ABC Series: Path to 9/11 (dems come unglued)

gungasnake, no doubt the ABC show is a gross distortion of history. They now admit they have made up scenes which they are now editing out. They should cancel the show altogether now that they've been caught revising history. A much more relevent story would cover the period of Bushie's tenure from Jan. 2001 to 911. During that period despite a mountain of dire warnings Bushie had no sense of urgency about al qaeda or bin Laden as he told Bob Woodward. Not only did Bushie do nothing to counter al qaeda he actually opened many doors for the alleged hijackers. Here is one glaring example of that. http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=7352

More bullshit. Bush had just settled into the job more or less when 9/11 took place, as a result of eight years of de-mokkker-rat malfeasance in the office prior to that.

Bush didn't even have the usual two or three month transition period because of Algor's attempted coup d'etat in 00 and you assume it took them a month or so to even get the whitehouse functional again after the vandalism the KKKlintonistas committed on thier way out.

The most major thing which enabled 9/11 was Jamie Gorilla's "Gorelick Wall", which had been put into place to keep the FBI out of Chinagate.

The KKKlinton administration was a horrific disaster.

Don't confuse gungasnake with the facts. That said, I do not know why anyone would even converse with someone who refers to the KKKlinton administration. Why suffer idiots?

gunga, haha. "Bush had just settled into the job more or less" when he called off investigations of al qaeda. The John O'Neill story is just one example of what Bushie did to enable the attack.

Simple logic says that if Bush or other republicans had anythingn significant to hide on this one, that Republicans would be joining the dems in the effort to shut the miniseries down.

Maybe one of you two could point me to some sort of a source describing republican efforts to pressure ABC to cancel the miniseries or chop it to pieces before showing?

Here's another example of Bushie's opening doors for the hijackers. He started this insane program in June 2001 at the height of the warnings. Of course the program was canceled after 911 but who knows how many potential terrorists came here under this program and who are now only awaiting orders to attack. " Open Door for Saudi Terrorists
The Visa Express scandal." http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray061402.asp

Funny, a ctrl-F search for "bush" on that page doesn't turn up anything.

That's the low-level type decision which was generally still being made by burrowed-in KKKlintleristas at the time.

Again, if dems figure this story is going to harm Bush, why are they falling all over themselves trying to shut the miniseries down?

The time of Bushie's Presiduncy before 911 is not covered in the show as far as I know. And it is the most crucial time period when Bushie was not only neglecting the warnings but opening doors for the alleged hijackers. It's this time period the 911 Truth Movement should be focussing on.

"I didn't feel a sense of urgency." (Bush at War, Bob Woodward, 2002). ... http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-99

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/003759a4-8a39-4f44-8b4f-96af11c75218

Michael Medved:



Friday, September 08, 2006
Dem's Disgrace on 9/11 Miniseries
Posted by: Michael Medved at 9:22 PM

As of this posting (Friday afternoon, 6.30 Pacific Time) the liberal campaign to censor the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" has reached new heights of demagogic hysteria. Tom McMahon, executive director of the Democratic National Committee sent out an e-mail to supporters that began: "This is it: crunch time for getting the slanderous ABC television docudrama 'The Path to 9/11' yanked off the air. The network schedule has this slanderous attack on Democrats slated to start on Sunday night, September 10, at 8 o'colck -- and as long as it stays ont he schedule, we have work to do. Take a minute right now and tell Disney president Robert Iger to keep this right wing propaganda off the airwaves."

Unlike Mr. McMahon and his hyperventilating Democratic colleagues, I've actually watched the miniseries in question-- in its entirety -- and there is no chance that any sane observer who bothers to sit through all five hours of this riveting presentation could ever describe it as "right wing propaganda." As a matter of fact, the miniseries is particularly hard on the Bush administration and Condaleezza Rice, as well as highlighting the way that Clinton and his aides fell short in their dealing with the terrorist threat. In terms of running time of the presentation, at least ninety minutes of the mini series focuses on events during the Bush presidency-- representing at least 30% of the total program. Meanwhile, Bush was president during the period covered by the miniseries (February, 1993, through September 11, 2001) for only eight months; Clinton was president for eight years (less a single month). In other words, Clinton occupied the White House for 93% of the actual historical period under consideration, but his shortcomings occupy less than 70% of the miniseries running time.

In other words, by one easily quantifiable measure, "The Path to 9/11" doesn't inapporpirately focus on Clinton and his failures; if anything, it concentrates disproportionately on the disappointing performance of President Bush at the very beginning of his term.

The most depressing aspect of the concentrated Democratic campaign to "yank" (their word) this 40 million dollar production from the ABC schedule would be the message such censorship would send to other networks and producers. If ABC does (God forbid) decide to cancel the much-hyped showing of the miniseries because of liberal pressure, then everyone in Hollywood would learn the lesson that you must avoid serious projects, at all costs; you can easily get away with "Wife Swap" or "Temptation Island" or "Fear Factor," but if you attempt to broadcast a chilling, carefully crafted, deeply moving investigation of our national, bi-partisan failures in responding to terrorism, then some yahoo will squal and protest and attempt to shut you down. This is the text-book definition of censorship: prior restraint. That means cutting off speech before it even occurs, rather than protesting - or correcting the record- after you've actually heard what the other guy has to say.

Nor is the current Democratic effort to censor ABC in any substantive sense comparable to the conservative protests against the CBS miniseries about "The Reagans." The objection to that show was that President Reagan, stricken with Alzheimer's disease, had no possibility of responding to the sleazy, intimately personal attack on his reputation. By contrast, Bill Clinton can easily respond to any perceived cheap shot in the "The Path to 9/11" --- in fact he already has responded, while admitting he hasn't even seen the thing. The network is already making adjustments to the final edit to register some of President Clinton's objections. One can only hope that they stop there, rather than surrendering to the mob mentality, complete with pitchforks and torches, mobilized by Democratic Party demagogues who demand the cancellation of the miniseries.

That cancellation would represent a tragedy for the producers --who've already experienced the most vitriolic personal attacks, complete with publication of their home addresses, accompanied by death threats (one of them pronounced on my radio show, earlier today, by a troglodyte caller who talle writer-producer Cyrus Nowasteh "I hope you die") and warnings that "the gloves are off."

Please, put the gloves back on. Recognize that weeks ago ABC scheduled a one hour panel discussion after airing the miniseries so that people who objected to it in any way could make their opinions heard. As Justice Brandeis famously observed, the best remedy for bad ideas is good ones; the best response to bad speech is good speech. Free discourse -- and the whole medium of television -- will suffer if ABC buckles to pressure to stifle one of the most significant and substantive productions in TV history.

No doubt you mean this as an insult to the Democratic Party, Gunga, but I remain baffled. How exactly is this an insult? I mean, I could understand it if you called them "Democraps" or something like that, but I just don't get the whole "de-mokkker-rats" thing. An insult really doesn't work if it can't be readily comprehended, and I just don't get it (and others probably don't either -- a Google search of "Democraps" gets 74,000 hits, while "de-mokkker-rats" comes up with a big zero). So could you deconstruct that for us so that we can appreciate this inscrutable gibe as much as you seem to do?

Bumping in case Gungasnake missed my last post.

Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a bigger loon than I am, Gunga Din!


Ah . . . i never tire of doing that . . .

Especially given the fact that the "kkk" would have more in common with the conservatives than the liberals.
I've often wondered why he made the connection between dems or libs when there really is no general or historical connection between the KKK and the left wing.

De-mokkker-rats is basically just the way the name sounds like it wants to be pronounced, with the triple 'k' to represent the basic social heritage of the party.

The party somehow or other became quasi-respectable around the time of Truman and JFK when the ADA rooted the pure commies out of the party but, for most of its history going back into the early 1800s, it's been nothing but grief and trouble to the nation. Coming out of the depression era, the party fell into a thing in which the only basic skill or talent it could claim to have, i.e. the only thing it did halfway well, was representing victims, hence the modern science of victimology and the drive to create, import, and maintain victim groups.

Take hispanics for instance. Everything I ever do which involves swipecards anymore starts with "Choose a Language: English or Spanish".

Now, in the building complex where I live, there are people from 20 or 30 African countries and they all speak English and, if they don't when they get here, they do six or eight months later. I have yet for the first time to ever look at any sort of a swipecard machine and see any sort of a choice between English and Swahili or English and Bantu because somebody thinks Africans or negros are too stupid to learn English.

Somebody like Quinton Tarentino would undoubtedly interpret all of that as indicating that it was the official position of the US government and major sectors of the banking and commercial sectors that sp**s were fifty times dumber than n*****s.

In reality, what is going on is that no one African group is here in large enough numbers that the de-mokkker-rat party views them as a group worthy of official rat victim status.

Which is good news for the Africans, who generally are not aware of the extent to which they have lucked out.

Kinda like his K-K-Klinton references. What a troll.

The film was probably somewhat unfair to Albright and Berger, but then it didn't exactly strew flowers at the feet of the Bush Administration either. The film may have inferred some fault with both Clinton and Bush, and I think that wasn't unfair.

The fact is we have been at war, a war declared upon us by radical elements of Islam, since the fall of the Soviet Union. Without the restraining hand of the Soviets, Islamic terrorism became ever more bold. At first, they tested the waters to determine just how far they could go. They learned pretty fast that the West, and America in particular preferred not to believe that Islamic terrorism presented a credible threat to be taken seriously.

Even after the first attack on the World Trade Center, almost no one outside of the intelligence community took the threat seriously. The prevailing attitude in Congress and every administration was that a significant terrorist attack within CONTUS was almost unthinkable. The failure of the attack on the WTC for some seemed to confirm the ineptness of the terrorists.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, many Americans were overly confident in our ability to shape the peace. There were people in the intelligence community who warned that someday we might look back fondly on the stability of the Cold War years where the two great powers acted to constrain reckless adventurism by clients. No one listened, nor believed. Congress and every administration was determined to cut costs and put the grimy business of intelligence behind them. Effective espionage requires getting one's hands dirty, and that bothered those who tend to wrap themselves in self-righteous virtue. Politicians. HUMINT was cut to the bone and beyond. Field operatives were withdrawn and networks collapsed, often resulting in the deaths of Joes who had faithfully served our interests for years. The U.S. decided to place its entire faith in technical intelligence, primarily SATINT and ELINT. People working in the intelligence community trenches grumbled, but "theirs not to reason why". If there was fault, where did it lie? Ultimately, the American electorate got what they wanted ... the belief that our government was virtuous and above the fray.

The Gulf War was fought for a limited purpose, to eject Iraq from Kuwait. Once that was done, President Bush stopped the fighting. Intelligence and military thinkers of the time advised pushing the effort to conclusion, but that exceeded the stated mission. At the time the Administration did not seem to see the continuing and escalating dangers that were brewing in Southern Asia, so they decided to merely constrain Saddam. That didn't work, though many here would disagree. Iraq is located at the center of the Middle East, and never ceased to be a destabilizing agent in the region. Saddam's apparent drive to acquire terror weapons was accepted as fact by intelligence services around the globe. There seemed to be good reason to believe that Saddam was providing sanctuary and support for terrorist organizations. Saddam violated cease fire conditions continuously for over a decade, and no sanction appeared to moderate the threat from Saddam's government.

On the eve of 9/11 there was a lot of concern in the mid to lower ranks of the intelligence community that a major and significant terrorist attack would be made on the U.S. There were a lot of worrisome signs that an attack was coming, but no one knew where or when, or even with any certainty of how the attack would be made. On 9/9 I spent several hours with a Naval Captain outside of the belt-way discussing various possible modes for what we agreed was almost certain to happen within the year. Because the participants were Navy oriented, we thought there might be an attack on Washington (the Pentagon, Congress, the White House, and various other valuable targets) by shoulder launched missiles from the Potomac River. Two days later, from Bolling AFB my son and I watched the smoke rise from the Pentagon. My son knew several of those killed at the Pentagon that day, and he was so convinced of Iraq's guilt he would have favored a nuclear strike on Baghdad. Emotions were high that day, and the emotions are still pretty high in this country ... as well they should be.

There is plenty of blame to spread around about 9/11 if that's what turns you on. Much more useful is to understand that all of the people, in Washington and around the country, took positions that seemed reasonable to them at the time. Only in retrospect, were all the clues clear.

We are still struggling with the problem of how to fight this war. Some still believe that the terrorists are only criminals. Law enforcement, abiding by all the rules of criminal law that have grown up since the mid-20th century, should gather hard evidence that a crime has been committed, identify the exact perpetrators, arrest them and bring them to open trial before a jury drawn from our community. There are many problems with that approach when dealing with large religious-oriented organizations who regard themselves as soldiers of god at war with evil infidels. These are sophisticated people who, unlike most criminals (even the Mafia, or the Drug Cartels), know how to manipulate the press, and modern communications/computer technology for destruction, not material gain. This sort of enemy is disavowed by most national governments, even when they encourage, finance, and supply terrorist operations. They aren't, therefore soldiers in any conventional sense and do not accept any constraints upon their holy war against the materialistic and humanistic West. So treating them like real soldiers doesn't work very well either. Are they when captured POWs? Since there is no "war" in any conventional sense, they aren't soldiers and shouldn't be thought of as prisoners of war. Not conventional POWs and not conventional criminals.

This is going to remain a problem for some time, until the West resolves the status of these murders who are more like late 18th century pirates than soldiers or common criminals. In those days, captured pirates were given a brief Admiralty trial and hung without any hesitation. When the British put down the Sepoy Rebellion (also a problem with Muslims), they stitched the captured leaders in pig skins, tied them to the mouths of cannon and fired a salute. The Sepoy Rebellion ended promptly and Britain went on to stabilize the sub-continent.

You'll have to explain that one to me. I am not familiar with the notion of words wanting to be pronounced in certain ways, having always assumed that words, being mere concepts, did not hold very strong opinions on any subject, even on those things like pronunciation that one would suspect that words, if they held opinions at all, would hold opinions.


It's quite true that, in its earliest days, the KKK and the Democratic party had some affinities for each other, and some prominent Democrats have been members of the KKK (like Justice Hugo Black and Sen. Robert Byrd). Of course, to say that the Democratic party of today has any relationship with the KKK is to ignore about seventy years of US history. It's about as valid as identifying the GOP as the party of freemen of color because Lincoln was the "Great Emancipator." True at one time, but not today.