« Democrats Censor ABC | Babalu Blog - Main Page | Message for the Miami Herald »

Great Post George! you are so right! ... Again! :)

This entire incident has brought to mind the recent uproar about the intolerance and many other not too nice attributes given to the Cuban-Americans in Miami, who wanted the book "Vamos a Cuba" removed ... since it was classified as a "reference book" and yet it was evident that it had historical inacuracies, with no type of disclaimer...

Typical double standard of the left-wing liberals in this country!
:) Melek

"The liberal left poses as our moral superiors, "But do they actually practice what they preach?" ~ P. Schweizer

It's a burden, I tell you.

I just heard WABC news in NYC and it sounded like the Clinton stuff is still on and that Clinton is still trying to stop this.

Look what I found in Youtube in 2 parts.
try to remain calm!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Er94h3Kjnag&mode=related&search=

http://youtube.com/watch?v=75KLLCm-jX8

Look what I found in Youtube in 2 parts.
try to remain calm!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er94h3Kjnag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75KLLCm-jX8

The exec. producter, Marc Platt, is a dem and hardly a right wing propagandist. He donated thousands to Gore prior to the 2000 election. So the dems are more than disengenuous here. Heck, didn't the dems praise the propaganda hit piece Michael Moore did on "W" prior to the 2004 election? I didn't see the GOP threatening to pull Moore's driver's license or cause him union trouble, or sticking a horse's head in his bed.

Mike my point exactly!!!

Deep breath, people and read John Podhoretz, who writes for both National Review and the New York Post, y'know, those bastions of liberalism: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/path_missed_real_9_11_story_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm

With all due respect to John Podhoretz, whom I admire greatly, I think he is being way too fair regarding these events. Clearly, the Islamic threat was on the radar of the Clinton Administration: two incidents in 1993 (WTC & Somalia), Khobar Towers, the embassies in Africa, (alledgedly) Murrah and TWA Flight 800, and the USS Cole. If after all of these, you continue to vacilate and take no serious action against the enemy, then you are guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. Albright & Berger, if portrayed poorly, deserve everything they get. They are colossal hypocrites. All they cared about then, and all they care about now, is covering their asses and protecting the perjurer-in-chief's so-called "legacy."

the Sun Sentinel is reporting that ABC is saying screw you to the dems...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-98pathto911,0,6132003.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

And Sandy Berger, let us not forget the docs he took from the National Archives...what did those docs have that he did not want the commission to see?

On Sandy Berger.

"let us not forget the docs he took from the National Archives...what did those docs have that he did not want the commission to see?"

You are absolutely right Mike, but what worries me the most is the documents he put back! Is Sandy Berger trying to re-write history? What legitimate documents did he replace with fake ones?

On September 11, 2001.

99.9% of the responsibility for what happened on September 11, 2001 lies on President Bill Clinton and his administration. We all know that acts of terrorism of such a magnitude take YEARS of planning. After all, Bill Clinton was president FOR EIGHT YEARS while President Bush had just taken on his presidency when 9/11 occurred. A person needs to be dimwitted not to figure this out without having it corroborated on a film.

"Where can I get an Ahmed Massoud t-shirt?"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzcxNGZkMGQ3Y2E3NjY4NmVlMzBkMWFiMDVkYmUzNWY=

George is right. Klinton and his klan never took "terrorism" seriously. No response - time and time and time again. Now they are squirming as their own history is about to be exposed. EXPOSE AWAY. Let's see how ABC re-writes that history. I only hope it's not a total blow-out.

Thanks to my good bud, Jeff, in beautiful Huntington, Long Island, for finally entering the 21st century and commenting on a blog I write on! Welcome!

BTW, do you know what "ABC" stands for:

Appeasing Bill Clinton.

What I want to know is, where the hell are all those local liberal bloggers that were so incensed - INCENSED!!!! - that the local school board opted to remove a farse of a book on Cuba that they wrote post after post after post decrying that affront to the consitution?

Where are they now? Where's the howls of "CENSORSHIP!!!!"? Where are the screams for the SANCTITY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

That sound you all dont hear from the liberal front has a name: Hypocrisy.

Anything less than a sterling assessment of the Clinton administrations's terror record would prompt Clinton to whine, whine, whine. Now here's a fairly damning interpretation of him and his subordinates which is probably much closer to events as they unfolded, and he the Dems can't handle it, and they in effect will NEVER admit to their past failings.

Clinton talked about terror, but never did anything substantively about it, unless of course you count half measures like bombing an empty Pharmaceutical factory in the dead of nite a meaningful strike on the forces of global jihad. Im glad that Sec. Albright, Sandy Berger, and Clinton get a dressing down and are exposed for what they were: feckless incompetents who were not ready or willing to deal with real threats to our security, and opted to engage in endless talk and posturing rather than with meaningful action. The History has to be told for those willing to hear it, and this mini-series, while imperfect and part dramatized, im sure will be a bold step in telling the truth for future generations who can handle it.

Writing as someone who was in NY on 9-11 and saw hundreds of my neighbors literally disappear all around me, we owe it to them to speak the truth about what happened without apology, and not to compromise with forces who seek to either avoid or water down the Truth.

anyone remember how people got all bent out of shape over the cbs/ reagan movie.. the dems cried foul then, and now they are whining louder than ever..

Where's the ACLU with rants about upholding the 1st amendment?

Also, you know what else Clinton's really worried about? His future fund raising ability.

The ACLU? Watching child porn with NAMBLA while reading the Koran. Why do you ask?

the scene they are whining about, where Berger hangs up as they are about to get bin laden and doesn't get their go ahead is not a fabrication and a lie. There were at least a dozen opportunties and they balked each time, 4 of these times are documented in the 9/11 commission. What they did apparently is took all of these and made one scene out of it.

ABC = Appeasing Bill Clinton

Ladies and gentlemen, another well known commie, Bill Bennett on the ABC "docudrama"

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/video-bill-bennett-says-abc-should-correct-those-inaccuracies-in-path-to-911/

Maybe you should think that there is something to the charges against the thing.

Bill Bennett is wrong. That's all there is to it. He is an insider who is protecting his turf. Guys: IT'S A FUCKING DOCU-DRAMA! WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF? I'll tell you: this "mythos" contains a strong whiff of the truth -- and that scares the hell out of them. You know what my response to the Reagan butcher-job of a few years ago was? I didn' watch it. If they had ignored it, it wouldn't have been a big deal, it would have been "just a movie." But now, with their hysteria, they have proven my point. They are scared shitless about the American people even realizing for two nights what a botched-up job they did on national defense. Not to mention Bubba's legacy (other than rape, perjury, and fellatio).

George,

All the hoopla couldnt be because a certain thick ankled former first lady is vying for the democratic presidential candidacy could it?

Nah....

/sarcasm

George,

Is Bill Bennett and insider who is protecting his turf?

What is BB's turf? Clinton, Albright and Sandy Berger?

Do you mean the same Bill Bennett who wrote a book titled "Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the assault on American Ideals" ? http://www.amazon.com/Death-Outrage-Clinton-Assault-American/dp/0684864037/sr=8-1/qid=1157755959/ref=sr_1_1/103-7024554-2249456?ie=UTF8&s=books

Bill Bennett is described in this article as "one of President Clinton's biggest critics during Clinton's impeachment." http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2004-02-25-media-mix_x.htm

In actuality, all you have to do to find out what a class of insider BB is, is to google Bill Bennett, Clinton and impeachment.

Val,

The hoopla could well also be because Hillary's ambitious. (Or not since there is a rumor she is not running. For the record: I don't believe it.)

But things aren't always so simple. We have an election less than two months from now. Portraying the Clinton admin. in a worse light than facts would merit with respect to 9/11 would give the Reps. an undeserved advantage. Maybe, see, just maybe, it is not just the New York Times or the Miami Herald or Hillary who has an agenda. Maybe the people involved in this project are not all well intentioned.

My point is: please watch Bennett, and/or read Podhoretz, both of which with impeccable conservative credentials and try to make your mind. The Corner at National Review, which I read every day has been rather mild on this one. If they thought the reaction to "The Path" was really outrageous they would be up in arms.

Sometimes our own side goes too far.

Bill Bennett's turf of Washington, D.C. He is an insider.

"In a worse light than facts would merit with respect to 9/11?" Dude, where were you in the 90s? NOTHING was done by Bill and the boys -- and I include Janet and Madeline -- about terrorism. BTW, "our side" never goes the distance. I am tired of taking the high road when fighting these motherfuckers. We need to take the gloves off and start beating the shit out of them every fucking day. No more Mr. Nice Guy. They have compared to us to nazis, fascists, they have called us intolerant and bigoted. Our President is compared to Hitler on a regular basis. FUCK THEM.

George,

Bill Bennett was the same Washingtonian insider when he was beating the fuck out of Clinton.

I wasn't here in the 90's. I was in Brazil. Bush didn't do much before 9/11 either, BTW. But that neither here nor there. I don't object to the movie criticizing Clinton, Albright or Burger, but what seem to be outright inventions that yeah, put them in a worse light that facts would merit with respect to 9/11. And doing so while claiming to be based on the 9/11 Comission Report. Wrong.

You are tired of taking the high road and you want to beat "those motherfuckers." Fine. Other people will raise to defend them as much as you defend Bush. And that's fine too. But take in consideration that you won't ever hear the Hitler analogies coming from either Clinton or Albright. Those come from the fringe of the left, the reverse mirror of those who called the Clintons communists.

Eduardo, help me out here. I really want to understand something. The screenwriter of the movie said today (and I heard it with my own ears) that the scene Berger and Albright object most strenously to was in fact a "conflation" of TWELVE events when Bin Laden was in their sights and they declined to kill or capture him. The CIA operative who was in Afghanistan said that the orders to not get Bin Laden had to have come from the National Security Council (Clarke, Albright, Berger, Tenet, et al). Please tell me how the portrayal in the movie is unfair. Let me repeat what I wrote earlier:

IT'S A FUCKING DOCU-DRAMA! WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF? I'll tell you: this "mythos" contains a strong whiff of the truth -- and that scares the hell out of them. You know what my response to the Reagan butcher-job of a few years ago was? I didn' watch it. If they had ignored it, it wouldn't have been a big deal, it would have been "just a movie." But now, with their hysteria, they have proven my point. They are scared shitless about the American people even realizing for two nights what a botched-up job they did on national defense. Not to mention Bubba's legacy (other than rape, perjury, and fellatio).

As for Bennett, don't get me wrong. I admire the guy. I've read one of his books. But that doesn't excuse him for defending the indefensible. The Bush Administration has bent over backwards to not sully the Clinton Administration's abysmal record vis-a-vis terrorism. It's time we, the ones who pay for this government, are told the truth.

Eduardo,

When did you get here? Bush had been President for
about 7 months when 9/11 hapenned. And most of that time he was dealing with "pregnant and broken chads"
And recount after recount, not to mention, cleaning up mess left over from Clinton aides who trashed the offices. What could Bush have done in such a short time?

Yeah! The Dems. removed all the W from the keyboards. That act alone tells a lot about the kind of people the Clintons had working at the white house.

Here are the dems-on one hand saying that Bush's wiretapping of terrorists is unconstitutional. We have to protect people's rights of privacy. Then on the other hand they want to be the final say on WHAT IS AIRED AND WHAT PEOPLE CAN WATCH ON TV.
The left gets mad when they are compared to communists. Well if you don't want to be compared to communists don't do things that communists do. Communists control the media. They have state run television they produce Granma and other state run newspapers. They have the final say on what the people should see and hear. Sound familiar dems-with your vailed threats to pull ABC's licenses if they don't capitulate?
Privacy rights are great to undermine Bush and give terrorists the upperhand.
But free speech rights are bad when they cast a bad light on the political party of choice.

Ahh the dems-they giveth are rights and they taketh them away because it is only they who know which rights are good for us and which rights are bad.

Mavi,

Here are some facts: The pregnant ballots and the hanging chads story ended with the Supreme Court ruling of 12/10/2000 giving Bush the presidency http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
You can also read the concession speech of Gore of 12/13/2000
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/t651213.html

But Bush first term started on 01/20/2001.

See, sometimes you can get your facts right by just googling even if you weren't in the country at the time.

And for Bush being distracted by the supposed trashing of the White House, what can I say?

George,

Your opinions and mine on this are rock solid. I don't have basically any other argument that either JPod or BB haven't said.

We might want to agree to disagree on this one.

I thank you for being respecful.

Can anyone plausibly deny that today's Democrats are not engaging in "McCarthyism"????

I think I here crickets chirping in the background...

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: