Looks like "The Path to 9/11" is going to blame Clinton

[itsrobert]

Anyone else see the preview on ABC?

[Cha]

1. And are they going to mention

the August 6, 2001 memo on airplanes attacking buildings that bush ignored while he was vacationing at the pig farm?

I hope Clinton is ready to throw the big guns back in their faces if they try and do this?

Hart Rudman Report, anyone?

[Dinger]

11. From The Interview With The RW Freak Who Wrote/Produced It,

it doesn't look like it. I did hear back from Media matters, and suggest DUers do the same. We need to head this off at the pass. (Without giving the coveted publicity I'm sure they want). Sue the living shit out of them.

[sgxnk]

40. sue them for WHAT?

i realize this is the litigation society (tm) but sue them for WHAT?

[Cha]

48. For taking the blame away from

bush and trying to place it elsewhere? Corporate media would do that? You betcha!

[sgxnk]

49. you can't sue somebody for that. that's my point nt

[Jack Rabbit]

55. No, but you can boycott sponsors

And then there's always my solution to the MSM . . .



Image from Kill Your Television

[sgxnk]

58. sure

boycotting sponsors always a way to enforce one's market choices

[WCGreen]

2. Here is part of an iterview from the guy who wrote and produced

this story...

FP: Share some of the details about the development of the project. How important would you say it is?

Nowrasteh: This miniseries is not just about the tragedy and events of 9/11, it dramatizes "how we got there" going back 8 years to the first attack on the WTC and dealing with the Al Qaeda strikes against U.S. embassies and forces in the 90s, the political lead-up, the hatching of the terrorist plots, etc. We see the heroes on the ground, like FBI agent John O'Neill and others, who after the '93 attack felt sure that the terrorists would strike the WTC again. It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so. We also reveal the day-by-day lead-up of clues and opportunities in 2001 right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson. I think people will be engaged and enlightened.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865

FP: When you refer to the failed effort to stop Bin Laden in the 1990s, this was obviously the time of Bill Clinton. How much do you think his administration made us vulnerable to 9/11?

Nowrasteh: The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. COLE in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.



They fail, as always, to mention that the GOP congress squealed like school girls on the play ground everytime Clinton tried to do anything....

Always yelling, Wag the Dog, Wag the Dog....

[davidwparker]

6. You should read or listen to John Dean's new book if you haven't.

Today's republicans don't care about the facts. If the facts aren't to their liking, they'll make up stuff. This group wanted to rewrite the Nixon break in to blame John Dean and a book was created out of whole cloth. They don't care about facts, fair play. They will do or say anything to win.

As long as the Dems roll over and go "Thank you, sir. Can I have another?" it will make it increasingly difficult to take control back.

Clinton should have done what was needed to be done regardless of wag the dog. He was fully aware that the Republicans were gunning for him -- and I can see that now. No matter what he did, they would come up with something to discredit him. That's what a good leader does.

[SeattleGirl]

14. I'm reading Dean's book right now. Excellent, and very

informative as to where these people are coming from. And you are absolutely correct. They DON'T care about facts or fair play, and they WILL do or say anything to win.

[WCGreen]

31. Dean's book is on my to read list befor the end of the year...

[davidwparker]

50. I'm going to listen to it again, probably a few more times this week.

His point about being afraid of terrorists when cancer, heart attacks, and more health-wise was excellent.

I also liked his critique of the fake Christians like Robertson: Christ died so that I can tell you what to do.

[AZBlue]

25. But the Dems are still rolling over. What can we do?

It is SO frustrating to me. I've written, called and protested on both a local and national level and I know I'm not the only one - and yet they do nothing. Except wonder why they lose elections.

There will be no response to this or any of the other upcoming GOP lies. :banghead:

[davidwparker]

51. There was a welcome change that I heard about yesterday. That is, to

change the the primary/caucaus schedule so that minorities can have more of a say in who is nominated. I hope that helps in 2008 to get out to vote those who have given up. But, that's 2008.

We have to win in 2006 to get back a least one house in Congress. We need official hearings. And, if that is done, make the Dems pull the trigger. It's not in the nature of liberal/progressives to knife fight because we want to play by the rules. However, we need to be aware of authoritarianism as described in Dean's book.

If we can get a toe hold, then we have to insists on nominating people with backbone. True to the dem cause, but with backbone to stand up to the Gingrich and Delay's among us.

[ComerPerro]

53. Fuck John Dean. His book is part of the problem

because it blames what's going on today on "neo-Cons", not Republicans or conservatism.

People need to wake the fuck up and realize that the problem stems from conservatism as a whole, not just some "neo-cons" who aren't "true conservatives".

In fact, the whole basis for "neo-Cons" is that they are somehow more liberal than "true Conservatives", and that's why they spend so much.

Dean's book is basically a vehicle to glorify Conservatism and treat it as some sacred and time-honored philosphy, when in reality it has been tried and tested and it has failed.


But that's the genius of Dean's thesis:

He even has liberals and leftists speaking with reverence of "true Conservatives". He has some of us so caught up in mourning the loss of these "true Conservatives" that we aren't even promoting our own agenda anymore.

[davidwparker]

65. I didn't get that as the thesis. To me it was authoritians can march

this country into fascism. He was a conservative talking about how the party was hijacked. I didn't get that he was trying to sell true conservatism.

A lot of the works comes from trying to understand how Germany/Italy could be fooled by Hitler/Mousalini. I started listening to it from the psychology perspective to try to understand how two RWers that I still associate with treat * as like a cult leader and why more Americans are shouting for impeachment.

[ComerPerro]

66. that's my point. He CLAIMS his party was hijacked

I say screw that, fascism was always part of the Republican plan.

[yardwork]

8. Those comments make me angry

The Clinton administration "lacked the will to" stop Bin Laden? What a lie!! It was the Bush administration that ignored clear warnings right up until 9/11 - and then sat around on their hands or hiding in bunkers throughout the day!

There was no response to the Cole attack because W took office right after it happened, and despite urging from the previous administration, did nothing!!

[WCGreen]

12. All I can say is that the people responsible for the '93

World Trade bombing have all been caught and tried and convicted here in AMerica while Bin Laden in his cronies are still running about free and easy....

[yardwork]

17. That's right. I get sick of these lies.

[laconicsax]

34. Completely

Also left out of the RW arguments is the simple fact that the Republican controlled congress continuously blocked legislation and Clinton administration attempts to take action against Bin Laden.

Lack of will?
How about *'s lack of will to pay attention to a specific threat for over a month.
His lack of will to do something other than read about a goat once the attack began
His lack of will to tell the truth about the details and timing of his 'response.'
His lack of will to investigate the previous lack of will that led to the attacks.
His lack of will to fund DHS or anything that could prevent a future catastrophe.
His lack of will to admit that he made a mistake.

* LIHOP and his cult complains about how it was all Clinton's fault.

[OzarkDem]

60. A bald-faced lie

Clinton's terrorism tracking meetings took place every week. Bush disbanded the special program Clinton set up to make agencies share data on tracking terrorism.

Koresh forbid, this documentary doesn't want the public to know about that.

[ThomWV]

9. How Much Time Was Left In The Clinton Presidency When The Cole Was Hit?

[WCGreen]

13. About two months....

[lynne]

20. The Cole was attacked in October 12, 2000 - before the election -

- The inauguration of the incoming administration was the following January.

[Dinger]

35. Help Me - How Do I Defend The USS Cole Against A Freeper Neighbor!

I plead ignorance, but I'm googling and trying tio learn what I can.

[flyarm]

39. the fbi report on who was responsible did not get turned over to

the white house until a couple days after little lord pissy pants took office..no one could go into another country and attack them without proof of who was responsible..and that investigation and report was not delivered until pissy pants took office!@

fly

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. Less then a month after the Cole attack was the 2000 Election

and the fiasco that resulted. Clinton didn't want to attack anyone during that time for fear that it would be taken the wrong way and if he failed it would be taken the wrong way.

Also, they didn't even know who was responsible for the attack until months later. So even though they assumed it was al Qaeda they needed to investigate the incident first before they could take action. By then Bush was selected and Clinton passed along the info that they had to the new administration. John O'Neil was the investigator and quite in disgust right before 9-11. It was up to Bush to respond to the Cole Attack and apparently he wasn't even interested.

[CJCRANE]

42. Yep, Condi said

* was "tired of swatting at flies".

[Octafish]

16. Ashcroft cut anti-terror funding just prior to 9-11.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How%20Sept_%2011%20Changed%20Goals%20of%20Justice%20Dept.htm

He's a turd. Like his boss.

[City Lights]

18. This makes my blood boil.

Bush and his gang of thugs IGNORED everything the Clinton administration told them about the threat of terrorism. Bush IGNORED all the warnings leading up to 9-11, while his Attorney General decided flying commerical was too dangerous for him, but 9-11 is fucking Clinton's fault. :nuke:

Fuck ABC for airing this bullshit.

[WCGreen]

19. No kidding....

This guy is still on message from the 90's....

Tear down Clinton at all costs....

[frylock]

28. john o'neill's investigation of the uss cole bombing was stopped dead..

once shithead took office. Funny how this guy fails to mention that.

[WCGreen]

30. Well, they never get it right......

[ComerPerro]

54. The central question (that will never be asked) should be something like

ok, Clinton did nothing to stop this, right? And his record is one of inaction.

Why, though, did Bush willfully perpetuate this policy of inaction?

[blm]

64. The evidence Bin Laden did USS Cole came in late Dec 2000 and Clinton

briefed Bush on it and said he would not start an action that Bush would have to finish, and would leave the response to Bush. By January the Pentagon reported they could now arm the drones tracking Bin Laden. Clinton left the arming of the drones to Bush.

Bush decided AGAINST retaliating for the USS Cole and pulled back the forces tracking Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The producer is LYING about the Cole. He also doesn't mention that it was HALLIBURTON thru its KBR unit who was in charge of the refueling on the Cole and THAT is how the Cole got hit - where was the security at the fueling port and why was the media not reporting on that aspect of the responsibility?

[wyldwolf]

3. I had heard that the only mentions of Clinton or Bush would be...

...via TV news clips.

[oasis]

4. The Hart /Rudman report was available to Chimpyboy long before 9/11.

And sandy Berger's advice to Condi rice went unheeded. Likewise the warnings from counter terrorism czar Richard Clarke. The Aug 6 PDB. and on and on.

There is no way that an honest investigative report can blame anyone other than Chimpyboy.

[6000eliot]

5. 9/11 Can't be Clinton's fault

simply because Clinton was not president at the time. The first WTC attack wasn't Bush I's fault either. The current leader is the one who must accept responsibility for what happens, although our current "leader" NEVER accepts responsibility for ANYTHING.

[Octafish]

7. Richard Clarke said Bush Gang told him to forget Al Qaeda...

...and concentrate on attacking Iraq.

Maybe a Democratic led Congress would want to learn more about that.

On 60 Minutes:

Clarke's Take On Terror

BTW: A hearty welcome to DU, itsrobert.

[Dinger]

10. I Posted On This Yesterday, And Sent An E-Mail To Media Matters

I saw the preview, and get this whako rw freak who wrote it:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865

. . . .I also expanded my research beyond the commission report, which only goes back to 1998, concluding that I needed to go back to the first attack on the WTC in '93 and tell this story over six hours. Marc Platt and ABC exec Quinn Taylor agreed. . . .

. . . .Nowrasteh: This miniseries is not just about the tragedy and events of 9/11, it dramatizes "how we got there" going back 8 years to the first attack on the WTC and dealing with the Al Qaeda strikes against U.S. embassies and forces in the 90s, the political lead-up, the hatching of the terrorist plots, etc. We see the heroes on the ground, like FBI agent John O'Neill and others, who after the '93 attack felt sure that the terrorists would strike the WTC again. It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so. . . .

. . . .FP: When you refer to the failed effort to stop Bin Laden in the 1990s, this was obviously the time of Bill Clinton. How much do you think his administration made us vulnerable to 9/11?

Nowrasteh: The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. COLE in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing. . . .

. . . .As for blocking this plot, it's quite significant and the Brits should be applauded, as should our President. If you had said on 9/12/01 that there wouldn't be another major terrorist attack on American shores in the next 5 years you'd have been called nuts. . . .

Here's my thread :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1941509&mesg_id=1941509

[creeksneakers2]

21. Which is worse? ABC or Faux?

ABC launched the careers of both Rash Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Limbaugh and Hannity in turn built a foundation of hatred and lies upon which the politics of this country have become so polarized that we no longer can have a meaningful debate among our population. ABC Radio broadcasts more lies per minute than any other news source in the country. Its the source of an alternate reality designed to attract angry people who won't listen to the truth.

ABC Radio now broadcasts Mark Levin, a deranged RW fanatic who is leading a movement to strip our courts of the power to protect the rights of individuals. Doing so would be the end of America as we've come to love it.

ABC sent RW propagandist Brit Hume to cover the Clinton White House too. The network runs items with a strong right wing bias on their evening news program. On Sunday they usually include Cokie Roberts, a mindless gutter whore who does nothing but repeat RW talking points.

Now ABC wishes to rewrite history with lies that will further split the country which is already in two factions - those who want to tell lies about Bill Clinton and people who still respect the truth. 9/11 is a very emotional topic, and ABC is sure to further inflame hatred with this propaganda.

Faux only appeals to a narrow audience but ABC is able to pull off even worse atrocities while deceiving most of America into believing that it is a respectable business. To me, ABC has done far more damage and is the more dangerous of the two networks. ABC takes the lead for moving our nation toward fascism.

I'll write Media Matters too but I want to suggest that the left stop treating ABC as a network that is slightly better than Faux when in fact its at least as evil.

[Dinger]

22. Excellent Post

Thanks!

[Dinger]

15. The freepers think it'll be a Clinton Whitewash & * bashing Movie

Sorry to post a link from freeperland, but in this one, they seems to be worried it'll be bad for bu$hco.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1683149/posts

[Old and In the Way]

23. What were the Republicans doing about terrorism in the 90s?

Oh yeah, Whitewater, Filegate, Willygate. They sent hundreds of FBI agents to Arkansas to dig dirt on BC.

Bush and the Republicans own 9/11. They had 9 month months to prepare for it...they did less than nothing. They called off the subs targeting OBL. They stopped looking. They ignored the bi-partisan Hart-Rudmin terrorism report.

[Dinger]

26. Apparently That Question Will NOT be Dealt With In This Fabrication

of a movie.

[B Calm]

24. If only Bush hadn't considered the 8 year report on terrorism

handed to him by President Clinton 8 months before 9-11 as moot and thrown into the trash, 3,000 lives and 2,700 soldiers would still be alive...

[Mr_Spock]

27. Republipussies doing the "stabbed in the back" thing again

They simply REFUSE to take responsibility for ANYTHING!!!

FUCKING FUCKING FUCKING

COWARDS!!!

God damn it, can't people see how these people are playing the fear and no-responsibility card day after day?

I fucking HATE Republicans!

Read the article here "Stabbed in the Back" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1924803&mesg_id=1924803

[zulchzulu]

29. Well heck, wasn't 9/11 on Clinton's watch?

:sarcasm:

[Mountainman]

32. This is the only thing left in their bag of tricks. I doubt that anyone

but freepers will buy into this shit and they already blame Clinton for everything.

All they can talk about is war and terror and how they are the ones to keep us safe. Why hasn't Bush caught Ben Laden yet? He's had 5 years to do it. Anyone? Freeps? Huh? Why?

[Amonester]

45. 5 years and the most advanced technology in History...

but, the "mind" of the blivet doesn't "cut" it... (or bin forgotten is, in reality, a covert operative for the BFEE).

[zulchzulu]

33. Any mention how Raygun supported Saddam and Osama Bin Laden in '80s?

Whuh?

No?

[LynnTheDem]

36. What's more rightwingnut lies after so very many rightwingnut lies?

The vast majority of the entire world knows the truth -including what the 911 report REALLY said about Clinton versus bush; read the report; it praises Clinton and blames BUSH.

But then rightwingnuts still think Iraq did 911, was in bed with al Qaeda, had "wmd", kicked out the UN weapons inspectors (twice), and the UN report said Hussein wasn't co-operating...NONE of which is true.

Rightwingnuts; stupidest MFers ever.

[flyarm]

37. is this the one thats going to be on court tv Aug 22nd?

with Kevin Kostner and Hillary Swaink???

shit i hope not i have been telling people to watch it...

i hope it is not the same one..

anyone know??

fly

[LSK]

38. are they going to mention "wag the dog, no war for monica"

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

or this

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

[mmonk]

43. If that's true, there's a simple solution.

Boycott of advertisers.

[warrior1]

44. A letter writing deal

about this subject a matter and the facts, will advertize the fact of the movie o tv but will also get the truth out also.

Make them say it's a work of fiction.

[magellan]

46. The Repugs are exploiting 9-11 for political gain...again?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya!

It's so obvious that even the less astute may have noticed a trend by now, which is that the RW excel at only one thing: exploiting others. Start with lie, cheat and steal and throw in the more nuanced "repeatedly use a national tragedy to manipulate the masses", and you've still only touched the tip of the iceberg as to how far these sadistic psychopaths will go to stay in (and gain) power. They don't care what wounds they flay or what the truth is as long as they can manipulate people to benefit their party.

And while I'm at it, ABC is one skank outfit to air RW crap like this as if it were some sort of patriotic commemoration of 9-11. This was a tragedy shared by ALL Americans and yet here we are again, 5 years on, being treated to vile and mendacious Republican finger-pointing.

F*CK THE REPUBLICANS and EVERYONE WHO VOTED FOR THEM.

[pooja]

47. Well, I'm going to use my remote control and not watch.

I am tired of 9/11 being played out every two years. Election time... roll out the plans, the fireman, the flags, and the soldiers. Pan to mid-west picture with white fam., barbecue and lemonade.

Personally, I want to see a movie where they go into the heart of the ghetto. Watch the violence, the drugs, the innocent children being wiped out by a drive by, the homeless sleeping in the streets, the prostitutes, the pimps, the gangs, and the violence.... then say "Bush's America".

[Fleshdancer]

52. NO WAR FOR MONICA!!!!

anyone remember that?? :eyes:

[aikoaiko]

56. 9/11 wasn't BC's fault, but I still wish he had dropped that missle...

...right on his terrorist head when he had the chance. He deserved it then, and thousand times so now.

[CBHagman]

57. Didn't Newsweek or Time do a cover story on how the Bush...

...administration ignored warnings from the Clinton administration regarding the terrorist risk? I think there was a whole plan in place, and of course the incoming administration scrapped that and was gradually putting together its own plan.

And yes, word came (I think it was actually in The New York Times on September 11th, 2001, itself) that Ashcroft was asking for cuts in counterterrorism funding.

And the memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S." (or similar) did come to Bush on August 6th, 2001. The administration was in no hurry for Condoleezza Rice to testify regarding that in the post-9/11 investigations, but eventually she was made to admit in public hearing that that was the memo they had indeed received.

[sakabatou]

59. Who remembers the Phoenix memo?

[The Straight Story]

61. Clinton and dems MIHOP

Yep. They were mad at bush. All them people in place during the clinton years that stayed in positions worked with hillary to make bush look bad and wrest control back.

They planted bombs in the wtcs too. And used real fake planes driven by aliens, cause some of them hijackers is still alive. The pentagon was hit by a missle, launched by elvis from a nearby gas station (which is why they won't turn over the gas station tapes).

It's all becoming clear to me now.

Flight 77 was shot down, by a secret base in PA run by Jocelyn Elders. I mean, where was she when all this went down anyway?

MIHOP by dems. I need to go an hit up the dungeon and get the word out.

:)

[Crabby Appleton]

63. you left out haliburton

[CrushTheDLC]

62. The RW propaganda machine is already in high gear.

Last night A&E ran that pathetic "Flight 93" fictional piece of shit movie, complete with all the cell phone calls that couldn't possibly have taken place, etc. (How the Hell did they get it on TV so fast, anyway? Must have had some "help")

They followed that with a documentary that combined WTC survivor accounts of their own experiences with "official story" bullshit propaganda "melting steel frame" nonsense and all that. It was like a 4 hour block of pure indoctrination on commercial television. If they get A&E in Hell, Hitler and Stalin must have been applauding.

Who the fuck owns A&E anyway?

[robertpaulsen]

67. Will it mention ISI head Ahmed wiretransfer of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta?

No?

Oh yeah, that's right, this movie is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. They left that fact out, despite the FBI's confirmation of it.

And some still believe there was no cover up in the "independent" investigation. It doesn't surprise me at all that now it's being used as an excuse to blame the Clenis.