Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« When Metaphors Attack! | Main | Armitage Speaks! »

September 07, 2006

Comments

stan

I think it is too bad that the film doesn't go into great detail about what the Clinton administration did (and didn't do) regarding terrorism. Clinton's adamant refusal (3 times) to take Berger's call while pilots waited in their cockpits (because he was partying at a golf tournament) would make great TV. That's been reported by the Air Force colonel who carried the nuclear football. That colonel also reported that a strike to take out Bin Laden had to be shelved because Clinton was "unavailable" in the White House for over an hour and then refused to give the OK.

Apparently blowjobs were more important.

Let's insist on a complete factual portrayal.

mark c.

I understand Mr. Berger hand delivered his written rebuttal to ABC after pulling it from his sock.

Pofarmer

Anything that's got the left in this much of a snit can't be all bad.

I still don't understand the whole "Bush is culpable too" thing in regards to 9/11. Clinton had already trashed the system. A PDB stating "Osama wants to harm American interests" is supposed to trigger a lockdown or something?

Sue

I understand Mr. Berger hand delivered his written rebuttal to ABC after pulling it from his sock.

::grin::

Sue

A PDB stating "Osama wants to harm American interests" is supposed to trigger a lockdown or something?

It wouldn't even trigger a lockdown today, after 9/11. There was no actionable intelligence in the PDB.

Peol

We all know that Clinton and Gore made deals. Bush won't and that is why democrats put Bush in office. A big bill was due and we needed someone like Bush to protect Americans.

Albright is as bad as Reno. Clintontes to the end.

Actionable intelligence is a joke. It's good for movies...........

Jane

Now ABC has announced a discussion group post movie for the foaming at the mouth Clinton crowd. How perfectly ridiculous!

lurker

If ABC advertises that this movie is based on the 9/11 senate commission but not call it a documentary, does this make the 9/11 senate commission report accurate but fake?

If so, then the Clintonistas have really put their foot in their mouths once again.

topsecretk9

Rush had some good advice for the Clintonista's....if Clinton would really like ABC to pull the docudrama, Rush suggests Clinton just send Sandy Burger to ABC and just steal it from them!

Clyde

All the controversy just means more curious people clicking it on to see what the kerfuffle was about. The Left going ballistic just makes it look like they have something to hide... Which they do.

Gosh darn it, it's another SWIFT BOATING!! You know what that is, right? It's when someone tells VICIOUS TRUTHS about a Democrat!

Lurker

The other thing is that the Clintonistas did not make any objections when the 9/11 Senate Commission Report came out. Now that this movie is based on this report, how can they object to the movie but not the report????

I am really surprised that ABC decides to make this movie and invited several conservative bloggers to attend its advance preview.

Jane

On Fox news the democrat spokesperson was complaining that the movie is "fiction". The spokesperson for the right called her a cry baby.

Tom Heard

The controversial part of the film from the Clintonistas point of view is covered on pages 111 to 115 in the 9/11 report. Kean and I think Hamilton were consulted by the writer and producers to review the film for accuracy. I know Kean was.

Neo

Personally, I'm looking forward to the part where the UFOs run into the WTC and the Pentagon. While their disposable staging vehicle crashes making a hole in the ground near Shanksville. When the truth comes out, that Klaatu and Gort (the robot) were inciting a war between factions on earth to keep them from going out into space and bringing the worst that humanity has to offer (Big Macs, Islam, Seinfeld, etc.) with them, some people will reject the idea.

They can always fixup any inaccuracies in the "director's cut."

cfw

If Bush had no actionable intelligence, neither did Clinton, as far as anyone has proven thus far.

Clinton seemed a good bit more concerned about OBL that Bush, pre 9/11.

ABC has no business trying to act all holy about its public service based on the 9/11 report if it is not going to (a) follow the report to the T and (b) scrub the miniseries for factual accuracy after coordination with those attacked.

Due process ideas need to be resurrected as a shared value. Shame on JOM and his supporters for not commenting on the absence of any diligence by ABC in the procedural fairness area.

Neo

This is merely another Rovian plot.

The key is to put in one glaringly wrong piece of information or scene. This is the real bait. The critics jump on it, the writer/director/producer apologies. Meanwhile, all that remains goes unchallenged.

The Democrats seem to have bitten.

ed

Hmmm.

I think that's all well and good but when will ABC and others start doing *asian* shows? When was the last time, or the first time, anybody has ever seen a tv show about asians on the major networks?

Why isn't any of this about ME dammit?

:) j/k'ing.

Neo

cfw:

It's a movie, just like Stone's JFK, Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

All movies take a point of view. As the history of 9/11 is still washing out, that all we have, points of view.

Anonymous Liberal

Perhaps, Tom. But if I were a betting man, I'd bet that ABC does NOT pull the series like they did with The Reagans.

The hypocrisy here from the Right (not you Tom) is almost too much to take. The Reagans was a relatively flattering portrayal of a president that had been out of office for over 15 years and it was slated to air in a non-election year. Moreover, the contested scenes were not demonstrably false, they were just conjecture. Yet conservatives threw such a stink about it that CBS cancelled it.

The Path to 9/11 contains demonstrably false scenes and it is slated to air within two months of a pivotal election (one that is likely to hinge on voters perceptions of the war on terror). It has been marketed selectively to conservative commentators and bloggers (who have all raved about) and it is being distributed en masse to schools for educational use.

As I wrote in my post the other day:

"If the situation were reversed, it would result in a right-wing firestorm that would dwarf by many magnitudes the fury of a supernova. Every single conservative commentator, blogger, pundit, and politician would be absolutely apoplectic, and ABC would be lucky if it survived the fallout."

maryrose

Finally we will see a TRUE picture of how weak Clinton etal especially Reno and Albright and Berger were during the developmental stages of the Taliban and AlQueda we know today. Soft on terrorism doesn't even begin to describe it. A total dereliction of duty best encapsulates it.

Jane


But Neo, Farenheit 911 was accurate. Certainly you should know the difference. If not cfw will be happy to explain it to you.

Due process ideas need to be resurrected as a shared value.

What pray tell is a "due process idea"? Does that have something to do with hollywood being in the pocket of the left and therefore should censor this sort of thing?"

The objecting crowd has far too much to hide. Bring it on!


boris

Yet conservatives threw such a stink about it that CBS cancelled it.

No their focus groups informed them the public still loved Reagan and the show would not only bomb but blow up in their face.

There the conjectured controversial scenes were personal and nasty.

boris

If the situation were reversed

CALL BS !!!

The treatment of W's admin is no more "accurate". The PDB was not actionable and CLark was a ninny.

boris

demonstrably false scenes

Like the TANG memos ???

What if the official version of the details is self serving and ABC has behind the scene testimony from military personel involved?

Does it really matter so much to y'all if Maddy Halfbright called Pakistan herself or had her agent do it?

Anonymous Liberal

Boris,

As usual, your grasp of the facts is tenuous. The writer of the series admits that he made up a number of the scenes, including the one that is causing the most controversy. It's not based on anything. And CBS absolutely did cave to conservative demands in 2003. I remember it well. Go back and google the stories.

I also call BS on the entire meme in the comments here that the Clinton administration was guilty of gross dereliction of duty. That's partisan hindsight crap. Republicans at the time never criticized Clinton for failing to agressively pursue bin Laden. In fact, many claimed he was too agressive. The GOP platform in 2000 criticized Clinton on all sorts of foreign policy matters but didn't say one damn word about al Qaeda. And when Bush took over in 2000, by all accounts his administration paid even less attention to terrorism issues than the Clinton administration did. It's easy to look back and be critical of past administrations, but most of this criticism is just partisan revisionist crap.

maryrose

Boris:
"Maddy Halfbright!"
LOL!

azredneck

CBS does "fake but accurate"; ABC does "true but inaccurate". Where is Mary Mapes when you need her? Maybe Richard Clarke could assist.

maryrose

Anonnymous Liberal;
You sir have amnesia. Do the words USS Cole, Mogadishu and Trade Center Bombing as well as 2 embassies hit ring a bell? CLINTON DID NOTHING.... That is truth not revisionist history. He failed to protect us as he pursued extracurricular activities{Lewinsky}. History will not be kind to him.

Bob

peol... Gore certainly did make deals!

I hope http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=2891>this one makes it into the ABC movie. This, in my view, more than anything else, could have prevented 9/11!

"The Gore Commission held six public meetings, hearing from over fifty witnesses representing a cross section of the aviation industry and the public, including families of victims of air disasters. Recognizing the increasingly global nature of aviation, the commission cosponsored an International Conference on Aviation Safety and Security with the George Washington University, attended by over 700 representatives from sixty-one countries

There were a number of recommendations made the by Gore Commission, whose commissioners included family members of the victims of Flight 800. The recommendations included several measures to improve screening company performance, including a national job grade structure for screeners and meaningful measures to reward employees. It also called for airlines to hire screening companies on the basis of performance, not the lowest bidder.

The Gore Commission called for criminal background and FBI fingerprint checks for all airport and airline workers who screen passengers for weapons or have access to secure areas. The airlines industry had long opposed mandatory criminal checks.

Two weeks later, as reported in the Boston Globe, Gore retreated from his own commission's proposals in a letter to Carol B. Hallett, president of the industry's trade group, the Air Transport Association. ''I want to make it very clear that it is not the intent of this administration or of the commission to create a hardship for the air transportation industry or to cause inconvenience to the traveling public,'' Gore wrote. To reassure Hallett, Gore added that the FAA would develop ''a draft test concept ... in full partnership with representatives of the airline industry."

The day after Gore's letter to the Air Transport Association, Trans World Airlines donated $40,000 to the Democratic National Committee. By the time of the presidential election, other airlines had poured large donations into Democrat Party committees: $265,000 from American Airlines, $120,000 from Delta Air Lines, $115,000 from United Air Lines, $87,000 from Northwest Airlines, according to an analysis done for the Boston Globe by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks donations.A total of $627,000 was donated to the Democrats by major airlines.

Two of the commission members -- Victoria Cummock and Kathleen Flynn, who lost loved ones in the terrorist attack on Flight 800 -- believe that campaign contributions by the airline industry were a direct result of Al Gore backing away from the commission's security recommendations. Don't bet on the mainstream news media reminding Al Gore of this flagrant example of homeland security taking a back-seat to campaign cash the next time they quote one of his frequent fever-pitched rants."

bastards!

boris

And when Bush took over in 2000, by all accounts his administration paid even less attention to terrorism issues than the Clinton administration did.

Just how many terrorist attacks occured during the Bush administration before 911? You certainly are aware that significant policy changes don't happen on the 1st day, and in fact BJ's budget and policy are in effect until late in 2001.

Sue

Due process ideas need to be resurrected as a shared value. Shame on JOM and his supporters for not commenting on the absence of any diligence by ABC in the procedural fairness area.

Have you seen it?

I have no shame. I still see Michael Moore seated next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC convention. You feel the shame for me. 'kay?

Sue

And when Bush took over in 2000

A John Kerry moment. Kind of like Nixon and 1968.

Neo

For all those nutsfolks out there who think 9/11 was an "inside job" comes .. CNN is reporting:

The Arabic language TV network Al-Jazeera says it will show video of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders as they planned the 9/11 terror attacks.

TexasToast

It's a movie, just like Stone's JFK, Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

All movies take a point of view. As the history of 9/11 is still washing out, that all we have, points of view.

This is correct. But the fact remains, one is entitled to one's own point of view - but one is not entitled to one's own facts. Moore never "invented" or "fictionalized" events to advance his point of view - apparently this movie does.

Sue

Moore never "invented" or "fictionalized" events to advance his point of view - apparently this movie does.

LOL. And therein, folks, is why the left scares the hell out of me.

maryrose

Clinton dropped the ball -we know it and you know it. Everthing else is just CYA. He had bad people in positions of high responsibilty who were just not up to the task of making the the tough on terror decisions. Take Ross Perot out of the equation and the former President Bush would never have let those bombings stand. Clinton like Carter botched the bombing and missed the target. Carter was paralysed for over 400 days in trying to free hostages. Elect dems at your own peril. They are unequiped to handle terrorist threats or actions. There is a paper trail of this for decades.

maryrose

My favorite moment at the Republican convention was the crowd booing Michael Moore. What ass-hat had the brilliant idea of planting him there as a reporter?

Anonymous Liberal

It's a movie, just like Stone's JFK, Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

All movies take a point of view. As the history of 9/11 is still washing out, that all we have, points of view.

Rubbish. Those movies were released in theaters, not broadcast on the public airwaves. And they also didn't bill themselves as being "based on the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report." This is something else entirely.

boris

Those movies were released in theaters, not broadcast on the public airwaves

Poppycock! The "public" airwaves show movies that have played in theaters all the time. Bogus and irrelevant.

Great Banana

This is correct. But the fact remains, one is entitled to one's own point of view - but one is not entitled to one's own facts. Moore never "invented" or "fictionalized" events to advance his point of view - apparently this movie does.

In fact, he did do that, quite a bit of it. Most of the movies is nothing but lies.

Most liberals operate off their own set of facts, so even if their complaints about this movie were true, how could they possibly care.

I'm still pissed that the theif and national security threat Sandy Berger got off pretty much scott-free for stealing those materials. If that did not convince the left that the Clinton administration has something to hide, nothing will. Seriously, how can you sit in the knowledge that Clinton's national security advisor stole and destroyed classified documents so that the 9/11 commission would not see them, and simply discount that? It is unfathonamable.

Neo

Remember that pipeline in Afghanistan reported in Fahrenheit 9/11.

A few points that are in dispute:

The proposed Unocal pipeline was supported by the Clinton administration, but Unocal abandoned the pipeline idea in 1998. The new Afghani government has signed a protocol to build a pipeline, but it is an entirely different pipeline, in a location hundreds of miles distant from the Unocal proposal. Although Moore claims that “Enron stood to benefit” from the pipeline, Enron has never had any participation in either pipeline.

And this is just about the pipeline.

boris

based on the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report

If it was based, in part, on the report, so what?

Anonymous Liberal

Clinton dropped the ball -we know it and you know it. Everthing else is just CYA.

Perhaps so, but not in the way you suggest. In retrospect, it's easy to see where all the past administrations went wrong in dealing with this issue. But the idea that the Republicans of the day were more concerned with terorrism than the Clinton administration is just pure fantasy-land crapola. When Bush took office in 2001, terrorism was about as far down on his list of foreign policy priorities as anything could be. And again, it's easy to be critical in retrospect.

The point is that NO ONE took terrorism seriously enough before 9/11. The Clinton administration, though it looks bad through the lens of history on this issue, actually looks pretty good when compared to the pre-9/11 Bush administration, or the Republicans in Congress in the 1990s.

Great Banana

"Rubbish. Those movies were released in theaters, not broadcast on the public airwaves. And they also didn't bill themselves as being "based on the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report." This is something else entirely."

Where to begin. I will agree that this TV show should be censored if you agree that everything the right doesn't like should be censored as well.

I can finally use the left's favorite argument against them, and have actual evidence to back it up -

- You sir, are a fascist. You want cencorship of things you don't like. If that is not a fascist, what is?

- GB

boris

Republicans of the day were more concerned with terorrism than the Clinton administration is just pure fantasy

Not their job. It was BJ's.

boris

[BJ looks] good when compared to the pre-9/11 Bush administration

The pre 9/11 policy was BJ's. Looks the same.

Great Banana

"But the idea that the Republicans of the day were more concerned with terorrism than the Clinton administration is just pure fantasy-land crapola."

Interesting straw-man. I'm not sure anyone claims that to be the case. Or that anyone who has seen this mini-series claims that is what the mini-series claims. Instead, it is allegedly (I haven't seen it) a movie that details mistakes made by everyone leading up to 9/11.

I love how the left desperately wants Bush to declare mistakes he has made, but absolutely refuses to declare any of their own.

Anonymous Liberal

You sir, are a fascist. You want cencorship of things you don't like. If that is not a fascist, what is?,

Am I an "Islamo-fascist" or just a regular one? Good lord.

First, I didn't call for the series to be cancelled, I just pointed out how utterly bent out of shape conservatives would be if the shoe was on the other foot. I personally think the best thing for ABC to do would be to delay airing the series until after the election, and then either fix the parts that deviate from the 9/11 report or provide airtime to experts (perhaps the commissioners themselves) to discuss which parts of the film were fictionalized.

Anonymous Liberal

Republicans of the day were more concerned with terorrism than the Clinton administration is just pure fantasy

Not their job. It was BJ's.

For once I agree with you Boris. The Republicans of the day were a lot more concerned about BJs than terrorists.

boris

Kinda hypocritical to demand accuracy while spinning your own BS.

Accuracy is somewhat more difficult with BJ's adminstraion, when they, MSM and their loyal minions are spinning like crazy. Therefore any criticism is "innaccurate" with their personal "truth".

Those that muddy the water to begin with have no complaint when speculation is required to tell their story.

BTW it was BJ, whose job WAS national security who was "more concerned with BJs".

Sue

AL,

You think you will disagree with how they portray Bush in the movie? Or just Clinton?

Syl

I personally think the best thing for ABC to do would be to delay airing the series until after the election

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

boris

out of shape conservatives would be if the shoe was on the other foot

Except it is on both feet. Looking around, don't see any shape shifting 'round here.

cfw

Neo:

"It's a movie, just like Stone's JFK, Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11."

Not quite. I hear ABC plans to offer it without commercials as a sort of public service, then have Scholastic use it as a teaching device.

Letters supposedly went out to 100,000 teachers, with packets for parents to discuss the movie with their kids.

It is said to be docu-drama, meaning a sort of documentary, not just a movie.

Jane:

"What pray tell is a "due process idea"?"

The due process idea means here when ABC tries to offer something akin to news, as a public service, as tracking the 9/11 Report, it needs to do what JOM routinely does (at least JOM does it to protect Red Side figures).

Take the usual and customary steps to get the facts right, including (in this context) get comments from those essentially accused of malfeasance in office.

The 14th Amendment talks about due process - Red Staters and JOM still seem to like that legal provision, and the concepts it promotes, at least when the Red Side gets challenged.

Sue

The point is that NO ONE took terrorism seriously enough before 9/11.

From what I've heard, that is exactly the point of the movie. And only Richard Clarke comes out looking good. I sure hope you are as critical of the things they get wrong about the Bush administration, after you've seen it of course, as you are about the Clinton administration, before you've seen it.

boris

I hear ABC plans to offer it without commercials as a sort of public service

Any coercion involved? Is ABC an official branch of the government?

BFD

Sue

First, I didn't call for the series to be cancelled, I just pointed out how utterly bent out of shape conservatives would be if the shoe was on the other foot.

The shoe is on the other foot. It does not portray republicans or Bush in a good light (of course, I am only going on what has been reported, since I haven't seen it).

boris

they get wrong about the Bush administration

Wouldn't that require they first have a accurate perception of W? Don't think they do.

Extraneus

The point is that NO ONE took terrorism seriously enough before 9/11.

What about now? Is the left taking terrorism more seriously than their war against Bush? Is the focus on Abu Graib, secret CIA prisons, bible-flushing, "torture," NSA wiretapping, the Patriot Act, redeployment to Okinawa, calls for Rumsfeld's resignment, Joe Wilson's spurious accusations, and yes -- stealing documents to prevent the already-packed 9/11 Commission from discovering them -- evidence of their priorities? I'd say it is.

However... Isn't it possible that ABC is angling for the more conservative viewer, simply as a bold play for market-share, and willing to display some level of counter-balancing bias to do so?

topsecretk9

The left squash due process of ideas routinely...throwing stupid little hissy fits because the WAPO dared to engage a righty blogger and staging e- book burning, enlisting all those devoted to ideas minions to write phony bad book reviews of a book they never read in order to suppress it.

Give me a total break with your righteous phony due process of ideas.

The Unbeliever

The point is that NO ONE took terrorism seriously enough before 9/11.

Considering that for the 10 years between the end of the Gulf War and 9/11, Clinton was in charge for 8 of those years, I'd say it's fair to blame him rather roundly. Especially since all the major terror attacks during that intervening time took place on his watch.

The Clinton administration, though it looks bad through the lens of history on this issue,

(I'd use the word "abominable" instead of merely "bad" given the first WTC attack, but maybe I just have high standards for the leader of the free world.)

actually looks pretty good when compared to the pre-9/11 Bush administration

All 8 months of it? You're seriously trying to compare 8 months of attack-free time (which naturally tends to draw focus away from the issue) to eight years of incompetence and complacency in the middle of repeated attacks?

Seriously, AL, you may want to rethink ever opining about the effectiveness of any Administration.

or the Republicans in Congress in the 1990s.

Actually I believe it's not Congress' job to pursue terrorists, it's primarily the President's job. Congress can either get in the way or help out in the fight, of course, but the primary responsibility is still the President's and barring extreme action on their part I'm disinclined to praise or blame any Congress regarding the matter. In other words, Congress doesn't get blame for Clinton's years, and doesn't get praise for Bush's accomplishments in the post-9/11; having said that, the GOP shouldn't have been so quick to lay on the wag-the-dog accusations in the middle of Clinton lying under oath, and the Democrats should quit acting like idiots during the post-9/11 WoT.

Great Banana

CFW,

Not to talk over your head, but "due process" is something the government owes people before depriving them of life, liberty, or property.

You will be unable to find any comment by any conservative calling for "due process" as to private citizens or entities.

We complain that the "news" is biased and does not report all the facts, or stories that depict liberals badly, or is slanted. We do not argue for "due process" or censorship, as is being called for here.

If the country were to follow your, or anonymous liberal's ideas, I would agree to it in a heartbeat, b/c every time a democrat lies, or a liberal lies, the media would then be required to give a conservative air-time to explain the lie. This would include every single night's newscasts in all the mainstream media, as well as every single day's newspapers.

Your arguments are incredibly hypocrytical and idiotic. It is as simple as that.

Ultimately, I don't care about this particular movie at this time. The truth about Clinton's actions will come out, and history will not be kind to him. Even if his actions on terrorism don't doom his historical standing, the fact that he accomplished nothing of significance in office coupled with all of the scandals, doom his presidency to the bottom of the rankings.

And, I think the public is perceptive enough that (hopefully) the republicans will retain their majority at these elections, and I would bet on a republican being president in 2009.

We don't need this movie, we have Pelosi, Reid, Dean and the rest to demonstrate the lack of seriousness on the part of dems when it comes to national security.

- GB

Bob

Hey anonymous... what Al Gore's commission did, or I should say didn't do, you can't defend. Clinton and Gore sold this country out! Just like taking money from the Chinese and giving them, via. Bernie Schwartz of Loral Corp., missile technology, it was reprehensible!

Now stop with the whining... you've had enough Kool Aid already!

sad

****Now that this movie is based on this report, how can they object to the movie but not the report????****

cause the average leftie goes to movies but doesn't read. They have no idea what was in the report. Seeing it played out on screen could upset their worldview.

Laddy

Apparently the fix is in and the documentary has been edited according to HotAir">http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/07/report-abc-agrees-to-edit-path-to-911-after-phone-call-from-clinton/">HotAir

Having not seen the original or the edited version, it's hard to know what to make of this. Enough people have seen it prior to the latest edir to chime in on the alterations I would think.

maryrose

AL:
the first warning Then President elect Bush issued was a warning to terrorists. But you sir seem to have convenirently forgotten that DOCUMENTED piece of evidence that Bush took the terrorism threat seriously. I would match Bush's crusade against terror in a comparison to Clinton's any day of the week. Clinton was a weak playboy from a dysfunctional family who never garnered 50% of the electorate and completely compromised his administration's policies and endeavors. Only passedWelfare reform because he was forced to by polls and repubs. 8 years of mr. Useless at the helm.

Laddy

edir = edit

The Unbeliever

The 14th Amendment talks about due process - Red Staters and JOM still seem to like that legal provision, and the concepts it promotes, at least when the Red Side gets challenged.

Uh, I don't know what whacked-out version of the Constitution you're reading, but the provisions for due process are in the 5th Amendment. The 14th merely extends that protection to a class of persons who previously were not covered by the citzenship laws, and specifically forbids any State from trying to bypass the Federal and Constitutional mandates. And neither Amendment has anything to do with balance in news or entertainment media.

You may want to actually read the Constitution some time, it might help prevent you from looking like a fool when you try to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Syl

I personally think the best thing for ABC to do would be to delay airing the series until after the election

Let me clarify my thoughts on this. Elections are about choices. The electorate should have a rousing debate BEFORE an election, not after.

It seems that the Dems are all about framing the debate only on their terms.

News flash.

There are TWO parties in this country and BOTH have the right and duty to get their message out on their own terms.

The Dems claim that all this terrorism talk is political. So what? All the Dems talk about 'failure' and 'incompetence' in Iraq is also political.

You know, there's nothing in the Constitution that says dissent stands on its own and must be unopposed. If your dissent is valid, it will be able to overcome the opposition to it. If it isn't, it won't.

Let the debating rage on!

JohnH

The show is attacked by Berger for having him hanging up on the CIA when they are in Afghanistan ready to grab Bin Laden at Tarnak Farms. But the real story is possibly worse for Clinton and Berger. See the discussion on newsbusters.org (linked from NR's Mediablog):

"At his breakfast with reporters, Scheuer said that on 10 separate occasions his unit, codename “Alec,” provided key policymakers with information that could’ve lead to the killing or capture of Osama bin Laden. “In each of those 10 instances, the senior policymaker in charge, whether it was Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, or George Tenet,” resisted taking action, afraid it would result in collateral damage or a backlash on the Arab street."

And this, quoted from the 911 commission report:

"A compound of about 80 concrete or mud-brick buildings surrounded by a 10-foot wall, Tarnak Farms was located in an isolated desert area on the outskirts of the Kandahar airport. CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Ladin’s wives and one where Bin Ladin himself was most likely to sleep. Working with the tribals, they drew up plans for the raid. They ran two complete rehearsals in the United States during the fall of 1997.

By early 1998, planners at the Counterterrorist Center were ready to come back to the White House to seek formal approval."

Does it sound like Nowrasteh “completely made up” this plan? As to who stopped this covert action, the Commission wasn’t sure:

"Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG [Counterterrorist Security Group headed by Clarke] saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted the principals would not approve it. “Jeff” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision."

It would be fine with me if the ABC show ran this "factual" version rather than their compressed "fake" one. This cannot be compared in any meaningful way to Dan Rather's "fake but accurrate" distinction. Both ABC's version as well as that of the Commission tell the same story.


topsecretk9

The Electronic Book Buners Brigade and the Classified Doc Thiefs and Shedders Union win

Clinton calls with and sends ABC Sandy's scissors:

ABC toned down a scene that involved Clinton’s national security adviser, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified. “That sequence has been the focus of attention,” the source said.

The network also decided that the credits would say the film is based “in part” on the 9/11 panel report, rather than “based on” the report, as the producers originally intended.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/07/report-abc-agrees-to-edit-path-to-911-after-phone-call-from-clinton/

Jane

The due process idea means here when ABC tries to offer something akin to news, as a public service, as tracking the 9/11 Report, it needs to do what JOM routinely does (at least JOM does it to protect Red Side figures).

CFW,

Ahhh that explains it - not. You know lots of us take the idea of due process seriously. And the airing of a film by ABC doesn't have a thing to do with due process.

But I will say that I find the complaints of media bias on the part of the left delicious. I'd love to say "get used to it" but with the current epidemic of BDS going around I suspect there is little or no bias involved here.

Did you know that the film is also critical of the Bush administration? I don't see you - or any conservative here objecting to that. But I do see Clinton cronies, most of whom are notorious liars, bitching and moaning about this film. It just makes me think there is so much more we don't know that your hero is covering up - because after all, that's vintage Clinton.

But don't worry, Big Bill is lobbying fast and furiously, and I'm sure he'll get ABC to make changes to reflect what a bastion of anti-terrorism you know in your heart he was.

lurker

This movie has been reviewed by many experts. Donnie Wahlberg did indeed talk to the CIA anonymous source that infiltrated AQ over the phone but never met him.

If this movie was redacted and aired partly based on the 9/11 senate commission report, then that's too bad. Why is Berger objecting to his decision when many people knew about it?

I'd rather watch a full, unredacted version of this movie.

No, this movie should not be delayed post-election. There's a very good reason why the lefties want it delayed. They just don't want the voters to see how weak the democrats are.

So the CBS movie is violating some FCC law based on obsene language?

boris

Apparently it was Clark declining the kill in the BEST OF TEN missed opportunities.

Berger also was involved in another.

Instead of ten accurate incidents, or even one Clark whitewashed composite, there will be a "toned down" portrayal.

ATC

Funny how people here are trying to prove that this "docudrama"'s version of events are somehow based in reality when the even the creators of it say its fictionalized.

Personally I think airing a movie about 9/11 with admittedly completely fabricated events in it is a GREAT way to honor those who died that day. yeah, great.

sad

***So the CBS movie is violating some FCC law based on obsene language?***

Clinton on the Bin Laden decision: Get me the m---f--ing poll results!!!! How the f--- do you f---ing expect me to make a f---ing decision with the f---ing polls? And that g--d--- question better have been included or some m--- f---er is gonna die!!!!

lurker

Well, now that this movie is supposedly redacted, here is one post that cannot be disputedly challenged by macranger:

The 9/11 Commission Report and Those Pesky Facts

Here is what Mac Ranger says:

"The fact is that the Clinton Administration had more than ample opportunity to get Bin Laden. They can spin all they want, but the frustrations from many of those who were on the ground, poised to take him, but were thwarted by - for lack of a better word - criminal negligence, by Clinton, Berger and Albright, who seemed at the time (as they do now) with “What would the world think?”

The fact that the left has come out so strongly against this movie isn’t because they want to get the “fact straight”, but because they don’t want the facts to be known. On the eve of election 2006 America will get a first hand look at how Democrats handle terrorism - with indecision and ineptitude. Knowing that you can see why they have been trying (although it won’t work) to get the movie discredited.

Like I said, it won’t work."

Can you believe Clinton and Gore suppressed VOA? Read some of the comments to Mac's post.

"The Clinton/Gore Administration disapproved a VOICE OF AMERICA broadcast condemning the attack on the Cole. A memo from the Executive Secretariat Staff at the State Department stated:

“The Department of State does not clear on the referenced VOA editorial.
“This editorial will reach an audience that is caught up in the violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories. The 17 or so dead sailors does not compare to the 100+ Palestinians who have died in recent weeks where we have remained silent. The people that hear this will not see the separation we are trying to make and relate it directly to the violence.
“Either VOA adds something in there to take the edge off and mention the Palestinians or we should kill this editorial until the violence has calmed for a while.
“S/CT [Secy. for counterterrorism] concurred with this. If you have questions concerning this editorial, please contact NEA/P (unintelligible)

This is our VERY own State Department!!! With Colin Powell at the helm no less! Clinton not only ignored the Cole…he and his hatchet men went out of their way to make sure that we didn’t offend the Arabs! How disgustingly typical of those slimeballs!

Carol"

A friend of mine visited some ex-CIA employees overseas that used to work under Clinton. None of them had a good word to say about Clinton. Same with the military.

boris

here are trying to prove ...

Where? Let's see comeone here in this thread trying to prove that.

C'mon ...

lurker

Why Clarke doesn’t want you to see “The Path to 9/11″

lurker

Clinton Path to 9/11 - I think they’re bugging now

topsecretk9

Why didn't ABC just do a "montage" of ALL the missed opportunities to keep historically accurate to appease the left, instead of condensing into one?


Anyways, this is all a bunch of defensive cry babying of the-- on the one hand there is no terror threat vs. Clinton was not exactly a terror Czar impervious to igniting the Arab street left-- of there own making...when 9-11 happened the President NEVER pointed a finger or blamed anyone of which he certainly could have and Clinton knows it.

The President choose not only the high road, but the flipping serious and necessary road -- The terror threat is real and can no longer be ignored.

ATC

here are trying to prove ...

You're right. Everyone is just parroting the talking points about how Clinton failed without trying to PROVE anything.
I stand corrected.

I guess thats the only response when Bush has failed so miserably. Just point the finger at others.

lurker

And the 9/11 families are part of this movie, btw.

"Funny how people here are trying to prove that this "docudrama"'s version of events are somehow based in reality when the even the creators of it say its fictionalized.

Personally I think airing a movie about 9/11 with admittedly completely fabricated events in it is a GREAT way to honor those who died that day. yeah, great."

It should be a movie that explains how and why 9/11 happened. It should be a movie explaining the importance of balancing National Security and civil liberties without sacrificing both.

I'm glad this movie is out that will make people think twice about their votes.

The very fact that Bush and his adm are not objecting to this movie versus the democrats' objections show that Bush and his adm have far more integrity and honor than the objectioners.

BTW, as for Bush's first 8 months, 1) AJStrata was quick to point out that Clinton froze the budget for fiscal year of 2001 and Bush could not change it. 2) Bush had his adm spend the first 8 months reviewing, revising, suggesting, and improving the intelligence and military programs.

Does this mean that terrorism was low on Bush's list in the first 8 months? No.

lurker

"here are trying to prove ...

You're right. Everyone is just parroting the talking points about how Clinton failed without trying to PROVE anything.
I stand corrected.

I guess thats the only response when Bush has failed so miserably. Just point the finger at others."

Captain's Quarters' post on Terrorism Prevention Act:

Terrorism Prevention Act

"And as far as wiretaps go, Congress had already expanded the government's ability to tap communications. The Senate had passed S.735 three months earlier, the Terrorism Prevention Act. It granted new powers for intercepting communications. For instance, it removed the requirement to get a wiretap order to access banking records, allowing a grand jury subpoena instead. It also granted more power to use wiretaps for immigration violations, a key in tracking international terrorists. The Senate passed the bill on April 17 and it became law, according to the government's Thomas site. Only eight Senators voted against it -- seven of them Democrats (Byrd, Kennedy, Pell, Feingold, Mosely-Braun, Simon, and Moynihan). The only Republican vote in opposition came from Oregon's Mark Hatfield, who regularly cast votes on the liberal end of the GOP caucus.

Of course, Byrd, Kennedy, and Feingold form the current leadership of the Senate Democratic caucus, and Feingold wants to run for President."

This made the NSA terrorist surveillance program LEGAL when it was passed.

1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was unanimously passed. You thunk the Republicans and Democrats weren't concerned about terrorism under Clinton. You're wrong.

lurker

Do tell where Bush failed miserably compared to where Clinton failed miserably?

You democrats are SO AFRAID that this will convince swing voters to reconsider their votes BASED on the truth and facts and you don't want them to see the truth and facts.

topsecretk9

ATC
Your pointing fingers. Besides, like someone said up thread I don't hear the President trying to quash what will be considered criticisms of him in this movie, for if he did you'd say it was proof he was a fascist.

But thanks for all the bedwetting, you've accomplished peaking my interest in something I had none in before.

lurker

"Well, now that this movie is supposedly redacted, here is one post that cannot be disputedly challenged by macranger:"

Clarification:

Posted by macranger where the facts cannot be disputed by the democrats.

lurker

BTW, Gary Maxwell, got an email from Shelly Sebulski-Gibbs saying that she has a double-digit lead over Lampson.

ATC

Topsecret, Good. You should be interested. Bush's base is in a large part made up of people who refuse to question the president. Because that helps the terrorists, I'm told.
Hopefully more people will start to think more critically instead of offering blind loyalty.

Bush failed by destroying the sense of world community that existed right after 9/11. I really don't have to explain all this to you do I? You don't defeat terrorists by playing right into their hands. You do it by establishing alliances with people who are against such means, alienating terrorists. All Bush has done is given more humans reason to distrust and fight against the USA.

By the way, I am not a Democrat.

Sue

By the way, I am not a Democrat.

LOL. For someone not a democrat, you have an uncanny ability to repeat their talking points.

By the way, I am not a democrat.

boris

failed by destroying the sense of world community

Kumbayaya YoYo.

Guess Tod Beamer and Mark Bingham "failed" too. You can sit there in your seat and criticize those who act and take the risk. What's got to be done had got to be done, right way, wrong way, any way. If you aint doin the doin you don't get to make the call.

Great Banana

ATC<

Topsecret, Good. You should be interested. Bush's base is in a large part made up of people who refuse to question the president.

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they refuse to question the president. Minus points for a straw-man cliche talking point out of the fever swamps of DU or KOS.

Bush failed by destroying the sense of world community that existed right after 9/11. I really don't have to explain all this to you do I? You don't defeat terrorists by playing right into their hands. You do it by establishing alliances with people who are against such means, alienating terrorists. All Bush has done is given more humans reason to distrust and fight against the USA.

Oh yes, the world community, that would have loved us as long as we did nothing and took it like a viking. Of course, all of those countries that participated in Afghanistan and Iraq don't count. Only Germany and France count. So, when we say world community nowadays, apparently we mean - do what France wants and everything will work out honkey-dorey. what exactly do you believe, in your crazy mind, the "world community" would have done to stop terrorism after 9/11? You probably still believe that the UN is a noble institution and tooth fairy.

Again, more points deducted for straw-man and cliches taken straight from KOS. And you complain about us not being rational and following others with blind loyalty? Use a mirror. YOu are a grade A example of why democrats should NEVER be trusted with national security.

By the way, I am not a Democrat.

No, maybe not. But still a moonbat regurgitating leftist talking points that have no basis in reality or logic.

- GB

Barney Frank

I really don't have to explain all this to you do I?

This statement is compellingly accurate and I for one wish you would act on it.

boris

second

topsecretk9

destroying the sense of world community that existed

That "sense" made you feel good at night, eh?

Bob

ATC... Your not a Democrat your a moonbat.

"You do it by establishing alliances with people who are against such means"

OK then name one instance were an alliance with a group like Al Qaeda has produced lasting results?

Laddy
ATC says: By the way, I am not a Democrat.

If it walks and talks....

lurker

"Topsecret, Good. You should be interested. Bush's base is in a large part made up of people who refuse to question the president. Because that helps the terrorists, I'm told.
Hopefully more people will start to think more critically instead of offering blind loyalty."

I'm conservative and Republican. I don't have to question the president. Why? Because he took the responsibility and accountability as a US President to exercise his authority and oath to protect our own country. And he's doing the right thing. Did he make mistakes along the way? Yeah but that makes him just as human as any of us. Has he made the right and wrong decisions? Yeah and he's learning from what worked at that time and what did not work. When it did not work, then he'll find a way to make it work.

"Bush failed by destroying the sense of world community that existed right after 9/11. I really don't have to explain all this to you do I? You don't defeat terrorists by playing right into their hands. You do it by establishing alliances with people who are against such means, alienating terrorists. All Bush has done is given more humans reason to distrust and fight against the USA."

I don't need you to explain it to me. Why? Because I don't need a Neville Chamberlain explanation that did not work in WWII. All I need is a Churchill explanation and you're not gonna give me one. Then why did Iran hijack our embassy and kept our hostages for 444 days before 43 became our US President? Why were we attacked in Moghdishcu before 43 became our US President? Why were we attacked in Beirut before 43 became our US President? Why was USS Cole attacked before 43 became our US President? Why was the WTC's attacked in 1993 before 43 became our US President?

Distrust? Nah, I don't think so.

Why?

Because they want a worldwide Islam Caliphate.

"By the way, I am not a Democrat."

Sorry, Laddy's right. You're a mouthpiece of the leftwingers regardless of what you think you are.

Jane

Hopefully more people will start to think more critically instead of offering blind loyalty.

Let's hope. But I seriously doubt that this movie alone will put a dent in BDS. Apparently it's peaking for the libs as a result, not waning.

And that blind loyalty toward Big Billy who always put his self-interest in front of the country's isn't waning either.

Bush failed by destroying the sense of world community that existed right after 9/11

Ahhhh the Kumbaya syndrome. If we were just a little nice to the terrorists, they would drop their goal of converting the world to Islam. Why didn't I think of that?

topsecretk9

Media Matters says the editing process is not done, Clinton may demand more changes yet (talk about a Dictator) anyhow...one more chapter in the Legacy.

Interesting ABC will edit a docu-drama in order to "protect" embarrassment for EX- President Clinton, and NO media org will even begin to "protect" current real-time national security when the current Admin. asks.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame