Patterico's Pontifications

8/31/2006

The Path To 9/11 – The Real Deal From ABC Networks

Filed under: General,Media Bias,Movies,Political Correctness,Politics,Terrorism,War — Justin Levine @ 2:54 am

[posted by Justin Levine]

[UPDATE FROM PATTERICO: Note to leftists coming here from Think Progress, Glenn Greenwald, FireDogLake, etc. — Justin Levine, who wrote this post, is the producer of the highest-rated morning talk-radio show in Los Angeles. That, and not his recently begun guest-blogging stint with this blog, is why he got to see an advance screening of “The Path to 9/11.”]

I have been fortunate enough to see an advance showing of The Path to 9/11 – due to air in 2 parts on ABC on 9/10 & 9/11 respectively.

For those who have been asking for a clear historical account of the build-up to the 9/11 disaster, free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling – I can say wholeheartedly that this is the film that you have been waiting for.

“The Path To 9/11″ is astonishing.

It is an amazing achievement on many levels. It is flat-out one of the best made-for-television movies seen in decades. The only thing that would keep this movie from theatrical distribution is its nearly 5-hour running time (split over two days in this instance). Forget CNN’s “replay” broadcast from 9/11 – Trust me and mark your calendars to watch ABC these nights.

The Clinton administration will likely go

ballistic over this film. (Perhaps why ABC isn’t pushing it at as much as they should be??) It does not have a “partisan” feel to it by any means. The Bush administation comes in for some criticism (Condi Rice in particular comes off rather poorly), but that is nothing compared to the depiction of Sandy Berger and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright. I doubt that they will be able to show their faces in public after this (and also helps to explain why Berger was so eager to try to illegally remove classified documents from the archives before his Senate testimony on the 9/11 events). If Bill Clinton’s current purpose in life is to solidify a positive “legacy” for his time in office, this film has the potential to be his biggest hurdle to overcome yet.

But the film is not just about the past Presidential administartions, it also justly skewers the mentality of the State Department and lays out viscerally powerful arguments in favor of the Patriot Act and airport profiling.

I have no doubt that this film has taken some historical liberties as any film is apt to do. It freely admits that some of the characters are “composites” of several people (I suspect Donnie Wahlberg’s CIA character for instance) and that certain timelines are conflated for the purposes of storytelling. Does it represent “the Truth”? Well…I’d argue that it is just as “truthful” as the report from the bipartisan Comission on 9/11 that the film is largely based on. It never claimed to be the last word on the issue, and neither does this. But that doesn’t mean that people will be able to dismiss it easily.

CAIR and the usual “Islamic civil rights” crowd are also likely to burst a neck artery over this one. “The Path To 9/11″ shows how fanatics have managed to thouroughly infect pockets of the Islamic body-politic throughout the world. At the same time, the terrorists are not depicted as mere one-dimentional caricatures (which ought to make CAIR’s P.C. rantings all the more difficult to sustain).

Ultimately, “Path” does not try to depict past “blame”; its ultimate goal is to push us forward towards more constructive policies in fighting the war on terror. That is why its underlying criticism becomes all the more powerful. Nobody will be able to dismiss this as a “partisan smear job.”

It gives a great insight into how our conter-intelligence agencies work (to some extent, even better than the recent Tom Clancy or Jason Bourne films).

The casting of this film is amazingly spot-on.

Harvey Keitel gives his best performance in years as FBI agent John O’Neill. Donnie Wahlberg gives the performance of his career as a sympathetic CIA field operative named “Kirk”.

But even more impressive was the wide array of Arabic and Asian actors in this film (especially Mido Hamada who plays the leader of the Afghan Northern Alliance. This film ought to get him some steady acting work in America if he wants it.). They all flesh out their characters perfectly. They all manage to thread the needle in portraying fanatics – but not coming across as out-of-control crazed loons. They even manage to convey that “look” in the eyes of fanatics that you recognize when you see it, but are unable to describe it in any real fashion.

Usually, the acting for television films isn’t quite up to par. But here, I only noted one brief “Hollywood acting” moment involving a female CIA agent who has a crying fit while delivering a speech about how they missed the chance to get Bin Laden. But it quickly passes and doesn’t take you out of the film at all.

Also, I should add that I managed to see a copy of this film without commercial interruptions. Based on the fade-outs, there does seem to be one commercial break that is particularly poorly timed. It comes right as Agent O’Neill (Keitel) realizes that the first WTC building is abut to collapse. Then it cuts to commercial, and returns to footage of the building collapsing. Ugh!!! If I’m right about the timing of that particular commercial break, it will surely take away the power of Keitel’s final scene unfortuantely. (And by the way – I’m not giving away any secrets here. The whole film is based on the public record of the 9/11 commission. We all know what happened in this regard.)

I can’t remember ever wanting to shake the hand of writer and director of a made-for-TV movie before, but that’s what I want to do now. To David L. Cunningham (director) and Cyrus Nowrasteh (write): “Thank you!”

The word about this project is slowly starting to spread. The fallout is coming.

Justin the television critic says: 4-stars; Two Thumbs Up; A+; 10 out of 10.

“The Path To 9/11″…Don’t miss it.

[Update]: Well that didn’t take long. Word is spreading, and the fallout over this movie has already started – primarily by people who haven’t seen it yet –

http://www.democrats.com/node/9889

ABC Should not air “The Path to 9/11.” The TV MiniSeries was produced by a right-wing nut who blames the Clinton administration for 9/11, when clearly the Bush administration is to blame. ABC should be ashamed of itself for pandering to the right wing nuts.

http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/08/31/happy-anniversary-911/

This is of course a gushing review of what sounds like an incredibly biased upcoming ABC miniseries called “The Path to 9/11.” I’m not gonna be a Dope of a Pope on a Rope and go condemn a film before I see it (like Catholics do with everything that remotely criticizes their mega-cult), but I do smell a rat.

The Director himself is now also coming under fire.

I have not seen the program, but all I have read has been on right wing websites. THe same review, posted over, and over, and over again. If your “dramatization” is in fact balanced, then why is there no presence from the left?

You are not being accused of being a left-wing movie. The only thing I have seen,is this film being promoted by Rush Limbaugh and the neo-conservative frontpagemagazine. I have also seen the conservative Michael Barone of US News and World Report gloat that this movie may help Bush in the fall elections.

I am going to boycott any sponsors of this movie and ABC. The very least ABC can do is allow the people in the Clinton administration to point out the inaccuracies, missing information, and distortions in your production.

I notice your also backtracking. This is ‘not a documentary’ now. Where as before you said it was a historical account based on the 9/11 report.

My question is this. What contact have the producers of this documentary had with the WH and in particular, Karl Rove? Are you attempting to influence the fall 2006 elections? What political parties have your producers donated too?

Director Cunnigham correctly points out that this is not a “right wing agenda movie”. It in fact bashes the Bush administration in a number of ways, and also makes Bush-basher Richard Clarke look like a hero.

Also (as with the case of the original 9/11 Commission), the film omits some aspects of the story that could have been beneficial towards Bush – including the fact that some involved in the 1993 WTC bombing had significant Iraqi connections. [Obviously, you can’t tell every aspect of a story spanning over 8 years in a single 5-hour movie.]

But there is certainly no denying that conservatives are gravitating to this project much more so than the left. Does that make the film “right wing”? Not on your life.

Think of it in terms of C-SPAN. When it was first introduced, the political Right clearly embraced that channel in a much more fervent manner than the Left. Would you then call C-SPAN partisan? Of course not.

C-SPAN appealed more to conservatives because it finally offered a more neutral alternative to the liberal-biased network news that had been shoved down everyone’s throat until that time. The same dynamic will be at work in this instance.

Bush does not come off as a hero here by any means. However, the Clinton administration has clearly been trying to whitewash past history to a much greater extent over 9/11. As a result, a film that truly “lets the chips fall where they may” is likely to have a disproportionate impact on their psyche than the Bushies.

Right now, all left-wing sites are hearing is that “conservative sites” are praising the film – therefore they automatiocally (and wrongly) conclude that it must be a “right-wing hit piece”, and are now calling for a boycott of ABC without having seen it for themselves.

But the ignorant partisan backlash by those who haven’t seen “The Path to 9/11″ is only going to get worse once Limbaugh sees this thing and comments on it…Believe me.

[posted by Justin Levine]

170 Responses to “The Path To 9/11 – The Real Deal From ABC Networks”

  1. I’m definitely gonna be taping it!

    I saw some grumblings about it in diaries over at DailyKos. I will never try to blame 9/11 on Clinton or anyone in his administration. We all blame the terrorists.

    But the idea that no one can go over the 8 years of the previous administration is absurd. Sometimes I mention some criticisms of the previous administration to Democrat friends and they just start yelling, “It happened on Bush’s watch!” and they just keep screaming it until the subject is changed. LOL

    I dunno…I’m a little tired of people like Berger and Albright running around acting like they’re so super-smart and Bush is an idiot.

    BTW, last night I caught a documentary called Inside 9/11 on the National Geographic Channel, and although it just went over what we already know (it’s probably not a new documentary), I thought it was well done, with a lot of footage and stories I had forgotten.

    LoafingOaf (a90377)

  2. […] Patterico previews the ABC TV movie The Path to 9-11 this morning, set to air this September: The Clinton administration will likely go ballistic over this film. (Perhaps why ABC isn’t pushing it at as much as they should be??) It does not have a ”partisan” feel to it by any means. The Bush administration comes in for some criticism (Condi Rice in particular comes off rather poorly), but that is nothing compared to the depiction of Sandy Berger and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright. I doubt that they will be able to show their faces in public after this (and also helps to explain why Berger was so eager to try and illegally remove classified documents from the archives before his Senate testimony on the 9/11 events). If Bill Clinton’s current purpose in life is solidify a positive ”legacy” for his time in office, this film has the potential to be his biggest hurdle to overcome yet. […]

    Rathergate.com » Thursday Morning Open Thread (879659)

  3. […] Good morning! Patterico previews the ABC TV movie The Path to 9-11 this morning, set to air this September: The Clinton administration will likely go ballistic over this film. (Perhaps why ABC isn’t pushing it at as much as they should be??) It does not have a ”partisan” feel to it by any means. The Bush administration comes in for some criticism (Condi Rice in particular comes off rather poorly), but that is nothing compared to the depiction of Sandy Berger and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright. I doubt that they will be able to show their faces in public after this (and also helps to explain why Berger was so eager to try and illegally remove classified documents from the archives before his Senate testimony on the 9/11 events). If Bill Clinton’s current purpose in life is solidify a positive ”legacy” for his time in office, this film has the potential to be his biggest hurdle to overcome yet. […]

    Mark A. Kilmer (the weblog) » Prolegomenon: Thursday, August 31, 2007 (b0dbcd)

  4. Intriguing review, although I am skeptical of the docudrama approach of presenting history or current events. The audience is dependent on the fairness and judgement of the directors and producers. By the nature of this medium, it’s difficult to distinguish documented events from informed speculation, and actual people from composites.

    That said, this film looks as though it is well worth watching. What I’d value most as a companion to it are movie reviews by counterterrorism experts, in particular the views of Dr. Rohan Gunaratna (International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, Singapoe) and Dan Darling. I’ve emailed each of them a link to this post, in the hope that they’ll be able to catch The Path to 9/11.

    AMac (b6037f)

  5. The red hot Lefties in the Democratic underworld will file a lawsuit just before the release in an attempt to censor it or kill it. They will claim libel/slander on the Clintonistas as grounds. They will go after the producers personally in an attempt to wreck them financially. Just wait…..

    Howard Veit (28df94)

  6. […] Patterico has reviewed an ABC movie entitled ‘The Path to 9/11‘ and gives it very high ratings.  I have seen several of these documentaries and usually walk away rather disappointed because they are interestingly selective on what information to put in and what information to leave out (the bias works on both sides), but Patterico claims this one is fairly even.  And besides, CAIR might be upset too so that means it’s good. CAIR and usual “Islamic civil rights” crowd are also likely to burst a neck artery over this one. “The Path To 9/11″ shows how fanatics have managed to thouroughly infect pockets of the Islamic body-politic throughout the world. At the same time, the terrorists are not depicted as mere one-dimentional characatures (which ought to make CAIR’s P.C. rantings all the more difficult to sustain). […]

    In the Bullpen » ‘The Path to 9/11′ (3d18df)

  7. Im sure all the leftists in hollywood will want the producers of that progran drawn and quartred for daring to defile the name of the greal dictator and tyrant Bill Clinton

    krazy kagu (8b6422)

  8. ABC 9/11 Special airs Sept. 10 …

    I had not heard about this movie before reading this review on Patterico’s Pontifications. I’m glad I saw this as I probably would have skipped the TV movie being aired over 2 nights simply because my opinion of ABC when it comes to anything to do wi…

    Squiggler (72c8fd)

  9. Before the Right starts boiling over the fact that Democrats want to nix “Path to 9/11″ recall that it was only a few years ago that Republicans successfully got CBS to axe “The Reagans”.

    I had no objection to CBS’s right to air “The Reagans” then and I have no objection to ABC’s right to air “The Path to 9/11″ now. But if there is a fight a-brewing, bear in mind that Republicans enter this battle with less-than-clean hands.

    DubiousD (fd5b19)

  10. […] Go to http://patterico.com/2006/08/31/5065/the-path-to-911-the-real-deal-from-abc-networks/  for another great review, plus reactions and threats of boycott from the diehard lefties…. they just can’t stand it when anyone in Hollywood or the media dares to break their stranglehold on the flow of information. […]

    JannyRants.Radiate.us » Lefties Try to Smear “Path to 9/11″ (946e37)

  11. DubiousD, the “Reagan” movie was a little different: parts of it were made up out of whole cloth, to put RR in the worst possible light.
    “The Path to 9/11″ sounds pretty much as if it’s based on real events and something the Left isn’t very familiary with–the truth.

    Jenn (638837)

  12. I know this is a novel concept, but what I’m going to do is DVR both the 9/10 and 9/11 installments and then I’m going to watch them WITH AN OPEN MIND!

    Gayle Miller (855514)

  13. Jenn, the issue isn’t whether “Path to 9/11″ is more factual and accurate than “The Reagans”. The issue is censorship. Believe me, if Dems put pressure on ABC to pull this film and Republicans start squawking, “The Reagans” will be trotted out to highlight Republican hypocricy. And in this instance Democrats will be right.

    DubiousD (1a5452)

  14. “The Reagans” was not censored.

    Yours,
    Wince

    Wince and Nod (e49fe7)

  15. […] KFI host John Ziegler is claiming he has sources telling him that Clinton Administation officials “at the highest levels” are now lobbying Disney officials to pull (or at least edit) “The Path To 9/11″ from ABC before it airs on 9/10 & 9/11.  […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » The War Over “The Path To 9/11″ (421107)

  16. Dubious, disagree again; both are presented as documentaries of actual historical events.
    One of them presents the facts (“Path to 9/11″), the other on the Reagans does not and as the astute Wince and Nod points out, the Reagan monstrosity wasn’t censored, it just wasn’t aired on primetime network TV.
    Looking forward to seeing and TiVoing “Path to 9/11.”

    Jenn (638837)

  17. I am Looking forward to the Movie. If anyone is interested in the full length story, pick up Steve Coll’s, 2004 “Ghost Wars” put out by Penguin Books. He shows there is enough blame for everyone to go around, the CIA, State Dept, FBI, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush 1 and 2.

    Michael (b309a0)

  18. Part of the backlash for the Reagan movie was because of the timing. Everyone knew Reagan was on his deathbed. The timing was atrocious. Not to mention it was full of lies.

    Nice try.

    Jill (4e1c2a)

  19. Thank you for reviewing this movie. I will have to see if my television still works so I can watch it. I have not even turned on the tv in months because I was afraid I would break too many dishes throwing them at the set.

    dick (b8e957)

  20. Funny, I constantly heard the “9/11 commission report from the left for years, (who it seems never read it btw… even with the Gorelick and other cover/the leaving out of Able Danger etc.), now they refute it? Just think if all the info had been put into the account and it was totally honest with blame assigned to whomever in any administration? What are they scared of?

    I didn’t see this call for accuracy for Fahrenheit… what reports did that use btw? Nevermind.

    Ali (c3e71e)

  21. […] And apparently it has become hugely controversial. Read all about it here, where Justin Levine, who’s seen the film calls it “astonishing” and says For those who have been asking for a clear historical account of the build up to the 9/11 disaster, free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling – I can say wholeheartedly that this is the film that you have been waiting for […]

    infotainment rules » Blog Archive » infotainment and politics collide over 9/11 (8b10b5)

  22. OK…………guess what? I HAVE SEEN THIS MOVIE. I have seen everything I can get my hands on about 9\11 every single year. I love that people think this is bashing the Clinton administration. You obviously have not seen this. I love that people think it is glorifying the Bush administration. You obviously have not seen this. What the right and the left will find is that whatever Bill Clinton chose to ignore in the years to 9\11, Bush continues to roll on and in most cases is WORSE. This film is based on the 9\11 commission report which found that we didn’t take the 1993 bombing of the WTC seriously. We also did not kill Bin Laden when we had the chance to because Clinton’s people (who knows if Clinton even KNEW)were afraid to kill children along with Bin Laden so we backed out. When the USS Cole was hit, we did nothing to retaliate. THE BIGGEST TRAITORS in this movie are the FAA. And Richard Clarke. But what you will see instead of politics is that whatever happened BEFORE 9\11 was BEFORE 9\11. Now, we know what can happen. And STILL, the political correctness of this country is KILLING us. The fear of being called insensitive let one of the highjackers onto a plane without a PHOTO ID. WHO IN THE WORLD CAN DO THAT? Still, we are checking white grannies for nail clippers and not racially profiling. This movie clearly shows that the lessons learned on 9\11 are lost with the current administration. At the end of the movie, you see that the 9\11 commission came back in December of 2005 to do a report card on the current administration. They received 7 F\s, 12 D\s and only 1 A. The A is in terrorist funding cutoff. One of the F’s is in AIRLINE PASSENGER SCREENING!
    It is a fact that the 9\11 plan was well underway even before the Cole bombing. So there’s no way that anyone can say the Clinton Administration had nothing to do with 9\11. There is also no way that anyone can say that Bush has taken the commission and their directives seriously. Especially since the most urgent of directives was for TIGHTER BORDER SECURITY. Rush Limbaugh will gleefully say that Clinton is getting his due. The left will cry out that this movie should be edited and is right-wing wacko crap. Those with a brain who can think along AMERICAN lines will be terrified with ALL OF OUR GOVERNMENT. And they will see that the two main heroes of pre-9\11 Masoud and FBI Director John O’Neill were killed because no one took them seriously. And still, no one is taking our security seriously.

    L.B. (864299)

  23. Keep in mind, what is printed anyplace does not make it so. Know whom to trust and trust everything else by verification, verification and more verification.

    Watch for inbound fire from about 25 miles off the shores of Virginia, Maryland, Deleware, New Jersey and New York. The Lebanon deal was a practice time.

    Terrorism is global. Check on Brazil and Bolivia
    with more to come! Keep in mind, Noah was a weird
    neighbor building an Ark, yet he ended up with the only boat in town that would float. Ponder on this!

    Terrorism brings fear, depression and financial ruin to the entire world! Have you noticed?

    Bulldog Butch, Raleigh, NC

    G Thomas Gulick (24c46b)

  24. […] Which is absolutely correct. It was the eight year reign of appeasement of the Clinton administration which not only led to the proliferation in North Korea, but as a new ABC documentary will show, 9/11 as well. Which is why the left doesn’t want this TV movie to come out, but it will in it’s entirety. The real story is about to be told. […]

    Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » North Korean nuke problem didn’t begin with Bush (ca15f9)

  25. […] My best advice? Read the paranoid ranting, point and laugh at the Bedlamites, then watch the damned movie and make up your own mind about it — a thing the troglodytic “reality”-based shitflingers can’t tolerate and wouldn’t allow, if they were powerful enough to prevent it. Which, thank merciful Heaven, they aren’t and never will be. Filed under: The Loony Left • […]

    Cold Fury » Reality: Too unpleasant for the “reality”-based to face (6f4592)

  26. […] Patterico’s Pontifications has an even-handed look at the project. The Clinton administration will likely go ballistic over this film. (Perhaps why ABC isn’t pushing it at as much as they should be??) It does not have a “partisan” feel to it by any means. The Bush administation comes in for some criticism (Condi Rice in particular comes off rather poorly), but that is nothing comapred to the depiction of Sandy Berger and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright. I doubt that they will be able to show their faces in public after this (and also helps to explain why Berger was so eager to try to illegally remove classified documents from the archives before his Senate testimony on the 9/11 events). If Bill Clinton’s current purpose in life is solidify a positive “legacy” for his time in office, this film has the potential to be his biggest hurdle to overcome yet. […]

    THE PATH TO 9/11 « Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger (71c0e9)

  27. In response to Cold Fury – yours was the best of all the comments although most were interesting to read. In case most people who get upset about the truth being told are having blood pressure problems, take a chill pill, watch the movie and who knows, you may learn something. Nobody says you have to believe it, just open your minds and let the truth in. It might be a whole new experience for you.

    Bobbi (c4d4bd)

  28. I wonder if the following bit of history will be included?

    http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

    “WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

    “We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,” Clinton said during a White House news conference.

    But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.”

    Sue D'oh Nym (8e6666)

  29. For those who have been asking for a clear historical account of the build up to the 9/11 disaster, free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling – I can say wholeheartedly that this is the film that you have been waiting for.

    The writer said that ‘this is not a documentary.’ and clarified that it was a ‘dramatization.’

    actus (6234ee)

  30. This is a FICTIONAL ACCOUNT. I have spoken to two people who have seen the previews. The 9/11 commission is fired up of its innacuracies. This is a FICTIONAL DRAMATIZATION and is not to be taken seriously.

    Chris (9f37aa)

  31. Has anyone heard what Clarke has to say about it? If he is shown in it (from two different points of view her – as the hero and as the “villain”), I would be curious what his point of view is…

    rosie williams (a30a13)

  32. Actus:

    I never suggested that this was a “documentary”. It is indeed a “dramatization” that also happens to provide “a clear historical account of the build up to the 9/11 disaster, free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling”. Don’t believe me? Then just tune in next week and feel free to compare the film to the printed facts of the 9/11 Commission.

    Justin Levine (d8da01)

  33. Great review. Thanks, looking forward to seeing it.

    I would like to make one helpful suggestion. Before you post you should run spell-check.

    Thanks again,

    Gary

    Gary Aminoff (e949e9)

  34. really looking forward to seeing the film. let the chips fall where they may. not happy w/bush’s border policy/spending/airport non-profiling. but clinton ain’t lilly white either(appeasement/gave n. korea nuke technology)… looking for the truth. NEVER FORGET 9/11!!!!!!!!!!

    mark traeger (7008b5)

  35. Any program that causes the Left to gnash its teeth, rend its shirt and tinkle down its leg…

    …is certainly worth a looksee. No one is more in need of Depends than this hysterical female on a website known for its out-in-left-field-hate-filled-bleachers screeching. Even “Screw’em” Kos himself has a spreading crotch stain. Jennie-babe hasn…

    Darleen's Place (1650a7)

  36. “The writer said that ‘this is not a documentary.’ and clarified that it was a ‘dramatization.’”

    Apparently, Actus is concerned people might view this “dramatization” and believe it is accurate.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  37. Apparently Justin Levine never bothered to read the 9-11 commission report. If he had, he wouldn’t be making the statement that “For those who have been asking for a clear historical account of the build up to the 9/11 disaster, free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling – I can say wholeheartedly that this is the film that you have been waiting for”.

    This film is full of lies, inacuracies, and untruths. The film depicts the CIA having surrounded Bin Laden in a safe house, and then calling Sandy Berger at the Clinton Whitehouse for permission to kill Bin Laden. The film then shows Sandy Berger denying permission to do so because it might cause “Negative fallout if civilians are killed”.

    READ THE 9-11 COMMISSION REPORT! In it it clearly states A) Never at any time did the CIA have Bin Laden surrounded in a house or anywhere else for that matter, B) The CIA had “Standing orders” from President Clinton to “Kill Bin Laden”, and “Not to bother to call us about it, JUST DO IT”.

    ABC is pandering to the right wing agenda of lies by airing this film. It is nothing more than righty propaganda posing as entertainment. Two other things of note: The author of the screenplay is a card carrying conservative, and according to Rush Limbaugh himself, a “Personal Friend” of the right wing talk show host. Secondly, ABC is owned by Disney Corp, a conservative financial supporter of Bush and Co. Once again, ABC is bowing to pressure from their ownership to slant things to the right. This is daily apparent on both “Good Morning America” and the “ABC Evening News”, both of which distort their presentations to favor the Republican right.

    Maybe ABC is frantically trying to capture the audience from FOX TV. If so, ABC’s programming department is making a huge miss step. According to the latest ratings, FOX News is DOWN about 25 to 35% from previous ratings. The American people are waking up, and just are not buying this crap anymore. ABC should be ashamed to air such garbage as this so called 9-11 film.

    Also of interest, the Blog on ABC.com was removed from the website after it was loaded up with negative comments about the film, and ABC serviced all the right wing radio and TV hosts with preview copies of the film, but did not service even one liberal talk show host. Smell the manure??? I sure do!

    If you don’t believe me, read the 9-11 report, it’s all there, it’s in the public record, AND IT’S CERTIFIED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION! Don’t take my word for it, don’t be intellectually lazy, read the damn thing! You will clearly see I am telling the truth about this film, and the lies it claims are fact

    David Brisker (310440)

  38. More right wing infotainment crap. Some people will never learn.

    Golden (522809)

  39. I never suggested that this was a “documentary”.

    Right. It’s a “clear historical account”, but not a “documentary.” Ok.

    actus (6234ee)

  40. Apparently, Actus is concerned people might view this “dramatization” and believe it is accurate.

    Right. Drama: Washington Post giving away a secret. Accurate: Washington Times does it.

    actus (6234ee)

  41. This is a disgusting smear, just another in a long line really. Swift boating moves on up to the big leagues. To bad there are glaring factual errors, ones I see repeated here as if they are fact.

    Get the facts!

    Fred (f3e1d9)

  42. Are you kidding me with this “clear picture” of the events leading up to 9/11 on the ABC special. All this is is a conservative group finding ways to smear somebody to take the heat of Bush. I’m liberal, but not in any way blaming Bush for 9/11. Talking about Clinton not capturing bin Laden, how come the White House has refused to even mention his name until now. If your guy, the sitting president, can’t find him, don’t point the finger at others. Try to explain why much of what is in this show contradicts what the 9/11 comission said. Or are they just a bunch left-wing nuts too?

    Jason (60e00f)

  43. Yes, this is the film you’ve been waiting for, if you prefer fiction to truth. It’s filled with completely fabricated accounts designed for the sole purpose of making Clinton look as bad as possible. It’s the conservative counterpart to Fahrenheit 9/11. Just as Michael Moore used lies, half-truths, and distoritions to make George W. Bush look as bad as possible, David L. Cunningham now does the same to Bill Clinton.

    Another not at all coincidental similarity between the two films is that both are being released in election years, for the obvious purpose of influencing voters.

    Goddess of Death (346138)

  44. Goddess has explicated a subtle distinction?:

    [Road to /11] is filled with completely fabricated accounts.

    Michael Moore used lies, half-truths and distortions.

    Subtle, yes, but perhaps revealing.

    Nigel (5c03c9)

  45. Aren’t you embarrassed by these comments? Talk about conspiracy theories and just general bad grammar and selling!

    “Im sure all the leftists in hollywood will want the producers of that progran drawn and quartred for daring to defile the name of the greal dictator and tyrant Bill Clinton”

    There does not seem to be one well-spoken person with a knowledge of spell check supporting your glaringly biased review of this “accurate depiction of historical events.”

    Andrea (5fc909)

  46. Just something to ponder…. Does anyone remember how Bin Lauden got his money and who back him and his family in the first place….???? My point is, there are more than enough people to blame. Honestly, every administration, Republican and Democrate alike, have all contributed to the mess we are in.

    Here’s an interesting like on John O’Neill

    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020114fa_FACT1

    And one on the conspiricy theory:

    http://www.hereinreality.com/johnoneill.html

    Just interesting reading….

    Jenn (e5183e)

  47. And before anone says anything….. Sorry for the typo….. Let’s not judge people’s views on their ability to type alone…. :-)

    Jenn (e5183e)

  48. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
    JUSTIN LEVINE starts out by saying “For those who have been asking for a clear historical account of the build-up to 9/11 disater,free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling- I can say wholeheartedly that this is the film that you have been waiting for.” AND NOT TWO PARAGRAGHS LATER SAYS “I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THIS FILM HAS TAKEN SOME HISTORICAL LIBERTIES…”, “DOES IT REPRESENT THE TRUTH? WELL… I’D ARGUE THAT IT IS JUST AS “TRUTHFUL” AS THE COMISSION ON 9/11…” TALK ABOUT DOUBLE SPEAK, YOU CAN’T SAY IT IS THE HISTORICAL TRUTH IN ON SENTENCE AND IN THE NEXT SAY THAT IT TAKES SOME HISTORICAL LIBERTIES, THAT IS CALLED REVISIONIST HISTORY!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU PEOPLE OK WITH THAT? ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS GOING TO BE SENT TO SCHOOLS?

    Linden (c5d150)

  49. Gee, comments 38 – 45 seem a little over the top? How do they know this is just “filled with completely fabricated accounts” … “making Clinton look as bad as possible”, “film is full of lies, inacuracies, and untruths” (did this person see the film, too?), “All this is is a conservative group finding ways to smear” and “To bad there are glaring factual errors”?

    I don’t understand, the account hasn’t even been aired yet?

    I will definitely tape this and take a hard look at it.

    Stevie (0c0973)

  50. 9/11 is a big fat lie. Those that do not yet understand this concept are under the influence of the largest government propaghanda campaign that the world has ever witnessed.

    A good portion of the rest of the world is beginning to see the forest for the trees. All it takes is the opening of your mind, liberating it from the programming of network news.

    There are excellent sources of information.

    David Ray Griffin – 911 Commission Report
    http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154&q=david+ray+griffin

    MIT Engineer Jeff King breaks down WTC collapse
    http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&q=jeff+king+wtc

    More great articles on the same subject:
    http://www.st911.org

    Free your mind!

    Måd Hatter (6db945)

  51. The mainstream media has not been telling the public the truth for several years. The credibility with regard to this “docudrama” (word emphasized) is weak, therefore. Also, a “docudrama” does not equal the standards required for a “clear historical account,” or a documentary.

    Former Clinton administration officials may well go ballistic, but not for the reasons you mention–they will do so for the deliberate misleading of the public, and the commission and omission of errors of fact. Comment #29 by one of your readers is most relevant.

    Here is another relevant reference from Ron Suskind’s (Republican) book, “One Percent Option.”

    The book’s opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush’s Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president’s attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”

    The reference to the August 6 event in Crawford, Texas has been published many times.

    I believe it is in the interest of all Americans, regardless of political persuasion, to think critically. That is, to examine the facts based on evidence with objectivity. Also, I feel compelled to add that cavalierly demonizing individuals as tyrants and dictators does not contribute to a meaningful search for truth.

    And it is truth that we need. It is truth that we deserve.

    B.G. Bandler (5f9807)

  52. The issue is not entirely with this version of the 911 lead-up, it is that Scholastic and ABC have co-developed a Teacher’s Guide and Student Activities package and recommended it in a letter sent to High Schools. I have read pieces of the materials and they clearly support the misrepresentations present in the ‘docudrama’. Had ONE teacher planned ONE day of classroom discussion over ‘Fahrenheit 911′, the Conservative hammer would have fallen on his/her poor head and Limbaugh/Hannity/O’Neill/Coulter would be screaming for a purge of ‘Liberals and Feminazis’ from our public schools. Yes, ‘F911′ has numerous faults and certainly ‘preaches to the choir’. Then again, the largest supplier of teaching materials didn’t design curricula around it, did they?

    John (a1b416)

  53. Addendum:

    I wonder how the Right would have responded if Scholastic had developed course materials on F-911, knowing that it had ONLY been previewed by the Left?

    John (a1b416)

  54. Have any of you twits actually SEEN the movie? If not, how the h*ll can you make statements about the truth or fiction ocntained therein? Many of you are exposing yourselves as the non-thinking sheep who believe and quote anything as long as it fits your preconceived notions.

    For those few of you who may have seen it, are any of you really in a position to judge the truth or fiction contained in it, or are you merely measuring it against your existing biases?

    Tom (e64504)

  55. Members of the 9/11 Commission have viewed this movie, and have commented on the inaccuracies and fictional scenes.

    Goddess of Death (346138)

  56. hey Tom

    Try looking at the author of this blogs original review at the top of this very site and tell me if there are any discrepancies!

    Linden (c5d150)

  57. Okay Goddess – quote ’em. If you can (with references I can check) I will profusely apologize and admit that I was wrong. Otherwise, I’ll assume you’re merely repeating what others have told you.

    Just because a rumor has been repeated 20 times doesn’t make it anything other than a rumor.

    Tom (e64504)

  58. ABC has now announced they will change some scenes due to Clinton’s threats.
    There is now officially government censorship in the US. Thanks, Libs.
    Boycott it all you want. Forcing people to change a movie? Censorship.
    Yet it IS apparently OK to make films and books on assassinating Bush. It IS OK to claim that Bush blew up TWC and steered a hurricane to New Orleans.
    Dixie Chicks records not selling. That’s boycotting. Shut up.
    ABC changing a movie to suit a politician?
    Censorship, courtesy of the Left, who claim the right is censoring.

    shatzi (cadad6)

  59. Addendum:

    Justin Levine will be eating crow after the “truth” comes out. If the “truth” ever comes out!

    Linden (c5d150)

  60. Sandy Berger deserves to be shown in a bad light. He was caught red-handed stealing and destroying documents from the national archives that related to the Clinton administration’s handling of counter-terrorism. This is an undeniable fact.

    http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050404-084700-5791r.htm

    And yes, there were several aborted strikes on Bin Laden that are indeed discussed in the 9/11 commission report. Perhaps it was more Tenant’s call than Berger’s, but it is well documented. One of the aborted stikes took place the same month that Clinton stuck the chinese embassy in Yogoslavia so I’m sure they were being extra-careful with the intelligence to avoid screwing up again.

    B'Balz Es-Hari (874271)

  61. TO shatzi

    You seem to have selected memory! Back in 2003 there was a film wich did not paint a rosy picture of Reagan, thanks to conservatives, that film NEVER aired!

    Linden (c5d150)

  62. Guys, quit trying to rewrite history. There is plenty of blame to go around, the Clinton administration deserves a hell of a lot of it. Here is a timeline that details multiple opportunities to take out Osama that were not acted upon. These accounts come from multiple sources, INCLUDING THE 9/11 COMMISION REPORT. Stop trying to spread the lie that the 9/11 report does not point out these missed opportunities to kill that scumbag.

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0598tenchances

    And Mad Hatter, you are just a total nutjob if you believe all that conspiracy crap. You people like to talk about how Bush is such an idiot, and yet you maintain that somehow our government created 9/11 as an excuse to go to war with Iraq. How could they possibly pull something like this off and manage to keep it quiet? They can’t even keep things like the tracking of bank transactions or the terrorist surveillance program out of the New York Times – and yet you think they managed to fake the entire 9/11 tragedy? Get a grip dude…

    Mi'Balz Es-Hari (874271)

  63. In light of some of the comments make above, is basis for why this movie should not have been made. A comment above site that Albright and Berger should both go balistic. M. Albright and S. Berger both wrote detailed letters to ABC noting that “their” portrayed actions were fiction. Unsophisticated types will watch this movie, it will fulfill thier prejudices, the facts and the fiction will blend over time, and less than a year from now we will be hearing strong and angry arguments purporting that Albright and Berger and Clinton in fact carried out the behaviors in the film. This is called propaganda. And a good part of our population is unable to discern this. We are not accustomed to having to watch for “nuance” and out-right misrepresentation. We came out of WWII proud, with many accomplishments and values supporting fairness, transparency, and honesty. Those values are no longer with us, just as our news organizations no longer have to provide public-affairs programs or news in the spirit of informing the public; those laws were changed. So now we have a movie, one that ABC both claims is closely based on the 9/11 commission, takes you behind the scenes to experience the world inhabited by the powerful, and disclaims that it is in any way to be interpreted as a documentary of real events. That is propaganda.

    Marra (7e8b93)

  64. Mi’Balz Es-Hari,

    I challenge you to watch the videos that I posted in my original post. Its easy to write me off as a nutjob when you only view one side of the story without considering the other side.

    The people asking questions about the details of 9/11 are not “tin-foil hat” wearing nutjobs, they are scientists, engineers, professors and average citizens that actually bother to take the time to listen to questions outside of CNN/FauxNews and the government propaghanda networks.

    I challenge you. I DARE YOU!

    Take 45 mins out of your programmed life to consider what an MIT engineer has to say about the impossible story of the WTC collapses.

    The WTC towers fell in a perfect vertical freefall, the only force acting upon them to slow them down was air. This does not happen by accident, but is the only product of a demolition.

    Wake up.

    You might see the rest of the light someday.
    But its up to you.

    Måd Hatter (6db945)

  65. ABC has now announced they will change some scenes due to Clinton’s threats.
    There is now officially government censorship in the US. Thanks, Libs.

    Government censorship? Clinton has been out of power for six years. He is not part of the government. This is a matter of ABC responding to the complaints of people who don’t want lies to be passed off as fact in a “docu”-drama.

    Guys, quit trying to rewrite history. There is plenty of blame to go around, the Clinton administration deserves a hell of a lot of it.

    Why then does ABC need to use made-up events to blame the Clinton administration? Why are actual events insufficient?

    Goddess of Death (346138)

  66. This is all entertaining stuff. I am sure this movie is biased one way or the other. Are there any that are not? Does it matter? I find it amazing that during all this we are still cranking out the entertainment and movies. Life goes on. God forbid this WAR impacts our lives in any way. The fact that Clinton’s team was not all that hot on terrorism can be seen throughout his two terms. IE- Bosnia (could have got some good arrests from the Muslim factions), Mogadishu, the N. African Embassy bombings, WTC1, Khobar Towers, the Cole, and numerous other attacks/incidents. Oh, how we have forgotten all that in light of Iraq. That is what I call a major campaign. Nah, they were all just skirmishes. The major difference between the current administration and the last is that at least the current group realizes it is a FREAKING war! Now, how do we go about winning the war? I had rather hoped people could have concentrated on facing that fact and then gotten around to doing something about it. But no, everyone is too wrapped up in the blame game , passing judgment on stuff they no little about, and they are not really concerned about beating some radical religious guys with 2000 years of hate and frustration driving them on. I find it amazing, truly baffling, and quite sad that the fools (experts?) I see on the TV news, writing books, and everything else; who are barely qualified to fire up their Tivo or laptop, preaching about what we have done wrong in this war in Iraq. Obviously they could have done everything much better! Arm chair Generals are so much better than the real ones. Well, prettier at least in my experience. I knew when Bush said it would not be quick and would not be easy that most Americans would miss that. Or, interpret it to mean a few years. I thought, I wonder if they are willing to stick this out for the 25 years or so it will take to put down major insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq while rebuilding both countries and fighting the terrorists wherever else they popped up. I did not think then that most Americans had the stomach for it. Or, that we were fighting radical Islam world-wide. Most Americans do not have a stomach for much of anything these days (except food – we sure have lots of restaurants). This may be the second war this country loses. I sure hope not because this one will cost us more than 50,000 US servicemen (is that still the yard stick? – seems to be – at least on CBS every night it is). Oh well, done preaching myself. Back to sleep.

    ryan (b22ae0)

  67. Mad Hatter – The reason most people don’t bother to argue with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that there’s really no point. It’s like trying to argue with those who believe the earth is flat, or those who think the holocaust never happened, or that the moon landings were staged in an empty hangar. I’m happy to argue (in the sense of discuss premises, evidence, and conclusions) with rational people. It’s not worth my time if I deem the person irrational, which is basically how I view your MIT professor and his co-conspiracy-theorists (along with the flat-earthers and the holocaust-deniers).

    You can find “nut jobs” in any profession or any walk of life or with any credentials…including MIT professors.

    I’ve listened to about 15 minutes of David Ray Griffin’s presentation (linked from your post above), and he hasn’t made any argument that could not be easily refuted or dismissed. Any further investment of my time is pointless because he’s not making rational statments.

    Tom (e64504)

  68. Mad Hatter – By the way…after a little web-surfing I found that Jeff King, the “MIT research engineer”, got a BS from MIT back in 1974. That is the extent of his engineering credentials (and electrical engineering to boot, which has pretty much zip to do with the collapse of the WTC).

    After his BS he floated around a couple of graduate schools and ended up in medicine.

    And you want us to “free our minds” by listening to this clown?

    Tom (e64504)

  69. ABC’s decision to preempt four hours of regular broadcasting to impose a factually incorrect “docudrama” that blames 9/11 on Clinton is beyond outrageous. “The Path to 9/11″ should be renamed “The Path to North Korea: Rewriting history to preserve the power of incompetent corrupt leaders.”
    Regardless of the film content Disney/ABC’s method and motives are suspect. Any widely distributed “documentary” touted as a “public service” and slated for distribution to our schools must be historically accurate to the letter. It is inexcusable to fictionalize an event of this emotional significance. Misrepresenting the facts leading up to an historical tragedy deprives the public of information needed to understand what went wrong and what is needed to protect us from future attacks. Why didn’t Disney/ABC subject their “Path to 911″ script to a factual review by those individuals whose actions they claim to represent? Corporate malfeasance has just registered a new low. Propaganda for profit.

    Teresa (7ae8a3)

  70. Okay.
    Let’s not blame Clinton for 911. He just made some mistakes in hindsight.

    John (a3a3fa)

  71. Okay.
    Let’s not blame Clinton for 911. He just made some mistakes in hindsight.

    Let’s give Bush the same break.

    NOW. Let’s look at the “energy crisis”.

    Clinton gave China the technolgy to out manufacture the U.S.A. and gives rise to China’s thurst for OIL and petro products.
    (See New York Times frontpage banner headlines for 4 days preceeding war over Kosovo regarding “U.S. and NATO forces assemble to start bombing Yugoslavia immediately”. Headlines read, ” Clinton gives U.S. Defense technolgy to China in exchange for campaign dollars”.

    You can squeel over THAT.
    Or you can be pissed, like me.

    What used to be surplus now goes to China

    John (a3a3fa)

  72. Conservatives Should Hate Disney’s Path to 911 Too…

    When I heard that Disney was making The Path to 9/11, I thought it was too soon to be making a cartoon about September 11….

    Jon Swift (59ce3a)

  73. […] Confused, I googled the production. On the very first page, I find a preview at Patterico’s Pontifications. He’s a proud Right Winger. He opens with a statement which is extraordinary: ” I have been fortunate enough to see an advance showing of The Path to 9/11 […]

    Barista » Blog Archive » lies, damned lies and television (0971c6)

  74. Our country has been going to pot since Bushie and the republicans have been in office. No abc/disney propaganda can change that.

    andrew mangold (c8b222)

  75. It’s unfortunate that the film “Loose Change” hasn’t been shown on network television. This film questions whether the attack was by surprise or was known about in advance by the government. It raises questions about the collapse of the twin towers and tower 7 (the one that wasn’t hit by a jet). It shows inconsistencies with the Pentagon attack as well. A MUST SEE at http://www.loosechange911.com and also showing on http://www.youtube.com

    [Yeah. A MUST SEE to show what lunatics some people are. — Patterico]

    vericarl (cb23be)

  76. But what about those of us living outside the States?

    From what I can gather, attempts by Clinton and Co. to edit or halt showing of the film are already underway and I’m thus worried about ABC caving.

    If that happens…Would anyone care to tell me how to find the original, unedited version? I would try to find it locally, but I’m doubting that Path to 9/11 will be a big hit here in China.

    Cheers

    Socrates Abroad (274fc6)

  77. do not give in show the path to 9 11 as it was made do not change anything i will be looking forward to seeing it …tks

    ron lovingod (a90377)

  78. Just some questions bitte, “Why now m’Lords, Why now?” And, “Why the strange dialog created specifically for the Clinton administrative staff? Why not the same liberty with wordplay for the rIGHT?” And, “Why is the live TV coverage not included from his royal highness [bush II] reading attempt from a kindergarten primer shortly into the 9/11 main event?” Could we, at some future time, have a complete chronological coverage of this administration (both domestic and foreign) from 2000 – 2008 (including an interim release up through 2006)?

    Brake-pointe (0ec270)

  79. why don’t you just pull your head out of your ass and take a look around. Maybe you will see some sunshine for a change.

    Mark (f23ede)

  80. Ladies and gentleman, these comments are brought to you by Google traffic. This is what you get when you’re high on a popular search.

    Patterico (de0616)

  81. Are you smoking crack?!?! Not a partisan movie? How could you “base” a movie on a bi-partisan 911 commission report and then completely make up sections to demean a past administration. AND then work to have it incorporated into a scholastic curriculum, so that we rewrite history for the young minds of America. This is just another attempt to plant fear in the minds of America – “Democrats can’t be trusted with the security of this country”. I am appalled by ABC and Disney for this bullshit! Another step in the “dumbing” of America, where most people believe exactly what they see on TV! It is irresponsible to say the very least… Wave the flag of ignorance high and proud asshole for in the not to distant future we will start to rebuild this country. Restore the checks and balances written into our constitution… Remove the taint of theocracy from this once proud nation…

    I too believe in protecting this country! So much in fact that I spent 13 years defending it, until I completely lost faith in the direction we were heading. You can defend America without alienating the rest of the whole, destroying the foundation of our constitution, and using fear as a means of control. Shame on you!

    A. Leggett (210a13)

  82. As some on here have stated, there is enough blame to go around for not doing enough about terrorism pre-9/11. We are at war now whether some of you want to believe that or not. You can’t support the troops and the war on terrorism while cheerleading for the Dems who seem to be doing all they can to help the opponents (see TERRORISTS). Perhaps this movie will not be kind to the Bushies or the Clintonistas, but just maybe it will help unite us against the real enemy……THE TERRORISTS AND ISLAMO-FASCHISM.

    And for tin-foiled hat wearing Mad Hatter, the towers collasped from the top down. When they implode buildings, they start collasping from the bottom. Now go back to listening to Art Bell and George Sori. Did Clinton have Vince Foster murdered?….hmmm

    Jeff (e99f98)

  83. […] Glenn Greenwald is spreading disinformation about “The Path to 9/11.” In this post, he endorses the myth — previously propagated by Think Progress and FireDogLake, and previously debunked by me — that the producers of “The Path to 9/11″ are so desperate to push the film to conservatives that they even provided an advance screening to obscure conservative blogs with tiny audiences, like mine: Think Progress has documented that bloggers with — to use Hewitt’s sneering description — “tiny” audiences received screeners, but they were individuals who were certain to ooze with praise for the film. And ooze with praise is exactly what they did (emphasis added). […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Greenwald Propagates the Myth that “Path to 9/11″ Publicists Gave Advance Screenings to Obscure Right-Wing Blogs Like This One (421107)

  84. I think everyone has forgotten the fact that bin Laden didn’t “do” 9/11. Which makes this path take everyone in the wrong direction.

    If people think that bin Laden is the only enemy of the US, you can expect complacency to allow another tragedy of equal or greater proportion. And you all will be completely responsible – the next movie will be about the people of the US allowing it.

    D.Ash (e836a5)

  85. It’s unconscionable that ABC has chosen to fabricate scenes regarding members of the Clinton administration for which there simply is no factual basis whatsoever. That’s an insult to Americans of all political stripes.

    chris (4ef91b)

  86. It amazes me that some people have such short memories. It wasn’t too long ago when CBS was to air a docudrama deemed critical of the Reagan administration. It was relegated to run on Showtime to a select few. The fact that ABC did not preview a copy to any medium that may be considered liberal speaks volumes. As for me I will be watching to see who advertises on the program and take appropriate steps

    Thomas O'Donnell (2ceb7c)

  87. What a crock. Show the movie as it was designed. If somebody said Clinton picked his nose when he was four years old a million people would come to his aid as if he was christ or something. Every thinking person that paid any attention knows that Clinton was and still is a pinhead. He had and has no redeeming qualities at all. He is the perfect politition, he says nothing he believes, believes nothing he says and his entire life is all about him. The perfect politition, the perfect con man are one in ther same. If he didn’t have a propensity for charm, he’d have been a used car salesman or maybe just a regular run of the mill sociopath. The lover and adoration for the guys is amazing, he’s a dipstick.

    Dennis (975252)

  88. Watch the Disputed ‘Path to 9/11′ Clips Before Clinton’s Lawyers Get to Them…

    They’re at Red State, and content disputes aside, I think they’re very entertaining. I hope we get to see the whole thing.
    They may be a little slow to load.
    My conspiracy theory? This is all part of Marky Mark’s plan to stifle Donnie Wahlberg’s….

    Mary Katharine Ham (95d97e)

  89. It amazes me that some people have such short memories. It wasn’t too long ago when CBS was to air a docudrama deemed critical of the Reagan administration.

    Well maybe, Thomas, people don’t remember a docudrama about the Reagan administration because there wasn’t one. Oh, there was a docudrama about what was supposedly happening in the Reagan bedroom rather than the Oval office — with Mr. Babs Streisand protraying Reagan as a drooling, mean-spirited idiot, Nancy as a drug addicted control freak and Reagan kids as losers who all hated each other. Policy? Oh yeah, where Reagan turns to Nancy says AIDS is a just punishment “They that live in sin shall die in sin.”

    Darleen (03346c)

  90. Good ‘balanced’ review – comments and amusing points of view

    Leonard (0ba534)

  91. Well maybe, Thomas, people don’t remember a docudrama about the Reagan administration because there wasn’t one. Oh, there was a docudrama about what was supposedly happening in the Reagan bedroom rather than the Oval office — with Mr. Babs Streisand protraying Reagan as a drooling, mean-spirited idiot, Nancy as a drug addicted control freak and Reagan kids as losers who all hated each other. Policy? Oh yeah, where Reagan turns to Nancy says AIDS is a just punishment “They that live in sin shall die in sin.”

    That had just as much basis in reality as the made-up events contained in “The Path to 9/11″. Which of course is to say, no basis at all. In both cases, fictional events are depicted with the express purpose of making a former President look bad.

    Goddess of Death (346138)

  92. Here’s something interesting. According to the UK advertisement, “The Path to 9/11″ is “the official true story” of the 9/11 attacks.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHgbeJu1WGk

    It’s just a docudrama, though. ABC isn’t claiming that every scene is factually correct.

    Goddess of Death (346138)

  93. GD

    That had just as much basis in reality as the made-up events contained in “The Path to 9/11″.

    There is audio and video of Bill Clinton, on three separate occasions admitting that his admin could have snatched bin Laden but didn’t.

    Care to tell source me the audio or video of Reagan squashing fed $$ for aids because he thought gays should die for engaging in anal sex?

    meshugga!

    Darleen (03346c)

  94. oh crud… I didn’t close my bold tag… sorry.

    Darleen (03346c)

  95. Darleen: “There is audio and video of Bill Clinton, on three separate occasions admitting that his admin could have snatched bin Laden but didn’t.

    That would be damning evidence, to say the least. Would you be kind enough to tell us how we can see and hear these recordings? A link, title, or the name of a website would be most appreciated. Thanks.

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  96. ABC’s statement that it is a movie and that viewers can make up their own minds is nonsense. Many viewers will not read the report issued by the 9/11 Commission or Clarke’s book, for example, thus they will attempt to make up their minds after viewing distortions of the facts.

    Clarke is a Republican and he says that the Clinton Adminstration took terrorism more seriously than the Bush Administration. Moreover, Clinton was preoccupied with fending off the partisan attacks of those who would make a blow job grounds for impeachment. Almost 70 percent of Americans wanted the Republican led House of Representatives to abandon this effort. I can assure you that not 70 percent of us are not Democrats. There were many Republicans and Independents who knew this partisan effort to impeach him was done simply because, “we can do it; we have the votes”, as Newt Gingrich stated.

    Why was the dramitization necessary when the true facts are just as entertaining?

    FairNBalanced (1f73a1)

  97. BTW, Rick. If you watched the event tonight, you know that, A. Tenet nixed all of these missions and B. Clinton always was for snatching or killing OBL.

    FairNBalanced (1f73a1)

  98. BTW, I tried Googling, and only came up with the Newsmax.com story from around 2002 about the Sudanese and bin Laden. Here’s Clinton in the transcript:

    CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got — well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.

    Clinton seems to be “admitting” that he had no legal basis to hold bid Laden as he had committed no crime against America at that time, but nonetheless “pleaded” with the Saudis to take him, but the Saudi’s refused.

    Here’s how the 9/11 Commmission summed it up (with emphasis added):

    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.

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

    So Darleen, I’m stuck; could you please show us where I can find the two other Clinton admissions? Once again, thanks.

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  99. From FairNBalanced:

    BTW, Rick. If you watched the event tonight, you know that, A. Tenet nixed all of these missions and B. Clinton always was for snatching or killing OBL.

    Thanks, FairNBalanced, but I missed it; the wife and I watched “Syriana”, instead.

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  100. Hopefully this will close Darleen’s open tag.

    Goddess of Death (346138)

  101. I saw the first segment last night and agree with some other viewers. I didn’t seem biased, did seem to hammer home how politically correct our country’s elected leaders have become, and how politicans are more concerned with their image and getting re-elected than the safety of our country.

    Having read this entire thread it strikes me that we have become a nation of Shiites and Sunnis. We as a country, for the most part, are so politically galvanized as Dems or Reps, that we no longer think or speak for ourselves

    nick1126 (bb3c3d)

  102. Sorry about the grammar! “I” should have been “It” in the second sentence.

    nick1126 (bb3c3d)

  103. The WTC towers fell in a perfect vertical freefall, the only force acting upon them to slow them down was air. This does not happen by accident, but is the only product of a demolition.

    These kinds of allegations have all been answered. They are usual combination of people who don’t know what they’re talking about and people who are making things up.

    9/11: Debunking The Myths

    CLAIM:
    As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: “The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions.” Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying “there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.” The article continues, “Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.”

    FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process “pancaking,” and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

    Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air–along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse–was ejected with enormous energy. “When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it’s going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, “but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception.”

    Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. “I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building,” he tells PM. “I only said that that’s what it looked like.”

    Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. “I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line.” But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: “The paymaster of Romero’s research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement.” Romero responds: “Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years.”

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  104. Darleen: “There is audio and video of Bill Clinton, on three separate occasions admitting that his admin could have snatched bin Laden but didn’t.

    That would be damning evidence, to say the least. Would you be kind enough to tell us how we can see and hear these recordings? A link, title, or the name of a website would be most appreciated. Thanks.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential2/berger_burglar_blockbuster_1.guest.html

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  105. “ABC’s statement that it is a movie and that viewers can make up their own minds is nonsense. Many viewers will not read the report issued by the 9/11 Commission or Clarke’s book, for example, thus they will attempt to make up their minds after viewing distortions of the facts.”

    It really isn’t up to ABC to force Americans to read history any more than it was up to Oliver Stone to force people to read up on JFK.

    sharon (03e82c)

  106. George A. kindly posted this link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential2/berger_burglar_blockbuster_1.guest.html.

    But it doesn’t seem to support Darleen’s claim: It’s a link to a Limbaugh audio with two soundbites of Clinton: the first is a denial that there was a Sudanese offer to handover bin Laden, entirely consistent with the 9/11 Commission report that

    “We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”
    http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

    The second is the recording of the transcript posted above:

    Clinton: “So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got — well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.”

    Clinton seems to be “admitting” that he had no legal basis to hold bin Laden, not that he had an opportunity to snatch him but didn’t. At that time, bin Laden had committed no crime against America, so there was no indictment or any legal basis to hold or extradite him to the USA. Nonetheless, Clinton “pleaded” with the Saudis to take him, but the Saudi’s refused.

    So, back to the original claim: Where are the three, or even one, recordings of Clinton “admitting that his admin could have snatched bin Laden but didn’t?” If they exist, they would be most damning evidence. Is there a link, title, or website that has these recordings?

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  107. Clinton seems to be “admitting” that he had no legal basis to hold bin Laden, not that he had an opportunity to snatch him but didn’t.

    Where are the three, or even one, recordings of Clinton “admitting that his admin could have snatched bin Laden but didn’t?”

    Okay, he had the opportunity to have bin Laden extradited. Is that an important distinction? I guess you’re focusing on the word “snatch” in some kind of Clintonesque fashion.

    Why would Clinton say he had no legal basis to hold him unless he had an opportunity to get him? How could he plead with the Saudis to take him, unless the Sudanese wanted to turn him over?

    Clinton denied making the remarks to the 9/11 commission, claiming he was misquoted.

    At that time, bin Laden had committed no crime against America,

    You’ve got to be kidding.

    “The hardest charge to dismiss is the most devastating,” reports Vanity Fair in its June issue. “Five years before 9/11, it was said, Osama bin Laden had been presented to Bill Clinton on a silver platter, and he refused to take him.”

    Before NewsMax released its smoking-gun tape, Vanity Fair says, Clinton officials such as former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger denied up and down that Sudan had any intention of extraditing bin Laden.

    Others, such as U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Tim Carney, however, claimed otherwise.

    “Who was right hadn’t been resolved when Clinton addressed a businessman’s group on Long Island on February 15, 2002,” the magazine said. “A tape recording obtained by the right wing Web site NewsMax.com captured Clinton saying the following:

    “‘Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.

    “‘They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here, because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

    “‘So I pleaded with the Saudis to take take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato.'”

    Though there was ample intelligence and evidence that bin Laden indeed had been behind attacks against Americans, contradicting Clinton’s claim, Vanity Fair noted, “Although the [Clinton] admission passed without notice in most of the mainstream media, the damage was done.

    Vanity Fair notes that when Clinton was grilled about his bin Laden admission by the 9/11 Commission last month, he called it “a misquote,” apparently hoping the commissioners didn’t know it was on tape.

    As NewsMax noted at the time, after 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey compared Clinton’s testimony to his February 2002 remarks, he told a radio interviewer, “[This is] much different from what we heard.”

    Gerald A (fe1f90)

  108. It really isn’t up to ABC to force Americans to read history any more than it was up to Oliver Stone to force people to read up on JFK.

    It’s also not up to ABC to push blatant lies as “the official true story” of 9/11, but that’s exactly what they’ve done.

    Goddess of Death (346138)

  109. It’s also not up to ABC to push blatant lies as “the official true story” of 9/11, but that’s exactly what they’ve done.

    Really? I could have sworn that they’ve been saying from the beginning that:

    “For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalised scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.”

    So, what you’ve just said pushes a blatant lie as the truth. Project much, loseress?

    Pablo (efa871)

  110. Yeah, those darned Clintonians! You’d think that defamation was a federal crime or something the way Berger and Albright are carrying on… oh, wait.

    You’d be pissed off too if a multinational conglomerate poured forty (40) million dollars into convincing the general public that you (not Bush, not U.S. foreign policy, not the Republican House and Senate that kept Clinton from doing his job for three years because he had Sex) were indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent lives, when in fact the instances they cite to blame you never even occurred.

    Ahh… and about “airport profiling”. There is a reason that the U.S. avoids “airport profiling”. The reason is that forty to fifty years ago, the term was “racial profiling”, and it was outlawed by the Voting Rights Act, under Johnson.

    Don’t pretend that in your infinite maturity you will be able to distinguish Terrorists using “airport profiling”; in reality, all you will be able to distinguish is Arabs, or any other dark skinned individuals your Aryan ego feels like persecuting.

    Pull your head out.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  111. If Clinton couldn’t perform in office because he was having sex, that’s his problem. We elected him not to have sex in office but to be President.
    And you might want to look up “defamation” and see what the standard is for public officials. If George Bush can’t sue the moviemakers for the movie about his assassination, I don’t think Bill Clinton can sue ABC for broadcasting a movie about how distracted he was getting blow jobs in the Oval Office.

    BTW, the Voting Rights Act has nothing to do with airport security. You might try looking that one up, too.

    sharon (03e82c)

  112. Re: Post 111

    Must be some boilerplate that you’re posting all over the internet. Is this a homework assignment?

    Gerald A (dd601b)

  113. Someone should prbably explain that defamation isn’t a crime to begin with, but a basis for civil damages.

    Then there’s the fact that Islamic fascists are responsible for the deaths on 9/11. But for those who are convinced that BUSH DID IT!!!, that explanation is probably a waste of time that could be spent cleaning one’s toenails or looking for signs from aliens in cloud patterns.

    Pablo (efa871)

  114. I watched it last night. The whole time I kept thinking………OHsama why don’t you and your clan rechannel your efforts and discover a cure for cancer. If they want to be heros find a cure. Heros stoop to help others they don’t murder. They are cowards cowards cowards. The other thing I thought is that politics is sooooo low class. We need to rise above it and join together as one in this country. What has happened to us. Inspite Of us though I believe. GOD WILL PREVAIL AND GOD WILL BLESS AMERICA. We all just need to clean up our act. WE ALL NEED TO CLEAN UP OUR ACT.

    Patricia Long (772096)

  115. ABC-DISNEY AND WHITE HOUSE
    TEAM UP TO REMAKE ‘TOP GUN’

    CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, Sept.10 – As film editors struggle to correct flaws in ABC’s docudrama “The Path to 9-11,” it was revealed today that the Bush administration and ABC-Disney are collaborating on a remake of the movie “Top Gun.” In a highly unusual move, ABC has made available a videotape of a focus group led by the President and Vice President for the purposes of reshaping a rough version of the sequel to the 1986 blockbuster. Parts of the focus group can be viewed at:
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Bush+Cheney+%27Top+Gun%27+Focus+Group&search=Search and http://www.thebushcheneytopgunfocusgroup.com/

    ABC’s disclosure came in the wake of controversy over its miniseries about events leading up to the attacks of 9/11. A statement issued by the network said the existence of its “Top Gun” project was made public due to anger over issues of dramatization. “ ‘The Path to 9/11’ is not a documentary, and for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictional scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression,” a spokeswoman explained. “But the public doesn’t get it, so we figured everyone might as well know now that we are also making a film that is entirely fictional, one we can’t be attacked for since it won’t depend on any relation to the truth of some report.” She added, “We don’t want to have to ask the Democrats for their thoughts, and besides, people like fiction more than documentaries.”

    An aide to Robert Iger, the president of Disney, ABC’s parent company, took a preemptive strike at would-be critics. “Just as with ‘The Path to 9/11,’ no one has seen the final version of the new ‘Top Gun,’ so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible,” the aide said. An international hit, the original “Top Gun” was credited with being the biggest recruitment vehicle ever for the armed forces. Tom Cruise, who originated the lead role of “Maverick,” has not been asked to star in the remake. The casting of the new movie is still a secret, but in the video of the focus group, Mr. Bush himself takes the role of “Maverick” and even sings new songs from the movie’s soundtrack. “This film is a sign of our faith, commitment, and leadership in advancing America’s ideals at home and abroad,” said a spokesman for the White House’s Office for Public Diplomacy, who added, “It will boost recruitment, convince skeptics of our noble cause, and show the Muslim world what freedom and liberty are all about.”

    In addition to the website listed above, Ian Maxwell MacKinnon and Eric Zinman, who produced the focus group, invite viewers to see archives of previous Bush-Cheney performances at the website http://www.492cafe.org/audio/comedy-satire/mackinnon.ian/ Included are readings from the Bush Bible, Q&A sessions, and the songs “Faith-Based Gospel” and “The Sun Never Sets On The Eagle,” sung by President Bush, accompanied by the Vice-President on piano.

    ian (4d43ab)

  116. Is it just me or are many of the people here defending Bill Clinton instead of the U.S.A.?
    It is one thing to deflame a sitting president and quite another to complain about a PREVIOUS president.
    Deflaming a sitting president can have consequences for the country NOW.
    Deflaming a previous president can not harm the country…just the former president’s image.

    Is the country more important than a previous president’s image? You decide.

    I don’t hear President Bush bitching about this movie.

    I DO hear/read about B. Clinton and his dogs bitching about their IMAGE. Do they care about America? Do they care about anything, but covering their asses? Apparently not.

    New “bathwater” (new president and administration), but the old scum (previous administration) keep trying to rise to the top.

    Clinton was not a good president. Any president that knowingly took money from foreign countries to get elected should be out of office and possibly in jail.
    Any president that GAVE OUR DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY (in exchange for “campaign $$$) SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR LIFE. That’s Bill Clinton I am reffering to, of course.

    I used to be a Democrat. The Democrats USED to be Democrats. Not any more. They are just self-centered power hungry dangers to the country.
    I didn’t need to watch “The Path to 911″ to know that, either. All I had to do was read/watch/listen to the news from them in Washington, D.C.
    The Democrats stand in the way of National Security and offer NOTHING in return.
    The Democrats have NO alternative plan, but condemn any Republican plan and the Republicans!
    Democrats want POWER, not a strong country.
    Democrats only care about being in POWER and screw everything and everybody that gets in their way. Their responces here, prove that.
    As America fights for it’s life there are it’s enemies; terrorists and Democrats, that both wish this administration to fail.

    John (a3a3fa)

  117. Really?? Airport Profiling has nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act?? Damn…I’d better go back and rethink my entire political ideology after that bombshell of a realization.

    Yes… I KNOW, genius. The problem with airport profiling is that it gives “just” cause for the persecution of any and all who fall under the public’s definition of a terrorist, i.e. ARABS.
    If the American people wanted a loophole around civil rights legislation, they would have passed something like the “Jaywalker Profiling Act” and enforced it in poor, black neighborhoods.

    Listen, I couldn’t care less about Clinton. He should have just come out and said “Yeah, I got a blowjob from Ms. Lewinsky. So what?” and then got on with his job instead of lying when their was ample evidence about his womanizing in the first place. It would have saved a lot of time and money.

    Just like Bush should come out and say “Yeah, I made a mistake going into Iraq. There were no WMDs, Al-Qaeda and Iraq have been at loggerheads for years, and Saddam Hussein sure as HELL isn’t the only dictator in the world… so, we’re out.” This would save a whole lot of time, money, and, most importantly, lives.

    The statement that Clinton was somehow an inept president and that Bush is doing a real knockout job is totally ludicrous.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  118. And by the way, defamation is to slander/libel what shooting someone in the face is to murder. Just because the sanction comes in a different form doesn’t mean that the offense isn’t wrong to begin with.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  119. George A. kindly replied:

    “I guess you’re focusing on the word “snatch” in some kind of Clintonesque fashion.”

    Not exactly; I’m focusing on the claim that:

    “There is audio and video of Bill Clinton, on three separate occasions admitting that his admin could have snatched bin Laden but didn’t.”


    I genuinely appreciate your efforts, but what you’ve provided so far doesn’t quite support the original claim. Just to be completely clear, a recording of Clinton denying that he had the opportunity to extradite (or “snatch”) bin Laden is somewhat different from a claim that there is a recording (or three of them) of Clinton admitting that he had such an opportunity. Likewise, Vanity Fair or Newsmax or Rush Limbaugh claiming that Clinton had the opportunity to take bin Laden into custody while Clinton flatly denies it is not really the equivalent of a video or audio of Clinton admitting that he had the chance.

    So once again, let’s get back to the original claim: Where are the three, or even one, recordings of Clinton “admitting that his admin could have snatched [or seized, or arrested, or extradited, or something like that] bin Laden but didn’t?” Is there a link, title, or website that has these recordings?

    Or was the claim an erroneous one, afterall?

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  120. Having read this entire thread it strikes me that we have become a nation of Shiites and Sunnis, so far apart. We as a country, for the most part, are so politically galvanized as Dems or Repubs, that we no longer think or speak for ourselves!

    Both parties suck and are in it for themselves.

    nick1126 (bb3c3d)

  121. Saw P2 911 over the past couple of nights. It’s amazing to me that there are those who choose to have Disney spoon feed them history when it’s available. You’ve just gotta read. Not only Drudgereport, but all sources. If you do, you’ll see the misrepresentations that were made in the so called docudrama.

    What’s a docudrama anyways? If it’s has fiction interjected for effect, it’s no different than the rash of plagiarism that has infected our media recently. It all becomes fiction. Get it?

    FairNBalanced (1f73a1)

  122. Democrats — terrorists, they both want to control our minds and our lives. The only difference is the dems haven’t started killing us yet. Then again, maybe they have…….911.

    Patricia Long (772096)

  123. “Really?? Airport Profiling has nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act?? Damn…I’d better go back and rethink my entire political ideology after that bombshell of a realization.”

    If you knew this, then why did you make yourself look like a complete idiot by referencing the Voting Rights Act while talking about racial profiling?

    “Yes… I KNOW, genius. The problem with airport profiling is that it gives “just” cause for the persecution of any and all who fall under the public’s definition of a terrorist, i.e. ARABS.”

    Sorry, but profiling has been a useful tool in law enforcement for years. The problem is that the PC police don’t want us to notice that all the people who flew airplanes into buildings (or attempted to) were ARABS. I’d be more than happy for them to pull me out of line at the airport and force me through the whole security routine the next time a middle-aged white woman blows up buildings.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  124. Yeah…We had everyone fooled for a while, too, until you came along.

    Here was the secret to our brilliant plan…kill New Yorkers, well known for their progressive, Democratic voting tendencies. That way, no one would ever suspect us.

    But you… you foiled our nefarious plan. Once you spread your brilliant theory over the Internet, we will be utterly helpless. If only we had taken into account Patricia Long, Master Conspiracy Theorist.

    Idiot.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  125. The problem with airport profiling is that it gives “just” cause for the persecution of any and all who fall under the public’s definition of a terrorist, i.e. ARABS.

    Huh?
    So a search is now “persecution”?

    Oh, it isn’t, but you’re arguing from the left and normal definitions don’t fit.

    Just like Bush should come out and say “Yeah, I made a mistake going into Iraq. There were no WMDs, Al-Qaeda and Iraq have been at loggerheads for years, and Saddam Hussein sure as HELL isn’t the only dictator in the world… so, we’re out.” This would save a whole lot of time, money, and, most importantly, lives.

    Except there were WMD’s, AQ and Iraq have not been “at loggerheads” and nobody claimed Saddam was the world’s only dictator.

    The Ace (8154cd)

  126. But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.”

    Comment by Sue D’oh Nym

    Please tell the class how taggants in gun powder would in any way prevent a terrorist attack.

    Please do.

    The Ace (8154cd)

  127. BTW, Rick. If you watched the event tonight, you know that, A. Tenet nixed all of these missions and B. Clinton always was for snatching or killing OBL.

    Comment by FairNBalanced

    Hilarious.

    I love reading these comments from you ignorants.

    The Ace (8154cd)

  128. It’s amazing to me that there are those who choose to have Disney spoon feed them history when it’s available

    Who has claimed this is “history”?

    The Ace (8154cd)

  129. Heyyy, sharon! My buddy! I guess two of us have no lives. Are you a student like me, or another disgruntled office drone with nothing better to do than waste your employer’s hard earned dollars pissing away your time on a blog no one (except us, of course) cares about in the first place?

    Your argument is flawed: The IRA (terrorists, no?) blew stuff up all over England/Northern Ireland, yet you probably won’t see the TSA pulling red-headed, white-skinned Irish people out of baggage check lines and giving them full cavity searches before allowing them on planes to America.

    What about Tim McVeigh? After Oklahoma, I didn’t hear you people screaming for every shifty looking white guy in America to be harassed before boarding an airplane.

    If I had faith that the TSA would be able to put together an objective list of terrorist characteristics and then use that list in a just way, than I wouldn’t be arguing with you right now.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  130. Don’t pretend that in your infinite maturity you will be able to distinguish Terrorists using “airport profiling”; in reality, all you will be able to distinguish is Arabs, or any other dark skinned individuals your Aryan ego feels like persecuting.

    Don’t pretend in your ignorant silliness we won’t be able to deter the most likely group of terrorists, Muslim males of Mid East descent, with profiling.

    Isn’t this fun, dumbass?

    The Ace (8154cd)

  131. Are you a student like me

    And you’re lecturing on profiling, the voting rights act, and the “history” of the Clinton Admin (when you were 5).

    Unreal.

    The Ace (8154cd)

  132. Your argument is flawed: The IRA (terrorists, no?) blew stuff up all over England/Northern Ireland, yet you probably won’t see the TSA pulling red-headed, white-skinned Irish people out of baggage check lines and giving them full cavity searches before allowing them on planes to America.

    I didn’t know the IRA targeted this country. Nor did they ever blow up or hijack any planes. Maybe you didn’t know that.

    Gerald A (add20f)

  133. And listen , “The Ace”:

    If there were WMDs in Iraq, I’m sure that the Bush Administration would be the first to let all of us know, followed closely by the UN and every conservative commentator on the planet. But if you have some information that the rest of us don’t, then by all means, enlighten us. Do it for Your Country.

    Bin Laden is a Salafist, a purist, super conservative Muslim. Hussein was a decadent dictator, leading his state down a quasi-secular path. I doubt they saw eye to eye on things.

    And, finally, if we acknowledge that there are other dictators in the world, and the only reason Bush can give us for going into Iraq at this point is that Saddam Hussein was bad, why aren’t we invading every country led by a Bad Guy?

    Leviticus (43095b)

  134. I didn’t know the IRA targeted this country. Nor did they ever blow up or hijack any planes. Maybe you didn’t know that.

    Comment by Gerald A — 9/12/2006 @ 1:57 pm

    Are you a terrorist sympathizer or something?
    Oh, never mind, you’re justing saying that other people’s lives are less important than our lives. My mistake.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  135. Just to be completely clear, a recording of Clinton denying that he had the opportunity to extradite (or “snatch”) bin Laden is somewhat different from a claim that there is a recording (or three of them) of Clinton admitting that he had such an opportunity.

    You’re just making things up now. There is no place in that recording where he denies he had an opportunity to extradite bin Laden. What sentence in there is his denial we had the opportunity to extrradite him? He didn’t explicitly say he had the opportunity, but his statement only makes sense in that context. He said we had no legal basis for holding him, (which was a lie). Obviously that would only come up in the context of having the opportunity to extradite him. Why would he be saying that if he had no opportunity to extradite him? He also said he asked the Saudis to take him. How could they do that unless the Sudanese were willing to extradite him?

    So once again, let’s get back to the original claim: Where are the three, or even one, recordings of Clinton “admitting that his admin could have snatched [or seized, or arrested, or extradited, or something like that] bin Laden but didn’t?” Is there a link, title, or website that has these recordings?

    The recording I linked to.

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  136. “The Ace”: I’m lecturing you on the only part of the Clinton Administration you apparently care about, i.e. his getting some on the side.

    WHO CARES?

    Plus, you should be glad that the youth of the nation are making the move towards political awareness… wait. You’re a Republican. Never mind, no you shouldn’t.

    I’m a little surprised that the liberal youth is more politically aware than the conservative adult
    (which you had better be if you’re going to lecture me for being too young to know what happened seven and a half years ago).

    Leviticus (43095b)

  137. Are you a terrorist sympathizer or something?
    Oh, never mind, you’re justing saying that other people’s lives are less important than our lives. My mistake.

    I never heard IRA terrorists were known to be coming to this country. What logical reason is there to be checking for people who weren’t even coming here?

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  138. So once again, let’s get back to the original claim: Where are the three, or even one, recordings of Clinton “admitting that his admin could have snatched [or seized, or arrested, or extradited, or something like that] bin Laden but didn’t?” Is there a link, title, or website that has these recordings?

    The recording I linked to.

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  139. So once again, let’s get back to the original claim: Where are the three, or even one, recordings of Clinton “admitting that his admin could have snatched [or seized, or arrested, or extradited, or something like that] bin Laden but didn’t?” Is there a link, title, or website that has these recordings?

    The recording I linked to……

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  140. George A., Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

    rick (ea2ac3)

  141. “Bin Laden is a Salafist, a purist, super conservative Muslim. Hussein was a decadent dictator, leading his state down a quasi-secular path. I doubt they saw eye to eye on things.”

    I don’t know if you are a child or not, but just because OBL was religious and Hussein was secular doesn’t mean they couldn’t have common goals. In this case, both of them hated the U.S. and our foreign policy. There are no operational links between Hussein and OBL, but it’s been shown that Bin Laden’s people had talked to Hussein’s on multiple occasions and had been in and out of Iraq. It’s a very simplistic view to think that because OBL and Hussein didn’t agree on some things that they couldn’t agree on others. We know Hussein wanted GHWB to be assassinated. We know he was the only world leader to cheer 9/11. So there was sympathy there.

    “And, finally, if we acknowledge that there are other dictators in the world, and the only reason Bush can give us for going into Iraq at this point is that Saddam Hussein was bad, why aren’t we invading every country led by a Bad Guy?”

    Well, the simple answer is that we haven’t the resources to go after every Bad Guy. Because we have limited resources, we have to pick our battles. In this case, our government determined that our resources were better spent trying to clear out the viper’s nest in the Middle East.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  142. I’m lecturing you on the only part of the Clinton Administration you apparently care about, i.e. his getting some on the side.

    Um, except you don’t know what you’re talking about as evidenced by your ignorant commentary.

    Plus, you should be glad that the youth of the nation are making the move towards political awareness

    Except you’re not “aware” of anything.

    I’m a little surprised that the liberal youth is more politically aware than the conservative adult

    See comments above.

    The Ace (8d7f7b)

  143. If there were WMDs in Iraq, I’m sure that the Bush Administration would be the first to let all of us know,

    Because you say so?
    I mean, you, silly juvenile would do that so the President would too, right?

    As a point of fact:
    Saddam had WMD, nobody disputes this. The only question is what happened to them.

    Bin Laden is a Salafist, a purist, super conservative Muslim. Hussein was a decadent dictator, leading his state down a quasi-secular path. I doubt they saw eye to eye on things.

    Er, this is a talking point which has no basis in fact.

    Given that, you don’t have an basis to “doubt” anything.

    And, finally, if we acknowledge that there are other dictators in the world, and the only reason Bush can give us for going into Iraq at this point is that Saddam Hussein was bad, why aren’t we invading every country led by a Bad Guy?

    Proving your simpleton mindset.
    Hint: adults don’t ask questions like this.

    Maybe because every country on the planet isn’t led by a sworn enemy of America who had attempted to assisinate a former US President, violated 17 UN resolutions, and had ~30,000 US service personnel containing him.

    Every think of that, moron?

    The Ace (8d7f7b)

  144. The Ace,

    You’re making too much sense.

    You could add that our 30,000 containing him were given by O.b.L. as a reason for attacking us, “Get the infidels off of Holy Land!”

    I guess O.b.L. must not have been working with those Al Queda operatives who did 9/11 after all. They sure were not leading holy Muslim lives as O.b.L. does

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  145. Bin Laden is a Salafist, a purist, super conservative Muslim. Hussein was a decadent dictator, leading his state down a quasi-secular path. I doubt they saw eye to eye on things.

    Please then explain Syria’s relationship with Hezbollah and Iran.

    Thanks.

    The Ace (8d7f7b)

  146. I’m lecturing you on the only part of the Clinton Administration you apparently care about, i.e. his getting some on the side.

    Um, except you don’t know what you’re talking about as evidenced by your ignorant commentary.

    Plus, you should be glad that the youth of the nation are making the move towards political awareness

    Except you’re not “aware” of anything.

    I’m a little surprised that the liberal youth is more politically aware than the conservative adult

    See comments above.

    Comment by The Ace — 9/12/2006 @ 5:19 pm

    Look, Ace,

    If you’re going to debate with someone, debate with them. If you want to call someone names and attack their position without ever declaring one of your own, then run for office. It seems to the outside observer that you are at a loss for words.

    Who cares if Leviticus is a child or not? Take his comments at face value, and think about the logic behind them. Then, give your side of the story and support it with facts.

    Just getting frustrated and calling names only adds to the stereotype that we conservatives don’t really know what we’re talking about, when in reality we are just as intelligent as the Dems.

    Hugo (b987b0)

  147. If you’re going to call someone a “moron”, don’t misspell “assassinate” in the previous paragraph.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  148. sharon,

    I understand your argument(i.e. Hussein and Bin Laden had common goals), but that in and of itself isn’t enough to say that Iraq assisted Al Qaeda. You said yourself that there were “no operational ties” between the two.

    Afghanistan, sure. It was Al Qaeda’s stronghold, its base of operations after the war with Russia.
    Iraq…? No. No ties. No excuse.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  149. Look, Ace,

    If you’re going to debate with someone, debate with them. If you want to call someone names and attack their position

    The vacuity of the “position” is self evident by the comments.

    The Ace (8d7f7b)

  150. Iraq…? No. No ties. No excuse.

    Please then explain this:

    Office of the Presidency Intelligence Service M5/3/9/2
    The Honorable Mr. General Director Manager M5
    Subject: Information

    Our Afghani source numbered 11002 had provided us with the information on the denotation paper number -1- )
    The Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahstani (the information on the denotation paper number (2)) had mentioned in front of him with the followings:

    1. Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban Group in Afghanistan were in touch with the Iraqis and that group of the Talibans and Osama Bin Laden had visited Iraq.
    2. The United States of America has evidence that the Iraqi government and Osama Bin Laden’s group expressed cooperation among themselves in bombing targets in American.
    3. In case Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were proven to have been involved in carrying out these terrorist operations, it could be possible that the United Stated will attack both Iraq and Afghanistan.
    4. The Afghani consul heard about the connection between the Iraqis and the Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.
    5. Upon what has been presented we suggest writing to the Intention Committee with the above information.

    Please revise…Your recommendation …. With appreciation,

    The Ace (8d7f7b)

  151. Do you have a date for that thing? Like, maybe, February, 2003? Because the Administration showed that it was willing to lie to get into Iraq by any means necessary. Remember the weapons inspectors who said that there were NO WMDs in Iraq? Remember Bush insisting that there were?

    Remember that three (3) years later, they still haven’t found any?

    And what, pray do tell, was Hussein going to say when asked by Al Qaeda whether or not he wanted to bomb the U.S.? “No, I love them so much I think I’ll send them chocolates instead”?

    The point is that Hussein didn’t have the capability in the first place. He could talk all he wanted, but when push came to shove, he was just another insecure, failed dictator, totally impotent.

    Leviticus (7011c1)

  152. “I understand your argument(i.e. Hussein and Bin Laden had common goals), but that in and of itself isn’t enough to say that Iraq assisted Al Qaeda. You said yourself that there were “no operational ties” between the two.”

    Yes, the key word being “operational.” That’s not the same thing as giving aid and support or allowing activities to go on. Besides which, North Korea didn’t have anything to do with 9/11 either, yet they, too, are part of the Axis of Evil. Please don’t try the argument, “But we haven’t gone to war with them.” It is irrelevant whether we have gone to war with them. Iraq was next to Afghanistan. It was ruled by a tyrant who greatly desired nuclear weapons, threatened his neighbors in the past, killed who knows how many of his own people, and sought to have an American president assassinated. That’s plenty of reason to invade.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  153. “Because the Administration showed that it was willing to lie to get into Iraq by any means necessary. Remember the weapons inspectors who said that there were NO WMDs in Iraq? Remember Bush insisting that there were?”

    Remember the vast majority of nations thought there were WMDs in Iraq? Remember Clinton insisted there were WMDs and Iraq and that Hussein was a threat?

    “Remember that three (3) years later, they still haven’t found any?”

    Actually, they’ve found some but not huge stockpiles. And here’s a question for you: Why would Bush “lie” about something that was going to be verified once we were there? Or is this more of the “he’s an idiot” argument which still doesn’t work?

    “And what, pray do tell, was Hussein going to say when asked by Al Qaeda whether or not he wanted to bomb the U.S.? “No, I love them so much I think I’ll send them chocolates instead”?”

    How about, “No”?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  154. The whole point is that the Axis of Evil was an arbitrary label in the first place.

    I have refrained from saying that Bush is an idiot, because it isn’t constructive (unlike debating ideas with you, my dear sharon, and teaching “The Ace” how to spell).

    Given that Bush isn’t an idiot and he that he wouldn’t lie about something that would be verified upon the invasion of Iraq, we are left with several answers, two of which are: 1) There really are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or 2)Bush had an ulterior motive for going in in the first place (oil, votes, something).

    I heard about the WMDs that were found, but they were outdated and out of service, so I really don’t think that they count as a plausible threat.

    And I’ll add (no in defense of Clinton, but for the sake of clarity) that even though Clinton saw Iraq as a threat, he didn’t prematurely invade based on faulty info about nonexistent weapons.

    Leviticus (7011c1)

  155. You guys keep talking about an Iraqi assassination attempt on an American president. What incident are you referring to (I feel a little dumb asking, but I’d like to know)?

    Hugo (7011c1)

  156. Saddam tried to kill GW Bush the Elder. Read about it here.

    Patterico (de0616)

  157. It wasn’t an attempt if they never actually tried to do it, by the way. They didn’t actually try to blow up the Prez, they just claimed that as their ultimate objective. That’s a “conspiracy to…” situation.

    If mere conspiracy to assassinate a U.S. president is an act of war, then why didn’t the U.S. invade Georgia after Vladimir Artuyunyan chucked a hand grenade at Bush the Second? He actually attempted assassination, and if you argue that he was on his own, well, technically, so were they.

    Also, in that instance, the response was proportional to the threat. An assassination for an attempted assassination.

    sharon and “The Ace”:

    “Two reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee stung the White House last week. The first concludes that Saddam Hussein NEVER HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH ABU MUSAB ZARQAWI OR ANY OTHER AL QAEDA MILITANTS- despite some prewar Bush administration claims to the contrary. The second report accuses Iraqi opposition politician Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress of trying to MISLEAD U.S. INTELLIGENCE ABOUT SADDAM’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. It also shows how reports from INC-affiliated sources were mishandled by several intelligence agencies…”

    -from U.S. News and World Report

    (Week of) September 18, 2006

    sharon, I still remember hearing something about defunct WMDs in small numbers.

    “The Ace”… QED, baby.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  158. Really? I could have sworn that they’ve been saying from the beginning that:

    “For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalised scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.”

    So, what you’ve just said pushes a blatant lie as the truth. Project much, loseress?

    I already linked to the advertisement that ABC produced that calls this “docudrama” the “official true story” of 9/11. But since you apparently managed to overlook it, I’ll post the link again.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHgbeJu1WGk

    If you prefer, of course, you can continue to wallow in self-imposed ignorance.

    Goddess of Death (346138)

  159. I just watched that trailer and I admit that it’s pretty slimey. But I never saw that trailer before today (not that I can remember at least) and they made it a point to prominently display the disclaimer numerous times throughout each part of the film.

    anyone that thinks that the information they get from a TV docudrama is accurate is totally naive in the first place.

    Hugo (ed6d31)

  160. Ah, I’d missed that. But I’d still rather wallow in pretention and feigned outrage with you. Maybe I could grab a cool nic like “Deity of Devastation” and Get. It. ON.

    So, they called it a docudrama and “The Official True Story!!” Is that a blatant lie or half a lie and half a truth and who really gives a damn anyway?

    It’s not as if they’re presenting forged documents as the Real Official Honest to Goodness Truth on a news program, is it?

    Pablo (efa871)

  161. Hey Patterico, next time you see “The Ace” post one of his insipid one liners, let him know that I just handed him his proverbial ass on a platter.

    …And I certainly wouldn’t be rubbing it in if he hadn’t tried to discount everything I said based on the fact that I was younger than he was.

    Maybe he learned something.

    Maybe his boss caught him wasting valuable office time on the Internet (producing nothing) and he got canned.

    Maybe he just ran.

    And maybe he’ll come back. I seriously doubt that facts are going to deter him in his support of this war.

    Leviticus (ed6d31)

  162. And Leviticus, you’re kinda splitting hairs when you say that attempted assassination and planned assassination should be dealt with in different fashions, just because they are technically different offenses. Most assassinations that are attempted succeed, so it doesn’t make much sense for us to wait around for terrorists to try.

    Hugo (ed6d31)

  163. This film in a nutshell is to expose Clinton for who he was. Was he concerned about Bin Laden? Yes. But the film communicates that Clinton was an absoute coward. Let history judge for itself. Clinton was “conferencing” with Monica and left Arafat in the halls waiting for him to “finish” off his business. This is how much Clinton cared. What Clinton did then is a demonstration of his cowardly behavior, lying to the American public about his “affair”. His administration began to snowball from there. He made a half-hearted attempt at going after Bin Laden,….much like a coward. The film communicates that the world’s perception (not ours, I might strongly add) that Clinton was an absolute unequivocal coward. Clinton’s sexual affairs and his bald-faced lying to cover up manifested his cowardly behavior. Why not be honest like a man? The ramifications of his behavior led to him not going after Bin Laden, Clinton didn’t have the cahones to drag the US into conflict. It is only natural that a new film is following this one, where Pres. Bush is getting shot. The libs will praise this movie as if it were “Gone With the Wind”.

    M McFarland (b5108a)

  164. So, the best way to “expose Clinton for who he was” is to make up events that never actually happened, rather than to give a truthful account of his presidency? You cannot expose the truth by telling lies. The only thing that exposes the truth is telling the truth. This film does not do that.

    Goddess of Death (346138)

  165. Nobody likes “Gone With the Wind”, what’s wrong with you? It could’ve been good if Butler dropped o’Hara on her head at the top of the stairs in the fianl scene. Oh man that would’ve ruled.

    And what the hell is it with this conservative obsession with Bush’s assassination? When has anyone praised a portrayal of a presidential assassination? Besides, any such movie would get Big Brothered before it hit theaters to keep people from getting any ideas…

    Leviticus (43095b)

  166. Gosh..all you Right Wing Nuts have been so busy rewiting history. Wasn’t it Bush who sat for eight minutes in the schoolroom chair after the news of the first tower strike was whispered to him. Probably hoping the Secret Service could find a good hole for him to crawl into. I’ll take Clinton’s blow-job from Miss Piggy over Bush’s hand-job he gives the Saudis everytime he sees them. There are no kind words you can say about the Cretins in the Whitehouse. Besides, they’re too busy wading through our soldiers blood and guts in Iraq while waving the American flag to find Bin Laden.

    LeftCoastUpChukker (4d16bf)

  167. Right wing rewriting history??? That is the pot calling the kettle black.

    Who is the left’s greatest adversary??/ Michael Moore. Farenheit 911, There is a piece of fictional history if there ever was one. He claims it is “one man’s opinion.”

    This movie did not rewrite history. I read 1000 years for revenge, and this movie followed the principles of that book verbatim. The movie simply claims that Clinton was a Coward!!!! No one seems to be disputing that. Instead libs want to argue about “other issues”.\

    Truthfulness is a subjective issue. Was Clinton truthful when he distinguished sex between oral and a home run?? If Clinton wants the truth, then why wasn’t he flat out honest with the Monica case?? You can see the suffering in his eyes when he tries to deny it. He knew that history was going to view him as a philandering lier. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you are a dishonest slob, live with it for the rest of your life, please don’t try to continue ruining other peoples lives because of your shortcomings. This film was done with integrity, but because FBI advisors had a political agenda, the did not condone it.

    Clinton lied. that is his true legacy. Much like Nixon, it doens’t matter what else you achieved while in office. Libs want to shift the blame and put the focus elsewhere. Because of Clinton’s lying, his judgement became incredibally clouded over a short period of time, and he couldn’t nail Bin Laden. He couldn’t risk the lives of soldiers on his conscience because he was a cowardly lying, draft-dodging philandering; poor excuse of a husband president.

    M McFarland (4752e7)

  168. […] This is why I stand by my review of the original cut of “The Path To 9/11″ which trashed Sandy Berger in a rather harsh manner. I freely admit that history may not have happened exactly as depicted in that film. But since the both participants and the media don’t seem particularly interested in revealing the full story of what really happened, then I will accept an film that may contain some inaccuracies but still gets close to a larger “artistic truth”. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Sandy Berger - A Blast From The Past (421107)

  169. […] tragic story of the lives of humanity around the world and how we truly aren’t all that different. Babel. In Morocco, a troubled married couple are on vacation trying to work out their differences. […]

    Babel, 2006 (be135d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5462 secs.