Posted on 09/10/2006 4:36:04 PM PDT by bocopar
The miniseries will air. Given my experience working for Fox’s On-Air Promotion division, the kind of exposure the production has received is something that a television network could only dream of. Not one cent of promotion money has been necessary with talk radio and cable news pundits going off on the subject, as well as all the Clinton lawyers who are officially back on the clock.
Liberals are full of it and remember that every time they lecture all of us about their fraudulent self-celebration of free speech and freedom of expression. Conservatives have tolerated Michael Moore’s “documentaries” and haven’t come anywhere close to the protestations when it comes to the new film that dramatizes liberal wishful-thinking with the assassination of President Bush.
(Excerpt) Read more at mensnewsdaily.com ...
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.
Unfortunately, we’ll never know what really happened until we find out what documents were “inadvertently” destroyed by Berger. Berger says it never happened. Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson disagrees…."
I've found that a lot of liberals claim that they've never heard of Sandy Berger or no nothing about the stolen papers. Apparently that whole national archives debacle was so blatant and disgusting that liberals are willing to claim ignorance rather than defend it.
(SARC) We are the DNC ! You want to know the truth ?
You can't handle the truth !
pretty good so far. geez, lots of "that CAN't have happened" moments already. how could everyone have overlooked so many things?
"I doubt the Republic can survive another Democrat administration."
Especially with majorities in both houses and a 5-4 SCOTUS.
If that happens you can kiss this country goodbye.
The Dems must have done some polling and found the public was disgusted with their attempt at censorship and pulled the MSM dogs off this hunt
My theory is that they simply could not find even one broken down, drunken, Clinton-appointee Federal Judge who could fabricate a legal reason to issue a Temporary Restraining Order. I am amazed that they didn't manage to do this, since they find a Federal Judge to block anything they want blocked. My guess is that they tried this ploy mightily and were dumbfounded when they couldn't.
They should be used to being losers by now...
I couldn't agree more with you, RR!
To tell you the truth, I fear terrorists far less than I do stupid people who will vote for a democrat simply because they hate President Bush. And plenty so-called "Americans" will do just that!
They don't realize their party has been taken over by socialists/communists.
I couldn't agree more with you, RR!
To tell you the truth, I fear terrorists far less than I do stupid people who will vote for a democrat simply because they hate President Bush. And plenty so-called "Americans" will do just that!
They don't realize their party has been taken over by socialists/communists.
Bob....always right on target
Bookmark for later perusal
They don't realize their party has been taken over by socialists/communists.
Actually, I think many of them do. But in truth, to many of these folks the terms 'socialists/communists' sound rather exotic and has an 'aura' of being 'the solution to everything'. Since, thanks to the teachers' unions, history is no longer taught in our schools, the majority of voters do not know anything about the Russian revolution or the Cold War. I'm an old goat, but I recall saying years ago that in the U.S. communism would not be the result of a revolution because it would be voted in. Sad.
I wonder if the dumawits have any clue as to how bad they look not getting ubl? They came off as a bunch of pussies that is for sure.Yes i know it was just a movie but still...
Man your tagline is just great.
ABC seems to have cut 1/2 hour out of the docudrama.
Wasn't it supposed to run from 8 pm to 11 pm?
It just stopped at 10:40pm. I smell a rat.
Unfortunately, how can we tell what was cut when we don't have the original version with which to compare???
The parts that the lib-kooks said would be slanderous did not, in my estimation, make the Clintonoid administration look THAT bad.
Which leads me to think that ABC pulled some of the historical factoids which made Clinton/Berger/Albright look inept.
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.