Let’s say off the bat that somebody will get fired for this. After ABC has to eat its $30 million investment they might sack whoever decided to aggressively promote a fictionalization of the events leading to 9/11, written by a known conservative activist and promoted exclusively to rightwing blogs and allied news outlets like Rush Limbaugh and NewsMax. Sensible managers would cut loose the genius who decided to chase the evaporating FOX News demographic and influence an election with blatantly untrue efforts to shift the blame for 9/11 to a previous administration. Glenn Greenwald has a thorough rundown, of course, and via Glenn I will take this opportunity to wholly agree with Mark Coffey at Decision ’08:
Again, the partisan aspect interests me not at all; this is 9/11, and ‘reasonably accurate’ isn’t good enough. Either go completely fiction or stick to the facts. This sounds an awful lot like the Dan Rather excuse for the National Guard fiasco (that the essence of the story was true, even if the details were fabricated), and I’m not interested in this sort of clever parsing of words.
I understand the need to do composite scenes and characters in media with a limited duration, but this is going a bit far. I’ll probably still watch it, but my enthusiasm has dimmed considerably.
The hype around the Reagan docudrama always struck me as incredibly inane given the nature of the “offenses” and the overall relevance to our modern political scene. It seems inarguably true that whatever your political standing defacing the memory of 9/11 is far uglier than any damage done by dramatizing the life of Ronald Reagan. Tell ABC that it is time to pull the show:
ThinkProgress page
Contact ABC directly
***Update***
Editor & Publisher reviews the film. The “drama” in “docudrama” apparently consists of indicting Clinton for things that never happened, and glossing over anything that might make the current president look bad.
If ABC really thinks that this is a “dramatization” (their current defense) then why have they distributed study guides to over 10,000 students? You don’t ask students to study made-up history. Somebody honestly thought that they could get away with rewriting the history of the most traumatic even in recent American history. Nauseating.
Mr Furious
I wish I could be as sure as you that ABC will eat this one.
The show will go on, and the people complaining about it will look like whiny bitches. I will be pleasantly shocked if it is pulled and anyone but Republicans come away stregnthened by the experience.
Andrew
Tim, why do you hate the fictional heros of pretend America?
ThymeZone
I heard that in the movie, Superman was holding the burning towers up until Bill Clinton fooled him into letting go.
Jill
Tim…haven’t you figured it out by now that the last 6 years this country has occupied Bizarro World? You know, up is down, black is white, yes is no, sad is happy according to these guys and their supporters.
DougJ
What about all the things that in the movie that aren’t total fabrications? How come we’re not hearing more about them?
sockpuppet in training
Good thing Clinton never admitted to passing on UBL.
For the record, I find attempts to pin the blame on 9/11 on anyone besides the terrorists that did it pointless. It is certainly telling, however, to see how desperate lefties are to control the narrative on this event.
Pb
Who would do such a thing? I guess history will judge.
The Other Steve
How did the wingnuts get CBS to not run the Reagan docudrama?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102110,00.html
Let’s ratchet it up a notch.
Jill
Maybe lefties want to control the narrative b/c when the righties control the narrative the public believes things that are false, i.e, Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
The Other Steve
I am still so pissed off by Republican attempts to politicize 9/11.
The proper response was to refocus the nation. Did they do that? No. They wanted to blame someone else, solely for their fucked up political agenda.
The towers had not even collapsed yet and Republicans were desperately searching for some way to blame Clinton for it.
Party over Country. That’s their fucked up mantra.
matt
Why is ABC going to lose 30 mil? I haven’t heard anyone talk about this story except liberal blogs.
It seems to me this show will air, millions will watch, millions will be misinformed, liberals will be pissed for a few days, and then that’s that. Unless there’s some mass boycott that I’m not aware of, I’m not sure why people are acting like ABC stepped in it.
The Other Steve
That’s what they hope.
But if they could shut down the Reagan miniseries, I think we can shut down this piece of shit.
Zifnab
How much ABC will eat it depends on how willing the other networks are to run along with the story. Every network from Faux to NBC made Rather’s indiscretion a headline piece.
There are three different major network broadcasters and another three major cable news outlets. Olberman is sure to pile on – I think he’s already begun to – and certainly CNN has enough dead air time to fill by covering this. Whether NBC and CBS turn on their network brother is the question.
But whatever else may be said, I’m confident the Daily Show will hit this one out of the ballpark.
Patrick
From ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/bush-official-blasts-abc/
Last night on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, Roger Cressey — a top counterterrorism official to Bush II and Clinton — blasted ABC’s docudrama “The Path to 9/11.” Cressy said “it’s amazing…how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong” and “then they got the big stuff wrong.” He added that a scene where the Clinton administration passes on a surefire opportunity to take out bin Laden is “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.”
Andrew
I am so going to boycott ABC for this travesty.
Except for “Lost,” which is totally awesome!
And I don’t think that ESPN counts, even though they’re the same company. Or Disney movies.
DougJ
I blame extreme partisans on both sides for happened on 911. It’s only those in the center — like me and David Broder — who are blameless.
The Other Steve
Don’t you mean you and David Brooks?
Pb
Incidentally, here’s some real background on the matter, and I think it’d be hard to cram even that–from, say, 1995-2000–into 3 hours of docudrama in any case, even if it hadn’t been made by right-wing hacks. More from Clarke himself:
Bombadil
Even one of Bush II’s counterterrorism experts thinks it’s bullshit.
DougJ
He’s beneath mocking, much like Jeff Goldstein. Broder pimps the “I’m so centrist” line a lot too. And he’s not crazy (which Brooks assuredly is).
Andrew
Do you guys seriously think that presenting “facts” and “evidence” will make ABC do anything?
No wonder you leftists loose elections. And let terrorists attack America.
Seriously, why isn’t there dirt on a top ABC executive about his underage sex tourism, or a story about how the producer of this film drowned his first wife for the insurance money, or maybe how this is being funded by the Saudis or something? Or, most damningly, how all of the catering was served by a bunch of Guatemalan illegals.
srv
Since the Dems don’t have a plan now, can someone tell me what the Republican plan to get Bin Laden was in 1998?
Andrew
Tax cuts, duh.
Pb
Andrew,
Well, now that you mention it, there actually is a Disney-Saudi funding connection:
Zifnab
I could say something about collaborating with terrorists, but… it’s been done.
DougJ
They ought to make the Corn-Isikoff book into a movie. I like this:
RSA
Bring back real heroes like Ross Perot!
Andrew
Not until the Bush administration could I have imagined saying this in all seriousness: What I wouldn’t give for a little authentic Texas crazy right now, as opposed to full on fake Texas insanity.
Proud Liberal
So much for your liberal media.
Richard 23
History is written by the winners. Since George W Bush has not lost two elections, he has by default won. Therefore it should be okay to rewrite history in his favour. I for one am glad that children are being taught what history should have been rather than what the grups seem to think they remember.
I hope that Darrell, in addition to liking pie, will join me in this.
Darrell
Ah yes, the same leftists who hyped Michael Moore’s “documentary” are now screaming over this ABC drama. No doubt you all see no inconsistency with your double standards.
Darrell
To the extent that the Fox news demographic has “evaporated” as they still lead CNN and the others by a sizeable margin of viewers, it’s because the other networks have moved sharply away from their leftist slant. CNN now features Glen Beck for chrissakes who no doubt attracts many of those “evaporated” Fox news demographic.
Joey
Darrel, I think I speak for everybody when I say that I will give you a dollar if you can go an entire day (as in 24 hours) without posting the word “leftist” on this site.
Joey
Pardon me, Darrell, not Darrel.
Richard 23
Have some pie, Darrell.
Jill
…and some more Kool-Aid.
tBone
Darrell – I gather from your posts here and in other threads that you really, really like pie. I admire your enthusiasm, but I’m wondering if you could elaborate. Just repeating “I like pie!” over and over again, while entertaining, doesn’t tell us all that much.
Is it the flavor? The texture? The way it smells when it comes out of the oven? What’s your favorite kind of pie? Do you consider pizza to be in the pie category, or are you strictly a fruit guy? How about toppings – ice cream, whipped cream, both, neither?
I look forward to your response.
jg
ABC/Disney wouldn’t put out F911 because it was too political. For this docudrama they are paying for it out of their pocket and showing it without commercials. They pass on F911 and push this one without ad money coming in. Double standard?
Again you are not a serious poster. Go shove a piece of pie up your ass.
Kimmitt
Only a person who is unaquainted with the very notion of objective truth could write this sentence.
Mike S
Saddam Link to 9/11 Disputed
Appearently 65% of Republicans think that President Bush is a liar.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1169
Mac Buckets
No way! A TV movie isn’t 100% completely historically accurate? It uses “composites” so it’s not 27 hours long? What an insight! (/naive) Gosh, if only we held such a high standard for accuracy and fairness in lefty “documentaries!”
Even Coffey admits in an update:
As should everyone, all the time. Look, if they really wanted to make Clinton look like an idiot, all they would need is a scene where he offers his surreal “send in a bunch of black ninjas” plan to defeat Al Qaeda.
Mike S
Link?
Richard 23
Apparently Mac likes pie too.
Look Mac, ever heard of subtlety? “Send in a bunch of black ninjas” might be believeable to you, but most people cannot suspend that much disbelief.
Of course I can. I’m responding to you.
There’s more about this docudrama to be concerned about than the use of “composites.” It’s fucking dishonest of you to claim otherwise. Reread this thread to see how far out you really are.
mrmobi
Darrell, I know you like pie, but I think you’re eating to much of it, it’s interfering with your thought processes.
What double standard are you talking about? Michael Moore never claimed that Farenheit 911 wasn’t partisan. He specifically said it was very partisan and specifically, “unfair.” It’s a hit piece, and unfortunately for Bush, it’s mostly full of FACTS. Get to know them.
This new piece of shit, however, is being passed off as something “teachable,” and “based on the 9/11 Commission Report. Can’t you fuckwads of the insane, scorched-earth, zenophobic right find anyone to blame for your stupidity and incompetence except Bill Clinton?
9/11 happened on Chimpy McFlightSuit’s watch, he ignored serious warnings, telling a briefer “you’ve covered your ass.” What a mindset! Then, when informed of the attacks, he sat, doing nothing for a while. The poster boy for what not to do when your country is being attacked.
When I first saw Farenheit 911, I thought that moment was unfair of Moore. Not anymore, knowing what deceitful liars these guys are. Bush sat because he’s used to Daddy bailing him out. Other people filled in as President that day, doing a pretty good job, all things considered. Even Rumsfeld helped evacuate people from the Pentagon.
Remember, Darrell, who was President when the greatest attack on America since Pearl Harbor happened.
Hint: it wasn’t Bill Clinton.
Richard 23
I don’t think Tim included the link to ABC’s blog for this crocumentary. The comments are interesting.
Mike S
Never mind about the link. Everything I need to know about Macsmind can be summed up in this graf.
Hacks promoting hacks.
ThymeZone
Just the really short ones, though.
srv
Just in: Bush blames courts and congress for the long delays in bringing AQ terrorists to trial.
Darrell
This passes as deep thoughts for today’s political left.
mrmobi
I spelled xenophobic wrong.
Must be because my hands shake whenever I respond to Darrell’s lies.
ThymeZone: “really short ones?” I don’t get it.
SeesThroughIt
Why they gotta be black ninjas?
Mac Buckets
As I said, it’s an update, so naturally it would be the same link as Tim’s above.
Ozymandias
‘Cause white ninjas can’t jump.
Richard 23
Answer the damn question you dishonest coward.
Darrell, what kind of pie do you like?
slickdpdx
Editor and Publisher is hardly an objective source either. And forgive me if I have a hard time getting worked up over Sandy Berger’s claims. A thief, who destroyed evidence, who has a personal interest in the matter? No thanks.
It seems apparent to me that mistakes, failures to act, and a general underestimation of the AQ threat prior to 9/11 are attributable to both administrations in large amounts.
To the extent Dems flog the Osama not Iraq meme, Clinton’s failures with respect to Osama can’t be glossed over.
Should fictionalized re-enactments be avoided if possible, in the course of conveying the information in the documentary – yes.
Mac Buckets
Seriously, Richard, you’ve never heard of Clinton’s “black ninjas” plan (I can’t fault you there — it’s almost as if the media doesn’t want to publicize it because it would paint Clinton poorly)? I know it seems too ludicrous to believe, but it’s right there in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Darrell
How some want to fight the war on terrorism
I hope Clinton’s ninjas have plenty of those poison tipped metal star thingies to throw at the bad guys.
Richard 23
Thank God for President Bush. He got Osama all right.
tBone
Yes, yes, you like pie. What about the questions I asked above? Inquiring minds want to know.
Mac Buckets
Affirmative Ninja Action.
DougJ
To me, this is 1939 over all again. Remember when the left-wing bloggers in France and England protested that anti-Hitler documentary and stopped it from being run? You have very short memories, lefties. Very short indeed.
Tim F.
Sounds like you cleared your throat and then agreed with me.
jg
What a load of nonsense. The fact that you or anyone can convince themselves that this is true means we are fucked as a country. If people can ignore reality in order to continue believing what they want then whats the point of facts? Why have a press? Why debate issues?
Mac Buckets
So you are shocked that someone who openly criticizes Clinton for his treatment of Al Qaeda before 9/11 would recommend a book that says the same? That tells you “all you need to know?” I guess you don’t feel the need to know much at all.
Darrell
9/11 commission report
When has it ever been a problem for black ninjas to secretively get into or out of any place they wanted to go? Clinton understood well the power of ninjas and told his military advisors to take full advantage of their mystical powers.
Tim F.
Um, maybe “black ninjas” is a euphemism for special forces. But please, carry on amusing me. You guys are priceless.
McNulty
Can I wait until after the Ohio State/Texas game to start boycotting ABC?
neil
Why didn’t they have a bunch of black ninjas rappel down and wail on Bin Laden, then? (Presumably the appropriate military officials would have fine-tuned the plan a bit.) Was Clinton gun-shy or not?
That’s right, Darrell — 9/11 happened because of Clinton wanting to get gays in the military. How can gay people sleep at night, I ask you?
jg
Can you believe the level of idiocy requred to support the current administration? The can acheive the utmost levels of stupidity without fear because there is an army of idiots who will go along with the stupid shit they say which makes them feel it wasn’t so stupid.
ThymeZone
I think Rumsfeld is about 48″ tall.
Okay, he’s 5’7″, but still.
Not sure if he meets the minimum height requirement to ride the Air Force One simulator at the Golf-N-Games.
DougJ
I heard that Clinton had a chance to take out that stingray that killed the Crocodile Hunter back in 1998. But he hesitated and by the time the cruise missile hit the reef, that stingray was long gone.
Has anyone ever thought about having a Clinton’s Fault Network — CFN? If they can have a network just about the Nazis (the History Channel), they could certainly have one about the Clinton adminsitration, which was far, far worse. I’m sure Darrell and Mac would watch it. There’s a key demographic of conspiracy nuts that isn’t being served by Fox News.
ThymeZone
Yes, and Hook ‘Em Horns!
ThymeZone
Yes, they’re here doing their same tired schtick every fucking day.
But you’re missing the big point. It isn’a about defending the administration. Or any policy.
It’s about you. They are out to shit on you, and if they have to put up a catastrophic failure of a government to do it, it doesn’t matter to them. They would rather see the world in flames than see you win a political victory, or even a small blog victory. Trust me, that’s the whole deal with these guys.
Brian
There’s no doubt in my mind that neither administration made sufficient efforts to deal with Bin Laden pre 9/11.
However, what makes me ill is reading people like Clarke try to tell us how much he was doing and that his efforts were “massive”.
So what? “Massive” didn’t get the job done. How about a little humility and honesty and say….
“I wish I’d done more. I did what I thought was right at the time but I wish I’d done more. I’ll live the rest of my life wondering if there wasn’t something else I should have done.”
Maybe people like Clarke and Clinton have said something to that effect. If so, I’d love to see the link.
Pb
POTD!
slickdpdx
jg: the fact that you take issue with this statement
shows that you are unhinged.
Tim F.: You could say that, but I don’t agree with what I think is the general assesment here regarding the amount or nature of the liberties taken. I’m more on Mac’s side about that.
Mac Buckets
SOTD (Strawgrasp of the Day)!!
Or maybe it’s a euphemism for trained robot-monkey death squads!
Who’s amusing whom now?
cd6
Once they started down this path, they should have just gone all the way, and had the movie end with W stabbing Clinton in the heart with an American Flag, while eagles flew overhead.
SeesThroughIt
I demand credit for the assist.
ThymeZone
Adjusted for the Bush presidency pre-911.
Remember, the insane Condi “Beans and” Rice said so herself, Clark was out of the loop.
That’s right, their go-to guy on terrorism was out of the loop, as far as the White House inner circle was concerned.
I mean, who needed that obnoxious Clinton-administration slopover guy hanging around and spoiling the meetings?
SeesThroughIt
You mean like the end of Mel Gibson and Homer Simpson’s remake of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Because I’d be down with that.
Darrell
Clinton’s ninjas wouldn’t let W get close to him without taking a poison tipped star to the forehead. I think ninjas are the most overlooked asset in the WOT.
SeesThroughIt
We’re tiptoeing around the obvious here: The key to winning the GWOT is the immediate dispatching of Chuck Norris to the Middle East.
Rusty Shackleford
Fixed Darrell’s post.
ThymeZone
{ fake laughter }
Darrell’s trying to be funny!
Mister Pie Hole wants to be one of the guys!
cd6
As a follow up
I heard the Hillary-lesbian scene was tastefully done
So props to ABC for that one.
Andrew
Well, up until she beats Vince Foster to death with a double-ended dildo.
jg
How does my taking issue with you minimizing Bush’s role in the 9/11 attacks make me unhinged?
One administration tried to attack but really couldn’t get much done because of an unfriendly Congress, military and public opnion which said he was just trying to change the subject. The other one simply felt there was no problem, Iraq required our attention. And you think they are equally culpable?
Why not just admit Bush dropped the ball because he saw Iraq as a bigger threat to us prior to 9/11? A lot of people agreed with him about that. There’s no shame in it. The shame is in blaming the other guy for a screwup that happened on his watch.
Tim F.
You came to that conclusion by excluding everybody who could possibly disagree with you as a reliable source. Your statement convinces me that if some beacon of truth descended from the sky and pointed out that all of the fudging went one way with Clinton and the other way with Bush then you might get a bit miffed, and that is about as much as a person can ask.
Perry Como
I wonder if we can use ninjas to take back the territory that our ally Pakistan just ceded to the Taliban?
Mac Buckets
Clarke had the “I failed you, the government failed you” moment at the 9/11 hearings.
Clinton has taken “responsibility” in the past for not taking out bin Laden when he felt he had the chances, because he felt the civilian risks were too great before 9/11. Of course, as Clinton said, “9/11 changed everything.”
Perry Como
btw, I fully support any and all ninja related program activities:
1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.
Mac Buckets
Regular ninjas, no chance. Brown ninjas…maybe. Rappelling black ninjas? Never fails! It’ll scare the shit out of ’em!
neil
I see that everybody is having much more fun mocking President Clinton for calling Special Forces ‘ninjas’ than they are wondering why the Pentagon didn’t want to “go out on a limb” and follow his orders.
It goes without saying that the Pentagon was happy to “go out on a limb” for Dubya. Worked out real good for them, too.
Mac Buckets
Sorry, but didn’t we have a 9/11 commission that said that both administrations were lax in their pre-9/11 preparations? So believing the 9/11 report means “we are fucked as a country” and are “ignoring reality?”
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Perry Como
Well, we could talk about how Ashcroft didn’t want to anymore about terrorists right before 9/11. I’m sure they’ll cover that in the documentary. Right?
Ozymandias
BREAKING NEWS!!!!
FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON’S entire foreign policy was based on some shit he read on a web site. Current reports indicate that this “website” goes by the nom de plume of Real Ultimate Power. Some sources say it deals with ninjas and their unparalelled fighting ability.
More as this developes.
Perry Como
er, *hear anymore
Ozymandias
BTW, did you know that ninjas invented pie? Well it’s true.
Zifnab
Only if you’re rooting for the orange and white. Go Horns!
Perry Como
Versus President Bush’s foreign policy, which is based on the website of the Ultimate Warrior!
(Seriously, check out the quote in the Flash movie. It’s the Bush admin foreign policy.)
Zifnab
Don’t forget “My Pet Goat”. I’m confident the cructial moments following the first plane impact will be extensively catalogued.
Also, did you know that the world trade attacks ACTUALLY happened in 1999 under President Clinton’s watch? It’s one of those under reported facts the media doesn’t want you to know.
neil
Look everybody! Ninjas!
Mac Buckets
Since Chris Farley had died, the American ninja supply was dangerously low. Also, the Clinton Pentagon had no plan for going into Afghanistan (but they — wisely — already had a plan to go into Iraq!)
srv
Darrell and Mac well forget the right conspiracies about the ninjas that Hillary used to kill Vince Foster and carry his body out of the WH…
The real truth is that Joint Chiefs didn’t want to go into Afghanistan even after 9/11. To no end of frustration to Rummy. They wanted to put 150K boots on the ground. So it’s not very hard to believe the statements that they wanted nothing to do with Osama under Clinton. At least until the USS Cole, and by then, anything he did would have certainly be derided as an October Surprise by the Darrells of the world.
DougJ
Mac, you’re making an ass of yourself here. I say that as an Elvis Costello-loving friend.
jg
Did the commision say that or the partisan addendum?
Either way, to act like they are both EQUALLY to blame when one did something and another did nothing is ridiculous.
And to hear the rights outrage over Nixons impeachment, that the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the spread of communism in southeast asia was a direct result of a president being hamstrung by traitous democrats, while completely ignoring what the impeachment hearings did to Clinton and how that lead to 9/11, is priceless.
Perry Como
Agreed. If only Farley werre alive today the Bush administration could call him up to take the fight to Waziristan. Of course, the administration would have to square that plan with their encouragment of the peace plan between the Taliban, al Qaeda and Pakistan.
Perhaps when President Bush was talking about harboring terrorists, he meant terrorists on boats.
RSA
I have fun mocking President Bush’s plan to add 1% to NASA’s budget, move another 12% around, and send a manned mission to Mars. We need more comic book science in the public eye.
mrmobi
Neil, Neil, Neil. Don’t you understand that they’ve got to make fun of Bubba? He got blowjobs in the Oval Office, for Christ’s sake! He jeopardized the very fabric of our civilization, by committing perjury. There’s irony in the fact that the Clinton administration felt constrained in its actions against Osama, because at the time the Republicans were accusing him of wanting to act as a “wag the dog” strategy, to divert attention from the blowjobs. They were so serious about national security back then, weren’t they?
The real reason all who have had memory wipes are blaming Clinton for 9/11 is: they don’t have anything else to talk about. Economy: here in Illinois, purchasing power has dropped about 8% since 2000. Health Care: private account balkanization is all they can offer. Jobs: you want fries with that? Education: they have a strategery… more tests… and vouchers. Social Security: it’s all just a bunch of worthless paper in some file cabinets, more private account balkanization. Environment: here, drink this, ignore the color and smell. Security: we’ll bomb them over there until we run out of money over here… Stay the course… more people have to die because others have died… When enough have died, we’ll declare victory. Energy: not one single fucking idea except drilling in ANWAR, one of the most desolate, yet beautiful places on the globe, and home to an amazing variety of wildlife. If there is an energy strategy, only the Vice President knows what it is.
You don’t have to be crazy to believe their crap, but it helps.
MAX HATS
I read the “black ninjas” thing to be a pretty clear, if informal reference to Special Warfare. Don’t see the controversey here. Would there be the same level of mockery if he referred to a missle strike as “putting arrows in their asses?”
Darrell
And Clinton’s ninjas would be among the most elite of our Special Warfare forces. Silently rapelling out of helicopters, throwing poison tipped stars and shooting blowdarts as they descend.. it’s bound to ‘Scare the shit’ out of the bad guys
MAX HATS
What is so outlandish about asking about sending a commando raid into Afghanistan? It may be unfeasable, sure. That is why he asked the nice general.
JoeTx
At least Clinton’s administration made an effort to capture OBL and do something about terrorism. Bush and Co were asleep at the wheel and totally unserious about anything other than cutting taxes and gutting effective government. Cheney was too busy meeting every month with his Energy Task Force.
Bush Timeline
From the time Bush took office, til 9/11, there only focus was on how to get Saddaam out of power, not on Terrorism!
MAX HATS
And I just need to point out the irony of Bush supporters mocking an executive for poor understanding of military matters.
Darrell
Well, as the 9/11 commission report stated, Clinton’s military advisors felt the rappelling ninjas might face logistical problems
There were other problems too with regards to military procurement of poison tipped metal stars, ninja ‘claws’, and special warrior swords.
MAX HATS
Wow, a president asked a question and got an answer. Scandelous!
If it was Bush doing the asking, he would have sent the team anyway and fired the general for thinking to question his judgement. And you would be defending it to the nines.
Of course, Bush wouldn’t have asked in the first place. Terrorism was just one of the many Clinton problems, like nation building and diplomacy.
Mac Buckets
Funny, that’s not what Clinton said…but I guess you know better.
RSA
Obviously Bush supporters have different standards. Here, for example, is Tony Snow:
See, if Bush and Rumsfeld are total failures when it comes to military matters, it doesn’t matter, because some dipshit press secretary can’t figure how to do it better.
Darrell
Is that what they told you to think over at DKos? According to the 9/11 commission:
jg
Are you saying that the republicans and the mass media didn’t accuse Clinton of wagging the dog, of sending missiles into tents to deflect the issue away frm his legal issues? This wasn’t talked about on the right or n the news?
ThymeZone
Apparently, yes, we do.
Mac Buckets
Of course it was, but that was never offered by Clinton as having any softening effect on his policy on Al Qaeda, like mrmobi asserts. Clinton said that his reluctance to go after bin Laden stemmed from the lack of a legal case against him and a reluctance to incur casualties, both military and domestic, since he didn’t think bin Laden had the capability of killing 3000 Americans. Then, as he said, “9/11 changed everything.”
neil
Regardless, he said, the question remained how to get the “ninjas” into and out of the theater of operations.
OK, so, Clinton proposed a plan of action and the Pentagon punted on it. Doesn’t exactly sound like a failure of leadership. Maybe if Clinton had promised to “kick bin Laden’s mother fucking ass all over the Middle East” then he’d have gotten some results, though.
RSA
Maybe I lack the “escalate the violence” world view, but doesn’t this say that they didn’t know for sure he was there and too many other people would be killed?
Mac Buckets
Civilian, not domestic.
neil
Mac, it seems you are suffering problems with reading comprehension.
There’s irony because of the Republicans’ accusations (i.e. their accusations were ironic), I believe he’s saying, not that the administration felt constrained because of the Republicans’ accusations.
JoeTx
Darrell,
Lets continue with that article, shall we…
and
So, big D, I guess we have a choice between an Administration that wasn’t doing a good enough job and one that didn’t do ANYTHING.
Lets also add the fact that the Republicans kept Clinton SO distracted with their monthly witch hunts AND refusals to legislate ANY programs that Clinton wanted to fight terrorism, because they thought it was all “wag the dog” and not necessary….
Mac Buckets
Look, regarding bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the Clinton Administration screwed up, the Bush Administration screwed up, the FBI screwed up and the CIA screwed up. If the movie gives any indication that anyone was not in error, then it’s a lousy job of documentary. That being said, even if both the Bushies and Clintonites had been right about the threat level, there’s no compelling evidence that 9/11 would’ve been avoided. So blame the terrorists for 9/11 — anything else is just political opportunism.
ThymeZone
Right, and if there is one thing the folks on the right can take credit for, it’s their steadfast refusal to go in for political opportunism.
No matter how much you want to hate them, there’s one thing they deserve credit for.
Yessir, we are lucky to have lived in a time when our leaders stood squarely against political opportunism, especially in the executive branch.
Whatever else you say about Bush and his people, they haven’t stooped to political opportunism.
You’ve gotta give this president and the GOP their props … they’ve held back from crass political opportunism, when they could have exploited 911 and terrorism like a bunch of damned used car salesmen.
Yep. I give ’em their due on that one.
Yessirree.
cd6
I will not settle for just blaming the terrorists. Everyone should agree to blame the terrorists AND the Jews, who, as we all know, are responsible for all wars.
Darrell
Joe, I never disputed that both administrations dropped the ball to some degree. You did
I pointed out that Clinton’s “efforts” to capture OBL weren’t nearly as vigorous as you suggested, as they let 4 opportunities slip by.. angering the CIA chief at the Clinton administration’s reluctance.
Mac Buckets
No, I believe that would be your issue.
If he doesn’t feel as though Clinton was constrained by GOP accusations, why did he write “the fact that the Clinton administration felt constrained in its actions”? I think you’re misreading what he thinks is ironic. He thinks it’s ironic that the hawkish GOP, which he (in the next sentence) taunts as “so serious about national security,” played politics with Clinton’s air strikes, which he asserts constrained Clinton from meaningful action.
The fact is, Clinton never said he felt constrained — in fact, had he felt constrained by such rhetoric, he probably wouldn’t have massively bombed Iraq just a couple months later under similar allegations! This is just another weak effort by a political partisan to make every excuse, no matter how invented and nonsensical, to pretend like it was the mean old Other Party who really caused His Guy not to be effective. No sale.
Zifnab
Bingo. Presidental Porn before national security.
To be honest, not much has changed. Bush is still more than willing to put Dubai in charge of port security, hand the Saudis our nation on an oil soaked platter, and nuzzle up to Pakistan’s Al Quida loving President.
Meanwhile, its the Democrats who are exposing our country to terrorists by… saying stuff. Once again, an open mouth is more destructive to our country than actual political manuevering.
mrmobi
Neil:
No Neil, I wasn’t saying that. I was aware that Clinton said he didn’t feel constrained in his actions because of the “wag the dog” accusations. In that sense Mac is right. But Clinton was under seige, make no mistake, and I kind of don’t believe he was being truthful.
Look, he made a terrible mistake with Monica, and all Americans have a right to be pissed about that. I don’t see how he wasn’t affected by the incredible pressure of impeachment proceedings and the relentless criticism of his every move. So you see why he would say he didn’t feel constrained, doing so would be admitting his fuckup made him a less effective President, which I believe it did.
However, my final point in that paragraph was that Republicans were more eager to put a President on trial for perjury about a blow job than they were in protecting the country against the growing threat from Bin Laden.
If Democrats gain control of Congress in November, I hope we don’t see the same kind of over-reaching. Oversight, yes, lots and lots of oversight, with special attention paid to Cheney and Halliburton, please.
Mac Buckets
Except none of that is true.
Zifnab
No sale? But you’ll buy the Bush line that “no one could have anticipated the attacks on 9/11”? You’re never going to make it as a stock broker.
Davebo
Who cares?
It airs at the same time as the biggest college football game of the year.
I’m certainly not going to waste my Tivo on it!
Zifnab
I’ll say one thing about the Clinton Administration. At least he was able to, you know, anticipate stuff.
neil
If he doesn’t feel as though Clinton was constrained by GOP accusations, why did he write “the fact that the Clinton administration felt constrained in its actions”?
Well, since we have been discussing the new accusation that Clinton was too gun-shy for various reasons, it doesn’t seem particularly out of place to talk about it. And it has struck me as ironic that they’re now saying he was overly cautious when at the time they said he was tilting at windmills.
mrmobi
So Mac, can you lay out for us how the Republican Party was advocating military strikes against Bin Laden during the Clinton years? Evidence please, to quote Darrell.
If they did, and I don’t think they did, it must have been difficult, what with mobilizing the entire Congress to kick Bubba out for his terrible crime.
That same party can barely manage to remember what state New Orleans is in these days. Intelligence must be dropping off.
ThymeZone
See, this is where you shine … keeping your EYE ON THE BALL.
As everyone knows, making the most sensible judgments today about the Clinton Administration is essential so that voters can go to the polls in a few weeks and decide whether to continue to give that administration a free ride in congress for another two years.
While we dicker over who struck John, you are staying focussed on what is really important.
Good for you, Mac.
neil
By the way, about Clinton’s strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan in ’98: immediately after the bombing, polls showed that close to half of all Americans thought the missile strikes were meant to divert attention from the president’s sex life
Now why did they think that? Surely it had nothing to do with the Republicans, because they are Serious About Terror and would never Undermine The President’s Authority In A Time Of War.
jg
Are you kidding? The whole docudrama is political opportunism. A movie showing dems hamstrung by their own incompetence leading to one of the worst attacks on american soil two months before an election where the republicans are running on the platform that the left can’t be trusted with national security. If you think this is a balanced look at the event you’re an idiot. And you’re not an idiot so that makes you dishonest. But its expected that you’d be dishonest because you’re biased politically. which makes this whole thing an exercise in futility. You’re not hear to influence me or anyone else, just to push right wing thought. Clinton did it, he’s as much to blame. He, in fact, is the reason Bush couldn’t act. And of course, Bush wanted to act. All that talk of Iraq being the main concern, missile shields and tax cuts were made up bullshit put forth by Emmanuel Goldstein and his band fo rabble rousers.
Did Clinton say he didn’t think OBL had the capacity to kill 3000 americans? He said that was why he called off the planned missions?
Mac Buckets
Well, whatever you sense that he felt in his heart that was contradicted by his actual statements, it didn’t relate at all to his actions (which is what we’re talking about here), or he wouldn’t have bombed Iraq two months after he bombed Afghanistan under similar “seige,” right? So while he may or may not have felt constrained in his heart, he managed to overcome the Mean Old GOP and their psychologically-devastating attacks (guh.) in time to bomb in both Afghanistan (and miss bin Laden by only a few hours, in his estimation) and Iraq.
And the Lewinski “wag the dog” affair doesn’t explain the Sudanese offer and the Saudi negotiations in 1996, which may have delivered bin Laden to Clinton. Just accept that Clinton didn’t deal with Al Qaeda very well because he didn’t perceive the severity of the threat to the US, either — or would that revoke your membership in the Cult?
neil
In the spring of 1998, a small CIA-FBI team collected intelligence on him by parking itself at what agents call the “zero line,” Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. Back at Langley, CIA and Army special-operations officers drafted contingency plans for commandos to fight their way into Afghanistan for a snatch. CIA director George Tenet nixed the operation, fearing too many U.S. casualties.
But I thought Mac just told us there was no plan. I’m so confused!
neil
From that same article (TIME Magazine, Dec. 21, 1998):
Yeah, they certainly didn’t perceive the nature of that threat!
Perry Como
The Lewinski affair also doesn’t explain Bush passing up the opportunity to have a gift wrapped bin Laden delivered to us after 9/11 from the Taliban. You aren’t the only person that can toss out dishonest scenarios.
Mac Buckets
Look, either it’s true, or it’s not true. That’s what makes it balanced or not, not the fact that it comes three months before an election. I’ll let ABC (you know, the network who sent out a memo essentially saying to take it easy on Kerry before the election and to stick it to Bush?) handle questions about their scheduling. I haven’t seen the film, nor have you, so to make any judgements on its overall tone based only on the previews of partisans is (in your word) dishonest.
Another thing that’s dishonest is attributing arguments to someone who hasn’t ever made them.
He explained that it was the mis-assumption that underlaid the lack of a more aggressive policy toward bin Laden. His point was that had he known bin Laden could kill 3000 Americans, then he would’ve risked the 200 or so innocents that would’ve likely been killed along with him in an airstrike on his family.
Mac Buckets
No, Monica doesn’t explain anything Bush did (really, is that the best you could do? Very weak), but I’m not the one claiming My Guy is faultless. And what’s dishonest about my scenario (which I only know about because Clinton himself mentioned it)?
Tim F.
The 9/11 commission found no credible evidence for those offers. Their words.
Did America have flyover access to Afghan airspace? The answer may surprise you. Specifically you can consider the diplomatic maneuvering that was necessary even to get Pakistan’s approval for the cruise missile strikes, and whether that approval could realistically be repeated without some heavy lifting by both the president and Congress. That may help you figure out why the administration resisted firing on not-completely-certain targets – one dead wedding party would preclude the US from ever using Pakistani flyover space against al Qaeda again.
I appreciate the general point that you are making, Mac, and I am sure that you can make it without fudging history. Give it a try.
Mac Buckets
No, Richard Clarke just told you there was no plan. Still confused?
Perry Como
I was addressing the scenarios about the Sudanese and the Saudis. Tim just covered the problem with both of those “offers.”
jg
truth doesn’t equal balance. It can be true and still be unbalanced if only one side is being told. Not that that has anything to do with what we’re talking about. We’re talking about propaganda. A movie directed at people who want to hear that Bush didn’t screw up. It was a democrat which comfirms their pre-concieved notions. Polls show people are upset at Bush’s GWOT and its good to know that before the election the right will set them straight and point out that it wasn’t Bushs fault.
Tim F.
BTW, the basic narrative here continues to amuse me immensely. On the one hand Clinton did not completely exhaust every imaginable option to bring down al Qaeda. On the other hand Bush did precisely nothing and the GOP spent the pre-9/11 years playing terrorist defense. Honestly, one solitary piece of evidence that Bush recognized the threat from terrorism would be much appreciated. It certainly didn’t filter down to Ashcroft or the Nat. Sec. Advisor who spent the early months of 2001 on a PR offensive aggressively promoting the danger from state actors (that is, Iraq) over decentralized terrorist groups.
But of course they’re equal. Yep. Funny stuff.
Mac Buckets
Yeah, right, in what might’ve been the biggest joke of the whole Commission (and there were several jokes) Bob Kerrey let Clinton contradict and retract his own previously-recorded statements about Sudan and Saudi Arabia as “inappropriate” (translation: too harmful to Democrats?) I don’t believe for a second that Clinton was just talking out of his ass or, as Kerrey nonsensically explained, was fooled by the question (which was “In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?” Ooooo, that’s a toughie — what could it mean??). Clinton’s way too sharp for that, but you can believe what you must.
Irrelevant to the point we were discussing, which was that if Clinton was so internally devastated by the Mean Old Republicans bringing up Lewinski and “wag the dog” that he couldn’t act on bin Laden, then how come he had no problem, well, acting on bin Laden…and then two months later, acting on Saddam under the same “seige?”
Mac Buckets
If it says Bush was blameless and it was all Clinton, then it’s clearly wrong. Both administrations were to blame. You still haven’t seen the film, nor have I.
MAX HATS
Right. In fact, the only people who have been given the chance to see it, outside the ABC organization, have been partisan idealogues. No way that means anything. No sir, nothing could be read into that in the slightest.
neil
if Clinton was so internally devastated by the Mean Old Republicans bringing up Lewinski and “wag the dog” that he couldn’t act on bin Laden, then how come he had no problem, well, acting on bin Laden…and then two months later, acting on Saddam under the same “seige?”
The Republicans tried to make striking bin Laden a politicial liability for the President, and this at a time when articles of impeachment were moving against him. It’s to Clinton’s credit that he didn’t let this slow him down; why isn’t it disgraceful that the Republicans lied about his motives and attempted to rally U.S. public opinion against the strikes?
Mac Buckets
Tim, this is the second time you’ve posted silly links to the Sockpuppet Site (his “thorough rundown” you promised consisted of “I don’t have time to discuss, but here’s Digby!” and now this “playing terrorist defense” link just goes to his home page). Does he need the traffic so bad that you throw bad links to him? Come on, that’s two undeserved clicks I gave that buffoon because of your carelessness!
JWeidner
sooooo….Clinton had 4 opportunities in 6 months.
Bush has had 5 FRICKIN’ YEARS! He had a friendly Congress handing him limitless power to wage war. He had the ability to earmark billions of dollars to get the job done. He had every advantage that a president would need to kill or capture Bin Laden.
Except….no dice. He couldn’t get the job done over a period of 5 frickin’ years. And yet Clinton somehow is supposed to take a share in blame.
Perry Como
Well, bin Laden is now vacationing in the sunny Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. Funny how the wingers are pretty much silent on that issue. How’s that GSAVE doing folks? Workin’ out for you yet?
Mac Buckets
Why don’t you guys get together and decide amongst yourselves which version of history you’d like to go with: Was Clinton constrained from acting on bin Laden by a few Mean Old Republicans (and we are only talking about a few who raised the “wag the dog” thing) or was he valiant in not being hamstrung by Mean Old Republicans?
Again, I’ll take the winner in the Finals.
By the way, this is still an assertion. No one has posted anything factual regarding the Republicans “lying about his motives.” I recall only Specter and Coats making any kind of a big deal out of it, and both turned around in a few days. The leader of the GOPpers, Newt Gingrich, applauded Clinton’s decision from the start.
ThymeZone
Well, not only that, but he dissed UBL as any major concern four and a half years ago (“I am really not that concerned with him”) and then saved him in a little jeweled box to trot out in August-September 2006 as a big scary threat as Big As Hitler — BIGGER EVEN! So scary that our (albeit good, patriotic people) friends over at the Defeatocrat Party are making a moral mistake by proposing to Cut and Run and not finish the job we started against that Other Guy who had NOTHING THE FUCK TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON AMERICA but who we went after because we “weren’t that concerned” with UBL ….
How do you fucking even parse the SHIT that comes from this noise factory and not throw up …. much less show up here every fucking day to DEFEND IT like a goddammned broken record?
jg
And daddy Bush could have killed saddam back in 91 and saved us all a bunch of money these last 3 years.
The Other Steve
Does Mac Buckets want his mommy?
Richard 23
Since I already know much of the factual information leading up to 9/11, I will choose not to refresh my recollection with a misleading and fictional portrayal of history. Memory is a funny thing and I don’t choose to mess with mine.
Who I am concerned about are the children being marketed to in high schools around the country. That their primary or initial exposure to the story will be a fictional and slanted one is disturbing to say the least. They will presented with fiction and the onus will be upon them to find out the true story. Many simply will not do further research.
The Other Steve
And why won’t anybody bring up Clinton bombing the aspirin factory!?
Come on Mac Buckets, there’s comedy gold in them hills.
jg
Wow. Then I guess the right didn’t accuse him of wagging the dog. Not of Gingrich applauded him.
Darrell
But Dems and the Europeans said they wouldn’t go along in support of kicking Saddam out of Kuwait unless we promised not to topple Saddam from power. Only if we limited the scope of the mission to kicking Saddam out of Kuwait… nothing more.
Darrell
I’m sure you were similarly ‘concerned’ about the hyping of Michael Moore’s “documentary”.. weren’t you?
neil
— The very liberally-biased CNN, 8/21/98
But of course, the Republicans have no culpability whatsoever for the fact that Monica Lewinski was more important than Osama bin Laden to Americans in 1998. None whatsoever.
Darrell
Because those conservatives who control hollywood are the ones who produced the movie “Wag the dog”.. oh, wait.
jg
But its balanced. Mac thinks so. Or he thinks we shouoldn’t play the blame game or something until after people have been exposed to the bullshit. Then and only then should the work of correcting the bullshit begin. Of course since the people correcting it will be the ones depicted as ass clowns in the movie I doubt the work will be that successful. But none of this is a plan. Its just a coincidence that 5 years after the event, when Bush has done nothing to capture OBL and most of the country is upset with his administration and the republican controlled congress that this propaganda film will be aired commercial free on a national network, and it will try to shift blame from teh administration that was on watch at the time to the previous one, which was a democrat administration.
Pure coincidence. And its also a coincidence that these same people want to remove from schools any teaching of independant thought or any of the concepts that are being used in this gigantic fucking con-job. If kids aren’t taught what a false dichotomy is then they won’t recognize it when they’re slapped in the face by one.
neil
I’m sure you were similarly ‘concerned’ about the hyping of Michael Moore’s “documentary”.. weren’t you?
But Darrell, that _was_ a documentary; this, on the other hand, is a scripted drama starring actors. And, on the other hand, Fahrenheit 9/11 was, rightly, not included in high school curriculums. But keep rubbing those brain cells together, maybe you’ll get a spark eventually.
Richard 23
Yeah, those study guides sent to all the schools and the commercial free broadcast on network television and the free internet broadcast on the network’s website and the free iTunes downloads of F-911 were troubling to me as well.
Darrell
Funny how with all the countless posts from leftwingnuts over “Plamegate”, now that’s it’s been established that it was Richard Armitage who unintentionally leaked her name, and that Joe Wilson is a lying sack of shit.. Funny how the left just pretends that Plamegate never existed. Just like with their White Phosphorous accusations.
Richard 23
And pie-loving Darrell, Michael Moore didn’t pretend that his movie didn’t have a point of view. He stated clearly his intent was to see Bush defeated in 2004.
ABC is being a little more coy about their docu-drama.
neil
Because those conservatives who control hollywood are the ones who produced the movie “Wag the dog”.. oh, wait.
So the producers of fiction are the ones who are responsible for people who can’t tell fact from fiction? That’s very illuminating, thank you, Big D.
Darrell
It was a factually incorrect polemic which dishonest leftists call a “documentary”
jg
Do we need to dig up quotes from the then secretary of defense alluding to stuff like ‘you broke it you own it’? Idf you were a serious poster it might be worth it.
Was it shown on free tv commercial free? did anyone ever say it wasn’t a biased film? Were copies mailed to schools to get it in front of young republican eyes?
No. No. No.
A serious poster wouldn’t have made yourabsurd statement.
Perry Como
Different people have different opinions on the issue, so I doubt you’ll get a consensus. I think it’s reasonable to assume that a President would have more latitude to operate if he has a Congress that is cooperative, rather than a Congress that is launching an investigation every other week.
I’m hoping that if the Dems take control of at least one house this fall, they won’t go on witch hunts against Bush. That doesn’t mean I’m oppossed to legitimate investigations, but they shouldn’t be investigating things just to get “even.” There are real threats to this country and bogging down the executive to settle a score is not in our best long term interests.
Zifnab
And those who make the movies control the… movies?
Personally, I blame Tom Clancy for 9/11. If Osama bin Laden didn’t lift his plan directly from the pages of
Debt of Honor, he got it from someone else who did.
But what “The Path to 9/11” really shows is that it was the right thing to elect Bush to office in ’00. Without Bush in office we would never have anybody to not anticipate this sort of thing and then invade Iraq in response. Without Bush there would be no 9/11 and Saddam would still be in power. So before you start asking stupid questions about who had more culpability, Bush or Clinton, you should ask yourself the burning question, “Why do you love Saddam Hussien?”
neil
It was a factually incorrect polemic which dishonest leftists call a “documentary”
Someday, I will be the first to write a sentence that Darrell reads all the way to the end.
Darrell
Fahrenheit 9/11 study guide for students. Of course you didn’t say jack shit about F911 lies.
Richard 23
Stay on target, bunghole. To bring up Plamegate in this thread is dishonest as hell. Reread this thread to see how far out you really are.
neil
Darrell, I challenge you to respond, just once, to an entire sentence. We’ll work our way up to a paragraph eventually.
jg
Won’t happen. He’s not serious. He’s only looking for something to throw back at you and he can usually find someting like that early in the sentence before your meaning (which he’s ignoring anyway) is clear. Any proof needed that he’s a troll is found in his 6:07 pm post.
ThymeZone
MSNBC at this hour.
The same Bush who said “I am really not that concerned with (Osama Bin Laden)” four and a half years ago.
When have we had enough of this stupid, lying alocoholic prick? When does Balloon-Juice decide that blind and deaf defense of this fucking idiot is not the best righty representation it can get in this day and age?
Zifnab
Imagine making a movie about Martin Luther King and not letting the King family screen it. Or making a movie about the assassination of JFK, but only letting Ted Kennedy view it in theaters.
Why is Disney so afraid to let our former President screen this docudrama? What do they have to hide that can’t be exposed until September 10th?
Thomas
Coming in late to the debate here, but I’m curious what difference killing OBL in 1998 would have made. After all, he didn’t plan the WTC operation, he was just the bank for it. It was Atta and KS Muhammed who were the planners and the backbone of the operation and they went to OBL and got his support which was what had Clarke and co’s hair on fire in 2000. But I guess nobody wants to imagine the exact caliber of the smirk on Bush’s face when he’s being told by these queer liberals about Al Quaeda and the imminent attack. Hadn’t the appeasers heard of Iraq? That’s what was bothering Dick.
Tim F.
If I didn’t know better, Mac, I would say that you just crafted a clever non-response response. Surely a bright guy like you has more integrity than that. But hey, here’s that link you asked for. Have fun with your sidetrack.
Zifnab
I’ll have to dig it out, but I do remember one or two quotes attributed to Bin Laden regarding how he didn’t want to launch the strikes on September 11, but at a later, more significant date.
That is to say, Bin Laden had some creative control over his little project. Although, you’re right, there is nowhere near a garantee that killing Bin Laden would somehow make the terror attack plans go away.
jg
What’s bothering Dick is who is working th eoil fields of Iraq (and Iran).
Yes I said it. Te saber rattling with Iran is also over oil. You don’t think we’d let anyone else run those oil fields after we overthrow their gov’t and put in a friendly one do you? Why shuld we sit and allow backwards ass ideological fuckheads control the economic lifeline of the civilized world. (substitute ‘control the economic lifeline of the civilzed world’ with ‘get nukes’ or ‘ get wmd’ and it reads like a right winger wrote it. Someone like Darrell.)
slickdpdx
Yes, the Republicans acted like assholes over Lewinski, but you have to remember they’d had Clarence Thomas dragged through it for a lot less a few years before.
The reality is that, prior to 9-11-01, neither party would have taken the steps necessary to meaningfully attempt to eliminate an AQ threat.
Also, many (most?) at that time would have suggested that homegrown terrorists were a greater problem . Crazed “patriots” and “militias” were perceived as a more immediate threat (just ask the folks in Oklahoma City) and the Clinton administration and Justice Dept. responded quite vigorously. (No doubt the lack of flyover privileges was a factor.)
The Natl Security debate and the need to take action and learn from mistakes is not carried on well when its about the blame game.
ThymeZone
Buchanan in this exchange was the defender of “no cut and run” policy.
You gotta love these guys. Only moments before, Buchanan had said “Sure, we shouldn’t have gone in there, but now you’re there and you can’t just leave.”
Get it? “The lying crazy people who told you that this was the essential, necessary and right thing to do were wrong, but now that these same fucking people are telling you you can’t leave, you have to listen to them!”
Who could make this shit up?
Rusty Shackleford
Government ‘failed you,’ Clarke testifies
Ex-counterterror chief apologizes to victims
at 9/11 hearing, says Bush didn’t consider terrorism an urgent issue
slickdpdx
Re: the claim that the events are irresponsibly fictionalized
John S.
You guys smell it? You smell that cheap cologne that permeates the likes of MacBuckets, Darrell and slickdpdx?
Desperation – by GOP.
They know that their little world of make believe is about to come crashing down around their heads, and they don’t like it. Not one little bit.
But take heart, fellas. I suppose it is possible that the Democrats can fuck things up just as royally as the Republicans have for the last six years. I’d be happy to give you generous odds on that bet.
jg
Thats not the reality. Thats your opinion and you’re entitled to it no matter if the facts don’t support it. But since we all know facts are a fluid concept (911 changed EVERYTHING) you can shape the facts as you want to fit your world view. And it seems to me that in your worldview the incident that happened well into Bush’s watch, after he’d been warned by the previous administration and his own daily briefing, was in fact not Bush’s fault in any meaningful way. It was a failure of just about everyone else. I guess nobody anticipated that the people Bush trusts would fail him.
t. jasper parnell
Not related in any way, but is anyone or was anyone as repulsed by the President’s speech admiting secret prisons and harsh but safe methods of interogation?
ThymeZone
Oh Fuck — Somebody Forgot to Tell the Pakistanis
Looks like the memo on the GOP talking points and the new Hitlerization of UBL — he who was of no concern to Bush only four years ago, weeks after 911 — didn’t get out to our
alliesally in the WOT.Who screwed the
PekinesePakistanese?Darrell and Mac are wasting their time here … they need to be spreading the word where it counts ….
Thomas
Zifnab, if he couldn’t even change the date, I’m not sure what kind of control he had over them. It was Atta’s idea to do the attacks, after all. Maybe killing OBL would have made some sort of difference. It’s surely possible, but the difference would have had to come in conjunction with serious people doing their jobs and having serious politicans listen to them. And, let’s face it, Darrell and MacBuckets are simply the peon versions of Cheney and Bush. They get excited about who to elimiate and why, and then stuff that excitement back into whatever they can to win.
Thomas
Zifnab, if he couldn’t even change the date, I’m not sure what kind of control he had over them. It was Atta’s idea to do the attacks, after all. Maybe killing OBL would have made some sort of difference. It’s surely possible, but the difference would have had to come in conjunction with serious people doing their jobs and having serious politicans listen to them. And, let’s face it, Darrell and MacBuckets are simply the peon versions of Cheney and Bush. They get excited about who to elimiate and why, and then stuff that excitement back into whatever they can to win.
jg
From your link:
As has been said over and over today. They are using their opinion of the events to move as much culpability from Bush onto Clinton as they can. You think the target audience is going to be swayed by nuance? Will they care that its not factually accurate if its saying what they want to hear?
slickdpdx
John S: You spend a lot of time describing the alleged desperation of the people that disagree with you rather than making a meaningful comment about the disagreement. That, my friend, smacks of desperation.
jg: I have not suggested Bush is not responsible, I have suggested the opposite. You are disingenuous in addition to being unhinged.
slickdpdx
jg: how does that shift the blame? there’s plenty of blame to go around. can you accept that the previous administration shares any blame?
ThymeZone
Darrell’s lawyers will be serving you with papers in a lawsuit which demands that you stop using Darrell’s Private Lingo, to wit: “Unhinged(tm)“
ThymeZone
To be fair, the target audience lives in stilt houses in the Bayou and thinks that “nuance” is what black kids call their new in-laws.
ThymeZone
Wow, just caught that on my own link. I guesss this War on Terry Cloth, or whatever it is, is going be Harder Than We Thought. When activist judges are putting Terry-ists back on the streets.
Dang.
Rusty Shackleford
Darrell and/or Mac Buckets:
If Clinton had received a PDB entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the U.S.” on the morning of August 6th, 1998, do you think he would have done nothing?
jg
It shifts the blame by, for no apparent reason other than there being an election soon, bringing up failures during Clinton’s terms.
Yes I can accept Clinton responsibility. I never liked Clinton and until Bush went to war I would have said that we have never had a more unqualified CIC in the history of our country.
I was using your words against the whole of the right, not you individually, you could tell that, stop being a jackass.
Can you honestly say that this:
isn’t just blowing off responsibilty? ‘I’m not totally or solely to blame’ is not a valid defense to something that happened on your watch. You take responsibility. You don’t blame the last guy for what he left you, you fix what he left you if its inadequate. Blaming the last guy is schoolyard bullshit or its playing to your crowd.
People don’t want to believe that the party they have been saying for decades that is the only one to trust with our nations security was at fault in this event. They want to hear it was Clintons fault, the democrats fault.
Do you agree there are folks like this in this country?
Do you agree that politicians will exploit the fears of their constituents for gain?
t. jasper parnell
ah screw it.
http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Path+to+911
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
It’s Clinton’s fault.
If we could just get these Islamofascists to at least TRY pie… the world might be a better, more peaceful place.
t. jasper parnell
My quess is that this is bullhockey.
ThymeZone
If the ABC film is a “Mockumentary,” then are the offerings of Darrell and Mac here “Mockuments?”
t. jasper parnell
If Mac actually likes Elvis Costello, then his are just in err; Darrell’s are bullshit. But, and this is a recent discovery, D’s pyloric valve has been acting up again. Must suck to have your life story stolen by a dead guy.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Give Mac credit, at least he can toss up a decent Rockument when the Muse stirs him.
Zifnab
At least Mac tries. If we asked him what type of pie he liked, he’d give us a straight answer.
In the end, it’s about credibility. I just can’t trust Darrell when it comes to making pie-related decisions.
Richard 23
Still waiting for Darrell to proclaim what his favourite kind of pie is. What a fucking dishonest wackjob. Just reread this thread to see how far out he really is.
So Mac, are you better than Darrell? What kind of pie do you prefer?
ThymeZone
He just isn’t in the upper crust. This rhubarb is too much for him to handle.
Richard 23
Well at least I don’t have to worry so much about the impressionable youth: Scholastic yanks “Path to 9/11” teaching materials. Baby steps.
Good for them. I remember Scholastic, but not for their political preaching.
kdaug
Anyone else ever think Darrell and Mac might be, um, paid provocateurs? It just strikes me that anybody who would so consistantly, “reflexively” defend the administration – irrespective of the facts presented – would either a:) have a reading comprehension problem (admittedly a common accusation in these parts), or b:) might have a different agenda in mind – say, deflect and dissemble? I just have difficulty believing that they believe what they’re saying…
Then again, takes all kinds to make up a world…
Mike S
That’s what I love about you, Maximus. Truth is nothing to you and the Ruddy/Limbacker types are right up your alley.
I may “not know much at all” but one thing I know for sure is that you are one hactackularly dishonest piece of crap. Which is why you are such a vocal member of the cult of the new GOP.
Mac Buckets
Look at this thread, then tell me who’s in a “cult.” I think that Darrell and I are saying what the 9/11 Commmission said: both administrations were at fault in the run-up to 9/11.
Look how the lefties are bending over backwards to fix history so that Clinton is held absolutely blameless.
Who’s in a cult?
chopper
that’s incorrect. lefties aren’t making clinton blameless, and you guys aren’t merely assigning fault to both administrations.
the problem is, people on the right are trying to assign blame to the clinton administration as if both administrations were equally incompetent in fighting AQ. the lefties here are continuously pointing out that in the 90’s, clinton was in fact going after OBL, despite not getting him. whereas at that time, the GOP offered nothing but complaints about ‘wagging the dog’, or maybe an occasional ‘meh’. the bush administration, like the GOP of the 90’s had no demonstrable plan for going after OBL because they really didn’t give a damn.
so while both administrations were at fault, one of them definitely took the threat less seriously than the other. that’s the point the lefties here are trying to make; that while clinton failed to stop bin laden, at least he tried, and saw the dude as a threat. the subsequent administration couldn’t have cared less.
Zifnab
The problem is that the “Path to 9/11” tries to paint Clinton and his cabinet as the primary obstructionists to taking out OBL. The party line is that the CIA was all gung-ho, they had all their pieces lined up, and all they needed was confirmation from President Clinton to take the shot – as though someone was staring down the barrel of a sniper rifle at OBL’s head – when Clinton “balked” for “diplomatic reasons”.
This, in contrast to Bush, who poo-poo’s diplomacy and, had he been in office, would have boldly stepped up and done the good, right, honest, Christian, moral, God-Fearing, America-Loving, Patriotic, Cowboy thing to do and had OBL killed at the first opportunity.
It’s the same tired GOP line: Democrats are soft on terrorism. And its absolute bullshit.
Bush didn’t pull the trigger on OBL in Tora Bora (perhaps because he was reluctant to piss off the Saudis or perhaps because, like Clinton, he didn’t actually have Osama in the crosshairs). Nor did Bush take the OBL reports on his desk seriously until after we had a giant crater in NY.
Whatever their mistakes it was Clinton who acted. Bush did not. And this little GOP mockumentary is designed to distort those facts.
The Other Steve
Yep.
So it’s curious why that’s all the Republicans ever want to do.
Mac Buckets
Bullshit. Go through this whole page, and find one lefty who placed any blame at Clinton’s feet. They simply haven’t done it (because they’re a CULT!).
Exactly wrong. Have you even read this page? Assigning fault to both administrations is exactly what I am doing (and what Darrell and slick have explicitly done), and have done since Post One. Present evidence to the contrary if you can — don’t just assert nonsense.
I’m sorry, but trying doesn’t mean jack. I’m sure the Bush Administration tried to bring quick peace and a smooth transition to democracy in Iraq, just as they tried to stop job losses after the tech bust and 9/11 — did you guys cutting Bush any slack for trying? Of course not. So obviously, trying really means nothing to you, except to use as a weak critch for Your Guy. Failure doesn’t mean that you didn’t try — failure means you didn’t try hard enough to succeed.
And the almost-always total support of the Clinton policy toward bin Laden (you left that one out — must’ve been a mistake, right?). And so far, we have about two or three GOPpers who even mentioned “wagging the dog” — hardly “nothing but complaints.”
But to toss around a familiar current lefty refrain: Hey, the GOP weren’t in the Oval Office! They didn’t have Commander-in-Chief powers! How is anything their fault when they weren’t even in power?
Wrong. They had a plan, so they obviously “gave a damn” — their plan was just developed too slowly and delivered too late.
Mac Buckets
Fixed.
John S.
I would hardly characterize an 85 word post that took me 2 minutes to pen as “spending a lot of time”. Whereas you spend an awful lot of time posting meaningless comments that do little more than provoke disagreement.
Nothing reeks of desperation more than feeling compelled to wildly mischaracterize even the most minute detail of what those that disagree with you have to say.
Mac Buckets
Again, only the Special Olympics cares about trying.
Clinton didn’t do what he should’ve done for 5 years, and Bush didn’t do what he should’ve done for 9 months. Of course, as Richard Clarke said, it’s very doubtful, even if Clinton or Bush had arrested/killed bin Laden, that 9/11 or something very similar would’ve been avoided.
John S.
There are ONLY two or three GOPpers posting in this fucking thread, so that would be ALL of you.
I agree. What Clinton did to try and get Bin Laden = What Bush has done to try and get Bin Laden. How do we know? Because Bin Laden is still alive, therefore they both have failed. The ends justify the means!
John S.
Fixed.
Krista
Fixed that for you, Mac.
Krista
John S. – I didn’t copy off of you, honest.
Pb
By 1998, both the Clinton administration and the intelligence community essentially recognized the threat posed by al-Qaeda. However, the Republican Congress either didn’t know or didn’t care, because their priorities weren’t getting Osama, but rather getting Clinton and getting Saddam, no matter what the cost to the nation.
The worst part is that this didn’t change at all when Bush came into office, *despite* the fact that he now had direct access to the people in the know who were all telling his administration how much of a threat al-Qaeda really was.
However, Bush was locked into this pre-1998 mindset where Saddam was still a threat, al-Qaeda wasn’t, and anything from the Clinton administration wasn’t trusted, even from competent, independent, career intelligence officials! And the results–even after 9/11–still reflect this.
Catching Osama ‘dead or alive’ quickly morphed into ‘really not that concerned about him’. The intelligence was fixed around the policy. And because resources were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, Saddam Hussein was captured, but Osama bin Laden never was!
chopper
i thought ‘absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence’. seriously, that’s all you’ve got? in a thread that’s half making fun of clinton talking about ‘black ninjas’?
‘merely’. you aren’t just assigning blame to both, you’re assigning blame to both as if they both screwed up the same. which they didn’t.
this is a stupid argument. are we equivilating bush’s attempts to bring peace etc to iraq with doing nothing at all? hell no.
oh yeah, gingrich gave a thumbs-up once. woo-hoo. while the rest, and half of americans polled, thought clinton was trying to divert attention from his domestic problems.
uh, they had both houses of congress, didn’t they? unlike the dems all throughout the war in iraq. so no, it’s not the same.
what, pray tell, was the GOPs plan in the late 90’s to get rid of bin laden?
John S.
Damn, now Mac will accuse of drinking the same Kool Aid.
I like mine Fact flavored, how about you?
Zifnab
That’s a shame. I actually liked Sara Evans. Oh well.
Pb
The big dog speaks!
Zifnab
I’d like to address that very briefly. Yes, we did cut Bush a great deal of slack. Even in the face of his Rich-People-Tax-Cuts, the millenium market bust was never seriously placed in the lap of Bush. Serious economists waxed philosophical about non-existant dividends, overvalued stocks, and a large number of uninformed investors who caused the bust. And if ever there was a bipartisan scandal, it was the Endron/Worldcom debacle. Certainly no one was happy about the economic hamstringing our country took, but at the same time you’ll note that ’02 was a very good year for Republicans. General consensus is that whatever may be said of Bush economic policy in the long run, the recession of early 2000 was totally out of the hands of the new President.
Pb
If I had to blame anyone in government for that, I’d blame Alan Greenspan.
slickdpdx
Need I remind you all that 9/11 was not the first attack on the WTC, just the most successful?
Pb
slickdpdx,
No.
Mac Buckets
Yeah, this page is the size of California, and covered in sand! So you couldn’t find even one quote on this page laying any blame on Clinton, could you? That’s OK, neither could I. Except yours, of course. Is my point made?
How do you figure? I think I’m being generous in saying that failure is failure is failure. Do you really want to get into the discussion of who failed the least? What a silly notion.
No, it’s a genius argument, because that’s how I rock it. We are accurately defining failure as a lack of results, not a lack of “trying.” You want a medal for trying, enter the Special Olympics.
Sorry, but a movie had just come out, and America had just seen its president on national TV admit he was a liar. It didn’t take the GOP to plant that seed. Again, the Republican leadership supported the strike on the training camp in Afghanistan.
Sorry, I didn’t realize that the GOP Congress was in the room with Clinton when he was deciding whether to take out bin Laden, or the aspirin factory, or the training ground. Funny, it’s not in the accounts that the GOP got a vote at all in those matters! The accounts suggest that those might be matters for the Commander-in-Chief! Shocking!
The specific plan is a Commander-in-Chief thing, so that would’ve been Clinton’s responsibility in the late ’90s. My comment was in regards to the Bush administration’s plan.
The GOP Congress of the late ’90s proposed and passed some of the most sweeping anti-terrorism legislation in our history — forget the frantic re-writing of history that you are seeing on the liblogs at present — including the 1996 Dole/Hyde Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. When they did shoot down a Clinton-proposed anti-terror bill later in 1996, they offered two bills in its place in short order.
ThymeZone
Why not start over, take down the “blame” talk, and replace it with “responsiblity.” Then, list the things for which each administration, and for that matter the preceeding ones, are responsible.
Just a suggestion.
Mac Buckets
Geez, Tim, am I supposed to respond to your posts assuming that your bad links really say what you say they say? Sorry to be so presumptuous as to make you post real links. My bad.
To that point, your new, improved link to Greenwald? It doesn’t have anything to do with the GOP congress “playing terrorist defense” in the run-up to 9/11. I’ll knock that silly point down, but first you have to set it up — I’m not doing all the work for you.
Greenwald says Bush didn’t mention Al Qaeda or bin Laden by name in the 2000 Election (but did Gore? inquiring minds…), revealing a lack of focus on that problem — a point which I don’t generally dispute.
Greenwald is laughably and unflinchingly dishonest, as usual, in raising the point, but I agree with the general thought.
So in turn, Glenn, the Democrats can’t say the Bush Administration wasn’t tough enough on Al Qaeda unless they’re on record pre-9/11 saying Bush wasn’t doing enough. Right? Right? (Crickets.) Never mind that the most damning evidence of Clinton’s indecision only became widely known after 9/11 and especially after the 9/11 Commission.
Except the ones that do.
Following his link (which I guess he did not expect anyone to do): “We need to address threats from both rogue states and terrorist groups — whether delivered by missile, aircraft, shipping container, or suitcase.”
“As American influence declined during the current administration, the OPEC cartel drove up the price of oil. Anti-Americanism among the Arab people redoubled. Iran continued to sponsor international terrorism, oppose the Arab-Israeli peace process, and pursue nuclear, biological, chemical, and missile capabilities with extensive foreign assistance. America’s closest allies expanded their political and economic relations with Iran. A Republican president will work to reverse these damaging trends.”
“We appreciate the significant contributions by Jordan to our common struggle against terrorism, and will take steps to bolster relations with Amman including negotiating a U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement.”
“But the decade also witnessed a series of enormously destructive attacks against America. Increasingly, terrorists seem to be motivated by amorphous religious causes or simple hatred of America rather than by specific political aims.”
“Republicans endorse the four principles of U.S. counterterrorism policy that were laid down originally by Vice President George Bush’s Commission on Combating Terrorism in 1985. First, we will make no concessions to terrorists. Giving in simply encourages future terrorist actions and debases America’s power and moral authority. Second, we will isolate, pressure, and punish the state sponsors of terrorism. Third, we will bring individual terrorists to justice. Past and potential terrorists will know that America will never stop hunting them. Fourth, we will provide assistance to other governments combating terrorism.”
“Republicans in Congress have led the way in building the domestic preparedness programs to train and equip local, state, and federal response personnel to deal with terrorist dangers in America. The administration has not offered clear leadership over these programs.”
Great job, Greenwald — I never would’ve found that stuff without you!
Paul L.
I can see how you guys are upset. The Clinton administration was so proactive with OBL.
I am going to watch the ABC Mockumentary in honor of the jack@$$ who signed the Federal assault weapons ban on September 13, 1994.
Since you guys jumped to defend Clinton, can I call you ClintonBots now? When someone defends Bush, you scream Bushbot, so this is only fair.
chopper
So you couldn’t find even one quote on this page laying any blame on Clinton, could you? That’s OK, neither could I. Except yours, of course. Is my point made?
sorry mac, you’re wrong.
you’re only being generous to george bush, as is your way. there’s an obvious difference b/w a president trying to kill OBL and a president who couldn’t have been bothered to do anything at all about the guy. if you can’t see that, i can’t help you.
so it went from ‘blame’ to ‘failure’. keep moving the goalposts, mac.
you’re right, gingrich gave it the thumbs up. and that’s the whole right-wing right there.
you’re missing the point, again. does the minority party which controls no part of the government need to offer a plan? compared to the majority party in congress? the goopers in the 90’s were more concerned with nailing clinton to the wall then they were with OBL.
like i said, the GOP in the 90’s couldn’t have cared less.
tell me how any of those intended to capture or kill bin laden. i mean, that is the question asked.
Richard 23
Paul L, what a well reasoned thought process you have. Most logical and triumphant.
Well I’m going to watch pr0n because the American Decency Association is boycotting Volkswagon for featuring hot chicks in their ads.
Makes about as much sense as your non-sequitur.
Paul L.
You need a excuse to watch pr0n?
I wonder what NOW and their allies have to say about the Volkswagon Ads.
Let me guess.
Blah blah blah…objectification of women…Blah blah blah…women are not sex objects…Blah blah blah…corporate responsibility…Blah blah blah…insensitive to women….Blah blah blah…White male patriarchy.
Krista
Yeah, me too. Although I always like to garnish it with a slice of cynicism. It adds a certain something…
Krista
My only complaint is…where are the cute, scantily clad men? They’re missing out on a large market segment here, by not including eye candy for the straight women and gay men who might buy Volkswagens.
Paul L.
Fixed that for you. Maybe Volkswagen is aiming for a new customer segment.
John S.
Sure!
Defending someone from blatant distortions of the truth = Defending someone by blatantly distorting the truth.
And remember, Qana = Jenin!
Keep speaking truth to power, Paul.
Mac Buckets
But then he immediately lied and blamed the GOP for Clinton’s not doing a good enough job.
I’ve already showed how most of that is nonsense. I did miss that comment, though, so I’ll give partial credit on that one. Then there’s jg:
Can’t take anything he says seriously. He was the guy who said:
Obviously, he doesn’t think Clinton bears any responsibility at all. Or he’s just a troll who will say anything, no matter if it contradicts what he said earlier.
Moving goalposts? Are you kidding? If there was no failure, there’d be no reason to hold anyone responsible at all. Come on now — try to keep up.
…except for the fact that the GOP Congress generally supported Clinton’s efforts with respect to terrorism in general and bin Laden in particular.
It was not Congress’s job to strike bin Laden. The Commander-in-Chief decided whether to call in the military for strikes against bin Laden. At least three times, Clinton had such an opportunity, and three times, he failed to take it. That had nothing to do with the GOP.
Paul L.
I remember you defending the coverage out of Qana as accurate and not manipulated or staged by Hezbollah.
A Taxonomy of Fraud
CNN’s Robertson Now Admits: Hezbollah ‘Had Control’ of His Anti-Israel Piece
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Would you care to substantiate that point a bit? I’ll even provide a reference for you to pore over:
Check it out, there’s a lot of other good stuff in there too.
Mac Buckets
Just to put the lie to the meme that the GOP all screamed “Wag the Dog!” when Clinton struck bin Laden, I found this transcript of that night’s Lehrer. Two GOP Senators (Kyl and Grams) and two Democrat Senators, all supporting Clinton every step of the way, and all disavowing Wag the Dog, although Lee Hamilton (D) admits it’s “a fair question.”
Every story that mentions Republicans advancing a Wag the Dog story seems to call out only Sen. Coats and (much more mildly) Sen. Specter, who both made statements to the effect of “why now?” Specter, whose initial statements were less accusatory, came out strongly in favor of the attacks within a day.
Also, I forgot that Clinton’s Defense Secretary at the time was a former Republican Senator, Bill Cohen, who staunchly defended the strikes against a media seemingly obsessed with the Hollywood tie-in.
So where were these massive GOP cries of “Wag the Dog?” In the heads of the Left, obviously!
mrmobi
Mac Buckets:
Except the ones that do.
There’s just one problem with this, Mac, and that is that Greenwald is talking here only about the 13 specific criticisms in the Republican Party Platform of 2000, not the entire platform. You need to work on your reading skills Mac, and I guess it is you who is being laughably and unflinchingly dishonest, not Glenn.
Later in that same article Glenn discusses the section of the platform that you excerpt from in your post:
Emphasis mine.
I’m also glad to be able to read this platform, because it reaffirms for me that the Party of Torture cannot be trusted with the security of this country. The item about leading the way in building preparedness programs would be funny if it wasn’t so god-damned sad.
For my money, Glenn is one of the best bloggers around, and he’s always reasonable in his responses, even when people like you call him a liar when he clearly isn’t. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Mac. It won’t help, but you won’t have to do things like pay attention, or actually comprehend the things you read.
mrmobi
One more thing from the always excellent Glenn Greenwald:
This attempt by the right to re-write the history of our fight against Bin Laden is having a deservedly rough start.
HH
“Again you are not a serious poster. Go shove a piece of pie up your ass.”
Thank you for bringing seriousness into this debate…
HH
“Can you believe the level of idiocy requred to support the current administration?”
Thank God we once had a serious administration ready to rock and roll into Afghanistan with black ninjas… But back to your serious posting…
Pb
Here?
That’s not to say that the media didn’t help, of course:
HH
“Yeah, those study guides sent to all the schools and the commercial free broadcast on network television and the free internet broadcast on the network’s website and the free iTunes downloads of F-911 were troubling to me as well.”
Er, he did try to get it broadcast the day before the election any way possible and made sure to release it on DVD and have it available many other ways.
Mac Buckets
No, the bust was simply ignored by the Democrats, but the effects of the bust were totally blamed on Bush, as if they happened in a vaccuum. The “he turned the greatest economy into a Recession in one year” nonsense didn’t exist to you? How about the “2 million lost jobs” that Kerry tried to run on in 2004? The “Dow down 3000 points/Nasdaq cut in half since Bush got elected?” (Seems like you never hear about the Dow anymore, since it’s nearing all-time highs.)
I certainly remember, especially during the 2002 midterms. I was calling the Democrats nuts for being so callously ignorant.
Fortunately, the Democrats were able to ignore them and get to the business of pinning the economic downturn entirely on Bush.
And my favorite quote:
There you go — the Democrats hoping to blame the economy, the Enron/Worldcom scandals, and 9/11 on Bush for the 2002 election.
I was sure I hadn’t imagined it.
Mac Buckets
Woo-hoo. One guy who nobody’s ever heard of, and an acting Governor who says it popped into his mind, but he trusts that it’s not the case.
MASSIVE!
Mac Buckets
If he’s being so honest, then why would he restrict the debate to those thirteen items (and why would he link to something that is not them?)? Certainly, there are criticisms of Clinton policy in the bits I extracted, so Greenwald’s point is disproved.
Yes, and he lies about the contents thereof. The platform does mention religious terrorism, Iranian terrorism and sponsorship, and mentions Jordan as a regional ally against terrorism. Oh, but they didn’t use the word “Islamic.” Yeah, Sockpuppet is being totally honest. Sure he is.
Really. If you’re impressed, good for you. Personally, I’ve rarely seen an honest argument out of him. I think he’s essentially a dishonest hack who only appeals to other hacks. I’m not impressed by his intellect in the slightest, and obviously he has a list of personal shortcomings that only an Army of Sockpuppets could resolve.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
It was at least two more people than this:
False.
Richard 23
So he tried. He failed. I seem to recall Disney pulling the plug on F911 for it being to political. No problem airing this objective docudrama commercial free before a midterm election.
He released it on DVD before the election to make some money perhaps? Interesting that ABC is eating the cost of this $30 million GOP campaign commercial.
Maybe they’re hoping to get something from their investment.
Richard 23
I heard the “wag the dog” cry a lot at the time. It still rings in my ears.
But that was back when I watched Crossfire, The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes. The period was a real lowlight for cable news. Monica all the time and incessant cries of “wag the dog.”
I still have my Fox News T-Shirt that says “I decide.” I wrote O’Reilly a nasty email and Fox sent me a t-shirt, kitchen magnet and a bumper sticker!
Filthy McNasty
Get over yourself, Tim. Someone will get fired over this???? Please. You have no idea how the television business works. It’s nice to see the left, and especially the Clintonistas getting much overdue attention regarding their roles in response to pre-9/11 terrorism. Americans outside the blogosphere are woefully ignorant of what Clinton/Berger/Albright/Clarke did not do regarding OBL. It’s understandable that they’re upset, but it would have been nice if they had used the same energies dealing with OBL that they are using now to cover their asses.
Any content edits they’re making over at ABC seem minor, from what I hear, and no matter anyhow, because the unedited version is out there on tape and DVD, and will be seen eventually.
How does it feel to be on the receiving end of negative media focus? Maybe you can finally understand how conservatives have felt for about four decades now. Doubtful….because you’re too self-righteous.
Tim F.
Quite possibly Hugh Hewitt, broadcaster, has begun to understand the difference between public and private resources. How shocking that Michael Moore would try to raise his profit by convincing broadcasters to run his film and pay him royalties. Gosh, I bet that no other commercial filmmaker has ever thought of that.
slickdpdx
Wag the Dog was some stupid shite to be certain. Republicans (and pacifists or whatever, it wasn’t just critics on the right who cried WtD) can be just as obstructive for political gain as Democrats can be.
A more perceptive criticism would have been (and was) – What was the efficacy of the strike?
Richard 23
Fake scene in docudrama already being confused with fact:
The last part is what worries me. I think Digby gets it right in Why It Matters:
DougJ
I have zero problem with the Republicans accusing Clinton of “wag the dog” back then. They shouldn’t be doing it now, IMHO, but a loyal Congressional opposition should, in my opinion, regard any and all military action by the executive branch with a high degree of skepticism. That’s their job.
We’ve seen what happens when they don’t. If we have a Republican Congress and a Democratic president again sometime soon, I hope that, minus impeachment, Socksgate, and the rest of the silliness, that they give him as hard a time as they give Clinton.
I’ll take a pain-in-the-ass Congress over rubber stamp congress any day of the week.
John S.
Ah, well that’s not surprising.
You have this remarkable tendency to “remember” things that never actually happened. I find it to be one of your most endearing qualities.
John S.
That is an entirely valid point.
What was the efficacy of our strike on Afghanistan?
What was the efficacy of our strike on Iraq?
The answers to these questions truly do pave the way for perceptive criticism of how Republicans have really handled national security in the post 9/11 world.
Mac Buckets
Care to name them?
And even if four republicans out of 300 mention the timing, does this amount to “all you heard from the Republicans was Wag The Dog”? Of course not.
I’m telling you, those questions about the timing were coming largely from the media looking for a sexy Hollywood tie-in and secondarily from the general public, but not in any significant numbers from the GOP.
slickdpdx
John S.: Thanks. I suggest there are some standards by which the strikes on Afghanistan and Iraq were tremendously successful, some disastrous and some remain to be seen.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
I just did, you incredible idiot. You must have the attention span of a gnat.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Unfortunately the two are not mutually exclusive, as the news coverage of the Clinton years graphically showed.
Richard 23
I have heard that left and right will both find things to complain about regarding the crocudrama. The only complaint I have heard from the right was regarding how Condi is made to look foolish by demoting Richard Clarke. Isn’t that a fact? The complaints I have heard from the left are regarding scenes portraying events that did not even occur.
Can our right-leaning friends direct us to complaints from the right?
slickdpdx
Richard: I’d think that the fact that after the Clinton team briefed the Bush team, the WTC was destroyed, the Pentagon damaged and thousands killed on 9-11-01 would be pretty damning of the current administration…
Does the movie/docudrama or whatever they call it make it sound like the Bush administration made efforts to prevent what happened on 9-11-01? I expect not, but I confess I don’t know.
Mac Buckets
UPDATE: ABC caves to pressure from Clinton. The “Berger hang-up” has been scrubbed, the end credits will say that the film is based “in part” on the 9/11 report, and the end of the first half of the film will now show Bill Clinton rappelling out of a helicopter dressed in full black ninja gear, singlehandedly defeating 100 Al Qaeda terrorists, and targeting Osama bin Laden with a grenade launcher at close range, only to have a drunk Governor GW Bush of Texas knock the launcher out of his hands at the last second, as bin Laden grinned gleefully and swore to crash planes into the WTC on 9/11/01.
So now it squares with the lefty narrative.
demimondian
Yeah, Mac, it’s heartbreaking that the truth has a left-wing bias, isn’t it? Of course, if the right in America had any idea that the truth had any real value (beyond its obvious value to distract the sheep from the Maximum Leader’s Next Great Plan), then the truth might not be so biased.
Pb
Sweet! If it’s going to be entirely fictional anyhow, it might as well be fun and entertaining. More of a dramedy, perhaps with a touch of Team America: World Police thrown in for good measure.
Pb
slickdpdx,
All of the complaints I’ve heard about it have been about the first half of the drama, not the second half, although I’d imagine that if there was anything unfairly damning of the Bush administration in there, the right-wing pundits who screened it already would have raised holy hell about that, assuming that they did indeed screen the whole movie?
Richard 23
Good. Because that scene was adlibbed and was not based on anything factual. I hope you’re not crying about ABC caving to the truth.
Rest of jackalope deleted.
Somehow I doubt it. But ABC’s viewers shall see.
slickdpdx said:
Would you call that factual or bogus? I’m looking for falsifications or dramatizations that are critical of the Bush Administration. Like the aforementioned Sandy Burglar hangup scene. Or perhaps Albright notifying Pakistan of the missile strikes (which she vehemently denies).
slickdpdx
Richard and pb: I haven’t seen the damnable documentary. Maybe the righties have less to complain about. Another possibility would be that, having undertaken a robust, if controversial, post-attack reaction, those on the right (or like me, not necessarily on the right but pro-invasion) are less committed to a no-fault or low-fault pre-attack narrative.
demimondian
Or maybe, you don’t want to confront the possibility of blame, because you don’t want anyone asking “What did Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda?”
John S.
Aww, does that bother you?
Did it bother you when CBS caved to the pressure from right-wing groups to scrub their doucudrama about Reagan?
Just curious.
Pb
slickdpdx,
Join the club.
It would seem so.
What, you mean the one that over 90% of America supported? The only ‘controversial’ reaction regarding al-Qaeda were Clinton’s reactions, ridiculed by the right in 1998.
Krista
Yeah! With a cigar clenched between his teeth like “Hannibal” Smith! He grabs his saxophone, which, with a few quick moves (and a hex key) transforms into an AK-47, dispatches the bad guys, throws off some witty one-liners, and we fade to black with Bubba speeding off into the sunset in a convertible with a blonde in his lap and a redhead in the passenger seat.
Now, THAT’s entertainment!
Mac Buckets
Clinton (snaps Al Qaeda’s neck): “I’m The Man From Hope…and I Hope you die!”
Clinton (fries Al Qaeda with flamethrower): “Now you feel MY pain!”
Clinton (throws grenade): “I’ll build a bridge to the 21st Century…with your dead asses!”
Clinton (releases nerve gas on AQ compound): “Inhale this, mutha****azzzzz!”
Clinton (punches Al Qaeda in chest, pulls out heart, shows it to Al Qaeda): “Is your mutha****in’ ass dead yet? Well, that depends upon what the meaning of the word “is” means!”
Those really do work better with an Austrian accent than a hillbilly one.
Mac Buckets
I didn’t care one way or the other, and I said as much. But you ask a good question, even if it’s by mistake: What did various lefties think of CBS deciding not to air The Reagans? [All emphasis mine]
Oh, how people change when the hypothetical becomes real.
Sure you want to run with this line of argument, John?
Mac Buckets
Oh, so you’re counting the acting governor no one’s ever heard of (who said he didn’t think it was a “Wag the Dog” case) and the Representative no one’s ever heard of.
OK, you’re up to three Republicans out of 500 (if we’re going to start counting state officials, too), one of whom immediately withdrew his mild objection to the timing. Is that your massive GOP cries of Wag the Dog? Three guys? .6%?
Is this tired Wag the Dog meme dead as Elvis yet? Yeah, I think it is.
John S.
Sure do, Mac.
All you have really shown is that hypocrisy exists on both the left and the right. Of course it would be helpful if one could determine where the hell your flurry of quotes even came from. You have conveniently provided NO links for any of them, and in most cases it isn’t even possible to determine WHO made the comment – let alone ascertain whether they are a “lefty”.
Congratulations on your stunning rebuttal, though.
Zerthimon
New York Times has a review up
http://tinyurl.com/sxznm
Sounds to me like it spreads blame across the board. They also praise the movie.
I’m wondering if Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by discouraging people from watching a movie that also criticizes Bush, and maybe about things the public isn’t really aware of.
Pb
Zerthimon,
Pathetic review, horrible reviewer, she should stick to stenography and avoid any analysis or cognitive thought, because she obviously isn’t cut out for it; one prominent example:
False–actually, they reached the *opposite* conclusion. Maybe she got that tidbit from “The Path to 9/11”?
Zerthimon
But wouldn’t that be more damaging to Republicans than the Clintons? If Republican accusations distracted Clinton, who looks worse in that situation?
DougJ
If it’s inaccurate, it’s inaccurate. End of story.
LoafingOaf
I just read a left winger’s review of Path to 9/11 in the left wing NY Times, and the review made me wanna see the movie, and the review didn’t squre with what some of you are saying about it.
But then that person has seen the movie.
Maybe people should see the movie before they jihad against it, unless what you’re saying is that docudramas as a genre must not be allowed to be made.
I use the word jihad because the hard left is getting dangerously close to fascism as they attempt to censor and supress a work of art on the notion that no one has a right to depict people in the Clinton admnistration in a manner that isn’t approved of in advance by…Bill Clinton.
And one can only laugh when one looks at the links in this blogger’s post. Think Progress – falsely accused U.S. troops of using chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq. Glenn Greenwald – sock puppeteer who tried to dismiss Reutersgate as just about one single slightly photoshopped picture. Editor & Publisher – recently caught altering content in their archives in deceptive fashion. And you all – big supporters of the most deceitful propaganda film in American history – F9/11 by Michael Moore.
But F9/11 was allowed to be shown, and those who felt it was bad could then reply to it as they liked. Which is how it’s supposed to work in a country with freedom of speech.
The NY TIMES review does not sound like Path to 9/11 is a movie made in bad faith or a partisan agenda. F9/11, in contrast, was made in complete bad faith and is today a favorite propganda film of Islamic terrorists.
Keep rioting in favor of censorship of a movie you haven’t even seen. It exposes what the hard left has become. Un-American.
LoafingOaf
Maybe lefties want to control the narrative b/c when the righties control the narrative the public believes things that are false, i.e, Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
You mutate Saddam having something to do with Islamic terrorism generally and links to al Qaeda specifically into “something to do with 9/11.”
That Saddam had links to al Qaeda is in the 9/11 Commission Report you guys claim to hold in such high esteem. (Bill Clinton even bombed the al Shifa medicine factory on the claim that both Iraq and al Qaeda were involved with nerve gas there, something we’ll never get to the bottom of because rather than send inspectors to Sudan they just blew it up.) The impression one gets from the 9/11 Commission Report with respect to Iraq is that Clinton administration offcials believed Bin Laden would recieve safe haven in Iraq if Afghanistan were attacked. And that does seem to be why Zarqawi went to Iraq when America attacked the Taliban.
I don’t expect any of the hard left to care about any of this stuff that is in the 9/11 Commission Report. You’re still claiming proven liar Joe Wilson wasn’t a liar, after all. So please stop pretending you’re not about PROPAGANDA.
LoafingOaf
I’d think that the fact that after the Clinton team briefed the Bush team, the WTC was destroyed, the Pentagon damaged and thousands killed on 9-11-01 would be pretty damning of the current administration…
I don’t see Republicans jihading to censor Path to 9/11, and that’s because Republicans have digested that there were lots of people not taking the threat seriously enough before 9/11 across the spectrum, and the hope is that the Path to 9/11 will motivate people across the spectrum to get more serious about the enemy we’re facing. Which, IMHO, is another way of saying, to digest the main lessons one should get from the 9/11 Commission Report about what went wrong in the pre-9/11 decade.
And, turning to the facts, the 9/11 terror cell was already in America carrying out their plot before Bush was sworn in, and the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies had all of the problems explained in the 9/11 Report before Bush was sworn in, and people such as George Tenet were inherited from the Clinton years. It’s pretty hard to come to a conclusion that by the time Bush was president the 9/11 atrocity was going to be stopped, say if Gore had been president. What would Gore have done to stop 9/11? The balls had already been dropped, the intelligence already walled off, and the pieces already not put together by then.
So I think the NY Times review has it right: In 2001 President Bush and his newly appointed aides had ample warning, including a briefing paper titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” and they failed to take it seriously enough, but their missteps are not equal. It’s like focusing blame for a school shooting at the beginning of the school year on the student’s new home room teacher; the adults who watched the boy torment classmates and poison small animals knew better.
Which none of you wanna hear. But whatever happens to ABC’s movie (a movie few of us have seen, and the left doesn’t want anyone to be able to see), you’re not gonna be able to airbrush the 8 years before Bush. It will be gone over for generations to come. And now we know that the hard left wants to use censorship to control how people like Clinton, Albright, and Berger are depicted. This will backfire on you.
Tom in Texas
Fahrenheit 9/11 and Path to 9/11 are not the same, Oaf. Let us count the ways:
F-9/11 shows actual footage of actual events.
P2-9/11 shows actual actors faking events.
F-9/11 was never presented as nonpartisan by anyone.
P2-9/11 claims to be nonpartisan.
F-9/11 is a movie, shown in movie theaters where people pay money and choose to see the film they want to see.
P2-9/11 is on public airwaves, shown commercial free. If it were on HBO or in movie theaters, there would be no attempts at censorship.
LoafingOaf
Tom in Texas:
It would just kill you to call F9/11 what it is: a pack of conspiracy theories and deceptions. None of us has seen PAth to 9/11. For all I know I’ll hate it. I want to judge it for myself and I don’t want censors like you to prevent me from doing so.
And if you think documentaries cannot be every bit as fake as any other form of movie, you’re not very bright.
I find it interesting that John Conyers was IN F9/11 and is now trying to censor Path to 9/11. But then numerous Democrat congressman made a big photo-op endorsement screening of that movie, and Democrats inviting Moore to their convention. You helped the terrorists with that film and it’s propaganda and now you’re gonna censor a movie that the NY Times just gave a positive review. As I said, the hard left is becoming un-American. That you don’t see what you’re becoming is the saddest thing of all. The movie should air and people should feel free to respond to it with their own free speech. That is the American way.
Tom in Texas
I am not saying the movie should never be seen. That is impossible at this point anyway. All I am saying is that there is a difference between releasing a propagandic movie like F911 in a movie theater and broadcasting one following the first games of the NFL season, when ratings are astronomical, and following Monday Night Football on ABC subsidiary ESPN, when ratings are the same.
Tom in Texas
Not to mention ABC’s rank propoganda hides behind a veil of objectivity. Fahrenheit never claimed to be objective or unbiased. Everything about the movie was biased, from the title to the promotional campaign. If a studio wants to make a movie reversing the roles and blaming everything about 9/11 on Clinton, more power to them. This situation is entirely different, however.
Pb
LoafingOaf,
Yeah, I believe I just covered that; see above.
Do you, perchance, like pie?
Mac Buckets
Well, duh.
Why would it be helpful — are you denying that these sentiments were expressed at the time by many libs? Because that’s a losing argument. There were just too many to link. One was from the New York Times. One was from the master of hypocritical liberal journalism, Bill Press (“bunch of weenies”), one was from some random lefty columnist (the “I’m no conservative” — heaven forfend!), the Daschle quote and Brolin’s manager quotes were from Daschle and Brolin’s manager (through one of those conservative media watchdog sites. One was from some socialist blog (stunning act of cowardice).
Of course you can ascertain they were from lefties. I said they were, I’m never wrong, and I don’t ever have the need to lie. I’m Mac Buckets, punk! Who the hell are you?
chopper
so what? sounds like a crappy excuse to ignore something to me.
again, another excuse. you asked for posts, i provide them, then you start babbling about how they ‘don’t count.’ pathetic.
actually, if you had read what he said about darrell’s statement, he took offense to the idea that clinton and bush were both responsible ‘in large amounts’, not that clinton bore any responsibility at all. you really should read the posts you’re criticizing.
prove it.
Pb
What the righties had to say about it at the time was far more entertaining; I particularly enjoyed reading this quote:
chopper
boy, you right wingers sure get pissy when someone stops you’re kind from spreading a known lie on national TV for purely political purposes.
Pb
What, did Bush cancel a speech? Oh well, there’s always Fox, right…
Mac Buckets
As has been explained to me by lefties, that too was Bush’s fault.
He should’ve known that Democrats never have the will and/or capacity to fight our enemies effectively, so he should’ve known that as soon as he got into the White House, he needed to get rid of all the Democrat vestiges he could in order to fight terrorism effectively.
Like a new home owner who finds a kitchen full of off-brand, 30-year-old appliances, Bush should’ve known that all that old Democrat stuff had to go: He needed to fire Slam Dunk Tenet and get a real spook in there rather than a career politico, to dismantle the Gorelick Wall and put a sensible policy in there that whimpered less about Jamie’s famous “appearances” of civil liberties violations and cared more about sharing information that could stop terrorists attacking the US, and to reexamine critically every bit of national security intelligence that the Democrats administration had produced.
See, still Bush’s fault! What was he thinking, trusting the Democrats on national security issues? Glad that will never happen again!
Mac Buckets
I gave you partial credit, despite the poster’s whining. Be grateful.
I asked for lefties who assigned Clinton some resposibility. When jg says that assigning Clinton resposibility is “a load of nonsense” that “means we are fucked as a country,” you think that counts? Nope. Sorry. And I don’t buy for a second your inferring that jg was really only talking about the specific amount of responsibility.
Have done so repeatedly. Reminder: Passage of multiple anti-terror laws, wide support for Clinton’s military strikes against Al Qaeda, failure of the left’s “Wag the Dog” meme, etc.
MaryS-NJ
LoafingOaf: “But F9/11 was allowed to be shown, and those who felt it was bad could then reply to it as they liked. Which is how it’s supposed to work in a country with freedom of speech.”
F911 was shown on ABC without commercials? I don’t remember that. When did it happen?
chopper
yeah, cause those republicans really showed their awesome abilities to fight terror before 9/11. they were soooooo effective. i remember how bush made it such a priority in 2001.
Like a new home owner who finds a kitchen full of off-brand, 30-year-old appliances,
yeah, its like a home owner who finds the kitchen full of old appliances, and the previous owner warned him about how he tried to fix the stove but it’s still kinda fucked so watch out cause it’ll break soon, but the new dude doesn’t care and a year later the stove breaks and burns his house down. so he blames the previous owner, cause it’s obviously more his fault.
Mac Buckets
Every historical movie ever made is “inaccurate,” Doug. The Reagans,” “The Missiles of October,” “Tora! Tora! Tora!” “Pearl Harbor” — OK, the inaccuracies in Pearl Harbor are the least objectionable parts of it — bad example.
So when’s the burning ceremony to be held?
chopper
wow, partial credit. you’re like one of those professors i had who mistakenly counted something on a test wrong, and when you showed him he screwed up, said ‘okay, i’ll give you partial credit’. so you’re wrong, just admit it. sheesh.
of course it does. he says plainly that he accepts clinton’s responsibility. end of story.
of course not, cause that would actually mean you’d have had to have read his post. it’s far easier for you to skip over that bit.
actually, you’ve asserted a lot, but proven squat. name this plethora of anti-terror laws. show me this wide support for the strikes against bin laden among the GOP. newt gingrich and two senators on the news hour saying ‘it’s okay’ are not ‘wide support’.
Mac Buckets
I’m sorry, you have to help me here: When exactly did Clinton warn Bush that Tenet was a useless political hack, that the Gorelick Wall was a moronic policy of PC over national interest, and that we had no idea who was in our country trying to kill Americans?
Because I must have missed Clinton’s “Dude, we really fucked things up while we were here” speech.
Mac Buckets
That’s hilarious — the lefties whine about massive GOP obstruction of Clinton’s Al Qaeda efforts over and over, offering absolutely no proof except “A couple Republicans said Wag the Dog!”. When I post multiple links for two days that show they are full of shit, you call them assertions, and ask me to provide a link to every Republican in America verifying that they supported Clinton’s efforts.
I’ve had my daily intake of irony now. Thanks. I think we may safely consider the “GOP Obstruction of Clinton’s Al Qaeda Efforts” meme as dead as the “Wag the Dag” meme.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Against my better judgement, I’ll throw you another bone here–next time, though, you’ll have to do your own digging for it.
Mac Buckets
Sorry, I don’t go to Crackhead Leopold’s site. Tell me what your point is.
Mac Buckets
By the way, I got blasted for mentioning something Drudge discovered (which I didn’t see at Drudge and which was proved to be 100% accurate), and then you cite Lefty Wetdream Fantasy site “RawStory” with its history of lying, intimidation, violations of journalistic efforts, and laughable editorial content? Which still claims Rove was indicted for Plame?
The irony never stops here at Balloon Juice!
Mac Buckets
And ethics, too.
chopper
i’ll take that as a ‘no, i don’t have the evidence you ask for’ then. so be it.
i looked through the thread and found only a few links from you, one to a transcript for the news hour where two goopers didn’t go with the ‘wag the dog’ scenario. well, that, combined with gingrich, sure doesn’t make evidence for ‘wide support’ among the GOP for clinton’s strikes.
you cite a few bills, and laughably include the dole death penalty law, which was passed to help authorities fight domestic terrorism (it was passed in the wake of the OKC bombing).
as for clinton’s airline security bill, the GOP filed their own alright, after killing clinton’s. they severely watered down dozens of parts of the bill, including clinton’s proposal to require explosives manufacturers to mark components with trackable ‘taggants’. that of couse was due to pressure from the NRA. others parts were gutted were under the influence of the airline industry. i’m surprised they didn’t try to insert a tax cut for the rich in there as well while they were at it.
yeah, those republicans sure cared about stopping al qaeda terrorism all right. please, stop trying to rewrite history.
Mac Buckets
Yeah, I’ll just post links to all 300 republican congressmen at the time, to prove to you that they all rejected Wag the Dog. You just wait here. I mean, since you’ve done SO MUCH WORK to prove there was a massive outcry of “Wag the Dog” from the Republicans after Clinton struck at the training camp. Oh, wait, that’s right — you’ve done nothing.
If you think you’re being clever, you are sadly mistaken.
Sorry, what would “taggants” have done to stop Al Qaeda on 9/11? Zip, right? Doesn’t really prove your point, eh?
chopper
you said there was ‘wide support’ among republicans. if you have no evidence of that, just admit it.
if you think that the ‘taggants’ part was the only part of the massive omnibus security bill, then sure, i’d see how you’d mistakely assume that’s all it was. the bill had dozens of parts intended to beef up security in airports, and it was shot down and crippled by the GOP.
so were clinton’s attempts at legislation tightening controls on encryption and help fund government encryption-breaking tools to catch coded messages (ashcroft led the opposition on that one).
so were clinton’s attempts at legislation tracking terrorism through banking transactions, aiming at banks that al qaeda specifically used to launder their money.
at the end of his term, clinton got 20 countries to close tax havens used by AQ to move money around, and the incoming bush administration opted out of the deal.
it’s plainly obvious that the GOP didn’t care about these things.
Paul L.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Democrats the party of
Free SpeechFree Speech for me not thee..Senate Dems Issue Broadcast License Threats to Hold Up ‘Path to 9/11’
demimondian
Hey, Paul! How’s the Qana == Jenin stuff going, again?
Richard 23
Variety is reporting that ABC may pull the plug:
Paul L.
Nice change of subject. I thought you people were against government censorship.
As for Qana.
They haven’t found the other 28 bodies yet. Just more fabrication, manipulation, and staging of events by Hezbollah that were repeated mindlessly by the press.
Do you have any more quotes from Amnesty International?
chopper
you know, i’m looking through the news at the time and after clinton’s strikes against iraq and afghanistan, during the whole impeachment deal. and i’m seeing descriptions of
and
quotes from lott, specter, committee chairs like solomon and goss and coats (“While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.”).
the funniest part of all; when clinton bombed the hell out of iraq back then, goopers called the timing into question. yet that bombing is likely what destroyed all the leftovers of saddam’s WMD program. the GOP was so full of hatred for clinton and everything he did, they assumed WMDs were there b/c they couldn’t believe that the bombing was for any reason but a distraction, and this crappy current war resulted.
Darrell
That’s not the first time either. They tried to have the FCC go after Rush Limbaugh with their “Fairness” in broadcasting legislation last year.. and of course, they cheered the Reagan’s series and promoted F911 as a “documentary”. Hilarious how such a group of dishonest hypocrites who want to censor opposing views see themselves as such noble truth tellers defending free speech.
Darrell
Too stupid for words..
chopper
how so? the reason clinton bombed iraq back then was saddam was acting cagey with UN inspectors trying to inspect suspected WMD sites. he pulled the inspectors out and bombed the place, dropping 600 precision munitions and 425+ cruise missiles on suspected WMD sites.
it was a massive bombing, to say the least. over 1000 sorties and 100 or so suspected sites targeted.
and guess what, after all that there were no more WMDs in iraq. you do the math.
too stupid indeed. you describe yourself to a tee, darrell.
Paul L.
And yet no one in the anti-war bunch screamed Disproportionate Response and what about the civilian casualties.
Darrell
For starters, the Kay report
and Bill Clinton himself on Larry King in 2003:
Like I said, too stupid for words. But keep on clinging to that chopper.. it shows how ‘reality based’ you truly are.
Richard 23
Reread this thread to see how far out the wackjob left has become.
And I like pie.
chopper
ah, the old ‘WMD-related program activities’ dodge. yep, those are the same as WMDs all right. god bless those ‘program activities’.
did david “it turns out that we were all wrong” kay cite evidence of actual WMDs before we invaded? what about the duelfer report as well? no? well shit then, you’re wrong.
that’s what my whole assertion is about, darrell; WMDs, not your neither-here-nor-there ‘-related program activities’.
WMDs were there, then clinton bombed WMD sites, then the WMDs were gone. seems pretty simple, no?
so you believe bill clinton now? jesus, now i know you’re reaching when you start citing bill clinton as an unimpeachable source of facts. keep reaching for that rainbow, darrell.
Paul Clayton
If Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger tell us that we should not see this slander, then we should believe them. I would hate to have to decide on my own whether it is accurate or not. I also think that since 911 is such an important and emotional subject, any future work, book, song, film or painting, should be subject to review and approval by the Clintons before release.
Tom Betz
Brian said:
you must have missed the opening statement from Clarke’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission: