Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

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

September 07, 2006

Comments

lurker

ATC,

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

You need to read Bat Ye'or's writings about Eurabia.

And there wasn't even a sense of a world community before 9/11.

The Unbeliever

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 do have to prove such a fantasy existed, when the immediate response from Europe was a mixture of support AND "they had it coming" sentiment. The French newspapers who said "we are all Americans" were rather swiftly undercut by the editorials blaming America for the attacks within the next few weeks, before Bush made any foreign policy moves--hell, even before all the remains were recovered from Ground Zero.

Assuming you put together a plausible case that such a construct existed (an assumption no reasonable person will grant), you also have to explain why you think that "sense of world community" would have survived any strong US foreign policy response given the dearth of signficant international support for the Afghanistan campaign beyond the limited NATO support. Attempt to square your rationale with the lack of response to terrorism or genocide which the pre-Bush Western world has demonstrated in the time between Bush I and Bush II. Keep in mind the recent failures of the UN in, well, just about everything; also the failure of the EU to successfully deal with either Iran or the Lebanon/Israel conflict.

And finally, once you manage to don enough blinders to make it this far, you also need to make the risible case that one of Bush's opponents--Gore or Kerry or whoever--could have taken a brief moment of international sympathy and turned it into international action. And by "action", we don't mean "more UN resolutions"; we mean actual, physical military acts against sovereign nations who chose to harbor non-state terrorist organizations. You seem to be under the misapprehension that many disagreeing allied nations have enough force projection power that their lack of support in the WoT has hurt our military efforts. In other words, whether France is pissed at us or whether they love us, they aren't going to be sending troops into Bagdhad to help out; why then is losing their support such a monumental failure?

By the way, I am not a democrat.

And I am not a Republican. What's your point?

lurker

Does anyone have a sample letter that we can email to ABC?

Rez

OT: American Prospect rejects Broder's suggestion. Digs deeper:
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/09/post_1360.html#006207

lurker

"And there wasn't even a sense of a world community before 9/11."

Forgot to say: UN could not even define "terrorism"! And UN was and is being infiltrated by Islamofascism before and after 9/11.

maryrose

ATC:
You can't talk to terrorists you have to kill them. Try to get a clue as to what is really going on in this war on terrorism. France is a big fat chicken in all matters military. We don't take our marching orders from the supporters of the Oil for Food scandal. I like having Britain and Ausralia as allies-they know how to kick Al Queda and Taliban butt!

Sue

What should happen now is Bush and friends should start their own letter writing campaign and demand edits.

Maybe if enough people on both sides gripe, ABC will ignore both sides and produce the docudrama the way they intended.

lurker

Bin Laden Crushes Dems’ Fall Message

Yup. The war against terrorism is still on!

UN has been very ineffective in enforcing resolutions against Iraq since 1991 and Hizbollah as well.

UN is heading for a total collapse.

The democrats, btw, want to hand over US Military to UN. Do you, ATC?

UN wants every country to completely disarm. Do you, ATC?

The Unbeliever

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.

No, you do it by killing terrorists. An alienated terrorist is still capable of killing people if he has the will to do so and can scrape together a couple thousand dollars--how much do you think plane tickets and box cutters cost the 9/11 hijackers?

All Bush has done is given more humans reason to distrust and fight against the USA.

You're in dire need of serious history lesson. In case you forgot, bin Laden declared war on the US in the 1990's--before Bush even declared his candidacy for President. The first WTC attack happened in 1993, followed by various other attacks, and culminating in the 2001 attack killing 3000 Americans; what makes you think the enemy needed a reason or an excuse that was lacking before Bush?

topsecretk9

--Maybe if enough people on both sides gripe, ABC will ignore both sides and produce the docudrama the way they intended.--

Hey, that's not a bad idea Sue...personally I don't even care at this point...I think it speaks volumes and does more damage that Clinton is so desparate that he'd risk headlines (especially with Hill wanting to run)

"ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure"

UPDATE: Clinton Administration Officials Assail 'The Path to 9/11'...
Clinton demanded network 'pull the drama' if no changes...

ABC ALTERS 9/11 FILM DUE TO POLITICAL PRESSURE

Even people not interested or unimformed know, where there's smoke there's fire. I think this was a stupid nutroot move, if you ask me.

Patton

To be fair, ABC should have the final scene be Muhammed Atta trying to get through customs and a Clinton agent allowing him entry with an expired VISA. There should be a picture of Clinton hanging on the wall behind the agent.

9/11 was a multi-year operation. You think the entire 9/11 operation happened in ONE DAY...are you a complete IDIOT??

Every chance that the Federal government came in contact with Atta's crew was DURING THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION, NOT BUSH.

May 18 2000 UNDER BILL CLINTONS WATCH:
Muhammed Atta uses his new passport in Berlin to obtain a tourist visa for the United States.

June 3 2000 UNDER CLINTONS WATCH
Atta arrives in Newark, New Jersey with a six month tourist visa for the US.

June–July 2000 UNDER CLINTONS WATCH:
Muhammed Atta and several other Arab men tour the Airman flight school in Norman, Oklahoma.

July–December 21 2000 UNDER CLINTONS WATCH:
Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi enrol in flying lessons in Venice, Florida at Huffman Aviation, they pay some US $40 000 for about 300 hours of flying time.

December 21 2000 UNDER CLINTONS WATCH:
Muhammed Atta and Al-Shehhi get their pilot licenses. Atta and other hijackers purchase global-positioning devices known as GPS-3s from Tropic-Aero, an aviation-supply shop in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

December 27 2000 UNDER CLINTONS WATCH:
Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi abandon their broken-down small private plane on a taxiway at Miami International Airport.

December 29–30 2000 UNDER CLINTONS WATCH:
Atta and Al-Shehhi train for three hours each at a cost of $1500, on the Boeing 727 simulator belonging to Simcenter Inc. at Opa-Locka Airport outside Miami. Each spends about 90 minutes per day on the simulator which has controls similar to a 767

January 4 2001 UNDER CLINTONS WATCH:
Airline records show that Atta flies into Madrid from Miami.

January 10 2001 UNDER CLINTONS WATCH:
Atta returns to the USA even though his visa has expired. He is cleared into the country as a tourist.

SO ATTA IS NOW IN THE US, FULLY TRAINED AND READY TO SET THE DATE FOR DESTRUCTION BY THE TIME BUSH TAKES OFFICE.


GOOD WORK BILL...

lurker

And they did it without nuclear weapons, btw.

Why do the democrats consider OBL and AQ threats to the world when OBL and AQ probably did not have nuclear weapons; yet, they refuse to acknowledge today that Saddam was NOT a threat to the world because we found a small number of WMDs after the invasion?

Where is the logic in this one?

Sue

Top,

What ABC should do is go back and do all the 8-10 times that Clinton passed on bin Laden. They want the truth? They can't handle the truth. (Oops, sorry, I almost went into Col. Jessup mode.)

SteveMG

Does anyone else find it passing strange that the lefties who have been unceasing in their denunciations of centrist Democrats (e.g., Lieberman, Al Frumm, Will Marshall) are providing a full-throated defense of Mr. DLC himself, William Jefferson Clinton?

Extremism in the defense of moderation (as they see it) is no vice?

SMG

topsecretk9

BTW...I am going to laugh my ass off when the nutidiots "praise" ABC for the accurate depiction of Bush after all this fiction BS.

I swear, the lefts official tools for fighting terror? An eraser and a pair of scissors.

Sue

Does anyone else find it passing strange that the lefties

Nothing they do seems strange anymore. It's the norm. Lefties acting strange.

sad

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/07/full_text_of_letter_from_bill_clinton_lawyer_to_abc_obtained

topsecretk9

--What ABC should do is go back and do all the 8-10 times that Clinton passed on bin Laden.--

That's what I said...why don't they do a "Team America" MONTAGE of ALL 10 times the Clinton team took a pass and say "Here you go, full accuracy"


SMG

I find it strange the leftist who insist there is no terror threat, just Rove politically trumped up scare tactics, are throwing hissy fits about Clinton's handling of the non-existent threat? WTF is that?

sad

tpmcafe has the clinton berger clark letter up on the website

Sue

That's what I said

::grin::

Sue

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/>Sad's Link to TPM

topsecretk9

BTW...is the edited version any better? I mean everyone knows Clinton took a pass on nixing Osama, so what's the point? Leave the impression that you passed it up and explain it or the impression that after multiple terror attacks on this country you did jack?

I think this was a blow it move, I don't think Clinton should have made a stink if he couldn't get it pulled on the down-low.

topsecretk9

AND I guess the left better just zip it now on the issue that Osama is still on the loose.

Jane

ABC will appease Clinton, and Hollywood and atc and all his moonbat friends, I have no doubt. And The president will neither request or get special treatment. And that is okay with me. I like the fact that this president has more dignity in his little finger than every democrat, progressive and moonbat on the planet combined. I like my presidents that way.

topsecretk9

I'm sorry, but I just have very little trust in what a man who steals classified documents, stuffs them in his underpants and socks so that he can shred them with a pair of scissors and sneak new ones in their place has to say about accuracy.

sad

I didn't see anything in the Clinton letter regarding the assassination of Bush in the movie. Wait..... wrong movie... my bad.

windansea

That's what I said...why don't they do a "Team America" MONTAGE of ALL 10 times the Clinton team took a pass and say "Here you go, full accuracy"

yup....

maryrose

Jane:
So do I. President Bush is someone I can trust unlike HIl, Bill dems all.

topsecretk9

What does this lady smoke?

Now that key Democrats like Big Dog and Harry Reid and the Families of September 11 have jumped into the fray, it’s apparent Disney got way more than they bargained for with their wingnut-appeasing revisionist history moment. Some have argued that the imprimature of the 9/11 Commission be pulled off, and that’s a good start. But ABC needs to yank this pig and re-think it or risk burning some serious bridges.

I think they were so conditioned to the Democrats putting up no fight it just didn’t occur to them something like this could happen, and it probably wouldn’t have if bloggers hadn’t gotten out in front of it and thrown gas on the fire. And making big political enemies within the party who just might take over one of the houses of Congress is a really, really bad idea, especially just prior to a hotly contested election.

--But ABC needs to yank this pig and re-think it or risk burning some serious bridges...And making big political enemies within the party who just might take over one of the houses of Congress is a really, really bad idea, especially just prior to a hotly contested election.--

Is this a threat on behalf of congress? Is Jane Hamsher saying a political body will "punish" a TV Network if they don't do what she says? There is a word for this...

sad

**I am not privy to Fitgerald's plans or thinking; but, given the nature of the offensive now directed against the Wilsons and Fitzgerald, it appears that Mr. Fitzgerald may be on the verge of asking the Grand Jury to indict Dick Cheney and Stephen Hadly.**

Scary Larry from 9-2-06

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/wrecking_patric.html

Sue

I think they were so conditioned to the Democrats putting up no fight

And they believe it, that is the scary part.

PeterUK

George Bush was inaugurated on 20th January 2001 the attack on the World Trade Towers came eight months later on the 11th of September 2001,the attack was therefore planned and organised on Clinton's watch.

BTW does cfw stand for Cover For Willy?

topsecretk9

Well Sue, isn't Hamsher just admitting the media is her lapdog and if they don't behave they way she wants she'll endorse Congress actively go after them ? And is this really what Hamsher believes bodies of congress are for, settling her scores? The woman is a nut.

Sue

The woman is a nut.

I thought that had already been established.

cfw

Unbeliever:

Maybe we should simply call you and your kind intentionally ignorant or too stupid to reason by analogy.

"The 14th Amendment talks about due process [as does the 5th Amendment]- Red Staters and JOM still seem to like that legal provision, and the concepts it promotes, at least when the Red Side gets challenged."

Get that part about "the concepts it promotes?"

That, to me, means notice and an opportunity to respond. Something that we should all agree is a good thing. Let's not be hypocrites.

If it was foul for Moore not to ask for comments to F 911 (and I am not saying he failed to ask for comments - I suspect he did, judging from how he operates), if was equally foul for ABC and the writers of the docudrama re 9/11 to refuse to give notice and a chance to respond.

Does that need to be in a Constitution, or in a state action context before you can concede it makes sense?

If Red Siders want fair treatment in the press, why not support fair treatment all around?

Sue

If Red Siders want fair treatment in the press, why not support fair treatment all around?

I'm with you on this one. I wonder if they will have time to add the following:

Mr. Clarke's book is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel's failure to condemn Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick, Bill and Sandy and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. [Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA that used to head up “Alec Station,” the Counterterrorist Center’s Osama bin Laden unit.]

Or would you prefer to leave in the 1 instance they portray (according to reviews, since I haven't seen the docudrama)?


topsecretk9

CFW -

--If Red Siders want fair treatment in the press, why not support fair treatment all around? --

Wrong CFW...We'd be insane to expect the media to be fair to Bush or republicans, we'd just like news outlets to stop presenting themselves as objective and pretending they come from ideological bent.

Patton

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-issue112901.shtml

Almost Nuff said. Fair and balanced. Clinton suked

topsecretk9

pretending they come DON'T from ideological bent.

lurker

Boy, anon lib and atc disappeared after their comments were factually challenged.

If ABC redacts it more, I think I will pass it up. I would watch the full, complete, unredacted version.

As for Clinton's letter to ABC, I don't believe those comments disputing Berger as depicted in the original version.

lurker

Mac Ranger agrees with Top that the more Clintonistas object, the more it looks bad for them and more people would be attuned to this movie and additional movies that are about to come out:

ABC to Edit “Path to 9/11″? Won’t matter

Yup, won't matter.

lurker

Ah...Mac confirms what my friend told me:

"I do know that many of those who worked in the IC and FBI during the Clinton Administration are going to be coming out now that the truth is on the table, so they can tell their story as well."

Daniel DiRito

See a tongue-in-cheek visual of "A Guide to the ABC’s For Dummies"...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

lurker

Now this is RIDICULOUS!!

Another one of those dumb democratic things....

SteveMG

The Democratic leadership in the Senate have made a not so vague threat about ABC possibly losing its broadcast license if they don't cancel the showing of the 9/11 series.

Link

SMG

topsecretk9

This is insane, these people are loooossssing it...this one gynormous political ad fro why not to elect Democrats...now Democrats are making good on Hamsher threat...

Sens. Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan sent a letter to Disney today containing the following passages:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. [...]

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Who in the press will stick up for ABC's right to air this miniseries without having its broadcast license threatened?

http://media.nationalreview.com/

topsecretk9

SMG...had it. Sorry.

sad

I expect to see the ACLU suing Dem leadership even as we speak!!!! They will never put up with this kind of despotic censorship. giggle snort

lurker

One good thing that two democratic senators did today. Good for them! Unanimous vote, too. Unless somebody else is looking for OBL.

boris

By objecting to a "fictionalized" composite portrayal that blames Burger instead of one of the miniseries designated heros, R Clark, they open up a discussion to the multiple equal opportunity opportunities (not a typo) to take out Bin Laden. Sure sounds like Clark and Clinton bear the most responsibility for the failures, but burgler Burger played a role in them also.

ABC should have stuck to the incident where Clinton wouldn't take Burger's call and delayed action to consult others (commission a Dick Morris poll probabaly) and the opportunity was squandered. Condensing the fecklessness of the entire administration into one incident starring the burgler was a mistake in retrospect by giving the experts in lying leverage to demand the removal of fiction when the truth was as bad or worse.

Barney Frank

If it was foul for Moore not to ask for comments to F 911 (and I am not saying he failed to ask for comments - I suspect he did, judging from how he operates), if was equally foul for ABC and the writers of the docudrama re 9/11 to refuse to give notice and a chance to respond.

What was foul about F 911 was not that he didn't ask for comments but that good portions of it were not true in either the particulars or generally, nor did it even employ artistic license to condense a series of real events to one scene as this movie apparently does. It was simply false, nor was it altered after a hue and cry from members of the government objected to it.

Why won't the left allow this flick to simply be shown and then debunk it if it is so full of horse hockey? Possibly because the left actually is rather fond of censorship as long as its the right kind?

lurker

HHHmmm...Top and SMG,

The dems had a problem with ABC's "Path to 9/11" (Noel Sheppard's review is wiser that the Clintonistas' letter); yet, they had no problems with NYT's leaking of NSA, SWIFT, and CIA secret prisons (now confirmed but classified data leaked)????

They want to censor ABC but they made no effort in censoring NYT?

topsecretk9

Yeah Lurker, talk about a sterling set of priorities.

They can't managed to be slightly concerned about leaking of classified information, but can get it together to write a threatening letter tantamount to the muslims rioting over the Dutch cartoons?

I can't tell you from an optics point of view how completely DUMB they are...right before an election. This is one giant ad that reinforces how dismal they are not only where terror is concerned, but how shallow they are about reputation protection.

So the Docudrama is airbrushed or pulled, is that this the accomplishment they want to campaign on? Do they think this will bode well with voters?

Sue

I'll be so glad when democrats are back in control. I am giddy with the thought of peace, prosperity and good will towards Americans again. If only Gore had taken Tennesee, non of this would be happening. There would have been no 9/11.

topsecretk9

Well, can't accuse Armitage of having not having a better sense of timing...

"Oh I feel terrible. Every day, I think I let down the president. I let down the Secretary of State. I let down my department, my family and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson," he says.

When asked if he feels he owes the Wilsons an apology, he says, "I think I've just done it."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/eveningnews/main1981433.shtml

Sue

So the Docudrama is airbrushed or pulled,

I vote for pulled. From what I've read, it does not portray the republicans or Bush in a very good light. And that is what the focus will be, post showing, not Clinton. This could just be a Rovian trick. Getting the Clintonistas in an uproar, getting it pulled, and thereby saving Bush from going through another beating over the August PDB?

Florence Schmieg

I agree. This is not only terrible in its substance but a stupid move politically by the Democrats. They must be counting on the usual suspects (the media themselves) to defend this censorship for them. It is fine to blame Bush for anything and everything on flimsy to no evidence. But not the precious Bill Clinton. I want to vomit!!

topsecretk9

Jeez...talk about Authoritarian Bullies

Kerry Senior Advisor Chad Clanton to SINCLAIR Broadcasting: 'They better hope we don't win' [said on FOX NEWS DAYSIDE]...

The Democratic party platform. Stifle free speech and settle scores!

Sue

"I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government," he says.

That speaks volumes.

Wonder why he didnt mention his chat with Woodward?

topsecretk9

I don't know this time...honestly if the media does not get pissed off Dems are threatening ABC's Network license then they are just proving they are no more than the media wing of the Dem Party.

I mean come on, can anyone imagine if the Bush Admin. threatened NYT's with some licensing issue, and the Admin. would be on firmer ground in the interest of national security.

MayBee

CNN is on the case. A parade of Clintonistas refuting the story. Truth to power, baby.

Sue

Ahhh...the Clinton News Network, strikes again.

In addition to having to input my name and email address each time I post, I now have to verify my comments. Am I on some kind of probation? It is only at Tom's site that I have to do this. Other typepad accounts are not requiring it.

JM Hanes

AnonymousLib:

"It's easy to look back and be critical of past administrations, but most of this criticism is just partisan revisionist crap."

Ditto for the Democrats' version of the lead-up to Iraq.

As for a tenuous grasp of the facts at our disposal, it's my understanding that the offending scene which you claim is "not based on anything" is, in fact, a composite of multiple incidents. That was not true, by the way, of the most controversial lines put into the President's mouth by the authors of the Reagan film. If the changes ABC is said to be undertaking turn out making the film more accurate, then that's fine by me. If they end up redacting, or substituting ambiguity, where actual facts are known, I'd call it a shame. Since the original has been previewed, I expect we'll know which way they went when the film debuts.

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

Democrats have been successfully putting off any substantive discussion of Clinton foreign policy for nearly six years. Nothing derails a political discussion with almost anyone on the left faster than mere mention of the Clinton record. Indeed, if you listen to the left talking history, you'd think we went straight from Bush I to Bush II.

I don't know if anyone else is calling for delay, but considering the pre-election lionizing of Michael Moore, (who went after a sitting President, not former administration, as he, himself, came up for reelection), Democrats hardly hold the high ground when it comes to questioning the timing!

Jane

That, to me, means notice and an opportunity to respond. Something that we should all agree is a good thing. Let's not be hypocrites.

Oh please, you want input before a movie is aired. What a bloody joke. Why not just come out and admit that your goal is censorship. Fine. Please start with the lies of the NY Times. Unlike this movie, they purport to tell the truth.

As for your "due process" argument, it is nothing short of a joke, but hey you might want to use it on the democrats who are threatening FCC licenses if ABC doesn't put a sock in it. You seem to speak their language.

boris

The Center for American Progress Action Fund, Liberal advocacy group ...

"The miniseries presents an agenda that blames the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks while ignoring numerous errors and failures of the Bush administration."

Must be part of that "new reality" base.

---segway---

"I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government,"

Then 2 memos with Valerie, kinda fishy, sorta hinky. Ooooh I'm getting a message from beyond .... what ??? plant ... ten ... ever ... dense ??? What can that possibly mean ???

JM Hanes

Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan.
Unfucking believable!

Sue:

I get the verify thing too, especially when the interval between posts is short, but randomly as well. I don't have to re-enter my name etc. though. I've forgotten which browser you use, but I'd check my cookies and my keychain (Mac). I assume you've checked the "Remember Personal Info" box, but just in case someone else might have missed it....::g::

boris

Sometimes if you wait long enough the name info arrives.

lurker

Who said this:

"I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government,"

boris

Armitage

Enlightened

WTF???? Fitz releases Army to talk, after telling him for 3 years not to? Knowing full well he was the leaker. 3 years of crap. Unfreakinbelievable. I'm just stunned. Nothing is going to sweep the stank of this fiasco away. Disgusting.

Sue

I use IE. I check the remember personal information box. I have cleared my cookies. I still have to re-enter the information every time and now I am having to verify every comment.

MayBee

Sue- I don't use IE, but I'm not having that problem.

topsecretk9

If i were the head of ABC I just might pull the series now, siting fear that angry legislators would try to pull their license. Throw that steaming pile of crap right back into their laps.

Sue

Oh well...back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

Terrye

Good God these people are priceless.

Thus far we have seen films accusing Bush of going to war for oil destroying the kite flying paradise that was Saddam's Iraq.

Spike Lee does some film on Katrina that pretty much blames the hurricane on Bush.

There is a "docudrama" being shown in Canada in which Bush is assasinated....

But gee we don't want to hurt slick Willie's feelings.

I am not a Republican or a Democrat but I know damn well that Clinton had every oppurtunity to get Bin Laden and kill AlQaida in its infancy and just did not bother to do it. Too risky, might get in the way of the warm fuzzy feeling we wanted the world community to have about America.

And now here the cry babies are whining about how badly used they have been. There are copies of the original film out there..I hope that if it is edited people make those copies available.

topsecretk9

Blue Crab on the Senate Dem's letter...

Enormous Miscalculation

Is Alfred E. Newman their chief political consultant? Do they have any idea what they look like to the average American? They look not like defenders of the truth, they look exactly, precisely, like they are trying to hide something. This is an absolutely stunningly stupid move. This may play well to the true, hard-left believers, but to average Americans you just hurt yourselves very, very badly. (Anecdotal: I told my wife about this. She is not at all political. The first words she said were, "What are they trying to hide".)

Talk about blowing it.


http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/09/07/enormous-miscalculation/

bman2u


gee if the Clinton admin attacked bin-laden half as hard as this movie, the movie would never have had to been made.

MayBee

Hasn't the Dem party used the US Airwaves to further the "Bush outsourced getting Bin Laden at Tora Bora" and "Bush doesn't care about getting Bin Laden" and "Bush lied us into war"?

Perhaps ABC should run a disclaimer every time they talk.

Sue

I don't know whether or not Clinton could have gotten bin Laden. But I do know he was conducting any 'war' on bin Laden as a police action. Where he could stand trial. Whatever he is saying now, with regards to he would have gotten him if he could have, he would not have done anything that would have jeapordized a trial.

JM Hanes

Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan answer the question we've all been asking: Do Democrats have a death wish?

topsecretk9

And technically aren't the Clintonista's lashing out, pushing back, reacting in a fashion the left has told us was an unacceptable miscarriage of Justice and power and beyond the pale...I mean if we are to believe some of the left BS artists the Clintons should sit tight and say nothing to defend themselves at all, riiiiiiight?

Extraneus

If i were the head of ABC I just might pull the series now, siting fear that angry legislators would try to pull their license. Throw that steaming pile of crap right back into their laps.

That would be...I feel like saying "delicious," but there's probably a much better word. Great, at any rate. (And a fine idea, too!) I hope that's what they do.

MayBee

I would do a South Park Mohammed Cartoon maneuver.

Any scene Clinton objects to, they should black out with a screen that says "The Democrats in Congress have threatened to pull our license if we show this scene."

Then at the end, they should run a cartoon of Sandy Berger stuffing documents down his pants, and Madeliene Albright doing her toast with Kim Jong "I'm So Ronery" Il.

topsecretk9

--I mean if we are to believe some of the left BS artists the Clintons should sit tight and say nothing to defend themselves at all, riiiiiiight?--

And this gynormous temper tantrum sure puts "I heard that too" to shame, just a wee bit.

Sue

It would certainly leave the taste in everyone's mouth that they had something to hide.

topsecretk9

MayBee

LOL

paga

I still think if someone had made a documentary about John Kerry's meeting with the North Vietnamese, in Paris before the signing of the Paris Peace Accords, we would not be having this discussion about what Bill
Clinton did. Doesn't anyone wonder what a private American citizen would promise to an
enemy of America, or what a enemy of America
would promise to an American if he would lead Anti American efforts. John Kerry told us on 22 Apr 71 in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that he had met with the enemy in Paris. He did not tell
us what promises he made to them or what promises they made to him.
Would we be facing the enemy we are today if America and South Vietnam had been the victors in the Vietnam War, instead of being
declared the losers because of the actions
of John Kerry and his friends?

Jane

Sue,

I have to verify every comment, but only have to re-enter my name about every other time. Someone suggested if you come in through "recent comments' on the right, it helps. I find it helps with the name but not the verification. Earlier today my verify block was nothing but an "x" so I couldn't post at all.

Extraneus

The Google-bombing plan is interesting, too, isn't it? I mean, they really don't care too much about terrorism or think we need to do much about it, certainly nothing of a military nature, yet the thought that their lack of militancy over the issue might be more widely known is enough to scare them straight, almost. Kinda dishonest, huh?

JM Hanes

Jane: Are you using Explorer too?

Jane

Capt ed quotes what the dems said 3 years ago about the right's criticism of the Reagan piece - and this was without any threat from the repubs to pull the network's FCC license:

"No, there are no First Amendment violations here. The RNC protested the content of a program, which is its right, and CBS voluntarily pulled that program off the air, which is its right. "But the decision makes it very easy to imagine a future where representatives for the Bush administration have the power to disapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history * including news programs."

He also thinks if the dems don't STFU they could be damaged for years by this ridiculous campaign.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008007.php

Sue

Well, it is true then, that misery loves company, because I was starting to feel a little lonely. ::grin::

Jane

Yeah I'm using explorer.

Sue I've been having this program since before TM's vacation. It's gotten slightly better, but it still is a pain.

Sue

It has steadily gotten worse for me. First it was the re-entering the information and now it is verifying every comment.

I AM NOT AN AUTOMATED ROBOT!!!!!

I promise. ::grin::

lurker

Use Mozilla Firefox. Google it and download it.

lurker

From what I can tell, it asks me only when I post too fast or when I change computers.

cnj

Is'nt ABC a liberal-leaning MSM ?
Imagine if this docudrama came from FOX.

Sue

Mozilla runs too slow on dial-up. I have Mozilla on another computer I post from and I don't have this problem, so it could be IE.

sbw

Did I just see a TV close-up of the covert Val and Joe at the Federer/Blake US Open tennis match? Shh!

Specter

Jane,

It sounds like a cookie issue. I don't get the verify box except when I'm posting several posts quickly in a row. I think that is set by a cookie of some sort. IF it is in the TypePad software, then it has to be fixed at the server.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame