Thursday, September 07, 2006

Recent Decisions Suggest ABC Only Fair And Balanced To Conservatives

Let's compare and contrast.

ABC will soon air the "docudrama" Path To 9/11, which even the film's producers admit the film includes made-up characters, scenes and dialogue. 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."

Rush Limbaugh and other conservative pundits have been provided advanced copies. But ABC apparently refused to provide a copy to President Clinton’s office. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger have also requested copies of the film from ABC, and both have been denied.

Fair and balanced? Hardly.

Now take a look at ABC News' coverage of liberal documentarian Robert Greenwald's latest effort, Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers.

In its Sept. 4 report, ABC News notes Greenwald inteviewed KBR/Halliburton water purification specialist Ben Carter, but then includes a Halliburton statement saying the film includes "yet another rehash of inaccurate, recycled information."

Then ABC News offers this tidbit:

"Critics of these kinds of documentaries remind viewers not to expect balance from left-leaning documentaries, such as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and former Vice President Al Gore's global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth.

'Finally, the left has figured out their answer to talk radio — and it's documentaries,' said Prof. Richard Lichter of George Mason University."

ABC News doesn't interview Greenwald for the piece.

Fair and balanced? Not really.

***

So you have a "docudrama" to air on ABC that swings not to what the 9/11 Commission Report said, but to what conservative “truthiness" of what led to the Sept. 11 attacks.

On the other hand, you have coverage of a "left-leaning" documentary, and ABC News provides conservatives with talking points about how it lacks "balance."

As The Carpetbagger Report noted: "The irony is rich."

91 Comments:

Anonymous Dave G. said...

Steve Gilliard's news blog posts a ton of links for where you can call if you wanna show some outrage on this here issue.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-on-path-to-football.html

9:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to creative freedoms we hear so much about from libs?

9:40 AM  
Blogger WeinerNation said...

Wahhhh! Wahhhh! That's not fair. I'm telling mommy!

10:11 AM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

No one is denying creative freedom.

But is it "fair" to say that it's based on the 9/11 Commission Report, when it's not? Is it "fair" to make nice-nice with Limbaugh and Republican bloggers, have a Limbaugh friend write the script and have a Republican as a consultant, and then not even give Democrats a chance to screen the thing in advance and make suggestions regarding points when the script differs from the findings of the 9/11 commission?

What's the point here? To try to sway people against the Democrats, or to try to portray what happened? As a viewer, are you more interested in seeing a right-wing fantasy on film, or seeing a portrayal of the truth?

Only a right-wing partisan would favor the way ABC has handled Path to 9/11.

10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cutiepie,
Are you speaking of the same fairness that was used in Fahrenheit 9/11? Only a left-wing partisan would favor the way Michael Moore has handled his movies. And yes BJ Clinton did nothing when we were attacked NUMEROUS times. It only took one attack for this President to act. He isnt the one who thought it was a police matter. He knew it was a military matter. Now I only wish he would finish the job in a way that would scare the hell out of the Islamo-Nazis. Maybe the same way we scared the hell out of the Japanese. With some big beautiful bombs. Sorry, but unlike you and your ilk, I want us to win this war and make the world a safer place.

Oh and tell your friends I post as anonymous because your lib web master doesnt believe in free speech. At least from someone he doesnt agree with.

HANKUNA MAKAKA

11:44 AM  
Anonymous liberalism IS treason said...

Would you lib-tards like some cheese with your whine?!?

Just because ABC or other lib MSM is not as fanatically treasonous as you would like does not mean they tend towards the right...

11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A critic of the movie said..."National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is portrayed as indecisive, Madeleine Albright as misdirected, George Tenet as sputtering." Sounds factual to me.

12:01 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

It's a right-wing psychosis to forever apologize for the gross incompetence of George W. Bush -- even to the point of scandalous lies as presented in this documentary.
In their derangement, these Bushies cannot hone up to a probable truth that if Gore had instead won the presidency, Clinton's strong counter-terrorism programs against OBL and Al Queda would have been continued, not disbanded as they were under Bush. And 9-11 might not have ever happened.
-------------
Will we ever get a TRUE documentary objectively comparing and contrasting the Bush and Clinton Administration Al Queda counter-terrorism measures?
Not as long as the 9-11 Commission Report is forever looked upon as a definitive resource for info.
It appears the report, like the Senate Intelligence Committee report, was purposefully written vague, ambigious, subject to a variety of interpretations in order to throw a bone to Bush. This was the overriding objective rather than arriving at the truth.
Why?
Here is my theory.
These two commissions did not want our current administration, as bumbling and incompetent as it may be, to lose credibility at a time when the U.S. faced threats from global terrorists and an ongoing war with Iraq. It's a front. A cover-up.
Unfortunately, most of us will have grey hair by the time history finally rips the mask off this facade.

12:02 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Did Michael Moore say that he was basing his movie on the 9/11 Commission Report?

I missed that part.

12:07 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

"And yes BJ Clinton did nothing when we were attacked NUMEROUS times."
Would the individual making this comment PLEASE review history, or at least read the 9-11 Commission Report (for all its shortcomings) before making such a stupid, factually incorrect, unsupportable and baseless statement?

12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

liberalism is treason?

that's funny. almost as funny as "liberalism is a mental disorder."

What kind of world would you guys like to live in, because without "liberalism," we'd still be a colony of Britain. Or we'd still have slavery. Or we'd still have segregation. Or women wouldn't be allowed the right to vote. Or we wouldn't have child labor laws. Or you wouldn't be getting Social Security after you retire. ...

The whold idea of "liberalism is treason" is mind-bogglingly stupid. Dissent does not equal disloyalty. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, a free press. You might want to read it some time.

12:10 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

The 1993 WTC bombers were tracked down and jailed, if I'm not mistaken.

Has Osama been caught yet? I missed that news report.

12:11 PM  
Anonymous Snoop said...

What is Up, CPJ, War, Where is that other crazy chick who posts here too: Anywho...
I know I left you dudes alone for quite some time, but I could not help myself this time.
All of you liberals are losing your mind over this when every damm time Michael Moore come out with some anti-Bush docudrama you people gush.
Someone please tell me why is this a big deal to you libs?
I just watched the flick Loose Change, I don’t agree but it was interesting, I liked F 9/1l, was entertaining.
All of the liberal blogs and websites I read about how corrupt this country is, how Bush is Hitler, now you libs have a movie coming out depicting his assassination, you now have perky liberal Katie on CBS now, Seriously libs what do you want? Ok let’s say this is a complete bust with bogus material, lies and just crap. Who gives a shit?
You liberals want complete and utter control of how the news is presented, what docudramas people can watch, what radio talk shows people should avoid. Hell you have Bill Moyers and PBS, damm! You have Bill Maher, you have Keith Olbermann (sorry, I know he sucks)
If Loose Change can provide their version of the “truth”, then why can’t ABC?
I swear to God I try and understand what your liberal viewpoints are, I read, examine and dig to try and grasp your reality, but this story and the revelation of Armitage leaking the CIA crap and now liberal blogs are trying to salvage some theory to blame someone in the Bush administration, you people are just screwed up. NOTHING else matters but your particular point of view, your particular spin.
This is why all of us on the right like to mock you people on the left by teasing you about the liberal media and the Hollywood left and you people being kool aid drinkers.
We don’t need your media to “tell our side”, Michael Moore can make docudramas till the cows come home, wannabe Oliver Stones can continue to produce propaganda flicks like Loose Change, and all of the liberal Kool Aide blogs like JABBS can bitch and cry about how unfair Fox News, Rush and O’Reilly is and prop losers like Keith Olberman.
I try like hell to find a semblance of reason amongst the liberal blogs and I’m just finding you people on the left less and less credible, the more I read you people.
You people need 15 seats to take the house, I’m worried what will happen if you DON’T get those 15 seats. Even if you do, it will make blogging grand, to watch the Grand Dragon Nancy Pelosi make an “ass” out of the Democratic Party.
PS if you feel the need to reply, please try and salvage a response without a JABBS reference, I read the blog too. Show me the strings are not attached this time.
Much love, Peace Out!

12:13 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

"Just because ABC or other lib MSM is not as fanatically treasonous as you would like does not mean they tend towards the right..."

So what "Liberalism is Treason" is suggesting is that telling the truth should be equated with treason.
The blogger suggests making up lies or propaganda, as clearly the case with this documentary, is upright and patriotic.

Such thinking is clearly a danger to any Democracy. It is a true form of treason.

12:29 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

A few things:

1. It's a police matter and a military matter. Where is your brain, anonymous? The US military didn't bust up the London threat, that was through intelligence work.

2. Michael Moore's movie was shown in movie theaters, not on the public airwaves. Move this 9/11 nonsense to cable, and you've got no complaints from me, just as the Reagan movie was moved, too.

3. Michael Moore made one movie, snoop, so what's with "every time"?

4. Bill Moyers is a solid journalist -- also not on the air anymore. Asked questions to both sides, presented both views. The attacks on him suggest you folks are afraid of truth-telling. Balanced to you means just presenting your side, and that's it.

12:42 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Snoop, I think there are several issues:

-- The idea that the movie is claiming to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report, when it clearly isn't. That kind of deception raises a red flag, and that's why there's been such widespread protest.

-- The idea that ABC would give advance copies to Limbaugh and others on the right, but deny Clinton and others access. That simply makes no sense -- from a p.r. or fairness point of view.

-- ABC and the Path to 9/11 producers put together education kits for high schoolers, before that idea was nixed by schools. Again, the idea was to portray this "docudrama" as being absolute fact -- a visualization of the 9/11 Commission Report findings -- and the schools looked at this and saw just a series of debunked right-wing claims.

With regard to Michael Moore, it's not a secret that he has an agenda. Some liberals might say F9/11 is absolute truth, but most people recognize it for what it is -- "docuganda." That phrase also applies to Robert Greenwald, and even people like Morgan Spurlock -- combining of politics and the documentary format.

If Moore had gone around saying that this is the absolute truth, based on the 9/11 Commission Report, take it or leave it, I think there would be hollering from both sides of the aisle.

So, it's not exactly apples to oranges. I know the right-wingers would love to have the country think Clinton and Clinton alone was responsible for 9/11, but the 9/11 Commission Report -- accepted by Bush as being sound -- doesn't say that.

12:49 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"What's the point here? To try to sway people against the Democrats, or to try to portray what happened?"


I believe it's the latter of the two, cutiepie. It's just that libs are so closed-minded and thin-skinned when it comes to criticism of their own party, they tend to dismiss everything that isn't spoon-fed to them by other libs, David Brock for example.

Don't you think ABC has run this special past their lawyers? Don't you think there was fact-checking done? I'm sure they are not begging for a lawsuit from the individuals portrayed in the movie.

And just as an aside, cutiepie, you've got to know that the Clinton Administration has always been extremely worried that some of the facts surrounding their handling of certain terrorism-related issues would be made public. This is what this whole brouhaha is all about.

Someday you guys have got to come to terms with the reason that Sandy Berger stole and destroyed very specific secret documents from our national archives when the Clinton people were preparing to appear before the 9-11 Commission. What do you think that was all about?

And it's not true that Democrats have not been given the opportunity to see this film. Both Democrats and Republicans were given the opportunity to view this film at a screening in Washington, DC. I know for a fact that 9-11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste as well as Clintonista John Podesta have viewed the film. Such a big fuss is being made over the fact that Clinton and others weren't given a copy of the movie. Why should they have? Was President Bush given a copy? Was VP Cheney or Sec. Rice? I mean, really. You guys are so silly sometimes.

You question the claim that "The Path to 9-11" was NOT based on the 9-11 Commission, but you don't know that at all. The movie is supposedly based on the 9/11 Commission Final Report and the 2003 book "The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It." And what? All of a sudden Thomas Kean, Co-chairman of the 9-11 Commission isn't to be trusted? I don't get it.

Also, Nowrasteh said he was given "an incredible amount of research materials and [access to] high-level advisors from the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Diplomatic Security, etc."

Director David L. Cunningham posted a "Clarification," on the "Path to 9-11" Web site. It stated that the series:

"is not a documentary," nor is it "a right wing agenda movie."

"The team of filmmakers, actors and executives that are responsible for this movie have very different political views. There was no emphasis given to one party over another. By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush,".


Such hysteria on the part of liberals with regard to this miniseries is just so typical.

1:23 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Hi, Cutiepie! Since you are here, I'd just like to take this opportunity to ask you if you read my response to your question asking for specifics about whether or not President Bush meets with the families of our fallen heroes. You can read it here. :) Thanks.

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2006/09/compare-two-quotes-and-ask-does-bush.html#comments

1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this the strong anti terrorism stance of which you speak Cutiepie?

Good morning. Before I talk with you about our economic program this morning, I want to say a word to the good people of New York City and to all Americans who've been so deeply affected by the tragedy that struck Manhattan yesterday." This opening suggests that Mr. Clinton didn't want to shift away from his campaign-winning "it's the economy, stupid" theme, referring to the attack as a "tragedy," a sad event, not an aggressive act requiring a strong response.




Mr. Clinton continued: "A number of innocent people lost their lives. Hundreds were injured, and thousands were struck with fear in their hearts when an explosion rocked the basement of the World Trade Center. To their families, you're in the thoughts and prayers of my family and in the synagogues and churches last night; today and tomorrow, you will be remembered and thought of again and again." This is an admirable attempt at reassurance, reminiscent of President Bush's consoling words following the Sept. 11 attacks. But again, it misses the mark: these people were murdered, not struck by lightning.

The young president hammered away at his compassionate theme, anxious to leave no one out. "My thoughts are also with the police, the firefighters, the emergency response teams and the citizens whose countless acts of bravery averted even more bloodshed. Their reaction and their valor reminds us of how often Americans are at their best when we face the worst."

Next, Mr. Clinton came to the place where he had to report on his administration's actions and plans. These amounted to phone calls--and only phone calls. "I thank all the people who reached out to the injured and the frightened amid the tumult that shook lower Manhattan. Following the explosion, I spoke with New York's Governor Mario Cuomo and New York City Mayor David Dinkins to assure them that the full measure of federal law-enforcement resources will be brought to bear on this investigation." This was a pivotal decision, though Mr. Clinton did not seem to realize its full implications at the time. The terror attack would be treated as a criminal matter, not a threat to national security. This approach would hobble Clinton's war on terror for years.

Mr. Clinton expanded on the law-enforcement theme, signaling that terrorists need not fear an armed response. "Just this morning I spoke with FBI Director Sessions, who assured me that the FBI and the Treasury Department are working closely with the New York City police and fire departments. Working together we'll find out who was involved and why this happened. Americans should know we'll do everything in our power to keep them safe in their streets, their offices and their homes. Feeling safe is an essential part of being secure. And that's important to all of us."

Then, Mr. Clinton suddenly shifted the subject. "I also want to take this opportunity this morning to talk about another crucial aspect of our security, our economic security . . ."

As the president shifted to discuss his economic package, which consumed the bulk of his speech, his voice warmed up and slowed down. It was clear to listeners, certainly those in the press, where the president's real interests lay. Almost every contemporary press account of President Clinton's Saturday radio speech leads with the details of the president's economic package and the support that he was garnering around the country. And, of course, the bulk of the radio address was on Mr. Clinton's economic plan.

But note that his remarks on the bombing were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kind of things governors say after floods or tornadoes. Significantly, President Clinton said nothing about hunting down or punishing the perpetrators. Not even a ritualistic denunciation of "these cowardly acts" or a mention of the shock value of an attack on a skyscraping symbol of America.





Why were his words so thin? President Clinton believed that he had a historic opportunity to restore American prosperity and reposition the Democrats as the party of growth and hope. This was partly achieved over the next eight years, ironically with the help of a Republican-led Congress. Mr. Clinton also had an opportunity to transform his party on national-security issues--to overcome its 1960s-era hesitancy to use force and to remake it as a strong defender of freedom, justice and security. Instead, Mr. Clinton shrank back. He had an opportunity to stop an escalating wave of terror attacks, guided by Osama bin Laden, in the first weeks of his administration. But tragically for the nation, he didn't see it.
Of course, presidents are not clairvoyant. Yet at the time, the president's political opponents may have seen more clearly the pivotal role the World Trade Center bombing would play in American history. On the day after the bombing, the minority whip of the House, Newt Gingrich, said that the president should be "cautious" in cutting the defense budget, as Mr. Clinton planned to do. Citing the Twin Towers bombing, Mr. Gingrich said, "There's a very real requirement for human intelligence and military strength. Every time we have any display of weakness, any display of timidity . . . here are people on the planet eager to take advantage of us." These would prove to be prescient words--words, unfortunately, that Mr. Clinton did not heed.

Mr. Clinton's first historic opportunity to wage war on terrorism did not quickly drift away like a plume of smoke after the World Trade Center bombing. It lingered for days and weeks. Within days, evidence quickly accumulated that an Islamic terror cell, supported from abroad, had carried out the attack. There were front-page newspaper stories about the arrest of Mohammed Salameh and the presence of a network of dangerous Islamic radicals, with a hub in Jersey City. Yet the president appeared uninterested.





President Clinton did not visit the World Trade Center in 1993. Perhaps if he had, he might have understood the enormity of the damage. What might have happened if Mr. Clinton had seen the immense crater or talked to the family of Monica Smith?
Four days after the attack, Mr. Clinton was across the Hudson River in New Brunswick, N.J., discussing job-training programs. There, he urged the public not to "overreact" to the World Trade Center bombing. But he didn't cross the river and see the damage for himself.

It would have taken a few minutes, but Mr. Clinton did not bother.

Why didn't he go? One implausible rationale offered by Clinton officials is that unnamed New York officials urged the president to avoid the site. One senior Clinton official--through an anonymous quote in the Boston Globe--noted that "Clinton had a full schedule in New Jersey, with no opening for a visit to the site in Manhattan." Full schedule. The site in Manhattan. The sheer clinical distance of those words, days after the attack, speaks volumes.

Dick Morris, a former Clinton adviser, offers two more-likely explanations. Mr. Clinton saw himself as a comforter who needed to reassure an anxious public (in New Jersey, he urged Americans to "keep your courage up and go about your lives"), and he saw the attack as a criminal matter, not a terror strike. "In what is likely, in retrospect, to be judged the single greatest omission of his presidency, Clinton chose to treat the Trade Center attack as an isolated criminal act, devoid of serious foreign policy or military implications," writes Mr. Morris. President Clinton just didn't get it.

Over the next month, the president made four fateful decisions. He did not keep the bombing before the public with speeches and actions. He left the case in the hands of the FBI, which was headed by a man he did not trust and was waiting to fire. He treated the bombing as a law-enforcement matter, not a counterintelligence investigation, thus cutting the CIA out of the fight against terrorism. And he did not even meet with his handpicked CIA director to consider alternative approaches to combating international terrorism aimed at Americans. This ensured future victories for bin Laden.





Langley, Va.:
Frustration was growing at CIA headquarters. The Counter-Terrorism Center was kept away from the World Trade Center investigation--even though the CTC was designed to be the center of information on terrorist threats. The State Department, the FBI and the Secret Service had detailed personnel to the CTC to make sure that important information was shared, not hidden behind bureaucratic bulwarks. Indeed, one of the reasons that the deputy director of the CTC was an FBI official was to guarantee that information was shared among the institutions.
If the Clinton administration wanted to conduct a joint counterterrorism operation to discover the full breadth of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspiracy and to take action against the perpetrators overseas, the CTC would have been the perfect vehicle. That is what it was designed to do. It also had a secret presidential "finding," written by President Reagan and still in force, that specifically authorized covert operations to smash terrorist cells.

But the FBI, with the president's tacit acceptance, was treating the World Trade Center attack as a law-enforcement matter. That meant that everything the FBI gathered, every lab-test result, every scrap of paper, every interview, every lead, every clue from overseas was theirs alone. No one outside of the FBI's New York office would see it for years.

How could the FBI keep the evidence from other terror-fighting agencies? This was actually standard procedure when the FBI conducted criminal cases, as opposed to strictly counterterrorism investigations. The bureau invoked rule 6E of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the FBI shared the information with other federal agencies, then a judge could rule the evidence inadmissible in a court or require the government to share it with the accused terrorists, so that they could mount an effective legal defense. That would provide the accused terrorists with vital information about what the federal government

The aricle is more extensive I wouldbe glad to give you the rest and an education to boot.

Maybe we could talk about the high ranking Al Quaeda operative with the highest security clearance possible who worked in our
military? Or perhaps about the numerous plots that were also treated as criminal matters and not acts of war? Or maybe about Somalia and Bin Laden's repeated declarations and acts of war against the U.S. and Clinton's refusal to take him when he was offered because he couldn't bring him to trial? We found out several years after the 93 bombing he was at the top of that particular food chain. So how about trying him for the murder of 7 Americans and the wounding of over 1000 if trial was really your goal?

1:31 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said... "I know the right-wingers would love to have the country think Clinton and Clinton alone was responsible for 9/11, but the 9/11 Commission Report -- accepted by Bush as being sound -- doesn't say that."

Cutiepie, that sounds a bit paranoid on your part. After our fellow-Americans and others were slaughtered on 9-11, most of us were united against a common enemy. We were attacked, and our hatred and righteous anger was directed where it should have been; at those individuals responsible for the atrocity, and the nation states that support them. Nobody else.

Since then, things have become a lot more ugly and political than that, and some on your side seem to place the sole blame upon the Bush Administration. It is only right to point out that there is plenty of blame to go around, and it's important to examine what we've done or haven't done in the past, in ALL administrations, that put us on "The Path to 9-11". Anything short of that will be less than helpful, as well as less than honest. We shouldn't be so afraid of the truth, either. Clinton is obviously petrified as to how this might affect his legacy, which is why he had people like Jamie Gorelick and Richard Ben-Vineste on the 9-11 panel in the first place. Lots of eyebrows were raised over those peculiar choices, given their blind loyalty to Clinton. And did I mention Sandy Berger?

1:41 PM  
Anonymous liberalism IS treason said...

Anonymous said...
liberalism is treason?

that's funny. almost as funny as "liberalism is a mental disorder."

What kind of world would you guys like to live in, because without "liberalism," we'd still be a colony of Britain. Or we'd still have slavery. Or we'd still have segregation. Or women wouldn't be allowed the right to vote. Or we wouldn't have child labor laws. Or you wouldn't be getting Social Security after you retire. ...

The whold idea of "liberalism is treason" is mind-bogglingly stupid. Dissent does not equal disloyalty. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, a free press. You might want to read it some time.


Yup, the left is the stalwart in protecting the Bill of Rights....but only when it is politically correct, left-wing opinions. That's why the left continually tries to shut down anything conservative. You are a hypocrite.

In reference to history, liberalism would have kept us as a British colony; would have kept slavery; would have maintained Jim Crowe laws. The fanatical liberalism of Michael Moore-on, George Soros, et. al. has been nothing but nothing treasonous and supportive of those wishing to destroy this country. So, if you do not stand with those wishing to defend this country against these islamo-facist scumbags wishing to slit our throats, then yes, I call you a traitor. You don't like it, then see the First Amendment and quit wiping you prodigious a$$ with it.

2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Slavery and segregation. 2 of the democrats most cherished things. Just ask Robert Byrd and George Wallace. Um cutiepie, are you saying that Michael Moores movie is all lies? Or are you saying that movies have to be based on reports. Please clarify.

Any show that does not praise your hero BJ Clinton is to be condemned? The only thing that should be condemned is the fact that from 1992-2000 we had a rapist in the White House.

2:15 PM  
Anonymous liberalism IS treason said...

thewaronterrible said...

It's a right-wing psychosis to forever apologize for the gross incompetence of George W. Bush -- even to the point of scandalous lies as presented in this documentary.



It's a left-wing psychosis to forever apologize for the gross incompetence and perversion and treason of William "BJ" Clinton -- even to the point of scandalous lies as presented by BJ himself and as history has proven.

2:17 PM  
Anonymous liberalism IS treason said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:17 PM  
Anonymous liberalism IS treason said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:18 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

And just as an aside, cutiepie, you've got to know that the Clinton Administration has always been extremely worried that some of the facts surrounding their handling of certain terrorism-related issues would be made public. This is what this whole brouhaha is all about.

This is a fictionalized TV drama. The principles -- Ben-Veniste, Berger and others -- have said scenes have been made up out of whole cloth. You speak as if there's a vast conspiracy to keep the truth hidden when it's really just another typical smear against Clinton. Period.

And as for Cunningham's "clarification," there's no source anywhere that suggests this movie has been condemned of being "left-wing." None. That's him making that up, too.

Furthermore, Berger took copies of documents from the National Archives. Not originals, copies. Whether he did it purposely or accidentally is what was under investigation. But nothing he took wasn't already in the National Archive already. He took copies. Trinity, why are you so lax with the truth?

2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whether he did it purposely or accidentally?

He pleaded guilty and acknowledged intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified documents about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.

Look it up on the Washington Compost Website

2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't like it, then see the First Amendment and quit wiping you prodigious a$$ with it.

>>>

That's intelligent.

I guess we don't need the constitution, the bill of rights, a court system, etc. That'll show the terrorists, right?

2:55 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Trinity, look at the comments that have been left by the likes of "liberalism is treason." That's unbridled anger.

And frankly, the "anyone but Bush" blame game is so partisan it's laughable.

Clinton did some things good, but could have done more. I have no problem making that statement. The problem is, the fringe right wants to blame Clinton, Clinton, Clinton before, and ACLU/Activist Judges/Liberal Media now. Certainly, you have to see how juvenile that sounds.

2:58 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Also, Trinity, regarding your other post, I was not aware of that. I don't know how many families Bush has met with, but if he's met with some, that's a good thing.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for someone to point that out once in a while, because a majority of Americans just don't see that empathy from this president. It might lead to better understanding.

You can blame the media for portraying things another way -- although it's the media that wrote about what you pointed to. But the nation is divided on how the administration is handling the war, and a show of sincerity from Bush -- not an orchestrated p.r. event -- may help.

3:04 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Any show that does not praise your hero BJ Clinton is to be condemned?

>>

Let's take it real slow.

If you say something is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, it should be based on the 9/11 Commission Report.

Had the movie been based on the 9/11 Commission Report, it would have shown that Clinton made mistakes. It would have also shown that Bush made mistakes.

It would not have relied on made-up characters, made-up dialogue, debunked right-wing claims, and other fictions that the 9/11 Commission Report disagreed with.

There were a lot of theories thrown out after 9/11, and just like you wouldn't want to see a movie about how 9/11 was an inside job or a plot by some Zionist conspiracy (I wouldn't want to see that either), neither should there be a film that relies on the fictions of the right -- fictions that have been debunked by the 9/11 Commission.

Michael Moore put together a docuganda with an obvious point of view. At no time did anyone consider F9/11 to be objective. It was presented as opinion, and clearly it was a liberal opinion. It had some good points, and it had some reasons to be criticized. And if you look back at the reviews at the time, you'll see that in the media.

If Michael Moore had tried to claim his movie was based on official reports, and not his opinion based on his interpretation of the facts, he would have been slameed up and down the same way the Path to 9/11 producers are.

3:12 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

The only thing that should be condemned is the fact that from 1992-2000 we had a rapist in the White House.

>>

Another fringe right-wing fantasy, propogated by the Arkansas Project and funded by William Mellon Scaife. It's been debunked many times over, but it's a convenient fiction to bring up whenever the right needs to slam Clinton.

Another Arkansas Project claim, debunked, is that Clinton ran cocaine supplies through Arkansas in order to balance the budget.

3:14 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"Also, Trinity, regarding your other post, I was not aware of that. I don't know how many families Bush has met with, but if he's met with some, that's a good thing."


Exactly, cutiepie. Which is exactly why I went to the trouble of doing the research for you, since you specifically asked me to back up my claims with facts. I can't really tell from your above comment, whether or not you actually read my response, the one you asked me for. ;)

If you haven't read it, please do, so that you can cease and desist writing such "iffy" characterizations of what it is I'm claiming, such as this one:

"I DON'T KNOW how many families Bush has met with, but IF he's met with some, that's a good thing." (emphasis mine)

See what I mean? There is no "if" about it, so why insert the word??? Furthermore, he has not only met with "some" of the families, he has met with hundreds of them, if not more.

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"It wouldn't be a bad idea for someone to point that out once in a while, because a majority of Americans just don't see that empathy from this president. It might lead to better understanding."


I think you're mistaken there, cutiepie. I think the majority of Americans actually DO see that empathy from this president. Just not the majority of Americans that YOU might hang out with, both here, and perhaps in your private life as well. You might consider broadening your circle of friends. ;)

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"You can blame the media for portraying things another way -- although it's the media that wrote about what you pointed to."


Yes, in some ways I DO blame the MSM for not giving such stories any play. Yes, there might be some little news item about it in a local newspaper, but as far as MSM, such little tidbits are more than likely spiked, as it doesn't jive with their anti-Bush agenda. And of course, I was also referring to left-wing blogs and websites like this one and others. God forbid they post something favorable or sympathetic concerning this president. Then libs wonder at the success of the FNC and conservative talk radio.


alias: "cutiepie" johnson said... But the nation is divided on how the administration is handling the war, and a show of sincerity from Bush -- not an orchestrated p.r. event -- may help.

And how dare you call his meetings with the families of dead soldiers an "orchestrated p.r. event", when President Bush goes out of his way not to publicize these meetings, and bars the media from attendance. Like Diogenes, I continue my quest for an honest lib....er....man. :)

3:34 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

I retract that last paragraph, cutiepie, because upon re-reading your comment, I don't think you were saying what I thought you were saying, and I'm sorry I was so knee-jerk. Emotions, as you know, run very high when discussing these issues.

3:37 PM  
Anonymous Snoop said...

CPJ do you not think that when somebody, anybody, makes a docudrama there is going to be some spin depending on the political viewpoint.
Any reasonable, sane person knows that there is some creative license.
In Loose Change, even they could only take you to a certain point because, although they won’t say it, they are not dealing with 100 percent of the facts.
Anyone who believes that Bush and some of his homeboys ran planes into the towers is not playing with a full deck, you are just flat a lunatic. But I don’t have a problem with y’all trying to get there through propaganda. Free Speech is a cool thing.
My point is liberal media and in particular blogs specifically want to guide readers and viewers to their specific reality. Anything that screws with that is WRONG AND EVIL.
I have said often and I’ll take this time to say again, I want the liberal point of view out there. I want Bill Moyers to come up with his anti-conservative crap, I like when Olbermann rants like a jackass on his zero ratings show, those of us on the right want you to be heard. Because universally I bet the vast majority of us know, them more you hear from liberals, the more likely you are to run from their point of view.
I’m sure some lib today is making phone calls to raise money to come out with a movie to counter ABC’s flick. I’m like, bring it on! Feel free to express your view.
But look at all the crap around this movie. Clinton demanding that it not be aired or that it be edited.
Bush nor any republican has never said jack about the content of a movie or an article. I watched the flick given out at KOS on Tom Delay. Entertaining, yes but it failed to make Delay into a mob boss. You liberals try so hard to distribute propaganda crap via video and your blogs and you still can’t understand why people don’t take the left seriously, particularly after bitching about a movie that has not been aired yet EXCEPT to some Washington insiders. You people do know it has been seen by some insiders right?
And the quote in the post “Rush Limbaugh and other conservative pundits have been provided advanced copies” Not true “But ABC apparently refused to provide a copy to President Clinton’s office” partial truth.
'Finally, the left has figured out their answer to talk radio — and it's documentaries,'
I’m thinking WTF! C’mon dude have you been puffin and bobbin’
I don’t care how much you hate Bush, ask yourselves why is the left and the former Administration so up in arms over this.
And CPJ despite what you think, I don’t think Clinton was responsible for 9/11, do I believe he looked the other way on some things YES! But even Rush said on his show that this docuflick focuses the anger where it should be on the damm terrorists.

3:42 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

snoop said...
"And CPJ despite what you think, I don’t think Clinton was responsible for 9/11, do I believe he looked the other way on some things YES! But even Rush said on his show that this docuflick focuses the anger where it should be on the damm terrorists."


Well said, Snoop, and that is such an important point you make. What is the most important thing to most of us? It's that we all unite to do everything possible in order to prevent another attack such as what we experienced on 9-11.

As much as I disliked having a man of weak character like Clinton in the White House for eight years, I was too caught up in the horrible grief that all of America and parts of the world were experiencing to turn around and accuse his administration of being responsible. My rage was, and still is, directed at the animals who perpetrated the 9-11 atrocity, and who want to do it again, and again.

Still, I want Americans to open their eyes to the mistakes that have been made, so that we can avoid them in the future.

3:59 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Bush is of the weakest of characters. A very weak man.

4:18 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"A few things:

1. It's a police matter and a military matter. Where is your brain, anonymous? The US military didn't bust up the London threat, that was through intelligence work.


Intelligence work exactly like our NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, and even more invasive searches of private homes, etc. Conservatives are not the ones who are against good intelligence work.

Dave G. said...
2. Michael Moore's movie was shown in movie theaters, not on the public airwaves. Move this 9/11 nonsense to cable, and you've got no complaints from me, just as the Reagan movie was moved, too.


Well, good for you, Dave G. Perhaps you might convince some others on your side of practicing such tolerance.

When Carlton Sherwood produced the documentary "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal....", Tony Podesta, (John's brother) Kerry's campagaign manager here in PA, showed up with a bunch of Philadelphia union thugs and threatened and intimidated the theater owner and ticketholders to the point that he closed his doors and declined to show the movie. Real tolerant, huh? Way to go, libs! We know how pro-free-speech y'all are! NOT!

Dave G. said...
3. Michael Moore made one movie, snoop, so what's with "every time"?


Say what??? Do your research, Dave. ;)

Dave G. said...
4. Bill Moyers is a solid journalist -- also not on the air anymore. Asked questions to both sides, presented both views. The attacks on him suggest you folks are afraid of truth-telling. Balanced to you means just presenting your side, and that's it.


Right. A solid journalist. Objective and without bias, in the tradition of other solid, unbiased journalists, like Dan Rather for instance. Please!

4:25 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Say what??? Do your research, Dave. ;)
He made one movie about Bush. Columbine wasn't about him, nor was Roger & Me. That was my point, I didn't realize I needed to spell it out.

Intelligence work exactly like our NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, and even more invasive searches of private homes, etc. Conservatives are not the ones who are against good intelligence work.
NEither are liberals. Conservatives, however, are the only ones who are in favor of breaking the law in order to do this work.

And I dont' need to defend Moyers reputation, as it remains strong. What's your definition of an objective journalist, then, Trinity?

4:30 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"It's a right-wing psychosis to forever apologize for the gross incompetence of George W. Bush -- even to the point of scandalous lies as presented in this documentary."


First off, twot, ABC has not called this film a "documentary". It's being characterized as a dramatization.

That being said, it's not a work of fiction, either. They just used composite characters and compressed time to make everything fit into a five hour miniseries.

4:40 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Trinity, 2 things:

I said I don't know how many because there wasn't an actual count in the stories, and there are 3,000 or so families that have lost soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wasn't doubting your sourcing.

And I didn't suggest that his meeting with the familiies was an orchestrated p.r. event. I was saying the opposite. Too often, Bush has these events -- the town hall meetings on social security privatization come to mind -- with the big backdrop saying something like "prosperity for americans" and a bunch of pre-screened questioners asking softball questions.

Hope that clarifies.

4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Snoop, look at the link on the Rush Limbaugh reference. It's to Rush Limbaugh himself. 'nuff said.

4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's being characterized as a dramatization

... but it's also being called "based on the 9/11 commission report."

4:49 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"He made one movie about Bush. Columbine wasn't about him, nor was Roger & Me. That was my point, I didn't realize I needed to spell it out."


Thanks for clarifying. :)

Dave G. said...
"NEither are liberals. Conservatives, however, are the only ones who are in favor of breaking the law in order to do this work."


That's untrue, Dave. We just believe that the POTUS already has the authority under the constitution to take these measure to thwart attacks by the enemy.

If libs agree that this type of surveillance is necessary to fight terrorism, the way they say they do, but they honestly and truly believe that as it stands, the POTUS doesn't have this specific authority, then why aren't they falling all over themselves to rush through the appropriate legislation which would make it legal? Hmmm. Now why would that be I wonder???
And I dont' need to defend Moyers reputation, as it remains strong. What's your definition of an objective journalist, then, Trinity?


Dave G. said...
"What's your definition of an objective journalist, then, Trinity?"


Hard to find a truly unbiased journalist, Dave G., since we all are influenced to one extent or another by our own worldviews. The phrase "objective journalist" is probably an oxymoron. Of course, some journalists have a little more trouble keeping their bias in check than do others. ;)

5:01 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"... but it's also being called "based on the 9/11 commission report." "


True. And so it is. They just dug a little deeper than the 9-11 Commission cared to dig. Certain (ahem) staffers made sure that some reports never even got eyeballed by the commission.

5:08 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

All I'm seeing from Trinity, Snoop, Liberalism is a mental disorder, whatever, is largely irrelevance.
That is the problem. By the time one reads through these bloggers' unfocused jibberish, one becomes so confused as to forget the topic in the first place.
In case you've forgotten, here is the issue:
Based on the best evidences available, the producers of this documentary played fast and loose with the facts of the 9-11 Commission Report in directing unwarranted blame on Clinton for the attacks. There is a scene of Clinton calling off a intelligence raid on Al Queda that, by all accounts, simply never happened, for example.
The documentary reportedly also goes out of its way to shine a favorable light on the Bush Administration, i.e. a complete historical fiction that Condi Rice focused energies on Al Queda prior to 9-11, a complete skipping over the morning of 9-11 where Bush read "My Pet Goat" upon learning of the attacks, etc.
As for Trinity forwarding a flimsy argument that the producers "must have" checked with their attorneys to keep themselves from getting sued.
What nonsense! Perhaps Trinity lacks the common knowledge that public officials in the public domain would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be sued in this context, no more than Bush could develop a legal case against Michael Moore.
Stick to the discussion instead of finding an excuse to forward more unsubstantiated, one-sided right-wing bullshit attempting to apologize for Bush, whom I must remind you was president when we were attacked by the way, through dishonestly and disingeniously attempting to shift blame on Clinton.
Your side lacks credibility here, as you're notorious for bogus smear campaigns such as the Swift Boat frauds against Kerry.

5:08 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
Trinity, 2 things:

I said I don't know how many because there wasn't an actual count in the stories, and there are 3,000 or so families that have lost soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wasn't doubting your sourcing.


No problem, cutiepie. As I said, it was your use of the word "if" that I objected to. I felt it left room for doubt.

So, are you saying, (without actually saying) that you DID read all of the stories that I linked to? Shall I quiz you on the content of the stories, just to be sure? lol

As far as the "orchestrated p.r. event" comment, I believe I addressed that in another post.

5:13 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

No matter how painful it might be for the principals involved to acknowledge that there were some failures on the part of their administrations to respond to terrorism, and that this inaction was partially to blame for 9-11, they have to just get over it.

Whether it be the Clinton Administration, or the Bush Administration, they have to just come to terms with the fact that we got sucker-punched by the enemy, and that we must keep vigilant to prevent this from ever happening again.

Not to say that it won't ever happen again, because chances are that it might. But let's not allow anyone's ego to mask the mistakes that were committed in the leadup to 9-11. And there were many. Hopefully we are on the road to correcting them.

Twot, your post is simply too tedious to respond to. You play the blame game better than anyone, and that's not what this is about. These were not right-wingers who made this miniseries.

5:49 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

"These were not right-wingers who made this miniseries."
The 9-11 ABC docudrama was written and produced by Cyrus Nowrasteh who does not hide the fact he injects conservative bias into his films
See: http://www.libertyfilmfestival
.com/libertas/index.php?p=462
Further, it is a film being heavilly promoted by right-wing websites and right-wing media as casting blame on the Clinton administration for the 9-11 attacks. If the film was more objective, don't you think left-wing sites would be cheering on the movie as well?
Trinity, you can hardly be taken seriously while you make such statements as above.
I stand by my earlier argument that Bushies make such ridiculous claims in a vain attempt to prove to themselves and their allies that there may be elements of truth in this demonstrably bogus docudrama thinly disguised to further a bogus right-wing argument in an election season that Dems cannot be entrusted on terrorism matters.

7:04 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

The most tried and the least successfull method of defecting any true blame away from the real culprit for any screw-up is to blame the other guy. This is the American "Christian" way of being truthfull about our lives. The best at doing this is Karl Rove and all his sheepey repuks. If it was not the other guy, then it was the devil or God telling them to do it.

Also , I doubt that many of the repuks on this post have even read "The 911 Commission Report". I would be very surprised.

The cause of 911 started long before Clinton ( I would say about a few years after WWII). There are a lot of happennings that have influenced (embolden)the "terrorist" under Repuke and liberal administrations. One that comes to my mind is they realized that the repuks all have a back problem which is a yellow streak down it and it keeps them from ever enlisting in the military to fight wars that so fervently want and they are related to the "chickenhawk". The terrorist know that repuks talk like they are really brave but know they love their money, their cars, their house, their business much more than than love their country. The repuks are like animals when confronted with a fight: they puff themselves up, beat on their chest, make loud noises, make their eyes bulge out, make their hair stand up, and may even turn different colors to appear mean and brave. Some may say: "most of the GIs are repuks". When I was in the Army and if asked who I supported I would have said Nixon. GIs do understand who controls their lives at that moment. Today I would ask how many candidates running for political office are Democrat Iraq veterans or Repuke Iraq veterans.

9:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The way BJ is acting out against this documentary just goes to prove that this so called man, rapist actually, is by all means a sociopath. He really should seek some professional help before it ruins his marriage.

8:10 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

ABC is revising the 9-11 film in response to the criticisms from the Clinton Administration, and likely also from bloggers just like us.
http://www.washtimes.com/
national/20060908-123100-1563r.htm
So much for the empty right-wing flap expressed here that the film did not reflect a historically inaccurate bias against Clinton.
Repukes must remember that the historical record shows the Bush Administration did not hold a single meeting of a terrorism task force on Al Queda strongly encouraged by Richard Clarke before Sept. 11 of 2001.
The historical record shows the Repukes accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he directed bombs at the terrorists, and the Repukes watered down Clinton's anti-terrorism bill.
The yellow streak running down Repukes' backs surely runs deep.
Again, the Repukes make noise about Clinton to cover up for the grievous errors, incompetence and embarrassment of their sitting monkey- I mean president- in-chief.
The Repukes attempt to change the subject by calling Clinton a "rapist." When that is all they have on him, when his sexual conquests were demonstrably consensual, it shows how weak their attempted position truely is.

8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...cover up for the grievous errors, incompetence...

Didnt realize you hated the Clinton administration so much, but I can understand it.

10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are you democrap retards sticking up for a rapist? Oh I forgot. You love those types of people. Cop killers, rapists, tyrants. Che, Chavez, Castro. You all have such slime that you look up to. You should be ashamed of yourselves yet there is no shaming the shit in this world. And yes you all are a bunch of heaping piles of shit. I wouldnt piss on you if you were on fire.

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Angelina's Evil Twin said...

It certainly shows off your DEBATING SKILLS, INTELLIGENCE AND RATIONAL THOUGHT when you reduce yourself to HYPERBOLE, NAME CALLING AND BULL SHIT.

You don't have a REAL ARGUMENT, so all you can od is LASH OUT like a elementary school BULLY.

I wouldn't want you to PISS ON ME if I was on fire.

11:30 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"The cause of 911 started long before Clinton ( I would say about a few years after WWII). There are a lot of happennings that have influenced (embolden)the "terrorist" under Repuke and liberal administrations."


You are absolutely correct about that, whoop. In fact, one unfortunate incident that comes to mind which occurred under the Reagan Administration, was the bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut, which was most likely committed by Hezbollah.

Nothing was ever done to retaliate for that bombing, which resulted in 241 dead U.S. Marines, and another 100 injured. They were there solely in a peacekeeping capacity.

In defense of President Reagan, he did assemble his national security team in order to plan a retaliatory attack, but his Sec. of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, aborted the mission, something for which I think Reagan was wrong not to have handed him his head.

Four months after the bombing, we began pulling our Marines out of Lebanon. Such lack of response only emboldens these crazies.

So, yes, whoop. There were incidents like this during both Democrat administrations and Republican adminstrations. Only difference seems to be that we're not allowed to discuss the ones that occur on a Democrat's watch.

What was that comment made by actor Tim Robbins again? Something about a "chill wind" blowing in this nation? :rolleyes:

1:12 PM  
Anonymous liberalism IS treason said...

Removed posts, uh? I guess you are not into free speech.

Can't handle the truth I guess...

1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trinity misses the bullseye again, in fact she didn't even hit the board.
We don't have a problem with fair criticisms of a past Democratic administration.
What we have a problem with is wholly made-up, biased, fictional, slanderous, dishonest, inaccurate and unfair depictions of that administration, as clearly the case with the ABC 9-11 miniseries.

1:42 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Here's a post from somebody named maurinsky over at the Daily Kos. It's from Nov 03, 2003.

"I know that Ronald Reagan is God in the right-wing pantheon, but he was really just a man, and a flawed one at that. I know the crybabies on the right can't take any kind of criticism of those they hold near and dear, but the fact that CBS is thinking of cancelling the miniseries is a little bit too much pandering to their poor, easily offended sensitivities for my taste...

If you are interested in seeing this miniseries despite (or because of) the way it will cause all those whining and sobbing wingers to fall apart and reveal their fascistic tendencies to eliminate freedom of speech, please write and let your opinion be heard, too."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/3/234318/565

1:43 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"We don't have a problem with fair criticisms of a past Democratic administration.


Sure you do, Anonymous. The problem is, in your mind, as well as in Clinton's, nothing is ever considered to be a fair criticism, and never will be. lol

I actually welcome the debate about which portions of this miniseries are accurate, and which are not. At least most of the individuals involved are still alive, and capable of responding to the way they are presented.

Of course, it will be a bit difficult to debate these issues, if the Clintonistas succeed in intimidating ABC into withdrawing the movie. Methinks Clinton and his cronies doth protest too much.

1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I meant above I take offense that Trinity attempts to equate something that historically really happened under the Regan administration with the dishonest fiction depicted in the 9-11 docudrama about the Clinton Administration.
Trinity appears to argue any historical criticism is valid, whether true or not, as long as it purportedly is evenly spread between both political parties.

That's like comparing the validity of a eyewitness report on Babe Ruth hitting his 714th home run with a story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, Trinity refuses to accept the fact the 9-11 docudrama is widely criticized by those who have seen it to contain historically inaccurate depictions of the Clinton Administration's response to Al Queda.
Trinity wants to support the myth such inaccurate depictions can somehow be construed as fair and balanced.

2:08 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"I meant above I take offense that Trinity attempts to equate something that historically really happened under the Regan administration with the dishonest fiction depicted in the 9-11 docudrama about the Clinton Administration."


It would be helpful if you would give an example of what events you are talking about. If you're not specific, how can I respond? These generalities get us nowhere.

2:27 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"Again, Trinity refuses to accept the fact the 9-11 docudrama is widely criticized by those who have seen it to contain historically inaccurate depictions of the Clinton Administration's response to Al Queda."


Anonymous, I have to ask. Do you ever open your mind to opposing opinions? Of course Clinton and his gang object to seeing themselves portrayed as less than effective in the war against radical, militant Islam, being the narcissists that they are. They think it's all about them!

But are you even aware that there are credible people who were also there in prominent positions, who agree with the way that the Clinton Administration's response to al Qaeda is depicted in "The Path to 9-11"? They say it's accurate. ABC believes that, aside from compressing time and combining characters into composite identities, the basic story of what went down is pretty much accurate.

Again, stop with the generalities and get specific, and I'll debate you on the substance.

2:41 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Here's is an excellent post from Glenn Reynolds of "Instapundit". He says it all better than I ever could, and provides comments made by 9/11 Commissioner, John Lehman.

JOHN LEHMAN ON THE 9/11 FILM:

"9/11 Commissioner John Lehman had some interesting takes on the controversy. "The larger truth," he told us, "is that neither administration fully grasped what the threat was. Partially it was inadequate intelligence but you can't blame it all on the inadequate intelligence -- there was, I think, a very naïve view held by some in the Clinton administration, mainly Albright and Janet Reno that force was counterproductive."

Lehman, a Republican, told us that the campaign against the film by the Clinton officials misses the point. "I think what they're trying to do is to take the fact the specific scenes portrayed were fictional and to try to refute the underlying reality that the Clinton administration just didn't get it. And by the way before 9-11 neither did the Bush administration."



Glenn Reynolds said...
"Yes, and that's why I've never been too critical of the Clinton Administration, or the pre-9/11 Bush Administration. Hindsight is 20-20, but not many people took the threat of Islamist terror seriously enough before the World Trade Center attacks, and I certainly didn't. As I noted a while back:

Before 9/11 -- and what we learned afterward -- I agreed with the basic strategy of trying to contain Islamist terror until it collapsed under the weight of its own stupidity. That was before I realized how widespread it was, and how thoroughly intertwined with hostile states it was. I don't fault the Clinton people for not catching on before I did.

But I do fault the people who are peddling the absurd story that Clinton had this terror thing under control until Bush screwed it up. That's partisan twaddle, and a real disservice in time of war.


By making a big noise over this film, the Clinton people are implicitly disavowing the "pass" they've enjoyed, and in the process inviting more, rather than less, scrutiny of that Administration's antiterror record, which strikes me as very unwise, politically.


Very well-said, IMO.

2:53 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

I do have a question for you "constitution-loving" libs though, and that is, how do you defend this outright attack on our 1st Amendment rights??? Huh? Congress threatening ABC? You're all right with that? Yhello? Yhello? You still there? The silence with regard to the assault upon our free speech rights is deafening.

You should also consider the effect that ABC caving, if it does, might have on rallying conservatives at election time. Trust me, it's not wise to threaten a conservative's right to free speech.

3:00 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Certain (ahem) staffers made sure that some reports never even got eyeballed by the commission.
Why even have a conversation here? He took copies. Copies! Not a disputed fact!
Whether it be the Clinton Administration, or the Bush Administration, they have to just come to terms with the fact that we got sucker-punched by the enemy, and that we must keep vigilant to prevent this from ever happening again.
That's true, and not being disputed. But it does a disservice to present something where we've got bin Laden surrounded(!?!!) and Sandy Berger just says, "Well, heck with that sh*t. I'm going fishing." I mean, COME on. Hammer the Clintons all you want on this, but don't make up bald-faced lies.

So, yes, whoop. There were incidents like this during both Democrat administrations and Republican adminstrations. Only difference seems to be that we're not allowed to discuss the ones that occur on a Democrat's watch.
Two things.
1. I remember a lot of conservatives going nutso about the Reagans miniseries that made stuff up out of whole cloth, which brings me to my second point...
2. The failures of the Clinton admin are out there. But they don't have to just make crap up entirely. That's what this is doing. Clinton didn't succeed in getting bin Laden. Agreed. But this "dramatization" doesn't have to hide behind "composites" that are actually "lies."

liberalism IS treason said...
Removed posts, uh? I guess you are not into free speech.

Idiot, you posted three times. I saw it earlier, and the site admin removed 2 of them.

But are you even aware that there are credible people who were also there in prominent positions, who agree with the way that the Clinton Administration's response to al Qaeda is depicted in "The Path to 9-11"? They say it's accurate. ABC believes that, aside from compressing time and combining characters into composite identities, the basic story of what went down is pretty much accurate.
What's "pretty" accurate? That they didn't do things perfectly? Definitely. That they had Bin Laden surrounded and opted against pulling the trigger? That's not "pretty accurate," that's called "a lie." Name these prominent people you're talking about, because here's mine: There are conservative authors/critics -- Bill Bennett, Richard Miniter, and Brent Bozell -- all saying that inaccuracies should be corrected. As they should be.

It's one thing to say Clinton made mistakes. He did. It's another to make up foolishness like this, present it as a dramataization of the 9/11 Commission report, and then say it can't be critized and they won't show it to anyone in the Clinton Administration -- and you're putting this out on the 5-year anniversary? You've got a 6-hour piece on the free airwaves that's potentially slanderous.

Composites are fine and wonderful if we're talking about "Primary Colors" or "Syriana." Nobody in there has real names.
I do have a question for you "constitution-loving" libs though, and that is, how do you defend this outright attack on our 1st Amendment rights???
So anyone should be allowed to say anything they want, and I can't protest it? So you can put out lies out there and hide behind free speech? Everyone has a freedome of speech, indeed -- but that doesn't mean you don't subject yourself to a response to that, such as free speech condemning you, or a boycott of your products based on that free speech.

You should also consider the effect that ABC caving, if it does, might have on rallying conservatives at election time. Trust me, it's not wise to threaten a conservative's right to free speech.
So you're admitting this is a conservative hit piece, then. Good. Glad that's cleared up.

3:36 PM  
Blogger David R. Mark said...

liberalism IS treason said...
Removed posts, uh? I guess you are not into free speech.

Can't handle the truth I guess...

>>>

The two posts were removed because you posted the same thing three times.

Just to clarify, I reserve the right to remove comments. I have three rules:

1) Repeated comments

2) Spam, or comments that are designed to advertise another website, but are unrelated to the original post.

3) Comments that are designed to be vulgar or lewd, and which are unrelated to the original post.

Carry on!

4:43 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

how do you defend this outright attack on our 1st Amendment rights??? Huh? Congress threatening ABC? You're all right with that? Yhello? Yhello?>>

Threaten is a very strong word, Trinity. Four Congressmen wrote a letter. If you don't think conservative politicians do the same on a daily basis, you're being silly.

The parallel to The Reagans is apt. The right-wing thought that docudrama was unfair and full of mischaracterizations, made-up dialogue, time compression of events, etc., and CBS pulled it from the air.

Path to 9/11 is the same, but it's the left that is offended.

The difference, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that The Reagans was based on a book, and Path to 9/11, the producers claim, is based on the 9/11 Commission Report.

And Trinity, the producers don't say that it's based on things the 9/11 Commission didn't know about.

4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trinity:
I earlier said:
"I meant above I take offense that Trinity attempts to equate something that historically really happened under the Regan administration with the dishonest fiction depicted in the 9-11 docudrama about the Clinton Administration."

Trinity, you responded with:

It would be helpful if you would give an example of what events you are talking about. If you're not specific, how can I respond? These generalities get us nowhere.

Anonymous says: I was talking about, Trinity your OWN earlier post. This should be obvious:

Trinity said:
"In defense of President Reagan, he did assemble his national security team in order to plan a retaliatory attack, but his Sec. of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, aborted the mission, something for which I think Reagan was wrong not to have handed him his head."

What I said, Trinity, was that you attempted to equate that real life scenerio in that post with the lies about Clinton in the ABC docudrama.
Do you get it now?

I hope JABBS will forgive me for being repetitive in order to respond to Trinity's comment.
However, from Trinity's most recent postings it becomes clear nothing short of a lobotomy would be able to remove the right-wing falsehoods about the Clinton Administration out of her brain so it's little use debating with her.

7:39 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

to all the repuks reading these post: If you believe only the Liberals do not want free speech then I suggest you do the following: Wear a T-shirt that says "George Bush is Jeff Gannon's Whore" or "George Bush is the worst and will be the worst President Ever" and then go walk in your nearest mall or airport.

Next, if you believe Clinton screwed up so badly because he knew exactly where OBL was and knew how to capture him but did nothing about it, then I want to know the answer to these questions.
1. If repuks are so brave, so smart, so knowledgeable about OBLs whereabouts since the Clinton staff briefed the incoming Bush staff, then why the hell did Bush not just go and capture OBL during the seven months between his swearing in and Sept 11,2001?? How long does it take to fly a few neo-cons to where-ever OBL was and just bring him back to the U.S.??
2. Clinton never had a military operation against OBL that you repuks have mentioned many times. Bush had one starting late in 2001 in Afghanistan with the sole purpose of capturing OBL. When he finally had OBL cornered in Tora Bora, Bush decided that at that moment Iraq ( who had un-tapped oil that we needed) was more of a threat than was OBL. So why with the greatest opportunity ( he had a military force and the support of many nations) to capture OBL did Bush go after the oil in Iraq?
3. If the capture of OBL is so easy, then why has'nt Bush done it in 5.5 years, especially since repuks think it is a cake-walk to do it and Clinton had, according to repuke accounts, two chances. If you really go and read "The 911 Commission Report", it debunked the idea that Clinton had an opportunity to capture OBL in Sudan, unless you believe in "beam me up Scotty". The second one is a made up theory that no one agrees to except repuks that want to deflect blame from the fear mongering Busheys. As I said above, If clinton knew where OBL was,then repuks had to know as well or Clinton is much smarter than all the busheys put together!!
4. If according to the "path to 911" most of the FBI and CIA had all of the information about OBL during Clinton's tenure and there was supposedly a wall that prohibited the passing of info from deparment to department and it has supposedly been torn down by the this repuke administration, then why is OBL still free? Now the FBI and CIA is learning from this repuke administration how to play the blame game.
5. Which is more important, to find the real honest truth about 911 or a biased liberal version or a biased repuke version? The "Path to 911" is a biased reluke version that does no good for our nation. Make it truthfull where facts are known and agreed to and take out the bold face lies. Otherwise, It will continiue to spread hate and un-coorperation. Just like the story of Ronald Reagan that was sent to paid cable, so should the "Path to 911".
6. Why do repuks pretend to have all the moral principals on their side in a political debate, but then go and support a presentaion that has high fictional content on a subject that affects all Americans?? Me think it is because repuks like to have wars ( but only fight using words, not action) and not get along with anybody that does not accept their failed policies.

11:37 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous says...
"I was talking about, Trinity your OWN earlier post. This should be obvious:

Trinity said:
"In defense of President Reagan, he did assemble his national security team in order to plan a retaliatory attack, but his Sec. of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, aborted the mission, something for which I think Reagan was wrong not to have handed him his head."

What I said, Trinity, was that you attempted to equate that real life scenerio in that post with the lies about Clinton in the ABC docudrama.
Do you get it now?


I think it is YOU who doesn't "get" it, Anonymous. This is what whoop said:

whoop4467 said...
"The cause of 911 started long before Clinton ( I would say about a few years after WWII). There are a lot of happennings that have influenced (embolden)the "terrorist" under Repuke and liberal administrations."


See? Whoop made a statement. I agreed with his statement, (because unlike yourself, I am a fair person) I agreed that things happened even during the Reagan years that contributed to the rise of Islamist extremists.

Of course, then the poor idiot went on to rant about a lot of utter nonsense, but at least I responded to the reasonable portion of his post, and even agreed with him on that one statement, which was a fact.

2:04 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"Threaten is a very strong word, Trinity. Four Congressmen wrote a letter. If you don't think conservative politicians do the same on a daily basis, you're being silly."


I'm being silly? Let's not parse words, cutiepie. We had enough of that in the Clinton Administration, when we had to debate the meaning of the word "is", and what being "alone" really meant.

Make no mistake. Those Democrat senators, with their references to ABC's "free broadcast license" and upholding "your responsibilities" and "free use of the public airwaves", and their demand that ABC cancel the miniseries, were absolutely threatening the network. I don't know what else you could call it, and still be accurate.

These are very heavy-handed bullying tactics used for the purpose of pressuring ABC to cancel the program, and for political reasons, too, which makes it even more outrageous and unacceptable. If you have an example of Republican members of the House or Senate doing something similiar, I'd like to see it please. Otherwise, don't make the claim.

Of course, looking on the bright side, I suspect one of the unintended consequences of their action will include getting the conservative base all fired up, which I suppose isn't a bad thing. ;)

2:33 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"The parallel to The Reagans is apt. The right-wing thought that docudrama was unfair and full of mischaracterizations, made-up dialogue, time compression of events, etc., and CBS pulled it from the air.

Path to 9/11 is the same, but it's the left that is offended.."


Personally, I don't care who is offended, cutiepie. The example you gave is NOT analogous. There's a huge difference between a network making the commercial decision to pull a program because of pressure brought to bear by their viewership, and quite another to have Senators in their official capacity, putting pressure on them to cancel. Please don't even suggest that's the same thing.

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"The difference, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that The Reagans was based on a book, and Path to 9/11, the producers claim, is based on the 9/11 Commission Report."


I believe the producers have said that "The Path to 9/11" is based upon information from either the 9/11 Commission Report or the books, "The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It", (co-written by the former ABC News correspondent John Miller) and "Relentless Pursuit", (by Samuel Katz) as well as what was described as "an incredible amount of research materials and [access to] high-level advisors from the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Diplomatic Security, etc." So, no, it doesn't appear that the 9/11 Commission Report was the only source used for this miniseries.

3:13 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"So you're admitting this is a conservative hit piece, then. Good. Glad that's cleared up."


Don't be a jerk, Dave. At least, do try not to be.

What I said, and what I am saying is that conservatives, in fact, most people, do not like when people in government try to control the television networks. So please don't put your words in my mouth, Dave. It's not sanitary.

3:19 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"The 1993 WTC bombers were tracked down and jailed, if I'm not mistaken."


The thing is, cutiepie, that this sort of stuff is NOT a criminal problem, and treating it as such doesn't get to the root of the problem.

So we arrested a couple of individuals involved in the 1993 WTC bombing. Where was the followup? That did nothing to prevent other Islamo-facists from working on how to do it better the next time, and that should have been one of the lessons learned.

Just as an aside, it's my understanding that supporters of President Bush aren't going to be very happy with this miniseries either, because it also goes into the failings of his administration's early days.

Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with that. The idea is to point out all of the mistakes that were made, not to try to mask them. The reason that so much of the movie deals with Clinton's actions or inactions, is because there were 8 years of his administration pre-9/11, and only 8 months of President Bush's.

3:45 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"The idea that ABC would give advance copies to Limbaugh and others on the right, but deny Clinton and others access. That simply makes no sense -- from a p.r. or fairness point of view."


It makes a world of sense, cutiepie. Rush is considered a member of the media, and as such, he ALWAYS receives advance copies of movies and books to review. He's constantly mentioning he got a copy of this or that. So it's not some big right-wing conspiracy thing. I'm sure other media people on the Left of the political spectrum also got an advance copy. They always do.

Furthermore, neither is ABC some big right-wing network. You guys have got to get a grip. From what I've read, they are shocked that the miniseries is getting the reaction it has from the libs, since most of them are libs themselves, and they claim they had absolutely no agenda in making this film except to point out the mistakes that were made that led to 9-11.

And think for a moment. Why should Clinton have gotten a copy of the movie? Did President Bush get a copy? Think these things through logically, and try not to be so emotional.

4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Trinity is a paid hack for the RNC. Nobody can be that crazy, that argumentative, have that much time on her hands( when does she have time to be a gramdma to her kids?), spin so many ideas or replubican policies or have sold her soul to the un-american republican party, unless she is being paid? I love America much more than I love any political party. A very proud patriotic American.

6:37 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Trinity, "The Reagans" wasn't pulled because of complaints from the "viewership." It was pulled because of complaints from a wide array of conservative pundits, former Reagan administration officials, and other friends of the Reagan family.

In other words, a similar group to those that are pushing ABC to yank Path to 9/11.

I don't know if any Senators or Congressman wrote letters to CBS three years ago. But that's not the point. Certainly, there were government types -- past and present -- working the phones then, just as they are now. Whether they chose to call, write a letter, send an e-mail, etc., is hardly important to the overall debate of political pressure by members of a given party.

2:05 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

From what I've read, they are shocked that the miniseries is getting the reaction it has from the libs, since most of them are libs themselves, and they claim they had absolutely no agenda in making this film except to point out the mistakes that were made that led to 9-11.

How full of it are you? The director and screenwriter are movement conservatives, and he's a big ally of David Horowitz and Richard Mellon Scaife, a couple of right-wingers who hate President Clinton.

And you're still not addressing the concerns that we've all brought up here -- that there are things in here that are made up, out of whole cloth, that directly contradict the 9/11 Commission report when it's being advertised more or less as having Thomas Kean's seal of approval. There's plenty of blame to go around without having to make things up like saying we had bin Laden surrounded and the Clintons said "well, never mind." That's just nonsense.

dWhat I said, and what I am saying is that conservatives, in fact, most people, do not like when people in government try to control the television networks.
And most people also don't like it when TV networks choose to disseminate bald-faced lies. They do have a responsibility there. So don't be a jerk, either, Trinity.


So we arrested a couple of individuals involved in the 1993 WTC bombing. Where was the followup? That did nothing to prevent other Islamo-facists from working on how to do it better the next time, and that should have been one of the lessons learned.

This is your opinion, of course. But it's a fair one. That still doesn't excuse someone making things up out of nothing, when Clinton told the CIA to do everything they could to get bin Laden. Why is it with this event in our history would ABC put together such a blatant right-wing hit piece? Why need to do that? There's plenty of blame to go around, but to hire a couple of far-right conservatives to do this? Where's the responsibility? And that's why we're all upset, because it appears there was none. Stop ignoring facts that do not conform to your reality -- liberals did not get to see this piece as it was marketed to conservatives. And if you're doing such a thing like this, as a big corporation as ABC is, then yes, it's a bit of a respectful move to tell the people you're hammering, "Hey, we're doing this, what do you think?" To do otherwise suggests you're uncomfortable with the project your'e making.

9:59 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"What nonsense! Perhaps Trinity lacks the common knowledge that public officials in the public domain would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be sued in this context,"


So then chances are this letter that Clinton's attorneys sent to Iger is most likely simply for the purpose of intimidation.

Dear Bob,

Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of "The Path to 9/11," we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as "fiction" does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole.

At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, "The Path to 9/11" calls into question the accuracy of the Commission's report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission's actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public.

Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to "The Path to 9/11" are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production.

-- Your corporate partner, Scholastic, has disassociated itself from this proect.

-- 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, who served as co-executive producer on "The Path to 9/11," has stated that he raised concerns about the accuracy of several scenes in the film and that his concerns were not addressed during production.

-- Harvey Keitel, who plays the star role of FBI agent John O'Neill, told reporters yesterday that while the screenplay was presented to him as a fair treatment of historical events, he is upset that several scenes were simply invented for dramatic purposes.

-- Numerous Members of Congress, several 9/11 Commissioners and prominent historians have spoken out against this movie.

-- Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed.

As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. Lindsey
Chief Executive Officer
William J. Clinton Foundation

Douglas J. Band
Counselor to President Clinton
Office of William Jefferson Clinton

7:48 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Here are the unedited clips from "The Path to 9-11" for anyone who might be interested.

http://www.redstate.com/911clips

7:55 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Why even have a conversation here? He took copies. Copies! Not a disputed fact!"


Genius, if you read articles other than those found on left-wing blogs, you would know that Sandy Berger took multiple copies of one particular document. This, from Byron York's coverage of the THEFT.

But it appears that some of the evidence in the case casts doubt on Berger's explanation. First, Berger has reportedly conceded that he knowingly hid his handwritten notes in his jacket and pants in order to sneak them out of the Archives. Any notes made from classified material have to be cleared before they can be removed from the Archives — a common method of safeguarding classified information — and Berger's admission that he hid the notes in his clothing is a clear sign of intent to conceal his actions.

Second, although Berger said he reviewed thousands of pages, he apparently homed in on a single document: the so-called "after-action report" on the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium plot of 1999/2000. Berger is said to have taken multiple copies of the same paper. He is also said to have taken those copies on at least two different days. There have been no reports that he took any other documents, which suggests that his choice of papers was quite specific, and not the result of simple carelessness.

Third, it appears that Berger's "inadvertent" actions clearly aroused the suspicion of the professional staff at the Archives. Staff members there are said to have seen Berger concealing the papers; they became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And sure enough, Berger took some more. Those witnesses went to their superiors, who ultimately went to the Justice Department. (There was no surveillance camera in the room in which Berger worked with the documents, meaning there is no videotape record of the incidents.)

The documents Berger took — each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages — were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the "code word" level, which is the government's highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.


http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407210837.asp

Dude, he surreptitiously stuffed these documents down his PANTS. He stuffed notes in his SOCKS. But he was only being "sloppy" you know. Man, the denial that some of you people are in is positively psychotic. You scare me.

What bothers me even more than Berger stealing these documents, is the Bush Department of Justice letting him off so easily when they had him dead to rights. Now that enrages me. I just don't get why they would do that.

1:38 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Dude, he surreptitiously stuffed these documents down his PANTS. He stuffed notes in his SOCKS.

And you need to read more than your biased sources. In his socks? That's been exposed as a canard for ages. Give me a break. It's not worth debating with you, Trinity, because you're a million years from reality.

11:09 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"I think Trinity is a paid hack for the RNC. Nobody can be that crazy, that argumentative, have that much time on her hands( when does she have time to be a gramdma to her kids?)"


ROTFLMAO! Listen to yourself! You know nothing about me, my schedule, or how much time I spend with my grandkids, yet you are prick enough to take a personal shot at me like that! You, "sir", are a typical left-wingnut lib. Nasty and brazen as the day is long. Hot stuff! lol

12:52 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"And you need to read more than your biased sources. In his socks? That's been exposed as a canard for ages. Give me a break. It's not worth debating with you, Trinity, because you're a million years from reality."


Stop right there, Dave G. because you have to know that you sound like an complete imbecile! Again, you libs have got to LISTEN to yourselves when you spout your inanities.

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that the witness from the National Archives who mentioned the "socks" part was mistaken. Is your IQ so tremendously deficient that you cannot understand that this is just one small insignificant detail, and it doesn't even matter if he only stuffed secret documents down his pants and inside his jacket and briefcase, and didn't cram his notes inside his socks? Does that change anything at all??? MORON!

Are you at all familiar with any of the details of what Sandy Berger actually did?? Did you even read the story I linked to? Here, read just this one paragraph, so you can at least understand just how big and bulky these top secret documents that Berger "inadvertently" took from the archives actually were:

"The documents Berger took — each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages — were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the "code word" level, which is the government's highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.

Once again. Another typical lib, ignoring the real substance of an issue because he's hung up on a trivial detail that doesn't change the fact that Sandy Berger committed, and finally had to confess to, a serious crime.

1:15 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Byron York is a partisan writer. You wouldn't want Dave G. quoting from Randi Rhodes -- you wouldn't trust it.

Find a mainstream, non-partisna source on Berger, and then maybe we can have a meeting of the minds.

2:32 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Forget it, trinity. You're so far gone, it's not worth it anymore. You've been yammering about the socks thing, again and again, over and over, and I called you on it, and now you're saying it doesn't matter because he confessed, which I've already agreed to as well. (And the part about "stuffing into his pants" is another canard, as well. Do you comprehend this?)

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that the witness from the National Archives who mentioned the "socks" part was mistaken.
What witness? This was anonymous sourcing that wasn't on the record. Do you comprehend this?

And yet you still continue to miss the real issue, was that this mock-u-drama made up stuff out of whole cloth, when there were plenty of things to hammer the Clinton people on. Period.

But I'm done with you -- especially when you've stooped to just a bunch of name-calling. Another typical conservative, who believes that they and they alone hold the keys to truth in the world, and everyone who doesn't agree is on some level subhuman.

2:38 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Find a mainstream, non-partisna source on Berger, and then maybe we can have a meeting of the minds.
They don't exist to Trinity. The Washington Post is probably to her run by a bunch of "treasonous liberals," or some such nonsense. No, only FoxNews and the National Review and Newsmax will do. Enjoy!

2:39 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"Byron York is a partisan writer. You wouldn't want Dave G. quoting from Randi Rhodes -- you wouldn't trust it."


Are you saying that nobody here ever references articles from left-leaning partisan writers, cutiepie? Or are you saying there is no such animal? ;) Besides, Byron York, although conservative, is certainly not a hack.

Why won't anyone just point out exactly what it is in this article that you are disputing? Let's deal with the substance of what York wrote, rather than attempting to marginalize the man.

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"Find a mainstream, non-partisna source on Berger, and then maybe we can have a meeting of the minds."


Will CNN do? Jeeesh!

Sandy Berger fined $50,000 for taking documents
Must perform 100 hours of community service

Thursday, September 8, 2005; Posted: 5:16 p.m. EDT (21:16 GMT)

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, leaving federal court Thursday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was sentenced Thursday to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

5:42 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G said...
"But I'm done with you"


OH NO! (gasp) I weep! :(

5:46 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares