Skip to main content

I just discovered this tidbit over at Democratic Underground:

The show is called "The Path to 9/11" and it is going to air Sunday, September 10, and Monday, September 11.

Here's one conservative already drooling over it:


Let me start by saying that "The Path to 9/11" is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible.

And here is more of what we can expect from this show:


This is the first Hollywood production I've seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden's house in Afghanistan.  They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead.  They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed.  National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization.  That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his.  The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants.  Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent.  The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission.  Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000.  The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility and

The producer of the show, Cyrus Nowrasteh, makes it clear he has a pro-Republican point of view in this interview:


FP: When you refer to the failed effort to stop Bin Laden in the 1990s, this was obviously the time of Bill Clinton. How much do you think his administration made us vulnerable to 9/11?
 
Nowrasteh: The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response  -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing."

We know this is simply bullshit.   Yet ABC is airing this propaganda and will undoubtedly promote the hell out of it in the next two weeks.

Isn't it great working against the stacked deck of the corporate media?    Ahhhhhh .... Democracy!


"The Path to 9/11," by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster.

So who is the greater threat to Democracy?   Terrorists or media consolidation?

Our elected president, Al Gore, just said today:


EDINBURGH, Scotland - Former Vice President Al Gore said Sunday ever-tighter political and economic control of the media is a major threat to democracy.

Democracy is under attack," Gore told an audience at the Edinburgh International Television Festival. "Democracy as a system for self-governance is facing more serious challenges now than it has faced for a long time.

William Rivers Pitt has an excellent refutation of all this "blame Clinton for 9/11" b.s. over at Truthout, and even more truthiness compiled in a "datadump" over at Democratic Underground right now. It's something we should all brush up on to face the coming deluge.

Because heads up, folks!  It's an election year, and the propaganda is gonna come fast and furious!   From all sides, and from all corners of the corporate media universe.

It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Originally posted to theyrereal on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:46 PM PDT.

Poll

What is the greater threat to Democracy?

69%4190 votes
30%1840 votes

| 6030 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  please spread this story (185+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, reef the dog, Rumblelizard, Alumbrados, sj, SteveLCo, Yosef 52, pb, daria g, Dr Van Nostrand, raatz, brooklyndem, lipris, TaraIst, Pandora, TrueBlueMajority, decafdyke, emal, RunawayRose, Stoy, billlaurelMD, cotterperson, OLinda, aprichard, cookiesandmilk, Matilda, Walt starr, exNYinTX, vrexford, angelmom, tlh lib, EvieCZ, medaka, macdust, juniper, susakinovember, Welshman, peace voter, chuckvw, Glic, buckhorn okie, roses, hrh, javelina, peraspera, L0kI, Fe, BruinKid, ryder92111, Jesterfox, splashy, bustacap, arkdem, Alohaleezy, hhex65, psnyder, DeadB0y, MTgirl, TXsharon, Bulldawg, ArcXIX, Maria in Pgh, faithnomore, fritzrth, inclusiveheart, bwintx, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Aug6PDB, vacantlook, bluemajority, boran2, pat208, sxwarren, rapala, averageyoungman, SteveK, MichDeb, joanneleon, tovan, maybeeso in michigan, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, Pokerdad, 3goldens, DianeNYS, ichibon, Elise, blueyedace2, docangel, mjd in florida, sc kitty, PBen, Philoguy, betterdonkeys, clammyc, Simplify, chancy gardner, ChemBob, juliesie, Hugo Estrada, Kdoug, Ranting Roland, wildcat6, reflectionsv37, boofdah, Mz Kleen, majcmb1, sunbro, gkn, strangely enough, shiobhan, FindingMyVoice, deepsouthdoug, LithiumCola, Rogneid, viscerality, sinewave, cowgirl, liberalsouth, Sister Havana, begone, Mother Mags, MadGeorgiaDem, occams hatchet, Petronella, Progressive Liberaltarian, Nightprowlkitty, BobzCat, Compound F, kraant, blacklib, Keone Michaels, PatsBard, highfive, MuffledDrum, vigilant meerkat, NOLAWitch, BlueInARedState, Mahanoy, Ellicatt, Yellow Canary, Hear Our Voices, Wary, jlove1982, SJLinNYC, birdbrain64, MJ via Chicago, philipmerrill, Glorfindel, imabluemerkin, condoleaser, Everest42, FireCrow, Potus2020, doinaheckuvanutjob, Wage Warrior II, Turbonerd, VoteHarder, TheBookPolice, Picot verde, Granny Doc, kidneystones, 73rd virgin, henna218, slksfca, lemonsieur, One Pissed Off Liberal, J Royce, Sidof79, Balam, dotsright, Cronesense, Guy Fawkes, somenyguy, PhantomFly, whl, WryCynic, adamschloss, TtexwiTyler, Catrina, oscarsdad, stax, lizpolaris, Zaphod Beeblebrox, texaspixie
    because we need to be ready for this B.S.

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

    by theyrereal on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:40:09 PM PDT

  •  Couldn't agree more (20+ / 0-)

    So who is the greater threat to Democracy?   Terrorists or media consolidation?

    This is very true. An accurately informed electorate is a crucial component of a democracy, and we have a lazy, apathetic, electorate and a media that is willing to entertain them but will not inform them.

    Republicans are great at politics but terrible at policy

    by aprichard on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:41:16 PM PDT

  •  just lovely... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib, Elise, Ranting Roland, shiobhan

    There are times I really appreciate not having much tv to speak of.

    Do we know more about who's financing this?

  •  Easily disputed (42+ / 0-)

    There are seven words that easily dispute the entire program:

    Bin Laden determined to strike in US.

    (From the Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001.)

    Not. One. Dime. to any Dem that supports Lieberman.

    by LeftofArizona on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:42:48 PM PDT

  •  Of course (24+ / 0-)

    Blame Clinton for everything.

    Fuckers probably can't get over the fact he's got more game than all of them combined.

    Deny My Freedom
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:43:01 PM PDT

  •  Opportunity knocks. (60+ / 0-)

    This will be a lovely opportunity to remind everyone we know that

    • Bush made his first million dollars in a sweetheart deal with bin Laden's brother,
    • the Bush administration approved allowing the Pakistanis to fly leaders of the Taleban and al Qaeda out of Mazar-e-Sharif when our troops had the city surrounded, and
    • bin Laden escaped Tora Bora because Bush refused to send in another thousand troops to get him, allowing area warlords to set bin Laden free.

    The Bush administration clearly has a vested interest in keeping bin Laden free, and we need to keep asking why that is, and demanding that the Bush-censored pages of the 9/11 report be made public whoever's political careers are destroyed.

    "... Just so long as I'm the dictator." - GWB, 12/18/00

    by Bob Love on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:44:49 PM PDT

    •  Also, I believe one time that Clinton had to ... (31+ / 0-)

      ...abort killing Bin Laden, it was because he was meeting with the same Dubai-Royalty-Bush-Cronies that Bush was later to try to sell U.S. port to.

    •  It would certainly be a lovely opportunity (6+ / 0-)

      if we had access to a 2-hour time slot on ABC in primetime with 2 weeks of promotion appealing to the base fears of the mindless masses who will eat this shit up.

      Unfortunately we have access to a tiny percentage of the populace who takes the time to read DailyKos and other liberal blogs.

      Hopefully this will get some attention in some other major media like the NYTimes but I'm not counting on it and, even if that happens, the impact won't be the same.  

      This is pure tragedy entertainment with an agenda and people will watch purely because it's 9/11 and out of the millions who tune in I bet a small percentage will be those who care to check the facts.

      It's bullshit propaganda at its finest and it's ridiculous that ABC is allowing this to go forward.

      One thing it really does add to the confirmation of is the fact that the GOP has absolutely nothing to rely on other than fear to get votes.    Fear is all they've got that will appeal to most people in this nation.... human instinct to be afraid of what we've seen kill in a truly impressive (not the good kind) way on live tv is it...that's all they've got.

      GOP ---- Vote for us because you should always be afraid!

      Isn't the very definition of terrorism to put a society in a state of terror....or....fear?   Isn't the GOP's entire strategy in line with the terrorists then?    And, given that strategy, doesnt that mean that the terrorists won years ago....say....2004?

      God that shit is so transparent..... I wish people would wake the fuck up.

      Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

      by tlh lib on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:47:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually . . . (5+ / 0-)

        I'm starting to wonder if this mini-series thingy might be useful.

        A bunch of conservatives are going to watch 4 hours about the root causes of the 9/11 attack.  

        Saddam Hussien will not be mentioned once (I hope).

        Is it possible that it would sink in?  That audience would get that Iraq had nothing to do with it?

        "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

        by LithiumCola on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:00:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  probably not (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          libnewsie, begone, Ninepatch

          they'll take the explicit accusations that are stated as the defining knowledge to take from it, not the implicit stuff that should naturally follow.

          we're talkin mindless masses here, man.  iraq won't be mentioned and they'll feel safer in their little midnless bubble worlds for it.

          Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

          by tlh lib on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:11:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It isn't even the ostrich maneuver... (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AlanF, dburbach, tlh lib, daulton, Ninepatch

            All they have to do is show a few guys in robes and people will connect it with Saddam.  To a lot of people, everyone in the Middle East has Osama on speed dial.

            •  there's a great xenophobia at work in this nation (0+ / 0-)

              it's disgustingly easy to manipulate and it's all the GOP has to go on....they're workin it like it's their last breath right now.

              pathetic that it even works at all....but it does....vile.

              Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

              by tlh lib on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:31:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Absolutely xenophobic--for a reason! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bob Love

                This is the new ground game, and we ignore it at our peril. Now that anyone with a real education has been relegated to the (perjorative) category of "elite," they now use the code words to let people know they are prejudiced against people of different colors, sexual orientations, or religious backgrounds. Allen's "wink" in a video on Sunday's DailyKos is the "wink" of the entire far right.

                What has not been mentioned--not even breathed--is what immigrants would do for the social security crisis--Save it! We have a demographic balance in this country that favors the elderly (think of an inverted pyramid.) An influx of legal young workers into the social security system would change the entire equation, make restructuring completely unnecessary, and foil the agenda of the radical right to destroy the system through bankruptcy. Putting young workers on the path to citizenship is exactly what our nation needs to solve its demographic problems.

                The biggest problem with the nation's progressives is that they are too good for their own good. They don't have enough imagination to realize that their political opponents are thinking that far ahead.

                I've listened all day to people who have said that they couldn't imagine Republicans stalling the reconstruction of New Orleans to change voting patterns. Those are the same people who say that the Bush administration could not possibly have stalled aggressive moves against Bin Laden because they thought a small incident would be convenient to their plans for Iraq. (No, I'm not a wacko conspiracy theorist. I'm just saying that some people might have made less aggressive efforts to follow rumors than they might have, just as at the start of World War II, because a small incident would have been seen as politically convenient. They did not imagine 9/11--not that creative.)

                Yes, there are some in the Republican party who see the potential demographic changes that would come with a legalized immigration system as devastating to their long term plans to change the system in the United States. Don't be naive.

            •  Ostriches stick their heads in the sand. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buckeyekarl, Mber, Ninepatch

              Republicans stick their heads up their asses.

              I'm just saying...

        •  Important to keep things very simple (5+ / 0-)

          Our biggest problem is our tendency to want to present a full rationala. The best tactic would be to mount as big a campaign as possible with only one theme: 5 years since 9/11 and Bin Laden is still free. If we do this well then the  'movie' could really work in our favor. Lets just drown them out on this, screw nuance.

          'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it'. - GBS

          by stevej on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:38:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Assumption of critical thinking (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          You are assuming that they will be critical to the information. You may be wrong.

          Remember: the mini-series will be reinforcing their already held worldview.

          •  We can go to Freeperland (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hugo Estrada

            as outraged "conservatives" and complain that the show left out all the connections between Saddam and 9/11, and prove there must have been a connection with quotes from Bush et al.  

            "... Just so long as I'm the dictator." - GWB, 12/18/00

            by Bob Love on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 10:46:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  So how do we avail ourselves of this opportunity? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens

      How do we make this happen?

      We need an organization capable of rapid, effective response.. MoveOn?

      Me must do something.  We cannot afford to remain silent about this.

    •  Yes... yes... FRAME... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ninepatch

      Say it loud, say it often.... they still haven't caught the guy that did this...

      -9.13, -7.79 Adolescent Mooncalves Unite!

      by L0kI on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 06:46:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Does it (55+ / 0-)

    Does it talk about how the Clinton administration told the Bush Administration they would spend more time on terrorism than any other subject, or that Condi Rice was supposed to give a speech on Spet. 11 on the threats facing the country and it didn't mention terrorism, or that Bush's counter terrorism task force didn't meet until Sept. 10, or that Bush received a PDB that said that Osama Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S. and then went on vacation for a month?

    Republicans are great at politics but terrible at policy

    by aprichard on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:45:42 PM PDT

  •  Weren't they close to capturing/killing him (14+ / 0-)

    on Junior's watch after 9/11? And they were told to stand down?

    "Mr. President, Stay the Course is a not a strategy, it's a slogan..." Nancy Pelosi - David Letterman 8/23/06

    by PatsBard on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:45:56 PM PDT

    •  They were told to stand down (5+ / 0-)

      on Bush's watch before 9/11.

      Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (Georgie's Orwellian Party)!

      by high5 on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:57:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And they're the ones who (13+ / 0-)

        disbanded a 10-year operation hunting down Osama bin Laden.

        But of course, if you Google "Alec Station" which was the name of the disbanded operation, you get EIGHT - count'em - EIGHT!!! fucking articles, none of which were by any household name press.

        You know what that means?  Here's what it means.

        1. The MSM doesn't give a shit about OBL.
        1. The MSM doesn't want you to know anything.
        Which means:


        The American Media = Terrorist Sympathizers

      •  Operation Ignore (29+ / 0-)

        Bill Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide told Time, we would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton and company decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out. Clinton trusted Bush to protect America. This proved, nine months later, to be a disastrous mistake - perhaps the biggest one Clinton ever made.
        Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation's security should transcend political bitterness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.''

        Which brings me to a lie. When Time asked about the conversation, Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present" Perhaps so, Dr. Rice. But might I direct our mutual friends, my readers, to a certain December 30, 2001, New York Times article? Perhaps you know the one, Condi? Shall I quote it? "As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism-and particularly Mr. bin Laden's brand of it-would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.'' (Italics mine.)

        When I read this, my instinct was to shout for joy and dance around the room, naked, celebrating the finding of a lie. And I did. "Badda Bing!" I cried, as I ran around the house, my genitals flopping wildly, embarrassing my wife and her bridge group.

        After the dressing down from my wife, who really read me the riot act, it occurred to me that all I had really found was a contradiction between Time and the Times. Maybe The New York Times had it wrong. Maybe Dr. Rice, considered a paragon of integrity, had told Time magazine the truth-that her predecessor had never warned her about the impending threat from al Qaeda and its evil mastermind. It was time for the Franken investigative juggernaut to assert itself. I called Dr. Rice's office, prepared to pierce the infamous White House veil of secrecy with a lance of white-hot journalistic enterprise. I left a message, and they called me right back with the answer. A White House official told me that Dr. Rice had met with Berger at a briefing, and he had told her about the seriousness of the al Qaeda threat. Condi lied to Times! Badda Bing!

        Anyway. After Berger left, Rice stayed around to listen to counterterrorism bulldog Richard Clarke, who laid out the whole anti-al Qaeda plan. Rice was so impressed with Clarke that she immediately asked him to stay on as head of counterterrorism. In early February, Clarke repeated the briefing for Vice President Dick Cheney. But, according to Time, there was some question about how seriously the Bush team took Clarke's warnings. Outgoing Clinton officials felt that "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism."

        The Bushies had an entirely different set of obsessions. Missile defense, for example. The missile defense obsession proved prescient when terrorists fired a slow-moving intercontinental ballistic missile into the World Trade Center. If only Clarke had put his focus on missile defense instead of obsessing on Osama bin Laden.

        Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was obsessed with a review of the military's force structure, which had the potential of yielding tremendous national security dividends ten or fifteen years down the road. I, personally, am a longtime proponent of force structure review, as anyone who has had the misfortune to spend any time around me when I am drunk can attest. But I don't think it should be to the exclusion of everything else. Let me give you one little example: I also believe in FIGHTING TERRORISM.

        While all the Bushies focused on their pet projects, Clarke was blowing a gasket. He had a plan, and no one was paying attention. It didn't help that the plan had been hatched under Clinton. Clinton-hating was to the Bush White House what terrorism- fighting was to the Clinton White House.

        Meanwhile, on February 15, 2001, a commission led by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued its third and final report on national security. The Hart-Rudman report warned that "mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern'' and said that America was woefully unprepared for a "catastrophic'' domestic terrorist attack and urged the creation of a new federal agency: "A National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security” that would include the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and more than a dozen other government departments and agencies.

        The Hart-Rudman Commission had studied every aspect of national security over a period of years and had come to a unanimous conclusion: "This commission believes that the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government."

        The report generated a great deal of media attention and even a bill in Congress to establish a National Homeland Security Agency. But over at the White House, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld decided that the best course of action was not to implement the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, but instead to launch a sweeping initiative dubbed "Operation Ignore."

        The public face of Operation Ignore would be an antiterrorism task force led by Vice President Cheney. Its mandate: to pretend to develop a plan to counter domestic terrorist attacks. Bush announced the task force on May 8, 2001, and said that he himself would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Bush never chaired such a meeting, though. Probably because Cheney's task force never actually met. Operation Ignore was in full swing.

        Unbeknownst to Bush and Cheney, Richard Clarke was doggedly pushing his plan to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden. Thanks to Clarke's relentless efforts, the plan was working its way back up the food chain, after having been moved to the bottom of the priority list, right below protecting the public from giant meteors.

        On April 30, Clarke presented a new version of the plan to the deputies of the major national security principals: Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; the State Department's Richard Armitage; DOD's Paul Wolfowitz; and the CIA's John McLaughlin. They were so impressed, they decided to have three more meetings: one on al Qaeda, one on Pakistan, and a third on Indo-Pakistani relations. And then a fourth meeting to integrate the three meetings. Sure, scheduling these meetings would take months, and would delay the possibility of actually acting on the plan and eliminating al Qaeda, but, according to a senior White House official, the deputies wanted to review the issues "holistically'' which as far as I can tell means ''slowly.''

        On July 10, 2001, nearly five months after the Hart-Rudman report had warned of catastrophic, mass-casualty attacks on America's homeland and called for better information sharing among all federal intelligence agencies, Operation Ignore faced a critical test. Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams sent a memo to headquarters regarding concerns over some Middle Eastern students at an Arizona flight school. Al Qaeda operatives, Williams suggested, might be trying to infiltrate the U.S. civil aviation system. He urged FBI Headquarters to contact the other intelligence agencies to see if they had information relevant to his suspicions. Had Williams's memo been acted upon, perhaps the CIA and FBI would have connected the dots. And had Hart-Rudman been acted upon, perhaps the memo would not have been dismissed. Operation Ignore, now in its 146th day, had proved its effectiveness once more.

        The holdovers from the Clinton era - Clarke and CIA Director George Tenet-were going nuts. Bush administration insiders would later say they never felt that the two men had been fully on board with Operation Ignore. Tenet was getting reports of more and more chatter about possible terrorist activity. Through June and July, according to one source quoted in the Washington Post, Tenet worked himself nearly frantic'' with concern. In mid-July, "George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack," an official told Time.

        Only Time would tell what happened next.

        On July 16, the deputies finally held their long-overdue holistic integration meeting and approved Clarke's plan. Next it would move to the Principals Committee, composed of Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Rumsfeld--the last hurdle before the plan could reach the President. They tried to schedule the meeting for August, but too many of the principals were out of town. They had taken their cue from the President. August was a time to recharge the batteries, to take a well-deserved break from the pressures of protecting America. The meeting would have to wait till September 4.

        No one understood better the importance of taking a break to spend a little special time with the wife and dog than President George W. Bush. Bush spent 42 percent of his first seven months in office either at Camp David, at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, or at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. As he told a $1,000-a-plate crowd at a fund-raiser in June, Washington, D.C., is a great place to work, but Texas is a great place to relax." That's why on August 3, after signing off on a plan to cut funding for programs guarding unsecured or "loose” nukes in the former Soviet Union, he bade farewell to the Washington grind and headed to Crawford for the longest presidential vacation in thirty-two years.

        On its 172nd day, Operation Ignore suffered a major blow. Already, the operation was becoming more and more difficult to sustain as the intensity of terror warnings crescendoed. Now, on August 6, CIA Director Tenet delivered a report to President Bush entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'' The report warned that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack airplanes. But the President was resolute: Operation Ignore must proceed as planned. He did nothing to follow up on the memo.

        Actually, that's not entirely fair. The President did follow up, a little bit. Sitting in his golf cart the next day, Bush told some reporters, "I'm working on a lot of issues, national security matters.'' Then, Bush rode off to hit the links, before dealing with a stubborn landscaping issue by clearing some brush on his property. The next day, he followed up again, telling the press, I've got a lot of national security concerns that we're working on Iraq, Macedonia, very worrisome right now."

        But Iraq and Macedonia weren't the only things on Bush's mind. "One of the interesting things to do is drink coffee and watch Barney chase armadillos," he told reporters on a tour of the ranch later in his vacation. "The armadillos are out, and they love to root in our flower bed. It's good that Barney routs them out of their rooting.''

        On August 16, the INS arrested Zacharias Moussaoui, a flight school student who seemed to have little interest in learning to take off or land a plane. The arresting agent wrote that Moussaoui seemed like "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center." Trying to pique the interest of FBI Headquarters in Washington, a Minneapolis FBI agent wrote that a 747 loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon. lf this information had been shared and analyzed, for example by a newly founded Homeland Security Agency, it might have sparked memories of the Clinton-thwarted 1996 al Qaeda plot to hijack an American commercial plane and crash it into CIA Headquarters.

        On August 25, still on the ranch, Bush discussed with reporters the differences between his two dogs. "Spot's a good runner. You know, Barney-terriers are bred to go into holes and pull out varmint. And Spotty chases birds. Spotty's a great water dog. I'll go fly-fishing this afternoon on my lake." And you know something? He did just that.

        Among those left to swelter in the D.C. heat that August was one Thomas J. Pickard. No fly-fishing for him. In his role as acting FBI director, Pickard had been privy to a top-secret, comprehensive review of counterterrorism programs in the FBI. The assessment called for a dramatic increase in funding. Alarmed by the report and by the mounting terrorist threat, Pickard met with Attorney General John Ashcroft to request $58 million from the Justice Department to hire hundreds of new field agents, translators, and intelligence analysts to improve the Bureau's capacity to detect foreign terror threats. On September 10, he received the final Operation Ignore communique: an official letter from Ashcroft turning him down flat. (To give Pickard credit for adopting a professional attitude, he did not call Ashcroft the next day to say, "I told you so.'')

        Clarke's plan to take the fight to al Qaeda lurched forward once more on September 4, 2001. Eight months after he had first briefed Condi Rice about it, and nearly eleven months after Clinton had told him to create it, Clarke's plan finally reached the Principals Committee that served as gatekeeper to the commander in chief. Bush was back from his trip, rested up, and ready for anything.

        Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the other Principals debated the plan and decided to advise Bush to adopt it with a phased-in approach. Phase One, to demand cooperation from the Taliban and make fresh overtures to al Qaeda opponents such as the Northern Alliance, would begin the moment the President signed off on the plan. Phase Zero, however, came first: wait several days as the proposal made its way to the Bush's desk.

        On September 9, as the plan cooled its heels, Congress proposed a boost of $600 million for antiterror programs. The money was to come from Rumsfeld's beloved missile defense program, the eventual price tag of which was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at between $158 billion and $238 billion. Congress's proposal to shift $0.6 billion over to counterterror programs incurred Rummy's ire, and he threatened a presidential veto. Operation Ignore was in its 207th day.

        On Operation Ignore Day 208, Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget request to Bush. It included spending increases in sixty-eight different programs. Out of these sixty-eight programs, less than half dealt with terrorism. Way less than half. In fact, none of them dealt with terrorism. Ashcroft passed around a memo listing his seven top priorities. Again, terrorism didn't make the list.

        On that day, I left for Minneapolis to visit my mom and play some charity golf.

        On the next day, the world shook.

        The day after that, they started blaming Clinton, covering their tracks, and accusing liberals of blaming America.

        http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g34/bigtexx9999/AFranken.jpg

        A liberal is a conservative who's been hugged. http://www.actblue.com/...

        by raatz on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:56:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It was Mullah Omar (4+ / 0-)

      Hersh, citing intelligence and military sources, says that a US reconnaissance aircraft identified a convoy carrying Omar as he fled, on Sunday October 7, the first night of the US bombing raids. As per existing rules of engagement, however, the CIA felt it could not order the plane to fire its missiles on the target.

      Hersh quotes Administration sources as saying that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was enraged by the fiasco, while intelligence officials were crestfallen.

      http://www.rediff.com/...

      This was broadcast in the fervor of initial news coverage over several of the cable news channnels.
      I remember the event because it was so unbelievable.
      The government spokesman said "there were legal problems."

      On the first night of the Afghan war, an unmanned Predator drone identifies a convoy of vehicles fleeing Kabul. Mullah Omar, head of the Taliban, is determined to be inside this convoy. The CIA is in control of the Predator attack drone and wants to use it to kill Omar, but they have to ask for permission from military commanders who are based in Florida. General Tommy Franks decides not to fire any missiles or launch an air strike against the building in which Omar takes shelter. Eventually fighters attack and destroy the building, but by then Omar and his associates have moved on. One anonymous senior official later says of this failure to kill Omar, “It’s not a f_ckup, it’s an outrage.” According to one senior military officer, “political correctness” and/or slow bureaucratic procedures are to blame. [New Yorker, 10/16/2001] It is later revealed that this is part of a pattern of delays that will hinder many attacks on al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders

      cooperativeresearch.org/entity

      Sorry to go on so

  •  Speaking of Gore (28+ / 0-)

    I just BET the docudrama omits the little fact about his 1997 aviation security report would have prevented 9/11 if the Republican Congress had not ignored and killed it.

    Nor will they cover the resource and FBI agents helping the nookie monster Kenneth Starr, versus the number left over to help fight terrorism.

    Which brings to mind one scene I think should REALLY be in it. Wasn't there a female pundit who was continually bashing Clinton, accusing him of wag-the-dog, etc., who also ended up on one of the three 9/11 planes?

    Horrible irony.

  •  just updated (20+ / 0-)
    with two links to William Rivers Pitt stuff from Truthout that debunks all of the "blame Clinton" stuff.

    It's good.

    Here is the truthout one and here is the DU "datadump" that he posted.

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

    by theyrereal on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:51:55 PM PDT

  •  Sigh. (21+ / 0-)

    Nowrasteh : The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response  -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing. "

    wiki-link:

    On November 3, 2002, the CIA fired a AGM-114 Hellfire missile from a Predator UAV at a vehicle carrying Abu Ali al-Harithi, a suspected planner of the bombing plot. Also in the vehicle was Ahmed Hijazi, a U.S. citizen. Both were killed. This operation was carried out on Yemeni soil, possibly with the cooperation of the Yemeni government.

    On September 29, 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the bombing. Al-Nashiri, believed to be the operation's mastermind, is currently being held by the U.S. at an undisclosed location. Al-Badawi, in Yemeni custody, denounced the verdict as "an American one." Four others were sentenced to prison terms of five to 10 years for their involvement, including one Yemeni who had videotaped the attack.

    "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

    by LithiumCola on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:53:10 PM PDT

  •  BOYCOTT TIME (18+ / 0-)

    I can't wait to see who sponsors this. I got $10 on Exxon. Halliburton too?

  •  Farenheit 9/11 (10+ / 0-)

    Don't suppose we can get Michael Moore documentary on air to counteract huh?

    Do they really want to start pulling attention to the fact that Osama is still out in the wilds (with his kidney filtering machine?)??

  •  i guess it will be more entertaing and (31+ / 0-)

    "pro-american" than "the path from 9/11", a tale of incompetence and negligence as yet untold.

    let's see. what happened when big dog tried to fucking kill osama been forgotten? oh yeah, that's right. he was roundly brutalized for trying to "wag the dog" and distract everyone from the fact that moral pillars like newt gingrich and henry hyde were trying to impeah, impeach his ass for getting a fucking blow job.

    these people make me ill.

    "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

    send NYBri to the NY state senate!

    by lipris on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:58:57 PM PDT

  •  Let's roll (26+ / 0-)

    Look, posting all the refutation in the world is great, but we need to do something about it.  The whiny little Republicans got CBS to pull their miniseries on Reagan because it didn't repeatedly show him sitting at the right hand of God.  We need to get this kind of crap pulled too.

    •  Yes, how is it that the gist (8+ / 0-)

      of the Reagan show was leaked weeks in advance, and we are just hearing about this work of shameless propaganda on the eve of its broadcast?

      We need to make ABC and the sponsors pay.

      www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

      by chuckvw on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:13:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It would be easier to impeach Bush than (5+ / 0-)

      get this 9/11 show pulled.  That attack is all they have.  They will hold on like a Pit Bull.  The Bush Administration's Crowning Glory is a monumental failure, but it really is all they have.

      Vote Jerry McNerney for Congress CA11

      by Friend of the court on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:23:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Reagan miniseries got pulled (6+ / 0-)

        from CBS due to a threatened boycott of advertisers (local and national) by the right wing.

        That, in no way, says that we can be successful (i'm not that stupid lol) but it shows that it can happen.  Also, I don't know if you were reading DKos in Nov 2004 but we got stations to pull the Kerry hit piece being put out over the Sinclair Broadcasting network by that same method.   Not many but it wasn't zero either.  We also got Sinclair Broadcasting Corporation to change from showing the anti-Kerry movie in its entirety, which was their initial plan, to hosting a panel discussion which, while still more a hit than a discussion, was much preferrable to showing that bile of a movie.

        So yeah...it can work, whether in increments or in our full desired results....it can work.

        Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

        by tlh lib on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:08:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Won't it look like fear? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Friend of the court

          If there is the appearance of a last-minute frantic attempt to keep people from seeing this, does it look like we're afraid for people to learn the 'truth?'

          I don't always hold out hope that we'll be allowed a seat at the table for the followup news and debate, but wonder if pushing some rebuttals might be a better use of time than futilely stomping our feet.

          •  Fear to whom? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ranting Roland, Ninepatch

            The only fear that should be evident here is fear of the truth an fear of advertisers that they will be subsidizing lies.

            This isn't fear.....it's correcting lies which are being put forth out of fear.

            Call the advertisers and make it known that propaganda masked as a docudrama that blames 9/11 on Clinton and Democrats based on lies will not be acceptable..... and their products will not ever be purchased again if these lies are broadcast via their money....

            THAT is fear.

            THAT is money-powered politics.

            Do it.

            You kid yourself on how many people are actually reading here.   You also kid yourself on the reach that the ABC broadcast will be and the non-wingnut mindless drones who still vote it will reach.

            CALL THE ADVERTISERS....LOCAL AND NATIONAL.

            We need a database, stat.

            Anyone who can do a Sinclair Broadcasting type deal in a pinch?

            Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

            by tlh lib on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:29:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I found this place in March 2006. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm too gabby to "read only" for over a year. :-)  Rove would start others yelling censorship and influence would be worked, by the Republics, at the highest level of the network.  Maybe we should take this as an opportunity to debunk the nonsense.  We don't have the mouth breather vote, and won't get it.  But, if this starts conversations around the water coolers etc, it will be an opportunity to talk about PDB's, Tora Bora and even some "things that must never be mentioned".  Action like getting the Kerry hit piece pulled is great and I'm all for it, if it can work. This situation is different and seems like it could backfire.  Like going into a war without an exit plan.

          Vote Jerry McNerney for Congress CA11

          by Friend of the court on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 05:22:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Yo, contact info, anyone? n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib, Ranting Roland, annefrank

    The message for 2006 is: Republicans are a bunch of fucking crooks, and they're fucking up the country.

    by Christopher on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:11:11 PM PDT

    •  See this thread below (4+ / 0-)

      link

      Ranting Roland is right on the money with his idea.   Local businesses are where every station showing this tripe get their money from.

      I would take it a step further and say to call every business that advertises on these ABC affiliates and let them know that a boycott is now in effect of anyone who advertises on a station that shows this propaganda piece.

      Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

      by tlh lib on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:03:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Even it were true, it still wouldn't excuse (6+ / 0-)

    the huge mess George W. Bush and his buddies have made of our country and the world. I can already hear my brother using this as ammunition for his support of Bushco and neoconservatism in general. But I have my answer ready.

  •  And possibly my favorite comment ever... (6+ / 0-)

    "WHERE'S OSAMA, BITCH?!?"

    The message for 2006 is: Republicans are a bunch of fucking crooks, and they're fucking up the country.

    by Christopher on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:12:05 PM PDT

  •  Man, every day brings a new fight, or a gazillion (4+ / 0-)

    new fights. It's getting busy here in my own non-busy
    place. Trying to send letters due to Elise's action diaries, but
    trying to send non-email ones.

    Here,

    a bit of cash to candidates, for instance,

    Here

    and now, what to do? What to do? To stop this bagful of TV poop?

    It is never too late to be what you might have been...George Eliot

    by begone on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:19:38 PM PDT

  •  I wonder how (7+ / 0-)

    they will work Iraq into this?

    OOOPS!

    "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

    by LithiumCola on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:28:22 PM PDT

  •  ABC Contact info (8+ / 0-)

    I can't find direct emails, but this is what is on their website:

    ABC Contact Form

    or

    (818) 460-7477

    Not. One. Dime. to any Dem that supports Lieberman.

    by LeftofArizona on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:31:38 PM PDT

  •  Could be worse... (5+ / 0-)

    When calling for final approval, it could show a close shot of Clinton sitting at the desk in the Oval talking into the speakerphone "I'm just not sure, let me consult my advisors..." while the back of woman's head rises periodically into the frame from just beneath the desk.

    Well, thank goodness for all of us that Bush is so focused on OBL.

    So I don't know where he is.  You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.

    These people are slugs.

    -6.00, -7.03
    "I want my people to be the most intolerant people in the world." - Jerry Falwell

    by johnsonwax on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:36:12 PM PDT

  •  go after ABC reporters (9+ / 0-)

    there will be plenty of ABC reporters out in the field as we head out toward the election and it is important to confront them over this crap. whenever you see one of their crews out there go after the reporter and let him or her hat make it clear that you will not tolerate their working for the Bush regime while pretending to be members of the media. Don't let them do their jobs and interfere with their reports. Make them pay a price. Don't get violent and limit your choice of weapons to pies or bananas but the more you can interfere with their money making service to their masters the better. Try to do things with humor in case, against all odds, they decide to air some of the confrontation but making your goal to ensure that they don't get any useful clips out of their reporters excursion. Remember, if they aren't going to do legitimate reporting they have no right to simply act as propagandists for their corporate bosses and you have every right to interfere with their work.

    I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

    by MakeChessNotWar on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:37:04 PM PDT

  •  I am turning off the TV both nights (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib, 3goldens, VoteHarder, Ninepatch

    If 56 million people did the same, it might send a message...just do it.

    "The America I love still exists at the front desks of our public libraries." Kurt Vonnegut

    by cfk on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:40:29 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the heads up on Gore's speech (6+ / 0-)

    The annual get together of those in the TV industry in the UK is an important meeting for opinion formers in our media. Gore's message on the threat to our democracies is perfect for them and a very good place in which to give it.

    Gore is being interviewed on our TVs today. Good timimg as the pressure on Blair grows to a new level of intensity.

    Nice of you guys to take time out to help us over here.

  •  don't spread this information, ignore it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shakludanto, VoteHarder, Ninepatch

    only the wingnuts will remember it in a month. IF we don't hype it by being outraged.

    Today "balance in the media" means a balance between political fact and conservative ideology.

    by Joe B on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:44:36 PM PDT

  •  My Pet Goat...Still Doing Nothing.... (16+ / 0-)

    While there were planes still in the sky...

    After being told that a second plane hit...

    After being told that a first plane hit...

    After ignoring the August 6, PDB...

    After his Ambassador in Yemen prevented investigation of the USS Cole incident by denying passports ....

    After his administration, including Secretary Rice and VP, ignored specific warnings by Clinton....

  •  been posting this a lot, lately (18+ / 0-)

    anyone interested in the complicity of the media in creating and enabling bush should check out the following:

    for background:
    mark hertsgaard-  on bended knee: the press and the reagan presidency

    gene lyons- fools for scandal: how the media invented whitewater

    joe conason & gene lyons- the hunting of the president: the ten-year campaign to destroy bill and hillary clinton

    for the current era:
    eric alterman- what liberal media?

    eric boehlert- lapdogs: how the press rolled over for bush

    al franken's books also cover the subject, although not in as great detail.

    also check websites:
    media matters

    daily howler

    fairness and accuracy in reporting

    make no mistake- it's not just a matter of incompetence. the corporate media deliberately help republican presidents and undermine democratic ones. we need always keep this in mind! they are not a peripheral problem, they are at the heart of what's so terribly wrong in this country.

    time forks perpetually toward innumerable futures - borges

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:51:09 PM PDT

  •  i just sent an email to my local station (8+ / 0-)

    informing them that I would be boycotting all businesses who advertise on their station during the documentary, and encouraging my friends and family to do the same.

    If you are in the middle of Los Angeles, the email to reach them at is here: abc7@abc.com

    Ever wish there were One Big Wiki-Style Clearinghouse for all the GOP Scandals? Well now there is.

    by thereisnospoon on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:53:34 PM PDT

    •  I recommend people take it a step beyond that (8+ / 0-)

      Most local stations don't sell advertising for specific shows but rather for specific time periods.   Many businesses won't know exactly what they are buying for other than a "movie of the week" or, if this was sold as a 9/11 tribute show, something 9/11-ish in some way.  

      So, in most cases, businesses are buying merely for good time periods for viewership (or what they can afford) and I would tell the stations that I will boycott any and all advertisers who purchase time on their stations....period...at any time....

      ...if they broadcast this propaganda piece.

      There's really no point in assuming that those who advertise have any prior knowledge of the exact content of the show that they've purchased advertising time during.   The real intent is to hit the station's full ad revenue if they intend to broadcast what they may or may not be aware of the content of.  That is where the boycott threat can have a real effect.

      Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

      by tlh lib on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:19:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  or if you're in the minneapolis/st paul area (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tlh lib, bree, WisVoter

      programming@kstp.com is where you can send your concerns - i just did!

    •  I also recommend (if you can stomach watching (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DMiller, begone

      ABC long enough to get a list of local and national advertisers....not that i hate ABC but i'm not too big on the big 3 nets as a whole)...

      Call the advertisers directly.  Let them know that, as advertisers on ABC or the local ABC affiliate, there products are part of a boycott that will ensue if ABC proceeds with plans to air a fictional drama posing as a docudrama which blames 9/11 on Bill Clinton.

      That, in my opinion, is the method that got many Sinclair affiliates to not air the Kerry hit piece on election eve (or close).   It's also, in my opinion, what got Sinclair to completely change the format of the broadcast from airing in full the Swift Boat bullshit movie and instead changed to a "discussion panel" with clips shown from the movie instead.  It wasn't much of an improvement but I'd definitely say it was an improvement.

      Advertisers are the ones with the power over the affiliates....it's their paycheck, point blank.   If they feel fear that their products will be affected by this after spending thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on advertising....they'll speak to their ad rep and let them know what is going on.  THAT is where the most effective place will be to get this stopped, even locally if not nationally, imo.

      Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

      by tlh lib on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:24:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Me too. Here's what I wrote: (6+ / 0-)

      To Whom it may concern,

      I have heard how your upcoming documentary essentially blames the September 11th attacks on Bill Clinton.  This is a false, irresponsible, and threatens to severely undermine any journalistic credibility that ABC has.  Bill Clinton took many steps starting in 1995 to fight terrorism that were groundbreaking at the time, and in the opinion of many people, he did a far better job of fighting terrorism than his predecessor.  To this effect, until it is shown, I will boycott Papa John's Pizza and Petmeds, and I will boycott any other product that is advertised during the show.  I will encourage everyone I know to do the same until you agree to cancel the show or correct the right-wing bias that pervades it.  

      Thank you for taking the time to read this,

      Feel free to cut and paste

      "All my soldiers in the field I will wish you safe return/ but only love kills war, when will they learn" ~Jay-Z

      by Roatti on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 06:33:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Go after ABC ADVERTISERS (11+ / 0-)

    That's probably the only chance of seriously fighting this thing.

  •  the Clinton obsession (7+ / 0-)

    I love how the knee jerk response from Republicans is to still blame a man that hasn't been in power for six years.  All hail the power of the Clenis!

    I also don't understand the preoccupation with the concept of "catching the thief before the crime."  9/11 happened on Bush's watch...not Clinton's.  The really big crime was committed on that day.  Everything that has happened since is Bush's problem.  Wasn't Clinton accused with being obsessed with Bin Laden? How can someone who was "obsessed" also be accused of doing nothing?  I hope this fictionalized account has a huge disclaimer! Of course it won't.

    If you read the 9/11 report, it is quite clear that the Clinton administration was actively involved in anti-terrorism efforts, so I don't know what the producer is talking about in that interview.  It was also clear that the world was on alert that summer...as someone said in the report: "The world was blinkering red."  And yet the president was clearing brush.

    The only war Bush is winning is on Science.

    by Mote Dai on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:01:35 AM PDT

  •  Simply,... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib, epppie

    ...recommended.  Thanks.

    Fear will keep the local systems in line. -Grand Moff Tarkin Survivor Left Blogistan

    by boran2 on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:03:13 AM PDT

  •  A few quick things to remember. (17+ / 0-)

    Mohammed Atta did not enter the US until June 3rd, 2000. He did not finish the plans for 9/11, until July of 2001. The US didn't hear any chatter about this attack until January 2001.

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...

  •  9/11 is the US govt's fault (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib, begone

    hindsight is 20/20 but some of the stuff the US govt did sucked big time...

    i am reading "Devil's Game - How the US Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" by Robert Dreyfuss

    some articles on the book:

    Why I Wrote Devil's Game By Robert Dreyfuss

    US Diary: Rolling Stone's Dreyfuss on our dumbfuckery in Iraq

  •  keep in mind (11+ / 0-)

    on the day she took office, sandy berger warned condi she'd be spending more time on bin laden than anything else- she ignored him.

    the hart-rudman commission, created by clinton, made its final report on january 31, 2001. bush ignored them- decided to set up his own commission- with cheney running it. it met once.

    the august 6 pdb- "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."- ignored.

    richard clarke has stated that clinton was slow to wake up to the threat of bin laden, but kicked it into high gear, once he did- bush? all but ignored it.

    time forks perpetually toward innumerable futures - borges

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:30:33 AM PDT

  •  has anyone seen the National Geographic Channel (5+ / 0-)

    They had their own documentary called 'inside 9/11' that mentioned Iraq as part of the 'global war on terrorism'. Maybe it is me, but I couldnt believe they were trying to push the idea that the invasion of Iraq is somehow going to help us capture Osama Bin Laden, who is in Pakistan.

    This is a full court press by the corporate media to rewrite history, scare the average american, and cloud the facts to the point that the truth can be discarded because the lies are layered so thick that we cant ever cut through them all.

    •  actually (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DianeNYS, Ninepatch

      i watched part of the "inside 9/11" last night. seems like it's made up of a lot of hour-long specials. they described Clinton's attempts at getting bin Laden and how they were called off:

      1. because during one strike bin Laden was hanging out with some UAE prince, who couldn't be just considered collateral damage, so they couldn't strike for oil/political reasons. remember, no one had even really heard of bin Laden at the time.
      1. it came up that bin Laden's tent village had lots of children in it, so they couldn't strike for moral/political reasons. again, no one had even really heard of bin Laden at the time. striking  a village full of women and children simply wasn't justified.

      they also went into the pressure that Clinton was under with the whole Lewinsky BS, which i saw as a subtle  diversion of blame onto the GOP side.

      still, ABC has a hell of a lot more exposure than Nat Geographic channel.

  •  Since when is "pro-American"... (4+ / 0-)

    A part of the definition of a good documentary?  I don't remember "March of the Penguins" being pro-American.

    A good documentary should be about THE TRUTH, not pro or con any particular country.

    I would dearly love to feel pro-American again, but my feelings about being American are tied to the truth of how we act as a nation, and I find little to be proud of since we invaded Iraq.

    This is the first President I am afraid may refuse to leave office at the end of his term. --oscarsdad, December '00

    by oscarsdad on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:46:11 AM PDT

  •  FASCINATING POLL (5+ / 0-)

    "corporate media consolidation", huh?

    Ironic, isn't it.

    This law also recognizes that with freedom comes responsibility.  Any truly competitive market requires rules.  This bill protects consumers against monopolies.  It guarantees the diversity of voices our democracy depends upon.  

    -- Bill Clinton, remarks on signing the 1996 Telecommunications reform act

    We can thank Clinton's Telecommunications "Reform" Act of 1996 for the right-wing Clear Channel's dominance of radio and for the right-wing Sinclair Broadcast Group becoming the biggest TV chain in the country. Clear Channel owned 40 radio stations before the Telecom bill and 1200 soon after. Sinclair had 11 stations before the bill, and now has 62 TV stations.

    -- Commondreams


    Media Reform Information Center

    Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time - Harry Truman

    by tiggers thotful spot on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 01:23:30 AM PDT

  •  Not enough options in the poll. (3+ / 0-)

    I think the greatest threats to democracy are the buying of legislation by moneyed interests and the extra-Constitutional authority that is increasingly being wielded by the major branches of the federal government.

  •  I don't know what to think. (5+ / 0-)

    On the one hand, Bush is a fucking joke. He could have fought in Vietnam and instead he ran and hid in Alabama. He didn't do shit to stop 9-11.

    On the other hand, there is a strong pacifistic strain running through liberals in our party, and while I prefer pacifists to warmongers, it tends to lead to impractical policy. The documentary is correct in saying the response to the USS Cole attack was completely inadequate, and that was on Clinton's watch.

    I think that liberals fail to understand that as a species, humans are living beyond their evolutionary means. We evolved over millions of years, yet civilization has only been around for 10,000 years. Human biology hasn't been able to keep up. In order to counter the dark side of our primal instincts, security forces are necessary, whether in the form of a police force or an army. It's a shitty deal, but that's just the way it is.

    Liberals just don't get it. The guys over at Booman Tribune talk casually about cutting defense spending in half as the starting point to solving the world's problems. I admire their intentions, but disagree profoundly with their ideas. That's a bad idea. This nation is exceptional, and must be defended. In order to do this, this nation's enemies must be defeated. We have to kill them all. Clinton failed to do that.

    Bush, however, has not only failed to defeat our enemies, he has created enemies. He has turned our friends against us. Those he could have made into allies have instead become our most bitter adversaries. Diplomatic solutions are always preferable to military solutions. The military option is always the last option, never the first. War is the result of the failure of diplomacy, which is the first responsibilty of our civilian leaders. Bush thinks that being a War President makes him great, but really it only illuminates his weakness. But what can Democrats offer in response?

    We need new blood. The Democratic Party needs, and I expect will receive, new blood in the form of moderate converts from the independent ranks such as Wesley Clark. We need to win back the Reagan Democrats, such as Jim Webb. We need these guys to form a Democratic Party that would make FDR proud, a coalition that will take care of working class Americans while eliminating this nation's foreign enemies with extreme prejudice. We need a new coalition, a new ideology, a new purpose.

    We need a new and strengthed party, not a regional party, but a national party. One which appeals to voters in the South as well as to those in New England or on the West Coast. One that speaks to the Great Plains as well as to the Midwest and the Mountain States. Until we get that, we're all just pissing in the wind.

    If this documentary calls out Clinton for his inaction, fine. That's fair. But they should end with it Richard Clarke, and the testimony of Condi Rice reading the 6 Aug 01 PDB.

    And all the jarheads, killing and dying, they will always be me. We are still in the desert.

    by Zaphod Beeblebrox on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 01:45:05 AM PDT

    •  Wrong (20+ / 0-)

      The documentary is correct in saying the response to the USS Cole attack was completely inadequate, and that was on Clinton's watch.

      Yes, the Cole was attacked on Clinton's watch, in October of 2004, a month before the election. It look several months for the investigation to conclude and determine that it was Al Qaida's doing, and Clinton was right (as opposed to his trigger-happy successor) to not respond until all the facts were in (remember how everyone just KNEW that Muslims were behind Oklahoma City?). And by then, Bush was about to be awarded the presidency by the Supreme Court, after the biggest constitutional crisis in modern US history.

      In the interests of having as smooth a transition as possible, to avoid yet another "Wag the Dog" situation, and to avoid handing the new administration (illegitimate as Clinton surely thought it was) a major foreign policy crisis, the decision was rightly made to let them decide how to handle it. And what did they do? Absolutely nothing, in a chilling prelude to what was about to become SOP for the Bush administration.

      One can, at most, blame Clinton for presiding over a military that allowed the Cole to be attacked (and even that would be quite specious given that the vastly worse 9/11 took place on Bush's watch). But it is unfair and dishonest to blame him for the lack of adequate response to it. That was entirely Bush's fault. If anything, Clinton was to be commended for not acting right away and insisting that a full investigation be conducted first, and then giving the new administration the ability to decide how to handle the matter. THAT is how a leader should behave, as opposed to the "All hat, no cattle" swaggering faux cowboy Bush.

      I mostly agree with your other points, but on this one, I do not.

      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

      by kovie on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 02:12:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fair enough. (0+ / 0-)

        I plead ignorance on the specifics of the post USS Cole deliberations. Still, I think with regards to an attack on a US Naval vessel in a Yemen port, the Michigan militia types can be ruled out immediately.

        But you make a good point. Look, I don't argue that the corporate press is full of useless lackeys who are biased against Democrats. But those pompous assholes have only so much sway. I knew the bimbos on CNN were full of themselves, and as a result, full of shit, long before I read this blog. I suspect alot of people figured that out on their own.

        But there has been a problem within the party regarding foreign policy for some time now. John Kerry voted against Desert Storm, which was a stupid move on his part. Then he voted for this insane occupation of Iraq. What the fuck?!?

        So long as Democrats have an incoherent foreign policy, they will struggle. That said, I have no doubt as to who I will be voting for in November.

        And all the jarheads, killing and dying... they will always be me. We are still in the desert.

        by Zaphod Beeblebrox on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:02:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Similar situation to 9/11 (4+ / 0-)

          You can compare it to 9/11, if you'd like: Cole was attacked in October of 2000 (two months left in office for Clinton).

          It took Bush longer than that after 9/11 to attack Afghanistan.  It took longer than that to start to position troops, if I recall correctly.

          Just about the only "immediate" response possible would have been ICBM's.  Anything else takes a while, and you want to be sure that you have the right target (look at what's happened with Iraq).  Bush didn't even care about the latter point, and it still took time.

          There is simply no way to justify an attack on the Clinton administration vis-a-vis the Cole.

          •  3 months in office (0+ / 0-)

            October 12, 2000 until january 20, 2001

            •  Bush I had less time than that (0+ / 0-)

              and still committed troops to Somalia. It was ultimately a failure, but I don't think he could be faulted for trying to prevent mass starvation.

              Clinton could've done more, I remember how at the time the press talked about how the nation had no appetite for war. The truth is that at that time, the public didn't care about it, didn't want to care about it.

              Sometimes I am disgusted by my fellow countrymen. Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates... all of them. They didn't give a shit while all of this was building up, as was obvious to anyone paying attention. But then, when a catastrophic attack occured, they all wet their collective pants and were easily conned into the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq. It's really sickening when I think of it.

              But the apathy, ignorance and general weakness of the American public, which I think is partly due to our corporate media culture, cannot fairly be blamed upon any one political party. 9-11 was a failure of our nation as a whole, and 5 years later, we're really not doing much better.

              And all the jarheads, killing and dying... they will always be me. We are still in the desert.

              by Zaphod Beeblebrox on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:14:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree, in part. (0+ / 0-)

            I don't want to get too deep in the weeds with regard to the USS Cole. Fact is, the Clinton Administration was certain that Al-Queda was determined to kill Americans and attack American interests as of 1998, after the bombings in Africa. However different the political landscape was at that time, the lack of an effort to eliminate Bin Laden reflects poorly on our civilian leadership. Whatever effort was in place, and I know there was one, the lack of results is legitimate grounds for criticism.

            However, I disagree about Afghanistan. Bush never took that effort seriously. He was focused on Iraq, remember? It is inexcusable that they left the Taliban untouched for so long. The US Military could have had troops there within 24 hours. I understand there were problems with intel, there wasn't any. But the fact that it took so long to take Kabul was symptomatic of the incompetant leadership with which we are now so familiar. When you look at how badly they've bungled everything else, why would you doubt that they at first neglected and then royally fucked up the mission in Afghanistan?

            I remember talking to my Conservative Republican friends and associates during the fall of 2001. People were pissed, they were tired of people making excuses for Bush. We all wanted Bin Laden in a body bag, and nothing was happening. People with knowledge of that whole episode, who are not neo-con zombies, knew by the fall of 2001 that we were being led by idiots.

            And all the jarheads, killing and dying... they will always be me. We are still in the desert.

            by Zaphod Beeblebrox on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:03:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You want to correct that date (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rumblelizard, Harksaw, kovie

        for the Cole attack?

        It was October 12, 2000, NOT 2004.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

        by Mz Kleen on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:49:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, I meant October 25, 1917 (0+ / 0-)

          Um, no, October 26, 1973...

          Seriously, though, my mistake. A typo, obviously. Thanks for the correction!

          "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

          by kovie on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 10:26:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  um ok, troll (5+ / 0-)

      On the other hand, there is a strong pacifistic strain running through liberals in our party

      Whose party?   Screw you.  There's no strong pacificstic strain running through anyone with any real say here or elsewhere in the Democratic Party.

      Don't pretend to be a Democrat....your comment makes it quite obvious you're a right wing troll.....hell it sounds like Rush Limbaugh speaking diplomatically but still using the Right Wing Talking Points of the Day.  Fuck off.  If you want to make your points then do so without feigning to be a supporter of our party, asshole.

      I think that liberals fail to understand that as a species, humans are living beyond their evolutionary means.

      Oh god, the irony.  Preach on, Rush.

      We evolved over millions of years, yet civilization has only been around for 10,000 years. Human biology hasn't been able to keep up. In order to counter the dark side of our primal instincts, security forces are necessary, whether in the form of a police force or an army. It's a shitty deal, but that's just the way it is.

      Who the fuck has argued against military being a neccesity, Mr. Strawman?    Good lord you attribute so many O'Reilly Limbaugh talking points to us without even giving a shred of evidence to show that your audience....oh yeah that would be US.....are guilty of a word you've said.

      You, in a nutshell, are a liar.

      Liberals just don't get it. The guys over at Booman Tribune talk casually about cutting defense spending in half as the starting point to solving the world's problems. I admire their intentions, but disagree profoundly with their ideas. That's a bad idea.

      Shut the FUCK up and wrap your head around this.....WHY YOUR STATEMENT IS THE EPITOME OF STUPIDITY 101.

      we can cut our defense spending in a major way and actually HELP our nation both security-wise and otherwise, the majority of which spending goes to worthless overkill in ridiculous no-bid contracts to corporations that suck up half of our tax dollars to no real benefit to our security, without sacrificing security.

      our defense expenditures are absolutley absurd and completely irrelevant to our security at this point.

      you really have no defense to this and i don't expect you to offer one.... because there is none.   don't bring talking points like you just walked out of Rush Limbaugh's bowels over here to dailykos without expecting to be ridiculed for your lack of facts to back up your bullshit assertions.

      In order to do this, this nation's enemies must be defeated. We have to kill them all. Clinton failed to do that.

      Ya see..... failing to advocate "killing them all" is the equivalent of pacificism to you.   Right there you show what a fuckin moron you are.   But I'll trudge on in this exercise in futility because I enjoy assclown trolls like you.  

      We need new blood. The Democratic Party needs, and I expect will receive, new blood in the form of moderate converts from the independent ranks such as Wesley Clark. We need to win back the Reagan Democrats, such as Jim Webb.

      Do you realize that either one of these leaders would smack your bullshit to the ground?   You're not in agreeance with either of them and you're not in agreeance with anyone in the Democratic Party in your bullshit vile rhetoric advocating "KILL THEM ALL".  

      You are a fuckin snake.    You are good at writing and presenting bullshit masked as non-bullshit but the bullshit shines thru nonetheless.

      Fuck off.

      What's most amazing is that you try to be one of us....and think that you'll actually come across as something other than a troll....witness....

      you're trolling and it's not gonna go over too well if you keep up this line of debate attack.

      Fuck off and don't say "we" again..... you're not one of us....you're one of THEM....in a big way if you actually believe the Rush Limbaugh bullshit you've just spewed here.

      Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

      by tlh lib on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 02:52:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The first Tuesday of November, 1992 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCDemocrat, missreporter

        I went to a Korean Catholic Church down the street from where I lived at the time, first thing in the morning, to stand in line so that I could vote for William Jefferson Clinton. I had turned 18 the previous summer.

        I went home to await the election returns, I had taken the day off from my minimum wage job at a record store. Watching the states light up for Clinton that night was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I have never looked back.

        But since then, I have witnessed my party - and no matter what guys like you say, it is my party as much as it is yours - fail on some of the biggest issues of my lifetime. And that is not acceptable to me, it is why I post here. It is why I encourage my friends and associates to register to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections. It's why I tell you things I know you don't want to hear.

        Here's the thing friend, you guys had your chance. For decades, the Democratic Party did it your way. From McGovern to Mondale to Kerry... you had your chance. And you couldn't get it done. Bitching about the corporate press and the stupidity of voters doesn't impress me. When a pitcher gives up 7 runs in 2 innings, he gets pulled. It doesn't matter if the umpire was calling his pitches unfairly. Results matter.

        The results of the past 30 years have been nothing short of disastrous, so I say that it's time for a change. Things have got to change. I know it's hard for you to hear this, but the Democratic Party is more than Liberals. Liberals are important to the party, but there are as many moderates as liberals. In fact, with all the moderates flocking to the Democratic Party from the GOP... with all the Indycrats out there, Liberals are becoming more of a minority in this big tent of ours. Get used to it.

        It's nothing personal, I don't hate you or anything like that. We are all on the same team, but we need to win. Because losing has consequences. Like the 12 guys I buried last year.

        I'm sorry it upsets you so much. It's not my goal to piss people off, but things have to change. And I'll do what I have to in order to achieve that objective. Everyone isn't going to like it. So be it.

        And all the jarheads, killing and dying... they will always be me. We are still in the desert.

        by Zaphod Beeblebrox on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:30:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you really didn't respond to a thing i said (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rumblelizard

          hope you have when i awake.  

          i don't expect it though.

          you'll just spew more garbage about how you're a democrat and the party that you knew has gone astray from where rush limbaugh told you it should be.

          lord... get real.

          It's nothing personal, I don't hate you or anything like that. We are all on the same team

          Sorry, asshole, anyone who says "kill em all" is not on my team.  Nor is anyone who spews 99% of what you'ev said.

          You've never been a follower of Democratic principles and values and you're not foolin anyone.

          You're a fuckin troll and you're sayin the same shit that half the trolls here say.

          Peace....go spew your Right Wing Talking Points elsewhere.....they don't do a thing to get a Democrat elected....they simply make a farce of you as a troll, no matter how you disguise them.

          You're as much a Democrat as I am a fucking tortoise-zebra hybrid.  Fuck off.

          Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

          by tlh lib on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:46:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well let me respond to a few things you said. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            missreporter

            You're a fucking snake.

            I'm a human being.

            you'll just spew more garbage about how you're a democrat and the party that you knew has gone astray from where rush limbaugh told you it should be.

            Rush Limbaugh fooled me for all of about 10 minutes. Bill O' Reilly had me going for about 20.

            You've never been a follower of Democratic principles and values and you're not foolin anyone.

            I hate to break it to you, but you don't speak for the Democratic Party.

            You're as much a Democrat as I am a fucking tortoise-zebra hybrid.  Fuck off.

            You write well, for a tortoise-zebra hybrid.

            And all the jarheads, killing and dying... they will always be me. We are still in the desert.

            by Zaphod Beeblebrox on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:56:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  would you relax? (7+ / 0-)

            zaphod is not a troll.

            I am rebooting my life, just like we're going to reboot this great nation!

            by terrypinder on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 05:26:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  just saying (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        looty

        if you had left out the insults and kept your arguments and facts, you would have done a good enough job refuting what s/he wrote.

        Only Americans can hurt America

        -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by missreporter on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 05:18:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oops (0+ / 0-)

        When I wrote this:

        I mostly agree with your other points

        I was clearly not referring to this:

        In order to do this, this nation's enemies must be defeated. We have to kill them all. Clinton failed to do that.

        Nor a number of other points he made.

        Rather, I was referring to these points:

        Bush, however, has not only failed to defeat our enemies, he has created enemies. He has turned our friends against us. Those he could have made into allies have instead become our most bitter adversaries. Diplomatic solutions are always preferable to military solutions. The military option is always the last option, never the first. War is the result of the failure of diplomacy, which is the first responsibilty of our civilian leaders. Bush thinks that being a War President makes him great, but really it only illuminates his weakness...

        We need new blood. The Democratic Party needs, and I expect will receive, new blood in the form of moderate converts from the independent ranks such as Wesley Clark. We need to win back the Reagan Democrats, such as Jim Webb. We need these guys to form a Democratic Party that would make FDR proud, a coalition that will take care of working class Americans...

        We need a new and strengthed party, not a regional party, but a national party. One which appeals to voters in the South as well as to those in New England or on the West Coast. One that speaks to the Great Plains as well as to the Midwest and the Mountain States...

        But they should end with it Richard Clarke, and the testimony of Condi Rice reading the 6 Aug 01 PDB.

        It was late. I was tired. I didn't read carefully. My fault. (Which also explains the October, 2004 date I gave for the Cole bombing.)

        I should refrain from meaningful commentary after midnight from now on. ;-)

        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

        by kovie on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 10:39:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't agree with this? (0+ / 0-)

          In order to do this, this nation's enemies must be defeated. We have to kill them all. Clinton failed to do that.

          So just what do you recommend the Military do with these guys? I said we need to kill this nation's enemies. Not random Arabs. Not non-combatants. Not guys who were combatants but then elect to surrunder. But guys who are trying to attack the United States, it's people, and it's interests.

          You either kill them, or they kill you. I'm not sure why that's such a horrible position to hold. I don't see why that should get me excommunicated from the Democratic Party. I've never personally attacked anyone for being a pacifist. I understand why people feel that way. Getting back to the point of this diary, I understand why Clinton was reluctant to use force on Bin Laden. But I think it's fair to criticize that now, just as it's fair to criticize Bush for his many mistakes. I think the comparison favors Clinton, frankly.

          But I'm still pissed about 9-11. Hell, I'm still pissed about the African Embassy bombings and the first WTC attack. And I want these assholes taken out.

          By. Any. Means. Necessary.

          I won't apologize for that.

          And all the jarheads, killing and dying... they will always be me. We are still in the desert.

          by Zaphod Beeblebrox on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:41:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I don't (0+ / 0-)

            The Soviet Union posed a far greater threat to the US and its allies for over 40 years than today's terrorists do. And yet we "defeated" the USSR without having "killed" it or its people. Yes, we fought it, but those fights took many forms, only some of which were military or violent. And, I'd argue, most of the latter were ultimately not very helpful in defeating it, and instead took many lives needlessly, often making things even worse for us. The battles that ultimately defeated the USSR (to the extent that we did defeat it, and it didn't defeat itself through its incompetence and corruption), were more economic, political, diplomatic and surveillance in nature.

            Anyway, I don't believe that we can defeat the current "great enemy", Islamic terrorism, by killing the terrorists. Not all of them at least. Sure, I have no problem going after and killing Bin Laden, Zawahiri, etc. But they're just the top guys. To kill the rest of them means killing literally thousands, which is not only impossible (at least without also killing just as many if far more innocent people, and which I assume you're not proposing we do), but which would probably create yet more terrorists. Plus, how do you identify them? It's not like they're all standing around wearing "I'm with Bin Laden" t-shirts.

            The "GWOT", so to speak, is not going to be won primarily, let alone solely, by violent, military means. In fact, it cannot, per se, be won, because there will always be a minority of people somewhere who hate us, or want to kick us out of some place where they don't want us to be, or want to send a message, etc., no matter how many of them we kill. It's like winning the war against fleas. Can't be done, least of all by killing them all.

            Instead, it'll come down to a multi-pronged approach, that has been articulated far better by others far more qualified than me. But in a nutshell, it's a matter of minimizing or alleviating the conditions that give rise to terrorism (e.g. poverty, occupation, oppression, economic colonialism, etc.), while containing existing or emerging terrorists and terror organizations by a combination of surveillance (of the legal sort), police and judicial action (also legal), and, where necessary, some limited military action (e.g. what we tried to do in Afghanistan). But the "kill them" approach is just simplistic, naive and quite dangerous, for innocents on both sides. Just look at Israel's recent experience in this matter.

            "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

            by kovie on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 11:26:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Zaphod... (4+ / 0-)

      ...I'd like to suggest that you have some seriously mistaken notions about the Democratic Party and most of its members.

      Most of us are NOT pacifists.  That is a right-wing fantasy: conflating a few far-lefters with the vast majority of Democrats, most of whom supported the attack against Afghanistan and most of whom would love it if we would actually go after and destroy Al Qaeda, by any practical means.  In case you hadn't noticed, the Wesley Clarks of the Party are actually quite welcome around here.

      I want us to have the strongest military in the world.  Most Dems feel the same way.  I think it's reasonable to say that we don't need to spend as much as we do on the military to have that, but that doesn't mean I'm a pacifist.

      •  The whole point of my post (0+ / 0-)

        was that Democrats are not all pacifists. In fact what I said, that not all Democrats are pacifists or even liberals (who are not necessarily pacifists themselves) should have been clear.

        I suppose I could've made that clearer, but that doesn't justify the abuse I took from some commenters. They're the ones, by the way, who say I cannot be a Democrat for not sharing their veiws on this issue.

        Thing is, I have a pretty good memory. If you went around telling liberals in 1998 that Bin Laden was a dangerous enemy and that he needed to be taken out at all costs, you would've gotten the same response. Nancy Pelosi voted against military action against the Taliban after 9-11. I haven't forgotten that.

        I'm well within my right to say I disagree with that perspective, which many liberals clearly hold. But the response I get is that I can't call myself a Democrat if I disagree with it. If I attempt to explain why, then I'm Rush Limbaugh. That's bullshit.

        But I'm done with this. I have better shit to do than engage in childish namecalling. 9-11 was and is a big deal to me. I hate the Taliban and Al-Queda. I want Bin Laden and Zawahiri dead, I'm willing to pull the trigger myself. I have been for 8 years, and it pisses me off that the guy is still making videos.

        Bush is a punk, no one here would argue that. But It's difficult for me to just let everybody else off the hook because they're not Bush. There were many people who failed to take Bin Laden seriously before 9-11 and amazingly there still are. I have no problem calling them on it.

        And all the jarheads, killing and dying... they will always be me. We are still in the desert.

        by Zaphod Beeblebrox on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:29:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Damn, this sucks (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rumblelizard, tlh lib, bree, DMiller

    That's what we need, with voters abandoning the GOP in record numbers and set to give Dems control of congress again, a reason to make them go "Hmm, maybe, compared to those weak-kneed liberals, Republicans aren't so bad on terrorism after all?" and pull the lever for the GOP rep or senator when they'd been wavering on that or even leaning Dem.

    This just reeks of political manipulation by the corporate (i.e. GOP-loving) media. What next, an hour-long "documentary" with patriotic music and Norman Rockwell backdrops, on what great patriots Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns and Tom DeLay really are, on the eve of the election? Or a "special message" from your vice president preemting all regularly scheduled programs on why we're all going to die if the Dems retake congress?

    So, ABC, if Clinton's to blame for 9/11, could you please explain to me again why Osama's still on the run nearly 5 FUCKING years after Bush promised to smoke him out of his cave, dead or alive, like that old wanted poster? Could ya, please? I'm just DYING to know.

    Go fuck yourselves. And then go fuck yourselves some more. Asswipes.

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

    by kovie on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 01:48:09 AM PDT

    •  call the advertisers of your local abc affiliate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree

      and ask them that question

      and then call your local abc affiliate's ad dept and let them know that you've made the calls and will continue doing so.

      it will make an impact.

      Thinking of posting a diary? Read the FAQ? Don't post that diary until you do. :-)

      by tlh lib on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:41:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  WE CAN'T IGNORE THIS!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stephdray

      'Cos the right-wing noise machine won't...  They will be crowing about this for months.  It will become a new bible for them. On long trips, they will show it to their children in their minivan DVD players....  They will watch it in church every other Sunday....  

      We can't hope that it will just "blow over" like the Swift Boat thing was supposed to do... It won't.

      I at least hope that the production quality of the show is so bad, and the acting so unbelievable, that no one but the right wing nutjob would take it seriously.  But we can't hope for that.... we need to take protective action now.  

      It would be good to have Gore on the case, getting on the talk show circuit refuting the lies preemptively.  Even better, get Bubba himself refuting those lies NOW... before the show even airs.  Discrediting the program before it even begins.

      Thanks,

      Mike

  •  Clinton helped media consolidate (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rumblelizard, LordMike, DMiller, epppie

    Michael Powell, Colin's son, was appointed by Clinton as FCC secretary and continued into the Bush II administration. Though he's gone now, Michael Powell was an experienced an anti-trust lawyer. That, paradoxically, is a lawyer who helps business avoid antitrust laws so he's really a pro-trust lawyer. I have to believe he had a role in the collapse of competitive media.

    I felt just sick when I read this diary. The cyclops in the living room will screw democracy again.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the watchers?)

    by The Crusty Bunker on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:30:11 AM PDT

  •  a little trip down memory lane (8+ / 0-)

    Check out the cartoons here, at whatreallyhappened in 1999.  You'll have to scroll down past the articles he compiled at that time, which are also interesting.

    This makes me sick.

    Here's more from EPIC on the counter terrorism efforts that were approved in 1996, check out the partially funded requests to improve FEMA, how ironic.

    And lastly, from CNN, also in 1996, on Republican response to Clinton's bill.

    But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

    Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

    and

    Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

    Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

    "If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

  •  Just (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bree, potownman, epppie

    call this crap what it is: Bush apologia.

    It's easier for the Bush apologists to focus on stuff that went on 10 years ago than to focus on the abject failure the Bush administration has become.

    I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:43:22 AM PDT

  •  Just remember (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chaoticfluffy

    It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.
    --Joseph Goebbels Karl Rove

    Someone once asked me if I had learned anything from going to war so many times. My reply: Yes, I learned how to cry.
    Joe Galloway

    by BOHICA on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:46:45 AM PDT

  •  if they want (8+ / 0-)

    to take Clinton to task on what they perceive to be the failures of his administration to get Bin Laden, so be it--but Richard Clarke's book refutes much of those talking points.

    The docudrama, however, must also include Bush ignoring the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States" memo and going to clear some brush in Crawford, as well as him telling the CIA person "ok, you've covered your ass now."

    I've got no problem with accountability, as long as they display both sides of the issue.

    I would also very much enjoy some archival footage of the Republican congress saying that Clinton's military operations against Islamic Extremism was just "wag the dog" to distract from his marital infidelity problems.

    You want the path to 9/11?  Well, how about documenting the whole path, ABC?

  •  Shades of Sinclair Broadcasting? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jeffwtux, Left Click

    Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

    by patachon on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:57:16 AM PDT

  •  The Protocols of the Learned Elders... (n/t) (0+ / 0-)

    "[T]hat I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake."

    by Heronymous Cowherd on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:00:07 AM PDT

  •  I blame 9/11 on Reagan, then (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, bree, Left Click

    After all, he was the one so excited about giving guns, money, terrorist training, and diplomatic protection to a bunch of fundamentalist Islamic gangster lunatics to fight Russkies in Afghanistan.

    Without which, there would be no Osama bin Laden terrorist mastermind, no Al Qaida, no Afghanistan run by the warlords, no Taliban.

    •  Let's Go All the Way...! (0+ / 0-)

      Let's blame the Iraq fiasco on Andrew Johnson and Ulyses S. Grant.  If they just had done a better job with Reconstruction, then we wouldn't have all this red state/blue state mess.

      Let's blame Katrina floods on FDRoosevelt.  If the Army Corp of Engineers had only made some decent construction of the levees during the depression, there would have been no flood in 2005.

      Let's blame Wal-mart's detrimental effects on our economy on Truman.  Damn, if he had only gone after the Chinese during the early 50s, Korean War....

      •  Sure, but at least mine was direct (0+ / 0-)

        I mean, in tying Reagan's Afghan war policies to, er, Reagan, it's not like there weren't people around at the time warning that giving a bunch of guns, missiles, training, money, and protection to a gang of marauding, murderous, religious fundamentalist drug-dealing criminals wasn't such a good idea.

        It was a terrible, horrible idea.  It was like there being some bad drug gangs in some city and the mayor thinking it would be a good idea to give guns, weapons, money, protection and training to a rival gang.

        And then acting all surprised when that rival gang turns out to be, well, a criminal gang.

        The connection is pretty clear:  without the Afghan mujahedeen, no Osama bin Laden the great Al Qaida terrorist leader.

        And although the Cold War Democrats jumped on that train too, it was clearly the game of the Reaganites.

  •  ABC is going to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potownman

    air a mockumentry blaming 9/11 on the Democrats?

    GIVE ME A BREAK!

    (oh wait that's their line.)

    GWB 7/13/06: "I thought you were going to ask me about the pig."

    by hoplite9 on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:04:43 AM PDT

  •  Executives Of ABC Have Voted In 2006 (4+ / 0-)

    How the fuck do they give a mini-series during the election season to a right wing wacko? His major interview to date promoting this movie is with a David Horowitz publication? This is his take on the British recent uncovering of a terrorist plot:

    As for blocking this plot, it's quite significant and the Brits should be applauded, as should our President. If you had said on 9/12/01 that there wouldn't be another major terrorist attack on American shores in the next 5 years you'd have been called nuts.

    The 9-11 report was scathing in it's criticism of the Bush administration pre 9-11. Somehow the Dubya loving scumbag Nowrasteh is neglecting that completely. He is completely ignorant of the facts concerning the Cole bombing.

    One of the characteristics of a fascist state is the complete co-opting, if not total control of the media. If we get these kind of decisions by ABC executives, we might as well live in a fascist state.

    Love Harvey Keitel. I judge the art. Not the artist. Having said that, what the hell is he doing being associated with this shit.

    Good Government. Traffic Lights Aren't All That Weird. Vote Democratic!

    by HL Mungo on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:21:03 AM PDT

  •  Personal Opinion. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catfish, btyarbro, Mz Kleen

    Hit em' hard with everything we have!

    And we have the best weapon of all; the TRUTH!

    Good time to remind everyone who owns all the US media outlets.

    Email, petition, and boycott ABC.

    Same goes for their advertisers and all their affiliates.

    Hit the 'net hard with the TRUTH!

    Slam those messageboards like a "ton of bricks;" land on em' with both feet!

    Make phonecalls to ABC, their affiliates, and their advertisers.

    Write letters to the editors in your local non-newspapers.

    LET EM' HAVE IT!

    LET EM' HAVE IT!

    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

  •  Did the event ever happen? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Bob, HL Mungo, blue armadillo

    There was an situtation where they had Bin Laden in a house and were going to blow it up, but were denied permission because the Qatari Royal Family or something was inside having tea.  Too bad, but understandable at the (pre-9/11) time.

    But I never heard of the situation described where they were ready to go in and capture OBL, and not given support (though I don't put past the Clinton people at all).

    Anyway, if it's a fabrication, it's a good angle to push with the 67% of us who don't believe anything coming from the Bushites or their supporters.

    "MORE BUSH BULLSHIT"

    So, did it ever happen?

    (If this has been answered in earlier comments, I apologize. I read most of them).

    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." General Nathanael Greene, Continental Army, April, 1781.

    by faithnomore on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:27:49 AM PDT

  •  Let's all support JAMES DOBSON! :) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla

    and boycott Disney!!!

    •  We will have to start boycotting (0+ / 0-)

      if we want to take our country back.  The only place corporations feel it is in their pocketbooks, so we should organize an effort to boycott Exxon/Mobil, and some other pro-Bush, anti-American corporations.

      My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

      by adigal on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 11:46:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I know this guy is bowtie little twerp but,.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potownman

    Tucker Carlson will have a field day if we call for a boycott.  He really loves making fun of boycotters on both sides.

  •  Iraq, Iran, N. Korea and Lebanon (0+ / 0-)

    were Clinton's fault too.  Oh yeah, and FEMA and Katrina were his fault.  He also forced Bushit to snort all that coke as well.

    Love is a temple, love the higher law.

    by ckeesling on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:34:21 AM PDT

    •  A (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nightsweat, 3goldens, judy99, sheddhead, epppie

      An old joke, rewritten:

      It's January of 2001.  Bill Clinton is leaving the White House for the last time and, as he's exiting, he runs into George W. Bush.

      Clinton turns to the soon-to-be President and says "George, the reins of the country are now in your hands. But before I go, I want to give you some advice." "What is it, Bill?" asks Bush.

      Reaching into his suit jacket, Clinton produces two envelopes marked 1 and 2. "Take these letters," he tells Bush. "Keep them safe. Don’t open them yet. When the country is in turmoil and things start going badly, open the first one. That’ll give you some advice on what to do. And, if after that, things start going really badly, open the second one." And with that, Clinton turned and left the White House, leaving Bush standing in the doorway holding the two letters.

      As we know, George W. Bush was inaugurated, took the oath of office, and became America's 43rd President. Sure enough, within a few months things started going badly-- September 11th happened, the economy crashed, Bush launched a war in Iraq that started to go downhill and his approval ratings started to dive. The American people were poor, fearful, and dissatisfuied.  With all of these problems, Bush decided to open the first letter.

      All it said was: "Blame everything on me." So George W. Bush did just that-- he had his advisors, his supporters in Congress and his allies in the media come out and blame Clinton for everything:  Clinton didn't act enough to stop 9/11.  He didn't take a hard enough line on Saddam Hussein.  The recession actually started on Clinton's watch.  All of the Republicans repeated this meme whenever they could, even blatantly manipulating the facts to make their case, and it bought them a little time.

      But things continued to downslide-- Iraq slid into a civil war, and the Bush administration showed they had no plan to fix it.  Hurricaine Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, killing 1500 people and showing how weak and unprepared the Bush administration was years after September 11th.  The economy stagnated, wages flatlined, gas prices soared and health care costs skyrocketed-- it was too much for the American people to bear. As the midterm electons approached, some of George W. Bush's most loyal supporters started jumping ship, and his approval ratings plummeted near 30%-- the American people were angry, they were demanding accountability, and the Bush administration had no answers.

      So finally, after much deliberation, Bush opens the second letter. All it says is: "Write two letters."

      "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard." -Proverbs 21:13

      by Left Click on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:20:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rethugs pre-emptive attack (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, bree, epppie

    If nothing else the rethugs know how to fight their political opponents. This showing could be their attempt to counter the fact that many Americans suspect the neocons had a hand in 9/11:

    More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

    The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

    Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

    http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

    I suspect these sentiments by the public will only build with more and more lack of confidence in the Bushies.

    The rethugs and their coporate agents will gladly try and channel Americans alienation towards the federal government towards the Dems and towards Clinton.

    I say smart Dems would make this ABC showing an OPPORTUNITY to revisit 9/11 and the entire false pretext for the Iraq War, AND the Bushies failures at curtailing terrorism.

    •  I have to admit, that DOES sound like Clinton. (0+ / 0-)

      On the other hand, I don't see how tearing down Clinton does much to build up Bush, unless the Dems plan to hang their hats on Clinton.  

      The story referenced above may not speak well for Clinton's spine when faced with the tough decisions, but, at the same time, it shows that the Clinton administration was hard on the case.

      Unlike the Bush administration, which apparently dismissed repeated attempts to convey urgency about the threat posed by Al Queda.

      I am a winner because I am a loser.

      by epppie on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 08:10:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bin Laden determined to strike in US. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, el cid

    I can't wait to see the part where Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld discuss the PDA entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." and decide to let him do it.

  •  I'm Sorry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judy99, potownman

    But who is this Osama Bin Laden guy?

    Not sure if I've ever heard the President mention him.

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:51:15 AM PDT

    •  Oh, No, He Has. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oortdust, 3goldens

      THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him.  And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.  And, again, I don't know where he is.  I  --  I'll repeat what I said.  I truly am not that concerned about him.  I know he is on the run.  I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.  I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

  •  Jeez talk about selective memory.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epppie
    ABC, who used US cruise missiles to accidentaly demolish what turned out to be a pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan?  

    Was George's "hair on fire" to correct the alleged Clinton mismanagment of Osama...? The answer to that question would be a resounding NO.

    And the number one question....

    Who has the keys on 911?  

    MSM... stick to reporting the news unvarnished and with all the facts.

    Nuff said.

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 04:52:31 AM PDT

  •  Based on 9/11 Report (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TaraIst, epppie

    Anything's possible, this could be a case of the right-wing doing a pre-emptive blitz trying to claim the movie paints Bush in a good light when in fact it doesn't:

    The miniseries is equally honest in depicting the Bush administration. It shows a few points where administration officials, following in the tradition of the Clinton years, do not follow certain clues about the terrorist plot as zealously as they should have. Nonetheless, "The Path to 9/11," by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster.

    And Harvey Keitel plays John O'Neil. Maybe PBS could re-air The Man Who Knew Too Much after more people learn who O'Neil is.

  •  Blame 9/11 on Clinton (0+ / 0-)

    Call and tell channel 7 you will boycott their channel and that if they show the movie that you will Boycott every advertiser.  

  •  I wonder if this is connected (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catfish

    to the fact that our Justice Department is only seeking charges against Bin Laden for the embassy bombings during Clinton's presidency and nothing about 9/11 during Bush's.

    Love is a temple, love the higher law.

    by ckeesling on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 05:20:55 AM PDT

  •  You can blame Clinton for media consolodation. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    looty, epppie

    In a sense, by signing the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Clinton screwed himself.

    hink

  •  Plenty of Blame to Go Around (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epppie

    Let's hope they're just laying the groundwork for their critique of the Bush Admin by leaking this shit early.

    Must always prove "not a liberal" creds.

    Puke.

  •  it'll be interesting (0+ / 0-)

    to see how they blame the complete shutdown of the FAA's standard deviation-from-flightplan response procedures on 9/11 on Clinton.

  •  Clinton should come out swinging. (7+ / 0-)
    The truth... accept no substitute.

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 05:44:14 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely. So Should Gore. (6+ / 0-)

      Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

      http://www.truthout.org/...

  •  I have been hearing this drumbeat for a while (0+ / 0-)

    now...O'Reilly, Hannity and Rush have been pounding this on their radio shows; how 9/11 was all Clinton's fault (I listen because it's the only thing that will come in when I'm in the car).

    Karl must put out these talking points daily because they all parrot the same message.

    "There never was a good war or a bad peace." -Benjamin Franklin

    by CTLiberal on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 05:53:12 AM PDT

  •  One for DAMN sure - 5 years later (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, lirtydies, Ninepatch, epppie

    It's been 5 LONG YEARS since that horrific event and Osama is where?  

    We have the man on tape bragging about 9/11;
    We had the American forces mobilized in Afghanistan;
    We had the complete knowledge and backing of the American public;
    We had the Congress completely backing the President and his administration;
    we were a nation in shock and horror and outraged .....

    And with that, we've had 5 years and no Osama bin Ladin.

    Instead, we have Iraq.  

    So the conservatives want to highlight the years leading up to 9/11 and the failures, sobeit just as long as it's the truth.  

    NOW ..... let's have some TRUTH about the aftermath and oh, the results of the 9/11 commission and its recommendations and the administration's "F grades."

  •  This is the same filmmaker who made... (0+ / 0-)

    "The Day Reagan was shot." At the time, the conservatives blew a nut over the fact that it was unflattering toward St. Reagan and his administration.

    I think this dude's an equal opportunity offender.

  •  This is disappointing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, johnnyNYC

    but seriously, how many people watch TV movies?  Not many.

    Secondly, Clinton isn't president anymore. If republicans and media moguls want to spend their time smearing a still popular ex-president instead of focusing on November, more power to them.

  •  I bet Jon Stossel is the narrator (0+ / 0-)

    what the fuck is ABC's problem?

  •  I wasn't going to watch anyway. (0+ / 0-)

    I got this vibe from the promos that they were really exploiting this... it's not a vibe that I got from the Flight 93 (Paul Greengrass') or World Trade Center (Oliver Stone's) movies.

    Visit my blog Penndit. Media, politics, campaigns, and political communications.

    by Newsie8200 on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 06:18:34 AM PDT

  •  I’ll bet Condi looks bad in this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch

    Because she's played by Penny Johnson aka Sherry Palmer in 24.  That actress played one of the greatest, evil, witches ever seen on TV in 24.  If nothing else, people already have embedded in their brains the powerfully negative feelings associated with that 24 character.  If Condi comes across with ½ the duplicity of Sherry baby, then that will be pretty bad.  

    This is the drama Oliver Stone should have done.  

    Anyway guys – relax, like Coulter says, “As for catching Osama, it's irrelevant.”

    'Events are in the saddle and ride mankind.' Emerson

    by deepsouthdoug on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 06:22:01 AM PDT

    •  Coulter gave early notice of this Clinton spin (5+ / 0-)

      Last week there were a couple of diaries on Coulter that noted her abysmal appearance on Fox where she basically quit the interview when she got stymied on her talking points.

      What struck me at the time in that interview was her talking point that Clinton failed to get OBL.  At the time, it felt I was watching some rerun of Republican talking points in the 2003-2004 era.

      With this diary, it now seems more obvious that Coulter was contributing to a larger effort to renew this anti-Democrat monologue.  Surprise, surprise, just before an election.

      Pretty lame.  My hunch is that it's pabulum for the Koolaide crowd (sorry for the mixed metaphor) but the majority of voters will see right through the ploy.

      •  Ya never know (0+ / 0-)

        Like Gafield the Cat says, "If it's on TV it must be true."

        I'm sure there is a percentage of the population that gets their world view and information from docudramas like this.  

        'Events are in the saddle and ride mankind.' Emerson

        by deepsouthdoug on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 08:38:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What you don't see of Coulter (0+ / 0-)

        Few people who contribute to this blog spend early Sunday mornings watching the pay-to-pray shows of the far religious (?) right. Coulter is a star there, part of their new tack: The Holocaust was Charles Darwin's fault! (Of course, the entire playbook of the conservative economic plan is social Darwinism, but who's counting.) Ignore Coulter at your peril. She does "blonde" really well; doesn't offend the chauvinists of the GOP, and yet offers their talking points to the world.

  •  I doubt it will get that much attention. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, Ninepatch

    That is unless we make it a big deal.  Sunday night people aren't interested in watching a "miniseries" and on Monday they're going up against football.  All this will do is appeal to the red meat conservatives because most people have already made up their minds about Bush.

    If you must do something then contact your local affiliates and tell them that you will no longer watch their station if they air the program, and that you are contacting their sponsors to tell them you will no longer use their products.  DON'T try to convince them of anything by flooding them with facts.  They only understand money.

    "Neocon delenda est"

    by Rakkasan on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 06:24:45 AM PDT

  •  A simple response to all this BS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epppie

    Remember this?

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

    In the months following the Sudanese attack, many questioned Clinton's claim that the Sudanese plant was making a dangerous substance. President Carter even called upon Clinton to submit his evidence to an impartial international body to prove or disprove his claims. To this day, Clinton has refused to respond to the wide spread international call for an impartial tribunal to judge the Sudan attack.

    Why is this important? Because America can have no credibility in the world if we refuse to do what we are insisting that Saddam Hussein do. Now that we have attacked Iraq again, the world has a right to ask again, where is your proof that your attack on Sudan was justified?

    Or this?

    http://www.conservativeusa.org/...

    As the Constitution makes clear, the President of the United States does have the authority to take defensive action against an aggressor nation, but he has no authority whatsoever to make war against a country which has neither attacked the United States or posed to do so.

    Or even this?

    http://partners.nytimes.com/...

    But while the Republican leadership rallied to support the raids, some members of Congress reacted suspiciously, noting that the action followed by three days Clinton's acknowledgment to the public and a grand jury of his relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky.

    First they say Clinton did it to divert attention from his own problems.  Now they say he didn't do enough.

    A simple response...put quotes from these three websites on a one-sheet handout and simply station volunteers at the entrances to movie houses where this is being shown.  The lies will be self-evident, and the crowd will see the movie for what it really is...propaganda that would make Goebbels proud.

    James Carville re: Democrats in 2006: "If we can't win in this environment, we have to question the whole premise of the party."

    by RJohnson64 on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 06:31:45 AM PDT

  •  How much more... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    ,,,political propaganda presented as fact whether they be shown in "docu-dramas" such as this one or in the regular barrage that Americans are subjected to by the Fox Republican propaganda channel will we continue to get? This is nothing different from the barrage of propaganda residents of the Soviet Union got during 75 or so years of communist rule. This exercise in political buck passing (remember the Republicans controlled Congress during all but the first two years of the Clinton presidency)must be exposed and ABC should be pressured to put a disclaimer that the film is not fact but political propaganda of the worst kind.

  •  JOHN STEWART WILL BAIL US OUT (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epppie

    Shortly after the docu-drama blaming Clinton airs, the Daily Show will rerun clips of what the Republicans said when Clinton sent the missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan. The general tone from the right at that time was sarcastically dismissive, generally of the opinion that Clinton's only motive in showing 'true force' was to cover his penis escapade. They politicized and denigrated Clinton's use of force.
    I'm sure Mr Stewart can find some juicy clips of GOP big wigs dissing Clinton's muscular response to O. B. Laden.

    PS     Osama is now registered to vote in both Florida and Ohio.

    EXORCISE YOUR RIGHT, VOTE!!

    by cognitorex on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 06:42:36 AM PDT

  •  Wow, we must be in good shape for the mid-terms (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoMore, epppie

    if they resort to this bullshit.

  •  what's that far away look in your eyes. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epppie
  •  Is it... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epppie

    in serious contention that before (and after) 9/11 we didn't do enough to get bin Laden? While I'm sure there's going to be more than enough embellishment to make me want to vomit during this documentary, I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that Clinton didn't give final authorization because - back then bin Laden wasn't top dog. Hindsight's 20/20 but does anyone here disagree that Clinton should have done more?

    Of course, I hope to hell there's a part two of this docudrama that will talk all about Reagan's people befriending bin Laden and about Bush fumbling every aspect of the actual War on Terrorism.

  •  Preaching to the choir (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch, epppie

    I don't think this kind of propaganda will sail with the general public.  It's also a dangerous ploy, since any discussion that engages members of the Clinton administration will flush out birds that the conservatives would rather leave unflushed.  I agree that this is a blatant attenmpt by GOP operatives in high places to distract the public.  But I don't think it will work, and I don't think the Clinton's will stand by to let it work.  They can't Swift Boat the Big Dawg.  They gave it a try in 98 and failed.

  •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epppie

    what the big deal is about blaming the last guy who had your job when something spectacularly bad happens on your watch. I know that, should things go all catastrophic on my job, I can blame whoever the hell had my job a year before I did and no one will blame me and everything will be cool. I just know that both Katie Couric and Meredith Vieira have that exact clause in their contracts.  

    Seriously though, after that "Extreme Makeover" episode with Laura Bush I would not be surprised if ABC put on a miniseries that takes Bush off the hook. It's so easy to just blame someone who was neither in a position to do anything on 9/11 nor can be held accountable and face consequences for it. Ten years from now Bush might actually bear some responsibility for his own failure according to the media. This is what maintains the status qou in America and why nothing ever seems to get fixed, improved or changed and the bad guys always seem to get away with it.

  •  Panel Said Bush Saw Repeated Warnings (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch

    By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on al Qaeda's intentions. So had Vice President Cheney and Bush's top national security team, according to newly declassified information released yesterday by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  •  What will Hillary's response be? (5+ / 0-)

    shifting blame back to THE clintons....muh muh  how ummm novel (not)

    we have been privy to 'its all clintons fault" for 5 years now.  

    the bad economy is clintons fault
    the crumbling infrastructure is clintons fault
    the deficit...clintons fault
    our fall from international grace..clintons fault
    9/11 definitely clintons fault
    and if you have a hangnail...blame clinton

    for me..its to close to 9/11/01 to want to watch anything labeled as a 'docudrama' related to this subject.

    I do not need these events dramatized for me.  I still remember it all.  I have not watched a single one of the ever increasing dramatic offerings about 9/11, the lead up or the aftermath.  

    I wonder how many people DO watch these movies....and who they are...and what effect they have on peoples opinions of BUSH.

    for me, no matter what clinton did or did not do the words of Condoleeza rice are burned into my memory..NO ONE COULD HAVE KNOWN, the images of Bush sitting in an elementary school reading my pet goat while my fellow NYers were jumping out of windows at the world trade center are seared into my soul.

    Leave it up to the clintons to defend the clintons.  Blaming Bill does NOT absolve BUSH....

    its now 5 years after that horrible day we were attacked and BIN LADEN is still at large, al qaeda is still active and every day that passes puts America at ever greater risk for another 'spectacular' attack on our nation.

    the right will try as hard as they can to avoid accountibility for their actions by trying to shift the focus and the blame on the clintons...thats what they do, thats about all they have left...rachet up the fear facter and blame clinton.

    somehow i dont think its a winning campaign strategy this time around.

    so leave the defense of bill to hillary and STAY FOCUSED on the abject incompetence and lack of credibility of the BUSH administration....

    whatever bill did or didnt do 9/11 was BUSH's failure and he has been failing ever since.

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 06:53:43 AM PDT

    •  Odds are (0+ / 0-)

      they ask a Republican first, Joe Lieberman second, other Dems third, and then Hillary, all the while treating this "docudrama" like it was a news broadcast.

      •  I think its to late for this to help Bush reps (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ninepatch

        American is passed the point of being motivated to change their opinion of BUSH by airing a docudrama that blames clinton for bush's failure on 9/11.

        I venture a majority of voters have already made up their mind re: bush and 9/11

        those that plan to vote to stay the course have blamed clinton since 9/12/01

        those that plan to vote to change course (in congress and IRAQ) probably have the same images searing into their souls as I do

        I believe airing this movie is yet another attempt to retake control of the conversation relating to a major bush failure....capturing Bin Laden...there will be many real conversations surrounding the anniversary of that fateful day...not many of them will be about the fabulous job bush has done....some will, most wont.  thats why the gop prefers we concentrate on BLAMING Clinton for 9/11 happening in the first place.  its a magicians trick....finding a way to make you look at his left hand while he palms the quarter with his right.

        think of this movie as another moment like that faux katrina 'victim' who hauled his faux fema trailor to have a preplanned accidental meeting with bush and a preplanned sudden dinner invitation to the white house ALL designed to hopefully lessen the impact of the bad press BUSH was getting for his non action on the day katrina hit our shores.

        "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

        by KnotIookin on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 09:53:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe Harvey Kietel can explain the "fiction" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch

    Harvey (and other first tier stars) will be the face of this mini-series. They will soon be all over the tube promoting it extensively over the next three weeks.

    Is Harvey a Progressive?

    Can he explain that the "Osama-on-a-silver platter" scene is just fiction?

    At the very least, maybe he can bring up Bush's rescue flight for the Saudis and the bin Ladins on 9/13 as well as Bush's 80s business connections with the bin Ladins.

    Anyone have any connections?

  •  Write to Media Matters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch

    mm-tips AT mediamatters DOT org

  •  The more I think about it --- Roll the Film! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epppie

    The Republican base will hiss and boo Clinton - nothing new.
    The Republican base will blame Clinton for 9/11, poor economy, moral decay.

    The Democratic base will hiss and boo ABC.
    The Democratic base will not blame Clinton for 9/11 and be highly offended and outraged.
    Some will blame Bush for 9/11
    (Personally I blame Osama bin Ladin's bunch of criminals.)
    The Democratic base blames Bush for the poor economy and moral decay and loss of democracy.

    It's that vast Middle .... what will this movie tell them?  Is it possible that on the heels of the anniversary of the Katrina fiasco they will ponder just how Bush would have handled the years leading UP to 9/11?  Is it possible that they have heard the tune "Clinton Done It" until it's no longer on the Top 20 List?  Is it possible that they just want to move forward into a better future and what they see now looks a tad on the shakey side as far as the economy and the "war on terror"?  

    Roll the film and the dice.

  •  E-mailed ABC (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoMore, lirtydies, 3goldens, Ninepatch

    I loved ABC. I watch Lost. I watch Good Morning America, despite the occasional BS (like this morning when Charlie Gibson waxed poetically about how "we all remember the scene of President Bush flying over the devastation of Katrina" or some such nonsense). This is really disappointing. Here's my e-mail:

    It is truly disgusting that your network is giving air time to a propaganda piece like "The Path to 9/11." Fictionalized accounts of real-life events are one thing; "docudramas" that blur the line between what is meant to be fictional and what is meant to reflect reality are another entirely. The corporate money at the top of your network is, in blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11, simply playing to its base. I am an ABC viewer, and am ashamed that your network's integrity could be sold so cheaply.

  •  lies, danmned lies and... (5+ / 0-)

    utter bullshit!

    They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed.

    The reason they didn't go after bin Laden (if I remember correctly) is because the  entire Saudi Royal family was at the compound at the time.
    And as far as the Cole is concerned, that happened just before the elections in 2000 and there was no confirmation of al Queda's involvement until Clinton was out and Bush was in. So it was Bush's responsibility for retaliation. What did he ever do but ignore the threat. The Clinton Administration briefed the incoming Bush folks and told them that al Queda would be their #1 problem in the years to come. What did they do? Ignored the advice.
    It wasn't Clinton playing footsie with the Taliban it was Bush, who met with them before 2000. It wasn't Clinton that gave $40 million (or so) to the Taliban in May of 2000, that was Bush. It wasn't Clinton that ignored the August 6 PDB, it was Bush.
    I'm so sick of the right blaming Clinton for all their faults. Hell, as far as they are concerned, if it's bad, it's Clinton's fault. If it's good, it's their doing. Although there isn't much good to find.
    We need a letter writing campaign and encourage a boycott of ABC (damn! that means I can't watch Boston Legal).

    All Truth is non-partisan

    by MA Liberal on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:13:05 AM PDT

  •  Bin Laden had a very different status then (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoMore, bree, lirtydies, betterdonkeys

    He wasn't the villain that blew up the WTC, during the Clinton years. Most people had never heard of him or poo-pooed his potential as a threat. And yet, Clinton's people were pursuing him, keeping track of him, etc. So the choice really is between an administration actively pursuing a potential threat, and a later administration who failed to continue the pursuit of that threat until it was too late, and then once the potential had actually been realized, decided it was too boring to continue.

    In other words, the documentary is pointing out the unsuccessful attempts during Clinton so stop bin Laden but ignoring the lack of attempts to stop him during pre-911 Bush, followed by Bush's failure (and premature abandonment of attempts) to catch him after he had engineered the deaths of 3019 people on 911.

    Even better, this bias should be extremely apparant to anyone who has been sentient during the last five years, so it is something that needs to be pointed out repeatedly.

    Greg Shenaut

  •  demand equal time for the opposite view. (0+ / 0-)

    If the Swift Boat liars can do this, so can we, for this fake "docudrama".

    I wouldn't believe Bush if his tongue became notarized (h/t to shanti2)

    by billlaurelMD on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:19:07 AM PDT

  •  Who's Failed to Capture OBL Each Day for 5 Years? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies

    George W.Bush, thanks to the perversion he calls foreign policy.

    •  Adding the fact that this happened on Bush Watch (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bionic, DianeNYS, Ninepatch

      After all the educated warnings given to the Bush administration by the likes of Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger. They knew - don't let anyone tell you that the Bush administation didn't know that attacks were imminent in this country.

      Their bungling and hanging out at the Texas ranch while death warrants were being written for innocent American civilians can't easily be passed off to the Clinton administration, because Clinton knew about the danger and tried to warn and protect us!

      In the pre-9/11 world, back in the late 90s when rightwing assholes were doing all they could to hunt and drag down the POTUS, they exposed our nation to sheer peril.

      ~~~~~~~~

      The most important point to remember, in my opinion, is that we had a pre 9-11 world and a post-9-11 world.

      Those worlds are nearly strangersto one another.

      Look at this information from an AP article in 2004 about the preliminary findings of the 9/11 Commission:

      Both civilian and military officials of the Defense Department said that neither Congress nor the American public would have supported large-scale military operations in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001.

      The GOP Clinton-witch-hunters would have gone all 'WAG-THE-DOG' on Clinton if he'd asked for a ground war on terror. They would have accused him of creating  distractions to get America's mind off Monica Lewinsky. That's how much these rightwing bozos thought (and cared) about the threat of terrorism.

      Here's just one unfortunate example from a 1999 article about Bill Clinton and his terrorism warnings - and how rightwing fools and detractors actually harmed American security with their political shenanigans. This is from rightwing harpy Phyllis Schlafly:

      "...Bill Clinton is riding high since his "not guilty" verdict and, unfortunately, the Republican Congress is letting him get away with his foreign and domestic grabs for power. Kosovo is much more important to Americans than just pictures on the evening television news about a faraway conflict.

      First, it's a "wag the dog" public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the "life is truer than fiction" movie Wag the Dog. The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to "move on" from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence.........

      Second, by putting U.S. troops in Kosovo, Clinton is provoking terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals connected to Saudi renegade Osama bin Laden, who has declared a worldwide war on Americans. Fanatics bent on jihad against the "Great Satan" United States could hardly ask for a more tempting target than Americans deployed close to terrorist bases in northern Albania.

      (note: It appeared Schlafly would rather have had us appease than fight so Bin Laden wouldn't bother us. In reality, Schlafly was wrong, anyhow. Bin Laden was supportive of Albanian Muslims/KLA, and curiously, so was the U.S.).

      ..Even more dangerous, entering the Kosovo war may provoke terrorist retaliation within the United States. It's not only our U.S. troops who will be put in mortal danger. Bin Laden has stated unequivocally that all Americans, including "those who pay taxes," are targets.

      (note: So we should have appeased Bin Laden??)

      Clinton predicted on January 22 that it is "highly likely" that a terrorist group will attack on American soil within the next few years.  He is using this risk as the excuse to create a Domestic Terrorism Team headed by a military "commander in chief," with a $2.8 billion budget. We should not underestimate the deceit and deviousness of Clinton's plans to use aggressive presidential actions to wipe out public memory of his impeachment trial......

      (note: An excuse. Hear that? Using terrorism as an excuse.....what a fool.)

      Clinton has already issued a Presidential Decision Directive to authorize military intervention against terrorism on our own soil. Secretary of Defense William Cohen said in an Army Times interview that "Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection."

      Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre has been floating the idea of designating a unit of U.S. troops as a Homelands Defense Command to take charge in case of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.  Hamre argues that the military's role should be formalized under a four-star general, and he has even speculated about creating a bi-national command with Canada called the "Atlantic Command."

      The far-reaching nature of the plans being discussed within the Clinton Administration is indicated in the Autumn 1997 Parameters, the scholarly publication of the Army War College. The article predicts that "the growing prospect of terrorism in our own country . . . will almost inevitably trigger an intervention by the military." The article casually adds, "legal niceties or strict construction of prohibited conduct will be a minor concern."

      (note: General Tommy Franksrecently said the same thing about those "legal niceties".)

      The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is supposed to protect us against a President using the Army to enforce the law against civilians. The spectacle of the military patrolling the streets of U.S. cities is something that should happen only in totalitarian countries and in movies like The Siege....."

      --Phillis Schlafly Schlafly Report March, 1999

      This is how divisive politics helped bring about 9-11. Shame on all who participated then..and now.



  •  What inclusiveheart said! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iddybud, stephdray, 3goldens

    BILL CLINTON NEEDS TO STAND UP TO THIS BULLSHIT IMMEDIATELY - HE HAS BEEN SILENT LONG ENOUGH ABOUT HIS ROLE IN DEFRENCE TO THE CURRENT PRESIDENT - IT IS TIME FOR BILL CLINTON TO SPEAK OUT - NOW

  •  Damn that liberal bias! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch

    Come on, CLEARLY a documentary blaming Clinton for 9/11 is less inflammatory than one implying that Ronald Reagan might not have been such a big fan of homosexuality.  I mean of COURSE the latter deserved to be yanked on to premium cable...

    Can we please paper ABC with letters?

    Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

    by ChicagoDem on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:23:37 AM PDT

  •  Come the revolution (0+ / 0-)

    we shd change ABC to ZBC

  •  State primaries are next day in most states n./t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, 3goldens

    Make Crablaw Maryland Weekly your source for Maryland legal and political news and commentary.

    by tbrucegodfrey on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:30:25 AM PDT

  •  Bill & Hillary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betterdonkeys

    It sure might be helpful to frame this for what it is to have Bill and Hillary and Madeleine Albright
    come out and debunk some of this by calling it what it is: A 2006 election attempt by the Republicans to divert the nation's attention from the failings of George Walker Bush and his administration.

    •  Madelein Albright ... (0+ / 0-)

      I like it...Condi's worst nightmare who Georgie is still araid of - she might spank him.

      "My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." JFK 01/20/61

      by Ninepatch on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 01:47:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah but there's a specific allegation here (0+ / 0-)

    Here's the nut of what needs to be knbocked down, if it can:

    One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden's house in Afghanistan.  They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead.  They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed.  National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization

    ....anyone know if this is true? Got links?

  •  Umm (0+ / 0-)

    Hate to point out the obvious, as Im sure many others have and will continue to do, but:

    On who's watch, exactly, did this happen?

    It didn't happen the day after they took office.  It took place nearly a year into the first term -- right after a month-long vacation.

    If they want to take the gloves off on this one and re-open this wound, as W would say "Bring 'em On!!"

    It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

    by MRL on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:40:45 AM PDT

  •  A better idea (or at least what I'm gonna do) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch

    I am worried, like a few of you, that if we come out full force against the show before it airs that it will be portrayed as trying to hide the truth (not that I believe this docudrama has anything to do with the truth).  Saying that "well the Republicans did it first" just proves this point.  We can't stoop.  Pre-emptive strikes tend to look paranoid.
    What I'm going to do is wait until after it airs, and if its as bad as it looks like its going to be, then I'll let loose.
    Write to every ABC-related contact, local and national, and the sponsors, and to newspapers, local and national, demanding an apology and for the show to never be rebroadcast.
    Something along the lines of It is irresponsible of you to air this garbage without starting off with a warning, like 'some of the shit we're about to broadcast has been manipulated and fabricated in order to help Republicans in November'.
    Then point out all the erroneous statements as so many kossacks have done here.
    It would certainly be interesting to see if ABC puts out any sort of statement in response at all.  My money says they won't.  That's when we can start the boycott.

    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."- Emerson

    by Sidof79 on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:44:09 AM PDT

  •  The Democrats should ask, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vrexford, lirtydies, bwintx, Ninepatch

    "Who was on the longest Presidential vacation in history on 8/11? During said longest vacaction in history, who was shown a document entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America"?  And who sat on his ass listening to "The Pet Goat" after being told "America is under attack"? Who was focused on Iraq and not Bin Laden?

    Bush and Cheney were lazy and stupid before 9/11 and lazy and stupid after 9/11. The same foolish and disinterested policies before 9/11 are the same foolish and disinterested policies that let New Orleans drown.

    Katrina proved that 9/11 didn't have to happen.

    by thinkdouble on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:45:09 AM PDT

  •  I guess they forgot about Tora Bora (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch

    where bin Laden was surrounded, yet Bush let him get away. Let’s see, after 9/11, Bush issued the statement Wanted Dead or Alive. Let’s translate that to Bushspeak: I want Osama kept alive (to keep the nation in a perpetual state of fear).

  •  I wouldn't worry about this docdrama (0+ / 0-)

    When was the last time anyone learned anything by watching TV - absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor? ha. ha.

    "My father rode a camel; I drive a car; my son flies a jet; his son will ride a camel." --Saudi saying

    by FakeNews on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 07:56:44 AM PDT

  •  Propaganda on the March- Chain mail (0+ / 0-)

    I just read a nice chain-letter email that was forwarded to me by someone I actually respect. It is a nice, emotional ditty about how our great hero Ollie North warned dirty ol Al Gore about Bin laden back in the Reagan days and of course its the Democrats fault for 9/11.
    All of this crap from sneaky back door grass roots to corporate media in your face campaigning is one of the biggest reasons why the Republicans win (steal, con, beg, borrow, etc.) "popular" support and the Dems don't, they are willing to stop at nothing to keep power.

  •  I am totally surprised (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch

    I thought all ABC made these days were "Desperate Housewives" and "Grey's Anatomy". I had to idea they shilled Republicrat propoganda on the side. What did they promise Disney, another extension of the copyright on Mickey before they get booted out?

  •  My letter to my local ABC station (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CJB, OLinda, MJB, 3goldens, MarketTrustee, Ninepatch

    which is Channel 27 WKOW.  In Wisconsin, polite usually goes a lot further than angry, so I was polite, I think:

    Dear Owners, Managers, and Employees of WKOW:

    I am very troubled by the news that your station plans to air the movie "The Path to 9/11" on Sunday and Monday, September 10th and 11th of this year.  This movie grossly misrepresents the facts and is blatantly partisan.  It is especially upsetting that this movie would air so close to a national election.

    The definition of "propaganda" is as follows:
      1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.  
      2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.  

    This film and the timing of its airing are propaganda for a particular political view point.  As a proud American, Wisconsinite, and independent voter, I find this highly disturbing.  I will be less inclined to patronize sponsors of your station should you go through with this broadcast.

    Please reconsider. Your station has long been a trusted part of this community.  Please don't betray that trust.  I know that your organization, my state and my country can do better.  

    Thank you.
    Sincerely,

  •  If they keep shouting "Clinton" (0+ / 0-)

    as in, "didn't do enough", will we forget about Bush doing nuttin'?

    I am a winner because I am a loser.

    by epppie on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 08:29:19 AM PDT

  •  I'll never understand this one ... (0+ / 0-)

    the Right keeps saying that the response to the Cole bombing, etc., was found to be lacking.

    But then why didn't the Bush administration act as soon as they took power?

    Seriously. Anyone? Bueller?

  •  Culture defines politics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ninepatch

    This is yet another example how culture defines politics. Progressives must prioritize the creation of new cultural venues and the aquistion of existing venues in order to display mediums which portray, promote, and solitify progressive attitudes, values, and actions. Otherwise, the average voter is left to endless hours of News,  reality shows, minis series, films, concerts, advertisment, sporting events, etc., that reflect only Conservative ideology.

  •  Just posted at go.abc.com (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, 3goldens, Ninepatch, lizpolaris

    Here's the body of my email:

    I have become aware that you are planning on showing a highly distorted miniseries named "The Path to 9/11".

    Should you do so, and if it is as biased as I have heard, ABC (and all corporate affiliates) will be dead to me.  That means I will never again watch anything on ABC, ESPN, or any Disney channels.  My next Florida vacation will be at Universal.  Should I learn who your commercial sponsors are, I will take my business elsewhere and make sure to let them know why.

    I'll miss the NFL...

  •  Quotes from the 9-11 Commission (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, vacantlook

    Refering specifically to how the plan to capture Bin Laden was denied, the 9-11 commission finds that:

    Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as "half-assed" and predicted that the principals would not approve it. "Jeff " thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger's doing, though perhaps on Tenet's advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he [Tenet] alone had decided to "turn off" the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger's recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.30

    Changing French Fries to Freedom Fries was arguably this Republican Congress' biggest achievement. - Stephen Colbert

    by Scientician on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 08:42:06 AM PDT

  •  Okay how do we mount a protest like the RW did... (0+ / 0-)

    ...against "The Reagans". CBS folded without much fight. But they always do against the RW. What's it gonna take?

  •  Wow! This is why I done a diary on FNC and Rupert (0+ / 0-)

    Murdoch.I want FNC boycotted. I want everyone who is on the grassroots level to push to have this done. It is the number one news network and we know Fox News is all bullshit and propaganda. We must educate people about the tactics used by FNC and urge people to turn it off.

    I have spoken to many people who watch FNC just to see what they will say next, or they say I watch to see what the enemy is putting out. Well we can't have that! Ratings bring them money!!! There is no need to watch it, we know what they will say, we know they are pushing a neo-conservative agenda! So help me boycott them.

    FNC is only one among MANY we have to evaluate and fight against. I am now working on looking into CNN and MSNBC to see what is there. I will then follow up with investigating ABC, CBS, and others. We have to break up the media consolidation absolutely!!!

    Great diary, rec'd! Thank you for the information.

    I love America for the dying dream that hasn't yet died... but they are coming for your fourth amendment, what are YOU going to do to save it?

    by StormingAmerican on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 08:47:54 AM PDT

  •  That whole 'CIA almost had Him' canard... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kck

    ...really pisses me off.

    Even regular army unit leaders would say "fuck it, let's kill this somebitch!" rather than "Fuck it, we came all this way for nothing, let's quit."

    There's no way in hell I believe some hardcore CIA wet team got sqeamish about making "The Call".

    If the CIA isn't "In" on this little bit of misinformation, I'd be surprised.

    [ Anyone who thinks my bark is worse than my bite, has never seen me bite. ] -6.63 | -5.38

    by dj angst on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 08:48:19 AM PDT

  •  All we need to do (0+ / 0-)

    is insist that it be shown with voice-over commentary...by Michael Moore.

    Too obvious?
  •  It's All True (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vrexford, LivesInAShoe

    Bill Clinton was responsible for 9/11.

    In other news. . .

    George W. Bush was born in Texas. Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. The 8/6/01 PDB was "historical", just like Condi Rice says it was. We're winning in Iraq. We're winning in Afghanistan. We've been greeted as liberators. The insurgency is in its last throes. John Kerry shot himself in the leg to earn his medals in Vietnam.

    The White House had nothing to do with the outing of Valerie Plame. The economy is strong. The tax cuts for the richest Americans actually benefit all of us. Intelligent design is an equivalent theory to evolution. A stem cell is the same thing as a human being. The Earth isn't getting warmer. Human beings aren't causing global warming.

    Michael Brown did a heck of a job during Katrina. The Administration is not spying on Americans. The Administration is not listening to your phone calls. The Administration is not reading your e-mails. The Fox News Channel is fair and balanced.

    As Iraq stands up, we'll stand down. Iraqi oil revenue will pay for the war and the reconstruction of the country. Gay marriage undermines traditional marriage. If we allow gays to get married, people will eventually want to start marrying sheep. Corporate America is not cashing in on the carnage in Iraq.

    Harriet Miers is qualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court. Karen Hughes is qualified to massage America's image in the Middle East. George Allen isn't a racist.

    Karl Rove is a Christian and a moral man. Tom DeLay is a Christian and a moral man. Claude Allen is a Christian and a moral man. Duke Cunningham is a Christian and a moral man. Jack Abramoff is a Christian and a moral man. Bob Ney is a Christian and a moral man. George W. Bush is a Christian and a moral man.

    We are safer now than we were five years ago. Democracy is flourishing throughout the Middle East. Votes cannot be stolen via electronic voting machines. Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium ore from Niger. Mohammad Atta met with one of Saddam's men in Prague. Those aluminum tubes were for uranium enrichment.

    Repeating today's top story, Bill Clinton was responsible for 9/11.

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 09:11:06 AM PDT

  •  Lets take an honest look at this piece of trash (0+ / 0-)

    Let's assume, as the film apparently does, that decisions made by the Clinton Administration resulted in bin Laden escaping. From my perspective, once an Administration leaves office, their reponsibility for the safety of USA is terminated and passed on the the new Administration.

    Bush had eight full months in office before the attack on the trade towers happened. I have to ask "what the fuck were they doing in the meantime to capture bin Laden???" Why did they ignore intelligence warnings from the FBI, CIA and several foreign intelligence agencies that something was afoot?  Why did they ignore reports entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike the US" The fact is they were grossly negligent.

    A film like this may try to make Clinton look bad but it indirectly makes the Neocons look impotent bumbling fools.

    The greatest threat to personal freedom comes from ones own government.

    by Mark701 on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 09:22:11 AM PDT

  •  Tell ABC not to air this pack of GOP lies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, lizpolaris

    Then tell them you will hit Disney hard in the pocketbook if this is ever broadcast.

    That's the only message these greedheads will understand.

  •  NO ONE EVEN MENTION THIS! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pathgirl

    ABC isn't going to take this off the air.  If they do, the fundies will start calling them the hate-America network and stage an even larger boycott.  The best thing for us is to stay completely silent on the issue.  The more we talk about it, the more play it gets in the media and the more people will tune in.  Remember what happened with F911 and Passion of the Christ?  The more controversy it got, the more publicity it got and the more people went to see it.  Keep your traps shut and totally ignore this!

    It sucks living next door to Richard Nixon.

    by jkfp2004 on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 10:11:24 AM PDT

  •  Won't Bite (0+ / 0-)

    This is just like what Ann Coulter tried to do when Powers slapped her down last week (lots of videos around the web on the showdown).

    Whatever Clinton did or did not do is basically irrelevant and America knows it.

    Bush is hardly the first president to ever say that his predecessor left him holding the bag.

    It doesn't change the fact that Bush failed to do his job.

    To vote is to wield authority; it is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives... Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers"

    by workingmom OH on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 10:18:21 AM PDT

  •  We need to do a media blitz discrediting this (4+ / 0-)
    They took the Reagan mini-series off the air with enough pressure, either this needs to be taken off the air, or everyone here needs to pledge to write in their journals, their blogs, everywhere they know of, the facts surrounding this incident.

    Stephanie Dray
    of Jousting for Justice, a lefty blog with a Maryland tilt.

    by stephdray on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 10:24:36 AM PDT

  •  Republicans get their facts from their "Stories" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens

    This has always been the problem... conservatives getting their facts from the soap operas they dream up.

    If anybody in America puts value on an ABC "docudrama," then they deserve to be mocked as the tv-addicted stooges they are.

    Republicans should go ahead and hype this... and we should all be pointing out that the reason 911 happened, the reason we were lied into Iraq, the reason Osama is still alive... it isn't Clinton or old news...

    It's because Republicans have been ignoring FACTS for the tv fictions they prefer for 6 years now, and they don't look likely to come back to the real world any time soon evidently.

    And look where's it's gotten us. Remeber that the motto of these guys, according to them... is that they "create reality."

    Throw your TV at your TV.

    by Bad Schandau on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 11:23:55 AM PDT

  •  Forget ABC - Work Fox, NBC, CBS (0+ / 0-)

    What does a network like more than anything else?  A chance to bash it's competitor for being biased and unfair!

    Send letters to the NBC, Fox, CBS and independent (or, ew, CW affiliates) in your market decrying ABC's dulicity and laying out the facts about Clinton's work against bin Laden and Bush's lack of work.

    RULE OF LAW. That's all the reason you need to oppose Republicans.

    by nightsweat on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 11:29:03 AM PDT

  •  Short incontrovertible response: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, 3goldens

    9/11 happened on Bush's watch.  Period.

    •  Exactly !!! I have also been thinking about how (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, Ninepatch

      many Americans have died as a direct result of Bush's actions or inactions as they were.

      3,000 at the World Trade Center
      1,000 (estimated) in New Orleans
      2,628 (and counting) in Iraq

      Every time Clinton took ANY action he was blasted for it by Republicans in congress for one reason or another. Bush has had a cooperative congress and still f%*ked it all up.

      Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

      by p a roberson on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:01:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Call CBS (0+ / 0-)

    Shouldn't there be a phone number or email address of CBS that we can send in our protest now? Maybe we could get CBS to flash up a sign saying "All events are fictional" after every commercial.

     If there is enough outcry I'm sure we could make them do that.

    "A man who won't die for something isn't fit to live." -MLK

    by gjohnsit on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 11:59:27 AM PDT

  •  YAWN (0+ / 0-)

    Why would anyone with a brain care what ABC says.

    Guess what, they told us Iraq would attack any day.

  •  Clinton was 3 weeks pres. during first WTC bombin (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thistime, 3goldens

    After 8 months doing nothing, it was still Clinton's fault, I was wondring if they blame Bush-41 for the 1993 bombing, which occured 3 weeks after Clinton was innaugurated.

    Oh, and BTW all of the perpetrators were caught.

  •  No worries, calm down.. (0+ / 0-)

    John S, Stephen C. and Bill M. will tear this kind of thing into hilarious little peices, and I look forward to it...

    there is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over

    by DeadB0y on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:30:33 PM PDT

  •  OK, but did Clinton actually not capture (0+ / 0-)

    bin Laden when the CIA & Co. had him surrounded, as apparently depicted in this tv drama? If so, then bad on Bill, despite all the other good things he did. Or is this "fact" just literary license on the part of the producers?

    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein

    by Citizen Earth on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 12:31:32 PM PDT

    •  Not the way ... (0+ / 0-)

      ...the Repugs would have you believe in this movie.  Clinton did not let the CIA proceed that night because members of an Arab royal family were also inside the building.

      We accept that cops don't shoot until they have a clear shot that won't hurt civilians.  Clinton's decision was not convenient to the times, but he made the right decision.

      "My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." JFK 01/20/61

      by Ninepatch on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 02:06:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  contact ABC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, Wage Warrior II

    ask ABC why they would give credance to this Biased and Swift boat distortion of the facts.  Why would they help to defend this administation's failures?

    support@abcnews.go.com

  •  Isn't CLARKE THEIR Goddam ADVISOR? (0+ / 0-)

    Forgive me if this most obvious point has already been made, but isn't Richard Clarke the guy ABC TROTS OUT FOR THEIR ANALYSIS? What the hell does he have to say about this?

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 02:03:44 PM PDT

  •  the "Boycott Disney" tag suggests our best (0+ / 0-)
    action here. Unless we can find a single advertiser for the show who's going to be easier to pressure.

    Another alternative: contact ABC and tell them that if they don't want a big push for reducing media ownership caps as of when a Democratic majority gets into Congress, they can pull the docudrama off their schedule. We don't give broadcast stations access to the airwaves to make political propaganda for anybody.

    As for why this is important, a GOP propaganda piece intended to scare Americans about Democrats and security is A Bad Thing.

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 03:01:03 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, JUSIPER, norm, MRL, Alumbrados, davej, stillman, djn, SteveLCo, pb, EMKennedyLucio, Mogolori, Phoenix Woman, Radiowalla, taylormattd, thinkdouble, Ben P, natasha, leftcoast, brooklyndem, Iddybud, PoliticGeek Pro, cedubose, Thom K in LA, s0ck, TaraIst, Kimberly Stone, tiggers thotful spot, stephdray, TrueBlueMajority, FaithAndReason, catfish, madmsf, msl, emal, RunawayRose, Bob Love, John Carter, TechBob, Stoy, ayoosilver, Heather in SFBay, m maddog, Wintermute, billlaurelMD, Pondite, SanJoseLady, wintersnowman, fugitive, markd, Ralfast, OLinda, aprichard, cookiesandmilk, darrelplant, Beet, tryptamine, TX Unmuzzled, azale, ellinton, HootieMcBoob, figdish, lemuel, Gary in NY, red moon dog, marjo, Walt starr, musicsleuth, mataliandy, HL Mungo, exNYinTX, expat germany, Jerome a Paris, expatjourno, angelmom, PeterSD, angryandy, Vitarai, polsci major to be, Eternal Hope, unterhausen, Czarvoter, tlh lib, opinionated, Italtransit, healing one, 88kathy, medaka, EricS, landrew, Einsteinia, macdust, mentaldebris, DrKate, daisy democrat, annrose, Welshman, Morague, CoolOnion, peace voter, demokath, NoMore, KMc, KBnNC, chuckvw, Glic, chicagochamp, Scoopster, KS McCann, Transmission, roses, Frederick Clarkson, peraspera, peeder, cognitive dissonance, retLT, itsmitch, House, Fe, MJB, zeehippo, ryder92111, Boxers, Spindizzy, bree, chrisfreel, Nate Roberts, erquirk, Jesterfox, diana04, splashy, arkdem, sydluna, artebella, Alohaleezy, wader, dejavu, psnyder, danthrax, astrodud, DeadB0y, bogdanmi, MA Liberal, commonscribe, TXsharon, jaywillie, Caldonia, Bulldawg, laughingriver, a lynn, NYFM, EuroDem, dwahzon, joodleboodle, ArcXIX, lizah, dnn, rockhound, STOP George, lawstudent922, sommervr, strengthof10kmen, faithnomore, inclusiveheart, nasarius, jj32, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, sfluke, Marianne Benz, HK, BigDuck, kd texan, bluemajority, Renaldo Migaldi, kkshedevil, snowbird42, thereisnospoon, TekBoss, mm201, colinm, jeffwtux, sxwarren, averageyoungman, SteveK, MichDeb, nehark, joanneleon, Fabian, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, Bluesee, farleftcoast, 3goldens, MrOrtiz, ichibon, pop tart, Elise, docangel, coloradobl, vinylgirl, alaprst, LisaZ, Erik the Red, PBen, Jashugan, betterdonkeys, Green Eggs, clammyc, Simplify, valeria, chancy gardner, Jason Soup, Dianora, chicoTowner, Yellow Dog Dem Woman, juliesie, Hugo Estrada, Kdoug, Ranting Roland, Laurence Lewis, Katal, reflectionsv37, boofdah, NeuvoLiberal, baghdaddy, eru, Jules Beaujolais, Mz Kleen, zackmann, cfk, Sharon in MD, chicagovigilante, RB in Pgh, jorndorff, dunderhead, annefrank, Phil S 33, Natalie, cymack, lasky57, Cecile, RickE, Habanero, el zilcho, collapse, strangely enough, wulidancer, shiobhan, wiscmass, serrano, CarterDulka, FindingMyVoice, LivesInAShoe, Joes Steven, natebowler, deepsouthdoug, deacon, LithiumCola, Red Bean, nymosyn, Team Slacker, Spathiphyllum, empathy, cloverdale, YukonJack, viscerality, liberalsouth, maryfromabluestate, begone, AceDeuceLady, occams hatchet, Coherent Viewpoint, zot23, trashablanca, Sanuk, nyarlahotep, das monde, Ranchita, methodishca, Nightprowlkitty, Robert M, kraant, blacklib, Keone Michaels, PatsBard, highfive, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, Distaste for Dissent, BlueInARedState, andydoubtless, Ellicatt, Arabiflora, rl en france, hoody, Wary, aphra behn, kck, blueoasis, jlove1982, souldrift, SJLinNYC, Students for Bhopal, MJ via Chicago, vome minnesota, Tanya, philipmerrill, ChrisB, Glorfindel, everhopeful, imabluemerkin, condoleaser, FireCrow, gitana, betsyross, el cid, Potus2020, Wage Warrior II, ChesCo Dem, callmecassandra, Doggie269, Roatti, StormingAmerican, va dare, BB10, VoteHarder, ohiojack, TheBookPolice, Granny Doc, Dem partisan, kidneystones, duha, Class of 72, 73rd virgin, Temmoku, henna218, slksfca, lemonsieur, Aaa T Tudeattack, ctlr, One Pissed Off Liberal, artist1776, Chaoticfluffy, pmoyle70, Polacolor, Sidof79, Balam, Cronesense, Guy Fawkes, SparkleMotion, somenyguy, blue armadillo, PhantomFly, Daisy Mayhem, FWIW, whl, ksp, Kathie McCrimmon, VA02 femocrat, Sam from Ithaca, DrWolfy, Matt Z, Jimdotz, DWG, Flirtin with Disaster, Left Click, lizpolaris, epppie, Heyroot

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site