CRITICS & HYPOCRITES (free speech, but only if Clintonites approve)

NY POST ^ | September 8, 2006 | EDITORIAL

[Liz]

How to tote up the hypocrisy spewing from Camp Clinton -over ABC's mini-series....Calling the docudrama based on the 9/11 Commission's report as well as other sources, "fiction," the Clintonites want it re-edited to tone down criticism of the former president - or, better still, yanked entirely. To show the film as it now stands, Bill Clinton's office said in a statement yesterday, would be "despicable."

What - no liberal cries of "censorship"? Nothing about the sacred constitutional guarantee of free speech? No warnings about the "chilling effect" caused by ideological zealots intent on pursuing their partisan agenda? .......former National Security Adviser Sandy "I've Got Stolen Secret Papers Down My Pants" Berger - claim the flick is full of factual errors that portray them as lax in their pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

Remember how Democrats responded to Republican criticism when CBS prepared to air a two-part drama about Ronald Reagan that portrayed the late president as an unfeeling tyrant, complete with wholly invented dialogue? "This is censorship, pure and simple," wailed Barbra Streisand.......like ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who now complains about the 9/11 film, with only second-hand information about it.......People for the American Way lashed out at "the echo chamber of right-wing pundits and Republican Party officials" for declaring that Ronald Reagan "is off-limits to media treatment that is anything short of fawning."

Gee. Isn't that exactly what the Clintonites are saying....? How shocked they seem that some folks in Hollywood, of all places, deem to portray Team Clinton in a way that is "short of fawning."

.....Clintonite protests seem to be working - ABC has altered some scenes. Just how far the network gives in remains to be seen.

[Liz]

To show the film as it now stands, Bill Clinton's office said in a statement yesterday, would be "despicable." Clinton's folks - including former National Security Adviser Sandy "I've Got Stolen Secret Papers Down My Pants" Berger - claim the flick is full of factual errors that portray them as lax in their pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Madeleine Albright complains about the 9/11 film, even though she only has second-hand information about it.

The usual suspects.

[theDentist]

Hypolibs? Democrits? I'm sure there's a more appropriate term... oh, Rats!

[truthkeeper]

Exactomundo.

[TommyDale]

I won't watch it. The entire controversy appears contrived to gain publicity, just to add viewers. There was probably never any intention of airing its original content.

[Doogle]

..the flak gets the thickest when over the target.


Doogle

[Taliesan]

A chill wind is blowing. (hat tip: Mr. Susan Sarandon)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See this:

Chris Wallace urges "Path to 9/11" be withdrawn

[mo]

This is actually great news in the long run....the Dems unwillingness/inability to constuctively participate in the greatest debate of the new century effectively ends thier political leadership...probably permanently...probably even as a functional party. Watching the Dems atrophy under Clinton leadership through the '90's, I nevere figured he'd completely kill it off...but he/she finally have. The treasonous and cowardly among us are labeled and identified.

[P-40]

Maybe this is all just a Rovian Scheme...and there really is not an actual movie just 'leaked' reports of one and the plan is to make the Democrats go ballistic getting the non-movie banned; True or not, it would make for a good movie. :)

[prognostigaator]

^%^

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

And yet another reason why these loathsome bastards must never, ever, ever be returned to power.

[HarleyLady27]

Of course clinton doesn't want this information getting out; he thinks by now we have all forgotten and he is pure as the fresh wind driven snowfall:

by Mia t, 9.8.06

9/11 Commission: Clinton Refused to Let CIA Kill Bin Laden

Announcing some of its preliminary findings on Wednesday, the 9/11 Commission has confirmed that President Clinton ordered the CIA to take Osama bin Laden alive or not at all - a directive that made the task of neutralizing the terrorist kingpin infinitely more difficult.

In a statement read at the beginning of Wednesday's session, 9/11 staffer Michael Hurley revealed:


"CIA senior managers, operators and lawyers uniformly said that they read the relevant authorities signed by President Clinton as instructing them to try to capture bin Laden.


"They believed that the only acceptable context for killing bin Laden was a credible capture operation. 'We always talked about how much easier it would have been to try to kill him,'" a former chief of the bin Laden station told the Commission.


"Working level CIA officers were frustrated by what they saw as the policy restraints of having to instruct their assets to mount a capture operation," the Commission statement said.


Commission staffer Hurley detailed one attempt to recruit indigenous Afghan forces in a bin Laden capture operation, explaining, "When Northern Alliance leader Massoud was briefed on the carefully worded instructions for him, the briefer recalled that Massoud laughed and said, 'You Americans are crazy. You guys never change.'"


... Last week NBC News quoted former CIA official Gary Schroen as saying that White House orders to spare bin Laden's life cut the chances of getting him in half, from 50 to 25 percent.


Schroen's revelation - now confirmed by the 9/11 Commission - was ignored by the mainstream press beyond its initial coverage by NBC.

---

NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Mar. 24, 2004 10:26 AM EST


Bill and Hill quotes:

"You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan."

---

hear hillary clinton:
You know... the job which we should have done 1... which should have been our primary focus, to find [you know] bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda."

---

hear hillary clinton
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006
Chitchat with Jane Pauley
San Francisco, CA:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.


We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].


At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.3


So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

---

hear bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer:

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'


I thought that my virtual obsession 2 with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."
-------

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002:

When I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African -Embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours. I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.7"

---

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer:


I agree. We were ratted out. bill clinton could not afford to capture or kill bin Laden. This information courtesy of none other than Madeleine Albright.


clinton's reaction--or should I say non-reaction-- to the USS Cole bombing in 2000--an unambiguous act of war--validates Albright's assertion.




Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?





Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:


1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.


3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.


4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.


5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.


6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.


7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.


8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.


9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.


10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.


11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.


12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.


15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.


16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

[DTogo]

And wasn't Michael Moore lauded in Liberal circles for his "documentary" Fahrenheit 9/11??

[Youngman442002]

In a Communist regime..they control the press and that the public knows and learns...looks familiar here too...Hmmmmm..the Democrats want to control what the public knows and learns....

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

Free speech for me, but none for thee.

[Liz]

N-i-c-e take.

[Liz]

Heheh----nice zinger. Wonder when Michael will (ahem) "weigh-in" on the brouhaha?

[Rummyfan]

What - no liberal cries of "censorship"? Nothing about the sacred constitutional guarantee of free speech? No warnings about the "chilling effect" caused by ideological zealots intent on pursuing their partisan agenda? .......former National Security Adviser Sandy "I've Got Stolen Secret Papers Down My Pants" Berger - claim the flick is full of factual errors that portray them as lax in their pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

Those accusations only apply to Republicans! I'm curious to see how Clinton defenders on the weekend talk shows spin this to protect their patron saint.

[sappy]

I'm wondering, had the Justice Dept. actually gone after and prosecuted Sandy Berger, further than a fine and loss of security status, how this would be playing out. Same result? Backing off? Just curious.

[johnny7]

..the flak gets the thickest when over the target.

That's usually when the pants are soiled as well.