ABC 911 Docudrama Short On Facts

[Nbadan]

http://www.abcnewsstore.com/store/customer/images/products/icons/MYTH%20PART%201.jpg
Who will call out ABC for their Myths, lies and stupidity?

ABC Docudrama Sparks 9/11 Spat
By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff

The docudrama that ABC will air next week commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks seems likely to revive some long-running disputes over whether the Clinton or Bush administration has more to answer for in neglecting indications of a pending al Qaeda attack on the United States.


“The Path to 9/11,” a five-hour, two-part depiction of events prior to the attacks, is to air Sept. 10 and 11. And early reviews among veterans of the Clinton White House are decidedly negative: They argue that the show downplays the Bush White House’s culpability while inventing some scenes out of whole cloth to dramatize the supposed negligence of Clinton officials.

That complaint came to the fore at a National Press Club screening of the show late last month, when Richard Ben-Veniste — one of the 10 members of the independent Sept. 11 commission, whose final report producer Marc Platt credits with supplying much of the mini-series’ detail and narrative structure — rose to denounce the veracity of a key scene involving Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger.

Berger, portrayed as a pasty-faced time-server by Kevin Dunn (Col. Hicks in “Godzilla”) freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.

The moment is clearly intended to encapsulate the notion of American inattentiveness to the terror threat in the 1990s — a point driven home when the camera pans back to show Berger surrounded by a supporting cast of fellow Clinton administration nervous Nellies, including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.

So when the post-screening question-and-answer session began, Ben-Veniste stood to say that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel, which included both the producer and the commission’s GOP chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey.

Berger, reached by phone after the screening, seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”

Link (http://public.cq.com/public/20060905_homeland.html)

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'll use today's GOP talking points . "Clinton is not running .." , "The GOP is blinded by their hatred of President Wiiliam Jefferson Clinton"..and so on..

[Phenomanul]

Stinkin' partisanship... :rolleyes

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Who the fuck cares, who watches those things anyway?

Let them downplay bush's role and make clinton out to look like a patsy, it doesnt mean shit to the american people, because frankly, everyone knows that the shit on TV usually isnt true and furthermore, know one is ever going to know exactly what happened in the run up to septemeber 11th

[Spurminator]

It may be true, but I'm also inclined that to a lot of people, "downplay" would be anything short of a movie centered around a memo on the WH desk. With the memo played by Martin Sheen.

[Ocotillo]

Who the fuck cares, who watches those things anyway?



And with Monday Night Football hopefully very few will be watching this tripe.

What is alarming is ABC is spending 30 miillion on this propaganda piece, they are promoting it to educators, they are not making any money via commercial advertising, they have not allowed Clinton people to see the project yet have mass-distributed it to right wing media types........ Liberal media?? eh.

The only bigger gift Bush could get would be if Osama showed up on the White House lawn yelling "I surrender and have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Please forgive me."

[boutons_]

"they have not allowed Clinton people to see the project"

... but ABC showed it to drug addict and rabble rouser extraordinaire Rush Limpballs.

What was it that the Repugs got ABC to cancel a couple years ago that Repugs didn't like?

[Ocotillo]

"they have not allowed Clinton people to see the project"

... but ABC showed it to drug addict and rabble rouser extraordinaire Rush Limpballs.

What was it that the Repugs got ABC to cancel a couple years ago that Repugs didn't like?

A bio pic about the Sainted Ronald Reagan.

That might have been CBS I think.

[boutons_]

Let's see, the Repugs are running on their phony national security record, while claiming the Dems are a bunch of national security wimps.

A few weeks before the election, obviously random/co-incidental timing for a $40M production, ABC shows a docudrama masqerading as documentary that shows the Dems as a bunch of national security wimps and sliming Dems as responsible for WTC attack, although Repugs were responsible for the national security apparatus for the 8 months before 9/11.

What were the Repugs doing for those 8 months? Nothing but cutting taxes for the super-rich, their only policy.

ABC smells like a Rove slime job. Probably will be very difficult to trace back to Rove and RNC, but it's worth a try. I'm sure someone will.

[boutons_]

"Political pressure against a television drama is not unprecedented. In 2003, CBS dropped a four-hour miniseries about Ronald and Nancy Reagan after a concerted campaign by Republican and conservative groups. That series, “The Reagans,” was later televised on the cable channel Showtime."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/washington/07path.html?hp&ex=1157688000&en=83f7ae6acba5dd2f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Saint Ronnie wasn't running for office. The Dems are and are being slimed by the Repugs exactly the way the ABC show slimes them.

[Crookshanks]

ABC smells like a Rove slime job. Probably will be very difficult to trace back to Rove and RNC, but it's worth a try. I'm sure someone will.

I read this in an article by David Broder of the Washington Post:

One Leak and a Flood of Silliness

By David S. Broder
Thursday, September 7, 2006; A27

Conspiracy theories flourish in politics, and most of them have no more basis than spring training hopes for the Chicago Cubs.

Whenever things turn dicey for Republicans, they complain about the "liberal media" sabotaging them. And when Democrats get in a jam, they take up Hillary Clinton's warnings about a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

For much of the past five years, dark suspicions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition.

Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.

I have written almost nothing about the Wilson-Plame case, because it seemed overblown to me from the start. Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger; the Robert D. Novak column naming Plame as the person who had recommended Wilson to check up on the reported sale; the call for a special prosecutor and the lengthy interrogation that led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the deposition of several other reporters; and, finally, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- all of this struck me as being a tempest in a teapot.

No one behaved well in the whole mess -- not Wilson, not Libby, not special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and not the reporters involved.

The only time I commented on the case was to caution reporters who offered bold First Amendment defenses for keeping their sources' names secret that they had better examine the motivations of the people leaking the information to be sure they deserve protection.

But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject -- especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug.

Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and now a columnist for several publications, has just published a book titled, "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." It is a collection of his columns for Salon, including one originally published on July 14, 2005, titled "Rove's War."

It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame. To Blumenthal, that was proof that this "was political payback against Wilson by a White House that wanted to shift the public focus from the Iraq War to Wilson's motives."

Then Blumenthal went off on a rant: "While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. . . . Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. But the stillness may be illusory. Before the prosecutor, Rove's arsenal is useless."

In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush.

Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."

And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now."

These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.

Hey Dan and boutons - I think you should heed this advice!!!

[Yonivore]

Wow! A full court press to save Clinton's legacy from information that is already known. Go figure.

There sure seems to be a bunch of gnashing of the teeth over this "docudrama."

Just what was Berger stuffing down his pants?

[ChumpDumper]

Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.

[boutons_]

"especially when it comes to Karl Rove"

Rove deserves the slime-bag reputation he has worked so hard for years to gain.

With his history, he's asumed guility until proven innocent.

How many others cases like Plame where Rove has been innocent of sliming and lying vs cases where he has been guilty?

ie, if you were "ethically profiling" suspects rather than "racially profiling" suspects, Rove would fit the profile.

[Yonivore]

Okay, Chumpy, just what are the facts surrounding the most disputed parts of the movie? Because, I too am incensed that the movie isn't portraying the facts accurately. So, let's look at some facts.

Let's address principal inaccuracy being brayed about; the claim apparently made in the film that, "...it reportedly contains a scene in which Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton, declines to give Central Intelligence Agency operatives the authority to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden..."

This is demonstrably inaccurate. There should not be one scene showing Clinton Administration officials declining chances to kill Osama bin Laden, but four.

The 9/11 Commission Report states unequivocally that on four separate occasions (http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/07/23&ID=Ar01000)--Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000--U.S. National Security Advisor Sandy Burger was "an obstacle to action," preventing strikes that would have perhaps killed Osama bin Laden, decapitating al Qaeda well in advance of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that killed nearly three thousand innocent people. This mini-series, if released with only one incidence of the Clinton Adminstration failing to kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance instead of the four chances we know that Samuel "Sandy" Berger blocked, is a whitewash of history. Damnit! We deserve accuracy.

Further, I am against any scene in the film that make's the infamous "Gorelick wall" seem "puzzling at best, and inaccurate at worst," as Congressional Democrats have claimed in a letter (http://www.housedemocrats.gov/news/librarydetail.cfm?library_content_id=876) to Disney.

There should be absolutely no doubt (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040429-122228-6538r.htm) of the effect of the Gorelick wall in hindering terrorist investigations:


As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995. (none) "It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
As Senator John Cornyn was quoted in the same article:


"These documents show what we've said all along: Commissioner Gorelick has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to the erection and buttressing of 'that wall' that, before the enactment of the Patriot Act, was the primary obstacle to the sharing of communications between law enforcement and intelligence agencies."
I do agree the film is an inaccurate depiction of the Clinton administration's behavior toward terrorism in the '90s; I do highly suspect, however, that if Disney/ABC squared the film with the historical record that Democrat cries would only become more shrill and bombastic.

As for this and other ham-handed attempts at censorship by liberal Democrats, Giaus astutely notes (http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/09/06/have-you-noticed-2/):


Back when Fahrenheit 911 was the talk of the blogosphere, all the criticism I read was about its accuracy. There were quite a lot of bloggers that were tearing it apart for its twisting of fact. A lot of bloggers wanted to set the record straight, but to my knowledge not one of those people I was reading at that time before I started blogging myself was calling for it to be silenced. They only wanted the record straight.
Now we have a new "docudrama" about 9/11 coming out. And the left side of the blogosphere and mainstream Democratic politicians are calling for it to be radically changed or silenced. Some are gloating that they think they have silenced some voices.

Have you noticed the difference here?

One group decries the accuracy, the other decries the existence. Who is in favor of silencing the opposition again? Who is in favor of curtailing the free speech of others?
I think the answer is obvious.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure, show the four opportunities.

Show the ignored memo.

Why be afraid?

[Yonivore]

Sure, show the four opportunities.

Show the ignored memo.

Why be afraid?
Those have been shown? What's your point?

It's a docudrama. Congealing all four into a scene that represents the jist of Berger's actions is artistic license.

But, I agree, maybe there should be a documentary that does just what you suggest. I'd be in favor of it.

[boutons_]

"Berger's actions"

Berger fucked up big time. indefensible.
How does that paint the entire Clinton administration as responsible for 9/11.

How about a real documentary based on how Repugs ignored Clintonites warnings on Al-quaida, and how dubya listenedto or ignored the intelligence of summer 2001?

dubya and dickhead were watching out for American when WTC was attacked. They are fully responsible for that attack. The truth has started to come and as more people retire from govt service, more truth will come out.

[ChumpDumper]

Those have been shown? What's your point?...But, I agree.:lmao

[Yonivore]

:lmao
What's so funny?

All four instances are documented in the 9-11 Commission's report. The Gorelick Memo is documented in teh 9-11 Commission's report. I agree, let's have a documentary that exposes exactly what Berger, Gorelick, & Company did in the '90s.

I'm glad you're amused.

[ChumpDumper]

What's so funny?You.

The fact you don't see it makes it even funnier.

[Yonivore]

You.

The fact you don't see it makes it even funnier.
Deflection. nice technique when you're trying on someone who gives a shit.

I like the way you're totally ignoring the topic here.

[ChumpDumper]

What topic?

Anyone who is going to get their history from a show starring one of the New Kids on the Block deserves their fate.

Let me know how what you thought of it, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

What topic?

Anyone who is going to get their history from a show starring one of the New Kids on the Block deserves their fate.

Let me know how what you thought of it, Yoni.
Well, I won't be watching it.

But, there's a whole butt-load of Democrats and former Clinton administration officials -- including Clinton himself -- who seemed pretty exercised over the show starring of of the New Kids on the Block.

Seems they're might worried over what those who do watch might think.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What's so funny?

All four instances are documented in the 9-11 Commission's report. The Gorelick Memo is documented in teh 9-11 Commission's report. I agree, let's have a documentary that exposes exactly what Berger, Gorelick, & Company did in the '90s.

I'm glad you're amused.


What did Gorileck do?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050817-101757-6420r.htm

Former Sen. Slade Gorton [R-WA], a 9-11 Commission member, specifically addressed and debunked the theory that Gorelick's memo prevented such intelligence-sharing in an August 18, 2005, letter to the editor in The Washington Times:

The one witness who did name Atta came to our staff shortly before the commission's report went to the printer. He said he thought he had seen something showing Atta in Brooklyn early in 2000. We knew, in fact, that Atta first arrived in the United States in June 2000 with a visa. For this and other reasons, the witness simply was not credible on this subject.

Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else

Later in the article

Congress created the walls that were in place before September 11 -- such as the National Security Act's prohibition on U.S. intelligence agency spying on Americans and the Posse Comitatus Act -- that have nothing to do with the Department of Justice memo. The Defense Department's own directives on sharing such information date from the 1980s.

[ChumpDumper]

Seems they're might worried over what those who do watch might think.Why would anyone get upset over lying for political purposes. It's what the US is all about now.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else

Later in the article

Congress created the walls that were in place before September 11 -- such as the National Security Act's prohibition on U.S. intelligence agency spying on Americans and the Posse Comitatus Act -- that have nothing to do with the Department of Justice memo. The Defense Department's own directives on sharing such information date from the 1980s.


I guess this just obliterates the talk radio and Yoni's 'Gorelick wall' argument..

[Yonivore]

Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else

Later in the article

Congress created the walls that were in place before September 11 -- such as the National Security Act's prohibition on U.S. intelligence agency spying on Americans and the Posse Comitatus Act -- that have nothing to do with the Department of Justice memo. The Defense Department's own directives on sharing such information date from the 1980s.


I guess this just obliterates the talk radio and Yoni's 'Gorelick wall' argument..
Blah, blah, blah...

So, just who does the CIA and DoD turn to when they want a national security threat surveilled domestically? That's right class, the FBI.

So, just what did the Gorelick wall do? That's right class, it prevented the FBI from sharing national security intelligence information with the law enforcement branch of the same agency. So, while you had the law enforcement branch in possession of some of the dots leading up to 9-11, you had another section of the FBI in possession of intelligence information that would have allowed the dots to be connected by the law enforcement side.

Able Danger is the prime example of how Gorelick's wall intefered with the detection of 9-11.

[Nbadan]

Able Danger is the prime example of how Gorelick's wall intefered with the detection of 9-11.

Able Danger is a prime example that the post-cold-war CIA was relying too much on technology and not enough emphasis on human intelligence. A pattern started under Reagan.

[Ya Vez]

thats just funny seeing the liberals getting rocked by someone wanting to exercise free speech.... I guess all free speech is relevant only if it supports left leaning idea's in the leftist camp...

[Nbadan]

I think it's hypocritical for ABC to run a obviously politically motivated docu-drama dressed up a documentary, profit free, two months before an election that could see their Congressional shills kicked out of office.

[Nbadan]

Since Peter Jenning's death, ABC has dropped the fascade and become FAUX-lite


Marc Platt, the executive producer of ABC's upcoming two-part miniseries set to air on September 10 and 11, titled The Path to 9/11, has said that "every scene" of the film "is based on information from either the 9/11 Report ... or the books The Cell (co-written by the former ABC News correspondent John Miller) and Relentless Pursuit, written by Samuel Katz." However, in addition to co-writing The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It, Miller is also a member of the Bush administration, serving as the assistant director of public affairs for the FBI, as blogger Digby has noted.

Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070004)

In easy to read English: One of the books used for dramatization was "The Cell" written by John Miller who just so happens to be an AD of PR for the FBI.

[Yonivore]

Able Danger is a prime example that the post-cold-war CIA was relying too much on technology and not enough emphasis on human intelligence. A pattern started under Reagan.
A pattern that started with the Church Committee and exacerbated by Clinton's unwillingness to employ unsavory characters in foreign security surveillance missions.

[Yonivore]

I think it's hypocritical for ABC to run a obviously politically motivated docu-drama dressed up a documentary, profit free, two months before an election that could see their Congressional shills kicked out of office.
Looks like they bowed to the almighty Clinton Legacy Pursuit. It's being edited.

[Nbadan]

Ummm....It's not disney/ABC that have caved....


In a statement released late this afternoon, education publishing giant Scholastic announced it is permanently withdrawing the materials it originally created for classroom use in conjunction with "The Path to 9/11." Materials that Media Matters for America first noted, was "rife with conservative misinformation."

According to Scholastic Chairman, President and CEO Dick Robinson, the materials "did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues." New materials will be posted tomorrow. Additionally, the new materials will make clear Scholastic had no involvement in the development of "The Path to 9/11" and that the company is not promoting the primetime mini-series.

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/update-scholastic-respon_b_28928.html)

Meanwhile, scenes cut from 'Path to GOP' in the interest of fairness by ABC.

1. Threesome with Bill, Monica and Osama.

2. Hilary with Osama.

3. Boots with Osama.

4. Howard Dean with Osama.

5. Kerry giving flying lessons to terrorists.

6. Al Gore giving Bush a drink laced with a massive dose of Valium & THC to explain Bush's response to 9-11.

7. Nancy Pelosi spiking the White House's water supply with LSD to explain the way the Iraq war has been handled.

8. Max Cleland sending suitcases of money to Al Qaida.

9. Dennis Kucinich sending anthrax to Bush but it's mis-delivered.

[Ya Vez]

I didn't hear this outrage by the left for the movie Farenhiet 911...

[Nbadan]

FBI Agent Who Consulted On Path to 9/11 Quit Halfway Through Because ‘They Were Making Things Up’

James Bamford, an author and journalist who has written about security issues, appeared on MSNBC to discuss “The Path to 9/11.” Bamford revealed that an FBI agent who worked as a consultant to the film quit halfway through production of the mini-series because he believed the writers and producers were “making things up.”


BAMFORD: It’s made-up. This is fiction. This is not real. One of my friends actually was a consultant to this production — an FBI agent who worked on 9/11. He quit halfway through because he thought they were making things up.

Video Up! (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/fbi-agent-quit)

[Yonivore]

FBI Agent Who Consulted On Path to 9/11 Quit Halfway Through Because ‘They Were Making Things Up’

James Bamford, an author and journalist who has written about security issues, appeared on MSNBC to discuss “The Path to 9/11.” Bamford revealed that an FBI agent who worked as a consultant to the film quit halfway through production of the mini-series because he believed the writers and producers were “making things up.”



Video Up! (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/fbi-agent-quit)
Of course he said what parts were made up, right?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Let's see, the Repugs are running on their phony national security record, while claiming the Dems are a bunch of national security wimps.

A few weeks before the election, obviously random/co-incidental timing for a $40M production, ABC shows a docudrama masqerading as documentary that shows the Dems as a bunch of national security wimps and sliming Dems as responsible for WTC attack, although Repugs were responsible for the national security apparatus for the 8 months before 9/11.

What were the Repugs doing for those 8 months? Nothing but cutting taxes for the super-rich, their only policy.

ABC smells like a Rove slime job. Probably will be very difficult to trace back to Rove and RNC, but it's worth a try. I'm sure someone will.

And you're still a hypocritical little pissant.

Where was the crying over Michael Moore's 9/11 flick in the leadup to the previous election?

THat was a hell of a lot worse than this ABC thing, strangely I didn't hear Clitton or croutons or anyone else expressing outrage about that.

Boo fucking hoo.

And for the record, Sandy Berger and Madelaine Albright are fucking idiots and hypocrits.

Albright amazes me. She was friends with one of my profs at A&M and came and spoke to the class one day. She candidly admitted failures WRT bin Laden while she was in office and that the Clinton administration had made, and thought Bush was doing a good job leading the country.

Then not a week later she was out on the democratic attack trashing Bush for his leadership. Nothing but a political bigot and a liar. She deserves all the criticism she gets.

[Ocotillo]

I didn't hear this outrage by the left for the movie Farenhiet 911...

1. Farenheit 911 was a documentary, not a "docudrama"

2. If one wanted to see F 911, they had to pay and find a theatre to see it.

3. Disney declined to distribute F 911, yet they are not only running this propaganda piece for free, they are trying to pass it off as educational.

4. Path to 911 will run two nights without commercials on "free television"

5. While F 911 was one sided, where was it fictional?

6. This is a pre-election smear and should be investigated to see why Disney is bound and determined to run a GOP campaign commercial.

[Zunni]

I didn't hear this outrage by the left for the movie Farenhiet 911...
I didn't hear the strident defense of free speech by the GOP then, either. This is nothing more than the GOP's attempt at a propaganda video. THe great thing is that F911 didn't work worth shit, and neither will this. If you fuck things up badly enough, people will actually open their eyes and stop being sheeple for short periods of time. Amazing.

[Yonivore]

I didn't hear the strident defense of free speech by the GOP then, either. This is nothing more than the GOP's attempt at a propaganda video. THe great thing is that F911 didn't work worth shit, and neither will this. If you fuck things up badly enough, people will actually open their eyes and stop being sheeple for short periods of time. Amazing.
I think the Clinton gang's apoplexy over this thing have done more for America's perceptions of what happened than will actually viewing the movie.

Priceless.

[Spurminator]

So is anyone actually going to watch this movie or are we just going to continue to bitch and make assumptions about what apparently amounts to about 30 seconds of it?

[boutons_]

I've not heard that ABC is portraying the Repugs totally ignoring the warnings from CIA/FBI in the weeks before WTC attack. I wonder why that is?

It's an pure and simple ABC slime job on the Dems to pin complete fault for WTC on the Dems, while refusing to place any blame on the Repugs who had been running the country and intelligence for 8 monhts up to 9/11.

[Nbadan]

I've not heard that ABC is portraying the Repugs totally ignoring the warnings from CIA/FBI in the weeks before WTC attack. I wonder why that is?

Don't forget the ignored warnings from foreign intelligence agencies that a domestic attack was being planned. Some State Department officials stopped flying on public transportation weeks before 911. You think they should have clued in the public?

[Nbadan]

ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure


ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre.

The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense.

...

After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.

"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations."

In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended.

Calendar Live (http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk-channel7sep07,0,6155461.story?coll=cl-tv-features)

So this 'docu-drama' by ABC is based partly on facts, as presented by the 911 Commission Report, and mostly based on fantasy, as presented by ABC's penchant for wingnut-spin.

Seems fair.

:rolleyes

[Ya Vez]

if you don't want to watch it... watch something else... people on the left act like people are going to be forced to watch this movie by some great coordinator in the sky.... lol... it's so f***ing funny to watch... and no zunni I paid no money for F911 and will not pay any attention to this movie either... lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

Blah, blah, blah...

So, just who does the CIA and DoD turn to when they want a national security threat surveilled domestically? That's right class, the FBI.

So, just what did the Gorelick wall do? That's right class, it prevented the FBI from sharing national security intelligence information with the law enforcement branch of the same agency. So, while you had the law enforcement branch in possession of some of the dots leading up to 9-11, you had another section of the FBI in possession of intelligence information that would have allowed the dots to be connected by the law enforcement side.

Able Danger is the prime example of how Gorelick's wall intefered with the detection of 9-11.


Oh Yoni we are so easily manipulated:


While the truth remains unclear, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer have recently suggested that Shaffer's classified military intelligence unit Able Danger identified Atta more than a year before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks but was unable to relay that information to the FBI.
But if Able Danger did in fact identify Atta, the Gorelick memo and the subsequent 1995 Clinton administration guidelines based on it did not prevent the group from sharing that information with intelligence agencies or law enforcement officials. As former Attorney General John Ashcroft noted in his testimony before the 9-11 Commission, the Gorelick memo provided the "basic architecture" for the 1995 guidelines established by then-Attorney General Janet Reno that formalized rules for intelligence sharing that were already in place. But, as the 1995 guidelines clearly state, the Gorelick memo and the guidelines applied only to intelligence sharing "between the FBI and the Criminal Division" within the Justice Department, not a military unit established by the Defense Department:
SUBJECT: Procedures for Contacts Between the FBI [intelligence/counterintelligence functions] and the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations
The procedures contained herein, unless otherwise specified by the Attorney General, apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the FBI, including investigations related to espionage and foreign and international terrorism. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that FI and FCI investigations are conducted lawfully, and that the Department's criminal and intelligence/counterintelligence functions are properly coordinated.
9-11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow also clearly noted during the commission's hearings that the "wall" applied only to the Justice Department: "Over time, the wall requirement came to be interpreted by the Justice Department, and particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as imposing an increasingly stringent barrier to communications between FBI intelligence agents and criminal prosecutors."
As is evident from the language of the Gorelick memo itself, it didn't apply to Able Danger. But in response to growing misinformation on the topic in The Washington Times, former Republican senator Slade Gorton, a 9-11 Commission member, specifically addressed and debunked the theory that Gorelick's memo prevented intelligence sharing about Atta in an August 18 letter to the editor in the Times:
The one witness who did name Atta came to our staff shortly before the commission's report went to the printer. He said he thought he had seen something showing Atta in Brooklyn early in 2000. We knew, in fact, that Atta first arrived in the United States in June 2000 with a visa. For this and other reasons, the witness simply was not credible on this subject.
Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.Some online commentators also observed that Gorelick's memo could not have blocked intelligence sharing by Able Danger. For example, Slate.com's Mickey Kaus noted on August 16 that "the 'wall' codified in Gorelick's famous 1995 memo didn't apply to the Pentagon, only to the FBI." Even John Hinderaker of the conservative weblog Power Line similarly documented on August 17:
Gorelick's memo is limited in scope; it limits the prosecutors' ability to get information from the FBI's counterintelligence division. It would not have covered the situation at issue in Able Danger, that is, information gathered by military intelligence.


Next..

[George Gervin's Afro]

if you don't want to watch it... watch something else... people on the left act like people are going to be forced to watch this movie by some great coordinator in the sky.... lol... it's so f***ing funny to watch... and no zunni I paid no money for F911 and will not pay any attention to this movie either... lol


I agree just don't watch it if you think you'll have a problem with it. I do find it rather coincedental that the Consrevative movement was 'selectively' outraged whne the CBS Reagan miniseries came out... we had people coming out of the woodwork stating that some of the things portrayed in the moive weren't accurate and they were aware of this because they were present when these vents happened. We now have Democrats coming out of the woodwork saying the same things "I was there and it that's not the way it happened", or " I did not say this"..etc.. and cons suddenly have a problem with it..yes some conservatives are so blinded by their hatred ( :blah ) they are oblivious to the fact that they are blatant hypocrites..

This for people like Yoni who want to treat this fictionalized account as fact concerning the Clintons. To then turn around and use the docudrama as some sort of reference when trying to bloody up Bill Cinton. I will take a line from my conservative brothers "Clinton is not running anymore"


STATEMENT from ABC Entertainment on "The Path to 9/11"
“The Path to 9/11” is not a documentary of the events leading to 9/11. It is a dramatization, drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression. No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.

[boutons_]

"fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue"

.... which is why ABC creates Democratic "events" that never happened and that place 100% of the blame for WTC on out-of-office Dems, and leaves out the Repug events that really did happen when the Repugs were responsible for defending the USA, but failed to defend the USA.

[Spurminator]

and leaves out the Repug events

I may have missed this part. Link?

[Yonivore]

http://static.flickr.com/81/237348428_75b569ebe8_o.jpg
Anybody else recall sitting Republican Congresspeople, on official Congressional letterhead, sending CBS a cease and desist or else letter over the Reagan mini-series? I don't.


September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

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

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

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

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

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

That highlighted part could be construed as a threat, if you ask me.


Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company

Dear Mr. Iger:

We are advised that ABC is scheduled to air a two-part mini-series entitled "The Path to 9/11" on September 10 and September 11. While we have not yet seen this program, news reports raise serious questions about its accuracy. Therefore, we request that the inaccuracies described herein be addressed immediately and that the program be thoroughly reviewed and revised for accuracy before it airs.

Among our concerns about the program are the following: first, it reportedly contains a scene in which Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton, declines to give Central Intelligence Agency operatives the authority to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, and in which those operatives are outside a house where Bin Laden is located. This account has been expressly contradicted by Richard Clarke, a high-ranking counterterrorism official in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

Second, the film reportedly contains a scene in which the Central Intelligence Agency declines to share information about the 9/11 hijackers with the FBI and ascribes that failure to the so-called "wall," limiting information sharing by the Department of Justice in certain circumstances, and established by the Department of Justice in an internal memorandum.

This scene is puzzling at best, and inaccurate at worst. According to a Republican Member of the 9/11 Commission, former Senator Slade Gorton, the "Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else."

These two examples alone create substantial doubt about the overall accuracy of this program. September 11th is a day of mourning and remembrance for every American. We do not believe that it is appropriate for it to be tainted by false assertions of blame or partisan spin.

To avoid that occurrence, we urge you to review this film and correct these and other inaccuracies. We appreciate your prompt attention and reply to this time sensitive matter.

Sincerely,



Representatives John Conyers, Jr., John Dingell, Jane Harman, Louise Slaughter
Hey did anybody else notice that the President has asked for air time on Monday -- right smack dab at the exciting conclusion of this docudrama?

I question the timing. I think Rove is behind it all. At the very least, I think Karl Rove is laughing his ass off at the prize Democrats have handed Republicans in the run-up to November.

[boutons_]

ABC hasn't given me tape, yet, but since Rush hasn't bitched about the Repugs being blamed for the WTC attack, I'm assuming, with near certitude, such "Repug events" are not in the tape. ie, the Repugs will be white-washed of all blame, while the Dems will be slimed with 100% culpability, as if Karl Rove, dickhead, and Yonivore co-wrote the script to show that the Repugs are Supreme Defenders of the USA, and the Dems are gay wimps.

[Spurminator]

In other words, you were talking out of your ass.

Everything I've read says the movie covers the failures of both administrations.

[Spurminator]

It's a lot easier for Rush Limbaugh to mock Democrats complaining about the movie than it is for him to deny culpability on the part of the Bush Administration for 9/11. Strategic too... this way, it looks like only one group of partisan sheep believes their side bears no responsibility for the miscalculations leading up to 9/11. (Of course, I only say this under the assumption that you're correct about what Rush is saying, since I don't listen to him... and I have a hard time believing you do either... I would think it would cause your head to explode in a fit of incoherant rage.)

You guys are nice fishies.

[johnsmith]

I think we should wait for the movie to be aired before reserving judgment on it.

[johnsmith]

Although I have no intentions of watching it, so I'll just let you guys tell me how it went.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://static.flickr.com/81/237348428_75b569ebe8_o.jpg
Anybody else recall sitting Republican Congresspeople, on official Congressional letterhead, sending CBS a cease and desist or else letter over the Reagan mini-series? I don't.



That highlighted part could be construed as a threat, if you ask me.


Hey did anybody else notice that the President has asked for air time on Monday -- right smack dab at the exciting conclusion of this docudrama?

I question the timing. I think Rove is behind it all. At the very least, I think Karl Rove is laughing his ass off at the prize Democrats have handed Republicans in the run-up to November.


and what 'gift' would that be? Hey wait Rove plays politics with the war? No, not Karl..



my hope is that the Public gets a full view of this story..

Senate panel to issue Iraq intel report By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 20 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - A Senate analysis of intelligence-gathering activities leading up to the invasion of Iraq is certain to rekindle an election-year debate on the justification of going to war.

ADVERTISEMENT




The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, said the report will confirm that "the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading."

The report to be released by the committee Friday focuses on two much-studied issues: the influence of the anti-Saddam exile group Iraqi National Congress in shaping U.S. intelligence estimates, and a comparison of prewar estimates and postwar findings about Iraq's weapons programs and links to terrorism.

But its release comes at a time when President Bush is speaking out on the importance of victory in Iraq to the war on terrorism, and Democrats are trying to recapture control of Congress by emphasizing the failings of the president's Iraq policy.

Republicans on the committee declined comment on the report Thursday, but they were expected to play down the role of the Iraqi National Congress and its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, in shaping U.S. policy toward Saddam Hussein and the decision to go to war in March 2003.

The intelligence committee issued a portion of its analysis, labeled Phase I, on prewar intelligence shortcomings in July 2004. But concluding work on Phase II of the study has been more problematic, because of partisan divisions over how senior policymakers used intelligence in arguing for the need to drive Saddam from power.

Last November, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session to discuss the delay in coming out with the new data.

The 400-page report to be released Friday covers only two of the five topics outlined under Phase II. Much of the information — on the intelligence supplied by the INC and Chalabi and the overestimation of Saddam's WMD threat — has been documented in numerous studies.

But Rockefeller said the report would show how the "administration pursued a deceptive strategy, abusing intelligence reporting that the intelligence community had already warned was uncorroborated, unreliable and in some critical circumstances fabricated."

Rockefeller said a third segment, on the prewar intelligence assessment of postwar Iraq, could be issued later this month. But there was no set date for issuing the last two parts of Phase II, including a look at the politically divisive issue of whether policymakers manipulated intelligence reports to set the stage for war.

"We continue our work on the remaining part of our Phase II inquiry," said Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan

[Yonivore]

[/B]and what 'gift' would that be? Hey wait Rove plays politics with the war? No, not Karl..
Wow, you understand sarcasm real well...NOT.

This was an unsolicited gift frrom the left. They've shot themselves in the foot yet again.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wow, you understand sarcasm real well...NOT.

This was an unsolicited gift frrom the left. They've shot themselves in the foot yet again.


who on the 'left'? I want to find out who he/she is because they show up alot in Republican arguments..

[Yonivore]

who on the 'left'? I want to find out who he/she is because they show up alot in Republican arguments..
Well, in this case it is those on the left that wrote official letters from Congress threatening ABC with FCC action if they didn't pull the miniseries.

Those are the "left" that shot themselves in the foot this time.

But, about your concern over the recently-released Intelligence reports. I too am anxious to read them but, I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in Rockefeller's characterization of what's in them.

And, on the subject of war-in-Iraq justification, as news spreads of the latest tape (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701142.html) from al Qaeda in Iraq's new leader, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri), it is worth remembering that he set up shop in Baghdad (http://washingtonrealist.blogspot.com/2006/06/new-details-on-al-masri.html) by the middle of 2002.

That is, he set up his operations at the heart of Saddam's neo-Stalinist state months prior to the U.S. led invasion.

This doesn't mean anything, of course.

[boutons_]

Why isn't Rush whining about fictionalized Repug events that culpabalize the Repugs?

Perhaps there aren't any?

Or has ABC fictionalized Dem event to culpabalize the Dems in the interest of balancing culpability, but ABC has put in documented Repug events like dubya in Crawford in Aug 01 accepting a report from an intelligence agent and saying "ok, you've covered your ass, thanks" that the Repugs can't complain about?

I can talk out my ass all I want, nobody's gonna die from it.

I have more evidence and justification for the Repug being lying, venal, murderous motherfuckers than WHIG had for Saddam WMD, Saddam-WTC connection, and Saddam-terrorism.

When WHIG talks out of its ass, the 10s of 1000s of innocent people and US military die.

[Spurminator]

You just repeated yourself and then changed the subject.

Nice job, fishie.

[Yonivore]

Just how inaccurate is the docudrama? I think the Clintonistas are more worried about the docudrama getting it right than getting it wrong.


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7050/620/320/muslim%20protest%20005.jpg


Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities

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

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

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

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

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7050/620/320/muslim%20protest%20004.jpg
Bin Laden, in white, stands outside in his compound.
More...

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Just how inaccurate is the docudrama? I think the Clintonistas are more worried about the docudrama getting it right than getting it wrong.


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7050/620/320/muslim%20protest%20005.jpg


so what had he done to be killed at the time clinton had the opportunity? All i hear from the GOP talking points is that "Clinton knew he, Osama,wanted to do us harm so he should have killed him..Well if we were to now apply that logic to today's climate we should be out assassinating people all over the world because God knows many people want to do harm to us.. this is what I am tlalking about Yoni using your common sense. answer my question. what had osama done at the point when clinton had the opportunity to kill him? nothing. to look back and arm chair QB is ridiculous..

[Yonivore]

so what had he done to be killed at the time clinton had the opportunity?
I guess the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya weren't enough.

But, you're changing the discussion yet again. We're not talking about what bin Laden did to deserve being killed but about the accuracy of the portrayal of Clinton passing up opportunities to do so.

In fact, even the Democrats decrying the docudrama aren't making this claim. They're just flat out saying that this is a lie, that the Clinton administration didn't pass up opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden. The factual record tends to disagree with this viewpoint.


All i hear from the GOP talking points is that "Clinton knew he, Osama,wanted to do us harm so he should have killed him..
Osama had done more than just wanted to do us harm.


Well if we were to now apply that logic to today's climate we should be out assassinating people all over the world because God knows many people want to do harm to us..
Most of us refer to this action as the global war on terrorism and don't characterize our efforts to kill as many terrorists as possible as "assassinating people."


this is what I am tlalking about Yoni using your common sense. answer my question. what had osama done at the point when clinton had the opportunity to kill him? nothing. to look back and arm chair QB is ridiculous..
I see. You are well informed...how could I ever doubt you had a grasp on the recent history of al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.

Looking at the big picture, though, it's a little hard to see what the left are complaining about. I don't intend to see the miniseries, but we've all heard it doesn't portray the Clinton administration as having taken very effective action against the growing threat from Islamic terrorists. What I don't understand is how the Democrats think they can rewrite history to challenge that characterization.

There is no doubt about the fact that the terrorist menace grew and became increasingly obvious during the Clinton administration. To note just a few highlights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1992):

* January 25, 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Virginia, killing two CIA employees.

* February 26, 1993: Islamic terrorists try to bring down the World Trade Center with car bombs. They failed to destroy the buildings, but killed 6 and injured over 1000 people.

* March 12, 1993: Car bombings in Mumbai, India leave 257 dead and 1,400 others injured.

* July 18, 1994: Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, kills 86 and wounds 300. The bombing is generally attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran.

* July 19, 1994: Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 is bombed, killing 21. Generally attributed to Hezbollah.

* July 26, 1994: The Israeli Embassy is attacked in London, and a Jewish charity is also car-bombed, wounding 20. The attacks are attributed to Hezbollah.

* December 11, 1994: A bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. It develops that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for the larger terrorist attack he is planning.

* December 24, 1994: In a preview of September 11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who planned to crash the plane in Paris.

* January 6, 1995: Operation Bojinka, an Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean, is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after a fire occurred in the apartment. Noted terrorists including Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are involved in the plot.

* June 14—June 19, 1995: The Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, in which 105 civilians and 25 Russian troops were killed following an attack by Chechan Islamists.

* July—October, 1995: Bombings in France by Islamic terrorists led by Khaled Kelkal kill eight and injure more than 100.

* November 13, 1995: Bombing of OPM-SANG building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 7

* November 19, 1995: Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan kills 19.

* January 1996: In Kizlyar, 350 Chechen Islamists took 3,000 hostages in a hospital. The attempt to free them killed 65 civilians and soldiers.

* February 25 - March 4, 1996: A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 60 dead and 284 wounded within 10 days.

* June 11, 1996: A bomb explodes on a train traveling on the Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line of the Moscow Metro, killing four and unjuring at least 12.

* June 25, 1996: The Khobar Towers bombing, carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian support. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed and 372 wounded.

* February 24, 1997: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from several countries. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

* November 17, 1997: Massacre in Luxor, Egypt, in which Islamist gunmen attack tourists, killing 62 people.

* January 1998: Wandhama Massacre - 24 Kashmiri Pandits are massacred by Pakistan-backed Islamists in the city of Wandhama in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

* February 14, 1998: Bombings by Islamic Jihadi groups at an election rally in the Indian city of Coimbatore kill about 60 people.

* August 7, 1998: Al Qaeda bombs U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.

* August 31 – September 22, 1998: Russian apartment bombings kill about 300 people, leading Russia into Second Chechen War.

* December 1998: Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb American and Israeli tourists in Jordan, and arrest 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

* December 14, 1998: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

* December 24, 1998: Indian Airlines Flight 814 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi, India is hijacked by Islamic terrorists. One passenger is killed and some hostages are released. After negotiations between the Taliban and the Indian government, the last of the remaining hostages on board Flight 814 are released in exchange for release of 4 terrorists.

* January 2000: The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

* August 8, 2000: A bomb exploded at an underpass in Pushkin Square in Moscow, killing 11 people and wounding more than 90.

* August 17, 2000: Two bombs exploded in a shopping center in Riga, Latvia, injuring 35 people.

* October 12, 2000: AL Qaeda bombs USS Cole with explosive-laden speedboat, killing 17 US sailors and wounding 40, off the port coast of Aden, Yemen.

Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention -- and had any common sense at all -- knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.

However Path to 9/11 portrays the Clinton administration, it can be no worse than the reality.

[Ocotillo]

the plot thickens (http://www.variety.com/VR1117949675.html)

Word is ABC may raise the white flag and not run the smear altogether.

[Yonivore]

the plot thickens (http://www.variety.com/VR1117949675.html)

Word is ABC may raise the white flag and not run the smear altogether.
Perfect! -- Karl Rove

In the words of Tom Daschle when the Reagan docudrama was pulled by CBS, "Appalling!"

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya weren't enough.

But, you're changing the discussion yet again. We're not talking about what bin Laden did to deserve being killed but about the accuracy of the portrayal of Clinton passing up opportunities to do so.

In fact, even the Democrats decrying the docudrama aren't making this claim. They're just flat out saying that this is a lie, that the Clinton administration didn't pass up opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden. The factual record tends to disagree with this viewpoint.


Osama had done more than just wanted to do us harm.


Most of us refer to this action as the global war on terrorism and don't characterize our efforts to kill as many terrorists as possible as "assassinating people."


I see. You are well informed...how could I ever doubt you had a grasp on the recent history of al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.

Looking at the big picture, though, it's a little hard to see what the left are complaining about. I don't intend to see the miniseries, but we've all heard it doesn't portray the Clinton administration as having taken very effective action against the growing threat from Islamic terrorists. What I don't understand is how the Democrats think they can rewrite history to challenge that characterization.

There is no doubt about the fact that the terrorist menace grew and became increasingly obvious during the Clinton administration. To note just a few highlights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1992):

* January 25, 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Virginia, killing two CIA employees.

* February 26, 1993: Islamic terrorists try to bring down the World Trade Center with car bombs. They failed to destroy the buildings, but killed 6 and injured over 1000 people.

* March 12, 1993: Car bombings in Mumbai, India leave 257 dead and 1,400 others injured.

* July 18, 1994: Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, kills 86 and wounds 300. The bombing is generally attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran.

* July 19, 1994: Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 is bombed, killing 21. Generally attributed to Hezbollah.

* July 26, 1994: The Israeli Embassy is attacked in London, and a Jewish charity is also car-bombed, wounding 20. The attacks are attributed to Hezbollah.

* December 11, 1994: A bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. It develops that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for the larger terrorist attack he is planning.

* December 24, 1994: In a preview of September 11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who planned to crash the plane in Paris.

* January 6, 1995: Operation Bojinka, an Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean, is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after a fire occurred in the apartment. Noted terrorists including Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are involved in the plot.

* June 14—June 19, 1995: The Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, in which 105 civilians and 25 Russian troops were killed following an attack by Chechan Islamists.

* July—October, 1995: Bombings in France by Islamic terrorists led by Khaled Kelkal kill eight and injure more than 100.

* November 13, 1995: Bombing of OPM-SANG building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 7

* November 19, 1995: Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan kills 19.

* January 1996: In Kizlyar, 350 Chechen Islamists took 3,000 hostages in a hospital. The attempt to free them killed 65 civilians and soldiers.

* February 25 - March 4, 1996: A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 60 dead and 284 wounded within 10 days.

* June 11, 1996: A bomb explodes on a train traveling on the Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line of the Moscow Metro, killing four and unjuring at least 12.

* June 25, 1996: The Khobar Towers bombing, carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian support. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed and 372 wounded.

* February 24, 1997: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from several countries. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

* November 17, 1997: Massacre in Luxor, Egypt, in which Islamist gunmen attack tourists, killing 62 people.

* January 1998: Wandhama Massacre - 24 Kashmiri Pandits are massacred by Pakistan-backed Islamists in the city of Wandhama in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

* February 14, 1998: Bombings by Islamic Jihadi groups at an election rally in the Indian city of Coimbatore kill about 60 people.

* August 7, 1998: Al Qaeda bombs U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.

* August 31 – September 22, 1998: Russian apartment bombings kill about 300 people, leading Russia into Second Chechen War.

* December 1998: Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb American and Israeli tourists in Jordan, and arrest 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

* December 14, 1998: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

* December 24, 1998: Indian Airlines Flight 814 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi, India is hijacked by Islamic terrorists. One passenger is killed and some hostages are released. After negotiations between the Taliban and the Indian government, the last of the remaining hostages on board Flight 814 are released in exchange for release of 4 terrorists.

* January 2000: The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

* August 8, 2000: A bomb exploded at an underpass in Pushkin Square in Moscow, killing 11 people and wounding more than 90.

* August 17, 2000: Two bombs exploded in a shopping center in Riga, Latvia, injuring 35 people.

* October 12, 2000: AL Qaeda bombs USS Cole with explosive-laden speedboat, killing 17 US sailors and wounding 40, off the port coast of Aden, Yemen.

Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention -- and had any common sense at all -- knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.

However Path to 9/11 portrays the Clinton administration, it can be no worse than the reality.


Clinton caught the 93 WTC bombers. Bush invaded Iraq... Common sense Yoni..


Please save the GOP talking point response "well Clinton never cught the mastermind " crap. Bush recently said he doesn't think about the mastermind of 9/11.. common sense..

I also notice you pick random acts of violene perpetrated by muslims world wide and attribute them to Clinton not doing anything? What was he supposed to do about the chechens? the bombings in India?
I noice only a couple of those incedents were attributed to Al-Qaeda for whom I thought you said Clinton did nothing about.

We both understand that there are 200 million muslims who want to kill us so... so again are we going to kill all of them? Invade other muslim countries to win their hearts and minds? You know for once I would love to see something original from you..something in your own worda rather tha cutting and pasting.. either your stupid or your lazy..which is it?

[Yonivore]

Clinton caught the 93 WTC bombers.
The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was an al Qaeda (the head of which was Osama bin Laden) operation just as were the bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.


I also notice you pick random acts of vioolnce worl wide and attribute them to AL-Qaieda and Osama...
All acts of Islamo-fascism pointing to a problem Clinton ignored. There is nothing random about these acts of violence...except for Clinton's response.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was an al Qaeda (the head of which was Osama bin Laden) operation just as were the bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.


All acts of Islamo-fascism pointing to a problem Clinton ignored. There is nothing random about these acts of violence...except for Clinton's response.


so now I am led to believe that Clinton did nothing about things happening in other countries. he did nothing in the Russian-Chechen civil war... I always thought that conservatives did not want to be the world's policemen or nation builders..


Let me guess Yoni Clinton should have invaded Iraq.. :lol


I must also ad Clinton was/is in a no win situation with conservatives like Yoni.. He is ridiculed for only bombing an 'aspirin' factory because he wanted to take heat off of himself according to his detractors (he did something when cons say he did not).. so he did strike Saddam but was ridiculed for dong it for the wrong reasons...

[Yonivore]

so now I am led to believe that Clinton did nothing about things happening in other countries. he did nothing in the Russian-Chechen civil war... I always thought that conservatives did not want to be the world's policemen or nation builders..
Yep, you're led to believe that Clinton did nothing about global Islamo-facsist terrorism even as it was increasingly affecting the United States, both at home (1993 WTC bombing) and abroad (embassy bombings). That's exactly what you're led to believe.

Of course, no one can make you drink the truth.


Let me guess Yoni Clinton should have invaded Iraq.. :lol
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). Look it up and, after reading the following, you tell me.


"It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal"
Was Clinton lying then?

So, exactly what changed between this speech and 2003 to lead you to believe Saddam Hussein had complied with any of the more than 17 UNSC resolutions or that would cause you to change President Clinton's position on regime change?

I can't think of anything.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yep, you're led to believe that Clinton did nothing about global Islamo-facsist terrorism even as it was increasingly affecting the United States, both at home (1993 WTC bombing) and abroad (embassy bombings). That's exactly what you're led to believe.

Of course, no one can make you drink the truth.

Well Yoni you mentioned 20 or so other incidents so which is it all of them or the above mentioned?


Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). Look it up and, after reading the following, you tell me.


Was Clinton lying then?

So, exactly what changed between this speech and 2003 to lead you to believe Saddam Hussein had complied with any of the more than 17 UNSC resolutions or that would cause you to change President Clinton's position on regime change?

I can't think of anything.


Well we can only hope Bush and his cronies used more up to date intel than what Clinton had in 1998..of course after this speech the UN inspectors said saddam did not possess wmds.. I notice you never bring that up but I guess I wouldn't if I were you either. So please explain to me what Clinton could have done in the Russain -Chechen war? what could he have done about the bombings in other countries that did not involve our interest or people? I would suspect that this would have meant troops around the world.. starting military action worldwide..and we both know the in between being harrassed by the 'independent' council investigating everything under the sun he would have been unable to do anything without being obsgtructed by the GOP congress...no we know conservatives complain about a president being hamstrung by an opposition congress... unless it was Bill Clinton..

[George Gervin's Afro]

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
FACT SHEET - Counter-Terrorism
The White House's Position on Terrorism

"To all my fellow Americans ... I say, one thing we owe those who have sacrificed is the duty to purge ourselves of the dark forces which gave rise to this evil. They are forces that threaten our common peace, our freedom, our way of life."

President Bill Clinton
State Fair Arena, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma April 23, 1995

ISSUE:

Terrorism threatens the security of Americans and our friends at home and the world over.

ADMINISTRATION POSITION:

Counter-terrorism is a top priority for the Clinton Administration as it has sought aggressively to track down and punish terrorists worldwide and to fight international crime to the fullest extent of the law.

Criminal organizations increasingly operate across national boundaries with drug money and counterfeit currency funding their operations. President Clinton has ordered a number of actions to meet these growing threats including pressing for congressional legislation to increase our ability to fight terrorism and leading the Summit of the Peacemakers in Sharm-El-Sheikh, Egypt in March l996.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Fighting Terrorism directed against Americans:

Dogged and effective Justice Department, international, national and local law enforcement attention culminating in swift arrests following major terrorist incidents in Oklahoma City and at the World Trade Center in New York City. Broke up major terrorist attacks in New York City before they could be carried out at the United Nations and in the Holland Tunnel; and against U.S. commercial aircraft in the Pacific. Developed emergency rapid-response plan to deal with chemical and biological terrorism.

Fighting Terrorism against our Friends Abroad:

Following the tragic assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and terrorist bombings in Israel, President Clinton called for and co-chaired historic Summit of the Peacemakers in Egypt in March, l996, a gathering of 29 regional and world leaders to design and support new counter-terrorism initiatives and to further the Mid East Peace Process.

Requested one hundred million dollars be provided by the United States to Israel for counter-terrorism equipment and training as well as emergency shipments of bomb detection equipment. Followed up the anti-terrorism Summit with a gathering of international counter-terrorism experts in Washington to pursue better cooperation and strengthened capabilities for controlling borders, stopping terrorist fundraising, and eliminating safe havens for terrorists through stronger laws and enforcement.

Directed that new legislation include funds to provide increased U.S. training to help friendly governments fight terrorism around the globe.

Extended economic sanctions against Iran and Sudan and held tight sanctions against Libya and Iraq for their support and sponsorship of terrorism.

Legislative Response to Terrorism:

Over one year ago President Clinton asked Congress for legislation to strengthen our ability to combat international terrorism. On April 24th the President signed S. 735, the ?Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996? into law. Congress included many of the Administration's proposals in their bill, giving our law enforcement officials tough new tools to stop terrorists before they strike, and to bring them to justice if they do. The legislation bans fundraising in the United States that supports terrorist organizations. It also allows U.S. officials to deport terrorists from American soil without being compelled by the terrorists to divulge classified information, and to bar terrorists from entering the United States in the first place.

Nevertheless, as strong as the bill was, it should have been stronger. For example, President Clinton asked the Congress to give U.S. law enforcement increased wiretap authority in terrorism cases. But the Congress refused. After the President proposed that the Secretary of the Treasury consider the inclusion of taggants in explosive materials, so that bombs can be traced more easily to the bomb makers, the Congress exempted black and smokeless powder -- two of the most commonly used substances in improvised explosive devices.
We hope that there will be an opportunity to revisit these and other issues, as well as some of the other proposals this Administration has made, but upon which the Congress refused to act. Repeatedly pressing for the U.S. Senate to outlaw poison gas once and for all by ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention. Similarly, in October 1995 at The United Nations General Assembly urged other nations to ratify as well.

Holding Terrorists Accountable:

Ordered bombing of Iraqi military intelligence facility in wake of report that Iraqi terrorist attack was attempted against former President George Bush.

Arrested and brought back to stand trial in the United States, terrorists hiding in Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Jordan and Egypt.


Yoni he looks like he did do something..wow and all I had to do is google it..

Oh I see the GOP congress did want to give Clinton more wiretap authority... gee seems to me the dems are doing the same thing and they are accused of being weak on defense..

[George Gervin's Afro]

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.

You said Osama was the mastermind?

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:


In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria. . . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.



here's more for you Yoni..I thought you checked both lib and consevrative blogs? seems to me this was easy to find..maybe you just didn't google it right.. :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

On 26 February 1993...
I'm sorry, I don't get the point of what you just posted or why any of it would have prevented President Clinton from killing or capturing Osama bin Laden on the multitude of times the opportunity presented itself.

And, everything in that post only confirms the principal criticism of the Clinton administration; that Bill Clinton treated global terrorism as a law enforcement matter instead of a national security matter.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm sorry, I don't get the point of what you just posted or why any of it would have prevented President Clinton from killing or capturing Osama bin Laden on the multitude of times the opportunity presented itself.


oh ok you are going ignore your previous statement:

What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.


One more time I am going to aks you on what pretense was Clinton supposed to use to kill or capture Bin laden when he hadn't done nothing yet? Of course with that logic we better start killing or capturing 200 million people right?..

[Spurminator]

One more time I am going to aks you on what pretense was Clinton supposed to use to kill or capture Bin laden when he hadn't done nothing yet?

Well he didn't fly the planes into the WTC towers either, did he?

[Yonivore]

oh ok you are going ignore your previous statement:

What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.
He did essentially nothing to disrupt the operation of al Qaeda. He treated each instance you listed as a law enforcement matter (which, by the way, makes the timing of the desert missile attack on the empty tent even more suspect) instead of as an enemy attack.


One more time I am going to aks you on what pretense was Clinton supposed to use to kill or capture Bin laden when he hadn't done nothing yet?
:lmao With this application of your common sense, Osama bin Laden still hasn't done anything. After all, he didn't fly the planes into the World Trade Center, did he?


Of course with that logic we better start killing or capturing 200 million people right?..
So, using your logic, has Osama bin Laden done anything for which we should be pursuing his death or prosecution? Just curious since you seem so unclear on the matter.

And, if so, exactly when did he cross the line for you?

[George Gervin's Afro]

He did essentially nothing to disrupt the operation of al Qaeda. He treated each instance you listed as a law enforcement matter (which, by the way, makes the timing of the desert missile attack on the empty tent even more suspect) instead of as an enemy attack.


:lmao With this application of your common sense, Osama bin Laden still hasn't done anything. After all, he didn't fly the planes into the World Trade Center, did he?


So, using your logic, has Osama bin Laden done anything for which we should be pursuing his death or prosecution? Just curious since you seem so unclear on the matter.

And, if so, exactly when did he cross the line for you?


he crossed the line when he acted .. so I will ask again what are we going to do with the 200 million muslims who want to do us harm? some have not done anything but they want to hurt us... arrest the all? kill them all?

speaking of a law enforcement manner.. I seem to remember recently that the british police arrested some terrorists ta home.. I guess they should have sent the military into their apartments because after all it's not a law
enofrcement issue..


Hey I heard one of osama's 4 yr old nephews hates america nad wants to kill them..better send up the drone and eliminate him.. :lol

[johnsmith]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, this is fresh. Bill Clinton talking about what he wants ABC to do about the film. Honestly, I don't have much of an opinion on this movie, I just think it's funny what Clinton says.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton called for ABC to "tell the truth" in an upcoming miniseries about the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

Senior officials and advisers in Clinton's administration have attacked the accuracy of "The Path to 9/11," accusing filmmakers of including "fictitious" and even "false and defamatory" scenes of how they responded to the terror threat.

"I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they're going to claim it's based on the 9/11 commission's report," Clinton told reporters in Arkansas on Thursday.

[George Gervin's Afro]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, this is fresh. Bill Clinton talking about what he wants ABC to do about the film. Honestly, I don't have much of an opinion on this movie, I just think it's funny what Clinton says.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton called for ABC to "tell the truth" in an upcoming miniseries about the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

Senior officials and advisers in Clinton's administration have attacked the accuracy of "The Path to 9/11," accusing filmmakers of including "fictitious" and even "false and defamatory" scenes of how they responded to the terror threat.

"I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they're going to claim it's based on the 9/11 commission's report," Clinton told reporters in Arkansas on Thursday.


yes I do agree this is rather funny in an uncomfortable sort of way

[Yonivore]

he crossed the line when he acted .. so I will ask again what are we going to do with the 200 million muslims who want to do us harm? some have not done anything but they want to hurt us... arrest the all? kill them all?
Aside from those in whom we're already engaged in battle, if any of the other "200 million" distinguish themselves and start to organize a group that seems as bound and determined to kill Americans as is Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and then sets about trying to do just that; yep, I say we kill 'em.


speaking of a law enforcement manner.. I seem to remember recently that the british police arrested some terrorists ta home.. I guess they should have sent the military into their apartments because after all it's not a law enofrcement issue..
I don't think Jamie Gorelick is in the Blair administration.


Hey I heard one of osama's 4 yr old nephews hates america nad wants to kill them..better send up the drone and eliminate him.. :lol
If he takes after his uncle and starts to organize a militant terrorist group whose chief aim is to attack Americans; yep, send in the drones.

[boutons_]

"And, on the subject of war-in-Iraq justification, as news spreads of the latest tape from al Qaeda in Iraq's new leader, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri), it is worth remembering that he set up shop in Baghdad by the middle of 2002."

BBC NEWS

'No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda'

There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.

The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.

US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.

Opposition Democrats say the report has harmed Mr Bush's case for going to war.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war in Iraq, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.

The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

Requests rejected

The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme.

The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship.

( but it's good enough for dickhead's and YV's 0.001% doctrine and the wasting of 2600+ US military lives )

It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.

'Devastating indictment'

White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," he said.

( BULLSHIT. The "intelligence" WHIG presented was totally missing numerous, serious doubts by the intelligence community about that very same "intelligence", because WHIG cherry picked the intelligence FOR and suppressed all doubts AGAINST. )

But Democrat Senator Carl Levin described the report as a "devastating indictment" of the administration's attempts to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

Zarqawi, who is believed to be responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Iraq since the war, was killed in a US raid in June.

Saddam Hussein and several close associates are standing trial for the killings of Shias in the village of Dujail in 1982 and of more than 100,000 Kurds in 1988.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

Published: 2006/09/08 18:08:53 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[johnsmith]

"And, on the subject of war-in-Iraq justification, as news spreads of the latest tape from al Qaeda in Iraq's new leader, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri), it is worth remembering that he set up shop in Baghdad by the middle of 2002."

BBC NEWS

'No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda'

There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.

The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.

US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.

Opposition Democrats say the report has harmed Mr Bush's case for going to war.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war in Iraq, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.

The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

Requests rejected

The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme.

The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship.

( but it's good enough for dickhead's and YV's 0.001% doctrine and the wasting of 2600+ US military lives )

It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.

'Devastating indictment'

White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," he said.

( BULLSHIT. The "intelligence" WHIG presented was totally missing numerous, serious doubts by the intelligence community about that very same "intelligence", because WHIG cherry picked the intelligence FOR and suppressed all doubts AGAINST. )

But Democrat Senator Carl Levin described the report as a "devastating indictment" of the administration's attempts to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

Zarqawi, who is believed to be responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Iraq since the war, was killed in a US raid in June.

Saddam Hussein and several close associates are standing trial for the killings of Shias in the village of Dujail in 1982 and of more than 100,000 Kurds in 1988.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

Published: 2006/09/08 18:08:53 GMT

© BBC MMVI


Honestly, I've never been more irritated by a human being in my life then what Boutons does to me. Not because of anything he says, but because he NEVER SAYS ANYTHING OF HIS OWN. If I ever meet boutons in the street I'm going to punch him in the groin.

[101A]

Honestly, I've never been more irritated by a human being in my life then what Boutons does to me. Not because of anything he says, but because he NEVER SAYS ANYTHING OF HIS OWN. If I ever meet boutons in the street I'm going to punch him in the groin.


I like the struff he posts that other people write better (there is some). Bouton's stuff is shrill, angry, and pointless. He ONLY calls names and throws fits. It's like trying to debate a spoiled six year old only child about whether we can have gummi bears for dinner - and she REALLY thinks we can.

[Yonivore]

I like the Confederate Yankee's (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/) response to this meme:


How Quickly They Forget

A Senate report (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/08/D8K0PV600.html) on prewar intelligence in Iraq says that there is no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda. Predictably, Democrats are saying that this undercuts the President's justification for going to war.

They are deadly wrong.

Some intelligence experts might dispute (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200908,00.html) the Senate's conclusions on Iraq, unless, of course, the Senate merely means that they didn't have evidence of Saddam and al-Zarqawi having tea.

Regardless, President Bush sent us to war because Saddam had well-documented ties to many terrorist groups, making Baghdad host to a "Who's Who" of Islamic terrorists.

Abu Abbas, mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking that saw an elderly, wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer murdered and thrown over the side, was a long-time guest of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and was captured near Baghdad (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/) as a direct result of our 2003 invasion.

Abu Nidal, Palestinian terrorist mastermind led the Abu Nidal Organization, was another long-time terrorist-in-residence that died in Baghdad in 2002. The ANO was based in Iraq since 1998 (http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm), and recieved training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from Iraq. They were shutdown by the invasion of Iraq after killing more than 900 people since 1974, and have not been heard from since.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, the bomb builder in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, was given money and housing by Saddam Hussein's Iraq (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm).

I have a simple question for Senate Democrats:

How many more terrorist groups targeting and killing Americans would Saddam have had to support before you found an invasion worthwhile?

And please, pardon me, if I don't expect an answer. Democrats haven't had an answer for terrorism in five years, and I do'nt expect they'll suddenly come up with one now.
None of this even speaks to the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, after 1991 -- against his own people -- or of his defiance of over 17 UNSC resolutions demanding his compliance.

[boutons_]

So far, 2600+ US military lives WASTED

The Repugs and wingnuts keep moving their justifications around. The overwhelming, take-home, end-all, be-all justification for invading Iraq (remember Powell being setup by the WHIG to stain his career with "mobile bio-weapon labs" dog-and-pony show for the UN) before the war was WMD. The mobile weapons labs were just another fabrication by the WHIG.

Since there were no WMD found before or after the invasion, Repugs and wingnuts have been since scrambling around to justify wasting 2600+ US military lives. They have failed. They will NEVER succeed.

Iraq is totally de-stablized after the US invasion.

The most likely Iraq outcome after the US leaves is a radical Shia theocracy allied to the radical Shia theocracy in Iran with a combined oil revenue of about $8B/month.

You're doing a heckuva job, dubya

So, Repugs and wingnuts and red-state dumbshits (that includes you johnsmith. If you can't stand the pushback and polarization, go fuck yourself), keep scrambling, keep dragging in your little piles of rat shit reasons, they will never justify 2600 US military lives in the phony, disastrous Iraq war.

The dubya/dickhead/Iraq ARE the issues being voted on in November, and all Repugs at risk are distancing themselves from the WH as far as they can.

The majority of Americans, and that majority will only grow, are now convinced that the Iraq war was a mistake AND not worth the loss of US life.

(note: very sorry I didn't quote an article with my annotations. )

[johnsmith]

So far, 2600+ US military lives WASTED


See what happens when numbnuts doesn't post an article, he writes something like this. I'm sure the families of the soldiers would love to hear that their childrens/husbands/wives/brothers/etc lives were wasted.

[MannyIsGod]

See what happens when numbnuts doesn't post an article, he writes something like this. I'm sure the families of the soldiers would love to hear that their childrens/husbands/wives/brothers/etc lives were wasted.I think people cna make up their own minds on whether or not they feel that way; its not up to boutons. But if they do feel that way I wonder who they feel wasted the lives.

[boutons_]

September 8, 2006

F.B.I. Agents Question Accuracy of 9/11 Series

By JESSE McKINLEY


Two retired F.B.I. agents said today that they had rejected advisory roles on the disputed ABC mini-series, “The Path to 9/11,” because of concerns about the program’s accuracy.

One of the agents, Thomas E. Nicoletti, was hired by the producers of the mini-series in July 2005 to oversee its technical accuracy, but left after less than a month because of scenes he believed were misleading or just false.

“There were some of the scenes that were total fiction,” said Mr. Nicoletti, who served as a supervisory special agent and a member of the joint terrorism task force before retiring in 2003. “I told them unless they were changing this, I could not have my name associated with it.”

Chief among Mr. Nicoletti’s concerns were scenes that placed people at places they had not been present at and scenes that depicted events that were out of chronological order.

“There were so many inaccuracies,” he said.

Mr. Nicoletti said he asked the producers to make changes, but was rebuffed. “I’m well aware of what’s dramatic license and what’s historical inaccuracy,” Mr. Nicoletti said. “And this had a lot of historical inaccuracy.”

ABC, which has said that the mini-series is a docudrama about terrorism investigations prior to 9/11, not a documentary, has said that “for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.”

Dan Coleman, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2004, said he also was concerned when he read the script last summer after being approached by producers about being a technical advisor.

“They sent me the script, and I read it and told them they had to be kidding,” Mr. Coleman said. “I wanted my friends at the F.B.I. to still speak to me.”

Mr. Coleman said his concerns mainly dealt with the depiction of law enforcement officers, particularly John O’Neill, an F.B.I. counterterrorism expert who died in the attacks. “I’m Irish and I believe in ghosts,” he said. “I don’t want to be haunted.” He said he passed on the job. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

But Terry Carney, another former F.B.I. agent, took the position, which he said had more to do with correcting the look and demeanor of agents, not the facts of the investigation.

“I was never asked to comment on historical accuracy,” Mr. Carney said. “That wasn’t my role.”

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Nbadan's Avatar

Position: Dominant Center
Team: San Antonio Spurs
vBookie Cash: $25
Post Count: 12,777
Nbadan earned this Spur by being an original member of SpursTalk.com.

Default Re: ABC 911 Docudrama Short On Facts
I think it's hypocritical for ABC to run a obviously politically motivated docu-drama dressed up a documentary, profit free, two months before an election that could see their Congressional shills kicked out of office.

I think it's hypocritical for fat fuck Michael Moore to make a science fiction piece and call it a documentary, but I didn't see your bigoted ass crying out about that, Dan.

In fact, you bought fully into the black helicopter bullshit and screamed bloody murder when anyone questioned Fat Bastard, err, Moore.

Look in the mirror, asshole.

[valluco]

Moore is an idiot. But, his peice of shit film was NOT a public brodcast like this crap that is going to air on ABC. People had to pay money to see Moore's crap. ABC is running a two day ad for the Righties.

[Yonivore]

Moore is an idiot. But, his peice of shit film was NOT a public brodcast like this crap that is going to air on ABC. People had to pay money to see Moore's crap. ABC is running a two day ad for the Righties.
So, you'd be okay if it were moved to cable?

[smeagol]

Is there a need to repeat there was no link between AQ and Saddam?

No, there is no need. Everybody knows it. Let's move on.

[boutons_]

"Let's move on."

Was there a need to question Clinton about his sex life? "Let's move on." :lol

dubya/dickhead/WHIQ tells lies, 10,000s of people dead. "let move on"

Clinton lies, nobody dies, let's impeach him.

[smeagol]

"Let's move on."

Was there a need to question Clinton about his sex life? "Let's move on." :lol

dubya/dickhead/WHIQ tells lies, 10,000s of people dead. "let move on"

Clinton lies, nobody dies, let's impeach him.
Is there a need to defend Clinton?

What he did was reprimendable.

Move on.

And use the fucking quote button!

[valluco]

So, you'd be okay if it were moved to cable?
It would be better off on cable TV. Don't forget about the peice that was done on the Patron Saint Ronald Reagan that the GOP didn't want on network TV and they succeeded in having it removed. It ended up on Showtime I believe. Why should it be OK for the Right to get what they want when they get their panties in a bunch, but when Rush's buddy and ABC want to play a two day "docudrama" with bullshit scenes that they claim to be based on the 9/11 Commission's report it's OK? Come on.

September the 11th is still fresh on the minds of most Americans. The wounds have not yet healed for a lot of people, especially the families of the victims. Fuck anyone (and I mean anyone, right or left) who uses it for political advantage. The whole thing makes me sick. But, I guess it's OK for the Republicans to use it in their favor.

[Ya Vez]

I heard sunday it's going to be about the clinton years and monday the bush year... lol... it's going to hurt both sides.. but its funny how the left is going ape shit over this... lol

[valluco]

I seriously doubt that it's going to hurt GeeDub. But anyways, I'm not wasting my time watching this crap. Afterall, IT'S FOOTBALL SEASON!!!

[MannyIsGod]

Man, does it really matter? The American public always gets history wrong anyhow, so really couldn't care less if the losers who want to watch a "docudrama" over 2 nights get incorrect info.

[Guru of Nothing]

Could it be that WE, as individuals, are responsible for terrorism, given we don't really hold our political and corporate business leaders responsible for shit?

The "I banged an ugly chick" in The Club is extremely relavent here.

[Nbadan]

Man, does it really matter? The American public always gets history wrong anyhow, so really couldn't care less if the losers who want to watch a "docudrama" over 2 nights get incorrect info.

I think in most cases it's years later that we find out that what we thought was history, wasn't really history. For instance, there is strong evidence today that Roosevelt may have known Pearl Harbor was gonna get hit, but nobody suspected that in the 40's and 50's, so it never made it into any docu-drama about WW2.

Here, we know what happened today. Bin Laden was never offered to the U.S.


As a result of international pressure, Sudan asked bin Laden to leave the country in 1996. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "Saudi officials apparently wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan," but would not accept offers to extradite him to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden chartered a plane and moved to Afghanistan that year.[5][6]

In 2002, private businessman Mansoor Ijaz and one-time U.S. ambassador to Sudan Tim Carney claimed that Ijaz had in 1996 negotiated "through unofficial channels" a Sudanese offer to extradite bin Laden to the U.S., but that the offer had been denied.[7] Former Sudanese officials have made similar claims. Clinton administration officials testified that they had never received such an offer, and the 9/11 Commission stated that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."[8] President Bill Clinton later said that "There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. ... As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that.

More:


Attempts at assassination and requests for the extradition of Bin Laden from the Taliban of Afghanistan were met with failure[13]. In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton convinced the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in an attempt to force the Taliban to extradite him

Wikipedia, Bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden)

So the Clinton W.H. did try to assassinate Bin Laden, contrary to wing-nut talking-points.

[AFE7FATMAN]

God... this pisses me off on SO many levels. Clinton's record of weakness speaks for itself, so for him to whaa-whaa about NOT being a baby when it came to taking out terrorists just pisses me off.

The Dem's are calling this the Republican's answer to Michael Moore, simply because they don't look good. Got news for ya, Dems.... the media is SLANTED LEFT, so for them to come out with a "fiction-based-upon-fact" miniseries that bites you in the ass shocks the heck outta me. I'm glad to see it... but how much you wanna bet ABC caves and edits some of the story out to make Clinton look a little better?

The Miniiseries points out as i understand it the completely feckless response of Clinton’s national security team to 8 years of provocation by bin Laden and AQ.

The Clintonistas are predictably appalled at having the inherent weakness of the current Democrat party on national defense so brutally exposed.

They have been coasting on nostalgic feel good memories of peace and prosperity when the stock market soared, there was a Hummer in every driveway, and people worldwide loved us.

Except the internet bubble burst draining away all that faux-prosperity, as it turned out we weren’t actually at peace we were just failing to act as our enemies continued to attack us, and trust me nobody loved us then either.

Ah well at least they can point to the quagmire in Iraq and show that things haven’t gotten any better.

[BIG IRISH]

Not that it will happen, but I would like to see SOME FOLKS around here
R E A D
the commission report instead of picking out snips that support their positions.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

[Nbadan]

Not that it will happen, but I would like to see SOME FOLKS around here
R E A D
the commission report instead of picking out snips that support their positions.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

What fun is that? Besides, the whole Commission was a whitewash anyway. I mean, how can you say you ran a serious investigation and not even question the live-in girlfriend of the head the main terra cell in Florida, Muhamed Atta? When it comes to the truth about 911, there are questions that will only be answered in time if at all.

[BIG IRISH]

What fun is that? Besides, the whole Commission was a whitewash anyway. I mean, how can you say you ran a serious investigation and not even question the live-in girlfriend of the head the main terra cell in Florida, Muhamed Atta? When it comes to the truth about 911, there are questions that will only be answered in time if at all.

The Mind, Like a Parachute, Functions Only When Open, things aren't always what they seem to be. There's much to question about not only the report but who was involved in creating it and for what purpose. :rolleyes But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself.

Look at the background of the people on the committee and where are they now.As quoted from the report: :madrun

Page 146 - "Simply stated, this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the Administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress."

Page 147 - "Although the structure of the Committee provides for effective bipartisan oversight, the recent agenda of its membership has not fallen in line with the Committee's primary purpose."

Page 147 - "The Chairman's additional views in this second report lay out the factual discrepancies, false impressions and inaccuracies;"

It also appears that some of the President's more vocal opponents are on the committee, like:

John D. Rockefeller IV, WV (D), Carl Levin, MI (D), Dianne Feinstein, CA (D), Ron Wyden, OR (D), Evan Bayh, IN (D), Barbara A. Mikulski, MD (D), Russell D. Feingold, WI (D), Harry Reid, NV (D)

Guess the three remaining issues will be released just before the 2008 elections. We can all be "Shocked" by the new relevations, in 2008, all over again?

As an old "Farm Boy;" this story reminds me of my cows. My cows would eat disgusting food, bring it back up, and re-chew it, over, and over again. That action of the cows is very close to what the Senate and so-called NEWS organizations are doing with this information, I'm just a little concerned about who is swallowing what.

[Yonivore]

It would be better off on cable TV. Don't forget about the peice that was done on the Patron Saint Ronald Reagan that the GOP didn't want on network TV and they succeeded in having it removed.
I could be wrong but I don't think this was accomplished by threat of legislative punishment but by a groundswell of conservatives who lobbied the network to yank the miniseries.


It ended up on Showtime I believe. Why should it be OK for the Right to get what they want when they get their panties in a bunch, but when Rush's buddy and ABC want to play a two day "docudrama" with bullshit scenes that they claim to be based on the 9/11 Commission's report it's OK? Come on.
Like I said, so long as Congress leaves the official letterhead and FCC quotes out of the equation, I'd be alright with the opposition. I don't think ABC would have folded if they didn't feel like they were being threatened.


September the 11th is still fresh on the minds of most Americans. The wounds have not yet healed for a lot of people, especially the families of the victims. Fuck anyone (and I mean anyone, right or left) who uses it for political advantage. The whole thing makes me sick. But, I guess it's OK for the Republicans to use it in their favor.
I've heard the docudrama is no piece of cake for the Bush administration either; painting Condoleeza Rice in a rather bad light. I also hear it lionizes Richard Clarke -- not quite a conservative icon -- so, why aren't the Republicans all up in arms?

[Yonivore]

What fun is that? Besides, the whole Commission was a whitewash anyway. I mean, how can you say you ran a serious investigation and not even question the live-in girlfriend of the head the main terra cell in Florida, Muhamed Atta? When it comes to the truth about 911, there are questions that will only be answered in time if at all.
From the guy that just got through using a quote from the 9-11 Commission to defend Bill Clinton.

You're right the 9-11 Commission leaves out a lot but what's there doesn't exculpate Clinton's or his actions during the 8 years he was in office. And, I doubt what that what is missing would either.

[boutons_]

What exactly, in the commission report or not, exculpates the Repugs between 20 Jan and 11 Sep 2001?

For those 8 months preceding the attack:

What were the priorities of the Repugs? (cutting taxes. anything else? no. )

What were the specific NATIONAL SECURITY priorities of the Repugs?

Did any of the attack warnings and info the percolated up through the CIA, NSA, FBI to the WH permit the WH to connect the dots, or not, just raise alert, and put the national security agencies and airport security apparatus on high alert?

Or was their priority taking a big summer vacation, both in the WH and at Crawford, after ramming through the most unfair tax cuts in American history?

Was the WH national security apparatus suffiiciently paranoid about national security? What simply doesn't add up is that Repugs were asleep a tthe wheel, in full dereliction of duty before 9/11.

Since 9/11, the Repugs main output has been the:
1) disastrous DHS,
2) the phony Iraq war,
3) the non-stop scare-mongering that the incredibly powerful, sneaky, motivated, well-financed, globe-spanning terrorists can easily strike the USA anywhere, anytime, a question of only "when, not if",
4) raising bullshit terror alerts,

...while all the time claiming 100% responsibility for successfully protecting America,

while exploiting their bogus war on terror for exclusivly Repug partisan advantage,

while spreading the myth that NOBODY could have prevented the WTC attack because CLINTON had fucked up so bad.

btw, the Repugs have not addressed their role in distracting Clinton and his WH from his primary job by Repugs financing of and conducting of witch-hunts against the Clintons and finally impeaching Clinton, a purely political tactic that surely freed Clinton to concentrate on national security.

Were the WH Repugs prevented from raising any alert because they hadn't yet invented a hokey, mutli-colored traffic light to express those alerts? :lol

I'm convinced that info about terror attacks WERE presented to the WH, and were completely ignored. As is dubya's habit, Condi fucked up and got promoted to State. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif The WH NatSec slackness has been completely, aggressively suppressed by the WH and the nat sec apparatus that has huge self-interest in hiding their incompetence, just as completely and aggressively as the Repug slime machine, which includes parrots like YV, is pinning ALL responsibility for WTC on Clinton.

Remember the WH spin after the attack, paraphrase the messages:

"There was NO WAY to foresee and defend against such an attack.

That's why we (WH) need to violate every privacy protection for US citizens.

The WTC was 100% the fault of Clinton and there was absolutely nothing the Repug WH could have done form Jan - Sep 2001 to prevent the attack. Clinton fucked up the Repugs from doing our NatSec job."


A reason the Repugs aren't all "up in arms" is that, among other reasons:

"Cyrus Nowrasteh, the Republican and Limbaugh pal who served as the writer and a producer (of ABC show), told KRLA-AM in Los Angeles that the scene was improvised."

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/opinion/09dowd.html?hp

The Repugs, esp dubya and dickhead, have dodged no bullets in this slime-job because all the bullets have been aimed at Clinton by a Repug writer. Anybody think this Nowrasteh guy has scribbled his fantasy script in total disconnect from Repug/WH slime-meisters?

[jochhejaam]

Dear William Jefferson Clinton,

You were far from perfect during your tenure as President. We are going to expose some of that imperfection along with the imperfection of others. Quit whining and enjoy the show (or don't).


Sincerely,
Marc Platt





The film's executive producer, Marc Platt, <said> that many of the film's most vocal critics haven't yet seen it. "I'm not sure that what they think is there, is there," he said Friday by phone from London.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'll make a deal with the bush lovers. If we are going to hold clinton accountable based on what is presented in this series then EVERYTHING indicting bush's missteps and 'possible' chances to stop 9/11 will be fair game for ridicule and accountablility. You can't protray only part of the story is true and then backtrack on the other half. From what I know there are parts that have been fictionalized and the makers took some artistic liberty making the movie so to know what is 100% fact or 'made up' is impossible. Unless your a partisan hack that will cherry pick what makes your side look good..then you are useless and a hypocrite..

[George Gervin's Afro]

From the guy that just got through using a quote from the 9-11 Commission to defend Bill Clinton.

You're right the 9-11 Commission leaves out a lot but what's there doesn't exculpate Clinton's or his actions during the 8 years he was in office. And, I doubt what that what is missing would either.


More arm chair quaterbacking Yoni... typical.

[Yonivore]

I'll make a deal with the bush lovers. If we are going to hold clinton accountable based on what is presented in this series then EVERYTHING indicting bush's missteps and 'possible' chances to stop 9/11 will be fair game for ridicule and accountablility. You can't protray only part of the story is true and then backtrack on the other half. From what I know there are parts that have been fictionalized and the makers took some artistic liberty making the movie so to know what is 100% fact or 'made up' is impossible. Unless your a partisan hack that will cherry pick what makes your side look good..then you are useless and a hypocrite..
That's why they called it a docudrama.

Personally, I don't care if they show it or not, edited or not; I'm just amused the Democrats have gotten so apoplectic about it.

Now you've got Clinton's personal lawyers writing to ABC.

It must really make him look bad.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's why they called it a docudrama.

Personally, I don't care if they show it or not, edited or not; I'm just amused the Democrats have gotten so apoplectic about it.

Now you've got Clinton's personal lawyers writing to ABC.

It must really make him look bad.


This is what I think this is going on. If there is something in the movie that is of extraordinary significance I would want to ensure that what is portrayed is accuracte. Especially if what is portrayed is plain wrong. I will use this scenerio as an example: If in the movie there was a scene in which President Bush got information that Osama was going to attack us and the portrayal of the President is that he laughs and notes that he does not take this seriously.


If this situation did not happen as is being portrayed and I am a part of Bush's team I am making sure that this un-truth is addressed. I would be outraged that a serious matter such as this was being portrayed inaccurately and I certainly want the public to know that this was not the case.

[Yonivore]

This is what I think this is going on. If there is something in the movie that is of extraordinary significance I would want to ensure that what is portrayed is accuracte. Especially if what is portrayed is plain wrong. I will use this scenerio as an example: If in the movie there was a scene in which President Bush got information that Osama was going to attack us and the portrayal of the President is that he laughs and notes that he does not take this seriously.


If this situation did not happen as is being portrayed and I am a part of Bush's team I am making sure that this un-truth is addressed. I would be outraged that a serious matter such as this was being portrayed inaccurately and I certainly want the public to know that this was not the case.
That's just it. If that were the case I doubt you'd see President Bush giving it much thought at all.

You might have some Republican Congresspeople making noise but, then again, I doubt you'd have them writing threatening letters on Congressional letterhead.

That's what's so freakin' funny about this. The Democrats, once again, are absolutely wiggin' out.

[jochhejaam]

From what I know there are parts that have been fictionalized
Please share with the forum "what you know" to be fiction. Or did you mean, from what you heard?

[George Gervin's Afro]

STATEMENT from ABC Entertainment on "The Path to 9/11"
“The Path to 9/11” is not a documentary of the events leading to 9/11. It is a dramatization, drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression. No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.


I'm making it up of course..

[jochhejaam]

I'm making it up of course..
Okay GGA, I thought you were referring to specifics rather than what we already knew.

[jochhejaam]

The following is from a letter Clinton's lawyers sent to ABC, demanding that they not air the docudrama. It's totally ridiculous.


-- 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.



How did they come to the conclusion that editing the film is an admission that it's irreparably flawed? Logic defying.

[boutons_]

The buzz that ABC has created by using drug-abuser/rabble-rouser porky RL as pot stirrer will generate 10's of $Ms in advertizing revenue for ABC.

The more scandalous, untrue, biased, and defamatory ABC makes it, the more $$$ they make. Crime pays.

[BIG IRISH]

Best line out of the whole movie:

"Are there any real men left in Washington? Or, are they all cowards?"



However the ? has been rhetorical for a number of years.

[Ocotillo]

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW09-13-06.jpg

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Did any of the attack warnings and info the percolated up through the CIA, NSA, FBI to the WH permit the WH to connect the dots, or not, just raise alert, and put the national security agencies and airport security apparatus on high alert?

Or was their priority taking a big summer vacation, both in the WH and at Crawford, after ramming through the most unfair tax cuts in American history?

See, that's what I love about you boutons. You can take anything and turn it into more of your mindless political bullshit drivel.

Keep up the bad work :tu

I love how Clinton and his crew couldn't 'connect the dots' in his entire administration, but somehow you have to take a pot shot at W. for not figuring it out in eight months.

Yet you come on here and insist time and again how great and smart Clinton and his people are, and how stupid and horrible W and his crew is.

If that's the case, the 'blame' for 9/11 should fall at the feet of Clinton.

Look, it's stupid to blame *anyone*. People fucked up on both sides. Both administrations fucked up. People who fall on both sides of the aisle in Congress fucked up. People who were members of both political parties (voting purposes) that worked at the various intelligence agencies fucked up.

All this 'it's all so and so's fault' shit is about as old as Dikembe Mutombo. Fucking let it go, you partisan twits.

[boutons_]

"I love about you boutons"

I love you, too, dickless.

"Clinton and his crew couldn't 'connect the dots' "

There were lots of indications that Clinton was very concerned about al Quida, when he wasn't being distracted by Repug's impotent impeachment and other harrassments.

There were NO indicatons that the Jan-Feb 2001 Repugs had ANY concerns about al-Quaida until 12 Sep.

I don't insist the Clinton was blameless, but I've yet to hear anybody defend the NatSec fecklessness of Repugs from Jan to Sep.

If it's pointless to blame anyone, then why is the right wing and Repugs dumping 100% of responsibility for al quaida on Clinton. you don't even make internal consistency. They do it do deflect the extremely serious responsibility for WTC from dubya.

I'll let it go as soon as the Repugs and right wing fuckers quit dumping it all on Clinton and lay most of the blame on dubya.

[AFE7FATMAN]

I'll let it go as soon as the Repugs and right wing fuckers quit dumping it all on Clinton and lay most of the blame on dubya.

Now don't Let your little brain blow open but:

The Sept. 11 attack, planning began in the '90s,i.e — eight years of Bill Clinton

followed by eight months of President Bush.

and you wonder why most of the blame is on Bush= DFLiberal

[boutons_]

"eight months of President Bush"

Most of the activity, and esp the greatly increased "hijacked planes into buildlings" chatter was in the months on dubya's watch.

The 8-years vs 8-months is supposed to mean that Clinton wa 12 times more responsible than dubya?

As if the idea hatched in the 8th preceding year outside of the US was just as
imporant as the increasing crescendo of chatter in the last 2 months before 9/11?

Did the WH and NSA do ANYTHING about ANYTHING NatSec between Jan-Sep?

It is well documented that Clinton's WH had been pre-occupied with al-Qaida and warned dubya's transtion team al-Quaida. Is there any indication that the dubya WH/NSA inherited this concern and ran with it?

[BIG IRISH]

"eight months of President Bush"

Most of the activity, and esp the greatly increased "hijacked planes into buildlings" chatter was in the months on dubya's watch.


As if the idea hatched in the 8th preceding year outside of the US was just as
imporant as the increasing crescendo of chatter in the last 2 months before 9/11?

It is well documented that Clinton's WH had been pre-occupied with al-Qaida and warned dubya's transtion team al-Quaida. :lol Is there any indication that the dubya WH/NSA inherited this concern and ran with it?

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace — al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" — staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue dress.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."

— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process."

(How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's surrender to Islamic savagery.

Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil.

Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies, maybe not exactly legal, that have kept this nation safe since 9/11.
Credit to Ann Coulter for the abovehttp://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
How's that CD

The War in IRAQ, is not going well and You can Blame Bush and the Clinton Generals and the F UP military he left Bush With for that & don't forget Rummy the Dummy.

[ChumpDumper]

You need to credit the blog you are pasting.

[Mr. Peabody]

Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."



:lol
How is wanting definitive proof and not acting merely on your personal beliefs a classic Democratic excuse? I think it is a perfectly reasonable approach to take before lives are put in danger. Had GW and his administration taken the same approach....

[boutons_]

Big leprechaun, I'm waiting:

"Did the WH and NSA do ANYTHING about ANYTHING NatSec between Jan-Sep 2001?"


the right-wing/Repug slime-attack machine ALWAYS slimes, especially when can offer OFFER no defense of Repug guilt and incompetence.

We see the sliming in the current election, Repugs sliming Dem candidates since Repug cannot associate themselves with the national issues mishandled by the WH, eg, phony, disastrous war.

Big leprechaun, I'm waiting ...

[xrayzebra]

Been awhile since I posted on here, but just cant standby and watch a bunch of
simple minded idiots make dumb ass statements.

In the first place, I have no use for people like the twerps boutons and Nbadan and
sundry others who would watch their country go down in defeat to their cheers and
who support the rights of terrorist over the rights and security of American citizens.

What part of "the terrorist want to kill us" don't you understand? You cannot
bargain with them, you cannot negotiate with them and you certainly cant live
with them. Ask the people of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries. You
people are as dumb as door knobs or completely unAmerican, I choose the later.

The 9/11 commission was peppered with Clinton people, even the lady who
established the wall between the CIA and FBI. You want to call all conservatives
right wing zealots and other cute names. How bout just calling us what we are
Americans who support our country and citizens. We supported Clinton in what
little effort he put into the Criminal war on terror. Most people had never
heard of UBL until after the second bombing of the WTC. He had every chance
in the world to bring this man to justice, but didn't. Now you idiots want to
bash our President for waging a war on terror and attempting to protect your
sorry rearend.

You people are pathetic and keep underestimating the American public. We are
not to village idiots you perceive, you are!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Been awhile since I posted on here, but just cant standby and watch a bunch of
simple minded idiots make dumb ass statements.

In the first place, I have no use for people like the twerps boutons and Nbadan and
sundry others who would watch their country go down in defeat to their cheers and
who support the rights of terrorist over the rights and security of American citizens.

What part of "the terrorist want to kill us" don't you understand? You cannot
bargain with them, you cannot negotiate with them and you certainly cant live
with them. Ask the people of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries. You
people are as dumb as door knobs or completely unAmerican, I choose the later.

The 9/11 commission was peppered with Clinton people, even the lady who
established the wall between the CIA and FBI. You want to call all conservatives
right wing zealots and other cute names. How bout just calling us what we are
Americans who support our country and citizens. We supported Clinton in what
little effort he put into the Criminal war on terror. Most people had never
heard of UBL until after the second bombing of the WTC. He had every chance
in the world to bring this man to justice, but didn't. Now you idiots want to
bash our President for waging a war on terror and attempting to protect your
sorry rearend.

You people are pathetic and keep underestimating the American public. We are
not to village idiots you perceive, you are!


Sorry but since roughly 10 % of the 2 billion Muslims worldwide are fanatics is your solution to kill 200 million people? Every time I bring this up not one republican ever answers.. Bush and company have admitted we can't kill them all so what is the next step in the "stay the course" strategy.




Concerning the 'wall':

Former Sen. Slade Gorton [R-WA], a 9-11 Commission member, specifically addressed and debunked the theory that Gorelick's memo prevented such intelligence-sharing in an August 18, 2005, letter to the editor in The Washington Times:

The one witness who did name Atta came to our staff shortly before the commission's report went to the printer. He said he thought he had seen something showing Atta in Brooklyn early in 2000. We knew, in fact, that Atta first arrived in the United States in June 2000 with a visa. For this and other reasons, the witness simply was not credible on this subject.

Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.

Moreover, the "wall" that conservatives accuse Democrats of erecting had been built well before Gorelick -- or Clinton -- took office. The joint House and Senate intelligence committees' report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures stated: "The 'Wall' is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over sixty years as a result of legal, policy, institutional, and personal factors." Similarly, a ruling by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review -- when it met for the first time in 2002 -- traces the origin of the "wall" to "some point during the 1980s."




Simpleton.

[valluco]

Been awhile since I posted on here, but just cant standby and watch a bunch of
simple minded idiots make dumb ass statements.

In the first place, I have no use for people like the twerps boutons and Nbadan and
sundry others who would watch their country go down in defeat to their cheers and
who support the rights of terrorist over the rights and security of American citizens.

What part of "the terrorist want to kill us" don't you understand? You cannot
bargain with them, you cannot negotiate with them and you certainly cant live
with them. Ask the people of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries. You
people are as dumb as door knobs or completely unAmerican, I choose the later.

The 9/11 commission was peppered with Clinton people, even the lady who
established the wall between the CIA and FBI. You want to call all conservatives
right wing zealots and other cute names. How bout just calling us what we are
Americans who support our country and citizens. We supported Clinton in what
little effort he put into the Criminal war on terror. Most people had never
heard of UBL until after the second bombing of the WTC. He had every chance
in the world to bring this man to justice, but didn't. Now you idiots want to
bash our President for waging a war on terror and attempting to protect your
sorry rearend.

You people are pathetic and keep underestimating the American public. We are
not to village idiots you perceive, you are!
Hey! Welcome back pendejo!

We missed you.

[xrayzebra]

Sorry but since roughly 10 % of the 2 billion Muslims worldwide are fanatics is your solution to kill 200 million people? Every time I bring this up not one republican ever answers.. Bush and company have admitted we can't kill them all so what is the next step in the "stay the course" strategy.


Simpleton.

No my solution is to win a total victory and do it anyway we can. Is that
too hard for you to figure out. If it takes killing off 200 million, so be it.
They will most definitly kill off over 200 million Americans if they have the
chance. Do you dispute that? And you call me a "simpleton". You still
haven't understood they want to kill all people who do not belive as they
do.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No my solution is to win a total victory and do it anyway we can. Is that
too hard for you to figure out. If it takes killing off 200 million, so be it.
They will most definitly kill off over 200 million Americans if they have the
chance. Do you dispute that? And you call me a "simpleton". You still
haven't understood they want to kill all people who do not belive as they
do.



NO I was not calling you a simpleton I was referring to the village idiots you say (Which include me) don't get 'it' if they don't agree with Bush.

[boutons_]

"watch a bunch of simple minded idiots make dumb ass statements."

... is why you are one of the few here I have on IGNORE, dumbfuck :lol

[xrayzebra]

"watch a bunch of simple minded idiots make dumb ass statements."

... is why you are one of the few here I have on IGNORE, dumbfuck :lol


Obviously not on ignore now! :lol

But you sir, make my point completely. You ignore most facts.

[xrayzebra]

NO I was not calling you a simpleton I was referring to the village idiots you say (Which include me) don't get 'it' if they don't agree with Bush.

Agree, my God, you folks not only disagree with Bush, you completely
agree with the terrorist and their human rights or whatever else you
can come up with the "disagree" with Bush doctrine. How about a little support for your
country. Do you ever do that? I think not. I don't agree with everything
the President does, but I damn sure don't agree with anything the Terrorist
do. I say again, kill them before they kill us. We are in a war, do you
understand that? It is one we cannot afford to lose, do you understand
that? Your and my life depends on winning. You had better understand
that!

[valluco]

Agree, my God, you folks not only disagree with Bush, you completely
agree with the terrorist and their human rights or whatever else you
can come up with the "disagree" with Bush doctrine. How about a little support for your
country. Do you ever do that? I think not. I don't agree with everything
the President does, but I damn sure don't agree with anything the Terrorist
do. I say again, kill them before they kill us. We are in a war, do you
understand that? It is one we cannot afford to lose, do you understand
that? Your and my life depends on winning. You had better understand
that!
Bush had my support after 9/11 as well as the support from the American people, the "Dimmocraps", and the world. It's not our fault that he shit all over it.

Wake the fuck up.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Agree, my God, you folks not only disagree with Bush, you completely
agree with the terrorist and their human rights or whatever else you
can come up with the "disagree" with Bush doctrine. How about a little support for your
country. Do you ever do that? I think not. I don't agree with everything
the President does, but I damn sure don't agree with anything the Terrorist
do. I say again, kill them before they kill us. We are in a war, do you
understand that? It is one we cannot afford to lose, do you understand
that? Your and my life depends on winning. You had better understand
that!



Right. If I don't agree with Bush's doctrine then I side with the terrorists..and you say I'm the one who doesn't get it. Let me ask you a question. What if Bush is wrong in how he has carried out the war up until this point? Should I just shut up and play good American..?

[johnsmith]

Totally unrelated, but did anyone watch this movie?

[xrayzebra]

Right. If I don't agree with Bush's doctrine then I side with the terrorists..and you say I'm the one who doesn't get it. Let me ask you a question. What if Bush is wrong in how he has carried out the war up until this point? Should I just shut up and play good American..?

Yeah, it would help if you shutup and quit giving aid and confort to the
enemy who has sworn to kill us. I will ask you a question, mr smart guy,
how do you know Bush is wrong. Cause the media cant concertrate on
anything but the negative and all the Democratic leadership hates
America, that is till they get back into power. Give me a break.

[xrayzebra]

Totally unrelated, but did anyone watch this movie?


Yes I did. And it showed Clinton and his gang running and hiding and not
able to make a decision. It shows Madam Albright in all her glory. Like
tipping off all the surrounding countries when Clinton was going to bomb
AQ.

It also shows some inepitude, I think, on the Bush administration, since they
were still trying to get some policies in place.

But those only scratch the surface of my observations. How bout you,
did you watch it?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah, it would help if you shutup and quit giving aid and confort to the
enemy who has sworn to kill us. I will ask you a question, mr smart guy,
how do you know Bush is wrong. Cause the media cant concertrate on
anything but the negative and all the Democratic leadership hates
America, that is till they get back into power. Give me a break.



So now in America when the GOP is in control just shut up because there is no more free and open debate. Of course the same GOP is trying to install a democracy in Iraq with free and open debate.... irony?

How do I know Bush is wrong? The same reason why you think he is right..

Now it's the media's fault.. so what are the positives that the media leaves out? I am going to go on a limb and assume you are a regualr talk radio listener.. All I hear those chickenhawks do is compalin about only the bad news in Iraq being reported... well why don't they go to Iraq and report it themselves?:lol :lol :lol

Not the guy who started the unecessary war in Iraq .... :lol :lol

The same democratic party that has people who have actually served in the Armed forces and put their necks on the line..they hate America.. :lol :lol

[Spurminator]

Totally unrelated, but did anyone watch this movie?

:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes I did. And it showed Clinton and his gang running and hiding and not
able to make a decision. It shows Madam Albright in all her glory. Like
tipping off all the surrounding countries when Clinton was going to bomb
AQ.

It also shows some inepitude, I think, on the Bush administration, since they
were still trying to get some policies in place.

But those only scratch the surface of my observations. How bout you,
did you watch it?


Now Zebra likes the same media who never get's it right and only focuses on the negative?


STATEMENT from ABC Entertainment on "The Path to 9/11"
“The Path to 9/11” is not a documentary of the events leading to 9/11. It is a dramatization, drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression. No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.

[johnsmith]

Yes I did. And it showed Clinton and his gang running and hiding and not
able to make a decision. It shows Madam Albright in all her glory. Like
tipping off all the surrounding countries when Clinton was going to bomb
AQ.

It also shows some inepitude, I think, on the Bush administration, since they
were still trying to get some policies in place.

But those only scratch the surface of my observations. How bout you,
did you watch it?

No, I watched football instead. I was just curious about it.

[ChumpDumper]

You cannot bargain with them, you cannot negotiate with them and you certainly cant live with them. Ask the people of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries.Or ask me.

Sincerely,

General Pervez Musharraf

[George Gervin's Afro]

something for the GOP apologists to stew on... but they say we can kill them all...


"TERRORISM CAN'T BE DEFEATED -- EVER
Terrorism is not an enemy, but a method. As such, it can never be defeated -- only contained and reduced. Even if the United States were to wipe out every terrorist cell in the world today, terrorism would be back tomorrow, because new grievances and new cries for revenge will continue to create new terrorists. In addition, there will always be violence-prone, armed insurgent groups that use terrorist methods in conflicts around the world" --- These are the freedom fighters. They never die out. It’s human nature.
Cores from "The Phony War" By Robert Dreyfuss

[Mr. Peabody]

Yes I did. And it showed Clinton and his gang running and hiding and not
able to make a decision. It shows Madam Albright in all her glory. Like
tipping off all the surrounding countries when Clinton was going to bomb
AQ.

It also shows some inepitude, I think, on the Bush administration, since they
were still trying to get some policies in place.

But those only scratch the surface of my observations. How bout you,
did you watch it?

:depressed

The thing that worries me is that I think a lot of people that saw this fictional miniseries will react like xray. People just seem to have a hard time discerning fact from fiction, even when it is perfectly clear that source is a work of fiction.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:depressed

The thing that worries me is that I think a lot of people that saw this fictional miniseries will react like xray. People just seem to have a hard time discerning fact from fiction, even when it is perfectly clear that source is a work of fiction.


It serves his agenda of blindly following Bush. I must say there are many people on both sides who see what they want to see and are to blinded to realize it. (see xrayzebra as a prime example)

[johnsmith]

It serves his agenda of blindly following Bush. I must say there are many people on both sides who see what they want to see and are to blinded to realize it. (see xrayzebra as a prime example)

See Boutons

[boutons_]

"this fictional miniseries will react like xray."

Which was the supreme objective of the Repug who produced and wrote the fiction, no doubt in close cooperation with Rove and other Repug slime-bots.

[George Gervin's Afro]

See Boutons


no comment :lol

[Nbadan]

:depressed

The thing that worries me is that I think a lot of people that saw this fictional miniseries will react like xray. People just seem to have a hard time discerning fact from fiction, even when it is perfectly clear that source is a work of fiction.

Its like the whole Sandy Berger shoving papers down his pants and socks spin, none of the claims are based on facts, just misreporting, but if its repeated by the wing-nut media echo-chamber enough times who's to say what's real and what's spin? Certainly not wing-nuts.

[Spurminator]

I doubt this miniseries had any real effect on Xray's view of history.

[xrayzebra]

So now in America when the GOP is in control just shut up because there is no more free and open debate. Of course the same GOP is trying to install a democracy in Iraq with free and open debate.... irony?

How do I know Bush is wrong? The same reason why you think he is right..

Now it's the media's fault.. so what are the positives that the media leaves out? I am going to go on a limb and assume you are a regualr talk radio listener.. All I hear those chickenhawks do is compalin about only the bad news in Iraq being reported... well why don't they go to Iraq and report it themselves?:lol :lol :lol

Not the guy who started the unecessary war in Iraq .... :lol :lol

The same democratic party that has people who have actually served in the Armed forces and put their necks on the line..they hate America.. :lol :lol


Once Again, simple minded BS. Yes I do listen
to talk radio. Why not, I am not allowed to? Do
you listen to anything but the slime and BS that
is put out by people of your elk.

As far as risking lives in the Armed Forces, fellow,
I have news for you. I did and proudly. I was a
lifer, so stick that in your damn pipe and smoke it
along with the rest of the stuff you smoke.

You have the freedom to put you crap out about
how bad your government is and do give aid and
comfort to the enemy and then tell me how bad
I am to tell you how simple minded you are. I
have spent many years on this earth and know
from experience. How many you spend many
well depend on you and how you conduct yourself.

You may well be as old as me, but I doubt it. I
have supported my country and will continue to
do so. But you had better grown up and learn
from old farts like myself or you may well never
get the opportunity to do so.

As far as free and open debate, give me a break.
Calling your President a fascist, a liar, and every other name you can think of is not debate.
It is what it is HATE. Stopping every program to
protect this country in the name of privacy or
whatever liberal term you can come up with is
not debate, it is protecting the enemy. If you
think this the correct way to go then you are the
enemy. I have no qualms in saying that. You take the side of the enemy and against the citizens of this country. That is a fact.

Unnecessary war. What a BS statement. What is
a necessary war. Give me your definition smart
guy. You kill the enemy whereever they exist.

[xrayzebra]

Or ask me.

Sincerely,

General Pervez Musharraf

Horse Hockey, as always.

[ChumpDumper]

Horse Hockey, as always.I realize you have been gone awhile -- have you not heard about the deal Musharraf struck with Islamic militants in North Waziristan?

Need a link?

[xrayzebra]

It serves his agenda of blindly following Bush. I must say there are many people on both sides who see what they want to see and are to blinded to realize it. (see xrayzebra as a prime example)

You accuse me of following blindly. You really are
a simple minded fool. You follow when you have
no idea what the world is all about. Just don't
bother them and they wont bother us.

The bombing of the FIRST WTC happened. The Bombings of the Embassies didn't
happen. The Bombing of the Cole didn't happen.
I could go on, but will spare you. These things
happened when we were not in Iraq nor Iran or
anywhere, except Saudi Arabia, when we lost a
lot of people in bombing. We also pulled out of
two other places when we sustained deaths and
destruction. Remember them dumb ass? So
like most of your kind, just stick your head back
in the sand and we will protect what is left
sticking out. Your Ass.

Blind, yeah you are. As a bat!

[xrayzebra]

I realize you have been gone awhile -- have you not heard about the deal Musharraf struck with Islamic militants in North Waziristan?

Need a link?

I could care less about a link. We aren't Islamic.
We are considered a Christian nation. As long as
we are. we are a target. Which part of wanting us
dead do you not understand. You try understanding their hatred for us. I will continue
to push for killing them. Okay?

[valluco]

I could care less about a link. We aren't Islamic.
We are considered a Christian nation. As long as
we are. we are a target. Which part of wanting us
dead do you not understand. You try understanding their hatred for us. I will continue
to push for killing them. Okay?
I'm not Christian or Muslim for that matter, but I was born right here in the good old USA. Am I still an American?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Sorry you got distracted from pushing to kill those terrorists Musharraf just struck a deal with by the invasion of Iraq. Now we couldn't go into Pakistan to kill those folks even if we were able to.

Pity, isn't it?

[xrayzebra]

I'm not Christian or Muslim for that matter, but I was born right here in the good old USA. Am I still an American?

I don't know, are you? I am not surprised you aren't
a Christian. We have a lot of your folks on this
forum that claim they aren't and denounce him. I am a Christan. But it wont make much difference to
the folks that want to kill us, since you aren't a
Muslim either. You will just die or conform. Simple isn't it. Now you could try negotiating, but
on what terms?

[xrayzebra]

:lol Sorry you got distracted from pushing to kill those terrorists Musharraf just struck a deal with by the invasion of Iraq. Now we couldn't go into Pakistan to kill those folks even if we were able to.

Pity, isn't it?

You want to go back and re-write the above, it
doesn't make sense: "Musharraf just stuck a deal with by the invasion of Iraq".

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Sorry you got distracted from pushing to kill those terrorists - with whom Musharraf just struck a deal - by the invasion of Iraq. Now we couldn't go into Pakistan to kill those folks even if we were able to.

[xrayzebra]

I may have to retract my words and read the link. I
have no idea what you are talking about. I am not
aware of any deal Musharraf made. But Muslims do
make deals, normally through power based politics or
necessity. So post your link and I will read it.
But also remember they are notorious for going back
on their deals.

[valluco]

I don't know, are you? I am not surprised you aren't
a Christian. We have a lot of your folks on this
forum that claim they aren't and denounce him. I am a Christan. But it wont make much difference to
the folks that want to kill us, since you aren't a
Muslim either. You will just die or conform. Simple isn't it. Now you could try negotiating, but
on what terms?
Denounce who? Christ.
Eh, no. I may not follow any religion but I don't bash any either. It's not cool. To me that's sacrelige. Honestly, I try to respect other people's beliefs so long as they respect mine.

And no, I will not just die or conform. I sure as hell won't conform and put blinders on and support an administration as fucked up as this one.

I said it once and I guess I'm going to have to say it again. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 not Iraq. Osama is still at large and both the Taliban and AQ are still at it in Afghanistan. We should have stuck to finishing the job there first instead of getting ass-deep in Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a link (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1104AP_Pakistan_Truce_or_Surrender_LH1.html). I certainly agree that Musharref is covering his own ass, but that's what military dictators do whether they're our kind of military dictators or not. You'd think we'd have learned this from when Saddam was our homeboy.

[xrayzebra]

Denounce who? Christ.
Eh, no. I may not follow any religion but I don't bash any either. It's not cool. To me that's sacrelige. Honestly, I try to respect other people's beliefs so long as they respect mine.

And no, I will not just die or conform. I sure as hell won't conform and put blinders on and support an administration as fucked up as this one.

I said it once and I guess I'm going to have to say it again. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 not Iraq. Osama is still at large and both the Taliban and AQ are still at it in Afghanistan. We should have stuck to finishing the job there first instead of getting ass-deep in Iraq.

Osama was at large before 9/11 through no
fault of President Bush. Once again you show your simple minded approach and follow the
line of the liberals. Ass deep in Iraq, nothing
wrong with it. We needed to go there. I agree
with the President. The only thing I disagree with
is not sending more troops and fully occupying
Iraq. I disagree with the fact we haven't finished
kicking enough butt over there. Yeah I am a
warmonger, that is what they called us under the
old cold war days. Victory, total victory, will end
it all. They is no talking to those who would lose
power if we win until they know they have lost.

And you once again demonstrate someone who
has no backbone. I am not a Christian but, but
I have nothing against them. It just not cool. I
guess you have nothing against the Muslims who
chop off heads. What a dumb statement. Oh
by the way what is your beliefs, that you want
respected?

[valluco]

Oh, and yes I AM AN AMERICAN. Questioning our leaders motives and policies to me is patriotic. Right or Left, we elect them to office to serve us, the American people not corperations and lobbyists.

I think Theodore Roosevelt (a true conservative) said it best.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

[valluco]

Osama was at large before 9/11 through no
fault of President Bush. Once again you show your simple minded approach and follow the
line of the liberals. Ass deep in Iraq, nothing
wrong with it. We needed to go there. I agree
with the President. The only thing I disagree with
is not sending more troops and fully occupying
Iraq. I disagree with the fact we haven't finished
kicking enough butt over there. Yeah I am a
warmonger, that is what they called us under the
old cold war days. Victory, total victory, will end
it all. They is no talking to those who would lose
power if we win until they know they have lost.

And you once again demonstrate someone who
has no backbone. I am not a Christian but, but
I have nothing against them. It just not cool. I
guess you have nothing against the Muslims who
chop off heads. What a dumb statement. Oh
by the way what is your beliefs, that you want
respected?
You're a warmonger as well as an idiot.

I am completely against fanatic Muslims that chop off innocent people's heads just like I am very much against fanatic Christians that bomb abortion clinics you dumb, crazy, old fool.

Shows how much you know about people.

[Mr. Peabody]

And you once again demonstrate someone who
has no backbone. I am not a Christian but, but
I have nothing against them. It just not cool. I
guess you have nothing against the Muslims who
chop off heads. What a dumb statement. Oh
by the way what is your beliefs, that you want
respected?

I would imagine that the way he feels about Muslims "who chop off heads" is probably the same as he feels about Christians who chop off heads. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Or are you alleging that all Muslims chop off heads? You couldn't be alleging that, because such an assertion would be ridiculous.

[Crookshanks]

You're a warmonger as well as an idiot.

I am completely against fanatic Muslims that chop off innocent people's heads just like I am very much against fanatic Christians that bomb abortion clinics you dumb, crazy, old fool.

Shows how much you know about people.


No comparison, idiot! There's been ONE guy arrested and convicted of an abortion clinic bombing - how many innocents have been killed by the Muslim fanatics? Yeah, I thought so.

Also, not one Christian leader condoned the abortion clinic bombing - how many Muslim clerics have stepped up and publicly condemned the actions of the fanatics? Yeah, I thought so.

[Mr. Peabody]

No comparison, idiot! There's been ONE guy arrested and convicted of an abortion clinic bombing - how many innocents have been killed by the Muslim fanatics? Yeah, I thought so.

Also, not one Christian leader condoned the abortion clinic bombing - how many Muslim clerics have stepped up and publicly condemned the actions of the fanatics? Yeah, I thought so.

Right. Muslims are inherently evil and Christians have never done any wrong. Great argument.

[valluco]

No comparison, idiot! There's been ONE guy arrested and convicted of an abortion clinic bombing - how many innocents have been killed by the Muslim fanatics? Yeah, I thought so.

Also, not one Christian leader condoned the abortion clinic bombing - how many Muslim clerics have stepped up and publicly condemned the actions of the fanatics? Yeah, I thought so.
I like it when I hit a nerve. :smokin

[Mr. Peabody]

And you once again demonstrate someone who
has no backbone. I am not a Christian but, but
I have nothing against them. It just not cool. I
guess you have nothing against the Muslims who
chop off heads. What a dumb statement. Oh
by the way what is your beliefs, that you want
respected?

You're actually criticizing this guy for saying that he doesn't like to bash anyone's religion.

Is bashing someone's religion is an admirable trait?

[valluco]

You're actually criticizing this guy for saying that he doesn't like to bash anyone's religion.

Is bashing someone's religion is an admirable trait?

Sadly, it is for some. :depressed

[valluco]

Oh and Mr. Xray, my belief is that as long as you are not hurting anyone, worship and follow the path of spirituality that you choose.

Just don't try to shove it down my throat whether it be with terrorism or thumping a Bible and telling people that they are idiots for not going along with it.

Good Day.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Osama was at large before 9/11 through no
fault of President Bush. Once again you show your simple minded approach and follow the
line of the liberals. Ass deep in Iraq, nothing
wrong with it. We needed to go there. I agree
with the President. The only thing I disagree with
is not sending more troops and fully occupying
Iraq. I disagree with the fact we haven't finished
kicking enough butt over there. Yeah I am a
warmonger, that is what they called us under the
old cold war days. Victory, total victory, will end
it all. They is no talking to those who would lose
power if we win until they know they have lost.

And you once again demonstrate someone who
has no backbone. I am not a Christian but, but
I have nothing against them. It just not cool. I
guess you have nothing against the Muslims who
chop off heads. What a dumb statement. Oh
by the way what is your beliefs, that you want
respected?



this is the kind of guy the GOP loves... he ain't so bright.. after all he's admitted if you don't agree with Bush or his plicies then you side with terrorism.. (right now karl Rove is smiling :lol )