Redstate

The attempted censorship by US Senators is disturbing stuff, but until someone blows up a Disney office or shoots an executive, I don't see any terror.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Threatening to take away ABC's right to broadcast? The Democrats are literally threatening their corporate lives in order to censor them. I'd call that psychological terror at least.

Can you imagine the conversations they are having with stockholders and board members?

If terror is about controlling through fear and intimidation, then this is absolutely terror.

--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts

By your logic then, any business which threatens to fire an individual who votes against the wishes of the owner or for a union is guilty of terrorism. Or, better yet, how about when our elected officials decide to kill federal projects, programs or facilities in states which vote against the current regime in power? Dubya and Rove have been doing that exquisitely well for the last six years. I guess they're guilty of terrorism too, huh? I dare you to provide an honest answer?

Actually, it's a command.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

The democrats, party of arrested development, ends justifying the means, and now fascism.

The republicans did not threaten cbs with the revocation of licenses over the Reagans. No movie theater was threatened with having their occupational license pulled for farenheight 911. The republicans aren't even threatening abc over this movie, the second part is rather unflattering to the current president.

You can't provide examples of the president or his political advisor engaging in what you speak. If they did the new york times would have their delivery vehicles licenses revoked by now.

I must admit I am glad that the democrats are out defending the peoples right to read whats in libraries without monitoring and your right to have a terrorist call you. Its a bit sad they are a little weak on defending your right to put things in libraries.

Democrats don't have a monopoly on threats to broadcast entities due to disagreements over content.

But I agree threatening their right to broadcast goes too far for such an isolated case. No one can honestly claim that this is part of a pattern of disinformation or that it realistically violates any FCC rules. If it is slanderous then there are civil remedies--in truth the public outcry is sufficiently damaging to ABC and going Orwellian is completely out of line.

CPB and the NPR shouldn't be funded by the government no matter what they say. That is pretty much the Gingrich view on things.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

In 1994 he clearly was upset with the programming. Nowadays he's happier with the programming and has, in fact, become something of a proponent for public broadcasting.

[Newt Gingrich, 1994] "I don't understand why they call
it public broadcasting. As far as I am concerned, there's
nothing public about it; it's an elitist enterprise. Rush
Limbaugh is public broadcasting."

[Newt Gingrich, 2003]: "Yes, I just -- well, I would say two things, and I say this having helped raise money for one of the channels in Atlanta, and having given money to the public radio station up here. It's one of the great ironies of how life evolves that I now find myself driving to work listening routinely every morning to NPR.

And my only conclusion so far is either it is a lot less on the left than it was 20 years ago, or I have mellowed to a level where I can't go back to the caucus very often or I'll get in trouble. I'm not sure which, or some mutual blend of the two."

You are incapable of seeing the difference between making and encouraging others to make voluntary contributions and the confiscation of other people's money through force to support a business? Why doesn't that surprise me?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

But the 2003 comment from Newt Gingrich was part of a speech he gave where he favored forcing the media companies (or taxing them) such that they yielded some percentage of the TV channels to public broadcasting use. Let me guess, I'm now incapable of distinguishing between taking money from taxpayers to support a business and taking money from other businesses (which causes them to raise prices to the consumers) to support a business. Or is there some other really fine hair you're trying to split? Let me save you the time...let's just assume that no matter what evidence I put in front of you that you'll move the goalposts around so that in your mind you still win the argument.

And, while we are really off-topic here, I think this is symptomatic of the underlying problem in the Republican party right now. Defending ABC's right to print lies because (in your mind) 'the lies are more truthfull than the truth' is not a winning strategy--neither is acting righteously indignant about some Democrat somewhere making inappropriate threats about ABC's broadcasting rights. Both strategies just make the GOP look like hypocrits to anybody who knows how to use Google.

[Newt Gingrich, 2003] " And somebody said to me that the cable counter-argument is, "This is like selling beachfront property," and my answer is simple. In every state I know of today, the actual beachfront is public property. I think in California it's now -- somebody from California will know the distance, but there's a distance back from high tide that anybody in the public can walk on. And what you're asking for is the beachfront. You say fine, terrific. You get -- out of 900 cable channels, you get to sell 870. But you don’t get the last 30. And the alternative is, if you have to pay for it, then we ought to tax the cable companies for the amount necessary to pay for it."

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=675

He has either changed his position on the issue, or was just pandering to his audience. Either way it isn't a credit to the guy. Either way it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The fact is there's a huge difference between withdrawing public support (which the vast majority of conservatives want to do, regardless of content) and revoking someone's license to broadcast because you don't like what they are doing with it. The two cannot be equated.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Some of the stuff the Dems pulled during the 2004 campaign (barging into offices, shooting up at least one campaign headquarters) seems to count.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Funny, your definition of fascism looks, not surprisingly, like [the behavior of Lamontanes]. They have all the symptoms, secrecy, derision and supression of dissent, consolidation of power etc. But you all are too blind in your hate of democracy to see that. Imagine if you will, another telling of the events of 911, this one showing a petulant and disinterested president [getting personal attention from a chunky White House aide] and too busy clearing brush to pay attention to his duties. One that gets a briefing from his intelligence advisors tellinghim that OBL is determined to strike in the good ole USA. Does this president call all his advisors together and develop plan of action ?
NO, he goes back on vacation, [inviting the chunky woman along for a reading of Leaves of Grass]. How would all you redstate ostriches react then ? Oh by the way [Bill Clinton] WAS a moron and [I'm here to tell you that]. You will all [become rich and famous] for [the great service you have done for a] great country into, you [wonderful, beautiful people].
[I'm off to fellate a goat now]....Lamaar Mundane

26 minutest may be a record...
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

And so it would comport with the facts here on Planet Earth.

We wish you unhappy travels.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I've never heard it described that way before. Must have something to do with the cigar.

...I don't have to waste 90 minutes of my life watching Fahrenheit 911. Congratulations on a rather well-crafted satirical synopsis of Michael Moore's simplistic and paranoid delusions. Well done!

"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher

"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."
Dean Wormer

or is there a worse form of censorship afoot?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Was it Fascism when conservatives pressured CBS to drop the Reagan miniseries?

to a Republican senator threatening CBS's broadcast license, like the way Reid did to ABC yesterday?

But the official spoksmen of the Republican party at the time, Ed Gillespe, did complain about it. That can be seen by a corporation as an implict threat, specially from the party in power.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/01/politics/main581312.shtml

here is that there is a big difference between viewers complaining and a senator threatening your broadcast license.

... using the bully pulpit to intimidate ABC into censoring itself.

--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts

...certainly qualify as reasons for many types of legal sanctions, especially as that also qualifys as $40million in in kind political donations from 501c3 religious organizations in violation of several types of laws.

That those religious organizations are committed to the overthrow of democratic government and say that freedom is blasphemy against God, in short the worst sort of totalitarian traitors, is perhaps a harder point to make legally, but not morally.

That the film went off as planned, says alot about that religious agenda succeeding, even if not completely as yet.

When they do succeed many who worked for them out of ignorance will deeply regret doing so, but there will bo nobody left to speak up for them.

Its not a capitalism vs socialism fight it is a freedom vs totalitarianism fight

You waited almost six months to post that?

--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.

You had to look really close, frame-by-frame to pick up on the slander and partisan infomercial quality of it, since it took you a week to view the 5 hours of video.

You got a source that describes "those religious organizations who want to blah blah blah"'s supposed funding of the miniseries? Did they place a bunch of hidden messages in the movie in an attempt to convert nonbelievers?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

...speaking truth to power, down with the fundamentalists, all the usual filler copy.

Tell me: would it kill the progressive movement to use spellcheckers? I mean, is there some sort of ideological reason why you people don't?

Moe

PS: Sorry; forgot I need to spell things out when it comes to trolls.

Blam.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Or even "hey wait, why are we paying for advertising, when pulling that advertising will gives ten times the exposure?"

Devious and implausible? You be the judge ... tonight at 11 with our interactive online poll simulcast live on our network and cable news programs. And after you are the Judge, Simon, Paula and Randy will give you their insights as well. Hosted by Ryan Seacrest and Jack Black, brought to you by Fig Newtons!

But really, I bet it means they're folding. Life is too short not to be full of disappointments.

absentee

But I will again today, too.

Great idea.

(Editors: Is this an appropriate crusade to promote as a masthead/front page thing? Or would that be a "we're just as bad as they are" moment?)

--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts

Ok, I went over there long enough to copy & paste:

Call Disney at 1-818-560-1000 or 1-818-460-7477. Call ABC at 1-212-456-7777 or 1-818-560-1000.
[... message about politeness and firmness not necessary for Redstaters, who will be so by nature ...]

[Apple]: (408) 996-1010

[...]

Senator George J. Mitchell
T: (212) 335-4600
T: (212) 335-4500
F: (212) 335-4605
george.mitchell@dlapiper.com

[...]

Please call and write these folks to a) encourage them to stand for the truth as they see it and b) not to be cowed by the liberal mob and c) tie up their lines so the moonbats get less bandwidth.

I sent the following email to Mr. Mitchell...

"Despite the protestations of Senator Reid, 'freedom of the media' is not equivalent to 'freedom of the media to represent only my approved point of view'.

"ABC has the right to show "The Path to 9/11" as it sees fit, without political interference or unprecedented threats of retribution from members of Congress who want to control the narrative.

"I look forward to watching 'The Path to 9/11' in its original intended form on ABC and sincerely hope your network won't fold to the pressure of a gang of hysterical political thugs."

"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher

...than fight terrorism. Like challenging Mickey Mouse to a duel at sunset for daring to suggest that Bush isn't to blame for everything!

"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher

I hold no truck with the Donks, but please avoid that kind of language.

Thanks.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

From:
(Book) Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security
by Robert Patterson
http://koolaidreport.blogspot.com/2006/09/and-distinction-says-what-hell...

excerpts:

THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM was buzzing. It was fall 1998 and the National Security Council (NSC) and the "intelligence community" were tracking the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the shadowy mastermind of terrorist attacks on American targets overseas.

"They've successfully triangulated his location," yelled a "Sit Room" watch stander. "We've got him."

Beneath the West Wing of the White House, behind a vaulted steel door, the Sit Room staff sprang into action. The watch officer notified National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, "Sir, we've located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike."

[...]

Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the president. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk crews were ready.

For about an hour Berger couldn't get the commander in chief on the line. Though the president was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was somehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient.

Finally, the president accepted Berger's call. There was discussion, there were pauses - and no decision. The president wanted to talk with his secretaries of defense and state.

He wanted to study the issue further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The president eventually called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching the clock.

The NSC watch officer was convinced we had the right target. The intelligence sources were conclusive. The president, however, wanted a guaranteed hit or nothing at all. This time, it was nothing at all. We didn't pull the trigger. We "studied" the issue until it was too late - the window of opportunity closed. Al-Qaeda's spiritual and organizational leader slipped through the noose.

From:
Clinton’s Loss? How the previous administration fumbled on bin Laden.
A Q&A with Richard Miniter, by Kathryn Jean Lopez
September 11, 2003
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

excerpts:

More importantly, treating the bombing as a criminal matter was politically advantageous. A criminal matter is a relatively tidy process. It has the political benefit of insulating Clinton from consequences; after all, he was only following the law. He is not to blame if the terrorists were released on a "technicality" or if foreign nations refuse to honor our extradition requests. Oh well, he tried. By contrast, if Clinton treated the bombing as the act of terrorism that it was, he would be assuming personal responsibility for a series of politically risky moves. Should he deploy the CIA or special forces to hunt down the perpetrators? What happens if the agents or soldiers die? What if they try to capture the terrorists and fail? One misstep and the media, Congress, and even the public might blame the president. So Clinton took the easy, safe way out, and called it a crime.

[...]

Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role. Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden? The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States."

what caused the missed opportunities?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Pick the selection that best describes the clintons and their coterie.

A. Saintly like mother terresa
B. Just regular folks salt of the earth
C. The forgiving kind
D. Focused on doing productive work for the betterment of everyone.
E. Rabid white trash that has had far too much luck in life and will take vengeance on anyone who even begins to threaten them.

If you haven't picked E remember bill had the IRS audit his enemies.

It's the pesky facts that keep getting in the way.

Perhaps you'll link us to the letter where republican senators threatened CBS? This will prove you actually care about the information you're 'invoking'.

absentee

Furthermore, poppycock. Horse feathers. Balderdash. Etc.

It makes all the difference in the world. You've got a flimsy straw man argument. You don't honestly expect people at redstate to suggest that the public applying pressure to a corporation for something is a bad thing, do you? Conservatives invented public pressure. And why? Because we don't resort to government to provide for our every need and thought.

It's an inconceivable distintion to liberals because they can't seperate self from senator.

For the rest of us, it's the difference between people-power and iron-fisted dictatorship. In other words, all the difference in the world.

Silly!

absentee

Under each post is a reply to this link, which makes it easier to know which post you are replying to, at least for me.

It's amusing that you allude to a disdain for depthless thinking with regard to one's opposition through your use of the word "librul", which was used to imply some moronic characterization by a moron. In other words, dear pot, this is kettle, I just wanted to let you know that you're black. Thanks, bye.

You clearly put forth the position that private citizens and independent news hosts/pundits applying pressure in the instance of the Reagan movie is precisely the same as the government using the force of law to require silence or revision. What I realistically think, in the real world, is that there is simply no comparison. You can attach all the significance that you wish to those actions, but there is a distinct, unmistakeable line between the actions of conservatives in that case, and liberals in this.

Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier somewhere on this site, the liberal hypocrisy in this regard is well established already. This is merely the latest iteration.

As for your subsequent hypothetical, which I assume you realize indicates that you DON'T, in fact, find the Reagan situation and this one comparable, I certainly believe that GOP Congresspeople would not write such a letter. Neither would they threaten that network. Like with Fahrenheit 9-11 I would expect and afford them the freedom to say whatever nasty things or rebuttals they chose. But use their office to censor it? No, I wouldn't anticipate such a thing at all. And neither would I be defending such a thing. Certainly not with the flimsy argument, 'you did it first'.

absentee

Someone said " 'freedom of the media' is not equivalent to 'freedom of the media to represent only my approved point of view'."

The conservatives want to present only those cherry-picked pieces from the 9/11 report that make them look good (with a few small bad ones thrown in to look good) and the Democrats look bad. The producer has said that some scenes were fiction. If you want to present as a Conservative miniseries, with some parts fiction, that's fine. That would be more comparable to Fahrenheit 9/11. (Which, by the way, was never shown on network t.v. because the conservatives complained. ABC pulled it, saying it was "too political" to air.)

No, this is being presented in the film as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report!!". The public will be caught in with the drama, length, and visual images, and that's the only thing they will take away, regardless of whatever minor "disclaimer" is shown at the beginning of the movie. Since that is the format we're talking about, ABC/Disney has a responsibility to the American public to show both political sides. BUT you say "" 'freedom of the media' is not equivalent to 'freedom of the media to represent only my approved point of view'." Well, that applies to your point of view as well as the Democrats. ESPECIALLY if the piece is going to be perceived by the public as factual, which is the real issue here.

For such a political piece with the potential to be dangerously misunderstood, ABC should either 1. let Democrats (heck, even just a Democratic representative from the 9/11 Commission) prescreen and provide input, or 2. present it as a "Republican/Conservative point of view (like the name "Michael Moore" obviously means it is framed in a non-Republican point of view), or 3. yank the thing completely.

between Path to 9/11 and the hit piece from the porcine director you mention, whose name my finers will not type.

The conservatives want to present only those cherry-picked pieces from the 9/11 report that make them look good (with a few small bad ones thrown in to look good) and the Democrats look bad.

That simply isn't true. We assume that Disney tried to overcome their biases to produce a realistic movie. Disney has huge stakes: they represent America to billions of people around the world, they have a liberal internal culture, and their customer base is families with young kids. We assume most of all that they respect the unwritten rules about 9/11 in a way that will lead them to portray it in as apolitical a way as possible.

The absurd F-movie was designed as political propaganda. P2911 was designed with an eye toward balance and realism. The "fiction" parts are artistic license, designed to portray conditions as they were. That's part of movie-making: you use pictures to convey ideas, not necessarily to mimic the details of every situation.

--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.

...about the perceived content of a television program. Heck, they can threaten ABC, organize their kiddie corps of professional protestors and even buy domain names that are similar to the film’s Web site so they can redirect them to the DNC Web site. It’s exactly what I would expect from their merry band of kindergartners.

However, I *DO* have a problem with U.S. Senators (D-Bada Bing) threatening a network in order to control the message. I realize that Dems are accustomed to the blind fealty of network television, so this “us against the media” thing is brand new for them, but they may want to consider that what they’re threatening to do is a sick abuse of power.

As for your comment that “the piece is going to be perceived by the public as factual,” I remind you that there is a liberal miniseries that is presented as “factual” and has been in nightly reruns for the past five years. It’s called the network evening news.

Suck it up, watch “The Path to 9/11” (or don’t watch it), and rest assured that, despite all of the indignant cries from Clinton’s Kool-Aid Cronies, the miniseries will likely be much harder on Bush than on Clinton. The only difference? Bush expects criticism from the mainstream media. Clinton is just getting used to the idea that someone who has traditionally been on “his side” thinks Bubba may not be infallible.

"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher

If a republican senator or congressman had tried to threaten Miramax over Farenheit 911.

Actually I would be more upset because I would expect better from my party.

(And it kinda has a sting behind it.)

I have no problem with the substance here. I honestly couldn't care less. But your posting history here is insufficient to reach the credibility required to be a horse's rear in your comments.

Are we clear?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

If, for example, a broadcast network, lets say CBS, were to run a story trashing a GOP president which was based on fraudlent documents, then you are saying that the GOP Congress would threaten to revoke that companies broadcast license?

Hmmm, if only something like that had happened, then we'd know one way or the other.

Where is your republican official threatening CBS ?

What you have is alot of Americans very upset with a hit job on a dying president and making it known to cbs. There was no threat by the government to stop CBS.

If you really believe what you say you do, Tell youre senators to stop their threats and give ABC a gaurantee against retaliation. Then start your grassroots campaign.

Funny how your answer there omits any mention of Republican governmental officials abusing their offices by threatening retribution against CBS affiliates if they aired the film.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

...please provide the name of one Republican Senator who threatened to revoke the broadcasting license of CBS.

Once again, for the five year old lib lurkers, citizens have every right to make as much noise as they want. They can boycott, bury networks in email and phone calls, picket and plead. However, U.S. Senators do not have the right to blackmail networks by threatening to put them out of business.

"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher

1. People have an inviolable right to express their opinion - this is guaranteed in the Constitution, which I dare to presume we all support?

2. Powerful public officials do not have an inviolable right to threaten corporations with retribution if they do not like the content of a movie.

3. If this movie is in violation of public broadcasting laws, then the FCC should issue the warning or punishment, not ex-President Clinton.

I fully support the Democrats' grass roots campaign to have this movie removed. I fully support the Republicans grass roots campaign to have "The Reagans" removed from NBC. Both positions are based on a strong belief in our Constitution and the absolute necessity of supporting it whether or not I agree with what the other side is whining about.

However, I don't believe ABC should cave on this issue and I don't admire NBC for caving on "The Reagans". When controversy is banned from our airwaves, do we become China?

The threats of retribution made by President Clinton are an extreme case of "Abuse of Power" for which he should be strongly reprimanded by his own party and which is an embarrassing addition to his legacy.

I had not even planned to watch the silly movie, now I'm heading out for popcorn.

-BkMotto

...what if Karl Rove orchestrated 9/11 just so he could break into the movie business?

"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher

I don't think Karl is an evangelical, but if he was, you might be half right.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001491.php

...remove all aluminum products from your kitchen cabinets.

Step 2...stop looking for the black helicopters. They're taking a well-deserved break after hauling Joe Wilson away to his de-programming session, er, rehab.

Step 3...get a new group of friends who aren't so easily amused by your quirky conspiracy eccentricities.

"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

and that Berger is a convicted felon

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

FloridaConservative,

For example, over 40% of Americans STILL think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11

If it's the survey I'm thinking of, 9/11 wasn't even part of the question--just Iraq ties to al-Qaeda terrorists. If true about "9/11", it's because they don't listen to the President. The most Bush or Cheney ever said is, "we don't know."

From:
Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link
18 September, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

excerpts:

US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks. The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

[...]

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation. Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that. This confusion has been partly attributed to, at best a lack of clarity by the administration and at worst, deliberate obfuscation, correspondents say. As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "we don't know".

[...]

On Wednesday, Mr Bush said Mr Cheney was right about suspicions of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, citing the case of Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al-Qaeda. The US believes Mr Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad and helped to orchestrate the assassination of a US diplomat in Jordan. And Mr Bush denied there had been any attempt by his administration to try to confuse people about links between Saddam Hussein and 11 September. "What the vice-president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaeda. "And Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a US diplomat... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties."

I think you are jumping to conclusions based on what Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger have said about this film.

I have no intention of defending this film, since I haven't seen it. But there is a difference between completely inventing something and conflating several instances into one scene. From the coverage I have seen the Berger scene *seems* to be an example of the latter.

Bill Clinton himself has talked about passing up the opportunity to take UBL into custody, and there are good sources for several instances of the administration turning down or blowing opportunities to kill him.

I think it is difficult to defend these lost opportunities, even in the light of what was known at the time, let alone what we have learned since. Therefore it would have been irresonsible for the makers of the film to leave them out altogether. Conflating them into one scene seems, on its face, to be editing that is favourable to the reputation of the Clinton administration. Though, of course, that partly depends on the way it is presented.

Any chance you could hold off your conclusions until you have seen the film, rather than concluding that every assertion by Bill Clinton, who also has not seen it, is, of necessity, true?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Another example of the mainstream media offering aid and comfort to our Canadian enemies.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Steven Foley's Looney Toons graphic earlier today. If not, I'll look for it for you. You'll love it.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.