« Profiles in derangement | Main | No one discusses the donkey in the room »

The Video Clinton and the Dems Don't Want You to See

Bumped

Redstate has the scenes from the movie "The Path of 9/11" that the Democrats are spitting mad about. The video in dispute is divided into six clips that run successively. Go watch them and make up your own mind.

As for me, I honestly didn't feel angry at individual people like Sandy Berger or Bill Clinton, who in these scenes only appeared on a television via video of his speeches. I did feel regret that our country failed the Northern Alliance, with whom we were working to get Bin Laden. I also felt nothing but hatred toward the terrorists, especially toward Khalid Sheik Muhammad as he proposes his attack plan to Zawahiri, Bin Laden's right hand man. A sick feeling came over me when KSM was assured, that with God's help, he will get the pilots he needs for the attack.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Video Clinton and the Dems Don't Want You to See:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Ex-Taliban chief details Massood slaying

Comments (42)

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

As a conservative I STRONGLY 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 But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.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.

You posted the <a href="htt... (Below threshold)

You posted the exact same comment at Lorie's post. This looks like comment spam to me.

I'm just trying to say this... (Below threshold)
clearwaterconservative:

I'm just trying to say this.

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

And rightly they should.

Considering that Bill Clint... (Below threshold)
langtry:

Considering that Bill Clinton was able to install Jamie Gorelick as a tool for whitewashing the findings of the 9/11 Commission, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that he would feel emboldened to get a major network to cancel a series because it made him look bad. Clearwater Conservative, do you really think Clinton is doing this to protect his loyal staff? Hardly. Bill Clinton is a classic narcissist and sociopath, and the Democratic National Committee is staffed by people much like himself.

I don't disagree with you.<... (Below threshold)
clearwaterconservative:

I don't disagree with you.

But showing a docu-drama with such errors is just wrong.

We are fighting to keep the House in Nov. Bush's approval rating is low.

Do we REALLY want to pick this fight now?

If ABC shows this docu-d... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

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

And rightly they should.

And rightly they should?

Umm, OK.
-=Mike

Had CBS gotten away with po... (Below threshold)
waddayknow:

Had CBS gotten away with portraying Regan as an handicapped senior the opinions of many in the middle may have attached that mental picture of narcissistic incompetence to the RNC and the current administration. Had that happened many on the right would have taken their business from CBS and their advertisers and a tsunami of accusations of political wrongness overcome our nation. The political ramifications would have been horrendous and the balance of political power would have been shaken and stirred, but to a negative end for conservatives. The point raised then was the perception truth and historical accuracy. It was 'Fair and Balanced' then to question CBS and it is 'Fair and Balanced' now with ABC. Fiction is fiction, distortions are distortions, fabrications (lies) are lies and should not be tolerated regardless of political ties. In my opinion, Politics is the secular religion in the United States and those who worship at the polls should all be concerned when corporate America is allowed to publish lies as 'truth' without being challenged by every voter. I have no problem with crucifying politicians on any side, with fact or fiction. However, I would like the 'facts' to be the FACTS and the fiction to be acknowledged. I rue the day when two guys show up at my door, the G-Man and the Corporate character assassin, the first who says, "Hi, I'm from the government I'm here to 'help' you," and the second who says, "I'm with him."

Let's get this garbage carried out or there is a good chance Mickey will go on gov't cheese and the conservative cause will find that their cheese has been moved.

Except, ya know, the proble... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Except, ya know, the problem is that the Dems are threatening to yank licenses --- which is, ya know, censorship and all.
-=Mike

I don't see any way the dem... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I don't see any way the democrats can get any crazier. One thing about the movie, correct or not, it has brought out the worst in the criminal democrats in congress. Everyone that signed the threatening letter to ABC (whom I detest also) should be brought up on criminal charges. This is another crime they can't claim congressional priv. for protection. I thought old KKK Byrd was the worst WVa had to offer. After today he's running a close second to Rock-e-feller in stupidity. Come on people of WVa, call these nuts home and hide them like people did the retarded a few years ago. They make it look like the stupid jokes about WVa are all true.

This whole thing is hilario... (Below threshold)
Jo:

This whole thing is hilarious. When those of us on the Right who protest something (like the Reagans) the Left cries "censorship" when it really isn't.

When the Left uses government officials to make threats to yank a film, THAT IS TRUE CENSORSHIP. And the dems say NOTHING.

Geeez it's bizarro world again.

And Clinton doesn't just wa... (Below threshold)
Jo:

And Clinton doesn't just want some scenes pulled, he wants the WHOLE FILM YANKED because of the "impression" it makes. WTF?? Now we should yank films because they might make the wrong "impression" ???

I'm fairly certain that Bush didn't like the "impression" that Farenheit 9/11 makes nor the one that Inconvenient Truth makes, but he didn't THREATEN anyone about it....

Geeez, the democrats are unbelievable!!!

And the left has tried to t... (Below threshold)
Jo:

And the left has tried to tell us for years that BUSH is the bully?? Riiiight.

What was that stuff you guys were saying that Bush and his team were doing to Joe Wilson? Oh yes, trying to "silence his critics."

See any irony here?

Question? Why so much conce... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

Question? Why so much concern on Clinton’s term, and what he could have to prevent 9/11? Lets get to the real issues at hand the, why didn’t Bush do something about the eminent threat that Al Quaeda and Bin Laden posed, once he took office? If he was considered such a serious threat, that we were attempting to snipe him down, why didn’t’ Bush prevail in taking him down??

Why because Pres. Bush set off an with an non revelent agenda to terrosist attacks from the beginning. 1.Cut the taxes for the rich, 2. bomb an oil rich country, 3.Learn how to speak in Public.

When 9/11 happened Bush was to busy snoozing up to Bin Laden’s rich relatives.
FBI had the a report of indicating an attack, what did they do?

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.
In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.
The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/
GO READ THE REPORT INSTEAD OF MANAGING YOUR TIME BY SPREADING SLANDER

If Clinton made the immoral dicision to commit infedelity, that is between the parties involved, and God. Its none of my business, howver if you leave the economy in ruins, unemployment rate sky high, the worth of the usd down 35%, and to many other things to list it is our business.

Bizarro World indeed. Just... (Below threshold)
waddyaknow:

Bizarro World indeed. Just where were you folks in Nov., 03 when the AFA proclaimed "The pressure on CBS appears to have worked." The same basic issues are in play right now. ABC/Disney is being challenged because they are promoting a commercial television program, that appears to have deep partisan conservative/'christian activist' roots, as grounded in historical accuracy when it is not, in fact, historically accurate. This is the issue, period. This is not censorship, there are no gulags, this is big business and the 'liberal' MSM playing fast and loose with the truth. If ABC/Disney wants to play it on cable during the Disney Hour that would diffuse the issue. After all CBS shunted their Reagan disaster to Showtime, everybody accepted that it was fiction, story over.

I just finished watching 'U... (Below threshold)
Plaid Aardvark:

I just finished watching 'United 93' tonight, and then watched the 'forbidden' clips on Red state after following the whole PT911 drama play out during the week.

I am so full of fury and rage right now it is to the point if one Dem-Nut-Root, live and in my person, even mentions Clinton's non-culpability in the events leading to 9/11, and 9/11 itself was all, solely, Bush's fault (or was an inside job), I swear they will regret it.

Never have I ever felt so disgusted towards some of my fellow citizens, but now; with this entire BS going on from the DEM/Nutroots…whose side are they on? Are their cases of BDS so severe that truth is their kryptonite? Because, common sense sure as hell isn’t!

(In retrospect, I don't recommend U93 and PT911, and articles on Clinton to be viewed in one sitting)

The Reagan docu-drama aired... (Below threshold)

The Reagan docu-drama aired on Showtime, so it was shown to a demographic more interested in that version of events. It wasn't supressed, and no network licenses were threatened. Sure, there's inconsistency, but really. Somehow some program director at CBS had made a stupid business decision to air the Reagan drama despite most of CBS's viewership being eligible for social security. The "controvery" probably let CBS do what the higher ups really wanted. Moonves was happy to move that turkey I'm betting. The folks old enough to know Reagan well didn't want to see that.

Let's see a drmatization of Khalid Sheik Muhammad making plans. Then after the show, let's have a poll to see what percent of Americans object to waterboarding him to get info.

Question? Why so much co... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Question? Why so much concern on Clinton’s term, and what he could have to prevent 9/11?

Well, since he had 8 yrs and Bush had a little less than 8 months, it seems to be a fair inquiry.

Lets get to the real issues at hand the, why didn’t Bush do something about the eminent threat that Al Quaeda and Bin Laden posed, once he took office?

Such as?

Come on, what should Bush have been doing?

Profiling?
Breaking down the Gorelick wall?
Wiretapping?

If he was considered such a serious threat, that we were attempting to snipe him down, why didn’t’ Bush prevail in taking him down??

Well, Clinton had 8 yrs to do it and failed. Seems a bit much to ask Bush to do it in less than 8 months.

Why because Pres. Bush set off an with an non revelent agenda to terrosist attacks from the beginning. 1.Cut the taxes for the rich, 2. bomb an oil rich country, 3.Learn how to speak in Public.

1) Being given an economy in total freefall can necessitate that.

2) Afghanistan is oil-rich since when?

3) Where is Public? Do you mean Publix, maybe? Can Bush not speak in grocery stores?

When 9/11 happened Bush was to busy snoozing up to Bin Laden’s rich relatives.
FBI had the a report of indicating an attack, what did they do?

A warning of a possible attack on NYC federal buildings --- which, again, weren't attacked.

OMG, THE FBI LIED!! THEY MADE IT ALL UP!!!

No mention of date. No mention of method.

So, please, feel free to develop an action plan for the info Bush had. I'd love to hear it.

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

Clarke (the source of this talking point) would have somewhere in the neighborhood of NO knowledge of this. Clarke was a glorified gopher.

Scheuer also claims that the CIA had more opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden that has been reported previously. He says there were 10 such chances between May 1998 and May 1999. It was not clear who decided not to take those chances.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/10/terror/main635038.shtml

And if you want specifics:
In May of 1998, after months of planning, officials called off a CIA plan to have Afghan allies capture bin Laden and send him out of Afghanistan for trial. The plan was apparently scrapped because of worries about the chance of killing bystanders, and even bin Laden himself, as well as concerns over the strength of the legal evidence against bin Laden.

After the August 1998 African embassy bombings, President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan that failed to kill bin Laden.

The Sept. 11 report identifies three other occasions on which there was intelligence on bin Laden's location but not attempt to kill him: December 1998 in Kandahar, February 1999 in his desert camp and back in Kandahar in May 1999.

Yeah, why SHOULD Clinton get questioned at all?

If Clinton made the immoral dicision to commit infedelity, that is between the parties involved, and God. Its none of my business, howver if you leave the economy in ruins, unemployment rate sky high, the worth of the usd down 35%, and to many other things to list it is our business.

Clinton left the economy in ruins. Bush has brought it up to Clinton levels WITHOUT the massive stock market fraud Clinton oversaw and approved of. Uneployment is about 4.7% now, sky high in nobody's eyes.

Bizarro World indeed. Just where were you folks in Nov., 03 when the AFA proclaimed "The pressure on CBS appears to have worked." The same basic issues are in play right now.

Except Republicans didn't threaten broadcasting licenses. Nor was the film cut at all.

ABC/Disney is being challenged because they are promoting a commercial television program, that appears to have deep partisan conservative/'christian activist' roots, as grounded in historical accuracy when it is not, in fact, historically accurate.

Except its far more accurate than the mythology Clinton and the Dems have put out for years about 9/11.

And where are the "Christian activist" roots?

This is not censorship

You know that's a lie. Which is why you're attempting to compare it to "The Reagans" uproat. To mitigate just how bad it all is.

there are no gulags, this is big business and the 'liberal' MSM playing fast and loose with the truth.

If a Republican had said "Well, CBS, if you don't retract your Bush Nat'l Guard story and apologize on-air, well, let's just say that your ability to be a trusted steward of the public airwaves might need scrutiny", you'd see it for the censorship it plainly is.

But it didn't happen. You DO see Dems doing it. Twice now.

If ABC/Disney wants to play it on cable during the Disney Hour that would diffuse the issue. After all CBS shunted their Reagan disaster to Showtime, everybody accepted that it was fiction, story over.

If they didn't threaten broadcasting licenses, it'd be a different story. It'd just be Clinton, the egomaniac, trying harder than anything to protect the legacy that he doesn't have.

It's morphed into the Democrats trying to control what you see.

It isn't pretty. But it's enlightening to see how many people would be happy to just march along to it.
-=Mike

Mike,Great fisking o... (Below threshold)
Whippet:

Mike,
Great fisking of Anonymous' shifty little rant. But then he makes the job easier when he chooses to link to Think Progress and defends the likes of Richard Clarke. Next he'll be linking to Michael Moore or Babs Streisand, such intellectuals you know.

There's video of Clinton's missed opportunities at Bin Laden all over the internet, reported by the leftist mainstream media and you could spend weeks going to the lefty blogs and never see it.

It's so much easier to just blame President Bush. There is also that other event - the election of 2000 when Al(do as I say, not as I do) Gore prolonged the people's choice for President by demanding a recount. I seem to remember that there was then a delay in Bush being able to pick his cabinet, advisors, etc. so that delayed his ability to get started on the important job of running the country and dealing with those pesky terrorists. You know, the ones that Clinton wanted to deal with as just a law enforcement problem?

The left has become so consumed with hate for our President that they can't see things clearly. They have been duped by power hungry politicians and an agenda driven media. They have been reduced to liberal human beings calling for other liberals to arm themselves and prepare for revolution. They have aligned themselves with and sympathize with the brutal terrorists who think nothing of cutting off someone's head or killing innocent women and children to achieve their ends. And instead of simply boycotting a movie that doesn't fit their propagandized version of the Clinton presidency, they have chosen to use the power of government to attempt to censor free speech. But we conservatives understand that liberals think this censorship is acceptable because it achieves their ends - therefore it isn't really censorship.
I have to wonder - is the brainwashing that has occurred on the left a means for the end of Democracy or just the means for some power hungry politicians to regain power? Or are they one and the same?

MikeSCWe all know ... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

MikeSC

We all know that Bush is challenged when it comes to the speaking areana.

My personal favorite: The fool me once fool me twice ca can cant fool me again, Its hallarious.

Back to the serious matters, Yes Bush could have done a number of things, he could have done when he learned of the possiablity of a threat. We are the richest nation, we possess a wealth of knowledge, with the equipment and caplebility to do what it takes to defend this wonderful country.He was also notified a day before 9/11 of a possiable attack. What should he have done? Investigate it at the least, like any decent person/pres

I support wire tapping when presented legally throught the right channal,

Clarke (the source of this talking point) would have somewhere in the neighborhood of NO knowledge of this. Clarke was a glorified gopher.

Well I am not referring to Clark, I am though asking you to read the report yourself, before sperading any political propaganda.

I have a problem with the whole attitude of forget about the reason the war was warranted on Iraq, and Saddame. Bush always with his eyes on the prize OIL RICH iraq. We will liberate them and we will use their oil as payment! Why should we forget the day that the president bush lied to the nation, and the whole world. Why we should not forget it is becouse we have suffered, the loss of life.

Please do the math, or are ... (Below threshold)
anonymous:

Please do the math, or are you gonna make more excuses?
Clintons record
Budget Surplus/Deficit 236 billion
Pct Change in Deficit -181.4%
Unemployment rate 4.0
uninsured americans 14.2%
Poverity Rate 11.3


Bush's record
Budget Surplus/Deficit 422 billion
Pct Change in Deficit +278.58%
Unemployment rate 22.01%
uninsured americans 15.6%

Anonymous, your numbers are... (Below threshold)

Anonymous, your numbers are a bit curious. Especially the number that seems to claim Clinton presided over an unemployment rate avg of 4.0% (the actual avg for the Clinton years is 5.2%). Yet Bush's avg is 22.01%? BTW, Bush's actual rate avg to date is 5.31%.

Considering the unemployemnt rate never went above 6.5% in the Bush presidency (even after 9/11) and the current rate is 4.7%, how did you get your numbers?

Sadl to say this, but Bush Derangement Syndrome is a very serious illness among you folks on the left. Please... get some help.

He's a troll, Falcon.... (Below threshold)

He's a troll, Falcon.

His object isn't to win a debate. It is to divert discussion to some other subject so the debate is never held.

IF the dramatizations represent fictionalized quotations of events that did NOT happen, they should be removed. On the other hand, if we know the order was given or refused by so-and-so, the fact that we can never know the exact wording shouldn't be cause to delete the given dramatization. IOW, if Albright or Berger actually gave the orders, but their wording was different, let them give ABC the words they did use. It makes precious little difference in the end; what is important are the orders themselves.

If it is true to the 9/11 Commission report in that respect, there is no reason to delete a scene.

I'm just wondering if anyon... (Below threshold)
millco88:

I'm just wondering if anyone actually expects ABC to present an "undramatized" version of events?? Isn't that the whole point of making such a movie, i.e., to "dramatize" what was happening?? If you want an unvarnished telling of both sides, isn't there plenty of information available through this new technology called the Internet??

I think Reid's letter is politically stupid, but let's be real about this, ABC isn't losing its license over this or any other programming regardless of which party controls Congress. But the Reps are correct to politicize the letter, especially this close to an election.

To use a football analogy, this election isn't like the Rose Bowl between USC and Texas, i.e., a contest of two great teams. It's like one of those bowl games in mid-December between two 6-5 teams.

I have not seen "Path".... (Below threshold)
Burt:

I have not seen "Path".

I have heard from those who have, that it's not so much about Clinton or Bush, but more about the threat of Al Qaeda, Islamo-Fascism, and other terrorist organizations. The question occured to me: "Who are Reid, Clinton, et al really trying to protect?" Maybe this Global War on Terror is more insidious than I first imagined. Yes, I know I am questioning someone's Patriotism... But, If I am unsure of something, I have the right to ask.

Burt says "But, If I am uns... (Below threshold)
clearwaterconservative:

Burt says "But, If I am unsure of something, I have the right to ask."

No you don't! Questioning our policy on the war on terror is unpatriotic and emboldens the enemy.

We all know that Bush is... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

We all know that Bush is challenged when it comes to the speaking areana.

Unless you have a turd in your pocket, there is no "we" with you.

Back to the serious matters, Yes Bush could have done a number of things, he could have done when he learned of the possiablity of a threat.

And specifics, I'm sure, are to follow.

We are the richest nation, we possess a wealth of knowledge, with the equipment and caplebility to do what it takes to defend this wonderful country.He was also notified a day before 9/11 of a possiable attack. What should he have done? Investigate it at the least, like any decent person/pres

Ah, so no specifics? Got it.

I support wire tapping when presented legally throught the right channal

It was done legally.

Well I am not referring to Clark, I am though asking you to read the report yourself, before sperading any political propaganda.

Which report? The 9/11 Commission? I have. And it whitewashes Clinton's actions, what with one of the major architects of the disaster, Jamie Gorelick, BEING ON THE COMMISSION.

I have a problem with the whole attitude of forget about the reason the war was warranted on Iraq, and Saddame. Bush always with his eyes on the prize OIL RICH iraq.

WE could've simply paid Saddam as the rest of the world did, then.

Why should we forget the day that the president bush lied to the nation, and the whole world. Why we should not forget it is becouse we have suffered, the loss of life.

You've not produced proof of "lies". You've produced little outside of written flatulence at this point.

Bush's record
Budget Surplus/Deficit 422 billion
Pct Change in Deficit +278.58%
Unemployment rate 22.01%
uninsured americans 15.6%

It's easy to make arguments when you pull figures out of your ass.

No you don't! Questioning our policy on the war on terror is unpatriotic and emboldens the enemy.

The funny part is that the only party I see questioning the patriotism of the other...are the Democrats.
-=Mike

"Questioning our policy on ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

"Questioning our policy on the war on terror is unpatriotic and emboldens the enemy". So when exactly will this war "end". I'm thinking at the very least a really long time. And during this neverending war everyone is supposed to just shut up because it's "unpatriotic"? Sounds real American to me. Very clever this rightwing propaganda machine.

I think Burt's on to something here. Who are those on both sides trying to protect? The docudrama I'd really like to see is one examining the long relationship between the House of Bush and the House of Saud, the two ruling families in the world today. I think the global war on terror is WAY more insidious than anyone imagines. That would be interesting, but for now we'll have to settle for all the political posturing, fearmongering and divisiveness that passes for discourse today.

Actually, I also think that... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Actually, I also think that Bush happens to be very challenged in the speaking arena, so technically anonymous' "we" is valid, even if his pockets are empty.

"Questioning our policy ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

"Questioning our policy on the war on terror is unpatriotic and emboldens the enemy".

I've heard it emboldens the enemy, which is true. I've not heard a Republican say it's unpatriotic. Feel free to provide a link.

And during this neverending war everyone is supposed to just shut up because it's "unpatriotic"? Sounds real American to me. Very clever this rightwing propaganda machine.

The right is bad because you invent things we say? Got it.

The docudrama I'd really like to see is one examining the long relationship between the House of Bush and the House of Saud, the two ruling families in the world today.

So you want a completely fictitious, non-existant conspiracy theory movie? Got it.

I think the global war on terror is WAY more insidious than anyone imagines. That would be interesting, but for now we'll have to settle for all the political posturing, fearmongering and divisiveness that passes for discourse today.

Says the guy who wants an absurd conspiracy movie.
-=Mike

"that with God's help, he w... (Below threshold)
Toberrt:

"that with God's help, he will get the pilots he needs for the attack." -- Er... wrong diety. Maybe with Allah's help, but God would not encourage such a dispicable act.

The first quote you referen... (Below threshold)
groucho:

The first quote you reference was not mine, but from another poster above. Where do I invent things "we" (got a turd in your pocket?) say? Are you suggesting there's no relationship whatsoever between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family? I'm pretty sure they go back quite a few years. I'm not making any wild claims, just curious.

Your dissection of posts and insertion of what I assume you must think are pithy intelligent comments are, in fact, neither and don't really add to the discussion. Got it?

Try and stay on topic.

Just finished reading the g... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Just finished reading the good ole Sunday San Jose Mercury "News" (we stopped subscribing 6 months ago...but we pick up a copy of the Sunday paper for the comics, etc., but I digress)

It was EXACTLY what I expected! The "Perspective" section features a full page article explaining why we should NOT be worried about the threat of alQueda, et al. It goes on and on explaining how we should just relax and watch the Cartoon Channel more (ok, I made that last part up).

It concludes that we faced bigger threats in the past...and winds up suggesting that WE are a bigger threat to US if we do fight back!! Thus, he concludes, we should all just relax.

The author's use of WWII as an analogy for doing NOTHING, ignored this truth:

In the years 1936-1939 the French watched the German military grow...but still KNEW that military to be but a fraction of the size of the Kaiser's military in 1918...and so didn't worry.

September 1, 1939 the Germans smashed into Poland, and although the French DID declare war...they did NOTHING!! Why? Because they had "faced bigger threats before" (poorly, I might add)

And so the French slept through the "Sitzkreig" that lasted from September 1939 to May 1940. They were confident that they had more or less withstood the onslaught of the Germans before...and with less of a defense (they now had the Maginot Line), and thus could easily hold out until their Allies saved them.

What they Germans couldn't accomplish in 4 YEARS in World War I, they accomplished in 6 WEEKS in World War II.

Times change. Saying THIS threat should be minimized to a nuisance because we face "bigger threats" before, ignores the fact that times DO change!

"If ABC shows this docu-... (Below threshold)
914:

"If ABC shows this docu-drama then every leftie on the planet should be up in arms"

Apparently they already are.

If only You lefties showed such enthusiasm and energy in fighting our real enemies..

If only You leftie... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:
If only You lefties showed such enthusiasm and energy in fighting our real enemies..

What a great quote!

They spend more time fighting to preserve their "legacy" than they do in fighting to preserve our country.

They spend far more time arguing economic numbers to tell us how "terrible" our economy is now compared to what it was when it was starting to tank under Clinton.

They never fail to object to how Bush speaks in public (or Publix for that matter), while ignoring any substance of what Bush has to say.

And this is the level of the debate that they offer, while ignoring the reality of a war that we are engaged at, willing or not.

Kim People make mistakes an... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

Kim People make mistakes and actual wrong assumtions,who do you blame for these action but people.These people who spent more time on inanities than actual problems,need to shoulder the blame.If you can't see that I feel sorry for you.Burger should be in jail,Madaline Albright is and was a light weight who had no business in the position she was put in period.It would be laughable if not for the amount of lives that were lost because of their incompetance.

Inre Bushes alledged speaki... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

Inre Bushes alledged speaking problems.I WOULD RATHER THAT THEN THE LIES AND BULL THAT CLINTON PUT OUT.I don't know about you but his message gets out loud and clear,only the lefts spin causes any misunderstanding.The problem with the left is that every one on the right is mentally challenged to them,funny the mentally challenged always seem to out wit you left morons.

I still wonder what Sandy B... (Below threshold)
Florence Schmieg:

I still wonder what Sandy Berger took out of the National Archives and destroyed. Combine that with this over the top furor over what is, essentially, just a movie, and anyone would begin to become a conspiracy theorist.

There was a full page add today in the New York Times for the movie.

ABC affiliate WEVV out of E... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

ABC affiliate WEVV out of Evansville, IN. is running a crawl stating that The Path to 9/11 will be seen at 10:00 rather than 7:00 as previously scheduled due to "explicit language". I wonder how many other ABC folks will pull the same Clintonesque stunt?

Drudge is running a headlin... (Below threshold)
Brent:

Drudge is running a headline now that says ABC has chopped 30 minutes out of tonight's airing.

Yeah, Bush failed to take A... (Below threshold)

Yeah, Bush failed to take Al Qaida seriously in his first 8 months in office. If someone sees this as equivalent to 8 years... so be it.

But Bush, and those who support fighting terrorism, even if they disagree with details, can say something that Democrats, and those involved in the Clinton administration, and the vast flock of anti-war ostriches can not say. That NOW they take it seriously.

The first quote you refe... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The first quote you reference was not mine, but from another poster above.

You say that as if I'm supposed to care.

Notice I don't attribute the quotes I reply to because all of you people are the same to me as it is.

Are you suggesting there's no relationship whatsoever between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family? I'm pretty sure they go back quite a few years. I'm not making any wild claims, just curious.

If by "relationship" you mean "they were leaders of countries who were allied", then yes, they had a relationship.

If you mean a real friendship, no, you don't really have a case.

Your dissection of posts and insertion of what I assume you must think are pithy intelligent comments are, in fact, neither and don't really add to the discussion.

They generated your reply. So, obviously, they did add to it.

ABC, as per usual, was gutless.
-=Mike

Path to 9/11 Part 1 was abo... (Below threshold)
clearwaterconservative:

Path to 9/11 Part 1 was about as interesting as watching bread dough rise. Dry and hard to follow.

Hope the docu-drama ABC does on Bush when he leaves office is more interesting (and more accurate).




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:

tips@wizbangblog.com

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