Karl Rove: The real 20th hijacker?

World Net Daily ^ | 9/11/06 | Rusty Humphries

[Jack Bull]

Karl Rove: The real 20th hijacker?

If much of the press can't figure out that Joe Wilson is a liar, why should we expect them to figure out al-Qaida has ties to and operations in Iraq?

If hundreds of ''top'' journalists can't grasp the possible role of the Sun in the warming and cooling of the Earth, why would anyone expect them to grasp the impact of liberty in reducing Islamo-fascism in the Middle East?

If the media can't remember what today's Democrats said five years ago about Saddam Hussein and his quest for WMD, why would we expect them to remember the slaughter of human life that occurred in Southeast Asia immediately after we pulled out of Vietnam?

On this fifth anniversary of one of our nation's most tragic days and most needed wake-up calls, I find myself wondering why so many in the American media are so cavalier with their slanted and misleading coverage of our struggle against terrorists. Absent the devastation that took place in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, I might be more forgiving as to the failure of some in the media to appreciate the danger posed by the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, Saddam Hussein, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il. But that attack, to me, was a clarion call of such magnitude that I will never comprehend the failure to not only give our commander in chief the benefit of the doubt in carrying out his duty to defend our country, but the active and irrational portrayal of America as a provocateur in this great conflict.

Perhaps I'm hyper-sensitive during this time of war, but I could swear I have seen more articles about the danger Karl Rove poses to our Republic than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And I know for a fact bloggers on The Daily Kos, Moveon.org and The Huffington Post have directed more hysterical outrage toward Mr. Rove, President Bush and Sen. Joe Lieberman than toward those who plotted to detonate ten jets in mid-air just a few weeks ago.

Along those same lines, we are now in the midst of a controversy whether or not to air, or how much to censor, the ABC miniseries, "The Path to 9/11." Without question, there is a far more impressive and coordinated protest over the details of the Clinton administration's obvious lack of focus on the metastasizing terror movement in the 1990s than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's blind pursuit of nuclear weapons or his declaration to wipe Israel off the map. Strange, isn't it, that the hundreds of thousands of protest letters that has been reportedly sent to ABC have all been delivered by people who have yet to see the mini-series? Which brings us to the better-late-than-never comparison of the Bush and Clinton doctrines:

The Bush Doctrine: To act preemptively to prevent damage to U.S. targets and to participate, diplomatically or militarily, in the transformation of the Arab world from endless tyranny and intolerance to liberty and democratization.

The Clinton Doctrine: To act preemptively to prevent damage to the Clinton legacy, utilizing legal and political threats, and protesting potentially harmful events before those events actually occur.

From what I have seen this past week, the left-leaning media have worked far harder to defend the Clinton Doctrine than the Bush Doctrine.

And only five years after we were attacked on our own soil.

The war forced us to deal with depraved and deranged fascists who claim divine inspiration and permission for their naked evil. And, one would think it would be advantageous to have a war with so easily discernable good and bad guys. This is ''Star Wars'' made easy. Yet, we witness the daily barrage of angry, reckless, and whacky speculation from the left about Karl Rove's role in arranging November elections just two months after Sept. 11 (!); Karl Rove's role in tricking Joe Wilson to out his own CIA/desk jockey/non-undercover agent wife; Karl Rove's certain capture and concealment of Osama bin Laden for the purpose of creating the "Mother-of-All-October-Surprises'' ... and on and on.

The American media have so miserably failed to ignore bizarre and unsubstantiated slanders and accusations pertaining to our military and their commander in a time of war and have failed to expose the frightening truth about our enemies while enthusiastically promoting the agenda of solution-less, out-of-power, Bush-hating, left-wing politicians, that they have been, and remain a liability in this war on terror. How else can one interpret the media's deep understanding and vigilant reporting of the unacceptable behavior of Mel Gibson, yet fail to report with the same vigor the unacceptable behavior of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, Kim Jong-Il's, Kofi Annan's, Saddam Hussein's, and Sheik Hassan Nasrallah's of this world?

It is distressing, if I may use the technique of understatement, to observe the five-year anniversary of the declaration of war against our country, knowing much of the American media have rejected their role of fact-finders and fact-checkers in favor of acting as lobbyists for liberals and those who share their transparent hatred of our president. A president, by the way, who can reflect upon this, the five-year anniversary of our country, not being attacked by terrorists.

I choose to reflect upon that accomplishment, as well. It didn't happen by accident, and it didn't happen as a result of the tireless investigative journalism unleashed upon the one enemy the press is convinced we must capture and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law – after prolonged torture – if we are to remain safe and free: Karl Rove.

Now there's a miniseries the left would never protest.

[Jack Bull]

The ABC mini-series, "The Path to 9/11" was great last night. The more Americans that see this, the more clearly and positively they will view those who have been fighting terrorists. Democrats fight Rove, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc., the way Bush and Co. fight Islamo-fascists. Time to get our priorities straight.

[Brilliant]

I would like to know how much of it was sanitized though. If Clinton was angry because he thought it made him look bad, then I wonder why. There did not appear to be anything in it that made Clinton look bad.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Now that was a lovely sophist rant.

[alice_in_bubbaland]

Yes, the hate and derangement of the terrorists was clearly evident in last nights movie. I'm glad I watched it and the sooner the majority of Americans realize this the better! The dims are too busy hating Pres. Bush and after five years, they still fail to accept the truth!

[Samwise]

Free Karl Rove bump

[alice_in_bubbaland]

Wait.....they will probably make Pres. Bush look worse tonight.

[ShandaLear]

After watching it, I don't think their is a real issue with editing, sanitizing, etc. It is what it is and there's no getting around it.

[shankbear]

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

[Brilliant]

They obviously sanitized it though. Clinton complained, and they subsequently edited it. What they cut out is the question.

[ShandaLear]

Like I said, it doesn't matter what they took out (if anything), the truth still speaks loud and clear. Clinton was disengaged and Sandy Berger cared more about poiiticl fall out than he cared about capturing bin Laden. Albright looked like a complete bafoon. I can understand why the left has been screaming for a week.

[cripplecreek]

I'm glad it showed that we weren't the beloved nation worldwide that liberals try to pretend we were under Clinton mismanagement. Under Clinton we stirred up the Taliban and left ahmed Masood to deal with the consequenses of a strengthened Taliban and Al Qeada in Afghanistan. In fact the clinton administration left a lot of people screwed in the mideast.

[oust the louse]

What I'm afraid will happen is tonights show depicts W in a badlight. This last episode will be ingrained in the heads of the left and the dumb public that Bush was asleep at the wheel. The last part of this will not paint W in a very good light,I would bank on that.....

[HawaiianGecko]

Actually they knocked a full 20 minutes out of just the first evening's showing. We'll know later how much they have edited from tonight's finale. Here are the links to the clips that were edited out in last night's show.

ABC Path to 911 Clip 1
ABC Path to 911 Clip 2
ABC Path to 911 Clip 3
ABC Path to 911 Clip 4
ABC Path to 911 Clip 5
ABC Path to 911 Clip 6

 

These are links to the 911 Commission Report that refer to the "Sandy Berger" incident.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-128.html

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-129.html

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-130.html

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-131.html
 

Page numbers 111-114 of the actual book. Explain the operation depicted in the movie involving the "cut" scenes of Sandy Berger.

Another section concerning the "cut" movie scene begins at:

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-147.html

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-147.html

Together I can clearly see how the creators of "The Path to 9/11" came up with the Sandy Berger scene from the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

[monday]

" If Clinton was angry because he thought it made him look bad, then I wonder why. There did not appear to be anything in it that made Clinton look bad."

It made Clinton's National security adviser Sandy Berger, look like a coward and secretary of state Madeline Albright, look like an idiot, and it showed Clinton to be more concerned about the Monica Lewinsky scandal than Osama Ben Laden. CIA director George Tenant also showed a complete lack of balls.

Interesting that you didn't notice. I wonder how many other people watched it and failed to notice.

[ShandaLear]

The point that the Clinton administration was more concerned about its image than it was about terrorism or bin Laden still comes through loud and clear.

[Jack Bull]

ditto

[ShandaLear]

I understand people are upset about the edits and the fact that they occurred due to political pressure. But at some point, they are throwing out the baby with the bath water. It does not change the theme or impact of what happened.

[showme_the_Glory]

Big DU PR stunt. Scream like babies all the time knowing that ABC would never harm them. Gets more people to watch and say, "hey, they're not all that bad".

[John Carey]

Revisionist History
"Path to 9/11" Prompts the Question: Who's Guilty? Disney/ABC or the Clinton Administration Crowd ?

By John E. Carey
September 10, 2006

Let’s just review for a moment the affair of one Samuel “Sandy” Berger and the National Archives.

On Thursday, July 22, 2004, Washington Post staff writers John F. Harris and Susan Schmidt, wrote “Last Oct. 2, former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger stayed huddled over papers at the National Archives until 8 p.m. What he did not know as he labored through that long Thursday was that the same Archives employees who were solicitously retrieving documents for him were also watching their important visitor with a suspicious eye.”

The employees of the National Archives suspected that Sandy Berger was stealing classified government archives about terrorists from his tenure as President Clinton’s National Security Advisor.

They were right.

John F. Harris and Susan Schmidt wrote, “The documents that Berger has acknowledged taking -- some of which remain missing -- are different drafts of a January 2000 ‘after-action review’ of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium. The document was written by White House anti-terrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, at Berger's direction when he was in government.”

Harris and Schmidt also reported that, “Sources have told The Washington Post, and other news organizations, that Berger was witnessed stuffing papers into his clothing.”

Transporting classified government documents without proper authorization is a serious offense. Stealing historical records from the national Archives is equally heinous.

But the real crime that Sandy Berger, and other Clinton Administration personnel, may be guilty of is this: “revisionist history.”

After September 11, 2001, everyone in Washington DC asked the same questions: How could this happen and why weren’t we forewarned?

In fact, “we” were forewarned. There were many events that should have set off alarm bells during President Clinton’s Administration.

A few of the events among these warning signs include: the first World trade center bombing (February 1993), the discovery of the Lincoln and Holland tunnel plots (Spring 1993), the car bombing of the U.S. military headquarters of the United States in Saudi Arabia (November 1995), the truck bombing of the U.S. military housing facility Khobar Towers (June 1996), the truck bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (August 1998), and the bombing of USS Cole (October 2000).

Less than one year later, the World Trade Center and the pentagon were hit on September 11, 2001.

This brings us to the loud and vocal protestations from Clinton Administration loyalists to the Disney/ABC production which starts to air tonight, “Path to 9/11.”

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band all wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over “The Path to 9/11.”

What do they have to hide?

Add to that, highly partisan Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York reportedly composed a tough letter to Robert A. Iger, CEO of Walt Disney, ABC's parent company. The letter cites two scenes from the program casting doubt on the Clinton administration's legacy in fighting terrorism.

Slaughter added as co-signers of the letter three senior Democrats who would join her as committee chairmen if Democrats won control of the House. They are Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, senior member of the House; Rep. Jane Harman of California, a top party spokesman on national security; and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, a left-wing leader.

What do they have to hide? Or is this just a self-serving case of piling on for personal gain?

And what respect do they have for freedom of speech?

When Oliver Stone made his movie “J.F.K.” depicting the president’s assassination as the product of a government conspiracy, do you recall this level of protest?

So we take caution and pause when we hear these vociferous protestations from the Clinton Camp.

We don’t much like revisionist history. And we wonder what the members of the Clinton Administration want to shroud from public view.

---

Global War Against Terror

Didn't Start in 2001

By Ann Coulter

July 26, 2006

On Sunday, John Kerry said of Israel's war against Hezbollah, "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," adding, "we have to destroy Hezbollah."

But wait a minute -- Hezbollah didn't attack us on 9/11! Wouldn't fighting Hezbollah distract us from the urgent task of finding Osama bin Laden?

Democrats can't come out and admit that they refuse to fight any war in defense of America, so they utter the "Where's Osama?" incantation to pretend that they'd be doing something. To wit: dedicating the entire resources of the U.S. military to locating Osama bin Laden. Thus, in the third presidential debate, Kerry complained about the cost of the war in Iraq, saying the war was "the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden."

After making the capture of Osama bin Laden their sole objective in the war on terrorism, now Democrats expect us to believe they would have been fighting every other Muslim jihadist on the planet like mad -- just not one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Saddam Hussein.

But they'd be merciless with every other mass-murdering, Islamic terror-sponsoring lunatic.

Israel's recent tussle with Hezbollah reminds us how absurd the Democrats' fixation on Osama is.

America has been under attack from Muslim extremists for nearly 30 years. Not just al-Qaida and certainly not just Osama bin Laden. Here's the highlights reel for anyone still voting for the Democrats:

*November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.

*1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

*April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

*October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

*December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

*September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

*December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

*June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

*October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

*December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

*April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

*December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground. (Then came an amazing, historic pause in Muslim extremists' relentless war on America after Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doing the opposite of everything recommended by Democrats, depriving Islamic terrorists of their Soviet sponsors. This confuses liberals because they don't understand the concept of terror sponsors, whether it's the Soviet Union or Iraq.)

*February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

*Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

*November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

*June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

*August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

*October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

*Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans. America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11, but it's going to end with 9/11 -- as long as Americans aren't foolish enough ever to put a Democrat in the White House.

---

[Brilliant]

I think you can spin it that way. But I also think that you can spin it the other way. The mere fact that they were talking about terrorism runs contrary to the image that most of us had about the Clintonistas.


And ironically, Albright claims that the meetings never happened. So apparently, they weren't actually talking about the terrorists in real life, as it appears in the movie. In that respect, the movie gives a false impression that they were engaged.