Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, September 11, 2006

Protests from former Clinton administration officials prompted ABC to change or cut segments in part one of its of its Sept. 11 miniseries, which aired Sunday night. [CBS News]

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

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

It wasn't.....edited, I mean!

Filled with lies, innuendo, assertions, and doctored premises.

I hope that the folks who watched this piece of literary drivel know that it is not true.

MotherFrocker

Man, I saw that special last night....i cannot believe how Clinton made 9/11 possible. Thank Heaven for Bush, our savior. God bless him! America Rules!

I thought it did a good job of showing how SPINELESS the clinton administrations top people were. How much they had to worry more about covering their own ass instead of getting the job done.

Clinton admin = Pathetic.

My feelings exactly.

I didn't watch, but I did inform my Northern relatives that their visits will no long include Disney, and I cancelled my paid weather service with my Orlando ABC station WFTV...screw em...

This program was written and produced by friends of Rush and Carl and is an obvious attempt to SLIME Democrats for the upcoming election...

But most people aren't "buying crazy" anymore...The Republicans are losing the House...


It was edited somewhat.

www.cnn.com

That being said....

"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 about their mythical wet dream.

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

(From Calif Chris' most excellent Back Page thread)

www.drudge.com

Amazing, some right wing producers creating some right wing propaganda.

I think the left could do better though, and funnier. I'd like to see this scene:

Clinton is in the Oval Office, getting a BJ. There are two buttons to the left of him, one labelled kill OBL, the other says let OBL go and let him plot against the US (it's a large button).
Clinton is getting such a great blowjob that he accidentally hits the wrong button.

That's how OBL got away folks! Cut. Print it


What a country...you can say anything you want to about the sitting president, up to and including asserting that HE participated in the attack...but you better not imply that the former DEMOCRAT president was distracted by the threat of impeachment as a result of the prosecution of the two felonies that he committed after the single greatest contribution that he made to the oval office. If you do, you are going to be censored and threatened with your broadcast license. It is a good thing the dems believe in the freedom of speech (when you are criticising Republicans).

But then, after what happened to Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and many other witnesses to the Cliton's wrong doing, who could blame them? I mean, if the IRS can be used to target political enemy, surely the FCC can be used to punish a political enemy.

Look forward to the right using all of the 45 MILLION plus to spread false accusations against Democrats...We have a President who buys "media" to suit his purposes, and believes the Constitution is just "a piece of paper"...

What a dumbass...

congratulations to abc......and scarey...any money lost from your friends and relatives...I will make up as abc has shown the balls to rebuke the following efforts..

clinton called the head of abc
clinton wrote him a 4 page letter.
clinton's lawyer wrote him a letter
democrats wrote a letter
senate dems even threatened abc with liscensing details.....and he didnt cave to this pressure and censorship attempts..



and clinton simply wasnt made to look all that bad.....the ticket takers who let them on the plane even in the face of problems with their boarding stuff...

it is a matter of a different approach to dealing with terrorism.....dems wait until they attack and then try to arrest them and bush does everything that we can to prevent them....I agree with the prevention...

Bill's a sociopath adolescent. Millions of people already know that though. Except the millions of sociopath adolescent followers.

and clinton simply wasnt made to look all that bad.....the ticket takers who let them on the plane even in the face of problems with their boarding stuff looked worse than clinton...

and lets talk about some of the lies that the left thinks are there.


'buzz' patterson was a trusted member of the clinton team..so trusted that he carried the nuclear football for awhile....nuclear codes......he says that and he WAS THERE....that sandy berger tried to call the president once when they had a two hour window to get bin laden and BJ was watching a golf tournament and didnt get back to him in time....there was another case when he just didnt return berger's calls....these are all written about in patterson's book....'direlection of duty....and he is anything but a conservative republican...



A two pronged answer:

"We have a President who buys "media" to suit his purposes," - as opposed to an ex president that threatens the media to suit his - "and believes the Constitution is just "a piece of paper"..." a made up story with nothing more than anonymous sources. Perhaps the proof that false stories about what someone did or didn't say could be harmful. Perhaps Scarey E has accidentally proven their point. Too bad the missed the boat when it was done to someone else.

I agree with the prevention...

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2006-09-11 02:15 PM |


An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure... I'd never expect todays modern democratic liberal to understand old adages. Afterall, grandma and grampa are just old people they never met in pre school.

there was one time when my blod began to boil....when they showed the clip where BJ clinton looked at me again through the screen and said.....
"I did not have sex with that woman"
what a lying sack of shit.....

come on dirtman.....lets keep the discussion up at a high level.......I assure you...liberal heads will explode.....

but I agree.....maybe old people are dottering old fools after all....

come on dirtman.....lets keep the discussion up at a high level.......I assure you...liberal heads will explode.....

but I agree.....maybe old people are not dottering old fools after all....

Why does one side always have to be right? Bush sucks and has made things worse. That is obvious. Clinton ignored Al Queda for 8 years and was largely reponsible for the result: 9/11. That is also OBVIOUS.

You fucking people are such a bunch of brainless hacks it is amazing. How many skyscrapers have to be dropped on your skulls before you get you stop waiting for a political party to tell you what to think and start using common sense?

A stictch in time saves nine.

If you can't find time to fix it right fisrt when will you find time right later.

A penny saved is a penny earned.

God helps those who help themselves.

etc. etc. etc.

That's right a_citizen and bl2, so just because that ABC made up shit that didn't happen to make the Clinton admin look bad, well that's OK with you.

They were making a valid point, so valid that they had to make shit up that didn't happen and lie and tell polar opposites to what actually happened, because that helps catapult the propaganda.


This furthers the point of why our country is in the mess it's in today. And it's the people of this countries fault.

"it is a matter of a different approach to dealing with terrorism.....dems wait until they attack and then try to arrest them and bush does everything that we can to prevent them....I agree with the prevention..."

Can you prove any prevention?

No, I didn't think so, but waving your arms around in the front yard and hollering "all Clinton's fault" will keep tigers out of the kitchen.

Try it, it works.

Dumbass astroturfer.

That's right a_citizen and bl2, so just because that ABC made up shit that didn't happen to make the Clinton admin look bad, well that's OK with you.

(Do tell? How many times do you think you'll have to read the 9-11 report before comprehension will set in?)

They were making a valid point, so valid that they had to make shit up that didn't happen and lie and tell polar opposites to what actually happened, because that helps catapult the propaganda.


(Do tell? How many times do you think you'll have to read the 9-11 report before comprehension sets in?)

(Anyone ever figure out what Sandy had down his pants?)

This furthers the point of why our country is in the mess it's in today. And it's the people of this countries fault.

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2006-09-11 02:27 PM |

"I did not have sex with that woman"
what a lying sack of shit.....

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2006-09-11 02:21 PM


He didn't say that, can you tell me what he actually said?

"I did not have sex with that woman"
what a lying sack of shit.....


The greatest farce ever thrust upon the American people. Clinton was giving a deposition when this statement was uttered, but what most still to this day conveniently forget, by the rules set forth by both parties to the deposition, "sex" was defined as intercourse, not foreplay, not oral, not masturbation, but intercourse!

It still amazes me that for all the scripting and posturing Clinton's opponents always accused him of, that they would think he would purposely make such a condemning statement which any rational person might think could be proven wrong in an instant. He didn't, and he wouldn't. Was he trying to cover up what he'd done? Obviously, because Monica had nothing to do with Paula Jones' charges whatsoever, and he rightly knew his opponents were using Jones to go on a fishing expedition for anything they could use against him. It is what it is, but for all sides its an embarassment to our nation, and I hold everyone responsible not just Clinton.

No, I didn't think so, but waving your arms around in the front yard and hollering "all Clinton's fault" will keep tigers out of the kitchen.

Try it, it works.

Dumbass astroturfer.

Posted by Mista Kurtz at 2006-09-11 02:27 PM
I never said all Clintons fault. I have said Clinton needs to share in fault. Something most liberal democrats are incapable of uttering.

Hatered will do that to ya.



"If people blame Bill Clinton after seeing this, then the miniseries has failed," said Kean, the former Republican New Jersey governor. "That's wrong and it shouldn't happen."


So you righties were upset that the Reagan bio was pulled because it indicated Reagan didn't like gays?

Didn't think so.
I can see why Dubya wants to interrupt tonight's segment (dealing with his failures).
Clinton was a failure for not launching a hoipe for the best attack but Bush is a hero for not going into Pakistan to get Mr. 9-11? Talk about delusional.

Dirtman, do you even know what I am talking about? Do you know which parts of this series was absolute fiction, designed to make the admin look bad, and other things that were characterized the exact opposite way in which they took place?

Do you realize they did that?


Do you still believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 as well?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I thought it did a good job of showing how SPINELESS the clinton administrations top people were. How much they had to worry more about covering their own ass instead of getting the job done.

Of course you did! That's what it was meant to do!

Of course every responsible right wing pundant is up in arms about this little propaganda piece. You might ask yourselves why. . .

I did not have sex with that woman"
what a lying sack of shit.....

The greatest farce ever thrust upon the American people. Clinton was giving a deposition when this statement was uttered, but what most still to this day conveniently forget, by the rules set forth by both parties to the deposition, "sex" was defined as intercourse, not foreplay, not oral, not masturbation, but intercourse!

It still amazes me that for all the scripting and posturing Clinton's opponents always accused him of, that they would think he would purposely make such a condemning statement which any rational person might think could be proven wrong in an instant. He didn't, and he wouldn't. Was he trying to cover up what he'd done? Obviously, because Monica had nothing to do with Paula Jones' charges whatsoever, and he rightly knew his opponents were using Jones to go on a fishing expedition for anything they could use against him. It is what it is, but for all sides its an embarassment to our nation, and I hold everyone responsible not just Clinton.

Posted by tonyroma at 2006-09-11 02:31 PM |

What an utter intellectually dishonest apologist you are. You sir / Ms. are truly pathetic. Your mind is'nt open it's empty.

"No one else was hurt in the fatal explosion but four players and three
officials at the Moscow Candidate Masters' Chess Championships were sprayed
with blood and brain matter when Nikolai Titov's head suddenly blewapart.
Experts say he suffered from a condition called Hyper-Cerebral Electrosis
or HCE."

www.math.uwaterloo.ca

www.math.uwaterloo.ca


Big John,

"That's right a_citizen and bl2, so just because that ABC made up shit that didn't happen to make the Clinton admin look bad, well that's OK with you."

"Make shit up" is an interesting way to look at it. Regardless, my feeling is the people who are screaming the loudest said nothing about the "damned piece of paper" story mentioned earlier. The same people said nothing about the false light that "Fahrenheit 911" cast. The list goes on and on. If you are a fan of free speech, then you have to endure it when it goes against you as much as you enjoy it when it is in your favor.

My hope is the GOP makes A LOT of hay about the democratic attempt to cover, dodge, and re-write history to the point of threatening a media outlet for producing a television show. If Bush did that you wouldn't need a radio to hear the democrats scream.

"They were making a valid point, so valid that they had to make shit up that didn't happen and lie and tell polar opposites to what actually happened..."

I never said that. I was so concerned about the show that I took my bike out for a ride and missed it. As to what 'actually happened', I wasn't there and neither were you. Do I believe the Cliton administration would lie to cover their ass? They have proven the answer to that one to be YES! So is there some other source to prove the truth or falsity of any statement that you believe are lies?


Can you prove any prevention?

No, I didn't think so, but waving your arms around in the front yard and hollering "all Clinton's fault" will keep tigers out of the kitchen.

Try it, it works.

Dumbass astroturfer.

Posted by Mista Kurtz at 2006-09-11 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

YES I CAN.,,,NO ATTACKS IN FIVE YEARS......THROUGH PREVENTION......
I AM NOT YELLING>>....caps used for emphasis.....



So, even when the right tries to blame Clinton, it coimes back to bite them in their cracker asses.

That's right, the republicans were on a witch hunt concerning a blowjob, so much so, that Bin Laden became an afterthought. How nice of you repubs. Thanks for killing over 5000 (2900 in the attacks and almost as many soldiers) Americans due to your partisan bullshit.

Do you still believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 as well?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2006-09-11 02:34 PM

Oh, I don't know. Why don't we ask Saddam why he offered Bin Ladin Asylum? K?

"I did not have sex with that woman"
what a lying sack of shit.....

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2006-09-11 02:21 PM

He didn't say that, can you tell me what he actually said?

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2006-09-11 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

that is AN EXACT QUOTE and none of your leftists revision of history will change that......it is on film for you to see.

and tony.....we didnt buy the its not sex thing or the definition of what 'is' is.....then and we dont buy it now....that argument is pretty shallow to people in the real world with wifes who would think that you were having sex with a woman if you got a hummer from one of your co workers.........

and there is a really sad adendom to this....I have seen some shows about teenage sex and the teens use this same thing to try and tell us that its no big deal.....and to be crude for just a moment.....when a guy has his penis in your (not your daughter, tony) daughters mouth...thats sex.

So, even when the right tries to blame Clinton, it coimes back to bite them in their cracker asses.
(Ahhhh another racist liberal. Who'da thunk?)

That's right, the republicans were on a witch hunt concerning a blowjob, so much so, that Bin Laden became an afterthought. How nice of you repubs. Thanks for killing over 5000 (2900 in the attacks and almost as many soldiers) Americans due to your partisan bullshit.

(How's bout blaming the guy who couldn't control his willy and then lied to cover it up? He sure didn't think it was nothing. Otherwise he's have said yeah I poked her in the mouth, what of it?)

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2006-09-11 02:38 PM |

The Republican Jihad against the truth rolls on - another $45M left to go....

A_Citizen, by having ABC produce right wing propaganda and comparing that to a radical small extremists blurb on "a piece of paper" are two separate things entirely.

I guess this is because I believe that 9/11 belongs to this country, and should be bigger than some right wing producers attempt to mislead the public about what actually happened.

There is plenty of blame for Clinton, and I don't really think making up utter falsehoods does anything than further ignoranceify (I just made that word up) our already stupid, ignorant public. The same public that believes Saddam had ties to 9/11.

As to what actually happened, a lot of it was covered in the 9/11 report. A report made by some god damned patriotic Americans that didn't feel the need to stupid partisan games, but thought the truth mattered.

"That's right, the republicans were on a witch hunt concerning a blowjob, so much so, that Bin Laden became an afterthought. How nice of you repubs. Thanks for killing over 5000 (2900 in the attacks and almost as many soldiers) Americans due to your partisan bullshit."

Gee, someone blaming "righties" for Clinton's refusal to address attacks that occured both before and after the blowjob scandal while also complaining about "partisan bullshit". That would be hypocritical nonsense in the real world but here it passes for a valid point.

I give up. You retards keep arguing over whether ignoring the problem or attacking the wrong country was the "smart" move.

"I did not have sex with that woman"
what a lying sack of shit.....

He didn't say that, can you tell me what he actually said?

that is AN EXACT QUOTE and none of your leftists revision of history will change that......it is on film for you to see.



I always heard him say:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman", I don't recall him once saying have sex.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Now THAT is an exact quote.





"it is on film for you to see."

Then I'm sure you have a link.

Did anyone watch this thing last night?

Between the Manning Bowl and the season premires of the Simpsons and Family Guy I didn't have time for such nonsense.

"The issue was greatly confused by an unusual definition for sexual contact which excluded oral sex. This definition was ordered by the Independent Counsel's Office during the initial questioning which led to the perjury allegations. [2] During the deposition, Clinton was asked "have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, which was limited strictly to intercourse, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex.
en.wikipedia.org

No Dirt, as usual you're talking out of your ass! Learn something before you accuse others of being ignorant when you're the one that's ignorant!



Big John,

"I guess this is because I believe that 9/11 belongs to this country, and should be bigger than some right wing producers attempt to mislead the public about what actually happened."

So tell me what you think of Michael Moore's film.

"having ABC produce right wing propaganda and comparing that to a radical small extremists blurb on "a piece of paper" are two separate things entirely"

You are correct. Prior to the news that this film was going to come out, generally you heard mere assertions that Cliton had the opportunity to get Osama and did not. That appears to be true - I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Why he didn't is a different matter. The story about the "piece of paper" has made it around the internet, and surfaces in EVERY debate that has to do with presidential powers or a "spying program." It has always had more credibility than any assertion that was made in ABC's television show.

and tony.....we didnt buy the its not sex thing or the definition of what 'is' is.....then and we dont buy it now...

Good. At least you admit you have no interest in the actual truth, only that which fits into your precious ideology of lies and obfuscation. Now we know where you stand, as if we didn't before. Don't let the truth bite you in the ass, okay?


In toight's episode, how will the Bushies be portrayed?

Will they show Richard Clarke hounding everyone in the white House to act on the recommendations he had made and being totally ignored and moved to another office?

Will we see Incurious George reading My Pet Goat and looking like he wanted his Mommy?

Will we see George saying "he can run but he cannot hide", then saying that bin Laden wasn't important?

How will the vacationing President who ignored the direst warning about the attack and the Sec of Def who "couldn't imagine" such an attack be treated?

Stay tuned for the next episode of "SOAP"!

tonight, lol

tony and others....it is so sad to hear you and others defend this man's sexual harrasement of monica lewinsky and let me ask you....why is it called oral SEX if it isnt sex?


and here is a real difference between the last two presidents...


bush calls the NY times and asked them to not publish a story in the interest of national security..

and clinton pulls out all the stops to stop abc from making him look bad......


its all about him.

"Prior to the news that this film was going to come out, generally you heard mere assertions that Cliton had the opportunity to get Osama and did not. That appears to be true - "

No, it's not true.

www.drudge.com


Tony,

and from the same source...only a paragraph lower Cliton publicly stated in a January 1998 press conference, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

That was not during a hearing when he looked at the definition, that was what he told the public and the press.

Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC's 9/11 Docudrama

thinkprogress.org

"1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it."

"In short, this scene -- which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden -- never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

Republicans lying about Clinton?


Say it ain't so!!

Posted by Corky at 2006-09-07 01:44 PM |

Bill Clinton did the job he was hired to do. Americans wanted a robust economy, and he gave us one. "It's the economy, stupid"--remember that?--Scrawled on the blackboard by Carville and his boys, to drive the message home about what the Democrats were about?

For 8 years, the only foreign policy Bill Clinton pursued was feel-good, cameras-are-rolling type operations: invading Haiti, feeding Africans (too late to save millions), peacekeeping operations in the Balkans (too late again)--the idea of aggressively pursuing people who blow up embassies and warships just didn't mesh with Clinton's view of the world.

The ultimate fault of 9/11 resides with the American people, who did not DEMAND action after hundreds of our servicemen were killed, after our cruiser is attacked. We thought that just because we had gassed up our SUV's and spent eight years at the mall, the rest of the world was doing the same. We can't demand our presidents do something about national security, when it kept polling somewhere below the Free Lunch Program and New Giveaways To Seniors.

"and here is a real difference between the last two presidents..."

Bush and his gang use fear and an unending chain of lies to trample the Constitution, shred cherished rights, and scare people into believing that questioning him or his bankrupt policies is tantamount to helping the nation's enemies. All in the name of "national security," and nary a peep from the locksteppers.

Clinton gets a blowjob and a herd of repressed, puritanical, hypocritical locksteppers impeach him.

I don't think people like BLT will ever understand that practically everything they profess to believe about George Bush is based on a mirror image created by Karl Rove and his minions.

Bush a uniter, not a divider? Hardly

Bush the successful managerial type from corporate America? Check out his history.

Bush acting "presidential" on 9/11? Pull the other one, it's got a bell on it.

And on and on, ad infinitum, ad absurdum, ad vomitatiousness.

tony and others....it is so sad to hear you and others defend this man's sexual harrasement of monica lewinsky and let me ask you....why is it called oral SEX if it isnt sex?

I have done nothing of the sort. I am correctly stating that under the rules for the deposition, Clinton did not lie. He answered the statement truthfully within the definitions that applied to his testimony. That is all.

A Citizen...

You too are correct, but he was not under oath then, was he? Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it illegal either.

Let me ask any of you, was anyone other than myself even aware that such a distinction was made before Clinton uttered his now infamous statement? Liberal press, come again? Why wouldn't they have Willie's back?

"it is on film for you to see."

Then I'm sure you have a link.

Posted by DATA at 2006-09-11 02:50 PM |


If you had watched what your party got you to censor yourself (no guts) you would have seen it.

Are you saying they dubbed it? Made his lips move? Or are you just saying you never paid attention years ago either?

TONYROMA

Ironic that no one from the White House, including Cheney, would testify UNDER OATH isn't it? The only reason that makes sense for that demand on his part is that his testimony would later be found flagrantly perjurous.

Did anyone watch this thing last night?

Between the Manning Bowl and the season premires of the Simpsons and Family Guy I didn't have time for such nonsense.

Posted by taxman at 2006-09-11 02:51 PM | Reply |

I'm sure you didn't have the time to read the 9-11 report either. Even though it was the majority of your party calling for it hoping it would bury Bush even if it required Berger to stuff his pants.

TONYROMA

Ironic that no one from the White House, including Cheney, would testify UNDER OATH isn't it? The only reason that makes sense for that demand on his part is that his testimony would later be found flagrantly perjurous.

Posted by AllAmerican at 2006-09-11 03:17 PM |

Yeah that's why Tennet, Gore and Clinton all testified under oath to the opposite of what you're trying to sell.

People like you should spend less time on blogs like this and more time in senate voting records and actual books of history.

"the season premires of the Simpsons and Family Guy "

I missed the season premiers! Please tell me that I didn't. Were they worth while?

So tell me what you think of Michael Moore's film.

I paid to see it. ABC put on their right wing propaganda for free, commercial free and broadcast it around the world.

Let's see F-9/11 treated that way then you might have a point.

tony....I am still saddened that you have been taken in with the clinton machine and its nonsense........

I cant believe that someone hasnt seen a copy of that famous night when BJ put his finger in our faces and lied.....unbelievable.....you can talk about semantics all you want.....we are just not that stupid to believe otherwise....

"your party"

I have never voted Democrat excepting Ann Richards. I have never been a member of the Democratic party.

The EXACT QUOTE, please.

well corky...lets see...


mike shcier(not spelled correctly) who was the agent on the ground says it happened

and buzz patterson who was in the clinton administration...in his book...direlection of duty says it all happened......so who is correct?

not remember.....THey may not be talking about the exact items from the docu drama....but this events HAPPENED>...in thier words.....

"Are you saying they dubbed it?"

Real slow now:

bl2 says (that Clinton said): "I did not have sex with that woman" followed by "that is AN EXACT QUOTE"

Others, correctly point out that, no, it wasn't "AN EXACT QUOTE"


"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Now THAT is an exact quote.

To heck with "just saying you never paid attention years ago either?"

Some here are not paying attention NOW.

Hans

Where is your "EXACT QUOTE"?

Two thoughts...

First of all, having been an entertainment lawyer in LA for 17 years, the term "right-wing producers" is an oxymoron.

Secondly, isn't the issue here censorship? The Reagan administration flacks had kittens over the airing of the miniseries over his life, and some minimal editing was done, but no one in Hollywood or at the networks really gave a shit what Reagan's people thought. However, when the FOBs start calling the heads of CBS over the slights in this series, they rushed to make edits to satisfy the FOBs.

Whether it is the right or the left trying to quash a tv miniseries, it is still censorship, which that "piece of paper" is supposed to protect against.

well data....voting for ma richards was bad enough.....well except for when she ran against that oilman...what was his name anyway....the dipshit who said that a woman who was being rapped should just take it ...or something like that.....there wasnt much of a choice then was there?

RIGHT IS RIGHT

Don't forget those smiley photos of Rumsfield and Cheney as they armed Saddam Hussein. Don't forget that Cheney vigorously opposed sanctions agains Iran while CEO of Halliburton, and also while CEO circumvented the U.N. sanctions against Iraq by selling through a Swiss subsidiary. Don't forget Cheney said on September 16, 2001 that Saddam was NOT responsible for 9/11 and that he was 'boxed in". Don't forget Bush was warned in August 2001 and went back to chopping wood without follow up, and after being told during the handover of the White House that Al Qaeda was 'Threat #1" and said, "no, it's not. Iraq is". That plans for Iraq were made in 1997 and carried out by the numerous PNAC members in the administration. Don't forget they withdrew Special Forces instead of reinforcing them just as they were honing in on Bin Laden in Tora Bora -to send them to Iraq. Don't forget Bin Laden is STILL at large. Don't forget Clingon spent much time trying to negotiate a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians - something Bush gave scant attention to, but which is the most pressing need in the Middle East (not counting the mess in Iraq). Don't forget Rumsfield threatened to FIRE anyone who was engaged in "Stage 4 Post-Invasion Planning" and didn't send the 500,000 troops to secure Iraq as every military expert said we'd need. You have a very biased memory pal.

"We can't demand our presidents do something about national security, when it kept polling somewhere below the Free Lunch Program and New Giveaways To Seniors."

It is true that nobody cared about Khobar Towers (you have to expect those things to happen in those crazy places), the embassies (mostly Africans got killed and Africans get killed all the time) or the USS Cole (military people know the risks). But certainly, the case for war against Al Queda and their Taliban allies was stronger in the late 90's than it was for attacking the Serbs. As CIC, part of Clinton's responsibility was national security. He openly neglected that part of his job. The fact that the country had its head up its ass doesn't excuse that. If people needed to be spoon fed that fact that the same people keep attacking us, then that is what should habe been done. Then we should have responded. Clinton knew better and chose to take the path of least resistance.

Dirt...

What are you talking about? Who testified oppositely to what? And have you now been informed of the actual facts surrounding Clinton's deposition and the agreement that "sexual relations" would not include "oral sex", by decree of the Office of Independent Council, not from Slick Willie's end at all, though I'm sure his defense had something to do with it behind the scenes?

I try to be about facts, not smearing people just because I don't like them or their politics. This is no defense of Clinton except for the fact that his detractors have obfuscated and mischacterized this testimony for years, and very few ever correct the record on this very salient point.

FACT: 9/11 ocurred on George W. Bush's watch, 9 months into his first term.

No amount of spin can change that.

I'm sure you didn't have the time to read the 9-11 report either. Even though it was the majority of your party calling for it hoping it would bury Bush even if it required Berger to stuff his pants.

Posted by dirtman580e at 2006-09-11 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Whose party? I don't affiliate with any party. Have I read the 9/11 report, no, but I have researched it. I do need to read it though it is just hard to find time.

Back to work...Have a good rest of the day all.

clinton did respond but in a meek and pitiful way....remember the drug store...which was shown in the movie....
but it is really interesting how the left as forgotten all about thier supposedly moral right to protect thier right of free speach and the first amendment...
when there is a so called art work of a crucifice in a cup of urine....we are told that we have to take it because its their right of free speach and our sense of decentcy be damned..that we just dont understand that its their right......
and then when something comes along based on a document the left quotes all the time......then it lies and has to be either edited or removed.......
congrats to abc for holding strong......
and why arent the other outlets screaming about what was tried against abc?

You know it's funny. When their Guy(Dubya) is in deep trouble they ALWAYS and I do mean ALWAYS Bring up Clinton or some go as far back as FDR to deflect attention away from Their Manboy's failings, Quite Funny if You ask Me.

Larry


Tony (and others),

""The issue was greatly confused by an unusual definition for sexual contact which excluded oral sex. This definition was ordered by the Independent Counsel's Office during the initial questioning which led to the perjury allegations. [2] During the deposition, Clinton was asked "have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, which was limited strictly to intercourse, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex.
en.wikipedia.org

Posted by tonyroma

If you are so attuned to detail as to defend Cliton's statement on this basis as not being a lie, how can you even ENTERTIAN the belief that there were no WMD's in Iraq? (I will remind you that some have been found. They are admittedly not stockpiles, they are not even large quantities...but WMD was found. Further a lie means the speaker KNEW the statement to be false that the time he made it. I don't think you can justify the statement "he lied" if you magnify it as much as you do Cliton's statement.)

"congrats to abc for holding strong......"

And you, naturally, condemned CBS for not holding strong:


"The Reagans" miniseries might have been pulled because of disagreements over its script..

Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, scoffed at the notion that CBS was stifling free speech.

"There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people," Bozell said. "I don't care who you are. You don't have that right."

Gentlemen, do you really want the truth, or are you afraid of what the truth might show? www.physics911.net

. It purports to be a top-secret report from the German external intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) prepared with assistance from an internal German intelligence agency, the BfV. Among the most important claims it makes are the following: German intelligence detected plans for an attack by Arab extremists on the United States, to take place on September 10 or 11, 2001. Israel was aware of the plans and wished the attack to take place without hindrance. The German ambassador informed the President of the US of the impending attacks. He thanked the ambassador and said that he already knew. Subsequently, his administration urgently requested the suppression of information on this warning. The report elaborates that among the various reasons for the attack being encouraged by the US administration was a desire to have a pretext to attack Afghanistan to secure a pipeline route for western oil companies to export oil from the Caspian basin. Despite angry denunciations of the authenticity of the report from various quarters, the German government has to the best of our knowledge not issued a denial of its authenticity.


On June 10, 2001, the BND warned the CIA office in the US Embassy to the Federal Republic [of Germany] that certain Arab terrorists were planning to seize American commercial aircraft for use as weapons of destruction against significant American symbols. This was considered a general warning only. The Federal Republic's warning of August 6, however, was specific as to date, time and places of the attacks.

On July 11, 2001, in Berlin, US officials: Thomas Simmons, a former American Ambassador to Pakistan, Lee Coldren, State Department expert on Asian matters, and Karl Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary of State for Asian matter met with Russian and Pakistani intelligence officers. At this meeting, which was under surveillance, it was stated by the Americans that the United States planned to launch military strikes against Afghanistan in October of that year. The purpose of these strikes was to topple the Afghanistan government and the Taliban in order to replace it with a government "more sensitive to the needs of American oil interests."

In mid-August 2001, President of the Russian Federation Putin ordered that the American authorities be warned of pending attacks on government buildings inside the United States. This warning was conveyed to the US Ambassador in Moscow and via the Russian Ambassadors office directly to the US President.

On August 20, the Government of France, through the American Embassy in Paris and their Embassy in Washington, issued a more specific warning. This warning specified the exact date, time and places of the attacks.

On September 11, President Bush and top aides flew to the state of Florida so that the President could speak with children in a kindergarten. Also at that time, Vice President Cheney absented himself from Washington and went to the safety of the Presidential compound in the mountains of Maryland.


The actual document is available at the link in its original German along with links to ancillary stories including a Fox News Report on Israeli spying within the US that corroborates many contentions in the German report.

A Citizen...

I believe most Americans were always willing to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt on Iraqi WMDs. But, aren't we owed a balanced viewing of intelligence and not a one-sided propaganda onslaught when this country's military is going to be put in harm's way? Its not that they missed it, its by how much they missed it when there was always dispute within the US Intelligence community before the war started. Many do not view this as a good-faith effort on the Bushies part even though 9/11 was right in the rearview mirror.

"remember the drug store...which was shown in the movie...."

Drugstore?

Apparently, some here think this was a documentary.

Hans

TONYROMA

Great post !! How much more proof do we need that Bush/Cheney ignored all the dire warnings and didn't act upon them because they were so focused on invading Iraq - as they had been since before the 2000 election.

Cheney stated on Meet The Press yesterday morning that they would have gone into Iraq regardless of WMD's. Also, Tim Russert played video of Cheney on 9/16/01 stating that Saddam was NOT responsible for 9/11 and that he was 'boxed in'. I guess he could tell the truth a little then.



Tony,

"I believe most Americans were always willing to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt on Iraqi WMDs."

That is not my point. My point is the blanket statement by the Bush haters is "He lied". For someone to make that broad statement then to go to the minutia to prove Cliton did not lie is hypocritical at best. Pick a standard and go with it.

no hans.....you are fishin again......
by drug store of course I meant the pharmecutical factory that BJ sent the cruise missles into.........

and your link about cbs is different.....rather tried to tell us things that were from bogus records....this DOCU DRAMA is based upon hte 9/11 commission report and facts supported by agents on the ground as well as people like buzz patterson........you just cant spin it....but damn you make a good effort......how do you find the time for all your sources?


and lets not forget the rocket attack to take out bin laden.....that was an effort by clinton to do something.....of course when you notify the pakistani government before hand......well....what can you say.....too bad, nice try? or what?

"Pick a standard and go with it."

Okay:

Lying about sex is understandable.

Lying about something which causes 2,600+ American deaths (and counting), and costs the American taxpayer a half-trillion dollars (and counting), is not understandable.

Hans

and all american.....you convientantly leave out the reasons that cheney gave for going in besides the WMD.........
with the un's help from food for oil he was becoming capable of starting up program again
he gave money to people who would strap a bomb around their children to kill others
he housed terrorist camps
when afhanistan was attacked, he housed zarquari.......and again...why did zarquari flee to iraq...why not somewhere else?
he killed thousands of people.

ah hans.....the old bush lied /people died deflection........the oldies are really good arent they?

A Citizen...

It is one thing to say that a President "lied" and completely another to impeach a President when his "lie" wasn't one in the legal context afforded his under oath statement. This is not a double standard, it is a singular one.


Any cries that Bush "lied" about WMDs comes from the fact that he had conflicting information and not once did he state anything other than what he wanted people to believe. He never couched his language to give anyone the impression that he wasn't 1000% sure that Saddam indeed had WMDs when we know INR estimates never rose over the 20% probability threshold in the NIEs.

Clinton was impeached for "perjury" when his statements under oath weren't perjured testimony at all, they were a truthfull assessment of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, albeit, a verbal cover for their actual conduct as consenting adults. Again, I find defending his conduct distasteful, so I try not to do this, but I will defend the record because it has been wrong for quite a long time and no one seems to care about its veracity.

"well corky...lets see...

mike shcier(not spelled correctly) who was the agent on the ground says it happened

and buzz patterson who was in the clinton administration.."

Buzz Patterson is a right-wing radio talk show host, never in the Clinton admin.

One down. Mike who?

Mike who? that refutes R. Clarke and the 911 Commission?

Don't think so, bushboy.

"rather tried to tell us things that were from bogus records...."

Rather?

What are you talking about?

Those were quotes about another made-for-TV movie, "The Reagans."

Hans

"the old bush lied /people died deflection........"

Deflection? Not at all.

A_Citizen said to pick a standard and go with it.

I annunciated one, and went with it.

Hans



I still think it's funny that both the Repubes and the the Terrorists think that Clinton is Satan.

I know those Fundies all have a lot in common, but..... hey!

"and your link about cbs is different...."

So tell us:

How is censoring (and forcing it from CBS) one docudrama (translation: DOCU DRAMA) on CBS different than censoring another docudrama (translation: DOCU DRAMA) on ABC?

Hans

9-11 Research: Dick Cheney9-11 Research Home ... Vice President Dick Cheney was in the White House during the attack. He said he learned of the attack from a clerical secretary. ...
911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/
alibis/cheney.h

Also at that time, Vice President Cheney absented himself from Washington and went to the safety of the Presidential compound in the mountains of Maryland.


Tony,
What is the deal? Why would you post that knowing it wasn't the truth? I thought you were better than that.

crispee

Hans,

I see. It is good to know that according to your standard the fact that one lies is not material. It is the consequences of the lie that matters. So, when one lies about...say...their knowledge of the whereabouts of some document they were commanded to produce, is that bad? What if it is to cover some other crime?

Tony,

The fact that there was conflicting data does not mean that he knew the information that he passed on to be false at that time. So tell me, now that we see that you are willing to perform verbal gymnastics on both sides (with Cliton to prove he was not lying and with Bush to demonstrate that he was not TOTALLY honest and therefore was lying)....how can you say that you are intellectually consistent?

hans......there were so much things from cbs that have been bogus that I must have confused the two of them..........

the reagan story was either based on a book written by one person or not even that.....wasnt it....or was it?
in other words...this is based on a report from a commission put together by the us government and it was a commission that was a screw job from the beginning when they put biased people like goerlich and bin-vinsete....I mean gorelich should have been answering questions....not asking them....

and I read that from 1998 to 99....patterson was a member of the clinton administration....even so much as to be given the nuclear football....if that is wrong....please show me where I am wrong.....I am not being antagonistic......tell me if that is not correct....of course.....you must have a source you know.......LOL

will have to read about it later...

must go......have a great day......

"and I read that from 1998 to 99....patterson was a member of the clinton administration....even so much as to be given the nuclear football....if that is wrong....please show me where I am wrong.....I am not being antagonistic......"

bl2: You make a claim, it is up to you to back that claim.

Otherwise it is just a "well, I heard it on the radio" level of proof.

In otherwords: bullshit.

Hans

"It is good to know that according to your standard the fact that one lies is not material. It is the consequences of the lie that matters."

Let's look at this lie:


Wife: "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?"

Husband: "Certainly not, my dear."

Now, this lie:

Wife: "Did you have sex with the babysitter?"

Husband: "Certainly not, my dear."

In both cases the husband is lying.

Is there a difference?

Hans

USATODAY.com - Military aides still carry the president's nuclear ...But do not ask those who carry the football for President Bush. ... "You're always kind of on edge," recalls Robert "Buzz" Patterson, who carried the ...
www.usatoday.com/news/
washington/2005-05-05-nuclear-
football_x.htm - 61k - Cached - Similar pages


Sorry BL2 I couldn't resist a chance to get back at Hans. Even though he has corrected be about 20 times. Rightly I might add.

As the attack unfolded, news reports stated that Cheney had been whisked to a secret and secure location -- later revealed to be the Presidential Emergency Operating Center in the basement of the White House. Cheney was with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, directing the response to the attack. Or was he directing the attack? The testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta is suggestive in this regard.

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" 2

Hamilton indicates that "the orders" were to shoot down commercial aircraft. But Mineta's account makes more sense if "the orders" were not to shoot down any such aircraft. The repeated questioning of Cheney by the junior officer whether "the orders still stand" had to be about whether the order NOT to destroy them still stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not be subject to question by a junior officer as the plane approached. Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-missile anti-aircraft capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane. Neither occurred, and since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change by Cheney, the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military defense that it, and it alone, explains the repeated questioning by the junior officer.
911research.wtc7.net

Crispee...
And what makes you think that the German Intelligence Agency wouldn't know where Cheney was (all current info points to the complex in Virginia, not the White House bunker)? At this point, unless you'd like to prove the other information is false, I'll believe their statements before those from the people I believe are lying to our faces to cover their own complicity in allowing the attacks to take place. Of course, you're free to disagree, but I've got more facts on my side than you do, and the Bushies' track record on veracity leaves a lot to be desired under lenient circumstances, much less these.

LCL, Hans-

I agree, it all smacks of censorship, but in different ways: CBS refused to edit The Reagans, but succumbed to political pressure by moving the pic to Showtime, which had the effect of limiting the audience, while ABC buckled by editing the 9/11 film while keeping it on the network.

I am not sure which is worse, they are both bad. If someone completely makes up something about you and then broadcasts it, then you have a simple recourse- a suit for defamation. That way, you can go under oath to state what is true, and the defendant has to produce their evidence.

Significantly, neither the Reagan supporters or the Clinton supporters were willing to go under oath, and instead resort to pressure on the networks to get their way.

Tony
I can't help it if you want to believe some foreign intel report. The fact is Cheney was at THE WHITE HOUSE and was removed by Secret Service. Everyone makes mistakes. Why don't you just admit your post was wrong? Or the German report was wrong.

"Sorry BL2 I couldn't resist a chance to get back at Hans."

No problem whatsoever.

Make a claim. Back it up.

And technically, Patterson was not "...a member of the clinton administration". He was the military aide assigned to carry the football.

One denotes a political appointee/advisor, the other a military assignment.

Hans



The movie did show the FBI (and the CIA) getting terrorists out of Pakistan and Egypt, tracking down the WTC bombers and convicting them, turning a Muslim to help us capture Ramzi Josef, a Muslim who risked his life and family to stop the mad bomber's killing.

Also a US Border agent, a woman who caught a bomber, and the FBI team that tracked down and stopped the Millenium Attack at the LA Airport.

But of course, all that happened under Clinton, so it doesn't count. Better to blame Clinton for a fictitious missed chance to bag Osama.

I get it.

"Significantly, neither the Reagan supporters or the Clinton supporters were willing to go under oath, and instead resort to pressure on the networks to get their way."

Kudos, RoC. A valid point many here on the right seem to miss each and every time I posted that Bozell comment.

Such shock over liberals... but not a single comment about the same thing with "The Reagans"...

... until now.

Thank you.

Hans

Hans, it is a point that many here on the left seem to be missing as well.

Reagan movie. Clinton movie.

blah blah blah



Assassination of Bush-just a movie.


blah blah blah

Nothing to add to this garbage. Both sides complained. Complained about the other party complaining and complained about the movie that showed their party in an unfavorable light.

blah blah blah

True, RoC.

But the current hue-and-cry is over "Path to 9/11," not "The Reagans."

Hans

AC...

I think you're confusing me with the "Bush lied" crowd. To me it isn't important. What is important is all that has come from our ill-fated invasion of Iraq and the cesspool that it has become during our occupation. I have never stated that Bush should be impeached for his statements about WMDs. I do believe there are far more eggregious crimes that he and his Administration have likely committed than to be concerned with however one wants to view his statements prior to Iraq.

Again, its not gymnastics with Clinton, its called the truth versus the untruth that he lied under oath. He didn't and the law under which he was deposed dictates this, not anyone else's notions of what his statement meant because the terms were defined to mean what Clinton admitted to, not what a cold rendition of the testimony appears to show. He did not have "sexual intercourse" with Monica. If the attorney had asked him about masturbation or oral sex, undoubtably his answer would have likely been completely different, but we'll never know because it wasn't asked.

bl2: You make a claim, it is up to you to back that claim.

Otherwise it is just a "well, I heard it on the radio" level of proof.

In otherwords: bullshit.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2006-09-11 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

well congratulations to you....I snuck..sneaked....back to see your answer.....and a retort was actually funny......nice one.

crispe...thanks for the info...notice tht hans cant dispute the facts I was giving from patterson only that he wasnt appointed by clinton.......and that still doesnt dispute the fact that he was there and heard all of these things take place......


and corky....you are wrong about the blame only clinton at this time.....but what does the woman at the border have to do with BJ clinton? was she his northern honey?
but there had to be some government part of the la attack stopped.......good for them.......wish they had done a little more but at least there was something done in these cases......good for clinton...

seriously....I mean it......nice going....

Why don't you just admit your post was wrong? Or the German report was wrong.

Because from where I sit, neither of us can prove anything with certainty. I have read numerous reports that Cheney was indeed in the Virginia complex, along with others forming a shadow government, and everyone now knows that it was his "undisclosed location", not the bunker under the White House.

On that point I could care less. The record shows that Bush took the ambassador's call of warning. You can figure out the rest. 9/11 was known to intelligence agencies around the world, yet ours was unable to respond? Give me a break. Even you weren't born last night. The report names names and places individuals in specific places. It isn't some anonomous sourced screed. It makes more sense than does the official explanation, and that says volumes when you can't trust the word of those running our own government.

"......good for clinton...

seriously....I mean it......nice going....

Posted by bushlovertwo"

Good on you, ClintonLoverOne!

" ClintonLoverOne"

LMAO!!

Can I have your permission to use that when I address him in the future?

I love it!

On September 11 2001, Mann writes, the long-dormant plan was activated, and any number of top officials - possibly including Cheney himself - were shuttled to Mount Weather.

Residents on the mountain did not need to read the newspapers to discern that something was going on there. Joe Davitt, a retired civil servant who lives in a small A-frame house a mile or so away, told me that on September 11 2001 his wife was returning home from Florida. At the bottom of the hill, he says, she was stopped by state troopers, who asked for identification. At the facility itself, he says, "The Mount Weather guards were not only armed, they had their guns in firing position." John Staelin, a member of the Clarke County Board of Supervisors, says that on September 11, the county's 911 line received a call from an agitated local woman. "She said, 'I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, but the whole mountain opened up and Air Force One flew in and it closed right up. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.' So they said, 'Yes, ma'am.' "
www.guardian.co.uk

So Crispee, are these rural people lying to make Bush/Cheney look bad? We know where Bush was, and it wasn't Virginia, was it, so who was in AF2? My money's on Cheney, how about you?

Oh, I don't know. Why don't we ask Saddam why he offered Bin Ladin Asylum? K?

Posted by dirtman580e at 2006-09-11 02:39 PM


Jesus Christ on a stick, so you do believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Even after Bush categorically stated he did not in the not to distant past.

See folks, this is what's wrong with the country. This country needs an educated and informed populace to maintain a democracy. When people ardently believe falsehoods such as the one listed above, we don't have an informed country.

When people ardently believe falsehoods such as the one listed above, we don't have an informed country.

They're called the 23%ers. If an authoritarian told them that eating shit-on-a-stick would protect them from terrorist attacks, we could close down 75% of our sewage treatment plants....

Damn , lefty , the TRUTH is finally coming out on just how worthless , pathietic piece of shit clinton really is , and a coward president .
You clowns just keep believing your own lies . Lefty is finding out that turds float , in their own cool aide .

In this day and age of C.S.I. , it is harder for you morons to cover up your lies , give it up !

The truth because you saw it on a docudrama that is a fictionalized account with improvised and created scenes? Now that's funny!!!!!!

Yup, we are in trouble, as I stated earlier.

And again, it's not like I'm a lefty stating this, not in the least.

Ok, I revise it from "funny" to "scary as shit."

"dems wait until they attack and then try to arrest them and bush does everything that we can to prevent them"

So explain to me exactly what Bush did to prevent an al queda attack between his inaugration and 9-11. Refer to the 9-11 Commission if you require info as to how serious his advisers were about an attack occurring 6 weeks after June 2001.Refer to Clinton's attack free 8 years.
Comment on his "not wanting to swat flies" reason for doing nothing.
Also, explain "everything" Bush has done to eliminate al queda's R&R zone in Pakistan or their funding from saudi arabia.Feel free to explain how forgetting about OSama and Afghanistan have prevented any attacks.

I know reality will be painful to the righties, but eventually they will have to live there.

btw, Isn't it amazing how the TV show producers were able to come up with alternate footage so fast? Almost like they had it in the can and were just using the unshown stuff to hype the movie.
Nah.....

LOL you libs, Clinton had it coming. I hope the docudrama makes millions and causes greater republican turnout in Nov.

Clinton had it coming.

Yes, that is after all what it's all about, isn't it? Sad that the caricature of Republicans is so lived up to by some on this site.

NG,

Amen, especially after Bushit started his domestic illegal spying just weeks after his inauguraltion in January 2001.

Kind of defeats the arguements for the illegal spying since it was going on for 8 months prior to 9/11 and yet failed to catch any of the hijackers.

Go GOP Go!

"LOL you libs, Clinton had it coming."

Kind of puts it all in perspective for you.

JOHN O'NEILL -- the FBI guy in the movie --

read the link below BEFORE tonight's movie:

WHO REALLY WANTED JOHN O'NEILL DEAD

All I can say is THANK GOD Al Gore is not president. He would have done exactly what Clinton did...NOTHING.
The USA should thank God for George W Bush. He's not perfect but he's no coward.

"All I can say is THANK GOD Al Gore is not president. He would have done exactly what Clinton did...NOTHING."

Stupidity and a psychic prediction, the double whammy.

Isn't it amazing that clinton did "nothing" on terrorism from 1993 to 2000 and there were no attacks?

Bush does things that actually cause terrorists groups and activites to balloon for the past 5 years, but somehow this is proof that he's doing the right thing since we "haven't been attacked"

You partisans crack me up.

"Clinton had it coming."

I'll remember that next time someone like Buffalo Bob slanders a Bush for being a supposed "pedophile" with no proof.

Hey, he had it coming.

Big John said:
Oh, I don't know. Why don't we ask Saddam why he offered Bin Ladin Asylum? K?

Posted by dirtman580e at 2006-09-11 02:39 PM

Jesus Christ on a stick, so you do believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Even after Bush categorically stated he did not in the not to distant past.

See folks, this is what's wrong with the country. This country needs an educated and informed populace to maintain a democracy. When people ardently believe falsehoods such as the one listed above, we don't have an informed country."
--

I'm going out on a limb Big John, but I don't see that Dirt Man said anything about Saddam and 9/11... he mentioned Saddam, Bin Laden, and asylum.

Perhaps it's not a case of people beliving falsehoods, but rather, a case of other people putting words in their mouths to try to make their own viewpoint more believeable?

Just a thought.
l2j

I'm watching the movie right now. The first building just came down.

So sad. So tragic. This is a powerful film. Heart wrenching.

What documents did Sandy Berger stuff down his pants? Copies of documents so that he wouldn't have to stick around the archives to complete his research. Absolutely no original documents were taken from the archive. He was convicted last year. His security clearance was revoked, he paid a large fine and was sentenced to community service.

Do you still believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 as well?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2006-09-11 02:34 PM

Oh, I don't know. Why don't we ask Saddam why he offered Bin Ladin Asylum? K?

Posted by dirtman580e at 2006-09-11 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:


Seems pretty clear to me. Big John's comprehension appears to be quite a bit better than his critic's.

You know, call me old-fashioned, but I still kinda like the truth, especially when it comes to probably the most significant and hotly debated controversy in the history of this country--and the one with the most at stake.

The truth isn't hard to find--there's only one of it. A docudrama should use every shred of truth it can find. There is NO reason it should be departed from. To do so is to create another kind of film: propaganda. I don't buy the argument of "it makes a better story." You know and I know that ain't the issue here. A good writer or director can actually make a BETTER film by sticking to the truth.

There's an agenda visible here, and it's clearly not "entertainment."

With the edits, the series seemed generally consistent with the timeline and characters (except for the UBL in the croshairs bit and the Berger/Tenet dialogue). Dick Clarke's and John O'Niell's characters seemed right on target. Clarke refutes the UBL in teh crosshairs section, too. But edit that dramatization out and it seemed very good!



I can just imagine someone 50 years from now watching this film and saying, "But, um, who was the President?"

George Bush goes almost without mention, much less any of the historic, "My Pet Goat" footage, where we actually see the President informed of the attack.

It's like he wasn't even around the first 9 months.... OK, soooooo that IS the most accurate part of the film!

George Tenent should sue somebody, I'll tell you that! The scene of the telling report from Arizona that, had it crossed then deposed John O'Neills desk is the information that might have stopped 911.... is shown blown off by Tenent without a glance.

Condi gets dissed too, 'cause she's not seen as a true believer and someone has to be the scapegoat along with Tenent and Clinton.

I've wanted a movie about John O'Neill since I saw the Frontline Special about him, but this ain't it.

This is GOP propaganda with the President giving a speech as the centerpiece of the setting.

But, as tortured as the facts were to make Bush disappear if they couldn't make him look good, there is no hiding his role as Ignorer in Chief, as far as terrorism at that time.

And, in his example, the rightnuts who made the fim ignored ABC's own terrror expert, Richard Clarke, when making a movie with him in a starring role.

"Truthiness" will do, when political fortunes are at stake.

Your post from last night was on the money, too Corky.



Thanks, Yav.

I note Calif Chris' link above about Cheney negotiating oil pipelines with the Taliban, and find it makes sense when we consider the NA commander's complaint about Bush giving millions to the Taliban who supported bin laden, and none to him.

Who knows where that might lead?

The Shadow Knows!

'nite, ya'll

What's up with ABC? This movie was a regular hit job... at least the 20 minutes I watched.

PS Corky I sold the Landcruiser. You weren't in the market for one were you? It went ~real~ cheap.

Even Harvey Keitel, the lead actor in the crocku-mentary says it was full of shit:

www.crooksandliars.com

Keitel...The script "said" "history" project. Naturally, he doesn't claim to have done any checking up himself. He's an actor. He gets paid to say what others write. Now, if he actually returned his paycheck that might be something.

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."

August 6, 2001 PDB

If you are so attuned to detail as to defend Cliton's statement on this basis as not being a lie, how can you even ENTERTIAN the belief that there were no WMD's in Iraq? (I will remind you that some have been found. They are admittedly not stockpiles, they are not even large quantities...but WMD was found. Further a lie means the speaker KNEW the statement to be false that the time he made it. I don't think you can justify the statement "he lied" if you magnify it as much as you do Cliton's statement.)

Posted by A_Citizen at 2006-09-11 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


WRONGO Do try again A_Citizen NO WMD have been found to date contrary to Your belief. Do try yet again

Larry

"How much they had to worry more about covering their own ass instead of getting the job done."

I thought that was the general definition of a "politician".

You know what they say about glass houses and casting stones.

I will remind you that some have been found.



Citizen: Please contact the WH, pronto! Bush has said twice w/n the past few months that no WMDs were found in Iraq. Do you think he's misinformed or has he been lying?

"PS Corky I sold the Landcruiser. You weren't in the market for one were you? It went ~real~ cheap.

Posted by aynrandlives"

Hey Fred!

Glad to see ya.

My daughter is doing graduate work in Environmental Sciences, so I'm afraid an SUV would get me Cheney-shot.

I know you only sold it so you could by that new Hummer anyway, lol!

Stay in touch. We need some real Conservative blood around here. The Neos "run oft", and the only conservatives left are just SO happy for all the attention they get now!

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."


they(the clinton admin) didn't seem to have the same qualms in waco
jasman

No they didnt Newjasman.

Hans
lyin bout sex might be understandable
but lyin in court under oath is still perjury
jasman

jasman...

Please go read the 2.52 pm post from yesterday above. Clinton did not lie under oath. Inform yourself because you don't know the truth.

tonyroma
he lied when he was deposed what do you ark disbarred him for -check your facts
jasman

Tony they took his law license for perjury, my friend, that means he lied.

tonyroma
when the fact that your lyin comes down to the definition of is -you are at the very least attemptin to mislead or confuse-if a smart gut like clinton dosen't know what is means-why should we expect anyone to speak clearly in court
jasman

"Tony they took his law license for perjury"

Technically, he surrendered it as part of a plea agreement. It wasn't "taken."

But, hey, why stand in the way of a good delusion.

Hans

"but lyin in court under oath is still perjury"

And as I said, lying about sex (even under oath) is understood (not condoned nor forgiven) by most.

Hans

Gentlemen...

Can any of you actually comprehend the English language?

"The issue was greatly confused by an unusual definition for sexual contact which excluded oral sex! This definition was ordered by the Independent Counsel's Office during the initial questioning which led to the perjury allegations. [2] During the deposition, Clinton was asked "have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." (Which means, "have you had INTERCOURSE with Monica....?") The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, which was limited strictly to intercourse, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex.

Now unless any of you are trying to say that the LEGAL DEFINITON worked out by the ICO for Clinton's deposition doesn't mean exactly what it says, then kindly explain how Clinton's response is a lie? Liberal media my ass, and yes, by now everyone should know the actual conditions Clinton's testimony was given under, and not the Republican witchhunt that transpired after the fact.

And as I said, lying about sex (even under oath) is understood (not condoned nor forgiven) by most.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2006-09-12 01:39 PM | Reply

Does that make it less illegal?

...based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, which was limited strictly to INTERCOURSE, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky."

How is this a lie folks?

Please don't let the actual facts regarding Clinton's testimony get in the way of how the entire issue was reported by the liberal media in its efforts to shield Clinton from those mean Republicans and Ken Starr....

Tony,

Clinton also went on national television to say the following words to the world:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

He did not define "relations" for the public as being pursuant to deposition exhibit 1. He lied to the public. Why would you defend him? You don't defend Bush when he lies.


Hans,

"lying about sex (even under oath) is understood (not condoned nor forgiven) by most."

By most what?

"Does that make it less illegal?"

Never said it did.

My premise was that in a country with a divorce rate approaching 1 in every two marriages, many of which involving unfaithful spouses, most everyone can understand (note I said understand, not accept, forgive or condone, but understand) lying about being unfaithful to your spouse, even in a court of law.

Consequentially, Clinton did not take a political hit over all that.

And that's what toasts so many rightwingers' ass.

Hans

"You don't defend Bush when he lies."

Thank you.

Hans

You're welcome. Answer the question. Most what? Where are you getting that information from that it is okay to lie under oath as long as it's about sex, at least "to most?"

Joe...

As I stated yesterday (please see above), when Clinton was on tv he wasn't under oath. Obviously he was trying to hide the nature of his relationship with Monica, as I think most men would. The lawyers worked out the definition of "sexual relations" prior to the deposition to not mean oral sex, and when asked the question, Clinton again first referred to the agreement before uttering his now infamous statement.

On this point, most people remain ignorant, and I was called out as a person, for stating the actual facts surrounding his testimony. I can only ask the question as to why the rest of America remains clueless as to why Clinton answered as he did. He did it because he was being truthful as per the stipulation agreed upon by both sides.

The next obvious question is how did this lead to impeachment? The answer likely lies with the fact that his detractors would and did use any means necessary to get him for something. America saw his statement without understanding the stipulation about the exclusion of oral sex. The opposition took it from there.

Let me ask, if anyone understood this to be the case at that time, would you have backed his impeachment?

And that's what toasts so many rightwingers' ass.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2006-09-12 01:52 PM | Reply

Hans,
What toasted my ass was seeing that dickbag Clinton wag his finger at "us". As if he were scolding a child.
He should have kept his pie hole shut and left well enough alone.
Besides that, the fact that Hillary pretended as if Bill were beyond reproach in the infidelity arena...

Tony,

"when Clinton was on tv he wasn't under oath."

I'm well aware of that. So it's no longer a crime. That doesn't mean it isn't a lie. So don't ask anyone "how did he lie," because you know how and when he lied. Just because you are not under oath does not mean you aren't lying.

Let me ask, if anyone understood this to be the case at that time, would you have backed his impeachment?

What a stupid question on my part. I can't even get you to agree that Clinton didn't lie under oath when giving his deposition! But I'm sorry, those are the facts, and sometimes they aren't what one wants them to be, are they?

What toasted my ass was seeing that dickbag Clinton wag his finger at "us". As if he were scolding a child.
He should have kept his pie hole shut and left well enough alone.
Besides that, the fact that Hillary pretended as if Bill were beyond reproach in the infidelity arena...


That I can agree with. Clinton never should have had the audacity to throw his indiscretions into the face of America. It was arrogant and ultimately stupid.

Why did Clinton hand over his law license? Was it out of the kindness of his heart?

I'm only asking questions that need answers,
Sincerely,
TR

"Answer the question."

See my 1:52pm post.

"Where are you getting that information from that it is okay to lie under oath as long as it's about sex, at least "to most?"


With the Monica S. Lewinsky/President Clinton scandal consuming all of last year and the beginning of 1999, President Clinton is still a popular president.

It seems unlikely, but Clinton's approval ratings remained high and even improved as a result of the media coverage surrounding the Monica Lewinsky scandal, according to David Domke, an assistant professor of communications. "The media did have an effect, but they didn't have the effect most people would expect," he said.

Don't take a hit after lying under oath?

The only logical conclusion: most everyone can understand (note I said understand, not accept, forgive or condone, but understand) lying about being unfaithful to your spouse, even in a court of law, under oath.

Hans

101...

Perhaps because he was tired of the entire affair? I truly don't know. Why don't you ask him, I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you....

Why don't you ask him, I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you....

Posted by tonyroma at 2006-09-12 02:09 PM | Reply


dictionary.reference.com

Hans,

"Don't take a hit after lying under oath?"

See Tony's posts. Apparently he didn't lie under oath.

Not taking a hit in the polls doesn't mean that "most people understand lying when it's about sex." Perhaps there were other aspects of Clinton's presidency the public was applauding. Perhaps the public enjoyed the scandal and was glad to see our president mixing it up a bit. There are any number of things that could have resulted in certain poll numbers. You are just making a guess, and asserting it as fact.

See Tony's posts. Apparently he didn't lie under oath.

Thank you Joe, for myself, not for Clinton. I hope everyone can understand I am not defending what or how Clinton comported himself during this entire scandal. But we do owe it to ourselves to be as honest and truthful as we can.

I don't know why Clinton didn't press the issue of his alledged perjury any further, but likely it was because the damage had already been done, and he knew the Senate wouldn't finish him off. If I've heard it once, I've heard it a million times that people always say, "You know he was lying when he said that. 'Sexual relations' includes all sex, it doesn't mean just intercourse...."
But yes, indeed, in the context of his deposition, under the agreed upon definition, that is exactly what it meant. Yet no one acknowledges this simple, very important fact. Did Clinton try to cover his indiscretions? Of course. Did he willfully "lie under oath"? No, not unless the agreement wasn't binding by Congressional standards.

"There are any number of things that could have resulted in certain poll numbers."

Absolutely correct.

And if lying about sex is included in the mix (which it has to be), and there's no adverse consequences to his popularity, QED, most (people) most people understand lying when it's about sex. Or it is of such low priority as to effectively prove this point.

For a contrast which proves this:

See: Nixon.

Hans

"Or it is of such low priority as to effectively prove this point."

Understanding it and not caring about it are two different things. Thanks for understanding.

Tony,

"indeed, in the context of his deposition, under the agreed upon definition, that is exactly what it meant. Yet no one acknowledges this simple, very important fact."

It isn't very widely known. My only point is that regardless of what ridiculous definition of "relations" was used for his deposition, when he spoke to the public, he told them he "did not have relations with [her]." By not clarifying his definition, he most likely said it with the intention that the public continue using their own definition. That makes a very dishonest person.

That makes a very dishonest person.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but it does make him an adulterer, hence dishonest at least to his wife. Unfortunately, he had plenty of company, including many of his loudest critics from the Republican Party at that time.

"That makes a very dishonest person."

Which is like saying that a plumber gets his hands wet as part of his job.

Or a chef will chop vegatables as a part of her job.

Calling a politician dishonest ("very" or not) is simply acknowledging the obvious.

"Understanding it and not caring about it are two different things."

Actually, in order to not care about something you have to first understand that something.

Hans

If it MIGHT be Clinton's fault, then it IS Clinton's fault.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

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