9/11 show aired despite Clinton protests

news.com.au ^ | 11 September 2006

[stumpy]

I think this miniseries will hit democrats hard in Nov.
It totally destroys their claim they are "hard" on terror or "strong" on defense. Hope some pubbies use this for their ads, coupled with speeches and comments by the dems against us, our troops and leadership.

[Star Traveler]

A follow-up to your question -- "How do you know what was cut? Did you see the original version?"

According to Rush, and a source that he has -- Rush says that a *total* of *one minute* was cut in the movie. I think this should clarify things for you.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "Total cut... about 3 minutes, in two pieces. And, FWIW, I spent 30 years editing network television shows, so I do have some experience comparing two pieces of footage and determining what was left out."

According to Rush (and his source "inside") -- he says that there was only *one* minute cut -- total. If you think that it's more than that -- you've got an argument with Rush and his source.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Star Traveler]

You said (in part) -- "Cyrus Nowrasteh says that the Predator drone spying Bin Laden in Afghanistan is on the second night, so I was happy to hear he included that in the movie--unless ABC edited that out as well. Also the infamous wall scene is in Part 2--unless, again, it was also removed."

To put all the so-called "cuts" in perspective -- Rush says (according to his inside source) no more than *one* minute -- TOTAL -- was cut in the entire movie.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[ArmstedFragg]

Here's the footage. Time it yourself

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/10/video-path-to-911/

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for remembering the Downside Legacy!

[backtothestreets]

My criticism of Bush is primarily in the public not being given adequate warning something very bad was afoot; seeking Pakistani approval to launch war on our enemies; validating the UN by seeking UN approval before launching our response.

Something I believe may have contributed to the Bush administration being slow to grasp the reigns of government might well fall at the feet of the Clinton administration. I recall Clinton staff purposely inflicted heavy interior damage upon the White House prior to GWB taking the oath of office. I'm inclined to think the destruction was not limited to the White House, but could well have extended in to other federal government facilities to purposely obstruct the incoming administration. If my suspicions are correct, this should fall heavily upon Clinton as he ultimately is responsible for the actions of his staff.

My major criticism of the Bush administration has to do with Pakistan. At the time of the 9-11 attacks, Pakistan was the primary ally of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Since 9-11 Pakistani provinces have allowed both the Taliban and al Qaeda safe haven from the USA. Many people have reminded me time and again that Pakistan has helped our war effort by apprehending some terrorist members within Pakistan. My response, our military forces would have killed or captured all by now had the Bush Administration not made Pakistan an ally, but seen Pakistan as a partner to the Taliban and al Qaeda, which Pakistan is.

[7thson]

I tend to agree with you somewhat. I think there will be a time when we have to go into Pakistan and clear out the cockroaches.

[phillyfanatic]

Some inaccuracies of course but the director's view and stereotyping of the Clintonistas incompetence over 8 years can be supported by the serious scholarly books and articles that are easily read today if the voter would only read them!

[backtothestreets]

Had the "alliance" with Pakistan not been sought by the Bush administration our military would have destroyed the Taliban in Afghanistan AND the safe havens Pakistan has given the Taliban and al Qaeda to rest, rearm, reassemble, and reengage our military in war.

To worsen matters, the tribal areas the Pakistani government made peace with last week are not only the probable safe haven of Osama bin Laden, they are also the area hit hard by an earthquake and we are continuing to send large quantities of food, medicine and supplies into these areas controlled by warlords sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, his al Qaeda organization, and the Taliban. That most likely means our "goodwill" gesture is being used to assist our enemies fight our own military.

During the Viet Nam War, I admittedly broke down in tears one day when questioned by my OIC and NCOIC why I wasn't supportive of our war in Viet Nam. My response was because our politicians wouldn't allow the military to fight the enemy to full capacity. It was a repeat of the Korean War. I hoped it would never happen again for the sake of our military and nation, but it has.

As the primary nation supporting the the Taliban in Afghanistan, base for al Qaeda schools and training camps, Pakistan should have been targeted right along with our enemies in Afghanistan. Our diplomatic ties with Pakistan had been severely severed when General Musharraf led a military coup overthrowing the democratic government of Pakistani. We should have strengthened our ties with India, given India warning of our intentions to strike at our enemies and the possibility Pakistan might perceive the attack as originating from India, but given Pakistan no such warning, let alone restored full diplomatic ties and place it on the most favored list of nations capable of acquiring our most sophisticated weaponry and technology.

Had we attacked Afghanistan and Pakistan, neither the Takiban nor al Qaeda would have had any nearby safe refuge. Our troops in Afghanistan would not be fighting a resurgent enemy today. One day we need leadership that will tell our military "Our enemy is your enemy. Fight them with all you have, and wherever they may hide."

Our "alliance" with Pakistan is among the greatest foreign relations blunders of modern history. It ranks right along side Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Nazi Germany.

[Continental Soldier]

While the current docu-drama does show the cowardly incompetence of both Albright and Burger, it falls far short of their full cowardice and incompetence. It also falls far short of a true picture of Clinton, himself, as the spoiled, immature, self-indulgent, anti-military, anti-American president that he was. His consuming desire to be loved by the msm cost our country more than he and his entire administration was worth.

[7thson]

Just a thought I had while reading your posts. Do you think a lot of our politicians today fear an esculation like WW I, where nations come to the aid of nations they are treaty bound with and then you have a major cluster**k? I have always been of the opinion that Carter should have given the Iranians enough time to release our people until the 6th Fleet got into place. Then, if they were not released, destroy Tehran, even if it meant killing our own people. Dare the Soviets to step in. It proobably was unfeasable because our military was not up to strength but that is just a thought.

[backtothestreets]

Yes, fear of an escalation of warring sides driven by mutual defense pacts could be weighing on our politicians. I think our politicians worry heavily on how they will be portrayed in history.

Your Tehran example is good and similar to how I believe we should respond. I don't like the limited, or slowly escalating response approach that has been commonplace since WWII. Your example has a parallel with our war with Japan. General Curtis LeMay ordered area bombing of Japan knowing American POWs could die right along with the Japanese, plus those that didn't die were often subjected to heinous torture, sometimes facing execution for the bombing. The Soviets wouldn't have interfered in Tehran as Iran had no defense pact with them, having been a US ally prior to the overthrow of the Shah.

[7thson]

Thank you for the response. Correct me if I am wrong, but I either remember reading it during the time or later, that Soviet troops were massing near the Iranian border when we were sending classified traffic concerning sending troops. I believe I might have read this when I read about John Walker, the spy. I believe it was one of the first time the military suspected the Soviets were able to decode our crypto traffic. But I also agree with you. This slow escalating bs has got to stop. Hit them hard and fast, making them wish they never engaged with us.

[backtothestreets]

I don't recall the incident you mentioned. I do remember the Soviets sharing our concern about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and wanting to keep it from crossing over in to their Islamic Republics.

I agree the slow escalating bs has to stop. Except that it has been drawn out over decades rather then a couple years, it is no different then Chamberlain's tactics with Nazi Germany.

Did you watch the speech by President Bush last night? I agree with him that this is a war of ideologies, but I think he must eventually grasp it is not political ideologies, but religious ideologies. I think many European leaders are slowly accepting this.