Friday, September 08, 2006

ABC Mulls Yanking Path To 9/11

Variety's website is reporting that ABC executives may yank the controversial docudrama Path To 9/11.

"Sources close to the project say the network, which has been in a media maelstrom over the pic, is mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether," Variety reported yesterday.

Why the brouhaha? The film's producers admit the film includes made-up characters, scenes and dialogue, while critics say it uses debunked right-wing claims, and strays badly from the 9/11 Commission Report -- even though the film claims to be based on the report's findings. Even a former Bush (and Clinton) counterrorism official, Roger Cressey, called the docudrama "shameful."

ABC may follow the path of CBS, which a few years ago -- following a stream of criticisms from conservatives -- yanked the docudrama The Reagans from its schedule. It later showed the movie on sister cable network Showtime.

One thing ABC doesn't need to worry about: advertiser defections. As Variety reported Sept. 5, ABC "decided to air the five-hour mini sans commercials after failing to find an appropriate sponsor for the project."

57 Comments:

Anonymous wryter2000 said...

OMG

Actually, after listening to others at DU, I decided that allowing an extensive rebuttal to the movie would be better than yanking it. However, if that's not an option, yanking it will do.

In fact, there's another whole message besides getting these lies off the air -- namely, that ABC has heard how the American people really feel. The neocon/fundie/wingnut echo chamber is shown to be small, despite the amount of noise it can generate.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous LSK said...

where would an extensive rebuttal ever see the light of day??

12:23 PM  
Anonymous PATRICK said...

A sweeping solution for the future

Remember the alternate endings of the movie "Clue"?

Let FOX show the Conservative 'drama" version of whatever.

Let the other networks pick lots for the showing of:

A strictly documentary, documented edition.

A "left-wing" dramatic extrapolation to counter FOX. Since the left version will be more fact based and exploratory than the others are permitted to be it could be very superior if the wilder things we still argue about can be kept fairly modest.

The ratings should be interesting but allow repeats for the audience to sample the other versions.

Since both the establishment hindered factual evidence version and the speculative version with a hard eye to the whole truth are anathema to right wing propaganda AND the suppression supported by the TV media, such a breathtaking, interesting event would take armed revolutionaries to force down the throats of "fair and balanced" corporate executives.

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Jim4Wes said...

Oh they whine and moan its all so partisan these days...STFU
We aren't stopping you from showing it, just drawing a line in the sand and daring you, stop crying you big f'in babies!

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Imagevision said...

Disney got it very wrong saying NO to F-9-11 and yes to ABC ficticious accounting as gospel to the extent as preaching to generations to come with false accountings of path to 9-11...

12:24 PM  
Anonymous TwoSparkles said...

ABC has it on their front page...
I just went to the ABC front page. When you get to the page, a short movie
and audio advertise "The Path to 9/11."

So, they're still hocking it--big time.

Bastards.

12:25 PM  
Anonymous ladywnch said...

Don't let up on the pressure!

If indeed they are "mulling" it over they need to know we will not stop. And while ABC couldn't find anyone to buy advertising on this turd (evidently American businesses know enough to get on board with this crap)and there are no companies we can pressure, we can still keep pressure on ABC and Disney about repercussions. Keep writing and yelling!

12:25 PM  
Anonymous liberaldemocrat7 said...

we can pressure GOP contributors Wendy's and Red Lobster.
They also advertise on ABC prime time. I saw them advertise on the Jim Belushi show marathon the other night.


investor_relations@wendys.com

rlmedia@redlobster.com

12:25 PM  
Anonymous Tellurian said...

The Variety article contained in the link is omitting the 9/11 Commission's outcry of inaccuracies throughout the film.
Also, the author of the Variety article failed to mention, the fact members of the 9/11 Commission *have viewed* the film and were shocked at the inaccuracies and fabricated content.

It appears sponsors thought the film a hot potato from the get go...leading one to wonder...
who s financing a 6 hr miniseries out of pocket?

Who funded the $40 million price tag to make the movie already ?
And who is paying for 6 hrs of unsponsored air time to show the miniseries?

Inquiring Minds want to know?

12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I got an idea.
Release this turkey direct-to-video so it can collect dust on the bottom shelves of Blockbuster stores.

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Snoop said...

“A "left-wing" dramatic extrapolation to counter FOX. Since the left version will be more fact based”

“(I) decided that allowing an extensive rebuttal to the movie”

“we can still keep pressure on ABC and Disney about repercussions. Keep writing and yelling!”

Ya know if I had not attended the Yearly Kos, I would have thought that all of the liberal looney’s who comment here and on some of the other liberal blogs were fake, made up or rare. People who dress up the Luke Skywalker and worship Captain Kirk, or the comic book guy on the Simpsons.
What makes you guys fascinating is another revelation at Kos is that these kooks are older, 40’s early 50’s. You are the people who sloshed in the mud at Woodstock, and did way too much LSD and other experimental drugs. Older individuals who should know better or at least should be more reasonable. But you people clearly out to lunch.
Any alternative reality to you people is terrifying. The fact that you people are actually losing sleep over a docudrama, a program that will hardly change anybody’s mind one way or another. United States Senators writing letters threatening a broadcast network because they are flat afraid this movie will cost Democrats votes.
I’m praying that this movie is pulled. Not because of ABC, hell they can air an old Desperate Housewives and pull in a 10 share. But Democratic credibility will be hurt long term. Your years moaning about Limbaugh and biased Fox all wrapped up in this nice little package of Democrat ignorance, anti-free speech and over the top hypocrisy.
Why don’t you people just print Bumper Stickers
“OUR TRUTH AND NOTHING ELSE”

Remember to give ole Snoop a little cut… preciate it!
Peace Out!

5:22 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Snoop, as you know, commenters -- yourself included -- sometimes go over the top.

But just because a liberal says something is false doesn't mean the liberal is being partisan. The liberal may actually be telling the truth.

Again, the producers say that the movie is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. It's not. ABC has been editing out scenes that it has learned stray badly from the report -- some scenes made up altogether. Scholastic, which received the "educational" material related to the movie, decided not to distribute it to schools because it felt the material was lopsided to the right, included debunked right-wing claims, and strayed badly from the 9/11 Commission Report.

So you and some of the others can rant about how unfair the left is being. The fact is, the right wants it both ways. When The Reagans was about to be aired, the right was up in arms about fairness. Now that someone has written something that has pieces that are provably false -- fictions designed to cast one side in a poor light -- the right is claiming infringement of freedom of speech.

It's very easy to call it liberal whining or moaning. It's a lot harder to look at the arguments at face value, look at the individual criticisms of individual elements of this film and the information that is available that says those individual elements of film don't match the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report.

If this movie were released in theaters, and had no claim to be based on the report, it would be a right-wint Farenheit 9/11. There would be bitching, no doubt -- there was from the right about F9/11 -- but I would join those who stuck with the free speech argument. I might not agree with Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, etc., but they have a right to say what they want.

The problem is, the producers of this film aren't putting it in theaters. they are putting it on the airwaves, claiming it to be based on the commission report, and even trying to make it an educational product for school children.

Sorry, Snoop, it's wrong. It's not "our truth and nothing else." It's bait-and-switch. The producers want people to think it's one thing, when it's really someothing else. That's my beef with it, and it should be yours, too.

As someone on the tv said yesterday, the events leading up to 9/11 are dramatic enough. there's no need for fictions. there's no need to take sides. tell the story as is, as truthful as possible in a film format.

All this is doing is showing how partisan people can be -- right and left -- and opening wounds that should be healing. we're a nation at war. al qaeda is still a threat, and here it is, people are still trying to score points and pass blame.

the fringe right commenting here so hate clinton -- with all the rapist and BJ and so on -- that they are missing the basic point.

the facts, as found by the 9/11 commission, offer more than enough ammunition if you want to criticize clinton. the producers should need to juice up those criticisms by adding in their own fictions and fantasies.

6:00 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Snoop's math skills rival his faith-based political acumen. A 50 year old would've been about 13 at Woodstock.

Who you callin' "you people", bro? Everyone that doesn't agree with YOU? Everyone that doesn't buy the lies and spin? Everyone that doesn't think Iraq and 9/11 are related? Everyone that questions the GOP's credibility based on the last 5 years? Everyone that will not believe your "alternate reality"?

Never occured to ya that maybe some people just want the truth, regardless of politics? Rush O'Hannity has done YOU PEOPLE an incredible disservice and it's sad.

Yet, I'm so happy that you've got it all figured out. Way to misunderestimate, dog!

6:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH

Los Angeles Times
December 5, 2001

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize;

Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn’t respond.

MANSOOR IJAZ

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger and Sudan’s president and intelligence chief.

President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to “baby-sit” him—monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn’t want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden’s personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI’s 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim’s bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan’s religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan’s intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan’s data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they’d get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries—ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000—three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen—I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States’ closest Arab allies—an ally whose name I am not free to divulge—approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden’s extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family—Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger’s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

9:23 AM  
Anonymous Snoop said...

Rob I gots much respect for you, I think if we were talking in person you would be shocked at just how much I agree with most of what you say. You are a reasonable dude. Believe it or not, I’m more reasonable than you think, but hey I have a blog, I don’t agree with the liberal point of view, so yes I zero in, I freely admit it. However I keep focusing on comment folks like War and morons like Ditto (I got your bro, DOG you ignorant bastard another liberal trait), anywho,
“The liberal may actually be telling the truth.” I never said liberals are complete liars, but you instantly can tell the political intellectual capacity of a liberal when they utter one of the top liberal phrases Republicans are, racist, war mongers, polluters, kill animals, destroy the environment and Bush ran the planes into the towers.
A story the other day said the top academics in the country are touting that the Bush administration knew about the attacks of 9/11 and did nothing. That tis your side dude.
TOP academics no less, not War or Evil Angelina.

“So you and some of the others can rant about how unfair the left is being”

Rob I never said that either, I think descent and opposing opinion is great, I love that libs are losing their minds over this movie, the more these libs sites keep posting crab on it, I grab all I can and file away, comments an all.
You know what will happen if it does get pulled, it will run the internet circuit, be on You Tube and millions more people will watch it. The more you libs trash it the more play it gets, and by Clinton basing it, oh my God its off the charts now.
If I get an uncut copy I will post on my blog until after the 08 elections.
Hell most of America will be watching football anyway, did you folks not consider that!
On the Reagan movie, C’mon dude we did not give a shit about that movie, powerful friends of Reagan, did not want him maligned, but for the most part average people like myself did not give a shit, hello he is dead. That movie had ZERO political implications.

“The producers want people to think it's one thing”

Again Rob I would not watch it anyway, I already have my opinion.
It’s real simple, Clinton wanting to avoid big issues, played possum, Democrats want everyone to play nice so he tried not to rock the boat. Albright yuks it up with that Kim Jong dude. BUT nobody in the government knew the extent of the terrorist network and what they were capable of.
Heck on the helicopter ride to jail one of the WTC bombers said to an agent, “The only reason those towers are still standing are because we did not have enough money, we won’t make that mistake again”
BUT nobody conceived someone running a damm plane into buildings years later.
Did Bush take advantage yes. We are not in Iraq for oil, to spread democracy or any of that other bullshit. We wanted a military hub, pure and simple. Saddam was a punk ass dictator who had an army of idiots. Blame him, bomb the country, set up shop.
No reasonable person thinks that Saddam did the WTC’s, I did not need the 9/11 report to tell me that. However he did have a bunch of murderous thugs camping out there.

“the facts, as found by the 9/11 commission, offer more than enough ammunition if you want to criticize clinton. the producers should need to juice up those criticisms by adding in their own fictions and fantasies.”

You are correct, but dude I don’t hate Clinton, my only problem with his presidency is that he wanted to be liked, and he constantly was concerned about his legacy.
Rob you will find that most conservative folks really did not have that big of beef with him. Forget the BJ’s, yes he was a sexual deviant, but who in Washington isn’t.
But those human frailties made him appear weak and he was asleep at the switch.
My problem Rob is liberals more times than not want to control individual thought.
If this movie is packed with lies, then pick it apart afterwards and let it fail on its own merits.
Not liking what Rush has to say, or Hannity, or O’reilly, or Fox is one thing but specifically pulling the blinders over peoples eyes to have a movie pulled strictly for political purposes says far more about liberals than anything else can.

I know most of you libs know George Lakoff, go and read his shit, you guys are doing what he specifically outlines in his books and editorials, try and control the debate and frame it to “our” advantage. Either pulling movies off of airwaves, or creating alternative media sources and changing “language” like “progressives” instead of liberals.
Nothing in this movie could possible surprise or shock me.
Go to Powerline or wikipedia and check out all of the terrorist crap that went on during Clinton’s watch. You libs think a movie can change my perception of Clinton?
I’m sitting here laughing as I type this.
Feel free to keep yelling, protesting, blocking airwaves, throwing cow blood on furs, It just proves our point about liberals.

11:51 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH"


Anonymous, thanks for posting that. I remembered that Ijaz had said that he had been a broker between Sudan and the Clinton Administration with regard to OBL, but it's helpful to see such a comprehensive account of exactly what occurred, when.

Unfortunately, most of the libs who post here are not of the caliber to actually inform themselves about such information as this. They hear what they want to hear, and nothing further. If what they are hearing about collides with their own opinion on an issue, they put their hands over their ears and do that "LA LA LA" thing. Wait and see if they don't.

They can find excuses for everything, and will immediately attempt to discredit Mansoor, no matter how credible and respectable a person he is. As you said, they can't handle the truth.

1:33 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Snoop said...
"You know what will happen if it does get pulled, it will run the internet circuit, be on You Tube and millions more people will watch it. The more you libs trash it the more play it gets, and by Clinton basing it, oh my God its off the charts now."


Snoop, you got that right! If the result the Clinton people wanted was to quash this movie and keep anyone from looking a little deeper into his eight years in the White House, they could not have gone about it in a more self-defeating way.

They would have been a lot better off just letting it air without prior comment, imo.

1:44 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments... This is how six-year-olds argue: They call everything 'stupid'." Ann Coulter

So glad you "got" the bro-dog. With a nom de plume like 'Snoop' I figured you'd like it. It was 50-50; either a Dogg reference or a friend of Woodstock. Thanks for providing some clarity. I was fairly certain it wasn't a subtle "sneaking about" confession.

Speaking of utter ignorance... This "moron, ignorant bastard" registered as a Republican in 1982. W Rove & Co. changed that. Hard to swallow the FACT that a GOPer doesn't suck from the party teet? You'd be well advised to grease this mental exercise as it will continue for amateur and pro GOPers thru 2008 and beyond - despite fixed elections, GOP-built voting machines, and GOP efforts to squelch the minority vote.

I find it unfortunate that anyone would take no exception to the release of a "historical" movie about such a recent tragedy, such a significant event, when so any involved - from both sides of the aisle - say it is riddled with inaccuracies. This didn't happen 100 years ago. Everyone involved is still around. There is no excuse for us not demanding a better approximation of the real events. Why anyone would not want this docu-whatever to tell the truth is less than American. Show it and we'll all talk about it later? That's just sad. You don't intend to watch it? Great. But a lot of people will and they may be deliberately "misinformed". Just like the officially debunked Iraq / 9.11 connection. How many people have been DELIBERATELY misinformed about that issue by this WH because it suits their Right-wing agenda and gives them the "support" to do whatever they want?

It is becoming clearer by the hour that most involved with this film at a production level are GOPers with specific Right-wing agendas and goals. And as an American, first and foremost, I find this disturbing. I would like to see the collective US strive for clarity and honesty, to stand and say 'We will take the lies and spin no more.' Asking for the truth IS very patriotic.

You have every right to say what you think (and get paid for it even). So keep preaching - I'm sure you'll win lots of converts with your valiant efforts. Like you said, you've got your opinion, and it's probably safe to assume nothing will change it. I certainly won't try to educmicate you. But I reserve my right to take exception to any BS you happen to spill.

Be well, my Right honorable friend.
Better?

2:56 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

A few 'Path to 9/11' questions for those incapable of not using "Clinton did it" as a means to defend their King:

Does the movie show W's extraordinary efforts to get Al Queada for the attack on the USS Cole? Oh... I guess not...

When he took office he immediately undertook Operation Ignore. Maybe they got that right, how they ignored the experienced counsel of career intelligence agents. It's safe to assume the film brings to light how the 'terrorist' issue played second fiddle to the Neo-Con's pre-9/11 Iraq goals - as has been expressed by GOPers involved.

Is it just the Path to 9/11 or is it also about that day? Does it show the ten minutes of W's My-Pet-Goat-deer-in-the-headlights resolve? Oh... I remember... Michael Moore made that all up. Now watch this drive!

Does it go over any events post-9/11? You know, like the fact that when W gave his 'Axis of Evil' speech he didn't even know the difference/divide between Sunnis and Shias? A GOPer recently brought this to light so I figured it might be in the movie...

I ask you Righties because the pre-screenings have been primarily for GOP supporters and supplicants and not us stupidumbignorantgaysocialistraitorlibs. Thank you all for helping us.

3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um Ditto
In case you have forgotten, the bombing of the Cole happened while BJ Clinton was in office. So the questions needs to be asked. What did BJ do after those sailors were murdered?

5:01 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

He was doing FAR more than W did upon being appointed. This is in dispute only by the Rush O'Hannity KoolAid drinkers. Look at the now-public hunt-for-terrorists-related appropriations to the intelligence communities. W Rove and Co. gutted it and instituted Operation Ignore because it had nothing to do with Iraq.

And of course Clinton was a bit distracted by the $50 million hollow Whitewater investigations that lead to several years of the homophobic Right obsessing nonstop about his penis. Everytime he took any military action against the terrorists groups, the Righties cried "Wag the Dog Wag the Dog!" in a traitoristic effort to diminish a President of the United States of America.

If the Cole attack (2 months before W's appointment) was Clinton's fault then the '93 attack on the WTC (2 months into WJC's first term) was Bush Srs.' fault. Of course, we managed to capture, try, convict and imprison those responsible for the '93 attack under Clinton's presidency WITHOUT going to war. He used law enforcement and intelligence to acheive this goal. The WH says that doesn't work, we need $WAR instead, despite the fact that every thwarted attack since has been due to efforts of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. All W's Iraq War has done is satisfy a personal grudge, filled the coffers of war and oil profiteers and created a gogol of new reasons for America to be hated.

But please feel free to ignore MY question; why W completely ignored the American lives lost on the USS Cole.

The truth about W clearly is painful for some of you. And the truth is those 17 lives meant very little to him, as apparently does the thousands of Americans that have since died fighting for an ever shifting lie.

If nothing else, you bottom-rung GOPer dribblers are predictable. Garbage in - garbage out: "Clinton did it!"

5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And there is the problem.

"Of course, we managed to capture, try, convict and imprison those responsible for the '93 attack under Clinton's presidency WITHOUT going to war."

WHAT GOOD DID THAT DO YOU SCHMUCK?

Its not a police matter. Its a military matter. But he did take us to war. Bosnia? What for? Solmolia? No air support, pull out at the first sign of blood. Democrats are pussies.

6:20 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

SCHMUCK? How sweet. Actually I perform quite well w/o Viagra... unlike Dole and Rush. Of course my wife is not a leather-skinned dolt nor a little Thai boy.

And of course, the bottom-rung GOPers still cannot answer the Cole question. But they can use the Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it! line ad nauseum as per their training. Gotta love it when redstaters get bluefaced.

Was the goal in Bosnia accomplished? Yes, without any big, lying banners. And relative stability continues there today. How many soldiers died? Zero.

Somalia? Clinton blew it on that one. But not nearly as bad as Reagan cuttin-and-runnin from the heart of the problem; Lebanon in '84.

About the W Iraq War... WHAT GOOD HAS THIS DONE, YOU POOR MISINFORMED ANONYMOUS SOUL WHO HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE MISINFOMRED, ANONYMOUS AND OPINIONATED?

And what is today's rationale for invading Iraq? It changes and morphs and evolves... as the truth oozes out. And what about TODAY's revelation from a Brig. Gen. that Rummy threatened to "fire the next person" who even talked about the need for a postwar plan. This was just before we invaded Iraq. Rummy didn't want to risk losing America's support for the W/Iraq War. That's why Shinseki was "retired" - he knew they would need more troops then proposed - but that might change public opinion. This newly disclosed fact speaks volumes about both the tragic results of our invasion and the competency of an administration that continues to support and defend this SOD. No matter the consequences of the invasion - WAR would continue! And all the Right friends will profit.

My Marine father, a registered Democrat, would take strong exception to your blatantly inaccurate 'pussy' statement. My Army daughter, a registered Democrat, now serving our country in 'the shit' with an MOS in NBC's, would take strong exception to your characterization of her as a pussy as well. But she wouldn't be surprised as she is resolved to being surrounded by the ignorant sychophants - the vast majority of which still belive Saddam was responsible for 9/11. A false truth essential for some, I suppose, to maintain morale. How might that change now that it has been officially debunked?

Still waiting for a well-crafted spanswer; What did your beloved War President do about the Cole attack 60 days before his appointment? A simple question I've been asking for a couple of years that no Righty has answered. I can only assume Rush O'Hannity didn't give you any talking points on this topic so I predict the predictable; Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it!... with a blue face.

7:52 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I remembered that Ijaz had said that he had been a broker between Sudan and the Clinton Administration with regard to OBL, but it's helpful to see such a comprehensive account of exactly what occurred, when.

Ijaz is a liar, and a well-known one. This all occurred in 1996 -- the Clintons tried to get the Saudis to accept bin Laden and at the time, the US didn't have a case against him to just go into Sudan and arrest him. The Sudanese government never had bin Laden in custody. And Ijaz had significant issues, conflicts involving his business connections. He's pretty much useless as far as a source goes.

There is no excuse for us not demanding a better approximation of the real events.
Amen. It was 5 years ago. There's no reason to prepare such a ridiculous bit of propaganda for network TV -- the free airwaves -- to give free time to the GOP.

10:09 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

They can find excuses for everything, and will immediately attempt to discredit Mansoor, no matter how credible and respectable a person he is.

Jeebus, because he's not credible in the slightest! That's the easy reason!

Meanwhile, as far as Clinton doing nothing, well, he wanted to do a lot of the things Bush decided to do illegally, but do them legally, and the GOP shot him down, too. The guy had foresight in certain areas and was told to f--- off by Orrin Hatch and a few other people.

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

Again, I'm still not saying Clinton was perfect, or even close. But the efforts to make him into the bogeyman are just as sad as any supposed efforts to say he was a genius.

10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who speaks out against BJ KKKlinton, whether they were a foe or on his team at one time is automatically labeled a liar. Funny how you libs love that word liar yet never are able to back it up with fact. It really is funny to me that a whole host of people that were close to this scumbag either did time in jail or are in the ground dead and burried. You Stalinists are all up in arms over a documentary, yes thats right, documentary. And from what I hear, it bashes Bush for at least one and a half hours. Why arent you mad about that. Oh, I remember you hate Bush more than you hate America.

12:30 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Shorter anonymous: Clinton bad. Libruls suck. Me say so. Guh-huh-guh-huh.

Thanks. That was coherent.

12:55 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Ditto said...
"If the Cole attack (2 months before W's appointment) was Clinton's fault then the '93 attack on the WTC (2 months into WJC's first term) was Bush Srs.' fault."


rotflmao! Ditto, read what you just wrote, and try to figure out what is wrong with your logic, okay? See if you can figure out, without anyone's help, where you went wrong with your "analogy". No fair cheating! ;)

I do believe that conservatives are more logical, and liberals more emotional, and it certainly seems to be the case here with Ditto, doesn't it?

1:29 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Ijaz is a liar, and a well-known one."


Yes, Dave. Sure he is. Everyone lies except for Clinton and his people. We get it.

I guess Mahdi Ibrahim, Sudan's ambassador to the United States at the time, is a liar as well, right? Of course. :rolleyes:

1:43 PM  
Anonymous d said...

Thank you Trinity, I bow before your omnipotent intellect recognizing my example of bottom-rung GOP extrapolation. (Tears of laughter!) W would be proud. They didn't misunderestimate your type at all. In fact they countered on it and took full advantage!

Think the bad guys did all that planning in 60 days, eh? Look at the reports written by the intelligence and law enforcement agents involved with the case and their capture. It's available for purchase. In fact they even made a movie about it so reading not required. Sorry, it's probably not at NewMax. Funny, funny stuff!

But thanks again for NOT being able to answer my W/Cole question. Please try again!

1:51 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Yes, Dave. Sure he is. Everyone lies except for Clinton and his people. We get it.

Who said that? Nobody said that. But this story -- the idea that Ijaz had bin Laden essentially lying in a box in his living room and Clinton just refused to take him -- has been considered bunk for a long time. It's far, far from the reality. But reality doesn't seem to matter to you.

2:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is truly amazing how often you libtards are. Wrong on national security. Wrong on Social Security. Wrong on health care. And above all, wrong on morality. I am so glad I dont have to live in your world and come this election us true Americans will make sure we dont have to live in your AmeriKKKa. Because I really dont want to live in your racist, self-absorbed, all about me world.

Have a nice day and I hope you all burn in hell.

2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All you war-mongering conservatives need to listen up to this. This explains what was going on prior to 9-11. Take a moment and listen to it. You just might learn something.

http://new.wavlist.com/humor/003/godown.wav

2:42 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I am so glad I dont have to live in your world and come this election us true Americans will make sure we dont have to live in your AmeriKKKa. Because I really dont want to live in your racist, self-absorbed, all about me world.

Have a nice day and I hope you all burn in hell.


Where do you live? Mars? Are you drunk yet?

Note to site administrator: Please bring us more coherent trolls, but keep this one, because he's so amusing in his emotional fits.

2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Havent been able to get to the bar. Your heroes Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean are blocking the way. And this troll and you put so many times and dont debate stands by every word of truth I have said. But please do me a favor. Dont have children, there are enough democrap retards in this world. And please entertain us with your brilliance. What emotional fits? Like Dr Demento Howard Deans?

3:08 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Anonymous said...
And this troll and you put so many times and dont debate stands by every word of truth I have said.


It's been good talking to you, nonny. You're a true intellect.

3:12 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

"It is truly amazing how often you libtards are. And above all, wrong on morality. Have a nice day and I hope you all burn in hell."

You want fellow Americans to burn in Hell? How very MORAL of you! Jesus and yer momma should be very proud of your classy propensity to hate, hate, hate your fellow citizens! I wouldn't wish a toochache on you... a few more fully functioning synapses perhaps... so you could finish that Argument 101 class... or get that GED.

Were you a guard at Abu Ghraib? Maybe a prisoner... given your desire to see Americans burn.

3:57 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Ditto said...
"But please feel free to ignore MY question; why W completely ignored the American lives lost on the USS Cole."


Nobody's ignoring your question, Ditto, we're just pointing out that it happened on Clinton's watch.

In fact, in case you didn't know, the port of Aden, Yeman had already been put off limits for our ships because of concerns over possible terrorist activity. Only nine months before the USS Cole was attacked, there had been a failed attack upon the USS The Sullivans in the port of Aden. The USS Cole should never even have been there in Yeman. I hope somebody's head rolled for that bit of careless endangerment that put our men in harm's way like that.

Also, before Clinton left office, he definitively knew that al Qaeda had been responsible not only for the attack on the USS Cole, but also for the 1993 WTC bombing and the attack on our embassies in East Africa.

In fairness to Clinton, though, he may have been too busy with making up his "end of office" pardon list to retaliate for the USS Cole deaths. It was very important to pardon those 16 Puerto Rican FALN terrorists in time to help his wife win her N.Y.S. Senatorial race.

6:10 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Of course Clinton knew who was behind the '93 WTC attack - we put the people directly involved in jail! Thank you. Rightfully, their probably somebody's bitch about now (nothing new to these cave-dwellers, I suspect).

Of course Clinton knew who was responsible for the Cole attack as he held weekly meetings on the Al Queada threat. Thank you.

Clinton created the first top-level national security post specifically dedicated to combat terrorism and Al Qaeda, he doubled the overall counter-terrorism funding and he tripled the FBI's counterterrorism budget. Clinton did this against the back drop of a Republican-lead Congress opposing EVERY budget increase he proposed for this serious security effort. In fact after the Oklahoma City bombing the Republicans rejected Clinton's efforts expand the intelligence agencys' legal wiretap authority in order to combat terrorism. He wanted to change the FISA law that King W & Co. decided to ignore, and the GOP Congress shot Clinton down. In addition Clinton issued a presidential executive order authorizing the assassination of OBL.

Thank you again for ignoring the question. Perhaps someday you will be instructed by Rush O'Hannity how to respond.

What did your AWOL War President do about the attack on the USS Cole?

Thank you. Please play again!

7:08 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

"We will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to find those who killed our sailors and hold them accountable." --President Clinton, October 14, 2000

Clinton, post 9-11......

"I also wish, I desperately wish, that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early. I don’t know if it would have prevented 9/11, but it certainly would have complicated it."

Give me a break! What a weasel. It's one thing not to have done more to go after bin Laden, but to suggest that if only you had known that it had been "finally confirmed, officially", that bin Laden was to blame, he could have done something. What a piece of work this guy is! I mean, I don't want to be unkind, but really. That statement is way over the top.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Just shut up already.

1:15 AM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Thank you. Please play again.

8:10 AM  
Anonymous Kenny said...

"finally confirmed, officially"... like the non-existant link between 9/11 and Iraq.

8:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That first part of this documentary was done exceptionally well. I cant wait to see the rest of it tonight. It just proves all along that the Klinton administrations were so inept and useless. I would have to vote for a Emmy. To bad though it really deserves an Oscar.

9:27 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

It just proves all along that the Klinton administrations were so inept and useless.

A Tv movie.

That included "improved" scenes and has, according to Clinton officials, prominent conservatives and Tom Kean, to contain fabrications and distortions.

"Proves"?

TV movies, which are dramatizations, do not "prove" things. You sheep.

11:11 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Ditto said...
"Thank you. Please play again."


What a one-note-Johnny! lol

1:26 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Didn't the N.Y. Times write a good review of this movie? I also thought that I read that Oliver Stone liked it too, as well as the people who made Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". 9/11 Commissioner Kean also has said that he thought that Americans should see the movie. This, from Hugh Hewitt.

“An exclamation point on this event is the fact that Oliver Stone will endorse the project this week. Not known for his conservative leanings, he loves the project. Perhaps this and the fact that the production company that made Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” are endorsing it would underline just how far out or touch and scared the Clinton Admin is about the revelation of the facts as portrayed in this project.”

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/9367b3cd-be2a-40a3-b927-1854a0115108

4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ditto said...
"It is truly amazing how often you libtards are. And above all, wrong on morality. Have a nice day and I hope you all burn in hell."

You want fellow Americans to burn in Hell? How very MORAL of you! Jesus and yer momma should be very proud of your classy propensity to hate, hate, hate your fellow citizens!


>>>

Amen to that, Ditto.

These are the same idiots who think Jesus is an American who would vote Republican if given the chance. Morons ...

4:45 PM  
Anonymous Dave G said...

I also thought that I read that Oliver Stone liked it too, as well as the people who made Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth".

Cite me the quote that says Oliver Stone liked it. Not from Hugh Hewitt. (Hugh Hewitt! You are truly beyond hope, Trinity.) But from Oliver Stone's mouth -- and I'll accept his spokesperson, too.

Prominent conservatives, including PJ O'Rourke, William Buckley, and others, have commented that this movie is such a ridiculous distortino of the facts it boggles the mind. You fail to address this and mortgage your own credibility instead on Hugh Hewitt.

5:40 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

You don't like my sources, dufus, do your own damn research.

7:41 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

You don't like my sources, dufus, do your own damn research.
If you can't understand sourcing, then I can't help you. If you heard that Oliver Stone liked it, you can't source Hugh Hewitt saying HE heard Oliver Stone was going to endorse it. You need Oliver Stone's quote. It's not my responsibility to prove your unsupported assertions, that's on you for bringing it up - I don't have to prove a negative. So you do better research and maybe we can talk.

8:51 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

trinity, to defend dave g., if you quote hugh hewitt referring to oliver stone, but can't find an original oliver stone quote, then that's hearsay.

too much of the levinite -- not you necessarily, but the liberalism is treasons of the world -- only use hearsay. they don't cite specific examples. the result if mind-numbing hatred.

i learned long ago that when you debate, you debate the issue, not the debater. the people on here who start with "you are treasonous, you hate America, and i spit on you," will never get any respect in the real world. that's why it's so easy to consider them the fringe of society, as much as the ward churchills of the world are the left fringe.

i'm not suggesting you did that with the hugh hewitt reference, but that's the slippery slope -- from hearsay to unsubstantiated claims to stereotypes and ultimately, to bigotry.

10:50 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"trinity, to defend dave g., if you quote hugh hewitt referring to oliver stone, but can't find an original oliver stone quote, then that's hearsay."


Yes, you are right about that, cutiepie. As you can probably tell, David G. and a few others here bring out the worst in me.

I don't remember you ever being uncivil or disrespectful in your posts to me, and I think I respond in kind, even when I disagree with you. In fact, I believe you, along with David R. Mark and maybe rob, were one of the few people to ever welcome this conservative here to this blog. :) Some of these posters are so snide and nasty, I get irked with them.

With regard to Stone's quote, I did give a quick search but didn't find anything. Hugh Hewitt was MY source for what I said about Oliver Stone, but he didn't state where he had gotten it from. So yes, in a legal sense, it is hearsay.

I'll keep my eyes open to see if I come across the actual quote, since I have no reason to believe that Hugh Hewett cares so little about his reputation that he deliberately makes things up. The knee-jerks around here will disagree with me about that, but ask me if I care? ;)

4:58 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

It's kiss-and-make-up time, Trinity.

While I disagree with most of your opinions, if at any time I've called you an idiot or moron or something on those lines, then I withdraw, and I apologize.

I will continue to disagree with you but will hope to keep this as respectful as possible.

7:01 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Trinity, I think Rob said it, but I agree, that JABBS would be better if more conservatives and moderates were to come on board and try to productively discuss the issues of the day.

There will be disagreements, to be sure, but we won't ever learn by speaking in vacuums.

9:51 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"It's kiss-and-make-up time, Trinity.

While I disagree with most of your opinions, if at any time I've called you an idiot or moron or something on those lines, then I withdraw, and I apologize.

I will continue to disagree with you but will hope to keep this as respectful as possible."


Dave, I am all for a fresh start, and I'll do my best to keep things civil as well. They say that courtesy is contageous. So we have a deal then? I'm sure we can, as they say, disagree without being disagreeable. :)

1:14 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"There will be disagreements, to be sure, but we won't ever learn by speaking in vacuums."


True enough, cutiepie. ;)

1:16 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Huzzah, Trinity. Huzzah.

9:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares