911 truth or fiction?

Censorship is not pretty. That is, except when Democrat mistakes are being portrayed. Then censorship is required!

You see, it’s ok to call Bush a liar, a murderer, even a Nazi, but don’t ever, ever, ever say that the Clinton Administration wasn’t fully focused on the war on terror! That’s crossing the line. Especially with an election coming up.

It happens to be true. Both that Clinton wasn't very focused on terror and that there's an election coming up. But the Bush administration also dropped the ball, (or was asleep at the wheel) when 9-11 happened. That's because the Bush administration didn't change anything when they came into office. 'They let it ride.' Of course, they came into office a little slowly, as you may recall, with the highly contested Bush win in Florida.

The saddest part of all of this is the amatuerish and clumsy way Democrats act these days.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid an election-year debate over who can best defend America, U.S. congressional Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the September 11 attacks that is critical of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his top aides.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the five-hour television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as "a work of fiction."

Reid and other leading Senate Democrats wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., urging him to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program." ~al reuters

I am shocked! Deeply shocked that a Democrat, a liberal of tolerant pedigree, would seem to stoop so low as to demand that a work of art be removed from broadcast simply because of it's political content. It smacks of McCarthyism. And we sir, do not tolerate such intolerance in this country! At least that's what I've heard.

Focus, focus, focus.

Democrats have again convinced themselves that they are on their way back to power. (Sweet comforting fabulous power!) But this inner reality is somewhat new and unstable. Nothing must be allowed to burst that little bubble of fantasy about victory in November. (Herein you find the reason why so many governments in the past have sought to silence the slightest murmer of contradiction.)

I find it hard to believe that all the recent news coverage over the last two weeks virtually proclaiming that Democrats will retake take both houses of congress are not the result of just a little bit of wishful thinking. But let them have their fantasies. Who knows?

What I find funny is that if it is so important to cancel this movie because it is factually inaccurate, or somehow slanted, then where were these same democrats demanding that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 be cancelled?

I also find it hard to believe that any hollywood production, I believe this was made by ABC Disney, could actually have a pro-bush agenda involved in the creation of such a 'docudrama'. For that matter, when has any made-for-TV-movie been 100% accurate?

ABC said its movie was not a documentary but a dramatization drawn from the official 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other materials.

"As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the film contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression," ABC said. ~al reuters
On the whole, even if the flaws in this movie are exactly what democrats say they are it is still propably far more accurate and positive than 98% of all the other stuff being made today in hollywood that is negative about Bush and Republicans. Democrats should just suck it up.

By the way, what was Sandy Berger stuffing in his pants at the National Archives? I'm even more curious now. What did he know and when did he know it?

Posted by Eric Simonson at September 7, 2006 11:51 PM
Comments
Comment #179727

Eric:
“Clinton wasn’t very focused on terror”

My Pet Goat.
Text Of Letter From Bill Clinton Lawyer To ABC Obtained

I think they should pull this movie. 9/11 was too big of a tragedy for anyone to get away with lying about it. It’s just like making a movie about the attack on Pearl Harbor and not trying getting all those facts straight.
Besides, as I remember it, you righties got your undies in quite a giant bundle over your own sacred cow in the form of a Ronald Reagan mini-series, isn’t that so? That was yanked from the schedule and never aired because of it’s many supposed inaccuracies, right? So then, why can’t the same thing happen when they want to lie about Clinton and the people in his administration in order to make Bushco look like they did no wrong?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #179728

Good post, Eric. Yes, the Democrats should find some other way to distract us from this movie. They should take the opportunity to say “Turn off the TV! Stop watching junk! Read a good book, fer pity’s sake! Here…here’s the 911 Commission Report. Read it for yourself. Don’t let some idiot at Disney tell you what it says.”

The Democrats may as well complain about the National Enquirer for putting two-headed Martian babies on its cover. Its all just entertainment.

This movie coming up probably doesn’t deserve the time it takes to watch the teasers. But now everyone is curious because it has riled the Democrats. Now its time to watch the Democrats wreck the train. We are, after all, a nation of rubber-necking voyeurs.

Posted by: Charles Adams at September 8, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #179729

Hi all,

I was about to go off the deep end there for a sec until I slowed down. Adrienne has a point that we conservatives did go off about the Reagan miniseries. But being that this docudrama is made by Hollywood, I doubt that Mr. Clinton will get hammered. What I see is the fringe Dems afraid of anything that might make the electorate call them out on how they will deal with terrorism. Most of the people I deal with have absolutely no faith in the UN, so going to that group for anything is pointless. If they were to say that they would bomb the snot out of them folks would feel that they are being patronized. I had a cow about the Reagan movie, but this is the USA and I felt that it should of been played. Ditto with this program. Let the people decide for themselves whether they want to see it or not. Or could it be that’s what the dems are afraid of?

Posted by: madness!! at September 8, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #179730

CBS pulls Reagan miniseries

Capping an extraordinary conservative furor over a movie virtually no one has seen, CBS said Tuesday it will not air “The Reagans” and shunt it off to the Showtime cable network instead.

“What I see is the fringe Dems afraid of anything that might make the electorate call them out on how they will deal with terrorism.”

What I see is Republicans afraid of losing the next election because of their failure to keep this country safe in every way we might possibly name.
And Democrats: the fringe, the center, and the middle are so damn sick and tired of your LYING about us, and SMEARING us constantly, and attempting to REWRITE HISTORY to cover for that mountain of failure.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #179731

Adrienne

Have you seen the show? How can you possibly know whether it is accurate or not.

As a matter of fact there is plenty of criticism to go around. Both administrations come off as making mistakes. The problem here is that Clinton & the Dems are trying to revise history by saying they never made a mistake when it came to the handling of Al Qaida and the terrorist threat.

Telling the truth is not slamming someone.

Posted by: Keith at September 8, 2006 1:16 AM
Comment #179735

wasn’t Michael Moore treaed as royalty at the Dem. national covention? Hooray for Mickey mouse!!

Posted by: Dwayne at September 8, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #179736

Keith:
“How can you possibly know whether it is accurate or not.”

Because Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer of this crock-u-drama is an avowed conservative activist.
Because he claimed in an interview that the film is “based on the 9/11 Commission Report” except that 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste has already pointed out that what he wrote in the film was not the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, and that scenes in the film are complete fabrications.
And because the writing of Joe Conason is truthful and he has seen the film.
And, if you really need more, because a conservative writer, a guy by the name of Richard Miniter who actually wrote a book called “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror” has admitted that the complaints being made by Clinton and many of his administration officials are totally justified, and that quite a few of the scenes in this crock-u-drama were cobbled together using what he called “Internet myth.”

That’s how I know the film is inaccurate — intentionally and consciously so.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #179737

These people who would like to rewrite history — revisionist historians is what I like to call them — should call their little show what it is: a right wing fantasy. Calling it a “docu-drama” might confuse the gullible into thinking it’s a dramatized documentary of actual events.

And let’s get serious here. Clinton was focused like a laser on terrorism. It was the Republicans who were runnin’ around like damned fools yellin’, “Wag the dog! Wag the dog!” and callin’ terrorism a “phony issue.”

Posted by: American Pundit at September 8, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #179739

So if you call Michael Moore “An out of control socialist weasel”, you are a conservative activist. Actually I would think that is pretty moderate, but that’s another story.

What the heck does that it mean when you say Joe Conason is truthful. If you say there is an Easter Bunny it must be true.

It’s amazing Michael “more cheeseburgers” Moore makes a work of absolute fiction that’s slams the Bush administration and they do not send out their attack dogs telling anyone not to show it.

To say that ABC/Disney one of the most liberal organizations in the entertainment industry is going to put on a piece of supposed right-wing propaganda is so ludicrous as to be laughable.

The left just can’t stand there standard bearer being shown as anything but the perfect guy they remember him to be.

Posted by: Keith at September 8, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #179741
It happens to be true. Both that Clinton wasn’t very focused on terror and that there’s an election coming up.

Good job Eric, and you even point to your own website as a source, to reinforce your distorted sense of reality. What, don’t you get enough hits; you have to put links on this blog to get visitors? Or is that the only source you have that agrees with you? But I remind you; Clinton did go after Bin Laden. As I recall Republicans accused Clinton of attempting to “wag the dog”, with his attempts to kill Bin Laden, or bomb a potential terrorist chemical plant. Republicans were far more concerned with Monica, than some stupid terrorist. You can’t have some dirty little terrorist get in the way of the big story the President was having sex!

That’s because the Bush administration didn’t change anything when they came into office.

Actually the Bush administration did demote Richard Clarke their anti-terrorist expert to a sub-cabinet post. As a cabinet member, his incessant ranting about some potential danger from some terrorist was becoming annoying. It was better to move Clarke out of the building, and away from the White House inner circle.

That a movie is being presented 5 short years after 9-11 is disappointing. I know I’m not ready for it. Reading the 9-11 report was enough for me, and I still get angry thinking about the attack and the analysis in the report.

The need for dramatization should not relieve the makers of this movie from the responsibility of being as historically accurate as possible. That being said, there will be 4 announcements made during the broadcasts that the movie is inaccurate and people will be fully informed of the potential flaws of the movie. I suspect that there will be some Bush supporters also upset with the movie after it is aired. But remember, it was all for dramatization purposes, after all it is just a movie.

Posted by: Cube at September 8, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #179744

Amen. Keep this blogs running so that we can keep both the House and Senate in control. I can’t stand these Dems acting like babies for the media.

Posted by: Ohio State Buckeye at September 8, 2006 2:41 AM
Comment #179746

Adrienne:

When asked how you can know that the ABC mini-series is untruthful, you replied, “Because Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer of this crock-u-drama is an avowed conservative activist.”

If you are willing to use that logic to decry the ABC mini-series, then you should have no problem with those who use the precise same logic to claim that Fahrenheit 911 is untruthful because Michael Moore, the writer of that crock-u-drama is an avowed liberal activist. The sword cuts both ways.

The Reagan mini-series was trashy, and CBS ended up not airing it. They did, however, air it on Showtime, a cable station, so it did receive air time on television.

In keeping free from hypocrisy, I’d agree that this mini-series appears to be very slanted to one viewpoint. Its not a balanced look at Clinton’s role in 9-11, but a more partisan one. Does it tell the accurate story? The answer to that question will depend solely upon whom you ask.

Just as I thought the Reagan mini-series was inaccurate and therefore being used to trash a former President, I’d see this one in the same light. I don’t agree with censorship, but I also don’t agree with one person’s opinions being presented as unassailable facts. That’s why I don’t go to Oliver Stone movies—they are his opinion of what happened with little regard for accuracy.

Adrienne, I don’t recall your stance on the Reagan series. I suspect that you supported CBS in their effort to show it—you can tell me if you did or not.

If you did support it, then you should support this one. If you assailed it, then you are free from hypocrisy in assailing this one.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 8, 2006 5:48 AM
Comment #179748

Eric, how does a person, if they wanted to, become a member of the Illuminati, so they can also know?

Charlie George

Posted by: Charlie George at September 8, 2006 6:17 AM
Comment #179753

AP

“And let’s get serious here. Clinton was focused like a laser on terrorism”

Hilarious comment,AP. This makes my Award list for sure!

Great sense of humor you have there,buddy. Terrific stuff.

The only thing he had a laser on was his zipper.World War Three was declared by OBL during his watch, and the guy didn’t even look up. Please.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 8, 2006 7:07 AM
Comment #179754

It would appear that Democrats and Republicans share at least one trait. Neither one likes it when something critical is said about one of their icons. Republicans protested the Reagan story, Democrats don’t like for people to make fun, or give a less than flattering portrayal of Bill Clinton. And, both gloat at the discomfort of the other side.

Both sides need to lighten up! They are movies for heaven’s sake. Not written from real life histories.

Sit back, enjoy the program(or don’t watch, your choice) and then make a valiant attempt to put out the “real” story.

I will say this, the Republicans don’t pretend to be as tolerant as Democrats. However, both sides are more noise than substance.

Posted by: John Back at September 8, 2006 7:24 AM
Comment #179757

From what I see and hear (even reading between the lines on the Dem position) this miniseries is about as accurate as these sorts of things get. The dramatization will make always cloud the issue.

The problem for Dems is that most of the planning and preparation for 9/11 took place during the Clinton Administration. Clinton seems to have reacted to the threat in a reasonable way, i.e. there were lots of threats out there and he didn’t anticipate that this one would be as dangerous as it turned out to be. How does this hurt Dems? Because the Bush Administration inherited exactly the same outlook.

The Democratic myth is that Clinton was working hard on the issue and then Bush dropped the ball, when in fact both Administrations behaved in a similar, rational and maybe a little lax way given the information available. Barring chance events, 9/11 would have probably unfolded in a similar way if Al Gore had been elected or if Clinton had stayed in office.

The whole Dem strategy is to focus attention only on Republican mistakes. It is sort of like watching only one side of a tennis match, counting each fault on the side you are watching and just assuming that the other side is perfect.

Nobody needs to attack Clinton or any other Dems to make them look bad. Just taking a look at the other side of the court will bring the perspective Dems are trying so hard to avoid.

BTW - Merry Fitzmas to all. I guess you can count Richard Armitage as part of the Administration, but he is hardly the political operative the Dems were after.

I suppose all the Dems will apologize to Karl Rove for all the nasty things they said about him and Wilson will be less enthusiastic about going after the leaker.

Posted by: Jack at September 8, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #179761

Jack, I’m not sure what to make of your comments. First off I’m not sure why you decided to reference the whole “Look, we finally got a patsy willing to fall on the grenade, three years after the pin was pulled” Dick Armitage thing. Furthermore, I’m not sure how you can claim that the Bush administration accepted the Clinton administrtaion’s take on the al-Queda situation at face value, considering how demonstrably at arms the Bushies were with the Clinton worldview. I know it’s too much to ask but maybe if you took a brief look back through the myth’s perpetuated in W’s name (WMD, Florida-2000, Iraq had anything at all to do with 9/11, Greeted as liberators, last throes of the insurgency, Ohio-2004, Staying the course, Not staying the course), perhaps you’d get a sense for what really happens when mythology is aggressively spun for a political cause. Never mind, I knew it was way too much to ask.

Posted by: DannyO at September 8, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #179763

While dramatizers of true events have some license to compress timespans, create new characters, and create new dialogue, they have an obligation, as long as they are claiming to represent true events and real people to portray the general character and certain specific events truthfully.

There was this family who was taken hostage by a bunch of criminals. Their plight became the subject of the old movie Desperate Hours. The family was portrayed as heroic standing up to the vicious criminals. Just one problem: it wasn’t true. The criminals were polite, and while brave in dealing with their temporary captivity, these people asserted they weren’t any heroes. They sued the studio for presenting them in false light and won.

More recently, the family of the Captain Billy Tyne sued the producers of the The Perfect Storm, asserting that the movie made him look like some sort of Ahab recklessly taking his men into danger aboard the Andrea Gale.

I’m not certain how that turned out, but the point is, the license to rewrite history, if you will, has its limits so long as you claim to be telling a true story. The public figures portrayed have a right to litigate if the movie outright misrepresents their actions, which it appears they likely did. The First Amendment does not protect speech that is both false and defamatory. It does not prevent people from suing when important facts about their lives and their actions have been misrepresented or fabricated in a defamatory light.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #179765

CBS Bows to Pressure, Pulling Reagan Miniseries
Accusations, concerns and threats put CBS in the hot seat over the Reagan miniseries. Buckling under pressure, CBS has pulled the miniseries and given the licensing rights to Showtime.

National advertisers were threatening to pull their ads and even advertisers on the local level voiced their concerns to network affiliates.

Questions surrounding historical inaccuracies as well as the four hour special’s portrayal of Reagan’s views on AIDS victims sparked the controversy. Michael Reagan, the former president’s son told Good Morning America, “What they’ve [CBS] done is try and strip the heart of Reagan away.”

Posted by: Art at September 8, 2006 8:52 AM
Comment #179766

Stephen -

If the “facts” are false, then those portrayed incorrectly will have their chance to change it in court, as you said. But let them PROVE that the “facts” are false. Don’t pull the program because some lacky SAYS they are false.

You said it yourself.

Posted by: Don at September 8, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #179770

SE, you said WWIII was started by OBL on his watch(Clinton), well actually you could go back to the Marine Corp Barracks attack where Reagan was pres, and what did he do, pull out and not do anything. MMmmm maybe it started there.

On the 911 abc made(key word) for tv movie, it is based on fact and fiction. Now both admins(clinton and king georges) had chances to take out key leaders of al qeada, but decided not to, why, we will never know. CBS pulled off the Reagan series from regular TV and put it on showtime, I did not see it because I do not subscribe to movie channels, so from my view it was a limited number of people who saw it. Maybe ABC needs to do the same thing and put it on it’s movie channel. Problem with TV it is paid for by sponsors paying for ad time, if you don’t like the show boycott the sponsors, or better yet turn the channel or turn off the tv.

9/11 happened no getting around that, and unfortunately a lot of innocent lives were lost. The 9/11 commission put the blame across the board on both Dem’s/Rep’s, FBI,CIA,NSA and the rest of the alpabet, but what bothers me is that what they(ABC) are doing is making a profit from the death of those killed. Maybe the families of those killed should sue ABC to get the profits from their family members death, like the law (and I forget what it is called right now), that say a criminal can not profit from his crimes while in prison. If you haven’t read the 9/11 report do so, and you can see where mistakes where made.

Posted by: KT at September 8, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #179782

KT
No, I stand by my statement. OBL declared war on us (except we didn’t notice it) during the Clinton years. The Lebanon barracks bombing was a completely different thing. A war was declared on us and even to this day, liberals are parsing the defination of world war.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 8, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #179786

Look, Italian bird-man, when OBL declared war on us your republicans were so busy attacking Bill you distracted the whole darn country from what the mujhadeen were doing. When Clinton launched those cruise missiles (into Sudan or Afghanistan, take your pick) he was accused of ‘wagging the dog’. The extreme fringe muslim extremist groups were kept off the radar because the press was kept busy for six out of eight years of Clinton’s presidency chasing down scandalous, inflammatory stories about our nation’s chief executive. I was in high school, my friend, and I remember it well.

Posted by: DannyO at September 8, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #179787

So… Clinton was offered up Bin Laden by the Sudanese Government after Bin Laden had attacked us. Clinton had every right to grab him and did nothing. He was given the time, place, plane tail number and means to take him or take him out, but he didn’t.

You can’t rationalize that. You can’t defend that. It’s 100% historical fact. Mansoor Ijaz, one of Clinton’s negotiators, has been ever so kind in revealing the facts. You take it, suck it up and move on. People make mistakes, but we should also note that ignoring them is even worse.

Yeah, both Presidents messed up. It’s interesting to see how both sides react with such bitterness.

Posted by: Matt at September 8, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #179790

Don-
This isn’t quantum phsyics. Clinton officials can point to actual historical inaccuracies, and can provide evidence to support their allegations. CBS would be foolish to risk a lawsuit by contradicting folks with proof in hand. The license to fictionalize is not a permit to rewrite history or portray people in a false light.

If you want to make a right-wing propaganda piece, you are welcome to create a completely fictional work to make your point. Otherwise, stick to the facts, even if your intention is to slant them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #179794

Matt,

The claim that Clinton was “offered up Bin Laden…and did nothing” is a lie that has been disproven for years. Please get your facts straight.

The 9-11 Commission found no “reliable evidence to support” the claim that Sudan made such an offer. This false claim originated in a 2002 article by the right-wing news site NewsMax.com that distorted a 2002 statement by Clinton. Lanny J. Davis, former White House special counsel to Clinton, pointed out that Hannity was lying, but Hannity persisted.

Here’s what the 9-11 Commission found:

Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 8, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #179795

Matt-
Not all that glitters is gold, Matt. The Clinton administration didn’t think the Turabi government, whose leader rode horses with Bin Laden, would honor any such agreement. You might want to cast it as a failure to take out a threat, but in reality, it’s about not rewarding people you think are liars and cheats.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration seems all to willing to let Pakistan essentially make Bin Laden off limits, and to listen to self-interested con artists like Chalabi. The Right can bluster about its better approach to Bin Laden, but the fact remains that it has failed to deliver on its big promises.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #179810

“Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer.”

If they say so, it must be true. I mean, the 9/11 commission was completely truthful too, right? How could a “Government-led” investigation ever be questioned?

Posted by: JamesD at September 8, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #179812

“Lanny J. Davis, former White House special counsel to Clinton”

Yeah, no agenda…

So I get it. If Clinton people say something, it’s the god-honest truth, never to be questioned.

Got it! Thanks.

Posted by: JamesD at September 8, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #179813

Where were these dems when Michael Moore was putting out his garbage?

And what about the sensorship issue?? Are the dems all for sensorship on public media now??

Here are the dems again, trying to protect all us stupid people who can not watch a television show and judge for ourselves if there are innacuracies or not. Just like they want us dum taxpayers to empty our pockets out to the government so they can spend the money with governement programs.

I do know one thing for sure…if George Bush had been president and received the call to authorize the capture or killing of OBL…he certainly wouldn’t have missed that opportunity while being too wrapped up in illicit love affairs!!

Posted by: Everett at September 8, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #179814

Jbod:
“When asked how you can know that the ABC mini-series is untruthful, you replied, “Because Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer of this crock-u-drama is an avowed conservative activist.”

If you are willing to use that logic to decry the ABC mini-series,”

Hold it right there, jbod. What was faulty about my logic? That fact was only one of four reasons I gave in my previous post. The man IS an avowed conservative activist and he is one who wrote a film that twists the facts about what Clinton did in the years leading up to 9/11. Did you read the link I put up on my first post? Those are all the things that Clinton says have been twisted in the movie. The former president is now backed up in saying those things are twisted by the people who worked directly with him, and by Richard Ben-Veniste who was on the 9/11 Commission.

“then you should have no problem with those who use the precise same logic to claim that Fahrenheit 911 is untruthful because Michael Moore, the writer of that crock-u-drama is an avowed liberal activist. The sword cuts both ways.”

Now I must question YOUR logic. First of all, Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn’t a made for TV movie to be shown free of charge to the entire American viewing public. Viewers of Moore’s movie had to PAY to get in if they wanted to see it. Secondly, Fahrenheit used documentary footage of 9/11 along with running comments by Moore, not actors. This means Moore’s film was a documentary, while the ABC film is a docu-drama (though judging by the number of people who say that the facts have been twisted, it now rates the name: crock-u-drama). Thirdly, Moore didn’t cut a deal with Scholastic to present this movie as entirely factual to children in high schools across this country and to link materials made for the classroom to be used in conjunction with this film. Btw, Scholastic has now announced that it is permanently withdrawing the materials it originally created for classroom use for “The Twisted Path to 9/11”, obviously because conservative misinformation as opposed to facts are clearly not the same things. Now, according to Scholastic President and CEO, Dick Robinson, these materials: “did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues.” Nice that they finally took the time to look into what rightwing propaganda they were about to feed to American high school kids across the country.

“The Reagan mini-series was trashy, and CBS ended up not airing it.”

No, it wasn’t because it was trashy that it wasn’t aired, it was pulled because conservatives called and wrote to the station.

“They did, however, air it on Showtime, a cable station, so it did receive air time on television.”

Pay television. Big difference — much smaller audience.

“Its not a balanced look at Clinton’s role in 9-11, but a more partisan one. Does it tell the accurate story? The answer to that question will depend solely upon whom you ask.”

And how honest they care to be. And how much they don’t want to lose the upcoming election. And how much they despise liberals and Democrats. Etc.

“I don’t agree with censorship, but I also don’t agree with one person’s opinions being presented as unassailable facts.”

I agree. Especially when they lie and try to claim that it isn’t their opinions, but is based entirely upon the 9/11 Commission Report when in very many cases isn’t the truth. And also when they’re trying to teach their opinions and that false claim as nothing but facts to America’s youth.

“That’s why I don’t go to Oliver Stone movies—they are his opinion of what happened with little regard for accuracy.”

True, but at the very least, one has to pay to get in. It’s also unlikely your kids will ever have to watch a Stone film for, or even in, their school.

“Adrienne, I don’t recall your stance on the Reagan series. I suspect that you supported CBS in their effort to show it—you can tell me if you did or not.”

Truthfully I don’t even remember if I had an opinion about it. All I remember is that conservatives were in extreme high dudgeon about some events that were in that film, and mounted a huge and obviously successful campaign to get it yanked before it was aired.
I also didn’t watch it when it was later aired on cable — not only because I don’t get pay-cable channels, but because the thought of watching a mini-series about Reagan sounds very boring to me. Besides, since I didn’t like him (I thought he was an actor and a phony who wanted to forget that his father had once collected public assistance during the Depression and had been employed on public works projects that were sponsored by the New Deal — elements of which he would later begin to dismantle) or his policies (Neocon) when he was president, so why would I ever subject myself to a rehash of that era?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #179815
I do know one thing for sure…if George Bush had been president and received the call to authorize the capture or killing of OBL…he certainly wouldn’t have missed that opportunity

You’re probably right. Bush has shown that he’s never let the law stand in his way when he decides that he wants to do something.

It’s irrelevant, of course, because there’s no evidence that Clinton ever received a serious offer of that sort.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 8, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #179822
Moore didn’t cut a deal with Scholastic to present this movie as entirely factual to children in high schools across this country and to link materials made for the classroom to be used in conjunction with this film.

Adrienne, I know you are upset with the ‘attack’ on a liberal icon, but don’t fall into the trap of misrepresenting facts in order to defend him, and in doing so attempt to defend Moore…

Moore made his ‘film’ freely available to schools and even offered up materials he wrote to be handed out to be used in discussing the film. He made the materials freely available on his website.

He made it as a documentary (presented as factual to everyone), made it freely available to schools (it was too important not to be seen by those who couldn’t afford it) and created and passed out materials to schools to be used while studying it (as long as they didn’t discuss the gross misrepresentations and innacuracies).

Sooo, how are they different again?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 8, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #179823

Jack:
“The Democratic myth is that Clinton was working hard on the issue and then Bush dropped the ball, when in fact both Administrations behaved in a similar, rational and maybe a little lax way given the information available. Barring chance events, 9/11 would have probably unfolded in a similar way if Al Gore had been elected or if Clinton had stayed in office.”

This is the Republican myth, not a Democratic one.
By all accounts Clinton WAS working hard on the issue and took it very seriously. And under Clinton, terrorism issues had gained INCREASING importance over time. This is why terrorists got caught coming in from Canada and didn’t get the chance to blow up LAX in 2000. Remember that? It was called the Millennium Plot — and it was foiled.
As for Gore, he would have taken it seriously too, rather than act as Bush did by brushing Clinton’s warnings off simply because he wasn’t a member of the GOP (the party who hated and attacked Clinton with every ounce of energy they had, and far too many of our tax dollars). And on a purely speculative note, I very much doubt that Gore would have had a photo op, or have entered that classroom in FLA. after knowing the first tower had been hit, then sat in an immobilized daze with My Pet Goat while the second tower was hit. Nor do I think Gore would have spent the next hours flying around from place to place while the American people wondered where the hell our president was that whole horrible day, and why he didn’t feel the need to make any kind of a statement to the country until eight-thirty in the evening. Gore is far too smart and responsible a person to ever act in such a way.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #179826

The following is not meant to be insulting to anyone:


You guys sound like bunch of fourth graders complaining about who stole who’s crayons. Seriously, its no wonder this country is failing. Is the finger pointing and name calling accomplishing anything? I think not. I suggest everybody here visit YouTube and check out Jon Stewart’s performance on Crossfire. That’s what came to mind after reading the first couple of posts.


That said, this is obviously a political ploy for the election season. Did Bush drop the ball on terrorism? Yes. Did Clinton drop the ball? Yes. Reagan? Yes. Carter? Probably, my knowledg gets blurry if I go back further than that. It seems to me that the question should be ‘Has AMERICA dropped the ball on terrorism?’ I answer that with an emphatic YES. From our policies of the past that helped forment the hatred that has fueled terrorism to the horrible policies of today, we as a country have been, and are being, played for fools. They (those in power) like nothing better than to keep us fighting amongst ourselves instead of working for comprehensive (ie, ‘Stay the course’, not comprehensive) solutions to the problems facing the world.

I could continue this rant, but I feel it’ll just fall on deaf ears. Sleep on that, folks.

Posted by: iCantFeelmyFace at September 8, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #179827

Rhinehold:
“Sooo, how are they different again?”

Because they carried the name Michael Moore and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, not Scholastic.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #179828
This is why terrorists got caught coming in from Canada and didn’t get the chance to blow up LAX in 2000. Remember that? It was called the Millennium Plot — and it was foiled.

Wrong. Adrienne, seriously, you know better than to fall into these traps!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4864792/

She says no one had told her anything about being on alert for terrorists.

“I don’t recall any specific threats,” she added. “I don’t recall anybody saying watch for terrorists.”

Customs officials confirm that no alert had gone out to the field.

The Clinton administration was at battle stations during this period, and that extraordinary effort helped foil al-Qaida plots against Americans in Jordan. But there’s simply no evidence that meetings in Washington stopped the planned attack on American soil.

In fact, senior counterterror officials attribute catching Ressam to good training and sheer luck.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 8, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #179830

Adrienne,

It must be ‘balance’ to point out that the Reagan miniseries, which was meant to be a slanted hit piece on Reagan, was pulled. But you need to realize that Reagan was a saint, and likely the greatest President we’ve ever had. In fact, if this was Rome he would have been deified by now.

The funny thing is that Democrats have now ensured that this may be the most watched ABC miniseries in awhile. Without all their attention maybe no one would have paid any attention to it. But then maybe democrats needed something to demagogue for the election to keep lazy democrat voters interested?

The show, by all accounts is not pro-bush by any means:

Does the show (scheduled to air Sunday and Monday nights) focus mainly on the Clinton Administration’s failings more than the Bush Administrations? Yes, for a good reason. The miniseries spans eight years. For all but eight months of that span, Bill Clinton was President. You do the math. And while the miniseries obviously invents dialogue and dramatizes events, the bipartisan commision’s chair himself, Thomas Kean, consulted  and signed off on it.

The irony for me is that, after visiting the production while filming in Toronto and seeing the finished miniseries, I thought that the show would anger, if anyone, Bush supporters. While it’s true that the Clintonistas get more unflattering screen time, the movie’s most horrifying takeaway, as I wrote in TIME, indicts the Bush administration. ~time

Go figure. That writer is fired from the illuminati as far as I’m concerned. We will have to have Rove have a ‘talk’ with him.

For the record, there was no Clinton “War on Terror”. Clinton’s terror efforts were just another part of the law enforcement apparatus.

Posted by: eric simonson at September 8, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #179831


Charlie George,



Eric, how does a person, if they wanted to, become a member of the Illuminati, so they can also know?



Well, I’m sorry to say that it usually by invitation only. (With very rare exceptions.) But if you want to forward to me your full name, address, medical and full financial records, as well as family history going back seven generations, I can look into it for you. I can’t promise anything however.



Posted by: eric simonson at September 8, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #179834
Clinton’s terror efforts were just another part of the law enforcement apparatus.

And mostly failed ones at that. The one I have seen used in this article’s comments the most is the attack on the Sudaneese plant. The funny thing is that this plant was a joint effort by al Qaeda and Iraq. And the same people using it as defense of Clinton go on to say that there was never any operational ties by these two groups ever. Blatantly false, even the 9/11 commission debunks that argument but it still gets repeated much much more than the ‘Iraq was being 9/11’ innacuracies…

ICantFeelMyFace was right, AMERICA screwed up (and is still screwing up) how we deal with terrorists. I just think we’re screwing up less now and instead overstepping into privacy issues and further oppressing our own citizens for the impossible attempt at full security, by both sides.

I’m not sure which one I like better (or less worse)

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #179835

“They (those in power) like nothing better than to keep us fighting amongst ourselves instead of working for comprehensive (ie, ‘Stay the course’, not comprehensive) solutions to the problems facing the world.”

Sorry, but it is the Republicans are the ones trying to re-write history, and who have actually made 9/11 into a divisive issue.
There is no left-wing equivalent to Ann Coulter attacking the women who lost their husbands that horrible day because they demanded an independent commission to look into the entire event. You just won’t see people on the left attacking anyone who also lost their family members but who have sided and who agree with the president in all things — because it’s indecent and cruel. We have not been calling Republicans traitors to America either, no matter how how unwise, stupid and foolish this administration and Congressional majority seems to us that we can’t believe anyone would think they’ve been doing a good job in almost anyway you could name, including terrorism, for our country.
Democrats do not want this level of division or think it helpful. It is the Republicans who have been demanding that division and who obviously think it’s the only way they can win elections.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #179837
Sorry, but it is the Republicans are the ones trying to re-write history, and who have actually made 9/11 into a divisive issue.

…..?????

Wow. All I can say is …. Wow.

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #179842

Rhinehold that’s one half of the story.

Here is the other half:
Interview James Steinberg
(Deputy U.S. National Security Adviser under Clinton)
And:
Other Millennium Attacks Planned

Furthermore, Richard Clarke in his book said much the same things that Steinberg said in that Frontline interview.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #179848

What story is that, Adrienne? There was no warning issued, the agent held him because he was suspicious.

Even in the interview you link to it admits this:

There was considerable luck involved. … It was not an intelligence success. It was not a case where, because of good intelligence practice, counterintelligence, counterterrorist practice, that we had identified individuals and were able to track them and then intercept them. And I think an important lesson will be, and was taken, is what did we know, what did the government of Canada and the U.S. government know, what should we, might we have [done beforehand to lessen] the risk that such a person should be able to operate and get as far as he did? …

Yes, the government was holding meetings and were very concerned, but that is the point. Just because they are doesn’t mean anything. Unless the agents in the field are given the information, which they weren’t in this case, those meetings do very little.

And yeah, EVERYONE was on higher alert before the millinium, just as a matter of course, unless you were living in a cave (and there were a few people I know who were thinking about it…)

But the sad reality is that this is another example of the government thinking that they have more control over us than they really do. That if something happens (or doesn’t happen) it’s because of them. In reality, most people only think of the government if they are doing their taxes or trying not to get arrested. James Steinberg’s interview is riddled with this sort of self-importance, trying to puff up his own ego and take credit for something they had NOTHING to do with.

As for Clarke, his own narcissism is so far beyond the pale that I’ve had a hard time being able to accept anything he says at face value anymore without having to check it up myself. From inserting himself after the fact into situations he wasn’t involved in initially to accusing someone of being wrong about something they never said he has always appears as only out for himself in everything he does…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 8, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #179849
because he was suspicious

Sorry, should have been ‘she’. No slight meant against women everywhere…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #179853

“Wow. All I can say is …. Wow.”

Funny, I say the same thing when I hear prominent Republicans like Rumsfeld comparing those who disagree with their Iraq debacle to Nazi appeasers and tells us we’re morally and intellectually confused about right and wrong. And then the president’s remarks back that up the next day. Or when the vice president says that’s it’s essential to vote Republican or risk getting “hit again” — even though it somehow escapes him (and many other Republicans obviously) that the GOP was in power when we were attacked on 9/11.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #179854

I guess it just comes down to who you’re going to believe, Rhinehold. All I know is that Clarke is the only one who admitted guilt and apologized to the nation for letting us down on 9/11. That’s something we all know we’ll never get from the Neocons, instead, they just give us excuses.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #179855

Adrienne, I would agree with you about republicans…

So you are now placing yourself in the same catagory as Rumsfeld and Bush…?

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #179857

No, Clarke did not do that. He apologized that the American Government let the people down because those in power wouldn’t listen to him.

It’s a very major difference.

Again, another shining example of his extreme narcissism.

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #179858

As for ‘who are you going to believe’, I think that believing the US Customs agent and the Agency about what the Agency did and what they knew at the time is the better option over politicians scrambling to take credit for everything and anything they can to make themselves look good, especially when they have egos larger than rock stars and hollywood actors…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #179859

No left wing equivalent for Ann Coulter?? Did you forget Cindy Seehan???

Al Quida incidents on Clinton’s 93-2001 watch:

1) World Trade Center bombing 93.

2) Two US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania 98.

3) USS Cole bombing 10/2000.

Anymore questions as to who was more asleep? At least Bush did/has taken “decisive action”!

Posted by: Centaur at September 8, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #179864

Censorship is no good, no matter who practices it. Nobody tried to shut down that pack of lies Michael Moore put out before the ‘04 election.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 8, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #179866

“A chill wind is blowing across this land…”
—noted Stalinist actor Tim Robbins before the National Press Club in 2004

Project much, lefties?

Posted by: nikkolai at September 8, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #179869

Look Rhinehold, you can think any damn thing you want to about Clarke (I like the guy), but there is no disputing three very important differences between the way that Clinton was focusing on terrorism and the way that Bush did when he took power.
1. Clinton had a cabinet level counter-terrorism czar. Bush didn’t.
2. Clinton had regular, routine meetings with the people who were focusing on issues of terrorism for his administration. Bush didn’t.
3. Clinton authorized Clarke to go on heightened security alert in December of 1999. Bush didn’t in the summer of 2001.
Even when Condi knew and supposedly shared info with Bush that “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” they didn’t. We also know from the 9/11 commission that Ashcroft didn’t want to hear anything about Al Qaeda from the acting FBI director. Bush and his people dropped the ball on 9/11. Period.

So to claim that Clinton wasn’t focused, and/or to suggest that Bush somehow was, is truly ridiculous, in my opinion.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #179873

Same Republican strategy: They see their weakness, accuse the democrats of being guilty of exactly the same, and at worst it’s a ‘he said - she said’ wash at election time.

Exactly the same as the swift boating of Kerry.

Will it work? You bet.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 8, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #179879

“No left wing equivalent for Ann Coulter?? Did you forget Cindy Seehan???”

It’s Sheehan, and I don’t recall her attacking anyone who lost their families on 9/11, or calling any conservative a traitor or “godless”, or saying that the only way to talk to a conservative is through acts of violence against them.
That woman in the beginning only wanted to have a conversation with the president. He refused that request then, and has again, and again and again, despite the fact that her son, a US Marine, died in our president’s misbegotten Iraq war. Cindy Sheehan would have been just another mother speaking out against the war on some website had Bush allowed her to come in and talk to him. But because all she has been met with is a cowardly refusal to discuss the reason for the war, she decided to be a thorn in his side, and thus, became a cause celebre.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #179883
So to claim that Clinton wasn’t focused, and/or to suggest that Bush somehow was, is truly ridiculous, in my opinion

Adrienne, I never once said anything about Bush or his cabinet, nor did I assert that Bush was focused on terrorism.

My only comments have been that Clinton failed in many areas in terrorism (and I said in these comments that so did Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II).

You are missing the boat, that Clinton CAN and MUST be held responsible for those things he didn’t do as well as the things he did and your partisanship is just getting in the way. In fact, it went all the way to defending Moore who should be ostracized by the left instead of embraced.

Those on the left are so intent on getting Bush that they are making the mistake of forming their opinions and ideas around that notion instead of something more grounding. In doing so they are losing themselves in a morass of bitterness and hatred that started the day after the 2000 elections and hasn’t stopped since.

You can like Clarke all you want, but don’t confuse liking someone with assuming that everything they say is true or right. Clarke has been wrong on several occasions and is not above doing what he can to make himself look good. That’s how it goes. And many will support the ones on their side of the aisle while daming those on other without regard for logic, common sense or facts.

You can think that Clinton did a ‘bang up job’ but he didn’t. He may have done better than Bush, he may not, that’s besides the point. His record stands on it’s own and it is a wobbly one indeed.

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #179884

How can something be true when it has, by ABC’s admission “fictionalized scenes, composite and representational characters, and dialogue and time compression”?

and About Clinton being distracted…sabotaged by Republicans is a more apt description

http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

Posted by: 037 at September 8, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #179885
That woman in the beginning only wanted to have a conversation with the president

She did have one. She wanted another one. You make it sound as if the President never spoke to her at all.

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #179886
How can something be true when …

It can’t and shouldn’t be considered so. It’s the liberals who are demanding it must be so…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #179887

As for there not being a liberal ‘counter’ to Coulter, that’s laughable to the nth degree, Adrienne. You just refuse to accept those who are, claiming that they don’t speak for the majority of liberals and then account all that Ann says as being what conservatives believe.

Two-party politics are destructive in this day and age of easy information flow and they only serve those who are intellectually lazy.

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #179891

I don’t recall the Bush administration threatening censorship on Michael Moore’s propaganda piece before the ‘04 election. Why this censorship now?

Methinks that Bubba doth prostest too much.

And what were in those code black security documents that Sandy Berger stuffed down his pants? Hmmmmmm….This is all going to be devestating to Bill’s legacy.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 8, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #179896

“Two-party politics are destructive in this day and age of easy information flow and they only serve those who are intellectually lazy.”

This is funny! So, Rhinehold everyone who belongs to the two major parties is just intellectually lazy? Yeah, you Libertarians are really in the process of healing America’s divisions… not. Maybe because so many of you sound just like Republicans the way you’re always attacking liberals and finding excuses for GOP stupidity and incompetence and corruption.
Well, I’m done here. Just let me clear a few things up before I go:

“Adrienne, I know you are upset with the ‘attack’ on a liberal icon”

Clinton is far from an icon for me. There are a great many things he did while in office I didn’t approve of or consider good decisions. But one thing I will give him credit for is for seeing that terrorism was a growing threat to our nation, and took it seriously.

“You are missing the boat, that Clinton CAN and MUST be held responsible for those things he didn’t do as well as the things he did and your partisanship is just getting in the way.”

No it isn’t. I never claimed that Clinton did a perfect job. The 9/11 commission clearly outlined the ways in which things could have been better handled. I have no interest in defending things that needed (and still need) fixing.

“In fact, it went all the way to defending Moore who should be ostracized by the left instead of embraced.”

Where have I defended Moore? Nowhere.

“As for there not being a liberal ‘counter’ to Coulter, that’s laughable to the nth degree, Adrienne. You just refuse to accept those who are, claiming that they don’t speak for the majority of liberals and then account all that Ann says as being what conservatives believe.”

There is no liberal who talks about perpetrating violence like Coulter that still gets to go on television and spout off like she should be taken seriously. If you know of one, please name them now. There is no liberal version of Foxnews that gives unlimited airtime to systematically attacking conservatives every single day of the year. As for what conservatives believe about liberals, you see what Bush and Rummy and Cheney and Rove all think of us — are we supposed to overlook their comments? Are liberals on this blog, including myself, supposed to just overlook being called a traitors and disloyal to America, and all kinds of other extremely negative things so often? Please, it’s no stretch for any of us to make a judgement call on what conservatives and Republicans truly believe.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #179899
The one I have seen used in this article’s comments the most is the attack on the Sudaneese plant. The funny thing is that this plant was a joint effort by al Qaeda and Iraq. And the same people using it as defense of Clinton go on to say that there was never any operational ties by these two groups ever. Blatantly false, even the 9/11 commission debunks that argument but it still gets repeated much much more than the ‘Iraq was being 9/11’ innacuracies…

What an outrageous lie, Rhienhold.

How can you claim that the Sudanese plant was “a joint effort by al Qaeda and Iraq” when we know in retrospect that it was a harmless pharmecutical plant? Please cite a source for this nonsense.

Was the bombing of that plant a mistake? Absolutely. Was it as big a mistake as going into Iraq? Absolutely not.

As to the “operational ties” between al Qaeda and Iraq, perhaps you missed the news today:

Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties

Posted by: Burt at September 8, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #179901

Just because it hit the ap wire today does not make it news. That report came out almost two years ago. Recycled outrage, indeed.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 8, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #179903

Adrianne quotes:

“There is no liberal version of Foxnews that gives unlimited airtime to systematically attacking conservatives every single day of the year”.
===============================================
Oh, does Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, former clown sports news person, turned “serious news anchor” ring a bell???

Posted by: Centaur at September 8, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #179910
Just because it hit the ap wire today does not make it news. That report came out almost two years ago. Recycled outrage, indeed.


This is the second part of the analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. This was the report that was delayed till after the 2004 election, because they didn’t want it to influence the election. Two years later and they still only released part of it. If I remember correctly, Phase II of the report was supposed to specifically discuss if the evidence was manipulated in the run up to the Iraq war. That part of Phase II has still yet to be declassified. Hmm, I wonder why.

Posted by: JJ at September 8, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #179913

I am very, very, very sick and tired of the whimpering and whinning from the democratic party. These are suppose to be elected representatives from the various states. Michael Moore was allowed to present his movie of 9/11. I saw it on television. Therefore, I would like to see this version of 9/11. President Bush did not drop the ball, it was President Clinton who fail the American people while he was president. He did not follow through while he was on watch; end of story.

Posted by: Yocheved Cook at September 8, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #179914

I am very, very, very sick and tired of the whimpering and whinning from the democratic party. These are suppose to be elected representatives from the various states. Michael Moore was allowed to present his movie of 9/11. I saw it on television. Therefore, I would like to see this version of 9/11. President Bush did not drop the ball, it was President Clinton who fail the American people while he was president. He did not follow through while he was on watch; end of story.

Posted by: Yocheved Cook at September 8, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #179915

I am very, very, very sick and tired of the whimpering and whinning from the democratic party. These are suppose to be elected representatives from the various states. Michael Moore was allowed to present his movie of 9/11. I saw it on television. Therefore, I would like to see this version of 9/11. President Bush did not drop the ball, it was President Clinton who fail the American people while he was president. He did not follow through while he was on watch. End of story.

Posted by: Yocheved Cook at September 8, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #179919

Oh, no, Eric, you got to go through the Freemasons or the Pentamaret before they accept you into the Illuminati. You’d enjoy the vacation at “The Meadows” and the lifetime supply of the Colonel’s Special Recipe Chicken for sure(You’ll crave it fortnightly, smartass!). You might even get to see the historical exhibit on Jack the Ripper.

(Apologies to The Illuminatus! Trilogy, From Hell, and So I Married an Axe Murderer)

Seriously, now, if you follow the links, you’ll find the takeaway that indicts Bush is that despite everything, he has not implemented most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations.

The Clinton Administration much more active in dealing with the terrorist than the Bush administration ever was. It wasn’t perfect, and politics often intervened, but even so, if you compary the first 9 Months of the Bush administration, you’ll find that they were nowhere near as responsible.

The dark little secret of the right is that rogue states occupied more of the right-wings attention, when they were focused on foreign policy and not foreign objects interacting with Monica Lewinsky. Even now that the Republicans have gotten hold of policy, the rogue state fixation seems to remain. We’re still doing missile defense. Bush and the GOP were drumming up things about North Korea and Iran before 9/11, and they did so after. The Bush administration could care less about working out diplomatic relationships that extend our reach. They’re looking to take our armies on an adventure of conventional warfare against an enemy employing just about any means but.

What makes the movies’s takeaway disturbing is that Bush has the benefit of the world’s sharpest hindsight on this issue, and yet he’s not dealing with the issues at hand. The War in Iraq is all that’s holding up Bush’s reputation on Terrorism. Without it, (even with it, as some would argue) he has mostly failures.

Everett-
Bush was personally read a memo by a CIA agent entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within United States.” His response to the briefer was to reassure him that he had covered his ass.

When told that the evidence concerning the Cole attack indicated Bin Laden was responsible, Bush’s response was to do nothing. He said he didn’t want to simply send cruise missiles to pound the sand, I believe. He offered no alternative plan.

Asked repeatedly by Richard Clarke to get a cabinet level meeting concerning the terrorist threat, Bush’s response was to wait until Sept. 4 to set up such a meeting. It only addressed the deputies of the cabinet officials.

It is indeed true that we, our interests and our allies were attacked a number of times during the Clinton Administration. Attacks like those, though, also occured in the Reagan and Bush Administrations.

More to the point, It was Clinton who first faced up to the challenge of dealing with a terrorist network that was not the brainchild or client of any one nation, a nation whose sanctioning could put the brakes on their activities. al-Qaeda was a new kind of threat that transcended borders much the way modern corporations do.

Clinton’s response was insufficient. We know that now. But, Bush’s insufficient response is much more inexcusable. First off, we’ve experienced this attack once. That should be all the motivation we would ever need to enact reform. Secondly, Bush had easy political backing for reasonable counterterrorism measures, bipartisan support for security measures to deal with our enemies. He doesn’t have Clinton’s excuse of a hostile, distracted congress with little public backing for improvement on security.

Instead, Bush has chosen to fixate on a war marginal to any reasonable defense against terrorism, with claims that we can actually get al-Qaeda to lead every one of their useful soldiers to die in Iraq; that, as opposed to using 19 or 20 to undertake a spectacular attack here.

Bush has no excuse to have failed to learn 9/11’s lessons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #179920

“it was President Clinton who fail the American people while he was president”

Wrong!
It was a well orchestrated TERRORIST plan designed to kill Americans. It is a problem that we have ignored for many years and that decision came back and kicked us in the teeth. Trying to put all of the blame onto one person is nothing but partisan BS and does nothing to help prevent the next one.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #179922

News Flash…

Docu-dramas are NEVER accurate.
The movie about Reagan was trash.
Michael Moore’s little spoof was trash.
This one is probably trash.

The facts that I’ve seen today on this site lead me to believe that inaccuracy doesn’t matter, it’s the President about whom it is inaccurate that matters.

Where’s the liberal outrage about the Reagan movie? Where’s the liberal outrage about Michael Moore’s movie? Where’s the liberal outrage about the terrorists? None. None. None.

The terrorists, for their own reasons, caused 9/11, not the presidents. Assigning guilt to a president is akin to blaming a rape victim for being raped… “She shouldn’t have been out alone.” The guilt belongs to the terrorists.

Could our presidents have done more to prevent the attacks? (Probably - when you’re looking back with 20/20 hindsight). Would you have done better if you were president? (Probably not.)

The road to 9/11 was paved with many goofs and many missed opportunities. Some policies of the US were wrong, some were right but interpreted wrongly. Etc. Nevertheless, the terrorists do not follow laws, conventions, proper channels, or any other rules that govern nations. They are lawless, ruthless, and dangerous. They have attacked us many times and will continue to do so until they are destroyed or made ineffective.

So, THEY are the enemy. If “The Road to 9/11” helps us to see that THEY are the enemy, I’m all for it.

Posted by: Don at September 8, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #179933

“There is no liberal who talks about perpetrating violence like Coulter that still gets to go on television and spout off like she should be taken seriously. If you know of one, please name them now. There is no liberal version of Foxnews that gives unlimited airtime to systematically attacking conservatives every single day of the year.”

I’ve heard this many times from the left and they always seem to be a little jealous. One has to wonder if they don’t have a liberal version of Fox News, why? Can’t George Soros afford to set one up? That’s right he’s too busy supporting Air America, the liberal’s answer to Rush Limbaugh.

Or maybe it’s because the market forces won’t support a liberal station. Maybe people won’t support sponsors of these liberal stations.

Posted by: tomd at September 8, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #179935

Whatever happened to the famous liberal concern for freedom of speech? Did it die when free speech make you guys look bad? Even if it is lies does it mean they can’t say it? How about all the stikkleback from Michael Moore? Or is he 100% truthful? How about Al Franken? Lets see some consistency before I give any credibility.

Posted by: Silima at September 8, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #179937

Here is the bottom line that will be revealed in the natural course of time.

1. Saddam had WMD’s
2. Saddam had ties to Al-Queda
3. Bush and the Democrats had the same ntel therefore if Bush lied, as those who believed him to have, then the same democrats lied. They were all saying the same thing. I believe bush did not lie.
4. Those who want to set timetables, cut and run, and so on are playing political gemes to get re-elected or elevated. They know full well that what they advocate would be damaging to our military.
5. Joe Wilson outed his wife through his normal course of activity in life. Richard Armitage probably mentioned her name, but that was after JW outed his wife.

Have a great weekend everyone.

Posted by: tomh at September 8, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #179945

tomh,

Thanks for presenting a list of 4 things are known to be absolutely untrue as points of fact. The only one that isn’t factually false is #4, because that’s purely speculative opinion. Thanks, though, for putting it in context of the 4 blatant mistruths so that no one would mistake it for a reasonable comment.

Thanks for letting us know that you prefer to base your arguments on the hope that, one day, things known to be true will be false, that up will be down, and that black will be white.

It’s right up there with your claim that trying to treat creationism as a scientific idea isn’t wacky.

Thanks.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 8, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #179946
Just because it hit the ap wire today does not make it news. That report came out almost two years ago. Recycled outrage, indeed.

Yes. It’s been well known by most people for a long time that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda, yet those falsehoods are still repeated here in the red column. Why is that?

Posted by: Burt at September 8, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #179947
Or maybe it’s because the market forces won’t support a liberal station.

This is probably true. Only because, to be a liberal, one is usually of a more open mind. So liberals like to receive their news as unslanted as possible in order to make their own determinations. Or, at the very least, they like to hear both sides of the issue.

The same can not be said for many of those who tune in to Fox News.

Posted by: Burt at September 8, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #179948

You guys bringing up Michael Moore are comparing apples and oranges.

Moore’s film was clearly commentary. He narrated the whole thing, and he is a public figure who is well known to be left of center. It was clear that the issues being presented were Michael Moore’s interpretations of events and the viewer was allowed to accept or reject those interpretations.

The ABC 9/11 show is being presented as unbiased and as accurate as possible. Will ABC be presenting the resume’ and political history of the writer so that viewers can decide for themselves how biased or unbiased the material is? No, of course not.

The only other possibly accurate comparison is the Reagan docudrama, which as has been pointed out, was pulled from airing by catcalls from the right.

ABC has every right to make this movie and present it any way they wish. And those who are being depicted unfairly have every right to say so and ask for it to be changed, pulled from air, or shown with heavy disclaimers.

Posted by: Burt at September 8, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #179952

Liberals have open minds? Perhaps in the days before the current leaders. Not since. Liberals are all for free speech as long as it is within ththeir agenda or under their control. As long as it is liberal speech. However, if it is in any way conservative, it is hate speech and must be stopped. how many liberal speakers have been stopped from appearing on university or college campuses by outcries from the right? How many conservatives have been stopped by the left? Google it and see that the ratio is way out of balance. How many times has a campus newspaper been stolen from the racks or otherwise kept from circulation by the right? How many by the left? Google that one.

Come on libs, ‘fess up. You are not nearly as open minded and tolerant as you would like to make people believe. If you doubt that, look at some, or most, of the writers on the political blogs. When you start screaming about the horrible neocon, Bushie, Repubs, etc, I am minded of Shakespeare “Methinks you do protest too much”.

Posted by: John Back at September 8, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #179955

“Or maybe it’s because the market forces won’t support a liberal station. Maybe people won’t support sponsors of these liberal stations.”

It’s all about ownership and has little to do with support.

You can’t tell me Ed Shultz or Olberman wouldn’t carry carry enough support.

I don’t agree with the far left or the far right. I consider myself moderate (left leaning on some issues and right leaning on others). I can clearly see a severe bias in Fox news. News should be facts that are reported and that’s it. Both sides are guilty of slanting their reporting but FOX is like a propaganda machine for the GOP.


Posted by: Tom l at September 8, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #179958

Just curious.

Exactly what did Bush do any different from Clinton in the first 9 months of his presidency leading up to 9/11.

The answer…..exactly NOTHING different. He never even mentioned terrorism or Saddam once in those months or during the election.

Posted by: Ron M at September 8, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #179960
Liberals have open minds? Perhaps in the days before the current leaders. Not since. Liberals are all for free speech as long as it is within ththeir agenda or under their control. As long as it is liberal speech.

No, you’re wrong. As I stated, ABC has every right to make the film however they want. But those who consider it to be inaccurate, have every right to protest.

However, if it is in any way conservative, it is hate speech and must be stopped.

Nobody is calling it “hate speech”. Do you even know what the phrase means? We are simply calling it inaccurate.

how many liberal speakers have been stopped from appearing on university or college campuses by outcries from the right? How many conservatives have been stopped by the left? Google it and see that the ratio is way out of balance. How many times has a campus newspaper been stolen from the racks or otherwise kept from circulation by the right? How many by the left? Google that one.

My Google is broken. How about citing your own sources for how many college newspapers get taken - as if it was in any way relevant to the discussion.

Come on libs, ‘fess up. You are not nearly as open minded and tolerant as you would like to make people believe. If you doubt that, look at some, or most, of the writers on the political blogs. When you start screaming about the horrible neocon, Bushie, Repubs, etc,

I’m sorry. Are “neocon” and “Repubs” insults now? Has your party sunk that low? If you would like to actually post a reference to intolerant behavior, you might make your point better.

I am minded of Shakespeare “Methinks you do protest too much”.

May I recommend that you stay in school until you can quote Shakespeare correctly?

Posted by: Burt at September 8, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #179965

Lawnboy said:

“Thanks for presenting a list of 4 things are known to be absolutely untrue as points of fact.”

He was responding to tomh who said (among other things):

“3. Bush and the Democrats had the same ntel therefore if Bush lied, as those who believed him to have, then the same democrats lied. They were all saying the same thing.”

and

“5. Joe Wilson outed his wife through his normal course of activity in life. Richard Armitage probably mentioned her name, but that was after JW outed his wife.”
——
But tomh list was accurate in the following ways:

RE: 3. The ignorant Democrats DIDN’T READ the reports Bush made available for them to read so they didn’t KNOW the same “ntel” that Bush had. Therefore they couldn’t lie, they were merely ignorant. But why then were they saying the same things he said? They should have kept their ignorant mouths shut.

RE: 5. Armitage spilled the beans about V.Plame. That was learned in the first few days of the investigation. The leaker was told not to say anything about his role in the outing of Plame. But the investigation went on for months and a reporter spent time in jail for not revealing sources. Then, with a huge media storm it was announced that someone was caught lying about something and that that person would be charged with perjury. All this because the investigators didn’t stop when they learned the truth that the Bush admin had nothing to do with it. Big false political story.

But I don’t know why they’re using this thread to talk about those things…

Posted by: Don at September 8, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #179966

tomh
GOOD GRAVY! Do you actually believe that? I would identify myself as a center-right Christian and I can see its a load of garbage. Do you party a favor and stop making a fool of it.

As for media bias, Fox is undeniably conservative. duh. Thats not news to anyone. To say that all networks are either conservative or unbiased is either biased or naive. Most network news shows I watch blame Bush for just about everything and appear to make a deliberate attempt to disparage him. Anyway thats what I see. Maybe I’m the biased one.

If the show lies or not probably depends on your point of view. If you’re a Republican, you will probably accept it as truth. If your a democrat you will probably see lies. Its all in how you see it, now whats actually there. If dems see lies thats their problem. If reps see truth they have a right to show what they see under freedom of speech. The network should put a disclaimer telling viewers the show contains some fiction. But it should be shown.

Posted by: Silima at September 8, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #179969

Silma
If Michael Moore made a “docudrama” about 9/11 should ABC(or CBS or NBC) show it?

Posted by: mark at September 8, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #179975

It seems to me that the Democrats are afraid of the American people finding out something. What are they scared of? Censorship by any party is wrong. If the Democrats are going to force anyone to stop Contitutional rights to free speech over a movie, what are they planning if they ever get power back? Will the people be shut down whenever they see fit? What causes me some worry is future censorship by the party that claims to be for the ” little guy.” This whole attempt to shut ABC up will hurt the Democrats bigger then the movie. They should have let it go and shut up.

Posted by: George at September 8, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #179990

At the following link, there is an artical which discribes changes to the 9/11 miniseries due to air this Sunday on ABC.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060909/tv_nm/sept11_abc_dc;_ylt=AmAny3rfAOAahMKQIeIhol0EtbAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhZDJjOXUyBHNlYwNtdm5ld3M-

This artical contains the following paragraph, refering to the misrepresentations previously in the series, which blame the Clinton Administration for “dropping the ball” on OBL in the 1990s.


“The newspaper quoted one unidentified ABC executive as saying changes were, “intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness” by federal officials, that left America vulnerable to attacks, “not any one individual”.

I certainly do not think that any general
“indecisiveness” or lack of interest, could possibaly compare to Bushs lack of interest, after being briefed by the out-going Clinton Administration about OBL. And, with complete disreguards of a true terrorist threat, he (President Bush) sat on his thumbs for 9 months, planning how he was going to get into Iraq!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 8, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #180018

What is the real hypocricy here. The 911 Commission has already said Clinton dropped the ball on Bin Laden for political reasons, because he was dealing with the Lewinsky Scandal. They have admiitted this. So why embellish?

Posted by: shelly at September 9, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #180051

Adrienne:

You are always in such a hurry to defend yourself that you often miss the point. If you read my post, you’d recognize that I never questioned your logic. I merely used your same logic to look at a similar (not identical) situation to see if you would hold your logic or change it.

I said that the 911 TV movie appears to be flawed. If ABC wants to present it as one man’s viewpoint of what happened, that would be acceptable. To present it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is wrong.

The Reagan miniseries was moved to Showtime because it was false. There were a number of made up scenes and “quotes” and CBS recognized this. True, the “right” objected to it and CBS only acted under pressure—that’s just the way these things work. If no one bitches, nothing will happen. Same with the 911 movie, and the Clinton folks are bitching loudly, and with some legitimacy.

You simply cannot accept that Michael Moore is a hack. You call his movie a documentary, except you forget that a documentary is supposed to be unslanted. If you truly believe Moore to be unslanted, then I’d suggest your partisanship has moved into the rabid range. Only the blind cannot see how Moore takes factual information and puts it together in such a way as to reach his preconceived conclusion. Its propaganda, and he’s extremely good at it.

I don’t plan on watching the ABC miniseries. I’m smart enough to not need ABC to tell me what happened leading up to 911, and I’m more than smart enough to know that a mini-series doesn’t count as “research”. I don’t even think ABC should show the series in its current format, though its interesting to hear the left calling for censorship.

Its amazing the contortions the left runs through when they dislike something. Many of their claims fly out the window. When someone complains about Howard Stern’s content, they say “just turn the channel.” When ABC wants to run something of admittedly questionable content, they want it censored. The logical contortions are simply funny—except many on the left are too blind to see their own hypocrisy.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 9, 2006 5:56 AM
Comment #180052
I said that the 911 TV movie appears to be flawed. If ABC wants to present it as one man’s viewpoint of what happened, that would be acceptable. To present it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is wrong.

We’re in agreement. But as you know, ABC has been presenting this as the “whole truth” and therein lies the problem.

The Reagan miniseries was moved to Showtime because it was false. There were a number of made up scenes and “quotes” and CBS recognized this. True, the “right” objected to it and CBS only acted under pressure—that’s just the way these things work. If no one bitches, nothing will happen. Same with the 911 movie, and the Clinton folks are bitching loudly, and with some legitimacy.

Great. We agree again. So what’s the problem?

You simply cannot accept that Michael Moore is a hack.

Ooops. Now you missed the mark. He’s anything but a hack.

You call his movie a documentary, except you forget that a documentary is supposed to be unslanted.

Actually, no. A documentary is not “supposed to be unslanted”. Journalism is supposed to be unslanted, but not documentaries. Some of the greatest documentaries ever made had a clear position on a subject and explored it well. Additionally, as I stated earlier, Moore’s film did not try and pretend to be otherwise. He was the voice of the film, he appeared in the film, and his politics are well known.

If you truly believe Moore to be unslanted, then I’d suggest your partisanship has moved into the rabid range. Only the blind cannot see how Moore takes factual information and puts it together in such a way as to reach his preconceived conclusion. Its propaganda, and he’s extremely good at it.

Yes, he is not a hack. He is extremely good at what he does.

I don’t plan on watching the ABC miniseries. I’m smart enough to not need ABC to tell me what happened leading up to 911, and I’m more than smart enough to know that a mini-series doesn’t count as “research”.

Unfortunately, the rest of the country is not as smart as you, jbod. A recent poll reflects that 43% of the country still believes that Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 including 24% of college graduates. That is a shocking indictment on the knowledge level of the people who will be watching this film.

I don’t even think ABC should show the series in its current format, though its interesting to hear the left calling for censorship.

The left is simply asking for inaccuracies to be changed. Do you really consider that censorship?

Its amazing the contortions the left runs through when they dislike something. Many of their claims fly out the window. When someone complains about Howard Stern’s content, they say “just turn the channel.” When ABC wants to run something of admittedly questionable content, they want it censored. The logical contortions are simply funny—except many on the left are too blind to see their own hypocrisy.

Now you’ve fallen into your own trap. Do you really think it’s smart to compare Howard Stern and a film about 9/11? There is no hypocrisy involved. The two issues are very much different.

Posted by: Burt at September 9, 2006 7:52 AM
Comment #180091

Burt:

I didnt compare Howard Stern to a film about 911. I commented on the hypocrisy of censorship. If someone wants to be consistent, they can take this position: If you don’t want to watch or hear something, change the channel. It is hypocritical to take this position for one instance and not another.

doc·u·men·ta·ry (dky-mnt-r)
1)Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
2)of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE

These are the definitions I use for documentary. Lets not get into semantics, though. I agree that Michael Moore is an extremely talented film maker, but I think you would have to agree that his films typically have an agenda and a point of view. While he deals in facts, he juxtaposes events and comments to lead the viewer to a belief that isn’t necessarily supportable, IFFF the viewer truly understood the context of the events and comments. As I said, he is very skilled. I shouldnt call him a hack in any way, and I retract that. But neither should anyone claim that his movies are unbiased documentaries—they fit more easily into the genre of propaganda.

I hope the ABC miniseries is brought into a more accurate range. There are enough failings on the part of both the Clinton and Bush administrations that a filmmaker needs not embellish anything. Of course, both sides will squawk if they are made to seem idiotic or mindless, so there is no hope of pleasing both sides at the same time. We all know that.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 9, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #180111

jbod, Burt answered you much as I would have (thanks Burt).
You know what? I don’t give a rats ass whether YOU label our protest hypocrisy or not. This film is clearly nothing more than a propaganda film full of lies and slander being shown right before the election to make Democrats look bad.
These people wouldn’t allow anyone from the left even see it in it’s entirety — including president Clinton who requested to see it. No, only extreme rightwingers like Limbaugh were invited to view the whole thing thus far. The complaints you’re hearing about are from people on the left seeing only a few scenes from the film. Now, the president has announced that he wants to interrupt what was to be an non-interrupted film to make an address to the nation before the final hour of the film.
This is so blatantly a well orchestrated, multi-million dollar political commercial for the GOP for right before the election — and I and many other Democrats WANT IT YANKED.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 9, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #180156

Silima
I certainly do believe it.

Just mark your calendar.

Posted by: tomh at September 9, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #180174

Addrienne,

Is this how you defend free speach?

This is so blatantly a well orchestrated, multi-million dollar political commercial for the GOP for right before the election — and I and many other Democrats WANT IT YANKED.

Let’s contemplate for a moment the insidious liberal bias on display before the last election. Remember Dan Rather and what’s her name, his producer, Mary Mapes? Talk about a  calculated smear hit piece just before the election! And I recall you may have supported those lies in the service of your cause. Refresh my memory.

Fake but accurate I believe is the way the left referred to it. “Sure it’s fake, but it’s accurate! Bush is a draft dodger! We don’t have any evidence but we know it’s true!”

If anything, Addrienne, this liberal uproar is what has been orchestrated.

Posted by: eric simonson at September 9, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #180177

eric simonson,

Your *messege* is shallow simplistic and reactionary.

Just on the face of it, the war on terror didn’t begin until Bush’s watch.

It is silly and tiresome to continue going back to the Dems to try and make kindergarten playground excuses like…’but billy did it too…’

Is there any intelectual honesty left among the republicans…

your *messege* is certainly devoid of it.

Posted by: RGF at September 9, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #180246

Eric Simonson,
Do you understand what your party is doing here? Do you?
They’ve just made a bunch of shit up that isn’t remotely true about people who were there who know it isn’t true.
That is NOT free speech. It is libel and slander. It’s about concocting lies about a terrorist attack that KILLED people — including my oldest and dearest friend.
The GOP can shove that Dan Rather crap right up their collective ass — this isn’t remotely the same as some inconsequential bullshit about Bush going AWOL from the National Guard.
This is turning an event that ended American lives on American soil into political fodder and misinformation for the stupid and gullible to accept as truth.
And we now know it has been orchestrated by the psychopathic former Marxist, current Rightwing Fascist, David Horowitz who announced in 2002 that he was going to do his best to try to blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton — because he and everyone else in your party (no doubt including yourself) knows just how badly George W. Bush had screwed up in failing to protect this country from terrorism.
Bill Clinton had WEEKLY meetings about Osama Bin Laden while he was president. George Bush had NO such meetings before 9/11. Bill Clinton had a counter-terrorism czar within his cabinet. George Bush DEMOTED that position to a non-cabinet level and ignored the threat of Al Qaeda attacks completely.
This is nothing but the plain truth, but because you Republicans don’t know how to accept any kind of truth these days, you’ll allow all kinds of lies to serve any and every goal — and feel no shame in trying to get others to believe those lies.
What a twisted and foolish party you cling to — and how misplaced you loyalty is while you wave your flags and call your fellow citizens traitors as though it means nothing at all.
If it didn’t make me so angry and disgusted, I would probably feel very sorry for the GOP. But since this is extremely personal, and because your party endangers our entire country by not dealing in reality, or facing up to the truth in every way I could name, I’m determined to keep fighting you with every ounce of energy I’ve got.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 10, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #180282

Adrienne, I Am Neither Democratic or Republican, I consider Myself Independent, I Beleave Both Parties Are At Fault For A Lot Of Things. First Of All Neither Partie Cares About The American People. They Are Both For There Own Agendas, Its All About Money And Power,And Not For The Good Of The People Which Is Very Sad. Theres A Lot You Have No Idea About. We do Not Need A big Goverment To Take Care OF uS, What We Need Is A Small Goverment And Less Taxes, And Some One Who Cares About Us. Presedent Bush Isent The Best At Everything,But I Have More Faith In Him Then Any Democratic Right Now. Neither Partie Should Have Any Say When It Comes To The Military. If The Miltary Feels They Know Whats Best In Our Defence, Then So Be it. We Wouldnt Have Or Be Nothing,If It Werent For Our Military, Present And Past.We Never Should Of Pulled Out In Black Hawk Down, It Showed Us Being Weak And Were Not. We Should Of Went Back And Wiped Them Out.As For Presedent Clinton He Was Not A good Presedent!! He Did Nothing For This Country. What He Did In The White House Was Disgraceful, And I Will Never Forget That.President Clinton Is And Was A Weak President. He Is At Fault For 911!!!! And You Are A Simple Minded Person If you Cant See That. You Need To Step Back And Pull Your Head Out Of The Sand, And Open Up Your Eyes To What Really Is Going On In This World. GOD BLESS AND TAKE CARE….Sue

Posted by: Sue Zartman at September 10, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #180319

From what I have read the movie doesn’t even get where Mohamed Atta started his journey from and what airline he flew on;

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/american-airlines-to-blame-for-911.html

Are we to believe that this isn’t just more electioneering?

Give me a break.

Sue,

Sorry, Clinton was many things, good and bad, but weak wasn’t one of them, and your statement that he was at fault for Sept, 11th is just plain irresponsible.

JBOD,

The vast majority of unwashed in this country have their opinions made for them by the MSN, including Fox, and Rush, and Hannity. They believe what they are told, and don’t bother taking the time to find the truth for themselves.

Posted by: Rocky at September 10, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #180332

Adrienne,
“Do you understand what your party is doing here? Do you?
They’ve just made a bunch of shit up that isn’t remotely true about people who were there who know it isn’t true.”

I was under the impression that ABC made the movie and not a political party.

“The GOP can shove that Dan Rather crap right up their collective ass — this isn’t remotely the same as some inconsequential bullshit about Bush going AWOL from the National Guard.”

A bit hypocritical here aren’t we? I understand your reluctance to discuss this issue, but is it because it don’t fit your agenda or is it because it’s not as important to you?

“And we now know it has been orchestrated by the psychopathic former Marxist, current Rightwing Fascist, David Horowitz”

Obviously you can support that David Horowitz is behind this and that he is a “psychopathic former Marxist” and “rightwing fascist”.

Posted by: tomd at September 10, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #180352

note voting for democrats…..have become more like socialists

Posted by: lw at September 10, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #180356

Sue Zartmen,

Your *messege* is a bunch of fence sitting wishy-washy crap. Time to get real arrived over five yers ago. I continue to hear similar fence sitiing statements such as “Neither party is good for the American people” or “The democrats have done it too”

It’s a load of crap. Just look at the track records and what we know from public record. Clinton made enemies because he was a micro-manager. He had his fingers in every pie (pardon the pun). Bush is loose behind the wheel because he doesn’t have the wisdom, insight or inteligence God gave the single celled organisms! Bush allowed his cabinet posts to run themselves by their own direction. The problem with that is that the president alone has the big picture. Bush is so unsure of his ability with the big-picture, he created the Department of Homeland Security. More beaurocracy to solve a problem caused by too much beaurocracy in the first place! DUMB DUMB DUMB!

I don’t want to hear any more cowardly fence sitting gobbledy-gook. I’m sick of it. The records, facts, figures, evidence is VERY CLEAR. The Democrats are GOOD for America and for Americans. The republicans are infantile idiots who are screwing things up beyond all hope of repair within our life times. Let’s not mince words or pretend to be centrists.

The republicans accused Kerry of being a waffler, but Bush is the only one who actually waffled. Kery got soundbited to death. republican B.S.

The republicans claim to be the fiscally responsible ones, yet they have screwed up on that level worse than all the rest of the American administrations from Independence to Bush COMBINED. Clinton’s executive management provided us a surplus, which we clearly should have listened to the Democrats about and spent the surplus on paying our debt down so we wouldn’t be as up to our necks in hock to the Chinese as we are now. as usual, we suffered more republican B.S. and not only DIDN’T pay down the debt, but took out new and far more immense loans, backed by Chinese credit, and are now spending us into oblivion in the process of pissing the rest of the world off whose good-will and investments we will depend on to get us out of the hole the republicans are digging us into! How can you say the Dems were NOT interested in the best for Americans? republican B.S.

On nearly every issue, the Democrats have been trying to do things that work. Things that are effective at economic growth sustainence, small business opportunity, health and well-being of Americans at home and abroad… and yet, every time the republicans get their way over the past 5 years, we have been left the dual recognition that 20-20 hindsite provides: We screwed up and we should’ve done it the other way.

Imagine if we had delayed a year and gone into Iraq with UN support? Since there were no WMD’s there was no rush and we not only would have saved American lives, but we would have been a stronger deterrant to N. Korea and Iran by being an as yet not over-stretched power. republican B.S.

NO MORE FENCE SITTING. NO MORE COWARDLY CENTRISM.
Enough is Enough.
Vote Democrat.


Posted by: RGF at September 10, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #180377

Which administration is it that got the memo which said “bin Laden Determined to Attack America” ?

Posted by: clearwaterconservative at September 10, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #180382

OK RGF,

You don’t want any fence sitting so I’ll be perfectly clear for you. You accused Sue of fence sitting and then proceded to bash President Bush without anything at all to back it up except your opinion. You say President Clinton made enemies because he had his fingers in every pie. I say he made enemies because he tried to put his fingers in everyone’s pie. That’s my opinion. You suggest that President Bush is not smart. Would you like to compare resumes with him? And then you give an example of how the President runs his cabinet (I guess you have inside knowledge of how he runs his cabinet.) and give your OPINION that it’s wrong.

Your statement that democrats are good for America and Republicans are infantile idiots leaves no doubt about your agenda.

You say that President Bush is the one who waffles instead of Sen. Kerry. I’ve heard him called stubborn and bullheaded but I can’t think of anything he waffled on. Maybe “Stay the course”? Senator Kerry didn’t get soundbited to death. HE LOST!!!

You say the Republicans aren’t fiscally responsible and I have to agree with you on this point. They have made way too many concessions to pork barrell projects. That is the main problem I have with Republicans.

You say the democrats are trying to do the things that work, but the Republicans get in the way. Dumb Republicans, They should just step aside and let you and your democratic friends run the place. It’s time for YOU to get real. The Republicans are the ones in charge.

And on your last point, We done the right thing when we went to war with Iraq.

You come to a Republican and Conservative site and bash a Republican President and ask people to vote Democratic. Are you sure you don’t want to compare resumes with our President?

Posted by: tomd at September 10, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #180384

tomd:
“I was under the impression that ABC made the movie and not a political party.”

No, tom. It was made by the GOP. You just have to follow the money.
Here, first you have to read this article:
Max Blumenthal: Discover the Secret Right-Wing Network Behind ABC’s 9/11 Deception

Okay, now in my next post I’ll draw you the full picture (too many links, so I have to break it up).

Posted by: Adrienne at September 10, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #180385

tomd:
To continue:
Look and see how a large chunk of Horowitz’s Freedom Center (purpose: to influence America through Hollywood by spreading the Neocon message in the media) money has come from Richard Mellon Scaife: 4,100,000 over twenty years.

Then look at what Newt Gingrich has said about Scaife:
That he is one of “the people who have really created modern conservatism.”

By this Gingrich meant Neoconservatism.
Scaife is the guy who has bankrolled all the Neocon think tanks, including one’s like Horowitz’s, and others even more powerful like the Heritage Foundation.
He’s also the guy who bankrolled getting out the word in the media for the 1994 “Gingrich Revolution.”
And he’s the guy who bankrolled the bringing down of president Bill Clinton in any way that could possibly be found.

So you see, there is really quite a long history here of attacking the former president. Got the picture?

Final part of my reply to come… (three links is the limit per post in WB)

Posted by: Adrienne at September 10, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #180386

tomd:
re: Rathergate
“I understand your reluctance to discuss this issue, but is it because it don’t fit your agenda or is it because it’s not as important to you?”

I’m not reluctant, I just think it bears little comparison, and isn’t nearly as important in scope as this movie whose purpose is to feed the American people lies and disinformation about what happened before 9/11, so that everything becomes Clinton’s fault even though he was far more careful about assessing the terrorist threat than Bush was before the attacks.
Bush ignored every warning he received regarding Al Qaeda terrorist threats before 9/11. I think that’s a much more important factor if we want to talk about why the attacks were not avoided.

“Obviously you can support that David Horowitz is behind this”

See link on my first reply to your post.

“and that he is a “psychopathic former Marxist” and “rightwing fascist”.”

Sure. Go to wikipedia.org and search for David Horowitz it’s all right there. It’s no big secret that he was a Marxist, and that he went from being an extremist on the left, to being an extremist on the right in a very short amount of time. Basically the guy is an emotionally unstable radical who has never been honest when he standing on either extreme.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 10, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #180400

First of all, I would like to say, I do not like Bill Clinton. I don’t like his style of politics, I don’t like his personal behavior, and I don’t like what he did to the Democratic party. That being said, it is a major leap to say any president was not concerned with terrorism, you must make an argument in order to back that up. What I don’t see here, or anywhere really, is an account based on facts that shows Clinton as being soft on terrorism.

It so happens that Clinton had prepared a detailed plan to deal with terrorism, especially Osama and Al Queda. It involved providing aid to the norther aliance, invaiding Afghanistan, and taking specific action against Osama. He did not implement it because it was finished shortly before he left office. He left it for Bush to address, as it would be a war, and going to war before handing over the reigns of the country could result in major problems. But when Bush got in office, he eliminated the cabinet level terrorism post, he created a committee to deal with terrorism and had Cheney run it. They didn’t have a meeting until september. They approved the plan then, but decided to have it analized. Then 9-11-01 happened, and Clinton’s plan went into action.

Bush administration officials specifically said they thought the Clinton team was “obsessed” with Bin Laden and terrorism in general.

So, anybody got anything to say to that? I’m not being partisan, if you deny Bush eliminated the cabinet level terrorism post and stuck the Clinton plan in committees, you’re lying. Does that mean he was more focused on terror than Clinton?

Posted by: iandanger at September 10, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #180413

Adrienne:

Thanks for continually proving my points. I never really expect you to do so in quite such a blatant manner, but you rarely disappoint me.

You show the hypocrisy of some on the left openly, and you hold to it dearly. If YOU think something is true, then anything can be said. If YOU don’t like it, then it should be censored. You take positions opposing your own previously held positions simply for partisan purposes. That is a living breathing example of hypocrisy.

That some can’t see it in themselves is simply amazing to me.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 10, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #180638

As someone touched personally by post 9/11 islamic terrorism, I still can’t believe Americans are actually arguing about this … 9/11 and its aftermath (including the bombings in Bali, Jakarta, Madrid and London) really are beyond politics and conspiracy theories.

Worse, is that people are arguing about such events as they’ve been portrayed by Hollywood and its associated small-screen spin-offs - a veritable bulls..t machine, if ever there was one.

No-one dropped the ball any time, really. We always knew they were there but let’s face it, who in their right minds really expected a band of lunatics to hijack a whole lot of passenger jets and fly them into buildings?

Get real with this. 20-20 hindsight is a marvellous thing.

It’s a bit like editing yesterday’s newspaper … anyone can do it.

Perhaps our real focus should be a bi-partisan approach in the West - not just in the US - to make sure these rats don’t get the same opportunities next time.

This is a genuine war without borders, and is aimed at one thing: the destruction of the West’s way of life and its democratic institutions.

As such, it deserves to be tackled on an apolitical basis. Anyone trying to politicise it will simply be marking out the path of their own demise. And most voters aren’t as stupid as politicians think.

Stop arguing about this America, and let’s all remain focused on the task at hand: our collective survival in a new world.

Posted by: STM at September 11, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #180853

Adrienne:

The Max Blumethal, HuffingtonPost.com piece is full of typical leftwing tactics: conspiracy theories, guilt by association, trash people personally when you lack facts, etc.

I think it is quite outrageous that you claim that a liberal network like ABC could not or would not recognize what you claim.

I guess you just think you are smarter than all of ABC and the rest of the world.

But I am not impressed.

You can play partisan political hack all you want on the blogs. Libs lose this one. Libs failed in killing the story.

Most who watch the movie, including all the future DVD’s, hopefully including un-edited ones, are going to overwhelmingly BELIEVE it.

If they consider that when they vote in November, it is just as fair as those who were influenced by Moore’s hit piece (which I was never interested in watching due to “consider the source.”)

Posted by: Jimmy at September 12, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #194475

Why is it the Facist Racist Nazis NeoCon’s who are ANTI AMERICAN clowns still use Clinton. Here is a piece of garbage that has been circumventing the US Constitution,is still trying to get rid of the Habeus Corpus, His ex defenssense minister Dumsfeld is havinf War crimes brought against him in Germany next week. Gutless cheney (spits), who holds the Americaan people and its ideas in CONTEMPT, (should note this is the same piece of garbage that voted against apathiod because is ex buddy was in the S. African Government. This Facist ill informed PIGS who support Murder lying cheating stealing manipulation, and the Facist Racist Nazis have been i power for six years these mindless brainles fools still talk about Clinton. Talk about Anal Retentive with no foresight WOW1

radical Liberal 20yr retired combat vet. not like the Talking Monkey in the WH.

Posted by: radicaliberal at November 10, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #296053

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer

“1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation “

More than 1,000 worldwide architects and engineers now support the call for a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. After careful examination of the official explanation, along with the forensic data omitted from official reports, these professionals have concluded that a new independent investigation into these mysterious collapses is needed.

http://thetruthnews.info/census.html#911

Posted by: John at February 21, 2010 3:06 PM
Post a comment