Nobody’s seen it yet, but the reviews are in: “The Path to 9/11″ — which airs beginning tonight on ABC and purports to chronicle actions by the Clinton administration in the months before the attacks — really, really stinks.
Just ask former members of the Clinton administration. Nearly all of them have weighed in demanding that ABC either correct factual errors in the film, or pull it entirely.
While they’re probably overstating the significance of a made-for-TV movie — by the same network that gave us “Charlie’s Angels” — I feel their pain. There’s something fundamentally wrong with the whole concept of “docudrama,” where real events are exaggerated, condensed or omitted for dramatic effect, and fake events can take on the stature of historical fact. It also kind of bothers me when living, well-known people are played by other people who are a lot better looking.
Regardless of how you remember the Clinton years, a cheesy TV movie is probably not the best path to understanding history.
Posted by Dave Knadler
170 Comments
Hmmmm, you start your article with the statement, “Nobody’s seen it yet, but the reviews are in.” What? Hey, I grew up there in Wichita, so I know you guys are smarter than this…
I moved to L.A. in my teens and ended up in the entertainment industry…and work with some of the people involved in Path…saw a screening of it…please watch it and then comment.
At the tender age of 12 I would get up and deliver the Eagle/Beacon - those times are what helped prepare me for my profession today.
Thanks for reaching me over the internet still, but please use your journalistic expertise and check the facts. How can the reviews be in if nobody has seen it?
The same person who hounded Clinton throughout his Presidency, Richard Scaife, is the same one who bankrolled this film. Consultants from the FBI who worked on this film resigned in disgust over the blatent lies promoted in the film and the unwillingness to remove them in favor of honesty. Yet another example of the corporate owned “liberal media” at work.
I’ve no interest in this Disney shillbush piece. The only show I watch on Disney/ABC was “Lost” Well I can forgo that. That leaves me with no viewership of ABC. Buhbye ABC!
Oh and “Eye” I’m gonna call you a liar. The Eagle has not been delivered by “paperboys” in more than 30 years. I doubt you ever delivered it.
It sounds like this TV movie will rank up right there with The BTK movie. Alot of hype and nothing else.
Dave you are interjecting logic into the conversation, in a world where logic has no place.Of course this miniseries is spin, to go that far to the right is meant to leave an impression That was the meaning of changing from the reality of what happen before 9-11. As I mentioned before, a terrorists group planned and executed an attack on the United States. By hijacking four large aircraft, with the intent of flying them into famous buildings and killing thousands. Three plane reached there target while the forth was stopped by the heroics of the passengers and the plane went down within about twenty minutes of its target.In spite of the efforts to confront this plan… HOW MUCH MORE DRAMATIC COULD THAT BE?This is to be a look back from the main event, with the knowledge that the outcome is the death of close to three thousand human lives. Any and all efforts to confront the threat proved futile, so the viewers already knows that the best and worst efforts did not work. Why then is there a need to dramatize those efforts?
This miniseries is for those that have never read a paper, watched the news or listen when someone else was talking. They will use it to form their opinion of what lead to the attack on 9-11, yes that does not make a lot of sense. But that is the world we call home and the species we belong to. This movie will be used as ammunition in future debates between the extreme left and extreme right. many will listen to a leftist or rightist commentator on this movie rather then form their own opinion of the content or meaning of what is shown.
It is easy to see why those that in real life actually made these decisions and whom actions are to be judge would want to be pro-traded fairly and accurately. They would know that many will use this miniseries as a main source for what happened. To give some credence to the charge that this movie is spin to the right, if it would be based on the real events. Where is the outcry from the right? I mean it would be pretty damning for G.W. Bush to be pro-traded as a President that cut funding for anti-terrorism and disbanded the task force set up to combat terrorism. Right about the time that the plan for 9-11 was about to become a reality.But there is none, only the finger pointing about how the Democrats want to stop free speech and mislead the public.
“Oh and “Eye” I’m gonna call you a liar. The Eagle has not been delivered by “paperboys” in more than 30 years. I doubt you ever delivered it.”
Posted by: J R | September 10, 2006 at 02:00 AM
HOW DO I GET MY WICHITA EAGLE EACH MORNING?
A paperboy is the general name for a person employed by a newspaper, a news agent or even an official postal service to deliver papers to the homes of subscribers, as assigned by streets and routes. Paperboys traditionally were and are still often portrayed on television and movies as a preteen boys, often on a bicycle.
I still call my paper deliverer a “Paperboy” even though it’s a middle aged man who drives a car. He still can’t hit my front porch, either!
The problem with this “docudrama” is what Dog says, many Americans (especially the ones that support Bush and the war)will take it as an accurate account of the events that lead to 9-11.Jerry Springer is still the number one TV show in this country, and that speaks volumes about the “dumbing down” of America.
Path to 9/11 is not the only inaccurate and misleading docudrama.The movie United 93 is described as “meticulously researched” and “based on fact”, but there is not any indication that the German passenger Christian Adams was indeed a coward and appeaser and tried to stop the American heroes from storming the cockpit as the movie shows. The Guardian’s film critic writes: “The film United 93 finds old Europe literally standing in the way of US derring-do. The only trouble is, it didn’t happen that way.”Perhaps you are interested in my take on this in the Atlantic Review: German 9/11 Victim Defamed in “United 93″ Movie:http://atlanticreview.org/archives/396-guide.htmlThanks.
This is starting to sound like another Farenheit 911…but another group (Democrats)is getting lambasted by half truths, lies, and make believe this time.
The same people who cheered Michael Moore’s fable are now condemming this one..and they are both “docudramas”, made up story lines with some historical references thrown in here and there for “validity”.
Amen raptor
Both seem to be pieces of fiction
I would assume no one criticizing the movie has seen it. They just heard from sources that it takes dramatic license with some events. Folks, it is an ABC TV mini-series. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that anything ABC would be slanted right.
I am pretty sure that I could go back to the Reagan movie thread and find the some of the same people alleging censorship and ridiculing concerns about accuracy.
In an election year, no one wants anything negative aired, accurate or not that they can intimidate their way out of. There is no truth like our version!
Folks, whenever liberals are engaged in a cover-up to rewrite history, we’d better be paying attention.
Its got to be a lot better than the Mike Moore movie or numbnut Gore’s BS flick
listen to these desperate repugs cry………….. WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
This mockudrama purports to be based on facts, in specific the 9-11 commision report. So why are there several important scenes where the movie contradicts the report? Why has one of the stars (Harvey Keitel) said that there were gross inaccuracies. Two FBI consultants have quit over the inaccuracies. But our resident right wing intellectually challenged dipshits will watch it and take everything as if it was the word of God. Hell it is better than that. It has the seal of approval of their masters, the GOP.
I have not researched a thing about the movie, but if it has the entire Clinton team and left wing here crying about it before it is even out, it must be hitting close to home.
So please tell me, what was it that the Clinton team was doing to stop terrorism while the World Trade Center was being attacked, embassies, and the Cole?
Nathan, in case you haven’t figured it out, 9-11 was on the watch of dubya. He knew it was coming and did NOTHING. You repugs can’t blame Clinton for everything forever.
K–
this latest work of fiction has as much “fact” in it as Michael Moore’s fable. Yet, people swore by that one, regardless of the proven inaccuracies.
Moral of story, you can’t trust a “docudrama” regardless of which side it supports/attacks.
If nothing else, this latest one can help put some perspective on Moore’s fairy tale.
The righties went hyper over “Wag the Dog”, what do you think their reaction will be to the ABC mini-series, Hell most of them think the fictious scene of the Administration refusing to capture Osama is true anyway.
Well Right Angle,
Eye invited me to see him delivering the Eagle (and he did say Beacon!) on his bike. I’m doubting that. I am 41 years old and when I was old enough to throw papers, the classical idea of a “paperboy” was already dead.
I see attacks here on Fahrenheit 911. Debunk anything in that documentary. Don’t post a link. Tell me what YOU personally saw in that accurate portrayal of events that was not accurate.Raptor I am disappointed in you. You don’t get to refer to “Moore’s fables” without presenting evidence to make your point.
I see the movie “The Reagans” mentioned here. Well folks that eye opener of a movie was quashed by folks on the right. They kept it from appearing as it was meant to on CBS. It later aired on an obscure cable outlet. Little wonder the right did that. That movie confirmed for me that I am correct to be ashamed of my vote for Reagan in 1984.
Let us remember that ABC is owned by Disney.
Let us remember that Disney tried to keep Fahrenheit 911 from being released. Micheal Moore was thus forced to seek independent screening of his important documentary.
A right wing agenda on the part of Disney? How is that a surprise?
Let us remember that one had to pay admission at a theatre to see Fahrenheit 911. The “Path to 911″ is foisted right into our living rooms. Any person careless enough to run on to it can be deluded by the lies it contains.
For my “friends” on the right. 40 % of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 911. That is demonstrably wrong. Do you care about the American public being informed accurately? Are you really so far gone politically that you must resort to mis information?
My understanding is this movie will try to place the blame for 911 on Bill Clinton and members of his administration. Well folks as much as I disliked Clinton, he was NOT in charge when those planes hit the towers five years ago tomorrow. george bush was your president. And while the first tower burned, while Americans died, he went on with his photo op in Floria reading a childrens book.
Nathan for your information while the WTC was being attacked Clinton WASN’T president. So what does it matter what he was doing? He tried to brief shrub and he and his dumbasses didn’t want to listen.
raptor I have never seen Moore’s movie. I have never even encouraged anyone to see it. Instead I encourage people to monitor several news sources (sans Faux). And just to clairify, since the Moore movie was left wing propaganda it is okay for the 9-11 “docudrama” to be?
“Nathan, in case you haven’t figured it out, 9-11 was on the watch of dubya. He knew it was coming and did NOTHING. You repugs can’t blame Clinton for everything forever.”
Posted by: Apophis | September 10, 2006 at 10:08 AM
I understand that Nathan was referring to the first attack in 1993.
God forbid that the clinton myth be tarnished. lmosrfao
Posted: September 8, 20063:33 p.m. Eastern
By Art Moore© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Buzz Patterson with President ClintonA former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series “The Path to 9/11″ came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.
In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson’s book “Dereliction of Duty” as a source for the drama.
Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of “The Path to 9/11″ to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.
Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it’s “100 percent factually correct,” he said.
“I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur,” Patterson declared.
The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11…..http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51898
V.L.R.B!!!
Absolutely not, k. I consider both of these fables to be Hollywood tales created to make money, without regard to truth.
When will people realize that greed, not fact, is the motivation for these ‘docudramas’, and if they can cause controversy, all the better, since it increases attention?
One pillories the right, one pillories the left, and people on BOTH sides swear the one they like is TRUE, and the one they don’t like is a “pack of lies”..
Neither of these pieces of propaganda are worth the time it would take to watch. But…they do create controversy which increases attention and translates into dollars.
RA……………..the issue is 9-11……..that clusterfuc* is all dubya’s.
Well Right Angle,
Eye invited me to see him delivering the Eagle (and he did say Beacon!)(YES BUT YOU SAID EAGLE)\on his bike. I’m doubting that. I am 41 years old and when I was old enough to throw papers, the classical idea of a “paperboy” was already dead.
AGAIN:
Nathan?
I believe the perpetrators of the 93 Trade Center bombing were caught and imprisoned by the Clinton administration.
Raptor?
Did you see Fahrenheit 911? Can you point out one thing that makes it a “fairy tale”?
Was it the grieving mother crying for her son that struck you as artistic license?
AGAIN: A paperboy is the general name for a person employed by a newspaper, a news agent or even an official postal service to deliver papers to the homes of subscribers, as assigned by streets and routes. Paperboys traditionally were and are still often portrayed on television and movies as a preteen boys, often on a bicycle.
Well in that case RA, perhaps he was getting settled in as POTUS? The first attack happened a little over a month after he took office. What did Bush 41 do to stop the attack? No, the attack was Clinton’s fault. When shrub takes office and the 9-11 attacks occur, almost 9 months later, it is still Clinton’s fault. You and the right wing rubber stamps could help make this country a much better place if you held your party to the same standards as you hold Democrats.
“Eye” can defend himself or try to his claim he was a “paperboy”. I’ll not furhter argue semantics over a one hit poster.
Raptor? Your show that Fahrenheit 911 was inaccurate in some way? I’m waiting.
Okay, it’s not about logic and argument, folks.
It’s about power. ABC got a big conservative to fund this project commercial-free. Doug says it’s Scaife, and that would be consistent with Scaife’s involvement to destroy Clinton. I haven’t heard who funded it.
The difference between F9-11 and this miniseries is that the former was a MOVIE and this is going out over the public airwaves. They may both be propaganda, but you had to drive in your car and pay money to see Moore’s MOVIE, and all you have to do to see this lying trash is lie on your couch with a remote.
Big difference.
Now it’s our turn. Boycott ABC and everything associated with it.
Make them pay. Make them suffer. Hit them where it hurts: BELOW THE MONEY BELT.
JR..You make my point for me. You believe in Michael Moore and castigate the television story. There are no absolutes, but you want to paint one as sacred and one as false.
Ok..one example. Moore pilloried Bush for “relaxing” at Camp David instead of continually working on a terroristic response. The very brief shot showed him sitting at Camp David..with the Prime Minister of England. Yep..goofing off with another head of state. Yep. Yep. I goof off with the President of Mexico when I want to relax…
Ok, there is your one, JR. You have entirely missed my point. That BOTH these hollywood stories are created for profit..and facts become secondary.
BTW, “Eye” is obviously a lying fraud, and thanks for calling it JR.
“How can there be reviews if nobody’s seen it,” says this knowlegable Hollywood insider.
It’s called advance screenings, you dumbass. It’s routine in the industry. Sheesh, if you’re going to lie, at least do it well . . .
My earlier point made better by you Capn.
COMMERCIAL FREE
Think on that folks.
What does that say to you?
How much ad revenue is ABC forgoing or, more likely, being compensated for under the table for 5 hours of prime time in the early fall?Follow the money.
I’m gonna miss “Lost” and “American Inventor”. They cancelled “Invasion”.
Buhbye ABC if you air this movie.
JR..
Read the facts for yourself. I am NOT saying this garbage justifies the current television show which takes just as many things out of context or flat out invents things. I maintain they are BOTH garbage.
http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/
I guess it’s fine for Oliver Stone to make movies that omits facts and dramticize events in his new movie “World Trade Center”. Or the moive “United 93″, which Democrats cried it was too soon to show it.
Honestly! If this movie depicted the runup to 9/11 starting from the Bush Administration, you wouldn’t hear a peep from the Democrats.
The movie is an expression of free speech, and as I said before. I default to freedom and and I’m not trying to side against the Democrats for the sake that I oppose them politically on some issues, is that I cannot stand the tatics they are using to prevent Free Speech. But it isn’t surprising.
Personally, I’m not going to watch it because it comes on the same time that the premier of “The Wire” the season is on HBO. Since I’m an avid fan of “The Wire”, I’m going to skip watching “Path to 9/11″.
I’ll probablly watch it when it comes out on DVD. The uncut directors version.
Democrats - The party of “cut and edit”.
Raptor
You are TRYING to be objective. Let me help you with that.
I had to go and pay to see Fahrenheit 911. There was some concern if I could even do THAT since Disney tried to keep it from being released.
When I did get in my car and go PAY to see it, it was in a second class venue and available for a limited time and maybe only because I and others lobbied for it to be even shown here.
Tonight MILLIONS can sit comfortably and watch the movie Disney DOES want them to see. They can do so for free and without annoying distraction of commercials.
Starting to see the difference?
ken starr relentlessly stalked bill clinton for 8 years.now they say the clinton administration was distracted.so, i guess ken starr was responsible for 911?
condi rice thanks god she isn’t pinocchio…
“It’s hard to imagine that different kind of environment with Saddam Hussein in power and Iraq at the center of a nexus between terrorism and conflict,”
lol… ok, next
A Senate report released Friday disclosed that a CIA assessment in October 2005 said Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward” al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
Rice said Sunday she does not remember seeing that particular report.
really
She maintained “there were ties between Iraq and al-Qaida.
“We have not pursued the war on terror with the vigor that we should have because we’ve gotten bogged down in this civil war in Iraq. What we ought to be doing is going after Osama bin Laden full-scale,” Howard Dean said.
condi rice thanks god she isn’t pinocchio…
“It’s hard to imagine that different kind of environment with Saddam Hussein in power and Iraq at the center of a nexus between terrorism and conflict,”
lol… ok, next
A Senate report released Friday disclosed that a CIA assessment in October 2005 said Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward” al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
Rice said Sunday she does not remember seeing that particular report.
really
She maintained “there were ties between Iraq and al-Qaida.
“We have not pursued the war on terror with the vigor that we should have because we’ve gotten bogged down in this civil war in Iraq. What we ought to be doing is going after Osama bin Laden full-scale,” Howard Dean said.
Here’s a real Path to 9/11 documentary that is worth watching and is completely factual:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/10/911-press-for-truth/
Appealing again to raptor JB and the more open minded.
Fahrenheit 911 was released around June 2004. Again it was released against the considerable opposition of ….DISNEY.
Was it meant to affect the election of 2004? OF COURSE! Michael Moore said so. Hey how about an informed public?
THIS movie is being released to COINCIDE with a milestone 5 year anniversary of the event itself. The attempt is CLEARLY to play to the attendant emotions as we again relive that day on ALL of the news venues.
When you GO to see a movie, you CHOOSE to do so. You see it from start to finish if you choose to stay or you don’t drink too much soda and get called away by nature!
This movie is on TV. Folks can wander in on the middle without any previous context other than the event being relived on all the other media.
And besides Disney, who is it that is screaming the loudest that this movie be shown?
Rush, Hannity, all that crowd.
Tell me there is not an agenda here.
Never have I seen so much elephant s**t on one post. It came crawling out of the jungle, found something it could sink its tusks into, and started defacating in unison. The EPA needs to turn this into a superfund site. Think of the methane being produced, enough to run an entire fleet of mommy suvs. But to actually capture and use it would require an effort the elephants could never hope to produce.
Kinda reminds one of the elephant controlled country right now, doesn’t it: Too much s**t and not enough to clean it up (unless, of course, you hail from a certain country down south}.
Let me guess Doug! They won’t mention the Clinton Administration, not once.
And watching the preview, they are accusing Pakistan of attacking the WTC.
Claim: These are buildings that were deliberately blown up, a false flag terrorist operation, with a number of precedents in recent American history.
False!
Fact: There is no precedent of even one American civilian being killed in a false flag terrorist operation by the U.S. government. See the annotated transcript for discussion of Operations Northwoods.Claim: We have the Patriot Act’s mirror in Canada, England, Australia, and they’re relabeling all dissent against government or corporate power as “terrorists”
False!Fact: The sweeping phrase “all dissent” is clumsily hyperbolic propoganda.Claim: The Rendon Group has been paid $50 to $100 million since 9/11 to sell the war on terrorism to the American people.
Inaccurate!Fact: The Rendon Group’s focus has been on Iraq’s liberation, not 9/11 or the war on al Qaeda. The Rolling Stone article’s author later had to admit he “never claimed the Rendon Group deliberately disseminated false information”.
Claim: 90% of the soldiers are convinced that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.
Inaccurate!Fact: The Zogby poll said 85%, but it apparently had a serious methodological problem, described below.Claim: [The conspirators] had access to those buildings through Marvin Bush, who happened to be on the board of Securacom. He was President and CEO of a Kuwaiti -US joint venture that had responsibility for security at the World Trade Center
False!Fact: Bush was never President or CEO of Kuwam, and left the Securacom board in 2000. Securacom lost the WTC security contract before 1998.Claim: Osama bin Laden issued a letter saying that he was not involved with 9/11.
Misleading!Fact: No longer needing to protect their Taliban hosts after 2001, bin Laden and al Qaeda have since admitted or implied responsibility for 9/11 at least ten times.Claim: al Qaeda is definitely a creation of our CIA and Saudi Arabia.
False!Fact: Experts and primary sources overwhelmingly disagree with this. They worked with “Afghan arabs” in the 1980s and not specifically bin Laden or al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was formed in 1988 to expand jihad beyond Afghanistan, contrary to the interests of the CIA and Saudi Arabia.Claim: [Osama bin Laden] is the youngest brother of the guy who gave [President Bush] $2 million for his first oil well.
False!Fact: They were thinking of the $50,000 that Bush air national guard buddy James Bath invested in Arbusto in 1979. Bath at the time was a trustee for Salem bin Laden. Some claim that Bath was merely a front man, but there is no documentation for their speculation about this modest $50K investment.Claim: $100,000 was wired to Mohammed Atta on the orders of the head of Pakistani ISI.Unsubstantiated!Fact: This widespread claim traces back to two unsourced Indian press reports about an Indian intelligence claim that cell phone records show pro-Taliban Gen. Ahmed to have been in contact with al Qaeda paymaster Omar Saeed. Ahmed was dismissed as Pakistan aligned against the Taliban after 9/11, and there is no evidence that Saeed received (or would need) any orders from Ahmed to continue financing the operation.Claim: The official commission says in their document: who financed the attacks of Sept 11 is of little or no importance.
False!Fact: The Report says the precise mix of sources of al Qaeda’s $30M/yr of donations is “ultimately of little practical significance”, and it’s a blatant distortion to claim the Report is instead saying this about the 9/11 plot’s $250K/yr financing, which the Report analyzes in detail.Claim: Steven Jones, who’s a fully tenured professor of physics at Brigham Young University, has written a peer-review paper that has not been challenged.
False!Fact: The Jones paper has not been published in any pre-existing peer-reviewed journal, but instead in a 9/11 book from “Olive Branch Press”. The paper has been extensively challenged, and repudiated by Jones’ BYU colleagues.Claim: the people that covered this up lied about the construction as they said there was no core to the [WTC towers] building.
False!Fact: The “lie” is in a footnote explaining the layout of the available exits at the beginning of a chapter about evacuation and rescue efforts. The footnote says: “The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped.” This is an absolutely accurate way to characterize the layout of the available exits. WTC’s steel core is not ignored by the detailed FEMA and NIST studies of the tower collapses. NIST even cites the delayed collapse of the lower portions of the core as evidence against controlled demolition.Claim: This is simple Newtonian physics, people. To turn that concrete into dust needs energy. There was not enough gravitational energy.
False!Fact: It’s flatly false to claim that one can balance the energy budget of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses using just Newtonian kinematics and dynamics. You also need sophisticated models to estimate the use of energy to pulverize concrete and other materials, eject debris, heat debris, deform steel and other materials, damage the WTC substructure and neighboring structures, etc.
Claim: there was molten steel at the 7th subfloor, they discovered a week after the event.Unsubstantiated!Fact: Urban legends about “molten steel” in the WTC debris have been debunked.
Claim: The Project For A New American Century had already laid out that they needed: a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.Distortion!Fact: PNAC did not say a new Pearl Harbor is “needed” or in any way desired. PNAC said “the prime directive for transformation will be to design and deploy a global missile defense system”. It mentioned China more often than it mentioned Iraq. It mentioned ballistic missiles 30 times, and mentioned terrorism only twice. It said “”the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ‚Äì like a new Pearl Harbor”. It’s simply illiterate to say that PNAC white paper had “already laid out” the idea that knife-wielding suicidal pilots were America’s paradigmatic new defense problem.
Claim: [America] incinerated 100,000 innocents in Hiroshima, and then did it again three days later in Nagasaki.Exaggeration!Fact: Immediate fatalities at each of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about 70,000, and many tens of thousands of them worked either for the military or in wartime industries.Claim: scholarsfor911truth.org [are] people who have degrees in physics and mechanical engineering and they have written peer-review papers and so these people, they’re doing the science on this.
Distortion!Fact: All of the “peer-reviewed” papers on scholarsfor911truth.org were published in forums created explicitly for “9/11 studies”. They include only three PhD authors with a record of publications in engineering or mathematics or physical science. One of the three actually supports the NIST collapse analsysis, and the second’s only paper consists only of three pages calculating the speed of the WTC 7 collapse. The rest of these “peer-reviewed” scholars are all either in “soft” disciplines like theology or philosophy, or are not even published academics.Claim: You [Holtz] strike me as an apologist for the government. You have not voiced any skepticism about the official story.
False!Fact: At 27 minutes into the show, I said that the so-called “war on terror” is “phony”, and disagreed with Bush’s story that al Qaeda “hates freedom”, and said that I agree with al Qaeda instead of Bush in their competing theories of why 9/11 happened. I also had already told Forte in email that I believe the 9/11 Report turns a blind eye to Bush and Cheney apparently lying about whether the shootdown rules of engagement first originated with Bush.—–
Joe is as usual, incoherent.
Sandy Burger is one of the people publicly demanding that this “Path to 9-11″ docudrama be pulled.True to form, since Burger also hid National Archives documents in his pants to keep that information from the American public as well.
From NATHAN”I have not researched a thing about the movie, but if it has the entire Clinton team and left wing here crying about it before it is even out, it must be hitting close to home.
So please tell me, what was it that the Clinton team was doing to stop terrorism while the World Trade Center was being attacked, embassies, and the Cole?”———————————
- On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners intended, bring down the towers — that was finally accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001.
Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.
-# On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.
-On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.
On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.
- On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London
- On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.
(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton’s term of office three months later.)
-In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
From Nathan
So please tell me, what was it that the Clinton team was doing to stop terrorism while the World Trade Center was being attacked, embassies, and the Cole?”————————————
Washington — The counter-terrorism measures signed into law by President Clinton October 9 constitute a broad-based strategy ranging from increased security at federal buildings to tighter scrutiny of aircraft cargo.
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNTERTERRORISM PROPOSALTOTAL: $1.097 BILLION (Gore Commission, $429.4 Million)
-SCREEN CHECKED BAGGAGE: $91.1 MILLION (APPROVED)
-SCREEN CARRY-ON BAGGAGE: $37.8 MILLION (APPROVED)
-CANINE TEAMS: $8.9 MILLION (APPROVED)
-AUGMENT FAA SECURITY RESEARCH: $20 MILLION (APPROVED)
-SECURITY WORKFORCE: $18 MILLION (APPROVED)
-VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS: $5.5 MILLION (APPROVED)
-PASSENGER PROFILING: $10 MILLION (APPROVED)
-SCREENER TRAINING: $5.3 MILLION (APPROVED)
-SCREEN PASSENGERS (PORTALS) AND DOCUMENT SCANNERS: $1 MILLION (APPROVED)
-ANTI-TERRORISM ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS: $2 MILLION (APPROVED AS EARMARK OF EXISTING FUNDS)
-DEPLOYING EXISTING TECHNOLOGY TO INSPECT INTERNATIONAL AIR CARGO: $31.4 MILLION (APPROVED, BUT NEED ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO MAXIMIZE EFFECTIVENESS)
-PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AIR/COUNTERTERRORISM SECURITY: $26.6 MILLION (APPROVED, BUT NEED ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO MAXIMIZE EFFECTIVENESS)
-TAGGANTS STUDY: $21.3 MILLION (APPROVED)
-EXPLOSIVES DETECTION TRAINING: $1.8 MILLION (APPROVED)
-ETC ETC
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_fact_sheet_10_96.html
This is why we leftist fear right-wing lies so much.
The Paul Rosell’s of the world won’t let them die.
Sandy Berger DID NOT STUFF DOCUMENTS DOWN HIS PANTS. He put notes that he had made in his pants pockets. He accidentally put COPIES (NOT ORIGINALS) of classified documents into a portfolio he was carrying.
*****
“But rumors and confusion abound in media coverage:
“Media confuses originals and copies. As the story unfolded between July 20 and July 22, conservative pundits have run with speculation that Berger removed original classified documents, rather than copies, from the archive and then destroyed them as part of a cover-up. But there is no evidence to support this accusation; in fact, according to The Washington Post, “The documents removed were copies; the National Archives retained the originals.”
Media propounds rumor that Berger placed documents in his socks and pants. It was reported — notably by CNN — that Berger put the classified documents into his pants and/or his socks — allegations that Breuer has said are “false” and “ridiculous” and for which there is no on-the-record substantiation.”http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230001
*****
Kathleen Parker, syndicated idiot, repeated this lie in TODAY’S op ed page, and of course THE EAGLE didn’t bother to check it out . . .
If you repeat a lie often enough, like “Path to 9-11″ is going to do tonight, a lot of misinformed people are going to believe it.
Thanks, Gary, but the Nathans and the Paul Rosells of this world already have their minds made up.
You can’t sway them with facts.
That’s why we have to organize for power and shut them down with political force.
Good post though.
Thanks, Gary, but the Nathans and the Paul Rosells of this world already have their minds made up.
You can’t sway them with facts.
That’s why we have to organize for power and shut them down with political force.
Good post though.
GaryWe did warn Pakestan, prior to the launch of missles on Bin Lauden. This was a decision that makes sense, but was poorly timed. Madeline Albright gave the warning too soon, allowing radicals in the Pakistani govt to warn Bin Laden.We ended up bombing vacant tents.
GaryWe did warn Pakistan, prior to the launch of missles on Bin Lauden. This was a decision that makes sense, but was poorly timed. Madeline Albright gave the warning too soon, allowing radicals in the Pakistani govt to warn Bin Laden.We ended up bombing vacant tents.
That’s funny, Paul. Here’s what YOU and your Repuke pals were saying in 1998–
“But while the Republican leadership rallied to support the raids, some members of Congress reacted suspiciously, noting that the action followed by three days Clinton’s acknowledgment to the public and a grand jury of his relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky.”
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-us.html
“For my “friends” on the right. 40 % of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 911. That is demonstrably wrong. Do you care about the American public being informed accurately? Are you really so far gone politically that you must resort to mis information?”
JR: The average person could not tell you accurately from one month to another what event was an allegation and what was fact. That is why politicians speak with no regard to the truth. The truth doesn’t matter. Just the suggestion. An accumulation of suggestions equals opinion.
Such as it is with this thing. Whether events depicted are true or not, it infers some responsiblity (rightly so IMO, I might add) on parties other than the president. And just when the Democrats have the majority of the American people about convinced that it is all George Bush’s fault. Can’t have that out there. People might not forget before the election.
It is not about truth. It is about politics. It always is.
Paul, warning Pakistan about the missle attack when the missles were already in the air wasn’t too soon. That would have given anyone a couple of minutes to do anything. How far can someone go in a couple minutes?
Try not to lie in one of your posts for a change.
William Mellon Scaif. Now that is a name I hadn’t seen in a while. Now the whole thing makes sense; Scaife has spent millions tarring Clinton.
Capn”Organize for political power and shut them down with political force?”
My my, you do, at times, let your guard down and show your Stalinist side, don’t you?
You are an autocratic authoritarian at heart, a person who doesnt really believe in free speach at all.
Look at how the left is handeling this movie, compared to the way the right handeled Michael Moore and F-911.
I don’t recall anyone on the right trying to get Congressional goons to shut Moore down, or to shut down broadcasters who showed Moore’s film.
The free flow of ideas is what American is supposed to be all about.
Dick Morris knows Clinton better than anybody but Hillary. Morris says that Clinton didnt care much about terrorism. After the first WTC bombing, Clinton never contacted the families or visited the WTC.George Stephanopolous has said that, on the day after the first WTC bombing, it wasn’t something anyone was talking about anymore at the White House.
You want a film that is true to the white-washing “9-11 Commmission”
“They were at war with us, we were not at war with them” — This is what the Commission said. What, exactly, do those words mean?I think that “The Road to 9-11″ is trying to be true to that primary, factual finding of the 9-11 Commission.
Prior restraint is unamerican. Censorship is unamerican. What on Earth are you affraid of? Let the film run and then voice your criticisms later, that is how Democracy and Freedom work!
Capn I think it is more likely that the pauls and nathans keep holding on to their beliefs because if they pulled their heads out and looked at the facts it would destroy everything they believe in. They would realize how the neocons destroyed what this country stands for, they destroyed our credibility in the world and are in the process of dumbing down the rest of the population so they fall in lock step without question, like paul and nathan.
“”They were at war with us, we were not at war with them” — This is what the Commission said.”
Care to give a page number where the report says that Paul? Or is this just more of you playing make-believe?
I have to agree with Paul that prior restraint is unAmerican. However, exposing that piece of lying propaganda for what it is is VERY American.
According to a recent poll 38% os Americans STILL believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. That lie is very important; those are the same people who still support Bush.
I think most of these polls are silly, expecially how people here worship them like they are the gold standard.
The last I heard most Americans couldn’t even point to Iraq on a map, and here we are wondering why many of them believe something a certain way in a poll?
Then you will turn around and say that a poll shows that Americans want us out of Iraq…
Which is it, do we listen to the polls or don’t we? are the polls true or aren’t they?
“They were at war with us, we were not at war with them” was repeated many times as a finding of the 9-11 commission, or at least something that was said during the hearings.I will try to find it in official context, but several journalists, pundents and politicians have used the line, I sure as heck did not make it up.
Isn’t it telling??
Can’t EVERYONE see this?
The movie will start tonight. All DAY tomorrow we will re-hash 911. Then bush will speak then we get treated to part 2 of this hit piece.
This is the greatest instance of pure blatant propoganda I have witnessed in my lifetime!
There IS another side. I JUST heard about a film called “911 Pressed for Truth”
I intend to see IT.
Ask yourself something.If one party is guilty of negligence or even complicity in an event what is the FIRST course of action to avoid being caught?
Blame someone else.
Hence this movie tonight.
I am more curious than ever as to the role the forces behind bush may have played in 911.
All I can say is that if this movie is what the critics have said, ABC has lost it’s credibility. Many of us have depended on their news division for an impartial editing of the news of the day. I don’t think we can do that anymore. Corporate headquarters runs both the news and entertainment divisions, and this propagandizing taints both. I, for one, will no longer watch ABC.
JR,We do know that Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll at one time. Is he still, and is that the reason the CIA has been so unable to find a 7ft Saudi dragging a dialysis machine through Pakistan?
“pundents and politicians have used the line, I sure as heck did not make it up.”
Translation - a Rush dittohead talking point.
I got the name wrong.
From the website of the same name a brief explanation of “911 Press for Truth”.
The Story”We felt the country was at risk from terrorists and from incompetenceÖand maybe worse.” óLorie Van Auken, September 11th WidowFollowing the attacks of September 11th, a small group of grieving families waged a tenacious battle against those who sought to bury the truth about the eventóincluding, to their amazement, President Bush. In ‘9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH’, six of them, including three of the famous “Jersey Girls”, tell for the first time the powerful story of how they took on the greatest powers in Washingtonóand won!ócompelling an investigation, only to subsequently watch the 9/11 Commission fail in answering most of their questions.Adapting Paul Thompson’s definitive Complete 9/11 Timeline (published by HarperCollins as ‘The Terror Timeline’), the filmmakers collaborate with documentary veterans Globalvision (’WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception’, ‘Beyond JFK’) to stitch together rare overlooked news clips, buried stories, and government press conferences, revealing a pattern of official lies, deception and spin. As a result, a very different picture of 9/11 emerges, one that raises new and more pressing questions.What actions were taken by top government officials who received dozens of specific warnings before the attack? Was Osama Bin Laden and his top al Qaeda leadership allowed to escape U.S. forces in Afghanistan? And what has been the reason for the deliberate obscuring of evidence for state sponsorship? Perhaps the most important one of all: Why, five years later, are so many of the families’ questions still unanswered
This movie is available on dvd.
I issue this challenge.
As best around my activites this evening as I can, I will watch “Path to 911″.
I challenge those who champion “Path to 911″ to see “911 Press for Truth”.
We will see just who is more in pursuit of truth.
The polls are correct Nathan. 38% believe Saddam flew the planes; they support Bush and staying in. 62% know that Saddam dod NOT fly the planes. That majority no longer supports Bush or his war.
Two years ago it was about 50% who believed Saddam was behind 9/11.
You are correct that most people could not find Iraq (or Afghanistan or Lebanon etc) on a map.
If you believe that George Bush blew up the WTC you’re “open-minded” but if you watch this movie you’re suffering from a severe case of tunnel vision?
“I don’t recall anyone on the right trying to get Congressional goons to shut Moore down, or to shut down broadcasters who showed Moore’s film.”
Ever hear of the conservative group Citizens United? They filed a complaint to stop advertising for F9/11 using campaing finance laws. Didn’t work.
There were reported attempts to shut down theaters and threats to theater owners.
Christopher Hitchens did a hatchet job on Moore and the film. Not surprising. He’s an ass.
There was also a reported documentary entitled “Michael Moore Hates America” that was to be released. Not sure if it ever was. A bit extreme, don’t you think? Liberals have used letters, email and petitions, asking that The Path to 9/11 be toned down and adjusted for accuracy.
So, Paul, maybe YOU didn’t hear anything, but it was sure going on.
Good try. Maybe you should check out things before you make blatantly unsubstantiated remarks?
Journalist, my ass.
So basically what you’re saying is, both the leftists and the rightists tried to shut each other’s demented movies down essentially in an attempt to deny each other’s first ammendment rights!
Way to make a political maneuver (not to mention a profit) off of a national tragedy!
CAPTAIN AMERICA WEPT!!!
Will, I don’t know anyone who “believe that George Bush blew up the WTC”
Ben! Just ask your fellow butt licking Democrats here on this forum. JR, CaptAmerica(True Blue) and the rest. They believe it!
OK - consider it asked. How many people here “believe that George Bush blew up the WTC”?
We shall see Joe.
Meanwhile, how many of YOUR fellow butt licking Republicans believe that Saddam flew the planes? Or had WMDs after we quit supplying them to him? Or was allied with alQuada?
Throw out all incumbents!
Vote Greens Party and save the whales for Christ’s sake!!!
Ben! No Republicans on here. You won’t find them.
Yeah right dittihead Joe. I could DEFINITELY add your fellow butt licker Paul.
Ben,
I know you heard about Moore’s F-911, but have you ever heard of “Loose Change” or the sequel?
http://www.question911.com/
“9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!”Continues to chug Kool-Aid!
http://reopen911.org/
Leftist ideas on what the US government is REALLY up to!
1)A 757 did not Hit the Pentagon!:Read and see that it could not have been a 757, which is a 60 ton, 129 feet wide, 50 foot tall (from the bottom of the engines to the top of the tail) aircraft, that hit the Pentagon. Remember that the government terrorists’ arguments fall apart if any of the three attacks be carried out by airliners hijacked by Arabs. If any was not, then Cheney, et. al., are the terrorists.
2)Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter lied to set up the Incubator Babies Hoax to start the first Gulf War.
3)US Joint Chiefs Plan to Kill US Civilians to Start a WarRead this now de-classified document detailing the lengths our military leaders are willing to go (PDF document)… full story >>
4)People are Dying Because the White House, EPA, and Giuliani Lied! :
In order to “reopen Wall Street” the Bush administration censored crucial EPA and New York City Health Department warnings that the air after 9/11 was highly poisonous. The White House forced the EPA to say “The air is safe to breathe” at the World Trade Center. This has seriously injured the health of Manhattan workers and residents, is even killing some of the heroes who worked at “Ground Zero”… full story >>
5)Evangelical Christians are using the US military to propagate a holy war on the world!!!Presidential Pretender George Bush’s Inaugural Speech is Straight From The Bible, Revelations ! Bush invokes “God” 4 times and has 13 biblical references.”President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. ‘God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan’.” “And I did, and then God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq…’ And I did.
“At Church one day [Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader] listened as the pastor declared that ‘the war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse.’ DeLay rose to speak, not only to the congregation but to 225 Christian TV and radio stations. ‘Ladies and gentlemen,’ he said, ‘what has been spoken here tonight is the truth of God.’”
The Left is apparently too smart for America… Maybe that’s why Americans didn’t vote for their candidates? hmmm…
Ben, I know for a fact that Bush blew up the WTC. A friend of my cousin’s brother in law has an ex girlfriend who’s brother says that someone said they saw Bush lighting fuses or something.
Sarcasm off
I don’t see the big issue about a TV show. There’s no arguement here. It’s a First Amendment issue. They have a right to show what they please, as long as they don’t try to represent it as proven fact. Biased? Hell, that’s protected too. I’m on the same side I was for F9/11. Show it and let people make their own decision about it.
The law isn’t just for when we agree with the outcome.
Will - there are obviously the fringies who believe that Bush flew the planes or that demolition explosives brought down the towers. They are in the same camp IMO as those who believe we never went to the moon. However, the Rightie Butt-lickers like Joe and Paul try to say that Dems IN GENERAL balieve that garbage.
Other parts of what you posted have, in fact, been shown to be true. Notably the Kuwaiti baby-incubator hoax and Tom DeLay applauding the Apocolypse.
As for “why Americans didn’t vote for their candidates?” maybe it’s because you managed to convince them that Saddam flew the planes.
Joe?
You MIGHT wanna back down on your smart ass remarks. Paricularly if you are gonna include me in them. Otherwise I might invite you to say to my face what you post here.You might also wanna watch what you alledge here. I have no where posted that “bush blew up the World Trade Center”. To alledge that I did is libelous at most and at least shows that you are careless with your facts.There are any number of sides to a particular story. Tonight the entire nation is being subjected on uninterrupted commercial television to ONE OF THEM.I call that suspicious in itself.Does anyone think ABC will be airing “911 Press for Truth”? Somehow I doubt it.
IF they do not. And if others here do not avail themselves of ALL sides to this story, I must question their objectivity and credibility.
Sunday Night Football should be helped by the lame offering at ABC.
Actually, it’s too bad the REAL 9/11 program is getting lost in all the noise and smoke. The interesting thing about that one is that it began as a rather tame documentary on the day in the lives of some NYC firefighters.
And I say let them cuss all they want. It sure as hell doesn’t offend me when a hero lets of a little steam.
Why the big fight about the term paperboy in this blog?
No wonder we have a country filled with idiots.
George W. Bush got the Christian Right behind his insane war because he knew that the Christians would get off message with their gay marriage and abortion issues. Then George W. and his cronies could do whatever they wanted to do in foreign policy.
Which is why we are in the mess we are today and George W. has no exit strategy.
Fighting about the term paperboy just proves that the idiots are still at work fighting about some silly issue that is not even the real problem.
I’m glad to see that the guy hijacked my email address too.
I didn’t make the above statement.
Is there a way to protect my sign in name?
Well, Butt Licker Joe, still waiting for any substantiation to your bilious claim!
Oh no! I’m watching the 9/11 movie and its making me a Bush supporter! Help me Help me!
Well 2 hours in and not only is this thing BLATANTLY politically biased it also strains any claim to logic!
I’ll watch the rest. But this is the end of my viewership of any program on ABC.
BenYou owe me an apology. I did not make up the quote. It came from Condi Rice and it IS in the 9-11 report and part of the transcript:
The terrorist threat to our nation did not emerge on September 11, 2001. Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of al Qaeda and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the East Africa bombings of 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 — these and other atrocities were part of a sustained, systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to murder innocent Americans.
The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America’s response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient. Historically, democratic societies have been slow to react to gathering threats, tending instead to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous to ignore or until it is too late.
Despite the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 and continued German harassment of American shipping, the United States did not enter the First World War until two years later.
Despite Nazi Germany’s repeated violations of the Versailles treaty and provocations throughout the mid 1930s, the western democracies did not take action until 1939. The U.S. government did not act against the growing threat from imperial Japan until it became all too evident at Pearl Harbor. And tragically, for all the language of war spoken before September 11th, this country simply was not on war footing.
RICE: Since then, America has been at war and under President Bush’s leadership, we will remain at war until the terrorist threat to our nation has ended. The world has changed so much that it is hard remember what our lives were like before that day. But I do want to describe some of the actions that were taken by the administration prior to September 11th.
After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the Clinton administration on many national security issues during the transition. The president-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the al Qaeda network.
Members of Sandy Berger’s NSC staff briefed me, along with other members of the national security team, on counterterrorism and al Qaeda. This briefing lasted for about an hour, and it reviewed the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism approach and the various counterterrorism activities then under way.
Sandy and I personally discussed a variety of other topics, including North Korea, Iraq, the Middle East and the Balkans.
Because of these briefings, and because we had watched the rise of al Qaeda over many years, we understood that the network posed a serious threat to the United States. We wanted to ensure that there was no respite in the fight against al Qaeda.
On an operational level, therefore, we decided immediately to continue to pursue the Clinton administration’s covert action authority and other efforts to fight the network.
President Bush retained George Tenet as direction of central intelligence, and Louis Freeh remained the director of the FBI. And I took the unusual step of retaining Dick Clarke and the entire Clinton administration’s counterterrorism team on the NSC staff.
I knew Dick Clarke to be an expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager. Our goal was to ensure continuity of operations while we developed new policies.
At the beginning of the administration, President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of central intelligence almost every day in the Oval Office, meetings which I attended, along with the vice president and the chief of staff. At these meetings, the president received up-to-date intelligence and asked questions of his most senior intelligence officials.
From January 20th through September 10th, the president received at these daily meetings more than 40 briefing items on al Qaeda, and 13 of those were in response to questions he or his top advisers posed.
Another thing that Condi Rice said, but didnt rub in: Bush met regularly with his CIA and National Security staff.
Clinton went for months on end without even talking to his CIA director!
This is the entire Condi Rice testimony, before the 9-11 Commission. Her words have been quoted often, but 9-11 members and others.
http://www.nj.com/war/ledger/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/20040409_rice.html
RDIt is not censorship unless the government is involved.Read up on the law a little would you?Boycotts and protests are protected, the people can with hold support from any group or company they want to, at any time, for any reason or no reason.It is not the same thing as Congressional goons threatening the broadcast license of a TV station.It is not the same at all!
“I am determined to litter in the United States”Now where do you start to look to stop me?The only other attacks by jihadists was by bombs in cars, WTC in 93, the embassy bombings and the failed attack at LAX when the terrorist was stopped at the US, Canada border in 2000 and by bombs in a boat on the USS Cole. So tell me WHY would you think that the administration should have started looking at planes as the way OBL was going to strike in the US.We were not allowed to profile at the airports pre 911 the ACLU was sueing airports and airlines left and right whenever a middle eastern was stopped pre 911 and questioned. So, the airlines and airports had middle eastern males buying tickets one way, no luggage, paid with cash on 9-11. You should be asking WHY WERE THEY NOT STOPPED? WHY would the airlines and airports do that, could it be they didn’t want to be sued by Atta for stopping and checking him out?
Let folks like corporate shill Paul Rosell run the world and all you will see is what they want you to see. Like this corporate piece of trash I am watching tonight.
Will - there are obviously the fringies who believe that Bush flew the planes or that demolition explosives brought down the towers. They are in the same camp IMO as those who believe we never went to the moon.
I call it at least worthy of further investigation.
Consider the divisive “election” of 2000.
Consider that in the 8 months he served as president prior to 911, bush did nothing. Well almost nothing. He DID pander just a bit to his base. His only major speech and policy was to restrict stem cell research.
Consider that on Sept 10 2001 bush had an approval rating of 50 %. JUST the 50% or a little less that voted for him.
Consider that by Sept 14 2001 bush had an approval rating of more than 70%.
When he climbed atop the rubble pile 4 days late and AFTER former President Bill Clinton had already been there bush said “all those who did this are gonna hear from us”
Just where is Osama bin Laden mr. bush?
NOTHING unifies like a common threat. The greatest power a governent has in it’s war powers.
As we approach the anniversary of the tragedy of 911 we MUST look at who gained and who lost after that day.
As far as I know, only george bush and his administration gained from that day. How much and how many have others lost?An open American mind demands answers to these questions. Remember that george bush opposed the 911 commision. Remember too that his administration has seen the most accumulation of executive power in American history.
Was 911 the American “Reichstag fire”? I encourage all to research, read, learn and above all ask questions. Our status as citizens of the most powerful nation in the history of civilization demands no less.
Posted by: J R | September 09, 2006 at 01:55 AM
Ben,Does this mean JR is part of that “camp” that you speak of as well?
As for “why Americans didn’t vote for their candidates?” maybe it’s because you managed to convince them that Saddam flew the planes.
Suuuure Ben! 2001 yeah? Shit! I mean, what else is there for a then 17 year old kid to do but front the Republican party!? That’s what all the cool kids were doing, Pops!
JR,A little bitter tonight eh?
So Howard Dean says we need to go after OBL and kill him. OK and then…The way democrats go on about OBL you would think that the day after we capture or kill him ALL will be right with the world. We’ll be able to dissolve the NSA, Homeland Security, drop the Patriot Act, TSA, what do we need with the TSA. Everybody is welcome to come onboard with whatever they want.I would LOVE to see the Democrats plans. Go to the DNC website, go to your local democrat website. All you’ll get is Bush Bashing. No plan as to what they are going to do about terrorism.Why didn’t Clinton come up with the plan that would have fixed all of this the way the Democrats want?Why didn’t Clinton halt the sanctions against Saddam?Why didn’t Clinton pull all American troops out of the Middle East? (this was the big one for OBL)Why didn’t Clinton stop any and all support for Israel and abandon them?Why didn’t Clinton start immediate work on new fuels to get away from using oil?Why didn’t Clinton go in and stroke Iran begging them to like us?
These are alot of questions, any Democrats want to answer them? Probably not, they can’t even come up with answers or their plan for the future. All they can say is that Bush is wrong, THAT is why you should vote for us.
All they can say is that Bush is wrong, THAT is why you should vote for us.
Crikey! Now THAT is a GOP SHILL!!!
Anybody remember the dates when Hillary said that Saddam had WMD’s and was a serious problem for the US and the world? Was it 98 or 99?
Now you really don’t want to do dueling bonedigs do you CrusaderX/Will? You’ve earlier acknowledged and often that you are a “troubled young man” and so I have tried to encourage you to moderate yourself. I’ve no wish to add to your pain.
I remain very proud of that post you just dug up. Thank you for bringing it here.
In my words which you re-post, I say that no one gained from 911 except george bush. That is demonstrably true no matter whether bush was merely negligent or complicit and I posted proof of that. The numbers do not lie.
I called for folks to inform themselves on all aspects to this story. I have done so several times on this thread and others. If there is nothing to fear from open inquiry, why not inquire?
I invited specualtion. I made no allegation.
Great, Will has the answers.
Will, what is the plan that the Democrats have in regards to fighting terrorism. I heard Randi Rhodes the other day say that John Kerry lay out a plan step by step of what to do in Iraq on Hardball. Unfortuanatly I had to sit through 10 min and 43 sec. of John Kerry to hear him say that we need to withdraw our troops and put them over the horizon.What is the Democrats plan to fight terrorism? Thanks Will, I knew you’d have the answers, since Howard Dean doesn’t.
So, Paul, it was a Condi Rice talking point you were shilling. Not much different from a Rush talking point.
I still want to know why we attacked the enemies of alQuada on their behalf?
Gene is a weenie! You sir are a weenie! You are a shameless, unscrupulous charlatan! No doubt you are comfortable with your messiah in chief’s bullshit, so enamored with this president’s horrible track record that you willingly embrace another 4 years of GOP face fucking! Take this advice: First, you need to get off Dubya’s balls! Then you need to pull your hand outta Dubya’s pants and stop being the proverbial jerk-off that you are!
Save a whale: Vote Greens party
You are new here “Gene” Will is NO Dem!
I am going to make your stay here very uncomfortable Gene. Just ask Paul Rosell. Or…. are you him under another nic?
In any case.
First? Port SECURITY! This has been a part of the DEMOCRAT agenda since 911. It is a key provision in their platform and has been more than addressed by them in Congress.
george bush tried to sell the security of our ports to an Arabic nation!
Whatsay ya “Gene”? wanna dance? And I aint even close to the best here. You are going to be very busy!
I saw what ABC meant by time compression, about 30 seconds of air time between the Clinton Administration and the attack on the Twin Towers. Truly a hatchet job. No mention of a President or his Administration receiving the quizical memo “Bin Laden intent on attacking America”, or the Administration stating through Condi Rice, “The greatest threat to America is from rogue countries with nuclear weapons”
Is there any real men in Washington; or are they all cowards?
LOL!
You’ve earlier acknowledged and often that you are a “troubled young man” and so I have tried to encourage you to moderate yourself.
Oh no, Blog Sheriff JRs a comin ta git me! You’re such a liar!!! I never said that I am a “TROUBLED YOUNG MAN” What are ya gettin uppity about? I’m just pointin out that you endorse a conspiracy theory. So what!?
As to this piece of ABC entertainment…
I am supposed to believe that Northern Alliance leader Mussad REGULARLY had Osama bin Laden, his enemy, in EASY rifle shot and just needed American intelligence operatives to carry it out? Uh huh. Night 2 of this schlockfest should be REAL interesting.
GAWD! I can’t believe the butt licking Democrats were afraid of this film.
LOL! You guys are clowns!
Tell your kids they’re never going to Disney World. Because of a film and the Republican Conspiracy.
LOL!
What a joke!
This is one of the best made for TV movies I have watched.Interesting that the Clintonista’s are so afraid of a drama on TV. Funny that the party of free speech is so insistant on stopping this.hmmmmm
BenCondis comments are part of the 9-11 report.You just made my point for me, Ben, you use the 9-11 Commission testimony as the Bible when it suits you, you ignore the testimony you dont want to hear.
Yeah JR! I thought freedom of expression was the bare essential of what liberalism is all about? Yet here you guys are clamoring for government intervention!
Just pointing out an inconsistency man, no need to sic the posse on me!hehehe
Lucy you don’t see many made for TV movies then I take it.
Matt Drudge just called this a B grade off Toronto production. You all gotta get your signals organized!
Use of the word “Clintonistas” betrays you right off “Lucy” YOU were a Clinton hater.
I am NO fan of Bill Clinton. He was the best Republican president since Eisenhower though. And MAYBE he could have done his job better if people had not been hounding him about his personal life.
Maybe Clinton would have seemed credible if he just got his shit together and told the truth under oath instead of committing perjury!
So how many of the right wing fruits do you think paid attention to the disclaimer at the end about some parts being fictions? NONE!!! Every one of them probably took the MOVIE as the absolute truth as dictated by allahbush himself.
I “sicced” no one on you Will. You are an unknown quantity.
I never complained that this film should not be shown. I just questioned the timing,agenda, and content. I DID speculate that it would not be shown because doing so without HEAVY disclaimers would destroy ABC’s credibility. I think that is pretty much done. Night 2 we will see.
Will! There is a difference between Liberalism and Leftism. JR isn’t a liberal. Not even close.
He’s a die hard leftist. Almost militant really.
I just leave him alone though. He talks a game, but he’s just a harmless lamb.