Video: “Path to 9/11″ Update: Side-by-side comparison (Bumped)
posted at 10:41 pm on September 10, 2006 by Allahpundit
Disclaimermania!
I’ll post the controversial scene here later if/when it airs as well as anything goofy from the very special impromptu “Nightline” they’ve cobbled together for 10:30. In the meantime, consider this an open thread for “Path to 9/11,” how much you hate the nutroots, or whatever else is on your mind this anniversary eve. Highlights of the new AQ video will be posted in the other thread within the hour.
Here’s a quote to get the ball rolling: “Berger, Freeh later thought, was not a national-security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press.”
Update: Edited vs. unedited. They chopped quite a bit, but you still get the gist.
Update: Johnny Dollar has audio of Michael Scheuer and Ken Timmerman dismantling Clinton. Scheuer says whatever you may think about the drama component of this docudrama, the “docu” part is dead on. Timmerman lays the blame not at Clinton’s feet, but at someone else’s. And I don’t mean George Tenet.
Update: Ms. Underestimated has video of the fingerpointing on Nightline.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Now that can’t be right… The Democrats have repeatedly been telling me that the economy is crap and getting worse by the day. They’ve been hammering this message for the entire Bush administration, and noting every “surprising” and “unexpected” positive economic news were just flukes. Everyone is poor. Poor people are paying higher taxes. No one can find a job. Unemployment is at record highs. Bush killed your parents. Cheney hates bunnies.
Seriously though, this one pisses me off every month. Do you know that only half of the country is aware that the economy isn’t in recession?
One might try to argue “that’s because it’s only the rich guys gettin’ paid, the rest are struggling”, but that’s not true, scroll down in that post. A large majority of people are happy with their own finances, while a majority think negatively about the economy. How can that be, you ask? It’s cliche, but the liberal media. They’ve painted stuch a gloomy picture and any good news is seen as a fluke. Likewise all these Americans who are happy, think they are the exception to the rule, even though the numbers show they aren’t.
Alright, sorry about that little rant… couldn’t help myself.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 11:27 AM
RightWinged,
I probably did make a mistake by quoting the 9/11 report. But as of today, unfortunately, that’s the only thing we really have to go by (officially, that is).
I’m not fooled. I know and understand truly who is to blame – that is OBL and the terrorists. I am just trying to make the point that it is unfortunate that the producers of this film put in some inaccuracies because then, it just gives “proof” to the nutroots that rightwingers are out to destroy Clinton’s perfect legacy. The film doesn’t tell the whole story and there are a lot of people out there who will not bother to delve into the details and who will take the film as firm fact, when in truth, it leaves out much more damning information about the clinton administration, able danger, etc.
I am trying to redeem myself here.
Honora, thanks for the complement, but I do still think that the clinton administration dropped the ball BIG TIME on this. And if blame is to be passed around, a majority of it should be placed on Clinton and his inept administration.
pullingmyhairout on September 11, 2006 at 11:33 AM
We live in a country with freedom of the liberal press.
fogw on September 11, 2006 at 11:36 AM
pullingmyhairout: I don’t disagree about the Clinton administration. But 2 things: we all were in a cozy coccoon befor 9/11, thinking we were safe. I think Clinton admin should have been more vigilant but to judge them by what we know now is skewed in my opinion. And one more thing: do you recall when C bombed Afghanistan and Sudan in response to the east African embassy bombings? Do you recall what Limbaugh et al were saying about that?
It was all a big scam to deflect attention away from the Monica scandal–it was “Wag the Dog”. This was widely–and wildly–speculated by the right wing propaganda machine. (Funny, I haven’t heard any apologies for that…)
Does this excuse C from being less vigilant than he should have been? Certainly not. But it does make me laugh when I hear the RW piously talk about how those mean liberals get after Bush. Oh really?
honora on September 11, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Sooo, you argument is that most Americans aren’t as clever as you are to figure this all out, and are dupes of the media? How do think they all got so stupid while you got so smart?
honora on September 11, 2006 at 11:55 AM
I think Clinton admin should have been more vigilant but to judge them by what we know now is skewed in my opinion.
And how might this compare to the Democrats passing judgment on Bush based upon what we know now, as compared to what everyone concluded from intelligence information provided shortly after 9/11?
Does Bush get a pass too, or only Clinton?
fogw on September 11, 2006 at 11:59 AM
yep, i do. and I think Rush was right. Clinton “retaliated” by lobbing a long range cruise missile into an aspirin factory and on ONE training site in Afghanistan. oh boy, that’ll scare ‘em. the response should have been with more force. by piddling around with our responses (or lack thereof), we emboldened OBL – it was proof to the terrorists that we were cowards. that’s why they felt like they could fly airplanes into buildings and get away with it. it’s why we’re having this discussion right now. had Clinton showed more balls, we might not be in this situation. but they were too worried about collateral damage, and about America’s “image” and about making sure we had the correct subpoenas – not about saving American lives.
pullingmyhairout on September 11, 2006 at 12:05 PM
pullingmyhairout,
I doubt if the cruise missile plopped into Afghanistan scared ‘em at all, since Albright let OBL knew they were on the way by giving a heads up to the Pakis. OBL was probably laughing his ass off at the stupidity and terrorist network naiveté of the Clinton administration. Talk about emboldening the enemy!
fogw on September 11, 2006 at 12:26 PM
Read the Senate Intel comm report that just came out and then get back to me on what “everyone concluded”, especially re Iraq nuclear capability and the Saddam/Al Q “link”. (I get a kick out of how Bushies hide behind Clinton’s skirts–whining, “well that’s what Clinton thought too..” Jesus, be a man)
And as for passes, if you want to indict Clinton for being careless, well you need to paint Bush with the same brush, getting a briefing “bin Laden to attack US’ a few weeks before 9/11 and doing nothing.
honora on September 11, 2006 at 12:45 PM
The numbers and facts speak for themselves. Yes, they have been duped by the media. Just like the majority of people have been duped in to thinking that Bush lied/mislead on WMDs, and aren’t aware that the Dems who call him a liar made a stronger case all through the 90s, don’t know that Clinton made regime change in Iraq oure policy, and don’t know that Clinton bombed him in 1998 with virtually identical language to Bush. And a growing percentage of the population believes in some form of 9/11 conspiracy now. I don’t recall who you are honora, so if you’re a liberal troll I’m wasting my time because the obviousness of the liberal state of media we have to deal with will never be excepted by you. If you are aware of the liberal media (a term I almost hate using because it’s so cliche now) we could give dozens of examples of where it’s dishonesty has messed with public opinion.
Anyway, as for my specific example, what don’t you get? When only half of the country is aware that we aren’t in a recession, you don’t think there’s an issue with how economic news is reported? You have got to be out of your friggin’ mind. You don’t see the obvious manipulation of public opinion when 68% of the public is happy with their own financial situation, yet somehow 55% think negatively about the economy? And these statistics are consistent month after month, give or take a few points here or there.
As I said, the numbers speak for themselves. If you don’t get it, it’s because you’re choosing not to get it or you’re lying.
pullyingmyhairout:
I agree. This is why I think the movie should be truthful, only then Clinton would come out 10 times worse.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 12:56 PM
You do recall the whole schtick here, right? What Rush et al said was “we don’t believe these embassies were attacked–Clinton is fabricating all of this to take the focus off the Monica caper.” But, now I get it: this was code for: “hey you wuss, more force”.
I must get myself that decoder ring.
honora on September 11, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Well Honora, let’s rewind shall we? Clinton had ample opportunities to get UBL and had we gotten him when he was served up, perhaps 911 wouldn’t have happened. Yes, the Bush admin did not take the terrorists seriously as well but they were in 8 months, not the 8 years your boy Bubba was in. He was distracted by an intern and a cigar and a wife scorned. We have not been attacked since 9/11 on our soil have we or is that something we all imagine as you on the left seem to think it’s just one of those things. I know you’re a lefty who likes to come around and put people down for supporting the President, the war on terror and the military engagements we are in now. If you think I enjoy having my husband gone constantly, get a clue, I don’t but he’d rather be fighting them over there then over here as he’s said numerous times. You may choose not to believe it and you may choose to think that terrorists are entittled to privacy in their conversations while plotting to kill us and you may choose to believe that Bush caused all this but he didn’t. I have to ask you, did you buy hook-line and sinker into Farenheit 911, do you buy into the conspiracy theories but forth by that genius Charlie Sheen, do you believe that Cheney set this up?
Catie96706 on September 11, 2006 at 1:00 PM
RightWinged: so people are duped on all manner of things. Why do you suppose they voted Bush in? One shining moment of non-dupeness huh? Good thinking.
BTW, most people (believe this Gallup or Zogby) now believe that their children will not have a better life than them. First time ever (poll began in the 60s)
As for the recession business: people react to their own financial condition and to their state of mind. Gas prices, bad news from Ford, Intel, jobs going overseas, real wages declining–people see that and think “recession”. I doubt one person in 20 could give a reasonably correction description of what a recession actually is.
Or maybe I’m lying……
honora on September 11, 2006 at 1:04 PM
When we say “Clinton thought too”, it’s in response to the claims that Bush was lying or misleading when he said something. Because the Dems made a stronger case for WMDs and war in Iraq for over a decade before the war, yet the media refuses to bring up all those old quotes (I’m sure a conservative has slapped you with them along the way plenty of times though). They get away with calling Bush a liar for saying the same things, not because the sometimes “dumb” Bush was clever enough to trick all of these Dems in to war.
And don’t even bring up that Senate Intel
reportrehash. It was nothing new, and it wasn’t accurate. First of all, are you concerned with the stonewalling in the media and government and 9/11 commission on able danger? Further are you upset about the millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured in Iraq not being released? After a lot of pressure just a few were released and we found out that Saddam did have ties to Bin Laden. And of course there’s this.Here’s the part where you use the classic liberal dodge and divert… You’ll accuse me of saying that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, something I never did, but this is how you simple minded libs operate. Now of course you won’t do it because I beat you to it, and now you’d look like an ass, but you know deep down that this was your next move. You can predict an argument with a liberal like 5 steps out, pretty sad.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 1:06 PM
I was a military wife and while I empathize with you, it doesn’t make your opinion especially valid. Think you should take a walk or get a hobby, you’re letting bile and hysteria take over, never a good idea. Re-read what you wrote, it oozes with anger and hyperbole–to me, a person you have never met. How ridiculous is that?
honora on September 11, 2006 at 1:08 PM
Rush is just saying that a total of one minute was removed from the film’s five hour run time.
kmcguire on September 11, 2006 at 1:09 PM
Nice try lib… Predictable. How about you acknowledge that 68% of the people are happy with their own finances, so that’s crap. Recession is an absolute, we are or aren’t. We aren’t, and haven’t been for years since the tax cuts pulled us out and that has been nothing but surging growth. If there was accurate reporting more than half the country would know that we weren’t in a recession. I think we’re about done honora, because you lack any ounce of honesty if you can’t see that.
Notice it wasn’t a landslide, and polls showed himm possibly losing. In the end he won because people trusted him to fight terror tougher than Kerry because his pandering bs was see-through and his condescending douche bag attitude annoyed people. The Rathergate gang hoped to tip the scales with their hit piece, but it wound up backfiring.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 1:11 PM
RightWinged: ok, the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intell report, the media, the courts, Hollywood, academia–all these people are wrong and not just wrong, but involved in a massive plot to keep the truth from the American people!!
Buck up, you know what they say, even pararoids have real enemies. Yours is reality but nonetheless….
honora on September 11, 2006 at 1:13 PM
Rightwinged: I looked at your link and imagine my surprise!! You’re right, 68% of people are happy with their personal financial situation. But guess what, go to the next charts: Asked if they expected their financial situation to improve/get worse:
6% improve
50% no change
37% get worse.
7% no opinion
So are you inept or dishonest???
honora on September 11, 2006 at 1:23 PM
fogw, I was being sarcastic.
pullingmyhairout on September 11, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Tom Daschle – February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
[B]Bill Clinton – February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
Bill Clinton – December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
Sandy Berger – February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”
BEFORE AND AFTER – John Kerry
John Kerry – February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.
John Kerry – October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
John Kerry – January 23, 2003
“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”
John Kerry – January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”
Bill Richardson – May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”
BEFORE and AFTER for Al Gore
Al Gore – December 16, 1998
“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”
Al Gore – September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore – September 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Nancy Pelosi – December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Dick Durbin – September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”
October 9th, 1999, From a Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry:
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
BEFORE AND AFTER – Madeleine Albright
Madeleine Albright – February 1, 1998
We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
Madeleine Albright – November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright – February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”
Evan Bayh – August 4, 2002
“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.”
Bill Nelson – August 25, 2002
“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously.”
Jane Harman – August 27, 2002
“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.”
Nancy Pelosi – October 10, 2002
“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”
Hillary Clinton – October 10, 2002
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Joe Biden – August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”
Joe Biden – August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.”
Senator Carl Levin – September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Dick Gephardt – September 23, 2002
“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.”
Ted Kennedy – September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Robert “KKK” Byrd – October 3, 2002 “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ’98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”
Russell Feingold – October 9, 2002
“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.”
Jay Rockefeller – October 10, 2002
“There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Senator Bob Graham – December 8, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Johnny Edwards – January 7, 2003
“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”
Hillary Clinton – January 22, 2003
“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States
Kokonut on September 11, 2006 at 1:48 PM
By the way, where can I find polls about the Path to 9/11 movie and Neilsen rating results?
Kokonut on September 11, 2006 at 1:50 PM
BTW, when I say “Before and After” that’s pre-911 and after on the quotes Democrats said.
Kokonut on September 11, 2006 at 1:52 PM
Kokonut: you realize all the earlier quotes were in support of congressional resolutions calling for regime change–which is basically an exercise in lip flapping–and sanctions? Call me silly, but seems to me the bar needs to be a lot, lot higher when putting together the rationale for invading a country. I do find it droll how anxious the RW is to quote the very people they villify in the next breathe (odd how people who are so wrong now were so right then…really makes my poor little head hurt)
This of course set the stage for Bushie’s newest favorite quotable: bin Laden!!! YIKES!! How sad is your argument when you are reduced to quoting your country’s sworn enemy 17 times in one speech??
honora on September 11, 2006 at 1:54 PM
since you mentioned gas prices, in my ‘hood, regular unleaded is 2.18 a gallon – down from 2.90 a gallon a few months back. don’t bitch about gas prices. it’s market fluctuation – not some sort of conspiracy.
And Honora, please take the high road and don’t bow down to personal destruction with Catie96706. I like the debate with you and don’t want to see you banned like our dearly departed, Better Off Blue. Catie has family over there right now (so do I) and her emotions will naturally run high. So please, give her a very large break. Her argument remains valid, especially about the reference to Fahrenheit 911.
pullingmyhairout on September 11, 2006 at 1:55 PM
Typically they can provide–and publish–overnights in key markets. Ratings usually come out once a week. If they do a quick key market look at the numbers would expect to see later today.
honora on September 11, 2006 at 1:57 PM
Drudge has them on his front page. Football won.
pullingmyhairout on September 11, 2006 at 1:59 PM
Sorry, Billy boy gets a broader brush. He got a briefing “bin Laden to attack US” EIGHT YEARS BEFORE 9/11. No wait, he didn’t get a briefing …. he got a lesson in WTC Bombing 101 – the actual event, then lobbed one missile because the polls said Americans would tolerate one missile, especially if it never hit it’s target.
Oh, and by the way. My response never mentioned Clinton being careless. My response asked if you thought Clinton deserved a pass, doesn’t Bush too? (knowing what we know now). You’re the one who called him careless, perhaps a Freudian slip on your part.
Rather than admit Bush deserves the same latitude from history you gave Clinton, you turn the debate on it’s head and now say they were both careless. Gee, it’s difficult for you Dems to make a sound argument.
fogw on September 11, 2006 at 2:01 PM
Well Honora, you have made it a point to ooze bile at me by calling me heartless and meanspirited. I neither want or care if you sympathize with me. As I have told you before in your negative responses to me, I have my opinion you have yours. I believe mine is right, you believe your’s is right. I have lots of hobbies and go to the gym regularly. You should heed your own advice. You don’t like me because I am the polar opposite of you. That’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion. I think if you would look into your hero Bubba’s administration you would see there are a lot of mistakes made. I have said before I am certainly not happy with a lot of what W does, but I am happy that we have not been attacked in 5 years on our soil. Perhaps that is a childish thought in your mind (I realize you believe you’re superior to those of us who disagree with you) but that’s the fact. So, please, again you have always been extremely rude to me and you never met me either. I am also a veteran so I do know what I am talking about as well. I served under Bubba in Chief and I remember the morale in the military was pretty poor and while he was drawing down the troops, he was setting us up for a military that was shortchanged when it came down to having to fight the war on terror. When my husband went to Kosovo it was supposed to make the Muslims like us amongst other issues (using the saving lives reasoning why didn’t your boy send the US to Darfur?). So, while thank you for your service as a military wife as we also serve I believe, I think your comments are not valid as a person who is blind to the mistakes of Clinton and you will not changed. Actually, weren’t you threatened with dismissal and had to go to the corner for something last week. Oh well, God Bless and get some hobbies and go for a long walk yourself.
Catie96706 on September 11, 2006 at 2:01 PM
Do you have the comprehension of a 5 year old honora?
That’s a poll question asking people to predict the future. I’ve already proven how mislead the public is on the economy not just because only half know we aren’t in a recession, but because a strong majority are wappy with their own situations, yet a strong majority look negatively on the economy… Whether you acknowlege the only conclusion, which is that they’ve been misled, or not, that is what is in play in the question/answers you just posted as well. Again, they think that being happy with their own finances is just a fluke right now, but the gloom and doom painted by the media leads them to believe this is a temporary and rare momenet of bliss. Your “point” is anything but.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 2:08 PM
Catie96706 – i am not a lefty (you accused me of that on another thread). just wanted to make that VERY clear to you.
pullingmyhairout on September 11, 2006 at 2:10 PM
I’ve got to go feed the “evil” Walmart some money so I’m out for now, but I’ll leave honora and friends with this for now:
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 2:13 PM
My bad, I should have cleaned that up a bit, and removed some links that CNN has in the middle of the page… but you get the point.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 2:14 PM
Well “they” are sheeplike aren’t they, so easily led. What to do, what to do.
LOL
honora on September 11, 2006 at 2:18 PM
Pullingmyhairout-I apologize if I misread your comment. I should not let that Honora get under my skin but she’s been gunning for me for a while talking about how mean and stupid I am and sometimes I do let my emotions get the best of me. Again, I apologize. Catie
Catie96706 on September 11, 2006 at 2:19 PM
accepted. :)
Off to pick up the kiddies.
xoxo
toodles!
pullingmyhairout on September 11, 2006 at 2:21 PM
Examples?
honora on September 11, 2006 at 2:22 PM
Sounds like a vote for Ned Lamont, to me.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 2:28 PM
Let’s see: RightWing to me: “simple minded lib”, “liberal troll” “out of your frigging mind” “You’re choosing not to get it or you’re lying”; Caty to me: “a lefty who likes to come around and put people down for supporting the pres and the WOT”, “get a clue”.
Please.
honora on September 11, 2006 at 2:34 PM
Since ABC edited out the clip where Clarke said “Clinton has this Monica thing wrapped around his neck and won’t do anything” — nothing prevents us from remembering the late 90s:
“had Clinton showed more balls” – he did pmho, but to Monica…
“they were too worried about collateral damage” – the terrorists, however, were not worried – they killed hundreds, and wounded thousands, many of the Muslim, during the 2 embassy strikes – talk about “equivalency”
“and about America’s “image” – we never worried too much about the “image” historically, why all this fuss? It’s a ninny thing to aim to be “loved” by all on an individual, as well as on a national level.
One concern you forgot to mention pmho is the Clintons’ concern for that ‘perfect’ legacy, which they were anticipating and are now tirelessly molding, were it not for a few ‘minor’ rality checks, and of course 9/11/01.
Of course, it’s all the fault of the RW and their impeachment. If only they could find a way to blame the RW on Monica too, they would. Alas, hope springing eternal, they might find a way…
Entelechy on September 11, 2006 at 2:57 PM
Honora,
Realize also that Saddam ignored 17 UN’s resolutions over the course of 12 years. Fired upon coalition jets in the “No Fly Zone” in Iraq thus breaking the cease fire and surrender agreement. Clinton was a weasel and held on long enough to get out of the administration only to foist the problem onto the next president, which btw had the actual guts to carry though and help enforce the UN resolutions.
Kokonut on September 11, 2006 at 2:58 PM
Good discussion going on here. I also find it refreshing that Honora, a lib(?), can discourse civilly. I watched most of Part 1…got my blood pressure up a bit even though I knew most of what was represented.
There has been in America, since its inception, a group of people who didn’t wish to be on the path chosen by our Founders. But they believed in America and, unlike so many of their brethern who fled to Canada and other countries in the world, they stayed. Their ideaology has lived on through the centuries. They can be found in history because they belonged to every political party that developed, split and dissapeared. They were part of the Whig, Free Soil, Know Nothings, Constitutional Union Party, Bull Moose Progressive Party and other small splinter groups. Those that supported slavery went left, those that did not went right. But, some went to both. That is why Stom Thurmond was a Republican and Robert Byrd a Democrat.
The basic ideaological difference in my opinion, was the government taking care of everyone for everything and let people live and do whatever they wanted – liberal, and the government should take care of the important things like defense and not tax and spend and guarantee individual freedoms like private property. This is a very simplisic explanation but there it is.
Both sides grew their ideaology but basically in the same vein. Then in the early part of the 20th Century a group of liberals who could not gain power independently, merged with the Democratic Party before the time of Franklin Roosevelt. Their belief and adherence to the Marxist idea of the “bourgeois” being responsible for the deplorable world conditions, along with Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution led them to push the concept of communism. Many “travelers” which were dunned in the l950′s in fact, were later proven to be sympathizers when the USSR fell and their records were finally opened to the West.
Although the current Dean/Pelosi/Clinton group are not precisely the same, the original vien still runs through everything they stand for: the bourgeois (which, today includes them) are bad and must be made to pay for the proletariat (read workers and the poor)needs. Tax the rich.
With the exception of of four/five periods of American history, the Liberals have governed this Nation. Their loss in 2001-2005 stirred their hatred because they “lost” what had been “theirs” for so long. They want it back. But the country has now matured somewhat and with radio, the Internet and Fox the voices of the Right are also being heard throughout the land for the first time in our history. It will be an interesting decade ahead.
It is no longer as easy as it has been for over 200 hundred years to pull the wool over the eyes of the entire nation. But that 25-30% in every poll opposed to anything Right is that group of people. They enjoy what we have developed but hate the developer. And today, we are finally beginning to realize that there has been in our world an enemy so much worse then the Left or Right that has endured over 1300 years with one simple goal: kill, enslave and tax the infidel.
We must turn our attention to learning everything about this enemy and put away partisan divisions because when that sword is at our throats or neck, partisanship will not matter because we will be dead.
sharinlite on September 11, 2006 at 3:08 PM
Huh, 37% of the population are pessimists. I thought it was higher than that, myself.
kmcguire on September 11, 2006 at 3:27 PM
Well Honora during the NOLA discussions you said I was mean because I said Nagin was an idiot and that people who depend on the government for everything need to become more independent, you’ve said I was stupid for trusting my President, you say that since I am currently have a spouse in the war it’s really not a big deal and shouldn’t validate anything. I beg to differ-when my husband was home I certainly listened and respected what those who had loved ones over there were saying and not dismiss them out of hand. There were other comments but I have decided that you I will no longer respond to you as I have enough headaches in my life without worrying about someone who cannot be polite and realize that people can agree to disagree without talking about “the clotting of the human milk of kindness” when one questions the why we only hear from NOLA and not those in MS or AL.
Catie96706 on September 11, 2006 at 3:29 PM
…which makes you a pessimist of course…ok, one of us is engaging in a circular argument here!!! ;^)
honora on September 11, 2006 at 3:32 PM
Sound of hands clapping here!!!
honora on September 11, 2006 at 3:35 PM
I get your point, don’t completely agree. I must point out that the UN is supposed to “carry through and…enforce UN resolutions”, not us. And before I get jumped on” yes I realize the UN is a joke, but again, grabbing this “we were only doing what the UN resolution said” as a mantle for our actions is pretty disingenuous.
honora on September 11, 2006 at 3:41 PM
Honora – I can think of 4 women (ostensibly from Jersey) and one deranged wannabe time traveler ( Cindy Sheehan) who speak with more bile and less validity than Catie96706, and the Left and MSM (bedfellows) hold them up as untouchable and irrefutable.
Make up your mind.
theholyhermit on September 11, 2006 at 4:14 PM
holyhermit: I didn’t realize I was the Left and MSM, I thought I spoke for myself.
This idea that there is one left wing opinion on everything that is completely homogeneous, and one right wing opinion that is completely homogeneous, and that they are diametrically opposed on all issues is beyond foolish. People are complicated creatures and we live in complicated times.
honora on September 11, 2006 at 4:20 PM
I really don’t see how anyone can say that Bush is to blame because he received a memo saying Bin Ladin wanted to attack the U.S. There were no details about how or where or when. And even if the details of the attack were actually written out the ACLU would not have let him do anything because the only logical thing to do would have been to search every Arab male who tried to board a plane. This would have caused an outcry from all the liberals. There is no way it could have been stopped even if the details had been known. Well, I guess they could have grounded all the planes. That would have worked. But the administration didn’t have all the details. So how is he to blame because of this obscure memo?
Rose on September 11, 2006 at 4:22 PM
The UN as an “enforcer” to their own resolutions?
Let me sit here a laugh a bit before I respond.
Now, you know why Saddam thumbed his noses at the world for 12 years. If the UN doesn’t have the will or gumption to follow through, they shouldn’t be in the business of handing out UN Resolutions.
Kokonut on September 11, 2006 at 4:32 PM
The UN as an “enforcer” to their own resolutions?
Someone misreading my posts, I am stunned. YOU brought up the UN resolutions, not me. My point is/was, they were UN resolutions and hence not a fig leaf for our actions.
BTW, if Clinton was a weasel, what so we call Reagan for pulling troops out of Lebanon after Hezboallah killed our Marines and attacked our embassy? (I will go out on a limb here and predict it’s NOT weasel…Surprise me.)
honora on September 11, 2006 at 4:38 PM
Well the simple minded lib was based on what you said. “Liberal troll” was basically a question, and “get it or lying” was an obvious observation.
But I think we’re pretty much done because you refuse to do much more than spit out liberal talking points and ignore specific points raised to you. You are what is called a liberal troll. You dispatch to come take the discussion away from the issue and just send it on an infinite number of tangents. We’ve dealt with your kind before, at least I have, so I’ll let the other folks have fun with you if they’d like. But I’ll warn you guys, it’s a total waste of time with this breed. You can’t turn honora in to honesta no matter how hard you try.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 4:53 PM
President Reagan was a ‘weasel’ for pulling troops out of Lebanon. It encouraged the terrorists even more; they saw it as a big win. Of course they see any wussy move of ours as such.
There is plenty of blame to go around: Carter, Reagan for 2 terms, Bush 41, Clinton for 2 terms and Bush 43.
So long as it is placed where it falls. Also, I’m not so interested in the blame, as to inquire into exactly what was done, or wasn’t, so we can learn, from both, successes and mistakes, and not repeat the latter, and aim to win this big ‘thing’.
Entelechy on September 11, 2006 at 5:16 PM
Just for fun, let us not forget who was whispering in Reagen’s ear to boogie out … (*cough*Murtha*cough*).
yo on September 11, 2006 at 5:24 PM
As usual Entelechy, well stated.
Reagan never should have sent our boys into Beirut. Still waiting for any lib to admit Clinton lacked the political will to pull the trigger on terrorism.
I’m with you & Lombardi on this one. Winning is everything.
fogw on September 11, 2006 at 5:24 PM
How about “Winner of the Cold War”.
thirteen28 on September 11, 2006 at 5:30 PM
I was thinking — always dangerous.
Richard Clark has always felt a little smarmy and self important to me (some call him “Dick ‘American Grandstand’ Clarke”).Why then, did the movie treat him so well? Oh yah, he works for ABC.
Then I started wonderring how ABC/Disney, one of the most liberal networks, agree to essentially ignore the Clinton pushed requests to can it? Who would benefit from it showing. It clearly put Clinton in a poor light — possibly diminishing chances for another Clinton “co-presidency”. Is that why the big legal guns were brought out?
So who would be for this. I’d like to submit for your consideration that Al Gore would be the beneficiary of last night’s showing. He wants to run for Pres. again. The nutroots think he deserves a Mulligan. He’s tan!
But still. How did they get ABC to go along. A little research reveals that Disney owns ABC. Steve Jobs is the largest Disney shareholder. He also sits on the Disney board.
Who is Steve’s buddy? AL! He even sits on the Apple board.
Are we looking at a Democrat Party power struggle?
CanaryinaCoalMine on September 11, 2006 at 5:45 PM
Entelechy, please read this as I believe it might cause you to reconsider where to place blame.
DannoJyd on September 11, 2006 at 7:10 PM
Danno, you never should worry about me – I know exactly how to ‘weigh’ this blame. There is some to go around for all I mentioned but I do know where the ‘heavy’ falls, in more ways you can imagine.
Btw – the Senate report on no connection btw. AQ and Saddam is utter hogwash.
Entelechy on September 11, 2006 at 7:30 PM
Re: Path to 9/11′s ratings:
Some might be disappointed by the show’s relatively low ratings.
But remember that CBS was also showing a 9/11 documentary.
CBS and ABC combined still out-pulled the highly touted battle of the Manning brothers.
Also keep in mind that 13 million Americans watched Path. This is more than six times the average audience of The O’Reilly Factor, the highest-rated cable news show. That’s why the Democrats were so desperate to not only reedit this movie, but to force ABC to yank it entirely.
Most of Hot Air’s readers may be familiar with the narrative outlined in Path, but most Americans are not. Path was a rare break in the constant MSM drumbeat that 9/11 was Bush’s fault. It also demonstrated (for the first time ever for many viewers) in clear, dramatic terms that the war on terror has been going on for decades.
One of the memes of the anti-Bush forces is that the president’s bellicosity has caused radical Islamists to hate us. The (usually) unspoken collorary to that is if we had a “kinder and gentler” political leadership that was more willing to talk than fight, then the radicals will calm down and back off.
But when you see Bin Laden’s followers shooting up a TV set with Clinton’s picture on it, you know it doesn’t matter who’s president of the U.S., they will hate us just the same. The question no longer is why are they angry at us. It becomes who will be tough enough to stand up to them.
Last night on the local ABC TV news after the movie, they interviewed several (supposedly) “random” viewers about the show. One woman complained bitterly that it was an attack on Democrats. She said that just as it looked the Dems were poised to retake one or both houses of congress, this program will undermine that goal. Exactly.
(However, I don’t subscribe to the view that ABC deliberately intended this. By all accounts most ABC/Disney executives were appalled. It’s obvious where their hearts are. Harvey Keitel has given tens of thousands to Democrats over the year and not one penny to Republicans, same with the show’s producer Marc Platt. Over the last decade 2/3 of Disney’s political contributions have gone to Democrats, despite the GOP being in power much of that time.)
Cato on September 11, 2006 at 7:43 PM
Winning is everything.
Yep.
Part 2 just started and the phone calls when people realize the planes are being highjacked just got to me. I honestly dont want to watch this tonite, but I will.
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:11 PM
Well they are making Barbara Bodine look like SUPERWITCH..if the shoe fits ..
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:13 PM
Why is it that all of the women in the American government are hot?
(disclaimer: Albright isn’t a woman)
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:14 PM
Speaking of Albright … we need to follow international law for everything.
Goes to show that whle the Dems are about law, Bush is about justice.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:18 PM
“Other considerations” … ala Israel/Palestine.
Can’t wait until the end of the movie to see how Bill’s peace brokering went.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:19 PM
“We can not make Peace while we are bombing Muslims” the Maddy Albright character..OH YEAH?
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:19 PM
What good are your fancy missles if you dont use them? Good question Massoud!
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:24 PM
The Moussad character is getting all of the best lines:
What’s the use of technology if you don’t use it?
I don’t need missles, or pictures of missles, I need mortors.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:25 PM
YO ..yo! :) Great minds!
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:26 PM
Dude, get out of my head!
:)
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:28 PM
Wonder if they’ll show the bit of the Bush/Gore debate where GDubs talks against nation building.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:30 PM
Swell … the guys who flew the planes couldn’t even get the Piper Cub started.
Now I feel really stupid.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:31 PM
*laughs* umm..Dudess :)
Is there such a word?
I keep having the thought as this goes on about KSM..I am SO glad we got that monster..and I hope..no..I PRAY (yes, I know..not good!) that they BEAT THE HELL out of him for awhile before we “officially” took possession of him.
I hope we had the Egyptians or the Jordanians or the WORST of the WORST “interrogating” him..P A I N F U L L Y
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:31 PM
WOW! They just totally glossed over Gore’s electoral hissy-fit!
The dems shoudl be happy about that.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:33 PM
OK..NOW the Bush part has begun..stay tuned! BDS is about to begin?
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:33 PM
The real Condi is much hotter in real life.
It’s nice to see Gary Coleman getting work.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:35 PM
ummmmm what are they trying to set up here?
UH HUH>>HERE it is! Bush didnt want to act on intelligence
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:35 PM
So tonite’s episode is a HIT PIECE on the Bush Administration..ohhhhh I get it..bait and switch. How gullible am I?
AND the Bushies SET UP the HERO O’Neill..of course they did.
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:36 PM
So far, if this is a hit piece, it’s a hit piece on Clark. the scene of his role being restructured (depending on the validity of it) may show where the worm turned.
Sour grapes, Dicky boy?
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:38 PM
Well he (O’Neill) is right there :”Political Correctness rules the day”…
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:38 PM
“Everyone’s talking about the cooperation between the Bureau and the CIA.”
Sounds like the bamboo is still under Clinton’s fingernails.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:39 PM
Thank you Jamie Gorelick for the “Wall”….
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:40 PM
Yep..God Forbid we “racial profile”
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:44 PM
“This guy’s a Saudi..we’re supposed to be nice to them”
*sigh* STILL today..same thing
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:46 PM
“He hates the United States, and I’m not letting him in.”
Rock on, brother.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:47 PM
GOD BLESS THIS IMMIGRATION OFFICER!
What a fantastic line “I’m an Immigrant and this guy hates this country, I’m NOT letting him in!”
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:48 PM
*G* YO..Amen to that!
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:49 PM
BEST line, so far:
“Zacahria Moussaui? INS.”
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:51 PM
Oh, so Zacharias is steeped in legalese…
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:53 PM
.. after he left the Blowfish, he went to law school, I guess.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:53 PM
OH NO..they arent going to canonize Coleen Rowley are they? *sigh*
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:53 PM
We’ve opened a new thread for Pt9/11 discussion.
Allahpundit on September 11, 2006 at 8:54 PM
FISA request red tape.
Ptriot Act lookin’ better and better.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 8:55 PM
WHEN are they going to say that “the WALL” was the reason info couldnt be shared? I say..NEVER..any takers YO?
labwrs on September 11, 2006 at 8:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »