The War Over “The Path To 9/11”
[posted by Justin Levine]
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.
[The lobbying reportedly includes efforts directed at former Democratic Senator George Mitchell, whom I believe is still Chairman of the Disney company, if I’m not mistaken.]
I have no independent verification of the above claim, but the Internet war over this film is now picking up steam.
The ironic part is, the critics of this movie who haven’t seen it yet are going to have egg on their face. This film in no way “blames the entire event on Clinton” as some falsely claim. “The Path to 9/11” absolutely slams Bush in a number of ways:
1. It depicts Condi Rice ignoring Richard Clarke’s advice about Al-Queda and undercutting his authority within the White House.
2. It depicts the August 6th “Presidential Daily Briefing” wherein Rice is explicitly warned before 9/11 that Bin Laden intends to hijack American airplanes.
3. It makes Richard Clarke look like a tragic hero (even though everyone knows that he later went on to become one of Bush’s biggest critics).
4. It contains an epliogue that cites 9/11 Commission members giving the current government a failing grade in implementing their recommendations.
Few people have seen the whole film. Even the select group in Washington only got to see the first half of the film (which obviously doesn’t deal with the Bush administration, based on how the timeline worked). As a result, there is a lot of misinformation going on about what “The Path To 9/11” is really about.
With all of that said — what this film also does is set the record straight on a number of events that the Clinton administration has previously tried to whitewash or ignore. That is the real reason why the left is going nuts over this. It wants to blame everything on Bush. Thus in its twisted logic, it cannot stand to see any criticism of Clinton whatsoever. (See my C-SPAN analogy in my previous post for more on this argument.)
Furthermore, they will go nuts when confronted with the truth that the Patriot Act was necessary in order to get various government agencies to share vital information with each other. They will go nuts when the depiction of historical events end up making the case for airport profiling. In other words, this film will force them to specifically articulate what tools they wish to employ in order to keep this country safe. That seems to make them uncomfortable for some reason.
To these early critics: Look, I know how frustrating it is to try and argue with someone who has actually seen the film when you haven’t. I had the same dilemma with Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 (I had to wait a full month after it was in theaters to score a free bootlegged copy to view so that I could speak about it intelligently). Trust me when I tell you that you don’t know what you are talking about. Still don’t believe me? Then all you have to do is wait until 9/11, see the film, and find out yourself (assuming it still airs in its current form).
To William Pitt: Your criticism of this film is particularly exasperating in light of the fact that you haven’t seen it yet. This is not a “television polemic intended to blame the entire event on Clinton.” But what is particularly pitiful is the way you continue to spin for Clinton. Do you feel that he is beyond blame because he earmarked $1-billion in an “anti-terror” bill? Do you realize how little $1-billion actually is when talking about federal budget allocations? (Didn’t we earmark $40-billion for NYC alone after the attacks?)
Furthermore — What exactly is this “Passenger Profiling” program that you claim Clinton wanted to spend $10 million on? Are you claiming that we began properly profiling people at airports before 9/11? News to me. And I’m sure it would be news to the creators of “Path” as well. Did this $10 million end up making a difference somehow? I honestly am unfamiliar with this. It seems to me that you are merely offering a laundry list of vaguely defined initiatives that sound good, but just represent a small sliver of spending without a change in substantive thought or policy over how to fight terrorism.
Also, you claim that “Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.” You can search the evidence for yourself here. He may have technically “raised the issue” of terrorism by mentioning the word in a broad context in one paragraph of a 4-page speech — but none of his speeches centered on terrorism. None of them set out to really explain what a threat Al-Queda and Bin Laden posed. Again, don’t take my word for it — check the evidence for yourself and use the “Find” function on the top sceen menu for words such as “terror”; “terrorism” etc. You can judge for yourself if Pitt is engaged in Clinton spin or not.
Folks, you don’t have to believe anything I have written about this so far. Just tune in and experience it yourself. “The Path To 9/11” provides more productive context for how we got where we are today than any other creative work out there.
[posted by Justin Levine]
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: A Firedoglake poster writes:
Even relatively obscure right-wing blogs such as Patterico’s Pontifications, written by Los Angeles County attorney Justin Levine, have been favored with advance screenings.
Welcome to the office, Justin! When did you join??
Let the truth come out.
Bill Clinton and the censors… stand down.
You live in America… it’s a movie… another movie showing soon abominably shows the fictional assassination of the sitting U.S. president.
This movie merely criticizes a p**nt@ng-obsessed (my characterization, not ABC’s) U.S. president for not adequately working to prevent this tragedy that KILLED thousands of people.
While I don’t blame anyone for the event except for the people who caused it… I don’t give a damn about the Clinton Adminstration’s precious feelings.
People died. You were president. You’re not immune from criticism.
Suck it up.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/31/2006 @ 8:15 pm“(I had to wait a full month after it was in theaters to score a free bootlegged copy to view so that I could speak about it intelligently)”
Patterico, why did you have to wait a month before you could steal from Michael Moore?
It seems to me that this is a very dishonest thing that you have admitted.
I’m serious and am not playing Devil’s advocate.
Moore, whom I despise, is nonetheless a free and equal citizen and he has as much right to sell his work (intellectual property/capital) as anyone else.
Why did you find it necessary to take it without paying for it? Isn’t there a word for that?
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/31/2006 @ 8:40 pmSo you know that my comments are sincere and do not result from personal malice, here is a similar comment (and resulting discussion) I left at the founder of the “Blogging Tories” personal blog, a member of my political party, and someone who has done much fantastic work that I deeply admire.
To further establish this, I left him a compliment as recently as today and another back when we had that discussion.
I just finished reading that part of your post and I was surprised. As a prosecutor, well, I dunno.
Caesar’s wife and all that.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/31/2006 @ 8:48 pmChris, where did you get the idea that Justin is a prosecutor?
Xrlq (a6076b) — 8/31/2006 @ 8:50 pmWilliam Rivers Pitt has absolutely no credibility. He claimed to know that Jason Leopold was 100% right that Rove was indicted on May 12th. The guy is nothing more than a lying far left wing lunatic.
Capitalist Infidel (83e7a9) — 8/31/2006 @ 8:58 pmAh, darn.
Laziness on my part.
Patterico would never have done that, I think, or at least said it.
It could seriously damage his credibility. And he did no such thing.
My apologies for not reading more carefully to determine who said that. I was in error.
Justin, I realize your broader point is intelligent and, as I say here, “everybody does it“, but you’re blogging on a fellow’s blog who is a well-known personality and active prosecutor.
I tend to take property rights seriously as a (predominantly) libertarian so forgive me if I’m an orange in a basket of apples or some such. However… it is against the law, I believe, to “score” bootleg copies of other people’s copyright material so consider perhaps not publicly announcing this.
Or doing it.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/31/2006 @ 9:00 pmThanks for helping clarify the identities Xrlq.
Chris: For the record – I have admitted to bootlegging “Fahrenheit 9/11” in previous posts over at Calblog.com. What’s more, Moore himself has indicated that he doesn’t mind:
http://www.calblog.com/archives/003830.html
But regardless of Moore’s feelings, anyone who is familiar with my blog posts (and you may not be – since I am new to this specific site) knows that I have some contrarian views as to the current state of copyright law. I believe that Fair Use principles should allow for copying when a creative work purposely injects itself into, and shapes, important political debates. It seems immoral to have to pay your political adversaries for the right to intelligently rebut their claims. Am I right about such Fair Use rights from a purely legal perspective? Many court cases would suggest not – but since Fair Use questions are decided on a purely case-by-case basis, nobady can know for sure.
Many agreed with me on this same issue when John Kerry attempted to shield his previous writings from the public at the height of his Presidential campaign:
http://www.calblog.com/archives/003936.html
People justly thought they had a right to examine bootlegged copies of Kerry’s “Winter Soldier” in order to more fully examine what kind of man they might elect President. Kerry was trying to use copyright law to bury the book from distribution and prevent people from examining his past writings.
In any event, I am confident that I am on solid moral ground and could at least make a credible effort in the legal realm as well, even if many in the legal community might disagree.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 8/31/2006 @ 9:06 pmWell, Justin, Michael Moore was currently selling his movie for $7.95 (that’s in Canadian funds) a pop or whatever the going rate was at the time and it appears to me that he wasn’t running for president, he was a film producer and businessman who made a movie that was about politics.
Why you didn’t just pay to see it and comment on it other than that Moore is a dirtbag, I don’t know.
Your views may be “contrarian” and acting on them is also, according to the FBI, a serious federal crime.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/31/2006 @ 9:11 pmOf course, if Michael Moore said it was okay and he had the copyright, then it’s okay.
If the film company had the rights, then whatever you or Moore say, it was a crime (against them).
Anyway, I disagree with you about copyright laws. I agree with the FBI warning on DVDs.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/31/2006 @ 9:14 pmSmoking pot is a serious federal crime as well – but I’ll admit to doing it on this here prosecutor’s web site.
Also, if you are a self-described libertarian, you might want to consider the libertarian argument against copyright with an open mind:
http://www.calblog.com/archives/003524.html
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 8/31/2006 @ 9:26 pmAs your link demonstrates, many and perhaps most libertarians support copyright laws, although some are opposed too. I’m curious what the argument is for putting your own will over the rule of law.
Didn’t the previous post deal with that? But for you, your opinions supercede the law?
I admire your honesty, but disagree with your opinion. Also, smoking pot doesn’t directly harm another individual and certainly falls within the realm of “libertarianism”. Taking someone’s intellectual property without paying for it does directly harm another’s interest by negatively impacting their livelihood.
Further, it’s nice that your opinions about what you can do with other people’s work and whether you need to pay for it or not are what count.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/31/2006 @ 9:58 pmMy opinions don’t supercede the law. But my actions with regards to Moore’s film are entirely lawful within the bounds of Fair Use. I believe I’ve already made that point in comment # 7.
Now tell me – do YOU believe that breaking the law is fine as long as it doesn’t “hurt anyone” as you suggest? If so, doesn’t that mean that your own opinions “supercede the law”? Very curious…
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 8/31/2006 @ 10:02 pmI didn’t say that smoking pot is okay as it IS against the law.
I said that supporting legalization of smoking pot makes sense within the broader bounds of libertarianism, that I personally don’t object to it (even though I refrain) except on health grounds, and that, yes, I guess broken laws where there is no direct victim is preferable, if one must break the law, than when there is a clear victim.
I’m looking at my bookshelf and observing 20-30 life and mind changing books on various topics, which I’ve purchased over the years and I’m very glad that the authors sold them to me because I have learned a lot.
Some were expensive, some not, and a few were actually free.
But it was up to the AUTHOR (or such person as they sold the rights to) to set the price and for me to pay it if I wished… it wasn’t up to me to choose whether it’s free or not.
I’ve purchased information products at the $200-400 range that have been worth every penny for the value I received. Ten times it easily and perhaps ten times that.
These people would likely not have produced these same works without the ability to copyright their highly specialized content and, in any case, setting the price is up to them. If I don’t like it, I’m free to purchase other products elsewhere.
I appreciate the link you sent me in comment #7. Yes, there is a counterargument, but, while it’s law, I don’t believe it’s up to each individual to decide.
From your link, I’m glad to see that many of the libertarians I respect most agree with my position.
Some don’t and this is life. However, we both live in representative Democracies and the last time I checked, the way to change laws that you disagree with is to elect representatives that agree with you.
I am NOT opposed to “fair use” and there is significant case law on this, which you’re probably more familiar with. I do not believe that obtaining “free bootleg copies” of movies in theatre constitutes fair use.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/31/2006 @ 10:30 pm*link in comment #10 (one of the sub-links actually once you reach the page)
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/31/2006 @ 10:30 pmChris:
You claim that you “do not believe that obtaining ‘free bootleg copies’ of movies in theatre constitutes fair use”. That’s all well and good – but your opinion is irrelevent on this matter (as is mine). Only a court’s opinion counts. And since they look at each situation on a case-by-case basis, it is presumptuous for you to essentially lecture me (albiet in a respectful manner) that this is unlawful per se and that it somehow besmirches Patterico’s reputation on this site. You need to look at the multiple fair use factors as articulated in the U.S. statutes and consider how different judges (all with various points of view themselves) might apply tehm. Was the copy made for my own commercial advantage? Nope. Was it done for the purposes of debate and acdemic study? Yep. Did it deprive Moore of income? Nope – since I never would have seen the film to begin with if I knew I had to pay him a dime to experience it.
All of these issues factor in. All of them can be either dismissed or focused upon to justify a pre-ordained conclusion depending on how a judge wants to rule. But it is flat out wrong for you to say that copying a film without permission is ALWAYS per se illegal under copyright law. It is simply a falsity – and you own opinion about the matter doesn’t change that.
But as I am curious as to your broader philosophy here, I’m curious as what you think of my posts on this site regarding Geoge Orwell. Do you also feel that I am stealing from his estate by posting excerpts of his works and linking to sites containing his complete texts?
Also, what will you think of the many people who have announced that they will tape or Tivo the 9/11 movie when it airs on ABC? Do you feel that they will be stealing too? While most courts would allow it under Fair Use, if you were to ask ABC about it, they would argue that its unlawful too. What if a liberal refuses to watch ABC that night out of protest – but then later gets a copy from a friend who taped it in order so that they can participate in the debate over this project. Is it your opinion that they would vbe violating copyright laws? (Many courts would suggest that they are. But again, its determined on a case-by-case basis). Does the fact that this film cost at least 8-times as much to produce than Moore’s film factor in to your thinking in any way?
Genuinely curious….
Justin Levine (d8da01) — 8/31/2006 @ 11:36 pmI commented yesterday that the Liberals in Hollywood would do what they could to kill this show. My bet is that they will succeed because of their ability to deny employment to anybody and everybody they get angry with. Similarly they can “guarantee” production money to those that go along. The Hollywood Left has their long knives out and will probably succeed.
Howard Veit (28df94) — 9/1/2006 @ 5:04 amSince the RIAA has taken the obliteration of Fair Use as its mission, I have decided to have absolutely no sympathy for any artist, producer, distributor, etc. who loses income from pirated movies, music, etc. The day I heard an industry executive insist that putting together a CD of 20 songs from 20 CDs one owns is a violation of copyright and should be prosecuted, I decided the greedy bastards deserve to lose.
Of course, I do find it regrettable that Justin decided to admit he hadn’t paid to see Farenheit 9/11, given that the 18 comments on it have nothing to do with the ABC movie. I have my TiVO set to record the movie and hope ABC won’t chicken out in showing it. I don’t necessarily hold Bill Clinton responsible for 9/11. I don’t hold George Bush responsible, either. I think it was rather like America before Pearl Harbor. We didn’t think it would happen to us. But it did.
sharon (03e82c) — 9/1/2006 @ 7:45 amI suspect that too many people have already seen “The Path to 9/11” for ABC to pull it with any credibility at all. But time will tell.
Can I ask a question – how did commentary on this post degenerate into the ad hominum attacks I’ve just read?
We were talking about an upcoming TV show people! Stay on point.
Gayle Miller (855514) — 9/1/2006 @ 8:02 amI saw it during its first run. I paid for a ticket to “White Chicks” and went into the theatre showing F911 instead. So, I took from Michael Moore and gave to some black folks, the Wayans brothers. I’m certain it’s what Mike would have wanted me to do.
Pablo (efa871) — 9/1/2006 @ 8:12 am[…] and his cronies they’re not in power anymore. […]
Right Wing Nation » Blog Archive » Somebody Tell Clinton (9f568a) — 9/1/2006 @ 8:27 am[…] Two, ABC will air a special docudrama on what led up to the catastrophe that was 9/11, and the Left is goin’ bonkers — ‘cause it partially holds the Clinton administration responsible instead of laying the entire blame at the feet of George Bush. Paterrico reports that there are strong rumors going around town “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.” […]
“Okie” on the Lam » “Death Of A President” vs “The Path To 9/11″ (e2cef7) — 9/1/2006 @ 9:43 am“You can’t handle the truth!”
To ABC, please do not cave. We need to hear and see the complete story in historical perspective, for once. Every day we see the polemics of Michael Moore and Spike Lee and all their ilk.
I would be more apt to believe any of the left’s allegations against Bush if they could admit the truth of Clinton’s responsibility as well.
Yes, let the ‘truthout’. Or just stick to reality shows.
Patricia (2cc180) — 9/1/2006 @ 9:45 amFrom one of the linked articles comes this rubbish:
Look at these dollar figures. They are a joke. To say that this funding proves the Clinton administration was ahead of the curve is a joke. I know what the various cargo screening and port inspection systems cost and the dollars above wouldn’t even cover one port. To an idiot the list might look impressive, but when you look at the actual numbers it is laughable.
Charlie (72b728) — 9/1/2006 @ 10:26 amAnd according to Ace, who heard it on Rush Limbaugh – Big Bill himself has personally called Bob Iger to protest his portrayal in Rt911.
I don’t see why he’d be pissed, myself – unless he’s actually dumb enough to think that Rt911 ISN’T completely true to the facts.
Rorschach (8c042e) — 9/1/2006 @ 12:33 pmsharon:
I admit that I was suprised by the focus on my Farenheit 9/11 aside on bootlegging. Had I known it would dillute the focus of this post, I would have either refrained from mentioning it, ot saved it for another post.
Justin Levine (ee9fe2) — 9/1/2006 @ 1:08 pmJustin, I don’t have time right now to follow through completely, but quickly, the broader argument is interesting and I’ll come back to it when I have more time.
Technology is changing things fast as I made clear in the comments I linked to on the other blog.
I agree that there are disputes over fair use. I was offering my opinion and, in this case, I hold to it. It seems pretty clear to me. There are many instances where it’s less clear, for sure, including recording something for your personal use only (not sharing it with others who don’t have a lawful right to see it because they haven’t paid/been granted the right – which you dispute!) and watching it later.
I’ll ‘talk’ to you about this later. It’s too bad your blog didn’t work and I couldn’t find your contact info.
Chris from Victoria, BC (5ab65d) — 9/1/2006 @ 1:39 pm[…] Update! And speaking of lying Surrendercrat pieces of shit… […]
Cold Fury » A uniter, not a divider (6f4592) — 9/1/2006 @ 2:45 pmPablo, what a great idea. Wish I’d thought of that–I waited until I could get the DVD from the local library.
Heather (7b49ef) — 9/1/2006 @ 2:54 pmI cannot believe that the comments thread here deals mostly with the “bootleg” copy of F9/11 that Justin offhandedly (and, as he said, regrettably) mentioned rather than with the real substance of the post.
Chris from Who-the-hell-cares: give it up, intellectual property nanny. No one but you cares. Thanks for hijacking what could have been an interesting read. I suppose that was your intent all along. Good bye.
don (545b50) — 9/1/2006 @ 3:04 pmGayle,
While the comments may have veered off topic, I saw no sign of any ad hominem attacks. Justin and Chris rather respectfully debated issues of copyright and fair use. Where’s the ad hominem in that?
Martin L. Shoemaker (eb120d) — 9/1/2006 @ 4:01 pmI’m waiting for Sandy Burglar to provide his review of the Road to 9/11. After all, he refreshed his memory in the National Archives.
Mike K (416363) — 9/1/2006 @ 4:04 pmI can’t remember where I saw it, but a guy who was with the CIA at the time recounted that they had bin Laden’s dwelling in Afghanistan targeted until they noticed that there was a swing set in the yard and cancelled the hit because they didn’t want to kill any children.
Sigh.
AST (63d041) — 9/1/2006 @ 5:13 pmI believe Michael Moore himself said he didn’t care if people downloaded the movie as long as they didn’t do it to make a profit.
Keith B (5e5a8f) — 9/1/2006 @ 6:02 pm
Sorry, not sure how to post links, but here is a link to a story about taking Michael Moore at his word and downloading the movie.
[L=Link to Story]http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14433,00.html[/L]
Link to Story:
Keith B (5e5a8f) — 9/1/2006 @ 6:10 pmAt 6PM it does look like the connected Left is trying to pressure Disney to re-edit the movie. But this is 2006 and I’ll bet that some enterprising little bastard is already in the process of stealing a print so it can be shown on the internet if changes have been made. Stay tuned, these Clintonistas play as rough as possible.
Howard Veit (28df94) — 9/1/2006 @ 6:17 pmLook at what Bill Clinton began his last State of the Union address with:
“Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.”
Look at those words: “so few external threats.” Not the words of a man obsessed with fighting terrorism.
Clinton only mentions terrorism way down the speech, about 2/3 of the way through, in the context of “narco-traffickers” and organized criminals…reflecting once again his administration’s treatment of terrorism more as a law enforcement problem than as a true national security issue.
If Bill Clinton had really anticipated properly the terrorist problem, the whole world would have known about it; there wouldn’t be any debate, because the emphasis he would have given it would have been burned in the memories of everyone the world over.
It’s scary to think that the Clintons and their henchmen are so dedicated to propagandist style tactics.
Bill (9efcd6) — 9/1/2006 @ 7:11 pmNotice how all the leftoids are linking to TruthOut now? Notice how nobody is talking about what an idiot Jason Leopold is over there?
Has anybody ever seen William Pitt and Karl Rove in the same room? Didn’t think so.
I question the timing.
B Moe (bbd541) — 9/1/2006 @ 7:41 pm[…] Seems Clinton would be smarter to let this lie than invite more scrutiny: That would be the opinion of many, including Instapundit who reports that the Clintonistas are trying mightily to a do-over on ABC’s The Path to 9/11. This is an interesting problem. Supposedly the Clintons are concerned that they come off as a bit negligent in the 1990’s (!)…if they can’t get an edit to a more comfortable “truth” their only recourse will be do send the usual talking heads out to discredit the entire film. Which will be difficult, and since from what I have read the film is not exactly a love song George W. Bush (it shows both president’s making mistakes), it would put the Clintonistas in an odd position of trying to say, “all the negatives about US are untrue…but those negativess about Bush…those are okay. Yeah, they screwed up a lot, but we didn’t!” Or something. […]
The Anchoress » A Friday Night Roundup (1b383c) — 9/1/2006 @ 8:27 pm[…] And apparently it has become hugely controversial. Read all about it here—and follow all the links. […]
infotainment rules » Blog Archive » infotainment and politics collide over 9/11 (8b10b5) — 9/1/2006 @ 8:34 pmI have zero respect for Richard Clarke, and suspect that he was consulted for this series given his contract with ABC as “terrorist consultant.” Kinda like The Wall queen sitting on the 9/11 Commission.
The hits to President Bush have been public knowledge for some time. I still wager that the Presidential Briefing Document gave no actionable intelligence (no specific locations, dates, etc.).
The Clinton years remain in the black hole of history, so I am particularly interested in more insightfulness there, if George Mitchell and the Clintonrods will permit.
Captain America (656819) — 9/1/2006 @ 9:28 pmWeird how you tell a guest blogger to say at the beginning who’s posting, and to say at the end who’s posting — and still people consistently miss it.
Consistently.
No offense to Chris. He’s not the first and won’t be the last.
Patterico (91fd36) — 9/1/2006 @ 10:25 pmMaybe Clinton can send Sandy “Oops What’s This in My Pants?” Berger over to ABC before 9/10.
MayBee (8aec89) — 9/1/2006 @ 10:29 pmThe poll available from the dKos post you linked to is:
What is the greater threat to Democracy?
“Corporate media consolidation” or “terrorists”
As of right now, Corporate Media Consolidation has 3813 votes – 92%, and Terrorists have 318 votes – 7%
Not that that should surprise anyone.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 9/1/2006 @ 11:08 pmIt sounds like the sort of historical take on the lead up to 9/11 that I really enjoy. I’ve got my DVR set to record it.
I don’t blame Clinton for 9/11 and I don’t blame Bush either, but I don’t have an expectation that these guys are fortune tellers. They come into office with the government and the historical times and political realities as they are and they try to make their impact around the edges.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 9/2/2006 @ 4:24 amI tried calling Robert Iger’s office yesterday from the Disney Campus. His secratery would only refer calls to the “ABC Help Line” (where you can leave a recorded message). I will get his office # on Tuesday and post it on my Blog. The Secratery can ignore one call, but not calls from a diverse crowd as from Pattrico’s site. The fact that the Clinton wants to censor a movie worries me. The fact that one man can do it worries me even more.
JSF (a90377) — 9/2/2006 @ 8:48 amThis is not about Bill Clinton folks, but Hillary.
What would it matter about Bill now? They know that. The issue is that with the advertised “two-fer” ‘special’ we got in the 90’s, this could make things that much more difficult for Madame Hillary, especially on her rather dismal history of her treatment of service people, thus being seen and someone that is soft on terrorism.
Their real problem is the having the American public reminded of this in mass numbers.
Noelie (d87eff) — 9/2/2006 @ 1:26 pmComment #32 The CIA agent you’re thinking about is probably Gary Bernsten, author of Jawbreaker. I’ve seen him make that comment several times, though he was not the agent in charge of that operation. Michael Scheuer has also relayed that particular story a number of times, though he is a significantly less credible source. His anti-semitism colors everything he says and you have to be able to sort out whether he’s blaming a Jew for a failure before you can tell if he should be taken seriously.
The Apologist (5d80b0) — 9/2/2006 @ 5:58 pmThe August 26th Document that supposedly “warned” Condi gave no actionable intelligence whatsoever. It was as if it was saying Bin Laden was Muslim and owned a prayer rug. Saying that Binnie wanted to threaten the U.S. with hijacked planes was akin to saying that it might be hard going trying to sell ruggalah in Damascus. But that was about the extent of the CIA’s ability to penetrate Al Qaeda.
Naturally, because Clarke is ABC News “terrorism consultant”, the script will paint him as the Young Jesus. So I expect Condi to get some rough going. That’s Clarke’s influence. I understand that there’s absolutely no “Able Danger” stuff in this thing.
The breakthrough here, pointed out by RightWing Nuthouse, is that the Liberal Narrative is beginning to fall apart just in time for the 2006 elections and, what’s more, in time for 2008. The Narrative always focused on the “incompetence” of Bush and Rice, as if terrorism began on January 20, 2001. Indeed, even a reading between the lines of Clarke’s book gets Clinton plenty of criticism.
It’s not that Clinton and Bush weren’t patriots who didn’t want to protect the country. That wasn’t the point that was understood until the towers came down. It was that no one truly understood how evil they truly were, so they weren’t taken seriously by either party. The Democrats’ fault was in attempting to use the 9/11 Commission to cover up their own shortcomings.
section9 (0d1376) — 9/2/2006 @ 6:58 pmBIN LADEN WAITED UNTILL BUSH TOOK OFFICE TO SUCSESSFULLY KILL 3,000.00 PEOPLE ON 9/11 IN ONE SINGLE DAY. THESE 3,000.00 DIED UNDER THE BUSH WATCH NOT CLINTON.
Stella (de46a3) — 9/3/2006 @ 4:12 pmAt the end of the day on 9/11 GWB was the President and he is responsable for the 3 thousands deaths not Clinton.
Bush like Clinton din`t responde to the cole attack that happened on dec 2000. Clinton had only a few days left, why din`t Bush respond?
[I’ll let you in on a little secret, John. I *know* who is responsible for the 3,000 deaths. The *terrorists.* — P]
John (de46a3) — 9/3/2006 @ 4:21 pmThe al Qaeda planning of 9/11 began long before Bush was even a candidate for president. The scheme was the proximate response to Clinton’s pathetic and ineffective bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan.
Norman Conquest (b1e0ef) — 9/3/2006 @ 7:47 pmThat’s why slick Willie and his Shadow Ops are trying to bury it.
By the way, WTC bombing #1 happened on Clinton’s watch. If that wasn’t a warning that shoud’ve been taken more seriously, then nothing should be taken seriously. As we know from the remainder of the Clinton years after that, nothing really was taken seriously.
Its not his “fault,” but he and his ilk (Jamie Gorelick, Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, etc.) can’t escape partial responsibility.
History is a pesky thing when you’re trying to rewrite the Clinton non-legacy.
Good Lt (cf8676) — 9/4/2006 @ 1:40 am[…] It is interesting to note that the film doesn’t give a pass to the Bush administration as Pattericos Pontifications notes: “1. It depicts Condi Rice ignoring Richard Clarke’s advice about Al-Queda and undercutting his authority within the White House. […]
Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » Democrats on the war path against the truth (ca15f9) — 9/4/2006 @ 1:10 pmWhy comment on Road to 911 just being more proof that our media is right wing controlled, when such comments are rejected as “spam” is they give detail and proof and sources?
papau (88f71b) — 9/5/2006 @ 10:43 am[…] The Patterico’s Pontifications reported on these rumors on the 31st of last moth and today radio talk host and blogger, Hugh Hewit, did as well. […]
Blogging Man 2007 » ABC’s Artistic Vision Being Compromised — Where is the Outrage? (9d9189) — 9/5/2006 @ 5:24 pmABC’s Artistic Vision Being Compromised — Where is the Outrage?…
As you may or may not know, this coming weekend, ABC is presenting a movie about the events that led up to the attacks on the WTC in 2001, called “The Path to 9/11”.It has leaked out by various critics and folks who have been offered an advanced……
Warner Todd Huston (95d97e) — 9/5/2006 @ 5:28 pm“By the way, WTC bombing #1 happened on Clinton’s watch. If that wasn’t a warning that shoud’ve been taken more seriously, then nothing should be taken seriously. As we know from the remainder of the Clinton years after that, nothing really was taken seriously.”
Absolute rubbish.
“…Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat.”
“n Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of”…
Much more truthiness, unpalatable as it may be, at http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/84
Jimmy Clickit (9a8093) — 9/5/2006 @ 8:35 pmGeez Jimmy…demoncratic underground…REAL credible sourcing there, eh?
BTW…is that the same Billy Jeff who garnered SO MUCH respect from military rank-n-file…cuz you know BJ was all about funding ’em and treating them with respect.
And damn it, Jimmy…stop using my old nickname!
~~Darleen Click[it]
Darleen (03346c) — 9/5/2006 @ 10:05 pm[…] KFI’s John Ziegler claims to have sources in ABC now confirming that they have caved to pressure on the “Path To 9/11” by editing some key scenes that Clinton officials were objecting to. Many others have been hearing similar stories. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » The Path To 9/11 - Which Path Will It Be? (421107) — 9/5/2006 @ 10:40 pmI can’t beleive you are planning to televise “The Path to 9/ll” as if it is all the TRUTH!! Has anyone involved done any actual research on what Clinton and his administration did in regard to Ben Laden? Has anyone researched the facts as to the danger Ben Laden presented that Clinton told Bush before he took office.I didn’t realize High School Students were supposed to be exposed to historical events that contain half truths??! What a dissapointment I now have in ABC plans to broadcast this absolute political attempt to blame Clinton for 9/11.
Ebba Terry (3fe0d0) — 9/6/2006 @ 12:10 am[…] ABC has been aggressively advancing its inaccurate and politically slanted miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” to the right wing. Big players like Rush Limbaugh have been provided copies, as have obscure right-wing bloggers like Patterico. […]
Think Progress » ABC Refuses to Provide Copies of Path to 9/11 to Clinton, Albright, Berger (ea4e9b) — 9/6/2006 @ 8:47 am“Has anyone involved done any actual research on what Clinton and his administration did in regard to Ben Laden? ”
Well, we at least figured out how to spell Bin Laden correctly.
sharon (03e82c) — 9/6/2006 @ 9:32 amFunny how ABC will let you see it, but not Madeleine Albright. What are they trying to hide from Madeleine Albright?
I hope that permanent damage is done to ABC over this overt piece of filthy propaganda. I’m organzing a sponsor boycott of every program they run.
drindl (f50428) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:51 amLast year I asked a Clinton White House security advisor whether we would have had a 9/11 if Gore had been president. He thought there was a good possibility the attackers would have been thwarted, as Gore would have done the same as Clinton did when warnings came about the millennium plot to attack us: set up a White House situation room to communicate daily with all agencies for updates on intelligence and actions taken. We now know that there was enough information out there to check the hijackers, but there was no leadership at the top to bring it together. If Clinton had had Bush’s lackadaisical reaction to serious warnings, the millennium bombers (LAX and others) may well have succeeded.
We also now know that the Clinton administration’s actions rolled up something like twenty Al Qaida cells worldwide. Will that fact be in this “docudrama”? Will the “wag the dog” claims from the press (including ABC News) whenever Clinton launched an attack on OBL be part of this program? Why do I doubt it?
John (014ba6) — 9/6/2006 @ 1:56 pmTo Chris from Victoria,
Who, exactly, was president for almost a year before 9/11 happened??
The first initial of his last name starts with a B.
Got it?
The only one who has to ‘suck it up’ is you. Get your facts straight asshole.
Kevin Simms (05fd1f) — 9/6/2006 @ 7:32 pmTo Darleen Click[it]:
Sorry about the nick! Had not seen yours which was obviously far more attractive 🙂
BTW William Pitt provides links to original aricles which are not on Demo Und sites. Scoop.co.nz is particularly objective due to being offshore.
Jimmy Clickit (7228a1) — 9/6/2006 @ 10:19 pmIt is really sad that politics have turned so dirty. It is hard to find anything including websites like this without huge distortions. Michael Moore’s movie although having much good information had distortions. It is nearing eletion time and the republicans are starting their propaganda campaign as they did in 1999 against one of their own, John McCain (his black illigitamate son was an adopted child), in 2004 they started the Swift boat campaign to impugn the reputation of a true American veteran, now they are going to try to shift the focus from Bush (the man who diverted the focus from Osama Bin Laden so he could attack Iraq) to Clinton. Clinton tried to get Osama when he was in office but failed. His administration tried to warn the incoming Bush administration on the seriousness of the Al Qaeda threat. If you remember Bush stated he did not want any part of any Clinton policies or information. I don’t care if docudramas add vocabulary to try to make it appealing to audiences but to drastically change or add events to alter public opinion or inorder to defame a person is unconscionable (re: the path to 9/11’s treatment of Clinton and Albright.).
Ed Brenneman (fb91ff) — 9/6/2006 @ 11:29 pmFIND OUT WHAT THE REAL TRUTH IS.
tom meyers (fc4fb4) — 9/7/2006 @ 2:08 amDear Mr. Levene:
You miss the point of the criticism of The Path to 9/11. The issue is not how the facts make one party or the other look bad. It is whether the facts have been twisted or even rewritten for political purposes. Here are the factual errors alleged by Howard Dean, which I have not yet seen refuted:
–Richard Clarke — the counterterrorism czar for the Clinton administration, now himself a consultant to ABC News — describes a key scene in “The Path to 9/11” as “180 degrees from what happened.” In the scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone. Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, called the same scene “a total fabrication. It did not happen.” And Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, said it was “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.”
–Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder — contrary to “The Path to 9/11” — rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times.
–The former National Security Council head of counterterrorism says that President Clinton “approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda,” and the 9/11 report says the CIA had full authority from President Clinton to strike Bin Laden. Yet chief “Path to 9/11” scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, says the miniseries shows how President Clinton had “frequent opportunities in the ’90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks — but lacked the will to do so.”
–ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of “The Path to 9/11”. The producers optioned two books, one written by a Bush administration political appointee, as the basis of the screenplay — yet bill the miniseries as “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.”
I also take issue with your statement that Democrats “will go nuts when confronted with the truth that the Patriot Act was necessary in order to get various government agencies to share vital information with each other.” You seem to have forgotten that almost every Democrat voted for the Patriot Act. The recent debate has been whether certain provisions went too far, violating our civil rights and the constitution. The criticism of the Patriot Act was bipartisan, including my Republican senator, John Sununu.
Markl Fernald (55ecce) — 9/7/2006 @ 6:13 am“The Path to 9/11” mocks the truth and dishonors the memory of 9/11 victims to serve a cheap, callous political agenda. It irresponsibly misrepresents the facts and completely distorts the truth.
Richard Clarke — the counterterrorism czar for the Clinton administration, now himself a consultant to ABC News — describes a key scene in “The Path to 9/11” as “180 degrees from what happened.” In the scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone. Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, called the same scene “a total fabrication. It did not happen.” And Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, said it was “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.”
KC ent (e275d8) — 9/7/2006 @ 10:42 amAnother scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder — contrary to “The Path to 9/11” — rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times.
The former National Security Council head of counterterrorism says that President Clinton “approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda,” and the 9/11 report says the CIA had full authority from President Clinton to strike Bin Laden. Yet chief “Path to 9/11” scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, says the miniseries shows how President Clinton had “frequent opportunities in the ’90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks — but lacked the will to do so.”
ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of “The Path to 9/11”. The producers optioned two books, one written by a Bush administration political appointee, as the basis of the screenplay — yet bill the miniseries as “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.”
KC ent is on target. Rather than just a political hack job against a movie like we’ve seen so many times before (usually from the other direction), this appears to be people who were actually there, and who appear as characters in the movie, disputing crucial scenes vehemently, saying “That never happened, here’s what really happened, which is quite different, and I can substantiate it.” If the producers are using real people’s names, they ought to try to be correct – and that goes double here. You can’t talk about the path to 9/11 without blame coming up. They’re dealing with people’s careers and legacies here, on both sides of the aisle – asking them to tell the truth and be correct where possible isn’t out of line. People already believe Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 attacks. We shouldn’t propagate any more disinformation if we can avoid it, should we?
Consulting and distributing advance copies to only Republicans seems a little odiferous too, but mainly I’m concerned with the points of fact.
Made-up stuff where the facts aren’t known, I can to live with to an extent, I guess, if a drama it is supposed to be… but that should be made clear if possible. Here’s a writeup of Albright, Berger, etc. protesting specific inaccuracies…
click here for MSN writeup of the complaints
Phil_Omath (15c47f) — 9/7/2006 @ 1:27 pmBunch of cry babies. Its about time you liberal wack jobs got a taste of your own medicine. I can’t wait to see it.
Creeply (34bd7a) — 9/7/2006 @ 4:24 pmIts the repubs that’ll be crying – remember the numbers? 36% approval? Which means 64% DISAPPROVAL. Ring any bells?
Jimmy Clickit (7228a1) — 9/8/2006 @ 2:00 amThe danger of showing a less than accurate depiction of these events has been eloquently described by the National Reviews own Ed Morrow back when CBS was going to air the Reagans.
DaveS (63f7cb) — 9/8/2006 @ 8:16 am“The substitution of propaganda for fact is dangerous. It’s not by accident that tyrants create “history” to justify their schemes. Hitler couldn’t have taken control of Germany without the many anti-Semitic myths that had been allowed to fester and go unchallenged. Stalin and Mao couldn’t have kept a heel on the neck of their countries without self-glorifying myths that demonized anyone who stood in their way. In this case, simple justice demands that the lies about Ronald and Nancy Reagan must not go unchallenged but, in a larger sense, truth itself must be defended. Attempts to distort our history must be resisted. Historical truth is simply too valuable to be made a plaything for biased filmmakers rewriting it to fit their politics.” The same logic applies here.
Has anyone involved done any actual research on what Clinton and his administration did in regard to Ben Laden?
You mean aside from turning down Sudan’s several (well documented) offers to turn him over to us?
Purple Avenger (3d8687) — 9/8/2006 @ 10:01 amIn this case, simple justice demands that the lies about Ronald and Nancy Reagan must not go unchallenged but, in a larger sense, truth itself must be defended.
Yes, of course! Challenge the untruths! Defend truth by spreading it and shouting it from the rooftops.
But do not attempt to suppress the untruth by force of law!
aphrael (e7c761) — 9/8/2006 @ 10:04 amI find it a bit ironic that Michael Moron can make a film about 9/11 and it get rave reviews but let a movie be made that has a little criticism of Clinton and the whole world has to stop! It is just fine to make fun and call names of conservatives but, boy, say something critical of a liberal, watch out! Talk about thin skin!
Michael (652969) — 9/8/2006 @ 12:44 pmThis seems a pretty simple issue. If ABC is making scenes up that are false, then it seems at least in very bad taste (particularly considering the date and upcoming election). If what they’re saying is true, then it should be well documented elsewhere… for example in the actual 9/11 Comission Report.
If the Report doesn’t say that Albright called Pakistan, then only idiots would state it as fact. If the Report doesn’t state that Sandy Berger called off a hit on OBL, then we should probably not see such a scene in a movie that airs on the anniversary of the tragedy.
I can’t imagine that the Clinton administration is free of blame or was some superAdministration that nearly saved the universe. I think it unlikely that Bush is any more responsible for the horrors… however, “if” ABC airs a movie about 9/11 and puts stuff in there that is not in the comission report, I would say that it seems irresponsible, at least.
If of course, there’s actual proof of such things, then by all means they should show it and stick the evidence up on their website.
We don’t need more partisan bullshit… our country is already drowning in it, from both sides of the aisle, Hollywood, the MSM and many blogs.
Ratatosk (6a6025) — 9/8/2006 @ 2:00 pmIf this movie is edited because of pressure from the liberal media then something is really wrong. When a movie is made “based on a true story” there is always artistic liscense taken. That’s what “based on” means. Do we really believe every word just because it’s in a movie? Of course not. They are actors with lines written for them. Anyone who takes it literally probably thinks reality TV is real too.
Mark (87c086) — 9/8/2006 @ 2:45 pmIf ABC doen’t think they can show this in it’s orriginal form (due to policical blackmail) then they should publish the documentation of why they won’t be showing the film in it’s orriginal form and provide the footage to someone willing to publish it on DVD.
Bill Thoreson (ce7fcc) — 9/8/2006 @ 4:07 pmMe thinks they do protest too much. My,my, such vitriolic barbs against a program that has yet to be seen. Must have struck some nerves of truth and, as they say, the truth hurts. Where is all that tolerance now? I guess freedom of speech is only allowed if your views are palatable to liberals. I can’t wait to see this. It must be quite an expose to cause all of this furor.
Carmen (85c2e6) — 9/8/2006 @ 10:05 pmTouche’ Mark.(#79) What is sad is that someone has to state this obvious fact. People have brains and can view this program for themselves and make their own judgements.Why should it be censored and edited because the Clintons don’t want their already soiled legacy tarnished by the facts? I guess as Orwelle said, Some pigs are more equal than others.
Carmen (85c2e6) — 9/8/2006 @ 10:29 pm“(I had to wait a full month after it was in theaters to score a free bootlegged copy to view so that I could speak about it intelligently)”
Duh, why didn’t you just go to the movie theater and see it there?
Gary Myrick (edbc7d) — 9/9/2006 @ 12:44 amYou are so full of crap.
Mark #79 – of course not. I expect all sorts of dramatic license to be taken where necessary. However, I would like the crucial, knowable stuff to be accurate. We’re not talking about “every word,” we’re talking central issues of responsibility. What if they showed a scene with Clinton begging Bush to listen about the threat of Al Qaeda, but Bush brushed him off? Great scene, there, lots of drama. Would that be artistic licence, too? In the cases the Dems are upset about, the facts are known, and they’re important to anyone who wonders at all about whether 9/11 could have been prevented. Flattering, insulting, whatever – I’d just like them to stick to the facts where the they are known, and build their “dramatization” from there. And, secondarily, maybe avoid polemic where possible in the “dramatic license” portions of the show, which I’m hoping these guys tried to do, from their quotes. We’ll see.
Phil_Omath (4dd9b2) — 9/9/2006 @ 8:48 amPhil (#84) is correct. We all need to watch both nights of this before we can intelligently opine on its contents. However, from what I’ve read, the Monday night segment doesn’t exactly look at the Bush Administration through rose colored glasses either. As you said Phil, we’ll see. It is interesting to me that democrats and liberals are threatening ABC and Disney, being totally defensive and running around like chickens with their heads cut off. For me, this has just served to create more interest in watching this. Before the clamor, I was maybe going to watch it. Now it is a definite MUST SEE.
Carmen (753be0) — 9/9/2006 @ 4:59 pmSadly, the days of “just the facts ma’am” has long since disappeared.
To be equitable…will they have a scene where Clinton pushes Congress in 1996 for additional wiretap capabilities (including the ability to follow the person with the warrant, not just the phone or other device)…but that famous A-Q collaborator Orrin Hatch says no.
It seems that the GOP were the ones distracted by sex with an intern…..not the Clintonistas as you like to call them. He fired Tomahawk missiles to try to kill OBL….and the GOP Congress and punditas were more interested in Wagging the dog/penis….. Not in “getting” a terrorist.
Will it be truthful? No.
Will it be entertaining? Maybe.
Will it be history? No.
After years of complaining about Oliver Stone, it will be comical if the GOP-ABC mini-series has more conspiracy theories than JFK and Nixon combined.
And, that World Trade Center would be a better movie than the “conspiracies are us.”
Will I watch it? Probably not. Will I TIVO it…..? Probably.
Personally, on Sunday, i will be watching CBS’ MUCH BETTER documentary…. not something that seems more a political wet dream or fantasy.
Maybe it should start…. In a galaxy, far, far away……
As to some posted comments…
#1 – Chris — Since it was September of 2001, wasn’t Bush 43 in the White House???????
#75 – Purple Avenger…sorry, wrong again. No proof of your claim.
As to those so willing to attack Clinton for WTC 1993, that means Bush 41 was at fault using the logic of many posted here.
We also had several posters here claiming that lying was everything Clinton administration did.
Hmmmm.
Who supports the troops but cuts veteran benefits?
Who raises taxes/fees on veterans?
Who sends soldiers into an invasion without armor?
Who can’t seem to keep the plethora of lies, mistruths and half-truths straight about Iraq?
Who hasn’t found bin Laden?
Who snoozed through repeated warnings?
Who …. ahhh so many more….I could post here.
Here is something interesting…..what if the filmmakers actually tried to make it as close to the truth as possible?
But then, it probably would not be “Path to 9/11”. Sadly, there is much in O’Neill’s story that should be told….not made into a political pretzel.
Or the time that the terrorists involved in the 1993 WTC are arrested…convicted and imprisioned….
But 6 months after 3,000 people died, Bush was “not concerned” about bin Laden…..And AnnieC claims that bin Laden is like a “fading movie star – irrelevant”….
It seems that the GOP can’t seem OBL….. but they can find a way to get rich off the military and the death of the middle class.
Will America survive Bush and the GOP?????
I hope…and pray…but the jury will be out on that for decades until we have some politicians that don’t sell out the American people.
gnusman53 (363a5d) — 9/9/2006 @ 9:52 pmIt seems that the GOP were the ones distracted by sex with an intern…..not the Clintonistas as you like to call them. He fired Tomahawk missiles to try to kill OBL….and the GOP Congress and punditas were more interested in Wagging the dog/penis….. Not in “getting” a terrorist.
Clinton was at fault for lying under oath, but Republicans were definitely at fault for mocking Clinton’s strikes on Bin Laden as a “Wag the Dog” scenario. To my shame, I got taken in by that too — and I was dead wrong.
Patterico (de0616) — 9/9/2006 @ 9:59 pmFreedom of speech?! Apparently that so-called right is reserved solely for the michael moores and other liberals who want to shove their venomous and inflammatory propaganda unfiltered and uncensored down the throats of the general populace. ABC has reportedly “tweaked” the docudrama to placate Big Brother Bill Clinton and his posse of lawyers.Talk about hypocrisy and double standards!! What a shameless travesty of justice and fairness. Bill Clinton (AKA Slick Willy) is now suddenly the champion and bastion of honesty,integrity, openness and truth. And pigs can fly.
Conservatives are continually skewered, maligned, raked over the coals, belittled and mocked for expressing their views and are expected to just lie down and be run over.
As for ABC,(A Bunch of Cowards) if you have truly abridged and stripped the guts out of this program, I think it’s time for a mascot. NBC has the peacock; I vote for the ABC JELLYFISH.
Carmen (2a3d6b) — 9/10/2006 @ 3:04 amI just wish they all would be quiet. Show the film and let the American people decide. Those people in Washington are the only people I know of who get paid for doing nothing but blabbing, and the biggest blabbers of all are H. Clinton and N. Pelosi. I call Pelosi “loud mouth punch). They are all a bunch of old hens and there isn.t a rooster among them. What a waste they are. Thanks for listening.
Patricia Long (772096) — 9/10/2006 @ 8:39 amLook what has happened since the day we were all united against terrorism: 9/11/01. This is just another example of the bitter acrimony and divisiveness that has ensued. I’d suggest that we leave the bickering to those who have lost focused. As for the rest of us, let’s remember the victims and heroes of that day, and honor them. Seeing the DVD, United 93 helped me get my focus back where it should be. The movie trailer also inspired me to write this song:
United 93
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
http://www.drblt.net/music/unitedninetythree.mp3
If anyone would like to hear more music from the CD, One September Mournin’, check out my website or my 9/11 podcast (link at website).
http://www.drblt.net
Dr. BLT (e70a30) — 9/10/2006 @ 6:17 pm[…] Legum has done a lot of good work on the story, but he’s also made a significant error. He claimed that ABC was even providing advance copies of The Path to 9/11 to obscure right-wing bloggers: ABC has been aggressively advancing its inaccurate and politically slanted miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” to the right wing. Big players like Rush Limbaugh have been provided copies, as have obscure right-wing bloggers like Patterico. […]
appletree » Blog Archive » Getting the Story Right (1dfa1f) — 9/11/2006 @ 6:28 pm[…] Apparently, Patterico is really Patrick Frey, an L.A. County attorney that didn’t even write the piece on ABC’s The Path to 9/11. It was guest written by Justin Levine, who is a producer of an L.A. talk radio program. […]
Brock Log (BLog) - A BLog in the Life of… » Doing the Right Things, Admitting When Mistakes are Made (f43850) — 9/11/2006 @ 8:35 pmKudos to ABC for telling the story.
DP (f73ffd) — 9/13/2006 @ 1:36 pm
“Freedom of speech?! (66) Apparently that so-called right is reserved solely for the michael moores and other liberals who want to shove their venomous and inflammatory propaganda unfiltered and uncensored down the throats of the general populace. ABC has reportedly “tweaked” the docudrama to placate Big Brother Bill Clinton and his posse of lawyers.Talk about hypocrisy and double standards!!”
The “docudrama”was tweaked to remove (or at least play down) scenes that just did not actually happen – and may be slanderous. Where is the hypocricy there?
Michael Moore had a posse of researchers check out every fact he used.These facts were checked extensively by the GOPs people and, significantly, no law suit followed and not a single point disproved or challenged in any meaningful way.
Hypocrisy and double standards is including fiction in a programme purporting to tell facts.
Get a life.
Jimmy Clickit (7228a1) — 9/16/2006 @ 2:21 am[…] Pattericos Pontifications The War Over The Path To 9/11″ Related books: […]
Matthew Bennett, Campaigns of the Norman Conquest (Essential Histories) (5e634b) — 8/20/2008 @ 6:30 am