Sep 06 2006
Liberal Whinefest over ABC Documentary- UPDATE II
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
Taking its cue from left-wing bloggers (as noted by NB’s Noel Sheppard), California-based New York Times reporter Jesse McKinley files a respectful story today on left-wing complaints about the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11," "9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized As Inaccurate And Biased." "Criticized" by left-wingers and former Clintonites, though the Times tries its best to hide that fact.
Yes, even the NY Times is involved now.
9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased
Days before its scheduled debut, the first major television miniseries about the Sept. 11 attacks was being criticized on Tuesday as biased and inaccurate by bloggers, terrorism experts and a member of the Sept. 11 commission, whose report makes up much of the film’s source material.
The six-hour miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” is to be shown on ABC on Sunday and Monday. The network has been advertising the program as a “historic broadcast” that uses the commission’s report on the 2001 attacks as its “primary foundation.”
Add that to the 911 conspiracy academics, and you have plenty of people denying reality.
Fury as academics claim 9/11 was ‘inside job’
The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.
Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.
Idiots.
Read more at: Assorted Babble, Blue Crab Boulevard, Sister Toldjah just to name a few.
UPDATE:
ABC Blinks!
According to the Chicago Tribune via blogger Allah at Hotair.com, ABC is toning down the Berger Scene as well as the credits:
ABC toned down a scene that involved Clinton’s national security adviser, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified. “That sequence has been the focus of attention,” the source said.
The network also decided that the credits would say the film is based “in part” on the 9/11 panel report, rather than “based on” the report, as the producers originally intended.
I have not said much about the controversy other then to note the wails and hypocrisy, but I will later today.
Suffice to say that there is lot of argument and nuance in all directions.
All I will say at this point is that I think there are valid arguments to be made about the accuracy and whether the Clinton Administration is being misrepresented.
At the same time, I note that the liberals were not loathe to misrepresent Reagan in 2003, nor Bush in Scare-N-Hype 9/11. But the mere fact that the liberals are hypocrites does not validate the conservatives acting likewise.
There is some truth to the premise that the specific events may not have happened verbatim, being a compression of severals events. There is also some justification if that compression does not cause a change in direction.
I would say it portrays the Clinton Admin in a contextually correct manner from a broad view, but not in a completely accurate way in regards to specific people and events. Those events were damning enough on there own rights, and I don’t see why they couldn’t be used at face.
More later.
UPDATE II:
I recalled reading in Buzz Patterson’s Clinton expose "Dereliction of Duty" that Buzz had made the same allegations about Clinton and the failure to catch kill Bin Ladin as ABC has detailed in their docudrama.
Well another source has come forward confirming that Clinton had many opportunitues to get Bin Ladin that were vetoed by him or his administration. At Newsbusters, we read:
http://newsbusters.org/node/7438
Former Head of CIA’s Bin Laden Unit: Clinton Admin Played Role in Nixing Osama Op
In response to an article published at NewsBusters and The American Thinker, I have received two e-mail messages from Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA that used to head up “Alec Station,” the Counterterrorist Center’s Osama bin Laden unit. (Update: Scheuer is the individual regularly referred to in the 9/11 Commission report as "Mike".) His name might ring a bell as the previously anonymous author of the books Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America. In his writing as well as his interviews, Scheuer is an outspoken critic of the current Administration’s prosecution of the war on terror, as well as an opponent of the war in Iraq. As such, he is not considered to be a friend of the president’s.
That said, after reading my piece about the smear campaign against ABC’s “The Path to 9/11,” Scheuer apprised me of an op-ed he had written for the Washington Times on July 5 of this year. Given its context to this issue, I wanted to share it with our readers, and will do so in its entirety in a moment.
However, before I do, let me first share a more recent opinion offered by Scheuer as answers to some questions I asked of him in response to his first e-mail message: “Is the scene in question as depicted by Rush an accurate account of the plan to capture or kill bin Laden in Afghanistan. If so, who do you believe gave the order to halt it?” Scheuer responded:
Regarding the scene, it was never clear to my officers or myself who canceled the operation. It is true that Clarke was bad-mouthing it. What I don’t think people know, however, is that the Agency had thoroughly reviewed the plan and had approved its execution at the highest level — that is, at the level of DCI Tenet and his immediate subordinates. (NB: At Tenet’s direction, JSOC commanders at Fort Bragg also reviewed the plan. They approved it, said they could not do better, and built two sand-table mock-ups of the bin Laden’s compound for us to use in preparing the operation.) My officers and I were told that the plan had been sent to Clarke and the NSC for approval. The next thing we knew, the Chief of CT at CIA told us that the plan had been canceled because civilians might get killed, there was not a hundred percent chance that we would get bin Laden, and that if bin Laden was killed in the capture effort the CIA might get accused of assassination. The implication to us at the time was that the NSC canceled the operation, but Tenet later claimed he did it himself. I don’t know what the full truth is on this issue. Interestingly, after our east Africa embassies were bombed on 7 August 98, Clarke ordered us to immediately revive the capture plan, but of course by then the chance had been well and truly lost.
Update: Scheuer’s statements above are somewhat confirmed by the 9/11 Commission report:
"Mike" thought the capture plan was "the perfect operation." It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States — thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight. "Mike" trusted the information from the Afghan network; it had been corroborated by other means, he told us. The lead CIA officer in the field, Gary Schroen, also had confidence in the tribals. In a May 6 cable to CIA headquarters, he pronounced their planning "almost as professional and detailed…as would be done by any U.S. military special operations element."
Update: Another interesting part of the 9/11 Commission report concerning this matter:
On May 29, "Jeff" informed "Mike" that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation. "Mike" cabled the field that he had been directed to "stand down on the operation for the time being."
As a further elaboration of Scheuer’s views, here is his July 5 Washington Times op-ed that will certainly shed more light on the current controversy surrounding ABC’s “The Path to 9/11”:
Bill and Dick, Osama and Sandy
With one credible September 11 movie, "United 93," under our belts, it will be interesting to see whether ABC-TV will complete the September 11 Commission’s whitewashing of the pre-September 11 failure of U.S. intelligence-community leaders in its forthcoming mini-series based on Richard Clarke’s memoir, "Against All Enemies."
Media teasers about the mini-series have said that Mr. Clarke — the former "terrorism czar" — and a senior FBI officer, the late John O’Neill, will be the heroes of the saga. If true, and if ABC’s fact-checkers are not diligent in verifying Mr. Clarke’s stories and claims, the mini-series will be the September 11 commission’s dream come true: The Bush administration will be blamed for September 11, the feckless moral cowardice of the Clinton administration will be disguised and Mr. Clarke and Mr. O’Neill — in my view, two principal authors of September 11 — will be beatified.
Mr. Clarke’s book, on the basis of my involvement to varying degrees in the issues it covers, is a mixture of fact, fiction and cover-up. Mr. Clarke seems to get most names and dates right, and is correct in damning the early Bush administration for obliviousness to the al Qaeda threat. We must also take him at his word on his touching, if sycophantic, tales of Mr. Clinton instructing a young boy to be good to his mom and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s secluded moment praying on her knees.
On the fantasy level, Mr. Clarke lays it on thick. His claim that the Clinton administration "defeated an al-Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia" is nonsense; bin Laden sent few fighters there because he had no contiguous safe haven for them. Mr. Clarke’s claim that "the CIA had taken months to tell the FBI" several hijackers were in America is a lie. FBI officers sat in the unit I first commanded and then served in and they read the same information I did. If the data did not get to FBI headquarters it is because the FBI then lacked, and still lacks, a useable computer system. The FBI did not know the September 11 hijackers were here because Judge Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller have failed to provide their officers computers that allow them to talk securely to their headquarters and other intelligence community elements.
Another spectacular untruth is on page 52: "Later in the 1990s, CIA… [failed] to put U.S. operatives into the country [Afghanistan] to kill bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership, relying on Afghans instead." Mr. Clarke, of course, was at the center of Mr. Clinton’s advisers, who resolutely refused to order the CIA to kill bin Laden. In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke’s reaction was that "it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden." I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke’s response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.
Mr. Clarke’s book is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel’s failure to condemn Mr. Clinton’s failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick, Bill and Sandy and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.
About John O’Neill, little needs to be said. In my own experience, Mr. O’Neill was interested only in furthering his career and disguising the rank incompetence of senior FBI leaders. He once told me that he and the FBI would oppose an operation to capture bin Laden and take him to a third country for incarceration. When I asked why, he replied, "Why should the FBI help to capture bin Laden if the bureau won’t get credit among Americans for his arrest and conviction"?
So, I look forward to ABC’s mini-series, as well as to seeing the quality of the network’s fact-checkers. If they do their job well, some of the September 11 Commission’s whitewash may start to be peeled away. If they fail, however, the reality that Bill, Dick and Sandy helped to push Americans out of the windows of the World Trade Center on that September morning will be buried in miles of fantasy-filled celluloid.
More food for thought…
19 Responses to “Liberal Whinefest over ABC Documentary- UPDATE II”
Leave a Reply
You can track future comments on this post via this RSS feed. You can trackback this post by pinging this URL.
Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Sounds like the rabid right said about the so-called "filegate" [so-called] errors…
You and the loony left need each other… To feed on…
Eratta : Should be "sounds like what"
Errata: "Eratta" should be "Errata"… Long day…
Beer me, Marge!
“The Path to 9/11,” is to be shown on ABC on Sunday and Monday.
=====
Well, we’ll see if it does make it to air.
Frankly, this reminds me more of the Republican/Conservative whinefest over that Reagan TV movie.
And, honestly, it *is* a bit odd that Clinton can’t see a copy and Limbaugh can? It certainly looks like they are catering to the right. Maybe they are not.
Suddenly two movies and a mini series about 9/11 all in the span of a month and just before midterm elections. Who says liberals own the media?
And then there’s trotting out 14 evil doers for a press frenzy.
If you don’t keep Americans scared they might vote Democrat.
"Remember when all these yo yos embraced and hailed Michael Moore’s
Scare and FrightFahrenheit 911 as the real truth since it slammed Bush?"No, actually I don’t. Can you quote those same people you’re quoting here? I mean the specific ones?
Or are you just interested in creating a strawgroup to joust?
Drudge is quoting Madeline Albright as saying "’The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory’…"
Damn shame they blinked. This might have made a fine lawsuit…
If Playin Possum has complained 3 times, the show is probably very accurate.
If the clintonistas are complaining, the show is probably accurate.
And if Richard Clarke is saying anything at all, it doesn’t matter, as he talks out of both sides of his mouth, and he hates W. So he will say whatever he can to make it look like W’s fault.
And one thing I’ve nothiced is that ABC is very liberal, but not extremely liberal like SeeBS and NBC and CNN. Just wish that there were more balanced “news” networks like Fox news
Hey Scotty… And any other idiots out there…
Something just sunk again about this "story." NOBODY HAS SEEN THE MOVIE YET. NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT…
Karl, what ARE you talking about? What if this movie is as bad - as inaccurate - as the Clinton people say? And how the hell do they know, anyway? Why are you suddenly willing to go to bat for people you have so often derided as being biased to the left?
I didn’t take this seriously at first. As many of you know, I don’t watch TV at all, and haven’t been to a theatre since… The fourth Star Trek, I think.
Now I take it even less seriously - or I would - If you weren’t all rabid about the complaints.
I think youy are really just rabid to take a whack - any whack - at the complainers, especially now near the 9-11 anniversary.
As for the Moore analogy, this obviously falls. Like his piece or not, it’s a known quantity. Fahrenheit 9-11 is on the street… ABC’s "work" is on the cutting room floor. Maybe everybody better shut up until it’s in the theatres.
A last issue… I hear a lot of people are going to commemorate Monday by dragging out the old disaster footage and rewaching it - for maybe the hundredth time…
Not me. Actually I have never seen it. And I think re-re-re-watching it is an obsession - a form of insanity.
Are you insane enough to watch it again?
Errata: "Sunk again" should be "sunk in."
Beer me!
Hey Scotty… And any other idiots out there…
Something just sunk again about this "story." NOBODY HAS SEEN THE MOVIE YET. NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT…
Dan, Dan…shhh, deep breath man….Untwist your panties and relax
Karl, what ARE you talking about? What if this movie is as bad - as inaccurate - as the Clinton people say? And how the hell do they know, anyway? Why are you suddenly willing to go to bat for people you have so often derided as being biased to the left?
What if, contrarily, Clinton was as inept as this portrays, which the 911 commission concluded?
Plenty of people have seen it, they have been pitching it since July, and prescreening it for weeks. I am basing my comments on the reports, and have never said otherwise.
I didn’t take this seriously at first. As many of you know, I don’t watch TV at all, and haven’t been to a theatre since… The fourth Star Trek, I think.
Gads
Now I take it even less seriously - or I would - If you weren’t all rabid about the complaints.
I think youy are really just rabid to take a whack - any whack - at the complainers, especially now near the 9-11 anniversary.
Keep my complaints in context bub.
If you can honestly sit there and justify the Democratic Senate Leadership demanding the ABC Censor the movie or lose their license, well then let’s hear it. I have said I would have preferred accuracy over drama.
As for the Moore analogy, this obviously falls. Like his piece or not, it’s a known quantity. Fahrenheit 9-11 is on the street… ABC’s "work" is on the cutting room floor. Maybe everybody better shut up until it’s in the theatres.
Dan? TV Movie? Hello?
And Moore’s movie is still a classic example of the liberal hypocrisy, which you as an informed moderate should obviously detest.
So is the drecky Reagan movie that CBS tried to air. As I recall conservatives got pretty twitchy and the democrats told then to suck it up.
A last issue… I hear a lot of people are going to commemorate Monday by dragging out the old disaster footage and rewaching it - for maybe the hundredth time…
Not me. Actually I have never seen it. And I think re-re-re-watching it is an obsession - a form of insanity.
Are you insane enough to watch it again?
I may. I am not a glutton for disasters, so I may not. were it not for the controversy I likely would skip the ABC docudrama.
But I may tune into a portion of it as a reminder why we fight terror, something many others should do.we are losing our resolve.
I missed the comment by the Democratic leaders. Nor did you link it. Tthat’s bloviating anyway; they don’t have the authority. I’ll go back and read it. I think Drudge carried it.
"Plenty of people have seen it, they have been pitching it since July, and prescreening it for weeks. I am basing my comments on the reports, and have never said otherwise.
Right. You haven’t seen it. This entire "issue" is second or third hand. I admit it may seem wierd to all of you that I didn’t catch that - I’ll allow your insistence you did, and have reason to trust your sources - but allow please that this is TV. "they have been pitching it since July." Where? TV? I don’t watch TV.
You TV watchers look wierd to me, too.
Here is one review: The first I have read, Karl, BTW, if you had specific reviews, why didn’t you link them? I got this from Drudge. I usually ignore his movie stuff, but… From Variety:
http://www.variety.com/VE1117931434.html
This review is interesting. It claims the movie is as rough on the Shrub as Slick Willie:
:"At its core is O’Neill, the FBI terrorism chief who became convinced that Osama bin Laden posed a formidable danger to the U.S. but, thanks to petty bureaucracy, found few allies. He would eventually leave the FBI and, in a note of tragic irony, become security director for the World Trade Center, where he died on Sept. 11.
O’Neill’s fellow Chicken Little is security adviser Richard Clarke (Stephen Root), who exhibits mounting frustration as President Clinton’s administration zippers problems and the Bush regime assumes a maddeningly indifferent posture toward the threat."
"No one’s taking terrorism seriously," O’Neill huffs at one point. "No one seems to care."
The more I think aout this the more I think somebody has a fish on… I’m just not sure who is the fish - or the fisherman.
And BTW, if we were really fighting terror - that is, terror against the 50 states - we wouldn’t have invaded a country that had nothing to do with it… We would have invaded one that has a horrible civil rights record, enforces Sharia law, harbors financiers of the 9-11 hijackers - some of whom were nationals of that power…
Wait a minute… That would have been our buddies the Saudis… The ones that keep us - and Halliburton - well greased…
If we were really fighting terrorism… Oh never mind. Let’s just say I’m not dismissing anyone’s stories right now. I’m not sure anyone in power is telling "us" the truth.
Are you sure?
I missed the comment by the Democratic leaders. Nor did you link it. Tthat’s bloviating anyway; they don’t have the authority. I’ll go back and read it. I think Drudge carried it.
Initially there was no link, but now there are many.
And according to them they do have the ability. But my point was that the reaction is out of proportion.
Right. You haven’t seen it. This entire "issue" is second or third hand. I admit it may seem wierd to all of you that I didn’t catch that - I’ll allow your insistence you did, and have reason to trust your sources - but allow please that this is TV. "they have been pitching it since July." Where? TV? I don’t watch TV.
You TV watchers look wierd to me, too.
hehe. I dont as much as i used to by far.
Here is one review: The first I have read, Karl, BTW, if you had specific reviews, why didn’t you link them? I got this from Drudge. I usually ignore his movie stuff, but… From Variety:
http://www.variety.com/VE1117931434.html
This review is interesting. It claims the movie is as rough on the Shrub as Slick Willie:
Yep. The movie is supposed to answer the "how" question form the perspective of the 911 commission which shared the negligence between Bush and Clinton.
Yet very few republicans are protesting that fact. Condi apparently does not come out looking great. But most republicans who are concerned are concerned about how the dramatizations were used not just because GWB looks bad, where as Clinton, Berger, Albright and Clarke are deeply offended.
They protest too much, methinks.
"No one’s taking terrorism seriously," O’Neill huffs at one point. "No one seems to care."
The more I think aout this the more I think somebody has a fish on… I’m just not sure who is the fish - or the fisherman.
Honestly I think it was intended to show the blame as openly and fairly as possible, and Clinton had a big share of that in the 8 years leading up, even as Bush had his share. Since Clinon’s timeline is longer, his portion takes a larger stage.
Where this screwed up is in dramatizing the events instead documenting them.
The events being complained about are composite events, and are consistent in nature to real events, but dramatized with a fictions event, and thats what I dont get. It was unnecesary.
And BTW, if we were really fighting terror - that is, terror against the 50 states - we wouldn’t have invaded a country that had nothing to do with it… We would have invaded one that has a horrible civil rights record, enforces Sharia law, harbors financiers of the 9-11 hijackers - some of whom were nationals of that power…
Oh we are not going down this tired old street again…..
Wait a minute… That would have been our buddies the Saudis… The ones that keep us - and Halliburton - well greased…
Sorry i dont buy the hallyburton paranoia.
If we were really fighting terrorism… Oh never mind. Let’s just say I’m not dismissing anyone’s stories right now. I’m not sure anyone in power is telling "us" the truth.
The difference is we have no evidence I have seen showing the govt of SA is involved, but the Taliban was.and while Iraq was not involvedin 911, they had a cooperative arrangement with al qaeda, paid stipends to suicide bombers and contributed to the general instability by continuing to harbor terroists and to advance WMD programs, all of which is documented.
Are you sure?
Yep
I just read this letter from the Democratic leaders, and there is no threat contained in it wahtsoever. Your comment "If you can honestly sit there and justify the Democratic Senate Leadership demanding the ABC Censor the movie or lose their license, well then let’s hear it. " is deeply misleading…
Maybe you should run for Congress! You’re a natural…
If there is another "letter" please point it out. The one Drudge is linking is found at
http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&&year=2006&
I don’t find it unreasonable at all. I think the Scolastic Books setup is especially stinky. Furthermore, one of the main characters in the movie is among the chief complainers. That defamation issue might have some legs…
Back when TV decided to savage Nixon in a similar situation - I watched TV as a kid - the producers changed the names of the characters in their quickly forgotten "entertainment."
If this was intended to be fiction, good taste would have dictated a similar approach. If it is intended to be fact, and it makes specific harmful statements about real persons that cannot be proven, well, that isn’t art anymore.
It’s a lawsuit.
Fish on!
"Sorry i dont buy the hallyburton paranoia"
But you do a good job hitting the red herring! Fish on!
"Oh we are not going down this tired old street again….. " Damn right we are. So far, the "winners" in the "war on terror" are the Saudis, the Israelis, and the Iranians… The last was of course a miscalculation.
Or was it?
A lot of people claim Bush went into Iraq without a plan. That is untrue. He went in with the best plan the Wolfowitz team could provide. We’re told the plan - which didn’t work - was to kick Saddam’s ass and then bask in adulation as 20 million Iraqis broke into spontaneous courses of "God Bless America."
I can’t dismiss the idea that Wolfowitz and the rest of the "Israel first, to hell with everyone else" crowd really intended to screw the US, and they flat tricked the Shrub. The goal was to back us into a corner we couldn’t get out of without taking the backdoor - through the rest of he middle east. As it is, "victory" in this monster has self-evidently morphed into a situation where we must take out the governments in at least Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
Then we will have to occupy and police nations with a total population of around 150 million… By ourselves…
Thanks, Paul. Enjoying the World Bank? Like that blood money job, Judas?
We won’t get a damn thing out of it, either. The more directly connected hotbeds of Islamic extremism, which began with Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia - including the Saudis and the gulf states - will be able to buy themselves off with concilliation to Israel and the open tap…
And America will be once again left picking up someone else’s garbage.
Oh well. Maybe the Israelis won’t spit on us like the French did…
"Sorry i dont buy the hallyburton paranoia"
But you do a good job hitting the red herring! Fish on!
Pft. I know better then to give credance to your silliness.
"Oh we are not going down this tired old street again….. "
Damn right we are. So far, the "winners" in the "war on terror" are the Saudis, the Israelis, and the Iranians… The last was of course a miscalculation.
You sure that isnt a result of the weakening division we announce to the world every night?
Or was it?
A lot of people claim Bush went into Iraq without a plan. That is untrue. He went in with the best plan the Wolfowitz team could provide. We’re told the plan - which didn’t work - was to kick Saddam’s ass and then bask in adulation as 20 million Iraqis broke into spontaneous courses of "God Bless America."
And if you talk to the ground soldiers who have been there, they did.
I can’t dismiss the idea that Wolfowitz and the rest of the "Israel first, to hell with everyone else" crowd really intended to screw the US, and they flat tricked the Shrub. The goal was to back us into a corner we couldn’t get out of without taking the backdoor - through the rest of he middle east. As it is, "victory" in this monster has self-evidently morphed into a situation where we must take out the governments in at least Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
I’ll file that with the 911 scholars for truth file. Pft.
Then we will have to occupy and police nations with a total population of around 150 million… By ourselves…
Thanks, Paul. Enjoying the World Bank? Like that blood money job, Judas?
Make sure you forward that one to Moore. he loves that schtick
We won’t get a damn thing out of it, either. The more directly connected hotbeds of Islamic extremism, which began with Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia - including the Saudis and the gulf states - will be able to buy themselves off with concilliation to Israel and the open tap…
And America will be once again left picking up someone else’s garbage.
Oh well. Maybe the Israelis won’t spit on us like the French did…
And the academy award for best dramatic screenplay goes to…..
I just read this letter from the Democratic leaders, and there is no threat contained in it wahtsoever. Your comment "If you can honestly sit there and justify the Democratic Senate Leadership demanding the ABC Censor the movie or lose their license, well then let’s hear it. " is deeply misleading…
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624& is the link i have.
the threat is clearly implied, but on your say so, i will let the blogosphere know that you said it was ok.
If this was intended to be fiction, good taste would have dictated a similar approach. If it is intended to be fact, and it makes specific harmful statements about real persons that cannot be proven, well, that isn’t art anymore.
It is a dramatization. no one said fiction. look up the difference.
It’s a lawsuit.
Fish on!
Since the 911 commission backs up the faults of your boy Bill, this is just the democrats all trying to protect the last dregs of his honor.
World leaders who we do not know acting through bush and others knocked down our towers. If you cant understand that the political puppet show displayed on TV for our amusement and distraction is very complex, I feel sorry for you. Start with infowars.com its, much is documented there. After that search for yourself and see how the deep the rabbit hole actually goes. You’ll soon believe that it is the masses who are kept in wonderland.
I will as soon as Elvis and I finish lunch