| Author | Message | ||
     Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1910 Registered: 9-2004  |
Straw sez no conservative ever linked 9/11 and Iraq. Try this conservative… Bush shifts back to terror message President again tries to subtly link 9/11 with Iraq By JULIE MASON Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau WASHINGTON — Faster than you can say "Osama bin Laden," President Bush made a pivot from Hurricane Katrina remembrances last week to topics on which he hopes to gain some political ground: Iraq and the war on terrorism. Bush addressed the American Legion National Convention in Salt Lake City with the first of a series of speeches aimed at bolstering public support for the war, in part by once again linking the events of 9/11 to the subsequent — and by his own admission, unrelated — war in Iraq. It's a tactic he's used before in his speeches, without directly connecting the two, Bush nevertheless creates a rhetorical bridge with statements such as, "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Osama bin Laden has made that clear." Bin Laden, a Saudi, of course was the reputed mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. None of the hijackers was Iraqi, and there have been no proven links between Saddam Hussein and the 2001 plot. The public generally has supported the war on terrorism, though polls show a majority oppose the war in Iraq. Merging the two serves a political purpose in this congressional election year, where differences over Iraq are playing a key role in many races. Bush also suggested to the American Legion that the Iraq war was the logical next step after 9/11, saying, "We're in a war we didn't ask for, but it's a war we must wage and a war we will win." And at a recent news conference, Bush said, "The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East." Asked what the war in Iraq had to do with the 9/11 attacks, Bush said, "Nothing," but added that they demonstrated a need to confront threats before they materialize. | ||
| T-Bone Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1804 Registered: 8-2004  |
Seems that Bin Laden is smarter than Libs. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2089 Registered: 7-2004  |
He's certainly outsmarting your hero Bush, as he is neither dead nor captured. Why is that, again, Coco? | ||
| Coco the Monkey Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1805 Registered: 8-2004 |
Let's see during the 1990's Bin Laden waged war on the US and ran Afghanistan. During the Bush term he lives in a cave. Which president did he outsmart? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5770 Registered: 5-2001 |
OK, if we had not overthrown the secular and authoritarian Iraqi government of Saddam, where would the central front in the WOT be? Show your work. I might also speculate that, if our enemy is dictating the battleground as Bush seems to imply, we are not on top. | ||
| Coco the Monkey Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1806 Registered: 8-2004 |
No need to speculate. Your hero Richard Clark said Al Qaida would boogie to Bagdhad. We beat some of them to it. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2090 Registered: 7-2004 |
So dispatch from RNC HQ is to go back to the old and oft-used "blame Clinton" defense. Lame. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 206 Registered: 2-2006  |
Shouldn't our kids be off limits? ABC and Scholastic release skewed Path to 9/11 "Discussion Guide" for high school teachers to assign to students Summary: In conjunction with ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11, Scholastic and ABC have released a "Discussion Guide for the Classroom" aimed at high school teachers nationwide to "[e]ncourage your students and their families to watch The Path to 9/11 and use the accompanying" discussion guide as part of their lesson plan. A Media Matters for America review of the material finds it to be rife with conservative misinformation See the rest here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200609060008 | ||
| Coco the Monkey Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1807 Registered: 8-2004 |
RL, just putting the term "outsmarting" in historical perspective. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5771 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sorry, the facts belie that. Clarke felt if we put too much pressure on Afghanistan he might flee to Iraq. We put a whole hell of a lot of pressure on Afghanistan in 2001-2 and he boogied instead to Pakistan. Opposite direction from Baghdad. Clarke called that one wrong. So it's early 2003, Taliban overthrown, bin Laden hiding in the mountainous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan some 1,500 miles from Baghdad. if we hadn't invaded Iraq, where would the central front on the WOT be today? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 1028 Registered: 1-2006 |
Censorship by Dems, but not 'Publicans? They are not alone in their quest: As we wrote earlier, the Council on American Islamic Relations is attempting to whitewash the history of 9/11. Disgracefully, so is the Democratic Party. Here’s the page at their web site where they solicit members to complain to ABC about the docudrama The Path to 9/11 (without having seen it): Keep ‘Path to 9/11’ Propaganda Film Off The Air. Notice that there is a space on this form for your own comments. I urge LGF readers to use this form to add comments supporting ABC’s courage for tackling the issues head-on, and requesting that ABC ignore the complaints and run the movie unedited. If you don’t want to use the Democratic Party’s form, you can send a message of support to ABC directly at this page: ABC.com - Contact ABC. And I wish to thank the Democratic Party for making their agenda so crystal clear. This gambit is going to seriously backfire on them. UPDATE at 9/7/06 8:34:59 am: From all accounts, by the way, the film is not soft on the Bush administration either. But only the Democrats are seething and whining and demanding that the film be censored. There’s plenty of blame to go around for the failures that led to 9/11, but the DNC’s response to having their failures pointed out is highly revealing. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1981 Registered: 5-2001 |
I wonder if The Memo will be shown laying on Bush's chest as he naps at his ranch. I wonder if they will dramatize Gary Hart's pleadings to the administration that they need to take the threat of terrorism more seriously. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5773 Registered: 5-2001 |
I've heard that it omits "The Pet Goat," and any mention of him flying around the country that day. Why should you support ABC's "courage for tackling the issues head-on," when the problem is that they are making up events and showing them as facts? That's not tackling issues head on, it's whitewashing and propoganda. The vitriol being spewed at ABC isn't because we want to hide failures; it's because they are showing things that are not true. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3815 Registered: 5-2001  |
"Enough with the partisian pot shots.." The mind absolutely reels at the astonishing lack of self-awareness...  I think there are, roughly, four levels of debating ability. As a conceptual aid, let's map them out, shall we? We'll arbitrarily place our highest-level group, people who consistently manage to be remarkably cogent, well-informed, and concise, in, oh... Oregon. Our next group, relatively speaking, is South Dakota: people who are worth listening to, and are pretty persuasive at least some of the time. Also, we have Florida: folks who don't have a single worthwhile thing to say, who are incapable of having an original thought, and who are unable to understand even the simplest expression of an alternative viewpoint, but basic fairness requires that they get a turn once in a while. Straw is Pluto. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 1030 Registered: 1-2006 |
Greetings from Jupiter! Please check out the hyperlinks. An Inconvenient Freedom of Speech ABC's upcoming mini-series, "The Path to 9/11" which is scheduled to air the nights of September 10th and 11th, has shown that Democrats of all levels, from bloggers, to the national Democratic Party, to the former President of the United States, are all quite comfortable with muzzling freedom of speech when it suits their purposes. The mini-series is a dramatized account based on "a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews," according to ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan. Parts of The Path to 9/11 are speculative, and ABC freely admits that the film is a dramatization of known events, a very common approach to films ranging from Schindler's List to Bonnie and Clyde. Despite this common cinematic treatment, Democrats at all levels are actively campaigning to have ABC's mini-series altered or pulled from the air, using tactics ranging from accusations that the film is inaccurate, to threats of retribution against ABC and others involved with the project. It is transparent Stalinism, an attempt to muzzle the freedom of speech of those who do not march lock-step with their ideals, radiating from the top down. Former President Bill Clinton is demanding that the ABC drama be pulled from the air unless the script is revised to meet with his approval. The Democratic Party's National Director, Tom MacMahon, released a scathing attack on the film to Democratic supporters, encouraging them to bully ABC into taking the drama off the air, and was caught openly threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license if the network did not acquiesce to his demands. This is an open attempt to blackmail a broadcaster by the officers of the Democratic Party. Sitting Democratic members of Congress are also calling for the film to be censored. Democrats are unabashedly seeking to given themselves the power of Orwell's Ministry of Truth written about in 1984, and are actively stating their intention punish ABC for thoughtcrimes by threatening the networks broadcast license. Their behavior is shameful. No self-respecting American should concede a political party the ability to limit our Freedom of Speech. Hillary Clinton once stated, "we have a right to debate and disgree," but it is painfully apparent that Democrats feel that right applies to them, and only to what they would allow you to see. In 2001, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the same writer who created "The Path to 9/11," released a film called "The Day Reagan Was Shot." It too, was a fictionalized account. It, too, portrayed many politicians inside the White House in an unflattering light during a moment of crisis for the nation. Politicians portrayed in that film also criticized Nowrasteh's work and accuracy, but they made no attempt to censor the film and keep it from being aired, as Congressional Democrats and the former President have done with "The Path to 9/11." They made no attempt to blackmail the film's distributor to keep it from coming to air, as the Democratic Party's National Director has done. Republicans attacked the 2001 film for it's inaccuracies, but never attempted to run roughshod over our rights to see a controversial film and form our own opinions in the aftermath. Democrats from the top down have no such problem with attempting to control what you see, and are proving themselves quite willing to brush aside an inconvenient Freedom of Speech. Update: Captain Ed notes via email that he recalls the response to this and the other Reagan film as being quite contentious, and Joe Gandelman does a good job showing that many conservatives did in fact throw quite a few rocks at these films from the dubious safety of their own glass houses. To make my own position clear, I'm against any politically-driven censorship of films, and find such attempts to be vile. If you have any faith in the American public at all, you have to let these films, and future ones like them, stand or fall on their own merits, not those imposed by politicians. Update: The head of the CIA Counterterrorist Center’s Osama bin Laden unit confirms that the Clinton Administration killed the attack plan protrayed in the film, and further contends that the Clinton Administration actually missed 8-10 chances to take out bin Laden. An Inconvenient Freedom of Speech ABC's upcoming mini-series, "The Path to 9/11" which is scheduled to air the nights of September 10th and 11th, has shown that Democrats of all levels, from bloggers, to the national Democratic Party, to the former President of the United States, are all quite comfortable with muzzling freedom of speech when it suits their purposes. The mini-series is a dramatized account based on "a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews," according to ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan. Parts of The Path to 9/11 are speculative, and ABC freely admits that the film is a dramatization of known events, a very common approach to films ranging from Schindler's List to Bonnie and Clyde. Despite this common cinematic treatment, Democrats at all levels are actively campaigning to have ABC's mini-series altered or pulled from the air, using tactics ranging from accusations that the film is inaccurate, to threats of retribution against ABC and others involved with the project. It is transparent Stalinism, an attempt to muzzle the freedom of speech of those who do not march lock-step with their ideals, radiating from the top down. Former President Bill Clinton is demanding that the ABC drama be pulled from the air unless the script is revised to meet with his approval. The Democratic Party's National Director, Tom MacMahon, released a scathing attack on the film to Democratic supporters, encouraging them to bully ABC into taking the drama off the air, and was caught openly threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license if the network did not acquiesce to his demands. This is an open attempt to blackmail a broadcaster by the officers of the Democratic Party. Sitting Democratic members of Congress are also calling for the film to be censored. Democrats are unabashedly seeking to given themselves the power of Orwell's Ministry of Truth written about in 1984, and are actively stating their intention punish ABC for thoughtcrimes by threatening the networks broadcast license. Their behavior is shameful. No self-respecting American should concede a political party the ability to limit our Freedom of Speech. Hillary Clinton once stated, "we have a right to debate and disgree," but it is painfully apparent that Democrats feel that right applies to them, and only to what they would allow you to see. In 2001, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the same writer who created "The Path to 9/11," released a film called "The Day Reagan Was Shot." It too, was a fictionalized account. It, too, portrayed many politicians inside the White House in an unflattering light during a moment of crisis for the nation. Politicians portrayed in that film also criticized Nowrasteh's work and accuracy, but they made no attempt to censor the film and keep it from being aired, as Congressional Democrats and the former President have done with "The Path to 9/11." They made no attempt to blackmail the film's distributor to keep it from coming to air, as the Democratic Party's National Director has done. Republicans attacked the 2001 film for it's inaccuracies, but never attempted to run roughshod over our rights to see a controversial film and form our own opinions in the aftermath. Democrats from the top down have no such problem with attempting to control what you see, and are proving themselves quite willing to brush aside an inconvenient Freedom of Speech. Update: Captain Ed notes via email that he recalls the response to this and the other Reagan film as being quite contentious, and Joe Gandelman does a good job showing that many conservatives did in fact throw quite a few rocks at these films from the dubious safety of their own glass houses. To make my own position clear, I'm against any politically-driven censorship of films, and find such attempts to be vile. If you have any faith in the American public at all, you have to let these films, and future ones like them, stand or fall on their own merits, not those imposed by politicians. Update: The head of the CIA Counterterrorist Center’s Osama bin Laden unit confirms that the Clinton Administration killed the attack plan protrayed in the film, and further contends that the Clinton Administration actually missed 8-10 chances to take out bin Laden. An Inconvenient Freedom of Speech ABC's upcoming mini-series, "The Path to 9/11" which is scheduled to air the nights of September 10th and 11th, has shown that Democrats of all levels, from bloggers, to the national Democratic Party, to the former President of the United States, are all quite comfortable with muzzling freedom of speech when it suits their purposes. The mini-series is a dramatized account based on "a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews," according to ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan. Parts of The Path to 9/11 are speculative, and ABC freely admits that the film is a dramatization of known events, a very common approach to films ranging from Schindler's List to Bonnie and Clyde. Despite this common cinematic treatment, Democrats at all levels are actively campaigning to have ABC's mini-series altered or pulled from the air, using tactics ranging from accusations that the film is inaccurate, to threats of retribution against ABC and others involved with the project. It is transparent Stalinism, an attempt to muzzle the freedom of speech of those who do not march lock-step with their ideals, radiating from the top down. Former President Bill Clinton is demanding that the ABC drama be pulled from the air unless the script is revised to meet with his approval. The Democratic Party's National Director, Tom MacMahon, released a scathing attack on the film to Democratic supporters, encouraging them to bully ABC into taking the drama off the air, and was caught openly threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license if the network did not acquiesce to his demands. This is an open attempt to blackmail a broadcaster by the officers of the Democratic Party. Sitting Democratic members of Congress are also calling for the film to be censored. Democrats are unabashedly seeking to given themselves the power of Orwell's Ministry of Truth written about in 1984, and are actively stating their intention punish ABC for thoughtcrimes by threatening the networks broadcast license. Their behavior is shameful. No self-respecting American should concede a political party the ability to limit our Freedom of Speech. Hillary Clinton once stated, "we have a right to debate and disgree," but it is painfully apparent that Democrats feel that right applies to them, and only to what they would allow you to see. In 2001, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the same writer who created "The Path to 9/11," released a film called "The Day Reagan Was Shot." It too, was a fictionalized account. It, too, portrayed many politicians inside the White House in an unflattering light during a moment of crisis for the nation. Politicians portrayed in that film also criticized Nowrasteh's work and accuracy, but they made no attempt to censor the film and keep it from being aired, as Congressional Democrats and the former President have done with "The Path to 9/11." They made no attempt to blackmail the film's distributor to keep it from coming to air, as the Democratic Party's National Director has done. Republicans attacked the 2001 film for it's inaccuracies, but never attempted to run roughshod over our rights to see a controversial film and form our own opinions in the aftermath. Democrats from the top down have no such problem with attempting to control what you see, and are proving themselves quite willing to brush aside an inconvenient Freedom of Speech. Update: Captain Ed notes via email that he recalls the response to this and the other Reagan film as being quite contentious, and Joe Gandelman does a good job showing that many conservatives did in fact throw quite a few rocks at these films from the dubious safety of their own glass houses. To make my own position clear, I'm against any politically-driven censorship of films, and find such attempts to be vile. If you have any faith in the American public at all, you have to let these films, and future ones like them, stand or fall on their own merits, not those imposed by politicians. Update: The head of the CIA Counterterrorist Center’s Osama bin Laden unit confirms that the Clinton Administration killed the attack plan protrayed in the film, and further contends that the Clinton Administration actually missed 8-10 chances to take out bin Laden. An Inconvenient Freedom of Speech ABC's upcoming mini-series, "The Path to 9/11" which is scheduled to air the nights of September 10th and 11th, has shown that Democrats of all levels, from bloggers, to the national Democratic Party, to the former President of the United States, are all quite comfortable with muzzling freedom of speech when it suits their purposes. The mini-series is a dramatized account based on "a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews," according to ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan. Parts of The Path to 9/11 are speculative, and ABC freely admits that the film is a dramatization of known events, a very common approach to films ranging from Schindler's List to Bonnie and Clyde. Despite this common cinematic treatment, Democrats at all levels are actively campaigning to have ABC's mini-series altered or pulled from the air, using tactics ranging from accusations that the film is inaccurate, to threats of retribution against ABC and others involved with the project. It is transparent Stalinism, an attempt to muzzle the freedom of speech of those who do not march lock-step with their ideals, radiating from the top down. Former President Bill Clinton is demanding that the ABC drama be pulled from the air unless the script is revised to meet with his approval. The Democratic Party's National Director, Tom MacMahon, released a scathing attack on the film to Democratic supporters, encouraging them to bully ABC into taking the drama off the air, and was caught openly threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license if the network did not acquiesce to his demands. This is an open attempt to blackmail a broadcaster by the officers of the Democratic Party. Sitting Democratic members of Congress are also calling for the film to be censored. Democrats are unabashedly seeking to given themselves the power of Orwell's Ministry of Truth written about in 1984, and are actively stating their intention punish ABC for thoughtcrimes by threatening the networks broadcast license. Their behavior is shameful. No self-respecting American should concede a political party the ability to limit our Freedom of Speech. Hillary Clinton once stated, "we have a right to debate and disgree," but it is painfully apparent that Democrats feel that right applies to them, and only to what they would allow you to see. In 2001, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the same writer who created "The Path to 9/11," released a film called "The Day Reagan Was Shot." It too, was a fictionalized account. It, too, portrayed many politicians inside the White House in an unflattering light during a moment of crisis for the nation. Politicians portrayed in that film also criticized Nowrasteh's work and accuracy, but they made no attempt to censor the film and keep it from being aired, as Congressional Democrats and the former President have done with "The Path to 9/11." They made no attempt to blackmail the film's distributor to keep it from coming to air, as the Democratic Party's National Director has done. Republicans attacked the 2001 film for it's inaccuracies, but never attempted to run roughshod over our rights to see a controversial film and form our own opinions in the aftermath. Democrats from the top down have no such problem with attempting to control what you see, and are proving themselves quite willing to brush aside an inconvenient Freedom of Speech. Update: Captain Ed notes via email that he recalls the response to this and the other Reagan film as being quite contentious, and Joe Gandelman does a good job showing that many conservatives did in fact throw quite a few rocks at these films from the dubious safety of their own glass houses. To make my own position clear, I'm against any politically-driven censorship of films, and find such attempts to be vile. If you have any faith in the American public at all, you have to let these films, and future ones like them, stand or fall on their own merits, not those imposed by politicians. Update: The head of the CIA Counterterrorist Center’s Osama bin Laden unit confirms that the Clinton Administration killed the attack plan protrayed in the film, and further contends that the Clinton Administration actually missed 8-10 chances to take out bin Laden. http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/ | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5775 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oh please. I'm sure you thought it was just as shameful when CBS was pressured to yank the Reagan mini-series. And anyway, this isn't a freedom of speech issue. No one is advocating that Congess or any other governmental body ban this or anything else. This is commerce, and a case of trying to get ABC to respond to the marketplace, and to respect the responsibilities that come with being granted a broadcast license. They can always go to basic cable if they don't like it. If you don't like it you must be some kind of commie! | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12602 Registered: 5-2001 |
A pseudo documentary is a lot different than a dramatic film. The documentary puts words in peoples mouths that were never uttered and portrays events that never happened. Secretary Albright didn't tip off the Pakistanis of the cruise missle attack, the Joint Chiefs did for the very good reason they didn't want Pakistan firing off their nukes on India. I don't think there is any evidence that the information was passed on to Ossama Bin Laden. This gives a very false impression and there are a lot of similar "dramas" in the "documentary. Can anyone say, "Swift Boat". Clinton, with the benefit of hindsight, should have activated the Afghanistan invasion plan after the Cole bombing. However, if he had, he would have faced another impeachment by the whinners of the GOP who would have viewed his actions as political so close to the election. I can't wait to see how Bush hiding on Air Force One and at an airbase in Nebraska will he be shown assuming the fetal position sucking his thumb and calling for his Mommy for dramatic effect?  | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1802 Registered: 9-2004 |
Tom... The infamous September 11, September 11, September 11, edit from the 2004 "R". Convention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqsDQXfwWDE ae35unit... I heard Schoolastic is backing out. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5814 Registered: 10-1999  |
Foj - You're right, Scholastic is replacing the material that went along with the fictionalization, with more critical materials - http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/news/press_09072006_CP.htm | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5869 Registered: 8-2003 |
tom -- can you show me how the marketplace is asking ABC not to air the program? Is there a significant portion of the population that wants ABC to can it? Clarke of Arc said that Osama would boogie to Baghdad if we went after him in Afghanistan, which is absolutely amazing because the conventional (liberal) wisdom is that Iraq was secular and wouldn't dare match up with him. Muslims don't go with 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' especially when it comes to religious states, don't you know. Saddam was supporting terrorists killing Israelis, but that just clouds the picture as those terrorists certainly weren't secular. Why would he support Muslim extremists trying to wipe out Israel? So is Pakistan a religious state that would easily acccommodate Osama? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5777 Registered: 5-2001 |
No, and that's just the thing: the right pushed for canning the Reagan docudrama altogether, which it got; the left merely wants ABC to recut it to eliminate the misleading scenes that depict events that didn't happen. Relatively speaking, we're pretty tame. As for Clarke, he was obviously wrong about Osama going to Baghdad; the conventional wisdom was correct. Pakistan's outer regions, on the other hand, are loosely controlled by the central government and of a religious enough bent that he can find a haven there. Maybe you can answer the question, since Coco the Monkey can't: where would the central front in the WOT be today if we had not invaded Iraq? We're all clear now that Clarke called that one wrong, and it wouldn't be Iraq. So where? foj, thanks for the youtube link, I laughed till I cried. Or I cried till I laughed, one or the other. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1914 Registered: 9-2004 |
ABC's Rightwing 9/11 movie is bunk Posted by Evan Derkacz at 8:08 AM on September 5, 2006. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/41299/ “The movie attempts to pin 9/11 on Clinton but John Aravosis notes that Republicans blocked Clinton's "desperate" pleas for the power to stop terrorism back in 1996: So Bill Clinton, rather than just breaking the law as Bush did... decided to go to the Republican congress in 1996 and ask them for increased authority to do more eavesdropping in order to stop the terrorists - stop September 11. Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the GOP's top picks for the Supreme Court and a GOP committee chair, objected.” | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2114 Registered: 10-2004  |
cjc is your question real? I guess you arent in the loop. There has been a major letter writing, phone calling and e-mailing campaign to Disney, ABC and Schoolastic. This is a profit motivated program. They spent 40 million to make it and if there is that much push back you better believe that they will either change or their advertisers will suffer the fallout of no-one buying their products. Many small market stations have local advertising that can not afford to have a large portion of the population miss their commercial. take a look at this from dailykos - there may be forces behind this program that have nothing to do with the networks. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/7/152756/7128 | ||
| Coco the Monkey Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1809 Registered: 8-2004 |
tom, you are confusing " boogie to Bagdhad" pre invasion and the Al Qaeda involvement post invasion. The Senate Resolution stated the pre war rationale for invasion. Debated and approved. After we liberated 25 million people , Bin Laden, Zarqawi, Al Zawihiri, etc realized that a free and democratic Iraq would be a major blow to their global jihad. Their goal in Iraq is for the US to fail post invasion. That is what makes it the central front in the WOT. Our enemy sees it. Why can't you? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5781 Registered: 5-2001 |
sigh. Will you just answer the goddam question I asked? Or haven't they issued the talking points for it yet? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2447 Registered: 8-2003  |
I don't understand why Bush supporters keep citing this. Clarke was clearly wrong in his prognostication. Subsequent events showed that bin Laden went to Pakistan, not Iraq. And the idea that al Qaeda and Saddam were working together has since been discredited. Even members of the Bush Administration will admit that there was no working relationship between the two. So why keep throwing it out there? I guess because "Boogie to Baghdad" sounds good. And it could fit on a bumper sticker. | ||
| Coco the Monkey Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1812 Registered: 8-2004 |
tom , you want me to look in my crystal ball and see what the world would be like today if we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003. Where would the central front on the WOT be? More than likely there wouldn't be a central front . It would more widespread battles worldwide. Our noble effort in Iraq has drawn the terrorists in because they realize the stakes. Now a question for you along the same lines. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we had just left Saddam alone in the Gulf War 1. This way we wouldn't have had troops in Saudi Arabia , thus not pissing off Bin Laden and thus there would have been no Sept 11 attack. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12607 Registered: 5-2001 |
How many foreign terrorits from Al Qaeda are in Iraq? I believe our military estimates the number to be under 500. Most of the violence appears to be home made and based on ethnic divisions and who is going to get the oil money. A year or so ago there was a lot of emphasis placed on reporting "red on red" conflicts. The conflicts are when, usually, Sunni insurgents clash with Al Qaeda and other foregin terrorists. Is this still going on? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2117 Registered: 10-2004 |
You really believe the words you type? They are almost satirical, close - I mean very close - to something that GOP Man would say. The 'stakes' in Iraq are exactly what for al Qaeda? I dont see that they have any stake there except to make Americans suffer as much as possible. Take America out of Iraq, out of Saudi Arabia, out of places where we are perceived as occupiers and al Qaeda no longer has a reason to be upset with Americans. Take bin Laden and al Zawihiri out of the al Qaeda leadership and the organization implodes. bin Laden is not in Iraq. The nebulous term war on terror is false. Congress has declared no such war. Our strategy is wrong and our tactics are wrong. We need to get out. That being said here is an interesting letter from some democratic senators to Disney subtlely threatening their broadcasting license.
| ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 1035 Registered: 1-2006 |
Uh, oh, it was worse than you think. Video flashback: U.S. drone had Osama onscreen — in 2000 posted at 12:18 am on September 8, 2006 by Allahpundit Send to a Friend | printer-friendly Remember this? I didn’t. But two different readers e-mailed in to remind me. The Internet has a long memory, my friends. Important to note: according to CNN’s report, Predators weren’t armed with missiles at the time. It would have taken between three and seven hours to hit the base with missiles after Osama had been spotted. Why wasn’t it hit? Watch the clip and see. Why didn’t the producers of “Path to 9/11″ dramatize this incident instead of the bogus composite scene with Sandy Berger? Alas, that’s known only to God. FYI, I’ve saved a copy of the video to my hard drive. Just in case Harry Reid should suddenly find “irregularities” in NBC’s broadcasting license and the clip end up magically disappearing from their website. Click the image to watch. (Update: Use IE. It doesn’t work in Firefox.) obl-drone.jpg http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/08/video-flashback-us-drone-had-osama-onscree n-in-2000/ | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5784 Registered: 5-2001 |
All the stories say that they "believe" it was him. And three to seven hours for a strike? Even then bin Laden didn't stay anywhere for that long at a time because he knew he was a target. It had happened already, because in 1998 Clinton ordered strikes against a camp where he had been spotted, but he had moved on already. Even then he knew better. By the way, if you're inclined to still insist that Clinton did "jack squat," read the CNN link above. Of course even then some Republicans were out to lunch.
WorldNet Daily hasn't yet purged its own incriminating evidence, but in case they do here's what they had to say in the innocent days of 1999:
So, neocons, which is it: did he do too much, or not enough? | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1985 Registered: 5-2001 |
I recall when Clinton ordered the strikes against bin Laden, the Repubs cried "wag the dog". Let's stop acting like the cons ever gave a •••• about terrorism. They were--and are--more interested in contemplating the shape of Bill's penis and covering up naked statues. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12609 Registered: 5-2001 |
Uhm, Mr. Dranove, I think Disney owns ABC, not NBC and the "documentary" will be shown on ABC, not NBC. If the producers had decided to use the 2000 incident, fine. I have problems with docudramas that invent circustances that never happened and have actors play out those scenes. In a country where half the population still believes that Iraq attacked us on 911, these invented scenes are probably going to be taken as the gospel truth by a large number of viewers. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5787 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oh, and an answer to Monkeyboy who asked, "Wouldn't the world be a better place if we had just left Saddam alone in the Gulf War 1. This way we wouldn't have had troops in Saudi Arabia , thus not pissing off Bin Laden and thus there would have been no Sept 11 attack." False choice; we didn't need to keep troops in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I. Plenty of room in Kuwait, for example, and NATO ally Turkey is right next door. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 207 Registered: 2-2006 |
Joel D., what do you think that video proves? Personally, I think it reinforces the idea that it would have been a shot in the dark, very lucky if he would have been killed by a missile that would have taken hours to reach the target. This kind of cutting and pasting is supposed to rationalize the blaming of Clinton by a partisan film maker for the purposes, clearly, of benefiting the Republican party before the five year anniversary of 9/11, and before major elections. It's propaganda. It's the worst kind of propaganda. It does nothing to make us safer or bolster our resolve against an enemy. It divides us and weakens us as a nation to benefit a very few. Parts of this movie that are fabrications, that have been outlined in this thread, are just that, fabrications, they're lies. It helps nobody except our failed leadership, right wing pundits trying to save face, and folks on blog threads who think that if you repeat a lie enough times it's true. Wake up and become an American again. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5876 Registered: 8-2003 |
Boogie -- the reason "Boogie to Baghdad" os brought up is because 1) it's a legitimate possibility as while Al Qada and Saddam had no working relationship, they did have contacts which Clarke knew about and based that call on and 2) the premise that Osama was religious and Saddam was secular proscribing any cooperation is also false. tom -- "The Reagans" did air on Showtime when it was moved from CBS. Unaltered. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2448 Registered: 8-2003 |
I guess I do know why people would bring it up. but I don't know why you think it's meaningful now when, five years later, it's clear Clarke was wrong about it. and it was also clear he was wrong by the end of '01 when bin Laden went to Pakistan. So it doesn't even serve as a rationale for Bush to order the invasion of Iraq a year and half later. Of course I suppose it does serve a purpose if you're trying to change the subject in a debate. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5788 Registered: 5-2001 |
So let ABC move theirs to cable as well. Maybe Fox News can show it, with commentary by Hannity and O'Reilly. That would be appropriate. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 1036 Registered: 1-2006 |
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/09/07/scene-from-path-to-9-11-is-not-fake -but-accurate-as-some-suggest/ | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 1038 Registered: 1-2006 |
ugh Hewitt nails the dems to the wall. I suspect the extreme reaction of the Senate Democrats is based on the sudden recogntion that the fall campaign will be waged on the single issue of which party is serious about national security. The president’s demand for action on key fronts yesterday has clearly thrown the Dems into disarray as they realize that the American electorate will not reward more fecklessness on the part of Democrats. Now arrives a major television event that exposes the specifics of Democrtaic-era “stewardship” of national security, and they are in a frenzy to do whatever it takes to keep that memory down the memory hole. The trouble for them is that they more they struggle the more attention they call to the very record they wish to have remain obscure and distant. http://therealuglyamerican.com/ |
