Powered by TypePad

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

September 07, 2006

Comments

maryrose

Sue:
I had the same problem you're having today, yesterday. Today it all worked fine for me.
As far as the Clintonites go today"you reap what you sow. What goes around comes around. Don't blame ABC-blame yourselves for your lousy job of governing.

maryrose

Sue:
I love that automated robot comment and that group of tricky letters you have to type in. Whee! what fun!

Sue

Mr. Armitage, who has been criticized for keeping his silence for nearly three years, said he had wanted to disclose his role as soon as he realized that he was the main source for Robert D. Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, which identified Ms. Wilson. But he held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. “He requested that I remain silent,” Mr. Armitage said.

Well that is a stretch of the truth. Fitzgerald didn't show up until 3 months after he revealed his role.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/08armitage.html?hp&ex=1157688000&en=88be6cdf10780cf8&ei=5094&partner=homepage>NYTs

Sue

Excuse me, from the same article:

That meant Mr. Armitage’s role was known to the Justice Department almost from the outset of the inquiry, two months before Mr. Fitzgerald was named special counsel in the case.

It was 2 months, not 3.

ordi

I think Hugh Hewitt hit the nail on the head!

I suspect the extreme reaction of the Senate Democrats is based on the sudden recogntion that the fall campaign will be waged on the single issue of which party is serious about national security. The president's demand for action on key fronts yesterday has clearly thrown the Dems into disarray as they realize that the American electorate will not reward more fecklessness on the part of Democrats. Now arrives a major television event that exposes the specifics of Democrtaic-era "stewardship" of national security, and they are in a frenzy to do whatever it takes to keep that memory down the memory hole.

The trouble for them is that they more they struggle the more attention they call to the very record they wish to have remain obscure and distant.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/3498bf9c-2d62-41c6-9848-1fc348c0cf92>Simply Outrageous

Sue

Mr. Armitage said he did not tell prosecutors about his conversation with Mr. Woodward until the fall of 2005 because he had forgotten about it. Mr. Armitage said he did not recall the June 2003 conversation until Mr. Woodward called to remind him about it after Mr. Fitzgerald’s news conference at the time of Mr. Libby’s indictment.

It is now time for Woodward to call Armitage a liar or call himself a liar.

Sue

Maryrose,

It is hard to see them at times.

ordi

Sue,

Do you have over 40 eyes too? Even with my Bifocals those #'s are hard to see!

Sue

Never, ever ask a lady her age!

the answer is yes ::grin::

Check out Dean Barnett over at Hugh Hewitt's.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/02213c52-be7d-4246-80d0-639ddd3b4f2c>Why Controversy Matters

One thing I’ve seldom heard anyone say in the past five years is that the Bush administration was doing a gangbuster job on terrorism prior to 9/11. Even the most partisan Bush supporters, and I consider myself such a creature, have to admit that 9/11 wouldn’t have occurred were it not for a breakdown of government on a colossal level.

Read the whole thing.

ordi

Thanks Sue that was a great article. I think he is right on they are intellectually bankrupt.

As Far as age goes I keep reminding my hubby he is older than me. LOL

JM Hanes

Sue & Jane:

I y'all are using Explorer on a Mac, it ain't gonna get better. If you're PC, have you made sure you've got the most recent version?

boris

Even with my Bifocals those #'s are hard to see!

Have you tried it with ear muffs?

ordi

LOL No I think the ear muffs would blocl the view. Unless that is what we are aiming at.

Pofarmer

"Even the most partisan Bush supporters, and I consider myself such a creature, have to admit that 9/11 wouldn’t have occurred were it not for a breakdown of government on a colossal level."

Yeah, except the breakdown wasn't accidental, it was caused, by some folks, and those folks are now desperately trying to keep it covered up.

boris

9/11 wouldn’t have occurred were it not for a breakdown of government on a colossal level

I disagree with this. Before it happened people did not perceive boxcutters as weapons, but even if they had been restricted the teams would have used whatever could be easily carried on board. The plan itself was the key element, and until it happened there was no way to anticipate it. Imagine? perhaps, anticipate? doubt it. After 911 teams of men with anything comparable to box knives could not count on taking control of an airliner. Before 911 nobody was ready to believe it could even happen that way. Standard policy was to obey hijackers and await rescue of ransom. Any security measure short of actual awareness of that form of attack could simply have been adapted around.

They did enough research and dry runs to verify the security levels actually in place. Higher security would simply have invoked more careful adaptation.

JM Hanes

Maybe ABC should just air the film on Showtime the way the Reagen piece was handled. No problem with the public trust there.

Now if this were a Rove operation, we'd spend the next 6 weeks bashing the Dem leadership for their outrageous letter to Disney, only to discover that Reagan went to Showtime 'cause the Republicans did the same behind closed doors.

boris

--- await rescue OR ransom ---

boris

JMH, the Reagan bash wasn't an important national issue. It was just a mean diss. CBS didn't cave to Republicans, their focus groups told them it was a bomb, the kind that blows up in their face.

MayBee

I see the latest Clinton spin is that he was not too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky thing to handle terror properly. How dare ABC insinuate that?

Which is interesting, because that is counter to what I have heard from virtually (dare I say literally?) every partisan Dem I know.

willem

Re Bin Laden and W's opening year, many forget the administration was somewhat distracted with an international incident concerning China. Remember the episode of the uber-sophisticated EW plane that was rammed in mid-air by a Chinese military pilot to force it to make an emergency landing on the mainland, were it was promptly confiscated, documented and dissected? Didn't it take nearly a month to negotiate the release of the crew? The top secret equipment, logs and manuals were stripped. I don't know if the airframe was ever returned to the US. This incident is the forgotten foreign policy backdrop leading up to 9/11. When 9/11 hit, the US-China relationship had been burning for several months. Compared to the Oral Office scandal that besieged Clinton, W's crew had a significant international crisis on their hands.

MayBee

You know, JMH, if a few years after Clinton dies some network wants to air a bio-pic of him that includes him killing Vince Foster or Rapind Juanita Broderick or even squiring around his Canadian girlfriend, I would expect all Dems and the Clinton family to protest.

My problem with the fighting against this show isn't that I think the complaints are 100% wrong.

My problem is that a huge portion of our society has been able to pretend for the last 6 years that Clinton was never President, except on the sunny days. I'm tired of that, and it is keeping the current debate from getting any where.

MayBee

That would be *raping* of course.

boris

Dem leadership for their outrageous letter to Disney

Kinda glad they did it. Not because I agree with attempted intimidation of the MSM or because it reveals their hypocricy (feh).

They're being honest for a change about who they really are.

topsecretk9

Willem...I had forgotten all about that, you are right.

--Remember the episode of the uber-sophisticated EW plane that was rammed in mid-air by a Chinese military pilot to force it to make an emergency landing on the mainland, were it was promptly confiscated, documented and dissected? Didn't it take nearly a month to negotiate the release of the crew? --

topsecretk9

--Maybe ABC should just air the film on Showtime the way the Reagen piece was handled. No problem with the public trust there.--

Actually, with all this free hype they are getting now with the Senate Dem mafia tactics, they ought just put in theatres or DVD and sell the sucker, THEN no one could complain.

SunnyDay

Don't conservative bloggers have the preview disk? The original is on it, right?

JM Hanes

MayBee:

"My problem is that a huge portion of our society has been able to pretend for the last 6 years that Clinton was never President, except on the sunny days. I'm tired of that, and it is keeping the current debate from getting any where."

Great Minds! :)

topsecretk9

JMH

I nominate you to compose a wonderful letter informing the head of ABC, if the threats of loosing their license are so great as to pull the series, we encourage him to send it straight to DVD and we JOM'er will proudly send our money in asap for the pre-order.

Sunny,

Yes people do (although I hear that even those are not the entire series) but it is one more reason the Democrat Mafia is not so smart...

MayBee

JMH- heh. I read your comment again as if for the very first time.

JM Hanes

tops:

Why not put the original on DVD, show the redacted on the tube and then DVD that one and sell it too -- to the same folks who bought the first one. Then there are the subscriptions for Deluxe 2 disc set with copies of all the Democrats' letters.:}

Frankly, I think the Senators' letter has already turned this into a lose/lose more situation for the Dems -- the more being how they'll look if the movie is actually pulled.

Daddy

Wonder if the Dem's can shut it down by claiming its an illegal campaign commercial that violates some bit of fine-print nonsense in that McCain/Feingold monstrosity?

And of course with the 19 Muslim hijackers being supposedly presented negatively, can the lawsuits of CAIR and the ACLU be far behind? Hopefully Amahblah blah blah...or whatever the hell his name is will clear this up in his UN speech next week.

lurker

The democrats called this movie to be filled with inaccuracies and hailed Michael Moore's fictional F911 movie?

Check Mac Ranger's Democratic Hypocrisy

As for some that claimed this movied was not reviewed by the experts, read on...

"Fact is that they are going to get a lot more nervous and crazy. That’s because others were there and know what happened behind the scenes and while some are still on duty and cannot speak, many others can. Two of which I know personally who can refute Clarke, Albright and Sandy right out of their socks (sorry Berger). Point of fact those two WERE interviewed for the movie, as they WERE on the ground in Afghanistan, and which incidently is why ABC is so bold to air pretty much what they had."

Jane

JM,

I'm on a fairly new laptop (May) with XP. But I have the same problem with my desktop at work. I've had to verify every comment for over a month.

Re:My problem is that a huge portion of our society has been able to pretend for the last 6 years that Clinton was never President, except on the sunny days. I'm tired of that, and it is keeping the current debate from getting any where.

And your linked comment. I used to spend a lot of time debating libs on various BBS's. And what I find is that moonbats stop every conversation - their primary goal is to make sure no one talks about anything. I've never met a "reality based" community so afraid of reality.

Jane

This is funny: http://dantravels.blogspot.com/2006/09/master-play-by-abc.html

Bob

Funny how back in 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/>MSNBC thought Clinton blew it... as did most experts.

Is this going to stay in the Path to 9/11 ?

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

INTERACTIVE
Launch

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

lurker

Jane, if it is cookie-related and you use IE, you might check Tools->Internet Options and loosen up your security levels.

Patto

Remember when Democrats abhored censorship??

"""Moore's film (FAHRENHEIT 911) is incredibly patriotic," stated Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn PAC.
"Organized Republican attempts to pressure theaters not to show the film are intimidation and censorship, pure and simple. We need more dialogue, not suppression ... what are they afraid of?"""

Hmm, what are THEY afraid of???

lurker

Cyrus Nowratesh Interview for The Path to 9/11

He learned enough from his research for this movie to support GWOT.

Patto, what were the Republicans afraid of?

HHHmmm...there's sufficient proof that F911 is so filled with inaccuracies and fallacies that this movie will seriously mislead the public into reaching the wrong conclusions and believing the wrong things.

lurker

F911 was so bad, in terms of movie-making, editing, interviews, presentation, etc., that I just could not finish watching it.

I wonder what the status of that lawsuit against Michael Morrie is?

Bob

Jane get rid of IE and start using FireFox and Thunderbird... you'll never go back. Microsoft had screwed IE up so bad over the past years with all their "security fixes", that I'm not surprised your having problems.

Pofarmer

"I see the latest Clinton spin is that he was not too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky thing to handle terror properly"

Yeah well, I'd stick to that excuse if I were him. The other one is that he was just too Stupid to see the threat. And too chickenshit to react to what he did see.

Extraneus

Do we really need to go back to Clinton to know how Democrats approach the issue? I mean, anyone can be blind-sided, and sure, we could all say Clinton should have strapped on a six-shooter and gone after Bin Ladin personally if he wasn't otherwise occupied, but the Democrats, as a party, with the full support of their "willing accomplices in the press," have shown much more clearly after 911 what they care about and how they'd handle the responsibility if they had it now than any historical docu-drama could ever do. It's up to the Republicans to drive that home if they have the guts to do so, not ABC.

Although I'm all for this mini-series hurting them in any way possible. :-)

Sue

I know I linked this last night, but it says so clearly what I think...why democrats did not change after 9/11 and Bush did.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/02213c52-be7d-4246-80d0-639ddd3b4f2c>Dean Barnett

The sad fact is, from the Clinton Administration to the present day, the Democratic Party has been intellectually bankrupt when it comes to fighting terror. Strangled by their peace-at-any-price caucus and their overarching concern for political correctness, they haven’t come up with a single idea in a decade of how to fight this war

Extraneus

...this controversy brings their intellectually bankrupt status into the open.

Good cite.

topsecretk9

Here is MayBee' good idea...(I did a blog at Seixon while he busy moving)

Jane

get rid of IE and start using FireFox and Thunderbird

Bob, I'm willing to try, but since I'm a computer idiot, if you never hear from me again, you will know why.

cfw

Barney:

"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?"

My private due process idea does not tell the writers and ABC what to publish. It simply suggests, in accord with JOM principles, that one can and should give notice and an opportunity to respond before arguably defaming a blue sider (or a red sider).

Then, if ABC and the writers still want to claim they follow the 9/11 report, they speak truth (as opposed to truthiness), and they are defaming no one, let the lawyers sort it out in court after the $30 million docudrama gets viewed.

Private due process (the concept) is not a pre-publication legal requirement, since the 1st Amendment is against mandatory prior restraint, but I have no heartburn about enhanced after-the-fact penalties if it turns out a broadcaster has refused to provide private due process, then falsely advertised its product, and then libeled, slandered and defamed (under applicable legal tests).

The same rules apply, in my view, if Rove or Bush gets improperly handled and wants the FCC to help with redress (after the fact).

Jane

Test

Jane

JOM principles? Private due process? Do you smoke something when you wake up?

So you want the world to be run the way Tom runs his website? Well that's sweet. Why don't you start a campaign at Kos place and see how they react. Let me know when the NY Times is on board too. Time to gather up the roaches, the whitecoats are coming.

Jane

OT; Cheney is going to be on MTP this sunday.

OT: I downloaded the new browser but I still have to verify every single comment. If I was a democrat, I'd sue TM for discrimination. Since I'm not, he's safe.

maryrose

Jane:
You have my sympathies. I have to put my info in every time but they have finally gotten the message that I am not a robot.

Sue

Jane,

I'm on Firefox now. I am not having a problem. It is only with IE. It wasn't a problem before though, so I can't explain what started it and why it continues. My only problem with Firefox is it runs slower on dial up than IE.

Bob

Jane,

That's why I don't have many friends left... they've taken my advice and vanished!

be brave!

Bob

"My only problem with FireFox is it runs slower on dial up than IE."

Sue,

I'm not sure that's a FireFox problem. It may be that your machine is still thinking your using IE. There are a lot of programs Microsoft preloads when booting up, that can be causing these (more than likely memory)issues. How much (computer RAM)memory do you have and what programs are running on your task bar?


Bob

clarice

Jane, I have the same problem here, and it's irritatng as hell.

Barney Frank

cfw,

You might notice that I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the likes of Harry Reid and Bill Clinton (former President and married to a sitting senator who apparently desires to be our next president) telling a media outlet to alter its production to suit what they claim is the truth (LOL) or not run it at all. The implied threat of governmental force (echoed by Hamster) is what constitutes real censorship.

Anybody want to take bets on Albright, Berger etal filing a defamation suit? Like they're going to open that can of worms.

Jane

I can't imagine that Berger and Albright would sue. Then again I couldn't imagine that the Wilson's would sue. More and more I think being dumb is a pre-requiste for being a democrat.

spencer

Yes, Clinton failed to destroy Ben Laden.

But I have completely failed to find any evidence that Bush has done any better over the last 5 years.

Barney Frank

Ben Laden?

Bush hasn't done any better? Apparently he converted him to Judaism.

boris

Apparently he converted him to Judaism.

And making campaign commercials for Republicans before every election.

Sue

Bob,

I have 1 gb ram. I actually have more memory on my computer that I only have access to dial on than I do the one that has broadband. I use Firefox on the computer with access to broadband and IE on the computer with access to dial up. I suspect it is the dial up, since I can't tell the difference in speed using Firefox or IE on broadband, but can immediately tell a difference on my dial up.

Extraneus

I think this whole Bin Laden thing is a red herring, as is the Iraq/Al-Qaida linkage argument and even the Al-Qaida bogeyman in general. Probably easier and certainly more PC to talk about than the reality, though, which is a frighteningly large and amorphous proportion of the world's Muslims who'd like to participate in "operations" against us. It's convenient for politicians to complain that somebody or other didn't get Bin Laden, but who thinks that would make the slightest difference? He already got his best shot in. Thousands of others are waiting their turns, and people are sitting around playing gotcha and complaining about Tora Bora. Pretty sick.

Bob

Some more savory news about the Clinton's... I wonder what this http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16904>relationship has cost us!

"Why is all of this important? Because Hillary Clinton presumably shares a bank account with her husband and payments to him are, in effect, payments to her as well. And since Hillary Clinton is in a position to vote on legislation that impacts Burkle’s massive empire, there is great potential for a conflict of interest. Burkle will no doubt expect something in return for the millions he funnels into the Clintons’ bank account -- something more than what amounts to a few hours of Bill Clinton’s time each week.

The situation becomes even dicier should Hillary make her much-anticipated run for the White House in 2008. Burkle is reportedly working on a deal to purchase a string of American daily newspapers, including San Jose Mercury News, Contra Costa Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and St. Paul Pioneer Press. What kind of press coverage do you suppose he’ll give to his business partner’s political campaign?"

boris

Hewitt's email from an ABC insider:

the backlash that the Disney/ABC execs experienced was completely unexpected and is what caused them to question themselves and make these changes at all. Had this been the Bush Admin pressuring, they wouldn't have even taken the call. The execs and studio bosses are dyed in the wool liberals and huge supporters of Clinton and the Democratic Party in general. They had no idea any of this could happen

Basically good news, it's on and the changes are very minor.

The Unbeliever

Private due process (the concept) is not a pre-publication legal requirement,

Heck, it's not even a coherent concept given the hundreds of years' worth of theory and practice behind the term "due process".

but I have no heartburn about enhanced after-the-fact penalties if it turns out a broadcaster has refused to provide private due process, then falsely advertised its product, and then libeled, slandered and defamed (under applicable legal tests).

Libel, slander, defamation, and false advertisement are all legal terms with well-known definitions. If the movie engages in any such act, the Clintonistas have an actionable case and should present it to the courts. The fact that they are not doing so, but instead are whining and complaining and trying to get ABC to make changes--even throwing Democratic Senatorial clout behind a thinly veiled threat--indicates that they're just engaging in plain old stifling of freedom of speech.

Now, this board has seen any number of wacky legal theories being created out of thin air, but I'd still love to see where the heck you're coming up with this silly requirement for "private due process"... especially since courts have in fact specifically ruled that there is no such thing. ABC is under no obligation to operate under such a notion, and Clinton et al have no standing to demand it.

lurker

Weren't the Clintonistas quieter today than they were yesterday?

Was it because of these conservative bloggers that caused them to have second thoughts about their behavior?

HHHmmmmmm....

Sue

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212897,00.html>Man, this sure blows my theory that Clinton wasn't wagging the dog

Sue

Are republicans nuts? They sit on these committees as charimen and they allow a report (a summary of a report that who knows what the actual report says) to be released 2 months before an election that says Bush lied?

PeterUK

"I see the latest Clinton spin is that he was not too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky thing to handle terror properly"

Wouldn't it have been so much more presidential if it had been the other way around?

ajacksonian

I do have to agree with Unbeliever, if there were a legal case to be made, then the various folks carping about the misrepresentation would make it.

Don't like the presentation of your actions?

File a lawsuit. ABC is responsible for what they put on, if it is defamatory or libelous, then sue them for that and *damages* once it has been put on or sue them to stop it. Get it to a judge, hand him or her the DVD and two hours later you either get an injunction or it goes on the air and then proof will have to be offered that the representation is libelous or defamatory.

Of course that would be the legal and law-abiding approach to it. I guess none of these poor folks have lawyers.... or they have no case and it is bluster. Shouldn't take more than a day to do. So why didn't they do *that*? What are they hiding?

PeterUK

Not only does the lefts rhetoric sound like the fascists,but their actions are the same

Jane

Bush hasn't done any better? Apparently he converted him to Judaism.


Enlightened

Ummm, how is it the Senate is directly contradicting the 9/11 Commission? Interestingly enough big mouth Clarke was a big supporter of the Iraq-Al Qaeda link....I mean he was for it before he was against it....or maybe he was just ahead of the news cycle...

"Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta. On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had "reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement." Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the "exact formula used by Iraq."110This language about al Qaeda's "understanding" with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.11"

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

Jane

Let me try this again (after I retype my name and verify the comment TWICe!

Bush hasn't done any better? Apparently he converted him to Judaism.

(laughing)

JM Hanes

Bob:

From the piece you quoted: "Because Hillary Clinton presumably shares a bank account with her husband...."

I wouldn't presume that for a second! In fact, I'd assume they've got fire walls running all over the place.

Extraneus

Isn't there some legal reason why public figures (such as these bozos complaining) can be libeled and defamed without mercy, something associated with the Alien and Sedition Acts? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure Bush could probably find a case or two on the other side.

Extraneus

I'd assume they've got fire walls running all over the place.

Ha! Especially between their bedrooms, if they're ever in the same house at the same time.

Patton

Commission actually bought Clintons lie that he misspoke about being offered Bin Laden:

Tuesday, Apr. 20, 2004 11:16 AM EDT
Clinton: My Bin Laden Confession Was 'Inappropriate'

In a closed-door meeting with the 9/11 Commission on April 8, ex-President Bill Clinton said that his admission to a Long Island business group two years ago that he turned down Sudan's offer to arrest Osama bin Laden was "inappropriate," according to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey.

"What the president said, he just didn't understand the facts of the question," Kerrey told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" on Monday. "He answered inappropriately."


Rep. Peter King, who attended the event in question, said Sunday that Clinton's bin Laden admission was spontaneous rather than a response to any direct question.

TRANSCRIPT:

Ex-President Clinton's Remarks on Osama bin Laden
Delivered to the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon
Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY
Feb. 15, 2002


We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

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

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

PeterUK

So Clinton is the founding father of the Islamic Republik of Amerika?

Neo

When I came across this interview my jaw nearly dropped to the ground.

Q: I mean, isn’t it the case that this film actually does show Sandy Berger hanging up the phone in the middle of a conference call, when there are U.S. personnel whose lives are at risk on the ground, and they have bin Laden in their sights, and that really nothing like that ever happened?

KEAN: Well, the question, Shaun, is whether — whether it was Sandy Berger, or whether it was the head of the CIA? Whether the call was hung up on or whether it was totally — whether it was disrupted by a failure in communications? I mean, these are all historically, I think, open questions. But again, this is a, you know, this is a miniseries, not a documentary.

It's not like the scene that has been so upsetting never happened, but rather the detail of how the phone call ended is in dispute.

Barney Frank

Isn't there some legal reason why public figures (such as these bozos complaining) can be libeled and defamed without mercy, something associated with the Alien and Sedition Acts?

No. However, the Alien and Seditions acts would give Bush the power to arrest and try such bozos for being both alien (have you looked at Madeline Albright lately?) and seditious.
Unfortunately they were ruled unconstitutional and repealed.

Pofarmer

"Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan."

They weren't even ready to do anything about it in the aftermath of the Cole bombing in 2000. What would have prompted any kind of action is hard to say. Iran would definately not be on the radar.

Pofarmer

Heard the writer of the "docudrama" today on Hannity's radio show. He said that according to his research Clinton refused to take out Bin Laden no fewer than 12 times.

And the Clintonista's are mad that they composited all that into one instance? Would they rather recount all 12 in vivid detail? Maybe end it with Burger and Clinton obstructing the Cole investigation?

Neo

The real question is .. if Clinton had taken out UBL in 2000, would it have stopped 9/11 ?

You can then decrement the year and ask again.

Each and every answer is .. nobody knows.

cathyf

Sounds like a good amatuer film project. Run each of the 12 refusals into a music-video quick-change. Just hammer on it... The incident where Clinton was on the golf course and refused to go to his plane's radio really needs some serious mockery.

JM Hanes

MayBee:

Meant to tell you (& can't remember if I actually did) that I thought the South Park treatment idea was seriously brilliant!

JM Hanes

Is it just me or does anyone else think Albright's denial may be carefully parsed? She doesn't say 'we didn't tell the Pakistanis', she says something more like 'I never made any such call.' Can't remember (bad hair night) where I read, or whether it was total speculation, that a general of some kind made that call. If so, of course, someone must have directed him to do so. I don't think Albright has definitively eliminated the possibility that she might have insisted that someone had to do it, even if she didn't physically pick up the phone herself. Has anyone else has seen a clearer/cleaner denial anywhere?

red

We know that the 911 commission was stacked. Jamie Gorlick should have been testifying, not acting as a commissioner. Clinton got a nice private hearing, Rice gets a televised grilling. Clinton had his lawyers with him. So some blame got allocated to Bush and not much to Clinton. Ok, we on the right got over that because in the end it was OUR GOVERNMENT's Failure. We elected them.

Now just a minor, minor reapportionment of blame and the lying Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (which is most of the party) goes ballistic.

Well its still true --- It was our failure. Our government failed us. We had better start holding them accountable for tomorrow and use this dramatization as a chance to see WHO THE ENEMY IS.

red

----provide private due process----

Cant you just imagine someone laying on a couch, maybe in a coffee shop or perhaps smoking some consciousness raising substance and staring at the ceiling and saying to himself.. "you know there must be a right to private due process by TV Producers"!

Its so esoteric and ethereal a concept that only one living in abstractoworld could love.

This is why I love the internet. Its got better comedy than TV.

Kay in CA

I heard Cyrus on Michael Medved radio show today. Cyrus said Albright is denying she made the call, but that the film shows her making the decision, not placing the call. What the film shows is what actually happened.

arrowhead

I do not believe that the RNC and Karl Rove could have scripted the antics of the democrats better prior to the fall elections. Bill Clinton and his lame "administration" - the gift that keeps on giving.

clarice

Now they got Arthur Schlessinger (yes, that old Kennedy hack is still around) and a handful of other "historians" to protest. (Not Doris Kearns though. Maybe she was out of town (or she signed using someone else's name).

MayBee

JMH- Thank you! I love what Tops did with it, too!

arrowhead

clarice - LOL!!!

ajacksonian

Jane - Very much the same problem here, although it is varying between a Win2K machine and WinXP Pro machine. Both using the Avant variant on MSIE, but the W2K has no problems, XP Pro does. I like Avant for many reasons, but blocking flash, images, sound, etc. from its Tools menu is essential for me.

Sue - Get the Greasemonkey extension for Firefox then go the User Scripts site and use ad or advertising or similar in the search. Install and test some until you find the right combo for your browsing needs. These scripts modify pages on the fly from your browser and is a necessary resource for Firefox users, IMHO. Firefox does have its little problems, but huge advertising downloads are a problem. In the Firefox extension list is Adblock which does a fine job at keeping the downloading just to the basics. Update it with the most recent user lists and that will be a big help. If memory serves Firefox 2.0 is in betatest and available for download... use at your own risk. With dial-up you want to make sure images and such are *not* downloaded first... and some of the Greasemonkey scripts put generic placeholders in their stead incase you *do* want to see them as-needed. Also the flashblocker extension for Firefox is very necessary on flash-heavy sites. There it replaces the flash animation with a standard play button, so you can download as needed.

For high speed the Lynx browser, that has distribution binaries here. And they have implemented a number of things to help the modern user get through some javascript that is for comment boxes... again, if memory serves, it has been ages. Also Sourceforge has many open source browsers available that do many of the fun tricks of their full image and flash enabled counterparts... without the images or flash.

Not that I used to live on dial-up for a decade or so.... but text is the fastest thing to download and stopping the 'junk' from downloading on dial-up is critical. If you read a *lot* of text sites, then a text-only broswer is the way to go. I am not against glitz... but prefer useability over style.

Patton

I think the media and the Democrats know that Americans have a very short memory. They have forgotten all about those heady days in 1998 when everyone in the Cliton adminstration and all theuir left wing supporters told us Iraq and Al Queda were working together on WMD.

Now, all the Democrats are basically saying is that the Right Wing was right and Clinton really was just wagging the dog to cover up the Lewinsky scandal.

The Clinton administration heavily emphasized the Iraq link to justify its 1998 strikes against al Qaeda. Just four days before the embassy bombings, Saddam Hussein had once again stepped up his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors. Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, one of those in the small circle of Clinton advisers involved in planning the strikes, briefed foreign reporters on August 25, 1998. He was asked about the connection directly and answered carefully.


Q: Ambassador Pickering, do you know of any connection between the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and the Iraqi government in regard to production of precursors of VX?

PICKERING: Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.


Ambassador Bill Richardson, at the time U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, echoed those sentiments in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," on August 30, 1998. He called the targeting "one of the finest hours of our intelligence people."

"We know for a fact, physical evidence, soil samples of VX precursor--chemical precursor at the site," said Richardson. "Secondly, Wolf, direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation--the al Shifa factory was part of that. This is an operation--a collection of buildings that does a lot of this dirty munitions stuff. And, thirdly, there is no evidence that this precursor has a commercial application. So, you combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear cut case."

Patton

I learned of Iraqs connections to Al Queda from none other then the lefts favorite Richard Clarke who told us all that Osama would head to Baghdad if we attacked Afghanistan:

The Hill | October 12, 2004

Before this debating season is over, would someone please, please utter the words “boogie to Baghdad?”

You remember the phrase. It was written by Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism chief who in 1999 was so worried about the chumminess of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein that he believed bin Laden, if attacked by the United States at his lair in Afghanistan, would “boogie” on over to the Iraqi capital for protection.

We learned of Clarke’s concerns in perhaps the most-ignored passages of the Sept. 11 commission’s report — those dealing with the very Saddam-al Qaeda connection.

Sue

Now, all the Democrats are basically saying is that the Right Wing was right and Clinton really was just wagging the dog to cover up the Lewinsky scandal.

That's what I said yesterday. And I feel so used, since I defended Clinton to the bitter end. :(

Pofarmer

"The real question is .. if Clinton had taken out UBL in 2000, would it have stopped 9/11 ?

You can then decrement the year and ask again.

Each and every answer is .. nobody knows."

Who cares? There wasn't even an attempt. Just like there wasn't an effective response to ANY of the terrorist attacks in the 1990's. Even one set of effective responsed might have deterred 9/11, or effective policies against folks who overstay their Visa's, etc. Everything during the Clinton years was about Domestic politics, everything else be damned.

Sue

Thanks, ajacksonian. I'll give them a try.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame