ABC's "Path to 9/11": Pre-Edit Clips...
The Video Democrats DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
By krempasky Posted in Hollywood — Comments (121) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Andrea Lafferty from Traditional Values Coalition was invited to attend the ABC screening of "The Path to 9/11" that's driven so many Democrats completely batty. Well, we've got the clips right here. Get it quick - before the lawyers do.
« So tell me, Al, what caused all those *other* storms in Earth's history? — Comments (17) | More evidence of ABC folding: cancelled ads — Comments (77) »
ABC's "Path to 9/11": Pre-Edit Clips... 121 Comments (0 topical, 121 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
is off the reservation and Rush was on Katie's show, unedited this week. Rush, that's the guy that Clinton said caused the OKC bombing.
The best way to enrage a democrat is to accurately quote them, accurately cite their votes in congress and merely recite history.
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
The Dems do the most despicable things in plane sight and wonder why everybody thinks they’re depraved and immoral. This just motivates me to get out my credit card and contribute to the RNC. Even Lincoln Chafee would be better than these neo-Stalinists.
Let me say, while I still can, long live freedom of speech!
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
Which is why on the heels of this, we need to launch the offensive of exposing the Dems for who they are. All the campaign fodder they’ve been feeding us for two years that has been ignored by the MSM needs to be pumped into the campaign ads at this point in time. All the over the top quotes by Dean, Pelosi and Reid need to be aired, all the embraces of Sheehan, Moore and various Third World dictator.
Also include the ads that make clear who will be running the committees in the House when party perceived to be the party of the “moderates” by growing numbers of southern woman takes control. It will put them on defense from now until election day. They’ll be reduced to complaining about one truthful ad after another, like they did with the Swifties, while their fortunes sink.
Unleash the ads they despise the most, the ones that expose them on the heals of the docudrama that exposes them. It’s time to push these clowns over the cliff.
My thoughts exactly! I actually am worried about the direction of our government with only a single sensible party. The future looks bleak.
we need two viable, sensible political parties. But in the absence of a rational Democrat Party I'll take Republican control until they sort out the mess they've made for themselves. That should take say 20 years or so :-)
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
An effective opposition, the fragile alliance that holds the Fiscal Conservatives to the Social Conservatives won't last long. The sooner the Dems go away, the sooner we have 2 solid parties again.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
They should replace the footage with Berger stuffing classified documents in his pants and then going home to burn them. As it is, it looks like it may not be half bad. Worth Tivoing anyway.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Of course, the MSM never pursued the story with any seriousness, but did anyone ever find out, or was the whole thing hushed up successfully?
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
Initial reaction: This is A LOT worse than just that one Sandy Burglar scene.
Some of the "I'm back in Washington at the bar with my girlfriend/kid" scenes aren't worth much... but the rest is pretty well done.
I'm surprised they didn't milk this as a mini-series. 5 hours... 5 days... could have been the new 'Roots' or "Blue & Gray*" of our time.
*Or whatever that was.
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
I know I have been a "one note Johnny" about how sitting out "to send a message" is a foolish idea. Anyway, this silly episode proves once and for all why we can never allow this crop of Democrats to run the show. Am I mad about spending/immigration/not using the veto pen, etc.? You're darn tooting I am. But, I cannot meet my maker knowing that I helped elect Conyers to run the Judiciary by sitting out. And never forget, that sitting out is a vote for KOS and to allow this kind of bull&*$t to continue.
how Clinton thinks a full-court press is going to help him here. If they'd stopped with a denunciation of the quasi-Tarnak-Farms scene being inaccurate, he and his cronies could be assured that the media coverage would have run something like "Scene shows Pres. Clinton unwilling to strike al Qaeda, but he assures us that's inaccurate and besides, Presidential Daily Briefing! Presidential Daily Briefing! Bush bad!" But I can't think of anything more likely to attract attention to Clinton's particular errors of commission and omission than completely and utterly flipping out about his depiction.
Absolutely outstanding. This video needs to get out to show America what the Democrats were trying to censor. We can debate as a country what is true, what is not, what is biased, what is not -- but only if we have access to the tape itself. RedState made that happen.
Those of you reading this, be sure to "digg" it (click the blue button). Register if necessary; digg is an important site that attracts a lot of people. Mostly Dems, but many others as well. There is a growing contingent of conservatives there that could use your help. Free to register. The more diggs, the more prominent the article is featured. You can also leave comments. It's free, and doesn't appear to increase the number of Nigerian411s in the inbox -- i.e. it's legit.
Once again, hats off to RedState.
This video needs to get out to show America what the Democrats were trying to censor.
While we're at it, how about making sure people see the videos of innocent people jumping to thier deaths to escape the flames in the WTC, and the spontaneous street celebrations throughout the Muslim world?
about what the "Arab street" thinks. (Answer: It thinks attacks on America are really neat.)
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
Again, just like with the 'dissenters' on the left, it's not as though Bill Clinton has a militia ready to storm in and shoot up Clayton and his server.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Listen guys, here is the thing.. One of the main reasons Dems do not want people to see this is that it explains in reality why we cannot fight a war with our hands tied as a "law enforcement problem."
This is what many Democrats are running on now.
Whether its "prosecuting terrorist by laws" or "how to interrogate them" they are all over it and intend to fight the war on terror from behind a desk.
The film makes people realize the consequences of those actions while undoing all the air brushing by the media and former Clinton administration officials regarding their time in office.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
A book by retired Air Force officer, Robert Patterson, shows the level of Clinton's committment to national security and the Presidency. Patterson was one of the officers charged with carrying the "football", the breifcase with the neccessary launch codes.
A large air strike was set to go against Iraq but Clinton's approval was required. Patterson, who was on duty that day, approached Clinton while he was at a golf tournament & gassing with a group of people. Being brushed off he called Sandy Berger, who was not stealing anything at the moment.
To shorten the story; while Berger was getting severe trauma Patterson went to Clinton twice more and was rebuffed and ignored both times. All Clinton had to do was say yes but he couldn't be distracted from performing before his audience.
The air strike was canceled and the crews stood down.
Maybe a movie should be produced based on the book but I wonder how loud Bill and his trained crew of monkeys would wail about it. Bill only took one thing really, really seriously. Any guesses?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
has made in public since 911, some of which were made on foreign soil, which blame America for the attacks.
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
This took a lot of guts, Mike. And I'm proud to see that RedState is letting the people decide. Two quick things: I wonder what the reaction will be when CBS does it's miniseries based on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report that was released in part yesterday? Because we know that's coming -- from someone, at some point.
And secondly, although this action here at RedState took a lot of guts, I have to ask why people are protesting so loudly when hundreds of people have already seen the film -- not to mention all the actors, producers, directors, editors, etc., etc. involved in the creating it? None of those people, so far as I can tell, have been turned into Zombies by watching or making the film, and so far nobody has been inspired do so much as hold a protest outside the Clinton residence.
All the EFF people, and professors such as Lawrence Lessig, have been adamant in the past that the proper way to combat "bad speech" (as anyone construes it) is with "more speech." And yet, we see this incredible organized campaign on the part of some Dems. and bloggers to censor the film and attack the network and silence the people involved in the project. Didn't they read their Larry Lessig? Or does his advice only apply when their ox isn't being gored?
And I'd like to note that if anyone tried to censor a dramatization such as Hotel Rwanda or -- perish the thought -- Bowling for Columbine or any of the "thousands" of documentaries available at Netflix, including all the 9/11 Conspiracy DVDs...
None of the howlers who are howling at ABC and Disney seem concerned by the grassroots "9/11 Truth" movement, either. Not a peep.
That large-scale Protests are the ground of the Democrats and that the rest of us tend to voice our protests with votes...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
A dialogue box pops up that tells me to "click to allow active x content to run on this webpage". I do this 6 times, and all I get is 6 Quicktime icons and no video. Am I the only one who can't see the videos? Any suggestions? I do have the Quicktime plug-in and active x content is allowed....
has completed.
they won't start automatically. the screens may even look funny, but clicking on the play buttons will do it.
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
There is no play button. Just a Quicktime icon. I've viewed quicktime objects before but there is not even the grey "screen". Just a placeholder-type graphic that says "Quicktime". Oh well, I'll live.
At least it looks like the show will still air tonight (Yahoo TV shows it scheduled for 7 pm (Central) so I guess Slick Willie didn't get his way. If there are edited or cut scenes, Rush will talk about them tomorrow.
Tell your friends, as well. But always remember, it's the Republicans who are neo-Fascists and who wish to censor.
Quoth the Left: "Long live free speech!" (as long as you say what I want to hear)
Mike -- frigging awesome. Well done.
but I didn't see anything controversial (except perhaps the girlfriend comment). Having worked with the incompetent, arrogant, and dimwits hired by Madelyn "Half-bright's" regime at DOS, the dramatizations were reasonable portrayals. Reminded me of many frustrations those of us at the 'sharp end of the spear' had. I haven't decided if I'll watch tonight, remembering those years just drives up my blood pressure over the lost opportunities and lives of those who risked much to help us - so casually tossed aside.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
The Washington Post is fuming because the docu-drama accused the Post of disclosing that the U.S. government was intercepting bin Laden's calls, and as a result bin Laden reverted to courier communications.
But it turns out that it was the Washington Times that in August 1998 published the article reporting that bin Laden communicated by computer and satellite phone.
Now the media suddenly get concerned about accuracy. Not when they were concocting their Katrina fable. Not when they were trying to foist the phoney "Bush was AWOL" story on the public, or any of thousands of similar hit jobs on the GOP over the years.
members of the miniseries production, including actor Harvey Keitel, and members of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission have also noted inaccuracies in the film.
this seems like an unusually accurate effort from a member of the MSM. I applaud the sudden concern for scrupulous accuracy, but I'll have to see it carried over into other areas before I accept that the MSM and the Democrats have turned over a new leaf.
Thanks, I read Dana Milbank's Zeigteist CW roundup in Slate also. Dana practically has a second career coming up with pithy observations for Slate these days, and that's probably a good hedge for him, considering the WaPo's declining circulation. But you're right; let's make absolutely sure the WaPo is never confused with the WaTi, please.
It seems to me that the WaTi should be magnanimous and issue a cross-media correction for ABC, just to help them keep the record straight. I can't wait to see that blurb, buried appropriately somewhere around the WaTi's equivalent of Page A20. After all, let's not forget -- in the end, this is still ABC folks. It's still a liberal broadcast network, and it's going to make all kinds of mistakes.
If you all really want to know what people are talking about while they get drunk in Georgetown, here you go.
- ...it turns out that it was the Washington Times that in August 1998 published the article reporting that bin Laden communicated by computer and satellite phone.
No, it doesn't turn out that way at all. The 9/11 Commission report says that, but it isn't true. The Washington Times did run such an article, but that was not the first, nor the only article on the subject.
The first mention of bin Laden's use of a satellite phone was in 1996, when Time Magazine wrote that bin Laden
uses satellite phones to contact fellow Islamic militants in Europe, the Middle East and Africa."
On the same day that the Washington Times story appeared, August 21, 1998, Lisa Hoffman wrote in an article written for Scripps-Howard:
He is protected by well-armed soldiers in four-wheel drive vehicles and communicates with his followers worldwide via satellite phone.
The day before the Times story appeared, CNN reported
"The guy has a fair amount of money. He communicates by satellite phone, even though Afghanistan in some levels is back in the Middle Ages"
The following week, Bruce B. Auster wrote in U.S. News and World Report
Trapped in the mountains, bin Laden can no longer travel, as he once did, to cities such as London. He drapes a camouflage jacket over his flowing white robes. Even his satellite phone is a dangerous tool, since it could be used to pinpoint his whereabouts.
I hear that Clinton is claiming that the 9/11 Commission Report is the "truth." Not this time.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
i.e., the Traditional Values Org where these videos are also hosted.
Anyone got any info on it? Not speculation, info.
Per Drudge, ABC has sliced 30 minutes out of tonight's show, and thrown on a hastily-planned "Nightline" to fill the last half hour.
I wonder which scenes have been tossed?
Who knows what they'll do with tomorrow's edition.
Where are the Republicans calling this what it is: censorship??
If they caved, then the viewing public can factor that into their consumer decisions.
For instnce, when I tuned into Katie's new half hour talk show aka The CBS Evening News, to see Rush Limbaugh's segment, it was the first time I had watched a network news broadcast in over 4 years.
The MSM has been self censoring the news to remove inconvenient facts that dont fit their world view, template and agenda since the 60s.
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
I thought it was a pretty fair portrayal. The one key element left out was the Gorrelic wall which prevented the FBI and CIA from talking. Maybe that will be addressed tomorrow.
The nightline thing was okay, but Moran was a hack and said we were winning and LOSING the war on terror. He selectively reported what was going on in Afghanistan.
They also had Clarke on there doing a cover job for the Clinton administration saying that it was all Tennents fault and that Bill had signed off on all Bin Laden strikes.
They did show about a 12-15 second interview with someone who was there and out right said that Bill Clinton passed up opportunities to nail him.
In short, the movie was tense, but pretty even handed. The snow job came with nightline. Suprise, Suprise.
The memo put out by Jamie Gorelick did NOT bar the CIA and the FBI from talking.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
that doesn't jibe with what the FBI agents thought the whole point of the memo was.
You can sit back today, read the memo and proclaim that there is nothing that expressly forbids FBI/CIA contact but if you listen to the actual boots on the ground at the time, your opinion doesn't hold water.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The memo in question dealt with a specific case that was going on which the FBI was involved. Gorelick didn't want the case tainted with intelligence that would be considered inadmissable so she sent a memo out about that specific matter.
Gorelick did not have the authority to make such a policy decision.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
It means they have given power to tyrants, and we have all lost a little bit of our freedom.
Some quotes for you to enjoy:
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
"A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad. - Albert Camus
"The press must be free; it has always been so and much evil has been corrected by it. If Government finds itself annoyed by it, let it examine its own conduct and it will find the cause." - Lord Chancellor Thomas Erskine
"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." - Thomas Jefferson
"Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the government?" - Vladimir I. Lenin
ETHICS & MORALITY
"It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." - Alfred Adler
"Out of thine own mouth I will judge thee." - Luke 19:22
EXCUSES
"Who excuses himself, accuses himself." - Anonymous (Proverb)
"And oftentimes excusing of a fault
Doth make the fault the worse by the excuse." Shakespeare, King John, IV, ii
that conservatives disregarded freedom of the press when they pressured CBS not to run a biopic in 2003 that critics felt portrayed former President Ronald Reagan and former first lady Nancy Reagan in a negative light.
Anyone who can't grasp the difference between private action and state action is too stupid to be taking part in public policy discussions.
Though some of these guys seem to understand the difference, given their howling over "Social Security privatization," so I suspect in some cases, the accusations of censorship over the Reagan thing are just a pack of politically-motivated lying.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
There is a spot on You Tube that's being hyped by Kos that I think sums it up pretty well. Here's what Clinton says, appearing on CNN:
But ABC is certainly not safe from fallout, as a former President and his top aides launch a multi-pronged attack.
Clinton: I think they ought to tell the truth. Particularly if they're going to claim it's based on the 9/11 Commission report, they shouldn't have scenes which are directly contradicted by the factual findings of the 9/11 Commission. That's all. I just want people to tell the truth, you know, and not to pretend that it's something it's not.
Well, that's not all they said, Mr. President, and that's not what this film is billed as to begin with. The film is a dramatization that's partially based on the 9/11 Commission report, and partially an artistic reconstruction of events -- in other words, it's a version of the leadup to 9/11, based partially on the Commission report, but one that necessarily contains quite a bit of artistic license. But it is a docudrama, in the same spirit of many docudramas that have been aired on American television over the past several decades -- and AFAIK ABC has never billed it as anything *but* a docudrama. They're certainly not airing it as a "news" item. Don't you think you're applying the wrong standard?
Because really, in that sense it bears no different relationship to the "truth" as a Norman Mailer novel does -- Mailer has always done exhaustive research, but his works -- read by hundreds of millions and perhaps even billions of people worldwide -- have always been viewed as "fiction" although in many cases they were based on factual events. In fact, Mailer has successfully defended himself on that basis in the past, most notably during the McCarthy era. It seems, however, that some people in the Democratic Party don't want to give ABC News the same artistic leeway they'd readily provide to a novelist like Mailer in the creation of a work like Harlot's Ghost -- simply because the story doesn't go the way they'd like to see it go. That's pretty small, Bill.
Why, Bill? Is it the fear that sometimes fiction is a better indicator of the truth than reality? Or is it just a complete lack of respect for the literature? Or do you think that your legacy can't withstand this short film?
If you click this link you'll find that even the staunchest critics of this film on the Left are referring to it as a "docudrama." If you click this link you can see the google search for Michael Moore's films as "documentary" -- which according to Wikipedia means this.
If you click this link you can read the Wikipedia entry on "Docudrama." And if you read that entry a little, you'll find that Norman Mailer's works fall under the category of "docu-fiction" -- but nobody has ever tried successfully to censor him. And the docudrama definition seems to give ABC quite a bit of leeway in this project, certainly more than if they called it a "documentary" as Michael Moore usually does. So really, Mr. President, what precisely is your beef? Is Michael Moore a documentarian or a docudramatist or a docu-fictionalist? What category does ABC fall under when it airs this program?
If ABC's marketing department isn't talking to their legal department, that isn't exactly my problem, and it wouldn't be unprecedented in the history of large corporations. And who knows, maybe the definition of "docudrama" differs somewhat in Australia and New Zealand. If you're that concerned that they are working at cross-purposes, perhaps you should send ABC New Zealand an email and complain.
There are lots of cases where the legal department of large corporations in the media business don't talk accurately with the marketing and revenue departments. For example, Truthout.org has gotten away with republishing 100% verbatim copies of editorials and other articles from the New York Times that are subscription-only, Times Select pieces -- for well over a year now! -- simply by claiming at the bottom in italic type that they have no affiliation with the Times, etc., etc. Truthout's imprimatur would tend to lead the naive believer to think that everything they publish is, well, the "official true story" also, wouldn't it? Evidently that's been enough for the Times' lawyers, so why don't you cut ABC NZ and AUS a little slack?
Truth: A concept so totally alien to Clinton that he actually thinks he is telling the truth. From a man who lied to this wife, his daughter, his staff, his friends, a Grand Jury and the entire American people: "That's all. I just want people to tell the truth, you know, and not to pretend that it's something it's not.
I watched his public statement that day from the Whitehouse. He stood before the people of this country, with his wife at his side, bit his lip, pain on his face, and pointed his finger at me and all the people of the United States of America through the camera --- and lied to me. There is a special place in H*ll reserved for William Jefferson Clinton.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Based on sworn court testimony. Also featuring sworn deposition inspired scenes of the Broaderick and Willey episodes.
All fully documented and confirmed by court contempt fines and bar license suspensions and disbarrments.
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.-Ronald Reagan
I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.-Ronald Reagan
here I thought I had received the very first RedState Percent Sign© :-)
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
... and the Clintonites will not be pleased.
But Berger's infamous line was cut.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
They may have softened the portrayal of the Clinton administration's bungling but to my eyes it came through loud and clear and, from monitoring the DU, it looks like the denizens there agree. They are furious.
"If people blame Bill Clinton after seeing this, then the miniseries has failed," said Kean, the former Republican New Jersey governor. "That's wrong and it shouldn't happen."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR200609...
The Clinton Administration was operating in a different world.
What was striking, though, was watching the Americans talk about what amounts to appeasement (literally zero collateral damage), the jihadis already had become determined to kill as many women and children as possible.
If that's the lesson here, I certainly got it.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
.. when Sandy Pants Burglar wimped out on the phone call, that was cut!
I saw the scene. It was in there unless you're talking about something else. It looked like Burglar had Waco on his mind and was afraid to make a decision in case something went wrong so he insisted on talking to Clinton first. I especially liked it when the guy from the Northern Alliance asked the American if there were "any men left" in America/Washington when we let Bin Laden get away.
I thought the first episode was pretty darned good. I wonder what ABC's ratings were like tonight. I can't remember the last time I watched anything on ABC (besides football). I look forward to tomorrow night for the conclusion.
President Bush will address the nation right after tomorrow night's show. Excellent timing.
to me is as much a story as Clinton and his hacks. The sordid stories of Clinton range from undenieable to at the least plausible. The little leftists show a dangerous and ugly mindset that admits only what is agreeable to their hyper-emotive and damaged psyche's. They are a tinder box waiting to be set off, tools standing ready for their marching orders. They have become, put bluntly, a threat hanging over our heads.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Truly gripping. It framed the idea that at least one side of the equation believes we're at war.
I wish Clinton would just explain the constraints of geopolitics at the time -- instead of whining about legacy control -- as there are lessons for all Americans in that film. Were Clinton a true leader, he'd have the courage to point that out.
I think that film should be seen by everyone. If they put out a DVD version, I'd buy it.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
That some of you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
You guys are saying that the story is pretty accurate assessment of how things went and then go off on various anti-Clinton screeds based on the movie's claims.
You are also saying, whenever it is pointed out that there are numerous inaccuracies, that it was a dramatization and not intended to be truly accurate.
Seems like you liked the film because it spends a lot of time roasting the Clinton Administration.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
No more blanket comments such as that, particularly when they're in the form of a general response instead of specific ones. Posting privileges are granted with the understanding that they be used in a responsible and reasonably unoffensive manner. We - and by we I am referring to the readers and editors of RS - aren't obligated to work out just who you, specifically, are referring to with 'you guys' and 'some of you' and 'you'.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
How was my post offensive?
I generally do respond to specific people. However there were numerous people in this thread that appeared, IMO, to exhibit this behavior. Perhaps I could have been clearer and said "numerous posters in this diary" but I thought that would implied.
I realize that the rules here at RedState are not equally meted out and that's fine. But I find it inconsistent to say that I am being vague and overgeneralizing simply because I didn't point out the specific individuals when the use of overgeneralized straw men is a staple of RedState.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You have a problem with specific posters, reply to them. No more blanket complaints.
If you are having problems with the layout of the new comment system, well, master it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
...you're not being paid to post here, so if you dislike the alleged staples of our little nook of the Internet, well, there's an easy enough solution.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
... and done nothing like what you suggest. In fact I've defended Clinton on the basis of the context of the times. The glaring problem here is that Clinton is much more concerned with legacy control than with making sure that people understand that their lives are in danger from Islamists.
The reactions of the Clinton Administration were timid and PC. That said, I'm not sure that they were inconsistent with the overall mood of the nation. Clinton says he wasn't distracted by the Lewinsky stuff, but his biography hints otherwise.
Some folks just don't like Clinton. They tee off on him regardless of the topic at hand. People like you who attempt to engage in an intelligent debate need to sort of separate those partisan bashers from the thoughtful critics.
One of the things that crushes coversation these day is the tendency to pick out the worst on the "other side" and use it as an excuse to say "See, they're nuts." Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin make their careers this way. The way to combat this is, instead of complaining about the bashers, engage the more thoughtful folks.
I said the other day that the behavior of the Senators who threatened ABC's license if they showed the movie was fascism. I wasn't being perjorative. Using the tools of the state to squelch dissent is a pretty good definition of fascism. Threatening the network's license over what amounts to a difference of opinion is really close to, if not over, that line.
Is that Clinton bashing? Some of the commenters here seemed to think so. None who disagreed discussed the point, though. Instead, they got hysterical over the word choice.
Which of those tacks you choose to take is your own choice. Just realize that it's a choice. I'd be excited to see you talk about the issues here from a liberal/Democrat perspective. Leave the other stuff for lesser posters.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
Let me start off by saying that you were certainly not one of the people I was referring to.
And you're right that it is better to fly above the partisan attacks as responding to them serves no purpose.
The Clinton Administration made numerous mistakes regarding this matter. However the ones I see as mistakes aren't the ones being highlighted in this film.
The first mistake that Clinton did was alienate the military and never try to get them under his control. I think he geniunely felt poorly suited for military leadership. This put our military at odds with our civilian leadership, never a good thing. So when Clinton looked for military options to take out Bin Laden the military leadership told him there were no options.
The 2nd mistake he made was that he wasn't willing to battle the State and Intelligence bureaucracies to get them to do what he wanted. In the film they show Sandy Berger being unwilling to carry out the orders to take out Bin Laden. In truth it was mid-level CIA operatives that were putting the kybosh on the plans. They felt that assassinating Bin Laden would be illegal and rebuffed any attempt to carry out such a plan including even providing local partisans sniper weapons.
The Lewinsky scandal, IMO, is a black mark on American politics. No one comes out of that looking good, IMO. Clinton, obviously, screwed up royally and allowed himself to get embroiled in a petty scandal because he couldn't keep his hands to himself and he wasn't willing to take the political fallout of the truth coming out. The Republicans in Congress aren't much better as they viewed attacking Clinton to be more important than running the country. Regardless both sides allowed our national interests to get hijacked by petty partisan warfare.
As for the Dem Senators in this matter I would agree with you that they are way out of line. Fascism, IMO, is too strong a word since the only thing they did was spout some rhetoric, which they are incapable of carrying out. But they certainly went over the line.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Couple of responses:
1. Situations like this hit Clinton where he was weakest. He was such a consummate politician -- so concerned with popularity -- that he had trouble doing things that "the people" might not understand. Assassinating Bin Laden in 1998, which Clinton probably understood was necessary, was one of those things.
2. Regardless of why the Lewinsky thing came to prominence, once it did, Clinton was toast as commander in chief. Clinton isn't capable of understanding a concept like that. He should of resigned in 1998 -- even though it would have been incredibly unfair for him to have to do so.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
Sorry grammarians.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
I really don't know if it would have been better for the country if Clinton had resigned. Generally speaking a President in the last 2 years of his 2nd term is pretty useless. Clinton was even more useless but I don't think that Gore would have been able to do anything either.
However the big problem I see with that is that the parties would realize that they could oust a sitting President for purely political reasons. That is a dangerous precedent.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
But you have stated several times that there were inaccuracies in it. I don't recall you citing one. You started with this complaint before you had seen the film.
Since you don't seem to be so partisan as to believe that anything Bill Clinton or Sandy Berger said about it must, of necessity, be true, I was wondering what inaccuracies you thought the film contained.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I didn't watch the film but I watched the clips provided by my in the other diary.
Here are a few points.
Clip 1 of Berger "chickening" out on the operation. The US NEVER had that sort of operational control in Afghanistan. Our involvement in Afghanistan was strictly regulated by the Pakistanis, particularly the ISI. Futhermore we had virtually no American presence in the country prior to 9/11. The vast majority of our ops in Afg. were carried out by indigent forces.
I can't speak to the 2nd clip because there isn't enough information in the clip to make a comment. I can say their depiction of our Afghani "allies" is Hollywood Uped.
Clip 5 - Albright notifies the Pakistanis about the impending attack. Albright says there were regional considerations that prompted the notification of the Pakistanis. And indeed there were. Let's start off by looking at a map of the region. As you can see any missle attack at Afghanistan would require entering Pakistani airspace. Now in itself that could be enough to warrant notifying Pakistan. However there was a far bigger concern. That concern was that the Pakistani would misconstrue those missles as being coming from India. And to suggest that George Tenet wouldn't know this borders on the absurd.
Now I realize that this is mostly poetic license but the problem you have is that a lot of people see this and take as gospel, primarily because they want to. The problem is that it ignores the realities of how our government truly operates.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
If a power that be could correct by html tag problem that would be great.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
can you provide some authority for this:
"Clip 1 of Berger "chickening" out on the operation. The US NEVER had that sort of operational control in Afghanistan. Our involvement in Afghanistan was strictly regulated by the Pakistanis, particularly the ISI. Futhermore we had virtually no American presence in the country prior to 9/11. The vast majority of our ops in Afg. were carried out by indigent forces."
In Vino Veritas
I would start with reading Ghost Wars. He goes into great detail about the various attempts to take out Bin Laden.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The US NEVER had that sort of operational control in Afghanistan.
The ABC movie does not claim that the US had operational control in Afghanistan, so I don't see what point you are trying to make here. It shows a three man US team working with the Northern Alliance to try to get OBL. Operational control would suggest that the US Army was occupying the country.
Clip 5 - so you are saying that you agree with the clip?
By having a 3 man American squad with direct comms to the White House they were most certainly suggesting operational control in Afghanistan.
I agree that we notified the Pakistanis. I greatly disagree with the show omitting the REASON why we notified them since I think we can all agree that a shooting war between Pakistan and India would be a very bad thing and I don't think we want to be the catalyst for such an event.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I greatly disagree with the show omitting the REASON why we notified them since I think we can all agree that a shooting war between Pakistan and India would be a very bad thing and I don't think we want to be the catalyst for such an event.
The Pakistan/India thing was made abundantly clear in the clip. It was all Madeline Albright was talking about.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Mea Culpa then. I watched it and didn't notice that.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
you have commented on two, and already mea culpaed as to one of them.
Of the other, I would justify it. This is not meant to be a simple presentation of the entire context - the whole history of the universe up to 9/11 - it is about representing what happened.
That four occasions in which the Clinton administration passed up opportunities to get bin Laden are conflated into one does not seem to me to be a particular distortion, or especially negative to the reputation of the administration or its personnel.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
That the film attempts to portray the White House as being the ones that passed on getting Bin Laden when it was, in fact, NOT the White House but rather the CIA and DoD.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
By having a 3 man American squad with direct comms to the White House they were most certainly suggesting operational control in Afghanistan.
You must be using that lefty dictionary again, the one where words have different meanings than they do for the rest of the world.
Are you suggesting that the movie suggests American operational control over Afghanistan? It does not.
Are you saying that the WH did not have control over American forces in Pakistan and in Afghanistan? They certainly did.
Operatives of the CIA's Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda's tactical radios.
I greatly disagree with the show omitting the REASON why we notified them since I think we can all agree that a shooting war between Pakistan and India would be a very bad thing and I don't think we want to be the catalyst for such an event.
The show did not omit the REASON why we notified them. I don't understand why you keep making assertions which are patently untrue. It might prove useful to watch a movie you wish to critique, rather than simply repeating what you hear on left wing blogs.
Perhaps if you weren't being so snide you would have noticed when I said that I was basing my comments on the clips from Mike's other diary.
Are you suggesting that the movie suggests American operational control over Afghanistan? It does not.
No. Why would I suggest this? Opertional control of the MISSION.
Are you saying that the WH did not have control over American forces in Pakistan and in Afghanistan? They certainly did.
I'm saying that we had virtually no presence in Afghanistan prior to 9/11.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
That is what I'm basing my comments on.
I'm saying that we had virtually no presence in Afghanistan prior to 9/11.
The clips, and the movie show that we had "virtually no presence in Afghanistan", so I still don't see what point you are trying to make. The clips and the movie show a three man team in Afghanistan working with the Northern Alliance to try to capture and extract OBL. This is historically accurate.
Neither the clips nor the movie ever suggested that we had a significant presence in Afghanistan. You seem to be under the impression that they do make that claim. Why? What is your source?
American operatives in Afghanistan had almost NO involvement in the operations against Bin Laden. The CIA refused to get their hands dirty. They continually rebuffed WH attempts to take out Bin Laden. They refused to even allow the shipment of sniper rifles to the indigent forces for fear that this would be misconstrued as advocating assassination.
Sandy Berger wasn't sitting on a phone giving a thumbs up or down to the mission. It never got to him in that manner.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
That still leads back to the Clinton Administration. He's not just out on his own fighting POTUS on all of these things. If he was, they should have replaced him. Of course he wasn't fighting them at all, he was simply reflecting their priorities.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
That the blame lies on Tenet per se, at least not all of it.
There was institutional hesitation that ran throughout the agency.
And as I said earlier I do fault Clinton for not getting things in order with the intelligence services.
My point here is that the show tries to depict a frightened Clinton White House that was unwilling to make the "tough" decisions.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The institution doesn't decide that we can't assassinate OBL and have to take him alive back to NY instead. It doesn't decide that if there are any women or children in the area the attack is too risky. The institution doesn't make the call... and if Clinton is letting a defective agency call the shots he should be making, that is on him too. It is at his door that the buck ultimately stops on everything that goes on in his Administration, especially when he took no steps to correct it.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
The Instituion DOES know that it would be violating the law if it were to committ an assassination, even with a directive from the President.
The fact that there were women and children at the Afghanistan camp wasn't a major factor in saying go or no go on any missions.
Regardless I'm not sure what you're arguing with me over. I've already said, repeatedly, that Clinton deserves blame. What else would you like for me to say?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The Institution DOES know that it would be violating the law if it were to committ an assassination, even with a directive from the President.
It doesn't really matter what they think. If they don't like the President's decision they can leak it to the NYT on their next coffee break. It isn't their call to make. Besides, the whole "cruise missile = ok / rifle = not ok" thing seems like a pretty ridiculous premise to be operating off of in the first place. Ask yourself if Bush would've made the same call.
I've already said, repeatedly, that Clinton deserves blame.
Well, that's one thing we can both agree on. It's just too bad the rest of the Democrats haven't learned a thing and are eager to repeat all the same mistakes (and more) if they somehow ended up calling the shots in 2008.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
This response goes to you and achance. It seems both of you are going into Attack the Democrats mode. While that's all well good and will always play well here at RS, it isn't terribly constructive. Democrats are not card board cutouts anymore than Republicans are, despite what Kos & Co. might have to say.
You guys sit here with perfect hindsight and can wag your finger at the Clinton administration for this or that.
The truth is that if Bush was in power from 96-2000 the results would likely have been the same because there was no political will to do the things we find acceptable today.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
then, usually the middle one.
Their playbook is really quite simple, and I think I summed it up. No one who believes in or opportunistically follows the modern Democrat playbook is fit to govern. The only agenda is power, there is no right, no wrong, no good public policy, there is only that action, or preferably inaction, that keeps their sorry butts in the big chair.
In Vino Veritas
And 9/11 hasn't exactly changed that, either. If anything, they seem to have rededicated themselves to following that playbook. I would love nothing more than to see Democrats who were serious about the Islamofascist threat and were willing to do whatever it took to confront it. Unfortunately that species seems to be nearly extinct.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
that is the whole issue with Clinton, or any other modern Democrat's administration. Their whole governing rationale is to get in power with their minimum winning coalitions and STAY there; the way you do that is to never do anything but feel the pain of your constituencies and endlessly talk about problems you have no intention of solving. If you solved a problem, you'd lose the constituency associated with it.
The decision makers in that movie and in real life were just doing the political calculus that they always do, you don't have to single anyone or any event out; if doing nothing is an option, it is the right (political) option. It is the way they think, and it is why we should move heaven, earth, and Hell if necessary to make sure that people like that never govern us again.
In Vino Veritas
You earlier suggested that the movie was inaccurate in claiming that the US had a significant presence in Afghanistan. Are you now retreating from that claim?
American operatives in Afghanistan had almost NO involvement in the operations against Bin Laden.
American operatives in Afghanistan has the level of involvement which the movie depicts, as indicated by the news article I linked to.
The CIA refused to get their hands dirty. They continually rebuffed WH attempts to take out Bin Laden.
The CIA is headed by a political appointee. For the period in question this was George Tenet. I don't know by what authority an arm of the executive branch can refuse to follow instructions from the president. I grant you that they and DoD were obstructive, but that was covered in the movie.
Obviously you refuse to read what I write and just look for ways to semantically whittle down the point. I can't keep clarifying every adjective I use because you wish to infer something that would be CLEARLY not the case.
If you think that an article talking about the CIA building a secret airstrip for extraction is akin to having CIA operatives working side by side indigenous forces while they attempt to kill/kidnap Bin Laden, I can't help you.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Obviously you refuse to read what I write and just look for ways to semantically whittle down the point. I can't keep clarifying every adjective I use because you wish to infer something that would be CLEARLY not the case.
Sucks when it happens to you instead of the other way around, huh.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Your shoulders ever get tired carrying that thing around?
Glad to see arbitrary snarks shots are alive and well still.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
have met in this way. In a different reality . . . I might have called you friend.
(Take that, Jonah Goldberg)
Yeah it was arbitrary (and accurate), but I bet if we polled people here familiar with your posting history, they would agree with my statement.
Yes I know. I'm just a troll who never contributes, never admits that I'm wrong, and always looks to change the subject rather than admit defeat.
Luckily I have you here to put me in my place.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
That isn't what I said either (but you are making my point here). Yes you do argue points and admit when you are wrong, but ALSO, you tend to argue semantic points instead of the main arguments.
Pot = Kettle
Anyways, I thought you were done on this thread?
We can all get caught up arguing the trees rather than the forest. It happens.
I was done until you decided to come in for the cheap shot.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Step 1: Take control of the terms of debate. Semantics is everything. For example, once you get people to accept that "dissent is patriotic" then liberals are the most patriotic people in America and conservatives the least. Once words are defined as you want them to be the rest is a footnote.
Step 1. Instead of addressing specific points rant about strawmen like the nefarious Liberal or Leftist.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I've addressed all the specific points you raised on this thread. The one about how Albright was maligned, the one about how the US had no operational control in Afghanistan, the one about how we had virtually no presence in Afghanistan. If you want to bring up some other specific point I'll be happy to address that one also.
[Persistent cuss, wasn't he? We've left a copy of his screed up here - Moe Lane]
The desperate censorship of this is not the sign of a healthy, confident political party. It is the sign of a movement that is literally fighting for its life. The Democratic Party is like a wounded animal that has been cornered and is lashing out in self-defense.
Its grip on legitimacy is so fragile it can be devastated by a made-for-TV movie.
Soldiers' Angels