Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, September 10, 2006

After days of controversy regarding the accuracy of events as portrayed in ABC's 2-part docudrama "The Path To 9/11", what is YOUR opinion after viewing Part I?

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

CalifChris

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I'm just starting to watch it now out here on the West Coast. Curious as to what you all back East and in the mid-West thought.

Chris, a few comments already posted at the end of this thread: www.drudge.com

I'll check back in the morning to get your reaction. Don't click on the link until you get to the end unless you want other people's perspective to possibly color your opinion.

What I've seen so far is pretty good. Though I think the "Traffic" style cinematography is a bit old already.

I can't find any misrepresntations of the facts that don't have a ring of truth to them. The Clinton administration did view terrorism as a "law and order" problem while bin-laden and al-qaeda never let us think that they were anything but at war with us.

The most damning scene so far is the scene showing the Clinton people refusing to give the go ahead to capture bin-laden for fear of possibly harming children in his compound which is followed by a scene showing hte bombing of the 2 embassies in Africa by Bin Laden in which 247 men, women and children were slaughtered.

The message comes through loud and clear. Had Clinton risked the political fallout an got bin-laden when he could, those 247 people would still be alive, and in the larger sense so would the 3000 people who died on 9/11.

A very powerful film to say the least. I wonder what type of ratings it's going to get.

I'm interested in seeing how they deal with Bush tonite.

The message comes through loud and clear.

Yes it does. The message of the writers is quite clear. It's fiction, remember? Of course we all knew the "right" would take this as gospel.

I'm not some right-wing extremist. And I don't take it as gospel. But speaking as a "news-junkie", I thought so far it has followed what we know to be true about the events leading up to 9/11 very closely.

You don't have to be a "right wing extremist" to buy into the bullshit of this "docudrama." In fact, I'm sure if you were you aren't the target for it. It's compelling, and it's FICTION. That it follows along truthfully then diverges weaving it's lies seamlessly in to the story is it's strength as propaganda.

"it's" should be "its"

"The Clinton administration did view terrorism as a "law and order" problem..."

Let's take the 1993 WTC bombing and see just how Clinton's treatment of a "law and order problem" worked out:


Mohammad Salameh - convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment
Nidal Ayyad - convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment
Mahmud Abouhalima - convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment
Ahmad Ajaj - convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment

The mastermind of this bombing, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman? Convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

And the other mastermind, Ramzi Yousef? Convicted and sentenced to 240 years in prison.

And how did
George Bush ensure that the mastermind of 9/11 did not get away with it?

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Sounds to me like the "law and order" solution brought a whole lot more "justice" than the "war president" solution.

Hans

I wonder which method creates more terrorists?


"The most damning scene so far is the scene showing the Clinton people refusing to give the go ahead to capture bin-laden for fear of possibly harming children in his compound which is followed by a scene showing hte bombing of the 2 embassies in Africa by Bin Laden in which 247 men, women and children were slaughtered."

Of course, anyone who watched ABC Nightline after the movie saw Richard Clarke himself debunk the Tarmac Farms episode.

"It had no chance of success", said Clarke.

And, as previously pointed out, that whole segment was pure fiction, with no US personnel OR Northern Alliance troops in the area at the time and no required second source to verify bin Laden's presence.

Clarke said that the local tribesman who would have gone in would have been wiped out by bin Laden's two tanks and other heavy fire capability.


WHAT really was amazing, was the right-wing fundamentalists who wrote this script, taking the opportunity to show their right-wing fundamentalist counter-parts, the terrorists, shouting "Clinton is Satan, Clinton is Satan", just like the right-wingers were doing here at home at the time.

Too bad that an otherwise important story about John O'Neill, the FBI, and Richard Clarke's efforts to get Osama had to spoiled by including the long-held Republican myth that Clinton had not given full orders to use deadly force against Osama, and that somehow we passed on a perfect opportunity to get him.

The saving grace of that fictionalized scene may have been the hysterical CIA woman after the Nigerian bombing, who, in an odd sort of unintentional way, represented the hysterical rants of the righties on this wet dream of a myth.

(if you want citations, just click my name and check the last few days of posts)



"I'm just starting to watch it now out here on the West Coast. Curious as to what you all back East and in the mid-West thought."

Programs air at the same time everywhere. Your clock just happens to say something else depending on where you are. Do tRy to kEEP uP.

Programs air at the same time everywhere.

Uh, Joe... that's not correct. Central time zone this is applicable, West coast is a delayed feed, unless it's sports. The broadcast is at 8PM for both East and West coasts. The President's speech will interrupt the East coast broadcast, not the West's.

Do tRy to kEEP uP.

"Programs air at the same time everywhere."

No they don't. The program last night aired at 8:00 est on the east coast, 8:00 pst on the west coast. That's a difference of 3 hours for the mathematically impaired.

It was one of the best pieces of pure political propaganda that I have seen this election year. Oh, and that disclaimer at the beginning really will prevent Americans from believing that the scenes portrayed actually happened.
Dumb folks everywhere will be fooled.
If you believe this nonsense then you are one of them.

Seems that the producers did a lot of last minute editing. Basically the dramatization up to the capture of Ramzi Yussef and through his trial seemed fair. The dramatization of Ressam's capture seemed fair, too. The part in between -- the Berger v. Tenet dialogue was refuted by Clarke. Would like to hear more on that.

Would like to hear how they deal w/ W.'s shrub cleaning vacation & the ignored PDB.

t&c, as I understand it, the PDB's most shocking content was the headline. The memo itself contained no new or actionable material. But maybe you know more then me about it. What actionable information did that PDB contain which would have allowed Bush to connect the dots and prevent the 9/11 attacks?

Danni, not enough "Dumb folks" believed Farenheit 9/11 to sway the election. And I suspect, not enough "dumb folks" are going to turn against democrats because of this movie to have an impact on the midterms.

Did anyone catch ABC's cheezy reference to Clinton's affair with Monica? It went super fast on the screen but this was how it was shown:

Shows closeup of Clinton saying :
"I DID NOT HAVE..."

"SEX".. (as soon as Clinton said "sex" ABC pans for that one split second over to a photo of the Washington Monument in a pathetic attempt to show the building as representing a phallic symbol


..."WITH THAT WOMAN, MONICA LEWINSKI"
(showing a photo of Lewinski)


Anyone else catch that?

I don't think of 9/11 as entertainment and won't be viewing this or any other "entertainment" piece centering around 9/11.

But having read about this in the news, I knew the Clinton apologists would be out in full force on this thread. And as someone who was cursing Clinton and his inaction right after I saw the 2nd plane crash on 9/11, that bothers me. Clinton ignored multiple Al Queda attacks and the result was not hard to predict.

The reason for his inaction is simple: Clinton cared only about being a well-liked celebrity. So if bombing the Serbs, who never bothered us, was going to be popular, then Serbs were going to be killed by American bombs. And if military action against Al Queda was going to be unpopular, then Americans were going to die because he was not going to lose popularity by protecting them.

I'm not a right-winger and think that Bush is worse than Clinton because doing nothing is better than helping the enemy. But let's not re-write history and pretend that piece of shit did anything but ignore the problem. He blew it. If you couldn't see it as it was happening, then 9/11 should have been your first clue. It is sad that anyone would still be stupid and disrespectful enough to defend his inaction given the result.

Sully

When Clinton bombed what he was told were al-Qaeda hideouts the Republicans SCREAMED "wag the dog" and said it was a diversion of the Monica scandal -- and I remember it well because at that time I was a staunch Republican and believed all their crap.

In the movie I noticed that it was CLINTON who caught the blind sheik and others who bombed the WTC Tower in 1993 and they got over 240 years in prison.

Bush has still not caught bin-Ladin. Bush also directly saw to it that all the bin-Ladin family members here in the U.S. could leave the U.S. on 9-12-01 before the FBI/CIA could even question them -- something no one else in the country was allowed to do.

No, sorry, the Bush family is toooooo interwined in business dealings with the bin Ladins who are extremely wealthy from developer deals, etc. in the ME and the Bush family is way toooooooooo close to the Saudis. Bush babbles "if you fund the terrorists, you are a terrorist." Well, the House of Saud is in this terror crap up to their necks but Bush does nothing about them except run around his ranch in Crawford holding hands in a patch of daffodils with some sleezy Saudi sheik and now Bush's allowed 15,000 Saudi "students" to come to our soil and learn what? Engineering and "Bomb-making 101"? Bush couldn't even keep track of 6 Egyptian students who came here on visas a few weeks ago and never showed up at their schools. Do you think Bush can keep track of, and know the REAL intentions of, 15,000 Saudi "students"?

You are known by the company you keep and Bush and his entire family kees VERY CLOSE COMPANY with Saudis sheiks who fund terrorists.

Sully

Clinton cared only about being a well-liked celebrity. So if bombing the Serbs, who never bothered us, was going to be popular, then Serbs were going to be killed by American bombs.

I thought Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia was a disgrace. Yugoslavia was one of our best allies in WW II and helped many downed American pilots hide and escape from the Nazis. Muslims in Albania wanted to take over -- thru sheer numbers and birthrate -- Kosovo which belonged to Yugoslavia -- NOT to Albanian Muslims. So who does Clinton help? The Muslims!

Kosovo and the bombing of Yugoslavia was the biggest disgrace ever committed by Clinton. Yugoslavia had every right to get rid of the Muslims trying to take over Kosovo for themselves. I agree with you 110% on that one.

Chris?
Yugoslavia had every right to "get rid" of the Muslims trying to take over Kosovo for themselves.
Are you sure you want to go where that line of thought takes you?

CalifChris, Leadbelly -

My take on our bombing of Serbia was that we got involved in a fight that had been off and on for hundreds of years. The only reason the Serbs were cast as bad guys is that they were winning. Both sides were doing the same shit. It didn't affect us and was none of our business. But trouble in the Balkans made Europeans scared that it would somehow lead to another World War so they had Clinton do their bidding after a nice PR campaign about "genocide" (Rwandans needed better media people apparently). There was no reason for us to get involved.

Had the Muslims been winning and we bombed them instead of the Serbs, I'd feel the same way.

Chris - The arrests made after the 1993 bombing were made because the terrorists did very little to cover their tracks and because some of them remained in this country. We ignored the larger picture. Then we ignored the Khobar Towers, the embassies, and the Cole. We ignored multiple threats for more of the same. It was complete negligence.

I don't care what the Republicans were screaching at the time. The people in charge get the blame. We did relatively nothing while Clinton was in charge and so he gets the blame. Just like Bush now gets the blame for every idiot thing he is doing or failing to do. As for his ties to people who are friendly to our enemies (if they are not enemies themselves), I have no problem believing it.

I just don't see how Bush being a moron and possibly an outright traitor does anything to forgive Clinton of his negligence.

LEADBELLY

Chris?
Yugoslavia had every right to "get rid" of the Muslims trying to take over Kosovo for themselves.
Are you sure you want to go where that line of thought takes you?


I didn't mean genocide, I meant push them back into Albania where they came from. The Albanian Muslim paramilitary group -- the "PRK" -- were slaughering Yugoslavia's police and paramilitary on a daily basis and Milosivec (sp?) fought back.

A bunch of foreigners coming here to our country and slaughtering our police, National Guard, whatever should be shot and killed too. Milosivec was defending all of his country and that included Kosovo. The Muslims took over a portion that did NOT belong to them and deserved to be shoved back to Albania.

Sully,
That's about my take on it . . . whichever side was winning was going to end up taking evil actions to preserve their advantage.

I do disagree about the rest of the world having no interest in it. The situations in most of the "global hot spots" today are resultant from power dynamics set up by the US and USSR in our proxy fights over the cold war. The various people we and not insignificantly they armed, supported, eliminated opposition of and periodically removed from power created the desperate climates in nearly half of the world today. The USSR and China put AK47s in the hands of something like 1/10th of the world's population. That was bad juju. The US has proped up oppressive strongmen and explotative oligarchies around the world, again bad juju.

The project for our "peace dividend" after the cold war should have been restoring these cold war casualties to something resembling functioning societies. We should have been executing a global "Marshall Plan." Instead, our government withdrew to the sidelines thinking that out mltinational corporations and the free market would sort it all out faster and cheaper. Big time ooops.

Chris ^^^

That is a very one sided view of the conflict. Both sides were 13th century peoples behaving or prepared to behave as monsters. I know people that served there, and it was neither as you or a Muslim propogandist would describe. For the most part, both armies/militas were conducting themselves as animals. There needed to be a stop to it. The geopolitics needed to be secondary to the humanitarian crisis . . . just as in Ruwanda, Somalia or Darfur. Both sides were the bad guys.

These places aren't just screwed because the people are somehow inferior or backward. In large part, these places are screwed up because 700 years of colonialism and cold war have screwed them up. At some point the 1st world will have to try and right some wrongs. (And we can't just do it for profit.) This is the real source of terrorism. This is the real source of the world war we face now. The developed world will face increasing resentment and violent challenges from the undeveloped world if we continue to leave them to wallow in the messes we and the Russians (the Brits and French before us) created.

Leadbelly - You make a good point. I'm not so sure such an effort would have been welcomed by the locals. They have a long list of gripes and showed real patience in waiting out Communism before continuing their fight. But trying such a thing would be better than taking sides and participating in the fighting.

Both sides were 13th century peoples... Both sides were the bad guys.

Then why did we decide to side with the Albanian Muslims who illegally invaded Yugoslavia?

Albania and its Muslims are still in the 13th century but my neighborlady's brother (who lived until his 80's and died about two years ago) survived the downing of his B-24 in Yugoslavia ONLY because non-13th century Yugoslavians in WW II hid him in their barn from the Nazis until they could ferry him and another U.S pilot over a river to safety. If I had to pick sides, it would be with a WW II ally of the U.S. (Yugoslavia) who was illegally invaded by a horde of Muslims from Albania.

"Would Dems be happy if OBL were captured or killed? I doubt it. The criticism wouldn't stop. The guy might already be dead for all we know."

They would be happy. They would just have to find a way to take credit for it or to minimize the credit Bush gets. Being part of a political party is all about being a petty piece of crap no matter which side you are on.....

You are right that the criticism would not stop. In this case though, it would still be deserved. Bush has created problems for us that OBL could have never created and that his death won't solve.

This is the real source of terrorism. This is the real source of the world war we face now.

And who are 99% of the terrorists? Muslims religous fanatics. Why then give the Albanian Muslims an even wider area within which to operate by handing them Yugoslavia's land in Kosovo? I didn't see Yugoslavians directing those planes into the WTC on 9/11, I saw Muslims doing it. Not too bright to even further the operations of the terrorists. Did you know that bin Ladin had made a number of visits to Albania?

Chris,

If the Muslims had been winning, we would have bombed them into retreat as well. The point isn't that one side was Muslim. The point is that one side had the advantage and continued to press that advantage while both sides acted without regard for civilians. The only way to protect the civilians was to halt the advance of the stronger force. It would have been the Muslims if they had been winning.

Also, don't forget that there is a "native" Muslim presence in Kosovo. Many of the people being herded up, shot, or driven out were not Albanian, but native to Kosovo. The borders of the Balkan states are as artifical and arbitrary as any in the world. For the most part, Kosovo Muslims were gerrymandered as a political minority because there were infrastructure assets in thier homelands (like the Kurds in Iraq.) Did you know that prior to 1941 Albania's border contained most of Kosovo?

Xenophobia makes it all to easy for you to recognize the rights, claims and property of the group that is more familiar, while disregarding claims to the contrary.

Both sides are and were wrong. That's not so uncommon in this world.

Did you know that prior to 1941 Albania's border contained most of Kosovo?

No, I didn't.

I am also hardly xenophobic regarding Muslims as I have been an extremely strong voice on here about the wrong done to the mass slaughter of Iraqi civilians when Bush illegally invaded their country and ordered it "shocked and awed" in 2003. According to a tally taken a year ago by the respected British medical journal "The Lancet") amost 100,000 Iraqis have died in Bush's illegal war. (Now that the whole country of Iraq has run amok since Saddam was yanked out of power and Iraq has gone into a civil war, no one even keeps count anymore.)


Did you know that prior to 1941 Albania's border contained most of Kosovo?

I'm guessing, since you say it was in 1941, then WW II must have had something to do with Yugoslavia gaining control over Albania. How did that come about -- a treaty or what?

Leadbelly

I looked up my question myself

The newly elected Constituent Assembly dissolved the monarchy and established the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia on November 29, 1945. Two months later, it adopted a Soviet-style constitution that provided for a federation of six republics under a strong central government. In an effort to prevent Serbian domination of the new state, the regime made separate republics of Montenegro and Macedonia and created within Serbia itself an ethnically mixed Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and a mostly Albanian Autonomous Region of Kosovo. At a later date, the regime further divided Serbian territory by recognizing three "nations," the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, in an attempt to overcome competing Serbian and Croatian claims to that republic. The constitution established a rubber-stamp Federal Assembly and a presidential council to administer the federal government. It also included restricted wording on the inviolability of the home, the right to work, freedom of speech, association, and religion, and other rights. Tito headed the party, government, and armed forces; his party functionaries oversaw the industries and supervised republican and local officials.

There are so many players it makes my head spin. Guess you were totally correct when you stated earlier that ..."In large part, these places are screwed up because 700 years of colonialism and cold war have screwed them up."

Chris,
I knew I should have posted an edit. Xenophobia makes it easier for all of us to favor one side and dissasociate from another. I didn't just mean you, even though I realized it would read that way.

Xenaphobia: fear of Lucy Lawless.

Albania and its Muslims are still in the 13th century

Don't knock Albania until you've tried it.
www.missalbania.net

Oh yessss.

I hear NBC is going to broadcast Farenheight 9-11. First in primetime, then as an after school special.

web.archive.org

NEWSWEEK: In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S. (Sunday March 21, 10:51 am ET)

"They Came in There With Their Agenda and [Al Qaeda] was not on it," Says Former Counterterrorism Chief Clarke of Bush Administration

NEW YORK, March 21, 2004/PRNewswire/ -- Newsweek has learned that in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States, after a federal judge severely chastised the FBI for improperly seeking permission to wiretap terrorists. During the Bush administration's first few months in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in the March 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 22).

Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism chief of the national-security staff, tells Newsweek that at an April 2001 top-level meeting to discuss terrorism, his effort to focus on Al Qaeda was rebuffed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz said, "Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?" The real threat, Wolfowitz insisted, was state-sponsored terrorism orchestrated by Saddam Hussein.

In the meeting, says Clarke, Wolfowitz cited the writings of Laurie Mylroie, a controversial academic who had written a book advancing an elaborate conspiracy theory that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Clarke says he tried to refute Wolfowitz. "We've investigated that five ways to Friday, and nobody [in the government] believes that," Clarke recalls saying. "It was Al Qaeda. It wasn't Saddam." A spokesman for Wolfowitz describes Clarke's account as a "fabrication." Wolfowitz always regarded Al Qaeda as "a major threat," says this official.

Clarke tells Newsweek that the day after 9/11, President Bush wanted the FBI and CIA to hunt for any evidence that pointed to Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Clarke recalls that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was also looking for a justification to bomb Iraq. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld was arguing at a cabinet meeting that Afghanistan, home of Osama bin Laden's terrorist camps, did not offer "enough good targets." "We should do Iraq," Rumsfeld urged.

Six days after the president's request, Clarke says, he turned in a classified memo concluding that there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity in 9/11-nor any relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The memo, says Clarke, was buried by an administration that was determined to get Iraq, sooner or later.

In his new book, "Against All Enemies," Clarke portrays the Bush White House as indifferent to the Qaeda threat before 9/11, then obsessed with punishing Iraq, regardless of the what the evidence showed about Saddam's Qaeda ties, or lack of them.

In his new book, Clarke recounts how on Jan. 24, 2001, he recommended that the new president's national-security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, convene the president's top advisers to discuss the Qaeda threat. One week later, Bush did. But according to Clarke, the meeting had nothing to do with bin Laden. The topic was how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. "What does that tell you?" Clarke remarked to Newsweek. "They thought there was something more urgent. It was Iraq. They came in there with their agenda, and [AQ] was not on it."

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable