Posted on 09/17/2006 12:54:08 AM PDT by Mo1
It was stunning and yet it was eerily reminiscent of the extraordinary discipline of Team Clinton.
Days before the ABC miniseries, "The Path to 9/11," was to air, they determined the network fudged in its commitment to follow faithfully the facts in the 9/11 commission report. Some scenes in the otherwise remarkable presentation were false.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Clinton is no different then a leader of a Cult. His followers would go over a cliff for him. The Red Star paper here(MN.) put a big editorial saying the movie was a lie. President Bush can't even get his party to back him on terrorists. What does Buba have that makes his people back him no matter what he does?
Luckily, the clintonistas completely failed to sabotage the ABC mini-series. Sometimes the good guys are able to get a word in edgewise against the lies of the left.
on that.
People who cross the Clintons suffer consequenses. The Bushes have never enforced party discipline.
Good intentions.
Mafia & money connections.
"What does Buba have that makes his people back him no matter what he does?"
I have a feeling it is probably a matter of what Buba has on other people that have them backing him.
What is a Buba ?
(Bubba is one thing but Buba ?)
Liberals across America cried foul, citing CBS' decision in 2003 to cancel its TV-movie called "The Reagans" in the wake of conservative pressure. They suggested conservatives were hypocrites to support pulling that film while defending this one. But there are significant differences between the two projects.
Most obviously, "The Reagans" had at its center a dangerously doltish Ronald Reagan and a witchy Nancy Reagan. By contrast, "The Path to 9/11" was not designed as a deeply personal attack on Bill and Hillary Clinton. There was no actor playing Bill Clinton in the ABC movie. He only appeared in the ABC movie in news clips, which were hardly fictional. Hillary Clinton made no appearance of any kind.
It's also obvious that Bill Clinton is alert and healthy and able to defend himself against whatever the ABC movie would suggest. At the time CBS prepared to air "The Reagans," Ronald Reagan was unable to defend himself, deep under the veil of Alzheimer's disease and just months away from death. A docudrama that created a sense that Reagan's policies were failures would have been debatable, but a movie cartooning him on his deathbed as stupid and evil was beyond the border of good taste. No such similarity existed with "The Path to 9/11."
During the fuss over the Reagan movie, the liberal media were beside themselves denouncing that dastardly thing called censorship. The New York Times even editorialized that conservatives "helped create the Soviet-style chill embedded in the idea that we, as a nation, will not allow critical portrayals of one of our own recent leaders."
So where was The Times -- and everyone else -- finding Soviet-style censorship in Team Clinton's demands that the ABC film be pulled? Instead, they sympathized with Clinton, editorializing: "One suggestion: When attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing things they never did." For the record, The Times was utterly silent when CBS planned to feature Ronald Reagan declaring people deserved to die of AIDS.
"People who cross the Clintons suffer consequenses. The Bushes have never enforced party discipline."
Absolutely right. The Bush Family is proud of its gentlemanly conduct....sometime you gotta wish it wasn't so ingrained....
I have to compliment L. Brent Bozell III on this one. It is not only informative and factual, it is funny.
"CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who wanted it killed. "I don't think this is just a question of fixing something around the edges, Wolf. My impression is that this is a misleading film to the core. And it seems to me the only appropriate thing at this point is for ABC to withdraw the series."
"Blitzer didn't note, maybe to avoid audience laughter, that Berger's last prominent act around the 9/11 commission was illegally hiding documents on himself to prepare Clinton for his (almost unnoticed) testimony."
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.
Right before his impeachment, C. Matthews was inteviewing people from Arkansas and asked something to the effect of, "If Clinton had been found guilty of sexual harrassment and he admitted he did commit a crime, would you still support him?" One perky little 20 - 30 year old woman stood up with this little bouncy arrogance and said, "YES"! I'll never forget that, because it really made me realize how stupidly duped people can really be.
Following Clinton is a CULT as well as following the DBM/dems lies!! It doesn't matter what the facts are, or if they keep lying, or if they are wrong, these people are just a bunch of arrogant, selfish, prix in a state of sickness not willing let go...CHILDISH BRATS!
Thanks, Mo1!
Did you notice the Clinton stories yesterday-- how Clinton wanted to be seen with Laura Bush (clearly to rehabilitate his image) and his wife came out yesterday against the movie advocating killing President Bush (nothing gets past her--/sarcasm)?
F.B.I. files on each politico that even thinks about standing up to Bill and his henchmen.
What we will never know, is "What was on the papers that Sandy Berger Stole?"
The original documents had hand-inscribed notes in the margins. The copies we still have do not contain those notes.
What did Sandy want to remove from the record?
Why is he NOT in jail?
.......What does Buba have that makes his people back him no matter what he does?......
Like supporters of Saddam, they forsee a second coming.
.
"What does Buba have that makes his people back him no matter what he does?"
Useful idiots.
And 900 FBI files---
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.