, traditore" | Main | The Sounds of 9/11 »

A Few Thoughts On The Path to 9/11

I have just a few thoughts on the controversy surrounding the ABC mini-series, The Path to 9/11. Unfortunately I have not seen the movie. Since many of those most prominently calling for its cancellation or drastic editing have yet to see it either, I feel pretty comfortable throwing in my two cents.

First, before anything else, I have to ask why the heck Sandy Berger is invited to go on television and say anything whatsoever about national security? If he had any sense of shame he would have crawled under a rock and never set foot in front of a television camera for the rest of his life after stealing classified documents. Of course if he had any sense of shame he would have never been a part of the Clinton administration. At the very least it seems to me that journalists interviewing him should point out his complete and total lack of credibility. They won't though, because then their viewers would start asking why they were bothering to interview him. They would have a good point, too.

Now for the movie. I am not crazy about words that were not said and actions that did not occur being attributed to real people, especially living ones, in movies. I do understand the need to use character composites and other dramatic methods to make a story flow properly or to shorten it to a reasonable length, though. I have watched many movies that were based on true stories, however, only to find out later that major parts of the story were complete fiction. In one case I learned that my favorite character in a "true story" was completely fictional. Another time I learned that in real life a character that died in the movie actually lived. If you are watching a movie based on real events, you tend to want to see real events portrayed as closely as possible.

What I have read about the ABC 9/11 movie, though, is that most of the portrayals are at least consistent with the pattern of behavior of those being depicted. That makes the hysteria from the Clinton crowd particularly ridiculous. Those on the left whining (and worse) about this movie are completely without standing to do so unless they also objected to, and called for a cancellation of most all of Oliver Stone's movies, all of Michael Moore's movies, CBS's Reagan fantasy, and several dozen other movies that have inaccurately portrayed conservatives.

I agree with most other conservative bloggers that if ABC has significantly edited this movie, their credibility will suffer for it. It is hard to know how much, though, since their credibility (with me anyway) was already pretty darn close to non-existent.

Carol Platt Liebau found some amazing commentary at The Huffington Post on this subject and she makes some good points about the controversy.

Confederate Yankee suggests contacting ABC and Mary Katharine Ham is contributing to some good candidates to voice her displeasure over the Dem censorship.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Few Thoughts On The Path to 9/11:

» bRight & Early linked with First Cup 09.09.06

» In Search Of Utopia linked with You know what is funny...

Comments (47)

1. Richard Clarke makes a s... (Below threshold)
jack abramoff:

1. Richard Clarke makes a strong case in "Against All Enemies" that Clinton was very attentive and proactive in responding to Al Qaeda as an emerging threat. And that Georgie W. was in fact quite incompetent and ignorant in dealing with Al Qaeda even though, by that time, they were a more clearly established threat.

2. Path to 9/11 claims to be based on the 9/11 report, but numerous representatives from the bi-partisan panel found important instances when the fake-u-drama explicitly CONTRADICTS the findings of the 9/11 findings.

I don't mind if "Path" is critical of Dems. But I do mind it it's dishonest.

Remember "honesty" and "integrity"? You guys used to be big on that.

I think Chris Wallace of Fo... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I think Chris Wallace of Fox hit the nail on the head on this one. It's fine to criticize the Clinton administration. But it is wrong to portray specific people saying and doing things they never did. Whatever Sandy Berger's faults, it is wrong to do this to him, and it is wrong to do it to Madeline Albright.

In a much less controversial mini-series, From the Earth to the Moon, real people were given their names and portrayed accurately. Composite characters were used, with either false names or remained unnamed, to move the action forward. This would be a good idea for ABC.

One other point; a high percentage of "controversial" movies turn out to be deadly dull. I'm curious to learn if this one dodged the bullet...

1. Richard Clarke makes... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    1. Richard Clarke makes a strong case in "Against All Enemies" that Clinton was very attentive and proactive in responding to Al Qaeda as an emerging threat. And that Georgie W. was in fact quite incompetent and ignorant in dealing with Al Qaeda even though, by that time, they were a more clearly established threat.

Strange ... considering the large number of attacks on American interests i.e. the USS Cole, the bombings of American embassies in Africa, etc. it seems as if his attention and proactivity didn't do much, now, did it?

By the way, do you mean this Richard Clarke?

    RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

That was in August 2002. Wonder why he's singing such a different tune now?

I really do not see why you attach so much credibility to that self-aggrandizing partisan hack ...

They left out the scene in ... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

They left out the scene in which Ronald Reagan prays to Satan for the success of al Qaeda and the communist party. It's as true, fair and accurate as the one in which Clinton calls off the hit on bin Laden.

You ever see that scripture about "itching ears," Lorie? You are a Christian, right?

Abramoff, you cite Richard ... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Abramoff, you cite Richard Clarke as a credible source? You do have a rather keen sense of ironny.

Representatives from the 9/11 Commission like Richard Ben-Veniste? Jamie Gorelick? Their 'non-partisan' opinions were pretty clear in the hearings. You're free to consider them credible. I'm free not to.

And Publicus, Madeline Albright has shown no reluctance to deal in tripe in the past. What gives her a special exemption from criticism?

To both of you, how is the movie dishonest? You haven't seen it yet, have you? I'm sure you can find all the 'facts' you need over at DailyKos. I understand it's a really popular topic over there lately.

Personally, I think your pro forma speculation about what promises to be a big-budget, but dumbed-down docudrama for the People Magazine crowd, is off base regurgitation of somebody else's talking points. Wait til you see it, and then you're qualified to whine about it.

You know, if you consider <... (Below threshold)

You know, if you consider the situation with Fahrenheit 9/11 for a moment, your blood will begin to boil.

This is a good one. Why sho... (Below threshold)
groucho:

This is a good one. Why should Berger be allowed to comment on national security? Because unlike you, me and a few billion other people, he was there. His two bit bungled burglary attempt doesn't change that. If that were the case, how much credibility should folks like Oliver North, Gordon Liddy and Limbaugh have? That's rich! A doctor shopping substance abuser as America's truth detector, telling people how and what to think. What have we come to? But I digress.

"..most of the portrayals are at least consistent with the pattern of behavior of those being depicted." And that is supposed to justify what appears to be gross misrepresentation of what really happened? I haven't seen the movie either, but I can't blame those portrayed for reacting as they have if the facts are indeed wrong. Why are any objections or criticisms, which appear to be coming from many different directions by the way, immediately dismissed as liberal "whining". The people in this country deserve better. What's wrong with demanding accuracy in the portrayal of an historical event, especially on TV? If you have a political axe to grind or point to make, raise the capital, make a movie and let those who are interested pay to see it. If you lie or slander someone you will be sued. Has anyone sued Michael Moore? No? Didn't think so. You could argue that folks canchange the channel but we both know that for the most part they won't.

As for Disney's credibility, it's a lose-lose for them at this point. If they edit or pull it the righty drones will scream censorship and liberal media bias. If they run it and it turns out to be a cheap attempt to skew recent history in order to shift blame and attention away from where it should be, well that's not going to help them either.

I really do not see why ... (Below threshold)
Jack Abramoff:

I really do not see why you attach so much credibility to that self-aggrandizing partisan hack ...

Well, Martin, I think it's because he (Clarke) was there, while I and you (I'm guessing) were not - but let me know if you WERE there or if you worked over 20 years in counter-terr in multiple administrations. Or if you've published a book on this. Or if anyone even asks you your opinion on this other than your mom.

That was in August 2002. Wonder why he's singing such a different tune now?

I'm pretty sure he is singing a different tune now becuase he firmly believed that the Iraq invasion was an unjustified and counter-productive distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. Especially since Iraq had no connection to 9/11.

I'm fairly sure he took that position at the time of war planning, in opposition to the Admin. If so, I'd say the facts vindicate Clarke and impugn Bush.

Abramoff, you cite Richa... (Below threshold)
jack abramoff:

Abramoff, you cite Richard Clarke as a credible source? You do have a rather keen sense of ironny.

Hate to repeat myself, but I have to...

Well, Bobdog, I think it's because he (Clarke) was there, while I and you (I'm guessing) were not - but let me know if you WERE there or if you worked over 20 years in counter-terr in multiple administrations. Or if you've published a book on this. Or if anyone even asks you your opinion on these matters other than your mom.

I'm sorry, that was rude. But I'm astounded at how easily conservatives will presume expertise over those who are actually experts.

So, forgive me, I'm sticking with the actual expert.

In the end all this will be... (Below threshold)
Peter S:

In the end all this will be is a big publicity stunt for the network and the uncut CD will probably be marketed to the masses for $29.95 (plus tax). If it’s libel, fine. If it’s hype that’s okay. It’s not going to stop the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Stop the finger pointing, get off your political high-horses get your acts together and start finding some common ground on the Global War On Terror because all of this division just keeps driving a wedge deeper into the heart of America.

Can’t you see that the media is mocking the two major political parties in the US and laughing all the way to the bank?

Just stop get overyo... (Below threshold)
saibelohn:


Just stop get overyourselves...for the last 3 weeks the Bush andmin. has been TRYING to defend every critism, of course becouse of the elections. What else is new?

Look what all know what Bush did when the 9/11 happen. He just set their reading a chidrens book. I mean come on just correct the movie put the accurate wording in and show the freaken movie.

We all know what he did when the levies brke in LA

I will say this, if this film was intended to use as an educational device, it must be the accurate wording, if not just simply state the movies is based on fiction, well some parts. Its a movie, its not a delcaration. jeez touchy tochy

Talk about credibilty if Bush was a democrate he would have been inpeached a long long time ago, becouse his crediability its totally nonexistent.

This is a good one. Why ... (Below threshold)
spypeach:

This is a good one. Why should Berger be allowed to comment on national security? Because unlike you, me and a few billion other people, he was there. His two bit bungled burglary attempt doesn't change that. If that were the case, how much credibility should folks like Oliver North, Gordon Liddy and Limbaugh have? That's rich! A doctor shopping substance abuser as America's truth detector, telling people how and what to think. What have we come to? But I digress

Apples and Oranges me thinks. Last time I looked Rush Limbaugh wasn't working for the government. And he certainly wasn't stealing government documents to cover the ass of "pants around the ankle" Clinton.

Apples and apples. Doesn't ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Apples and apples. Doesn't matter who they work for. Hey, isn't Rush America's anchorman? If his questionable/illegal past doesn't diminish his credibility, then neither does Berger's. That's my point.

ABC? Aren't they the networ... (Below threshold)
GawainsGhost:

ABC? Aren't they the network that lost Monday Night Football?

That says it all about their credibility.

Not really, Nfl is now on E... (Below threshold)
Candace:

Not really, Nfl is now on ESPN, which both are owned by Disney

ABC’s Peter Jennings made i... (Below threshold)
Dave Larson:

ABC’s Peter Jennings made it seem as if CBS’s The Reagans just wasn’t positive enough for conservatives, saying CBS cancelled it “when word got around that it may not have been as faithful to the Reagan story as some conservatives wanted it to be.” NBC’s Mike Taibbi worried not about CBS’s misdeeds with such a disrespectful movie, but about “which program and which network will be targeted next?” CBS’s Jerry Bowen, after clips from two conservatives, turned to a bunch of those upset by CBS’s decision, including Tom Daschle who accused conservatives of “intimidation” and James Brolin’s manager, who charged: “We seem to be in a very oppressive era...” Bowen argued those disturbed by the Reagan portrayal are hypocrites since they didn’t object to Showtime’s September movie about President Bush “that also used fictionalized dialogue.”

Reagan drama 'may be cancel... (Below threshold)
Dave Larson:

Reagan drama 'may be cancelled'


Actor James Brolin plays Ronald Reagan in the drama
US TV network CBS is expected to announce it is cancelling plans for a mini-series about former President Ronald Reagan, according to a report.
The network has come under pressure from Republican and Conservative groups, the New York Times said.

The paper said it was likely the drama would instead be handed over to CBS's pay-cable channel, Showtime.

Mr Reagan's supporters are concerned that Hollywood liberals will use the drama to attack his legacy.

Mr Reagan, 92, was president from 1981-89 and has Alzheimer's disease.

The Republican party has demanded an advance viewing of the biopic, while others have called for a boycott of CBS.

Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie has written to CBS president Leslie Moonves asking to see the show to check its accuracy.


Some of the former president's supporters are boycotting CBS
"We live in a culture today of reality TV. Lines between fact and fiction get blurred," he said.

"I am concerned that its portrayal of our 40th president and his wife is not historically accurate."

Jeff Wald, manager of actor James Brolin, who plays Mr Reagan, said: "We don't know what movie they're putting out there or when or what they're doing with it."

But he said criticism of the programme was a "hatchet job" and its producers were "absolutely dismayed" at the backlash.

CBS declined to comment on Monday but Mr Moonves has previously said they were still editing.

"We've looked at the rough cut, there are things we like, there are things we don't like, there are things we think go too far," he told CNBC's Tina Brown.

"So there are some edits being made trying to present a more fair picture of the Reagans."

Internet campaign

A report in Newsweek said CBS executives were editing the film themselves after director Robert Allen "opted out" of the editing process.

Other reports in the Washington Post and the Reuters news agency said they were considering never showing it at all.

And an internet campaign has been set up by Mr Reagan supporters to encourage viewers to boycott CBS.

Producer Neil Meron has defended the show, telling the New York Times: "This is not a vendetta, this is not revenge. It is about telling a good story in our honest sort of way."

Scenes cut

The story starts when Mr Reagan is introduced to his future wife, Nancy, in 1951, and follows him through his years in office.

In one scene, Nancy was reportedly shown pleading with her husband to help people with Aids but he responds: "They that live in sin shall die in sin."

That scene has now been cut, Newsweek said.

Scriptwriter Elizabeth Egloff admitted there was no evidence that the conversation took place, but said the script was based on known opinions, events and facts.

The Reagans had been scheduled to be shown in two parts on 16 and 18 November.


Can someone explain to me h... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Can someone explain to me how Bush was supposed to solve the decades-long problem of al Qaeda in the slightly more than 8 months he was President?

Have the BDS people really gotten that stupid? Jack, your own quoted expert, the one to which you refer, specifically stated that Clinton passed nothing, no plan for al Qaeda, to the incoming President.

So was he lying? Is he the trustworthy expert you say he is or is he only an expert when he backs up what YOU believe?

JimK,I'm not sayin... (Below threshold)
jack abramoff:

JimK,

I'm not saying Bush was supposed to unravel A.Q. in eight months. Of course that's not reasonable. I'm saying Richard Clarke makes a compelling case that Clinton was assertive in recognizing and responding to AQ as a threat. And that Bush was much more ignorant, resistant and generally incompetent.

Oh, and I think he adds that the Iraq invasion has made the world less safe, has increased terrorism and basically undermined the alleged intention of the invasion.

That's all. Relax. No need to feel threatened.

And until you give me a better expert, I'm sticking with the overall conclusions of a guy who did this for 20 years in multiple administrations. Even if you can cite one vaguely inconsistent sentence (that somehow raises him to the status of "liar". Let's try holding the same "honesty" standard to the 2003 Bush SOTU address).

But, seriously, let me know when you write your book on the subject.

1. Richard Clarke makes ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

1. Richard Clarke makes a strong case in "Against All Enemies" that Clinton was very attentive and proactive in responding to Al Qaeda as an emerging threat.

When asked at the time, he said the opposite. He then became bitter because Bush wouldn't meet with him personally and decided to attack him.

2. Path to 9/11 claims to be based on the 9/11 report, but numerous representatives from the bi-partisan panel found important instances when the fake-u-drama explicitly CONTRADICTS the findings of the 9/11 findings.

The Report AND other sources. Might want to read up on that one.

I don't mind if "Path" is critical of Dems.

I don't see you bitching about Condi Rice's portrayal in the movie. It's quite negative, from all accounts.

One other point; a high percentage of "controversial" movies turn out to be deadly dull. I'm curious to learn if this one dodged the bullet

According to early reviews --- no.

They left out the scene in which Ronald Reagan prays to Satan for the success of al Qaeda and the communist party. It's as true, fair and accurate as the one in which Clinton calls off the hit on bin Laden.

Except, from what I understand, there is no scene of Clinton calling off anything. There is a scene where Berger does it.

This is a good one. Why should Berger be allowed to comment on national security? Because unlike you, me and a few billion other people, he was there. His two bit bungled burglary attempt doesn't change that. If that were the case, how much credibility should folks like Oliver North, Gordon Liddy and Limbaugh have?

North has tons of military experience.

Liddy has credibility? When the heck did that start? I thought he was a borderline psychopathic loon.

And Limbaugh is a pundit. He simply makes arguments. Hell, before he became President, Clinton and Limbaugh had roughly identical experience with national security.

Ironic, huh?

I haven't seen the movie either, but I can't blame those portrayed for reacting as they have if the facts are indeed wrong.

Except those people haven't seen it either.

Why are any objections or criticisms, which appear to be coming from many different directions by the way, immediately dismissed as liberal "whining".

Because you seem to have this absurd faith that the only person who wasn't damned near perfect on terrorism was...George W. Bush. We simply see it is a problem of mass underestimation for decades that hit us on 9/11.

I'm pretty sure he is singing a different tune now becuase he firmly believed that the Iraq invasion was an unjustified and counter-productive distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. Especially since Iraq had no connection to 9/11.

So that somehow changes HISTORY?

Because he disagrees with CURRENT policy?

Yeah, he sounds believable now.

Look what all know what Bush did when the 9/11 happen. He just set their reading a chidrens book.

Jesus Christ, this is the biggest red herring in this entire argument.

"He sat there reading a children's book"

Because running off without solid info and scaring kids would be SUCH a better plan. The principal of the school --- who didn't vote for him --- said he did the right thing.

Who are YOU to assume expertise over an expert like that principal?

We all know what he did when the levies brke in LA

Sent gov't funds that have been wasted. As was expected.

Talk about credibilty if Bush was a democrate he would have been inpeached a long long time ago, becouse his crediability its totally nonexistent.

If he was a Democrat, he'd have to have to killed a woman and raped another, to fit in with the big wigs of the DNC.
-=Mike

As a conservative I STRONLY... (Below threshold)
clearwaterconservative:

As a conservative I STRONLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11” before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative saying this.

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans."

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, "The Path to 9/11" is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

MikeSc: Yeah, he sounds ... (Below threshold)
jack abramoff:

MikeSc: Yeah, he sounds believable now.

And yet another non-expert conservative dismisses the expert with decades of experience.

Mike, tell you what, I read Clarke's book, and I read your blog post. I think he makes a more thorough argument.

Since conservatives are ostensibly the more "moral" ideology, I'd encourage all of you interested in "facts" and "the truth" to read "Against All Enemies". I have yet to see it's arguments invalidated.

Clearwater Conservative -</... (Below threshold)
Lincoln's Ghost:

Clearwater Conservative -

Wow. Taking the high road. Reminds me of the old-fashioned conservatives like George Will & W.F. Buckley who actually cared about an honest argument.

Really hit a nerve here,wit... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

Really hit a nerve here,witness all the history altering trolls that are swarming all over the blogasphere to argue that what happened didn't happen.You must understand that the truth is our greatest weapon against these neocommunist that plague this country.Islamofascist watch with great pleasure the attempt to steal history from peace loving people everywhere,because it makes their job and obssesions that much easier to bring about.

And yet another non-expe... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

And yet another non-expert conservative dismisses the expert with decades of experience.

A man who changed HISTORY because he was spiteful at a man?

See, in most places, people don't assume that LIARS are telling the truth.

Mike, tell you what, I read Clarke's book, and I read your blog post. I think he makes a more thorough argument.

An argument that goes against his initial statements.

Since conservatives are ostensibly the more "moral" ideology, I'd encourage all of you interested in "facts" and "the truth" to read "Against All Enemies". I have yet to see it's arguments invalidated.

You missed Scheuer unloading on Clarke's performance, eh?

Let me guess --- he doesn't know enough for you, huh?
-=Mike

Mike,Less hearsay ... (Below threshold)
jack abramoff:

Mike,

Less hearsay allegations, more facts and citations. If you keep it up long enough, soon you'll have a book too!

Seeing as how his exact tes... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Seeing as how his exact testimony in 2002 was already posted, I don't see the need to repeat it ad infinitum.

But, hey, don't let facts slow you down.
-=Mike

What do Wes Clark, Richard ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

What do Wes Clark, Richard Clarke and Cindy Sheehan have in common?

All three are on record as saying positive things about Bush, and then changing their "recollections" and their story entirely when leftwing opportunity came a knocking.

It's more "cool" to be a Bush critic, you see. You're the toast of the party elite.

Didn't get through the firs... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

Didn't get through the first 5 sentences before the lies started. Please link an official accounting of Berger stealing classified documents. It is I guess almost impossible for you people to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

Dr. Lava... Berger... (Below threshold)

Dr. Lava...

Berger plead guilty to taking the documents. Resigned from John Kerry's campaign because he was caught.

"Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium (search) celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him the documents were missing.

"Guilty, your honor," Berger responded when asked how he pleaded.

Robinson did not ask Berger why he cut up the materials and threw them away at the Washington office of his Stonebridge International consulting firm. Berger, accompanied by his wife, Susan, did not offer an explanation when he addressed reporters outside the federal courthouse following the hearing."

And here is some linkage. Unless you think all of the below outlets are partisan shills, maybe you need to step back.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/21/politics/campaign/21berger.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26pagewantedQ3Dall&OP=18c8778dQ2FbHd,bQ51LGOmLLQ22Q7BbQ7BCC2bCBbQ7BQ27bDLtQ26Q22Q26GObGQ3CYDQ3CQ26kRbQ7BQ27,dmkdm0Q60Q22Yt

http://www.nysun.com/article/11494

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152108,00.html

Please link an official ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Please link an official accounting of Berger stealing classified documents.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/01/national/w111624S64.DTL
-=Mike

OK, my link rich post is in... (Below threshold)

OK, my link rich post is in the filter for too many links.

Google the string "berger documents" and you too can bring up dozens of articles from 2004 detailing Berger's brush with stupidity.

But here is the gist of Sandy's day in court.


"Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium (search) celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him the documents were missing.

"Guilty, your honor," Berger responded when asked how he pleaded.

Robinson did not ask Berger why he cut up the materials and threw them away at the Washington office of his Stonebridge International consulting firm. Berger, accompanied by his wife, Susan, did not offer an explanation when he addressed reporters outside the federal courthouse following the hearing.

As lies, misrepresentation ... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

As lies, misrepresentation and hypocrisy are inseparable from leftist thought, no one with any sense of shame could possibly be a leftist. Sandy and his fellow travelers discounted shame a long time ago.

Jo, re: It's more "cool"... (Below threshold)
scooter libby:

Jo, re: It's more "cool" to be a Bush critic, you see. You're the toast of the party elite.

I don't think it's more "cool" to be a Bush critic.

But I do think it more morally responsible. Especially if your values are, say, Christian, as mine happen to be.

And since Bush's approval rating is at 35%, the critics aren't the "elite". Unless by "elite" you mean 65% of the nation.

You guys are so silly.

Talking about who is silly ... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Talking about who is silly doesn't asnwer the question of why these critics do a 180 on these particular issues.

If ABC shows this docu-dram... (Below threshold)
clearwaterconservative:

If ABC shows this docu-drama then every leftie on the planet is going to be out for revenge.

And rightly they should.

More comment spamming by cl... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

More comment spamming by clearwater.

It's not enough that you're boring? You have to be repetitive, too?
-=Mike

For those here brave enough... (Below threshold)
groucho:

For those here brave enough to venture out of the compound, I suggest checking out Max Blumenthal's piece on the Huffington Post. Kind of sheds a different kind of light on this little historical "docudrama".

Read it.That fille... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Read it.

That filled my quota of character assassination by association for the month.

But I thought Kerry's plan to win the War on Terror was hilarious.

Redeploy out of Iraq. Yes, because running out of Somalia didn't do anything to hurt us.

Refocus on Afghanistan. Just because Kerry ignores it doesn't mean Bush or the military does. That Kerry DOES ignore it shows that he REALLY should have never been a serious candidate for President.

Reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Without drilling domestically, mind you. We're supposed to have alternative fuels --- PLUS own the cars to use it AND the gas stations should ALSO have the pumps to store it --- RIGHT NOW.

Restore our moral authority. Yes, because sitting on the sidelines and fighting any condemnation of the Rwandan genocide in the UN --- which Albright did --- was the epitome o' moral leadership. Ditto allowing all of the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan by their regimes.

Reform Homeland Defense. Without, mind you, any intel gathering. Or profiling.

It's like he is a graduate of the Underpants Gnomes' School of Business.

But his blaming Bush for the Israel/Hezbollah conflict was golden.

Do the Dems have a plan to win the vote of people WITHOUT ADD?
-=Mike

Notice again how the trolls... (Below threshold)

Notice again how the trolls divert the topic.

It's their job. It's what they do. When you respond to them, they win. It doesn't matter that you can demolish every lie they posit point by point - once you begin to do that, they've succeeded in changing the subject from the one they do NOT want discussed.

Once you begin answering their old agitprop, you've already lost, because it is never about the topic, and they want more than anything to keep you away from the topic.

If we just ignored them, they would get bored and go away, looking for someplace else to flame around in.

I see what you mean about d... (Below threshold)
groucho:

I see what you mean about diverting the topic. I suggest a source containing a pretty clear picture of how this docudrama came to be. No character assasination, no wild irrational claims, just a stepwise look at the making of the movie, made, not coincidentally, by a group of neocons led by David Horowitz, a man who can't back up facts in his latest book. MikeSC says he read it, then takes off on a frothing, off topic rant about Kerry. Diversion.

I see what you mean abou... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I see what you mean about diverting the topic. I suggest a source containing a pretty clear picture of how this docudrama came to be. No character assasination, no wild irrational claims, just a stepwise look at the making of the movie, made, not coincidentally, by a group of neocons led by David Horowitz, a man who can't back up facts in his latest book. MikeSC says he read it, then takes off on a frothing, off topic rant about Kerry. Diversion.

"Frothing"? Hardly. I found his ideas hilarious.

That post you linked to was so deranged that you'd think it came from the Loose Change folks.

And since we know how much the left LOATHES inaccuracy, the Huff Post should remove his post completely. Gotta be consistent.
-=Mike

Deranged how? Because it di... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Deranged how? Because it didn't support your lockstep myopic view? Were there errors? Where? I see Horowitz' name attached to something and my smear radar goes off big time, that's all.

Deranged how? Because it... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Deranged how? Because it didn't support your lockstep myopic view?

Sparky, it's ironic that you find anybody else's views "myopic".

Hell, here's a challenge: Name one thing you support Bush on.

Where? I see Horowitz' name attached to something and my smear radar goes off big time, that's all.

Weren't you the one bitching that people griped about Moore's movie without having seen it?

I mean, all of you people seem the same.
-=Mike

Groucho, a response to Max ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Groucho, a response to Max Blumenthal's idiocy.

From the good folks over at http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/09/spinning-the-light-fantastic/

What are the left’s talking points for today on The Path to 9/11?

In the rarefied atmosphere of “respectable” (we have to call them something) lefty blogs, the drumbeat today will be over a post by Max Blumenthal at HuffPo that reveals the shocking truth about the “fakeumentary” and it’s connections to (wait for it)...A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!

In fact, “The Path to 9/11” is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11’s director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to “transform Hollywood” in line with its messianic vision.

This is a bald faced lie. There is no “well honed propaganda operation” of right wingers except in the fantastical imagination and paranoid mind of Max Blumenthal. And only liberals would have the naivete to swallow such a gross twisting of the facts that Blumenthal does throughout this incredibly shallow and extraordinarily thin conspiracy theory about the making of The Path to 9/11.

In his laughable scare piece about the reach and extent of conservative influence in Hollywood, Blumenthal makes an ass of himself by highlighting the most tenuous of connections between people and organizations and passing them off as proof of conspiracy while sprinkling his “indictment” with words and phrases so overly dramatic and uproariously conspiratorial in tone that one would think the piece was penned by a 12 year old little girl breathlessly revealing secrets to her friends at a slumber party:

Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film’s director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father’s group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is “dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry.” As part of TFI’s long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission’s in film industry jobs “so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out,” according to a YWAM report.

Last June, Cunningham’s TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled “Untitled History Project.” “TFI’s first project is a doozy,” a newsletter to YWAM members read. “Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!” (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted yesterday but has been cached on Google at the link above).

That “mysterious” title has been used dozens of times by dozens of studios to describe a work on the boards. The only thing mysterious about it is Blumenthal’s ignorant posturing that it somehow denotes something evil.

But it is in Blumenthal’s revealing notion of who and what YWAM is that we see not only a towering intellectual conceit about people of faith on the part of the left but also the reason Democrats will continue to lose national elections as long as they have such childish, shallow, and indeed despicably condescending views of people who believe in God.

In perusing the YWAM website, one finds that the group’s foundational mission is to spread the gospel. They are missionaries. World class missionaries I might add. There are left wing missionaries. There are right wing missionaries. There are non partisan missionaries. There are Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, and host of other protestant missionaries. There is nothing sinister or even extreme in this. In fact, having spent some time around Catholic missionaries in my youth, I know for a fact that these are some of the most down to earth and practical people on the planet. You don’t convert people by getting in their face and preaching. Not anymore. These days, missionaries are much more likely to win converts by pitching in and digging that new water well for the village or working with other groups to bring electricity to the area.

Of course, Blumenthal only brought up YWAM because the son of the founder of that group, David Cunningham, is the director of the project. Blumenthal is under the impression that by pointing out the father is a missionary, he is hoping to tar the younger man as some wild eyed evangelical nutcase. All Blumenthal does is embarrass himself. Not only is YWAM one of the most respected worldwide gospel outreach groups on the planet, it is funded largely by mainstream protestants and protestant organizations.

And this brings us to the left’s unbelievable stupidity when it comes to dealing with people of faith. They don’t have a clue. People who believe so strongly in something that can’t be touched, can’t be smelled or felt, are a total and complete mystery to our lefty friends. They have no personal experience with faith – faith in anything at all – so they tiptoe around those whose quiet and unassuming faith in something larger than themselves first frightens them and then makes them envious and resentful.

I am not talking about the small, vocal group of Christians whose politics and fundamentalist faith scares both liberals and many secular libertarian conservatives. People like Loren and David Cunningham are pretty ordinary in their beliefs. And to see Blumenthal quaking in his boots over the younger Cunningham’s group, The Film Institute, only shows how truly myopic one can be when preconceived notions meet up with reality.

That reality is that Blumenthal did not continue to quote from TFI’s mission statement. If he had, much of the scare effect he was trying to achieve would have been blunted:

Our next big project is to assist in the development of the new YWAM auxiliary – The Film Institute (TFI). The Film Institute is dedicated to a Godly transformation and
revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry;

TO it, by serving, living humbly with integrity in what is often a world driven by selfish ambition, power an money – transforming lives from within,

and THROUGH it, by creating relevant and evocative content which promotes Godly principles of Truth married with Love.

Gee. Batten down the hatches and lock up the wife and daughter. HERE COME THE CHRISTIANS! Imagine the gall of these people. Trying to change Hollywood from “a world driven by selfish ambition, power and money” (as fair a critique of Hollywood as you’ll find anywhere) to a place that creates “relevant and evocative content which promotes Godly principles of Truth married with Love.”

I don’t know about you but those people should be LOCKED UP! Truth in Hollywood? Married with Love? What can they be thinking?

Too radical. Much too radical.

As Blumenthal is unable to distinguish mainstream Christan thought from fringe skirting fundamentalists, he is also having definitional problems with figuring out exactly who and what a conservative is:

Early on, Cunningham had recruited a young Iranian-American screenwriter named Cyrus Nowrasteh to write the script of his secretive “Untitled” film. Not only is Nowrasteh an outspoken conservative, he is also a fervent member of the emerging network of right-wing people burrowing into the film industry with ulterior sectarian political and religious agendas, like Cunningham.

Nowrasteh’s conservatism was on display when he appeared as a featured speaker at the Liberty Film Festival (LFF), an annual event founded in 2004 to premier and promote conservative-themed films supposedly too “politically incorrect” to gain acceptance at mainstream film festivals. This June, while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo—both friends of Nowrasteh—announced they were “partnering” with right-wing activist David Horowitz. Indeed, the 2006 LFF is listed as “A Program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.”

Who is Cyrus Nowrasteh? Well, Cy wrote and directed The Day Reagan Was Shot who had another, more prominent member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy serving as Executive Producer on the project.

Oliver Stone.

Yes, that Oliver Stone. And one thing Max doesn’t mention is that right wing partisan hack Nowrasteh was skewered by conservatives across the country for his screenplay:

“But for Hollywood, admirable actions by people associated with the Reagan White House are not the stuff of drama. So Messrs. Stone and Nowrasteh depict certain cabinet members as uninformed weaklings and Mr. Haig as a brooding, swaggering, cursing, face-slapping coup-plotter. Other cabinet members and senior White House staffers are cowering wimps.”

(Former Reagan National Security Advisor James Allen)

Gee, Max. Looks like conservatives thought that Nowrasteh was a Hollywood liberal back in the day that he was, much to your satisfaction I’m sure, trashing the Reagan White House and Al Haig in particular. The fact that he is now “burrowing” into the film industry must raise the hackles of conservatives even more, eh?

No matter. Nowrasteh has identified himself time and again as a libertarian rather than a conservative. But don’t tell that to our Max. It will only confuse him further. And these “sectarian, political and religious agendas” are about as “ulterior” as the nose on Blumenthal’s face. The “agenda” – if there even is one – is out in the open for all to see. Who’d ever thought promoting values like honesty and integrity could get one in so much trouble?

The real nitty gritty of Blumenthal’s imaginary conspiracy is in the connection to David Horowitz whose David Horwitz Freedom Center (it is no longer the Center for the Study of Popular Culture) has become a liberal bete noir ever since the lefty apostate began to target liberal professors in an attempt to highlight the jaw dropping left wing bias in the academy.

Blumenthal mentions the wildly successful Liberty Film Festival and the fact that Horowitz has given the conservative event a huge boost by bringing it under the auspices of the DHFC. Why it makes one whit of difference that “while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo—both friends of Nowrasteh—announced they were “partnering” with right-wing activist David Horowitz” is a total mystery. Is Blumenthal seriously trying to connect the Liberty Film Festival to The Path to 9/11?

In Blumenthal’s conspiratorial world, Nowrasteh, who is a “friend” of the founders of the LFF, can now be made a key cog in plot to take over Hollywood because of this third person removed connection to Horowitz. It’s loony. And it doesn’t wash. Blumenthal’s feverish attempt to smear Nowrasteh continues with this unbelievable bit of dishonesty regarding an interview in Horwitz’s Frontpage Magazine:

With the LFF now under Horowitz’s control, his political machine began drumming up support for Cunningham and Nowrasteh’s “Untitled” project, which finally was revealed in late summer as “The Path to 9/11.” Horowitz’s PR blitz began with an August 16 interview with Nowrasteh on his FrontPageMag webzine. In the interview, Nowrasteh foreshadowed the film’s assault on Clinton’s record on fighting terror. “The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response—or lack of response—to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests,” Nowrasteh told FrontPageMag’s Jamie Glazov. “There simply was no response. Nothing.”

There’s no other way to say it. The quote is a deliberate attempt to twist Nowrasteh’s words and what he was trying to say. Here’s the actual quote from the interview:

The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response—or lack of response—to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. COLE in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.

Any objective observer would be forced to concede that the italicized portion that Blumenthal deliberately left out changes the meaning and intent of Nowrasteh’s critique of the Clinton response entirely. Blumenthal owes Horwitz and Nowrasteh an apology for his deliberate attempt to obfuscate what was said in the interview.

And by the way, the statement is true. Clinton did nothing in the aftermath of the attack on the Cole:

In early leaks from Losing bin Laden, Richard Miniter, an investigative journalist, claims Mr. Clinton allowed the Sept. 11 attacks to happen by squandering more than a dozen opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. In two cases, the terrorist leader’s exact location was known, the book says.

Although Clinton supporters would doubtless reject the implication of responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, senior members of the Clinton White House did confirm, in interviews for the book, that they shied away from an attack immediately after the Cole bombing for reasons of diplomacy and military caution.

Blumenthal delivers more misrepresentative twaddle when he delves into the film’s promotion:

A week later, ABC hosted LFF co-founder Murty and several other conservative operatives at an advance screening of The Path to 9/11. (While ABC provided 900 DVDs of the film to conservatives, Clinton administration officials and objective reviewers from mainstream outlets were denied them.) Murty returned with a glowing review for FrontPageMag that emphasized the film’s partisan nature. “’The Path to 9/11’ is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I’ve ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible,” Murty wrote. As a result of the special access granted by ABC, Murty’s article was the first published review of The Path to 9/11, preceding those by the New York Times and LA Times by more than a week.

Murty followed her review with a blast email to conservative websites such as Liberty Post and Free Republic on September 1 urging their readers to throw their weight behind ABC’s mini-series. “Please do everything you can to spread the word about this excellent miniseries,” Murty wrote, “so that ‘The Path to 9/11’ gets the highest ratings possible when it airs on September 10 & 11! If this show gets huge ratings, then ABC will be more likely to produce pro-American movies and TV shows in the future!”

The “conservative operatives” (Gee…when is someone going to invite me to be a conservative operative?) who got a sneak peak of the film are a mystery. Is Blumenthal talking about the screening of Part I of the film at that hot bed of right wing conspiracies The National Press Club on August 23? This is almost exactly “a week later” than the FPM interview with Nowrasteh.

If he has another, more private event where the film was screened, perhaps he could enlighten us with some details. Considering the fact that the rest of his article is so full of gross misrepresentation and wild flights of fancy, he owes it to the reader to be a little more specific in his charges about a special screening for “conservative operatives.”

On this score – that “conservative operatives” screened the movie – I think it safe to conclude that Blumenthal is demonstrating that he either doesn’t know what kind of an organization The National Press Club is or that he is deliberately misrepresenting the kinds of people who were at the screening, including that well known right wing conspirator Richard Ben Veniste who first brought to light the inaccurate portrayal of the composite scene where Bin Laden was surrounded and not captured.

And what of Murty’s “glowing review” that emphasized the film’s “partisan nature?

Fortunately, Nowrasteh and the producers of this miniseries have gone out on a limb to honestly and fairly depict how Clinton-era inaction, political correctness, and bureaucratic inefficiency allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to metastasize. Let me say here though that “The Path to 9/11” is not a partisan miniseries or a “conservative” miniseries. It simply presents the facts in an honest and straightforward manner (the producers have backed up every detail of the miniseries with copious amounts of research and documentation), and the facts are that for seven years, from 1993 to 2000, the Clinton administration bungled the handling of the world-wide terrorist threat. The miniseries is equally honest in depicting the Bush administration. It shows a few points where administration officials, following in the tradition of the Clinton years, do not follow certain clues about the terrorist plot as zealously as they should have. Nonetheless, “The Path to 9/11,” by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster.

Only in the world inhabited by liberals like Blumenthal would a review that highlights the non partisan nature of the film be considered some kind of right wing imprimatur. What Blumenthal and the rest of the left are so excised about is that conservatives are excited that finally, after 5 long years, The Narrative the left has constructed about 9/11 is being challenged by the truth. They successfully whitewashed the public discussion following the release of the 9/11 Commission Report thanks to a massive amount of finger pointing at the very real and disgusting failures of the Bush Administration both before and on the day of the attacks. Lost in the shuffle were not only Clinton’s failures in killing Osama but also the entire law enforcement strategy used by the Clintonistas that was such an abject failure. That, and a curious blindness about the nature of al-Qaeda and the challenges posed by the terrorists from an ideological point of view.

This also is apparently brought out in the film which of course, affects our current politics. Hence the savage effort to deny the American people an opportunity to judge. Conservatives are not making a huge deal out of scenes that show Bush Administration officials sleepwalking toward disaster. We’ve pretty much accepted the failures and moved on. Democrats cannot accept the failures of the Clinton Administration because to do so gives the lie to their entire critique of the War on Terror and especially the War in Iraq. They appear to be stuck in a pre-9/11 world where the Clinton Administration emphasis on arresting Osama and al-Qaeda was the preferred method in dealing with the terrorists. Anything that exposes that fact must be destroyed.

Finally, Blumenthal believes that his “conspiracy” is nothing less than a bunch of “political terrorists:”

Now, as discussion grows over the false character of The Path to 9/11, the right-wing network that brought it to fruition is ratcheting up its PR efforts. Murty will appear tonight on CNN’s Glenn Beck show and The Situation Room, according to Libertas in order to respond to “the major disinformation campaign now being run by Democrats to block the truth about what actually happened during the Clinton years.”

While this network claims its success and postures as the true victims, the ABC network suffers a PR catastrophe. It’s almost as though it was complacent about an attack on its reputation by a band of political terrorists.

We should be used to this kind of scurrilous, calumnious, hysterical, over the top rhetoric from liberals by now. But somehow, it never gets old seeing liberals brand dissent from their worldview as “terrorism.” The truth about the Clinton years and their efforts against al-Qaeda is contained in the 9/11 Commission Report. It is there for anyone willing to look. No amount of name calling, conspiracy mongering, lies, distortions, misrepresentations, or even threats will change what has already been uncovered about those years of relative inaction and confused policy choices.

We slept. Osama plotted. And our government – both Clinton and Bush – failed miserably to protect us. If this is the only thing people come away with from watching The Path to 9/11 the overwhelming majority of conservatives will be happy.

It says something profound about the left that if in fact, this is what people think after watching the film, that they will be livid with anger – an anger born of frustration that their carefully constructed version of the “truth” has been revealed as the sham it has always been.

UPDATE

Let me make something perfectly clear – something I have said in other posts talking about the film but not touchd on here.

I abhor the inaccuracies in the film. I agree with one conservative who said that putting words in Albright’s mouth – especially since the film is supposedly depicting real life people – is close to libelous.

But the reaction by the left to this film has been so exaggerated, so over the top as to be beyond belief. The overwhelming number of people who reviewed this film have said that it does NOT blame Bill Clinton for 9/11. My point has always been that the left is opposing the showing of this film because 1) Clinton actions are criticized and 2) Bush’s actions aren’t criticized enough. The latter being the main point of anger for liberals in that it goes against everything they have tried to lie about for the past 5 years. They want the enduring image of 9/11 to be George Bush sitting in a classroom reading a children’s book not the towers collapsing or people jumping out of buildings. Anything that goes against The Narrative is a threat to expose the entire tissue of lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, conspiracy fantasies, and deliberate falsehoods perpetrated over the last 5 years with the help of an all too willing media and a vast network of former government officials always willing to shift blame for their own inadequacies in the face of Islamic terrorism.

As Hugh Hewitt says today, this film needs to be seen even without any scenes showing anything the Clinton Administration did or didn’t do. It needs to be seen so that people understand the nature of the threat posed to our country. When so many see the War on Terror as nothing more than a political ploy being used by the Bush Administration to gin up fear in order to win elections, or more laughably, establish some kind of neo-conservative super-state, a movie like The Path to 9/11 is vitally necessary if only to disabuse those casually interested in politics of the left’s dangerous myopia.

-=Mike

I started a new thread for ... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

I started a new thread for discussion of the movie. It is at the top of the main page. I watched the first hour, then had to watch something with my kids. I will be back to watching at 10.

Man, you you need to get ou... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Man, you you need to get out more. I'm sure you'd find that all of those you ignorantly demonize as the left are more than willing to accept the REALITY of the terrorist threat which certainly grew during the Clinton era. What most have a problem with is a politically motivated right wing planned and funded released 2 months before an election in which the right is projected to do poorly. It smacks of a cheap desperate attempt to cloud the issue. I don't see any conspiracy, just a lot of billionaires trying to add to their hoards.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy