UPDATED BELOW 

Remember when all these yo yos embraced and hailed Michael Moore’s Scare and Fright Fahrenheit 911 as the real truth since it slammed Bush?

Now listen to them whine when it appears unflattering to Clinton.

House Democrats Demand Accuracy in ABC 9/11 Film

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

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

Hypocrites.  They will hail the latest dreck ala Michael Moore but not this if there is the chance it will make them look bad.

ABC Refuses to Provide Copies of Path to 9/11 to Clinton, Albright, Berger

ABC has been aggressively advancing its inaccurate and politically slanted miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” to the right wing. Big players like Rush Limbaugh have been provided copies, as have obscure right-wing bloggers like Patterico.

But ABC has refused to provide a copy to President Clinton’s office. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger have also requested copies of the film from ABC, and both have been denied. Both Berger and Albright are harshly criticized in the film in scenes that, according to former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, are “180 degrees from what happened.”

Waaaaah!

NY Times Talks Up Left-Wing Complaints About ABC’s 9-11 Miniseries

I walk with a cane a lot lately.  An ankle injury from years ago has flared up into a real pain in my …err…foot.   The pain in my ankle is intermittent however, so I am not always in pain.   Sometimes I can be observed to walk without a limp and other times I am observed to be walking with a limp and the aid of my trusty cane.

To evaluate my observed actions, you could reasonably make two conclusions:

• If I am limping I use a cane.
• If I using a cane I am limping.

Why is this significant?  Because the extended conclusion of the first item is to assume that the limp necessitates the use of a cane whereas the second conclusion assumes that the use of a cane necessitates a limp, which can in turn be used to assume that the cane causes me to limp.

Now in context, an understanding of simple anatomy answers the contradiction, but from the dry standpoint of observed behavior, both theories seem valid and demonstrable.  Only a contextual and qualified understanding make the difference clear.

Tina Nole, talk show host Dave Ross’s producer at Radio Station KIRO (710am, Seattle), seems to have a similar problem in her use of analogy and conclusion.

Her Blog, Dogs, Blogs, Politics and the Personal, has a column entitled If A + B = C…Then… wherein she seems to equate terrorists to rapists.

It starts with her posting a letter from a semi-virulent "fan" of one of her shows, named Gerard.  Gerard it seems takes offense at Dave Ross’s apparent light treatment of an Islamic apologist (Named only Jeff).

He states:

I ran across this article at The Coastal Post Online, and it was a bit interesting.

I won’t quote the whole thing, just the intro and the conclusions by the author, and some selected quotes from Watada’s speech…as much as I can stomach.