Questions for debate:

1) Censorship?

I think this is less censorship than free publicity and misguided politics.
I think this is a bad political move for these democratic Senators.

The reality is that our television is censored. So before the Democratic Senators sent their intimidating letter, ABC was already censored. This letter also reminded ABC that their broadcast rights came from.

Of course, I would think the threat would be revealed to be toothless because this is a group of Senators representing the minority party right now. The FCC is much more of a threat than a group of democratic senators.

I agree completely. Even if this is a threat, I don't think Congress would ever pass a censorship law, even if Democrats control both houses of Congress after the November elections. Toolthless is a good description.

The right is playing to a phantom issue, if you will.

Again, this is a power issue, but the power is not there and I don't think it ever will be.

Regarding the Reagan biopic, if somebody is willing to present any communications from members of Congress calling for "corrections" or no broadcast, then you have can make a case of equivalence. Otherwise, your equivalence case utterly fails against the First Amendment standard, which is government restrictions.

Second, regarding the matter of bias on network television. I don't recall any Democrat Congressfolk writing letters to NBC regarding "corrections" needed in West Wing, or even Republican Congressfolk doing the same. Again, the standard is government restrictions. Nor has the White House demanded that late night comedians cease and desist in making jokes about how Bush is dumber than either Kerry or Gore, when his school records indicate otherwise. Factual innacuracies, yet because the error gives many of you a feeling of intellectual superiority ("gee, I'm smarter than Shrub") I'm reminded of what Christopher Hitchens had to say recently on Maher's show... you aren't invoking the Communications Act. If Clinton, Albright, Powell, Bush, et al have any heartbreak with this movie due to inaccuracies, well, let them take it to a slander (or is it libel?) suit. Anything else is censorship, and when the parties attempting the censorship are Members of Congress, then they are afoul of the First Amendment.

What's most amazing about the folks giving the Senators a pass on this is many of them are the same one's who consider "God bless America" at the end of the State of the Union speech to be a violation of the First Amendment. The only one being given an instruction, a directive, is God (although methinks its more in the vein of a request), who is free to ignore the President's directive. After all, what can Bush do to God? In contrast, I offer AuthorMusician's paraphrase, which aptly summs up what's happenning here...

You know, it isn't very smart to screw with us at this time. Sure, elephants have the long-term memory, but donkies kick like the dickens.

Not to be confused with the uniformed/poorly-informed kneejerk ideologues who automatically dismiss as propaganda anything that may disagree with their worldview.

You were saying something about "uninformed/poorly-informed kneejerk ideologues"? Limbaugh recieved his copy from the screenwriter because Nowastreh is a friend of his.

ABC said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to ideology, and that Democrats and Republicans were invited to a screening in Washington.

Finally, one last question: why should public officials, whether current or former, be given the opportunity to have advance copies of anything like this? There's no national secrets involved. What possible reason is there for Albright to request an advance copy, other than to demand changes?

There's one key difference here. Disney/Miramax refused to distribute Fahrenheit 911. With The Path to 911, Disney/ABC seems to be sticking rather adamantly to their guns. Damned Hollywood. Damned liberal media.

When Moore's film was being released, Michael Eisner expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme parks, hotels, and other ventures in Jeb Bush's Florida. I guess it's quite the opposite this time. Evidently, lying pays far better than telling the truth.



This has nothing to do with "worldviews", bikerdad. It has to do with documentary evidence in the public record - also known as "facts". You should look into them sometime.

I agree on both counts. I see no censorship here. I see a feeble attempt to cancel a show that (1) will not achieve its goal, and (2) puts the Democratic leadership in a poor light. They come across as petty and defensive.

I am uncertain after reading the letter as to whether the senators who signed the letter even viewed the program. Or are they relying only upon their so-called experts? I would take far less issue with the letter had Mr. Reid or Durbin actually seen the program before commenting on it. At present, it sounds like they have little idea what they are talking about.

Regardless, there is no censorship taking place here. I don't see any threats being made. But the act of persuading a company to cancel a show before it is even broadcast makes the average potential viewer (1) more interested in the program, and (2) wonder why the complaining party is on the defensive.

If they weren't YOUR words but they were attributed to you on national television, Bikerdad, would you not want them to correct what they claimed you said before MILLIONS of people formed conclusions about you and the way you conducted your job?

Or are you in your less-than-exalted state of public life (like mine) so complacent that you wouldn't give a damn about how someone misquoted YOU?

(And don't give me drivel about the way Democrats deride George W. Bush, because his problem is that all we have to do is quote him verbatim, and he comes off as an idiot.)


"Uniformed"?

But seriously, you obviously don't get it, do you?


Just a clue here for you: Since when was there ever a real President Jed Bartlet or anyone on the cast of The West Wing playing a character role of a named politician in REAL LIFE? If you can't tell the difference between a dramatic television series and a docu-drama, you're just the type of person I described...

Sorry, bikerdad, I missed this somehow:
I don't know if you count the Chairman of the Republican National Committee as a member of the government or not, but Ed Gillespie filed an official complaint with CBS on behalf of the RNC over The Reagans and made numerous television appearances demanding that it be reviewed by "friends of Reagan" before it was broadcast and that it run with a continuous scroller stating that it was fiction. If he doesn't count, then Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia was undeniably part of the government. His letter to CBS Chairman Les Moonves (on Congressional stationery) demanded that the script meet his personal approval and mentioned CBS's "duty to its audience, sponsors and history to create an accurate and fair biography of the Reagans". The language of these letters and TV campaigns was not, perhaps, as strong as that of the letter of the Democratic leadership, but there are a couple of things that need to be .borne in mind in that regard.

First, at the time of the scheduled broadcast of The Reagans, Viacom had critical issues pending before both the Republican-controlled Congress and executive agencies such as the FCC. In case Les Moonves and Co. had forgotten this, Fox News was quick to remind them:
As Broadcasting and Cable wrote at the time:
Second, there are BIG differences between The Reagans and The Path to 911 (some of which I've already mentioned). The Reagans was not dealing with issues of vital national importance. The Reagans was not dealing with a comparison between two administrations, one of which was still in power. The Reagans was not concerned with an event that was central to ongoing actions of global importance. The Reagans was not to be broadcast prior to a national election. The Reagans was not designed to coincide with a major national broadcast by the country's Chief Executive. And The Reagans did not lie about historical events in order to spin them to the advantage of that Executive.

In other words, tarnishing the memory of the Great God Reagan had a lot less to do with the public trust than inventing slanderous incidents that could directly impact on current events of global import - not to mention national elections. (Cantor's letter to Moonves, by the way, can be found here.)

At the time of the broadcast of The Reagans, Bill O'Reilly asked "How could CBS green light the film in the first place knowing that the producers, the director and the featured actors are all left wing thinkers? That would be like CBS commissioning a movie about the Clintons written by Rush Limbaugh and starring Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter. Do you think that would ever happen?"

Apparently, we've come damned close. But even O'Reilly couldn't have imagined that it would be timed to coincide with a critical election on the anniversary of the single formative event of the Bush presidency and that it would intentionally distort historical events of international significance in order to deliberately misinform the American people and sway their opinion on issues of vital importance.

In my opinion, the full Congress should be threatening ABC - and, should the broadcast go ahead (as seems likely), they should seriously consider revoking their license. Broadcasting partisan propaganda is not fair use of the public airwaves - and it should not be tolerated by anyone. I hope Albright, Berger, and Clinton do take legal action - and I hope the settlements bankrupt Disney. I'm selling my shares tomorrow.

That's a very good point Goldblum. I'm curious to know if the Senators even viewed the program before they put their signature on the peice of paper.

Very simular to how many people in the thread are referring to it as "a peice of crap" or "My next move in life though is to take the movie star wars and institute it as truth though in a documentary explaining the origin of life on earth" and the series had not even come out yet.

It just shows you how some people are spoon fed information from their favorite columist and basically let them decide what there opinion will be.

I do however believe that it is intended as a threat, mentioning their license and the agreement of that license. Then stating they are violating the agreement if they air the show and that it will also hurt "congress" - which of course would make them angry (at least the signers). In other words legal grounds to begin a lawsuit. Whether they actually can revoke their license is doubtful though and im sure Disney and ABC know this otherwise a certian filmaker wouldn't be making movies anymore.

Nothing more than a subtle threat that both side's know has no "teeth" as other's have put it.

Well, the docu-drama aired last night (part one of two) as scheduled, but with edits.

ABC Airs First Night of 9/11 Miniseries

I guess removing the references to the Lewinsky scandal's distractions made everything fine. They also removed any specific references to who failed to authorize the capture of bin Laden in Afghanistan. (The movie originally had it as Sandy Berger, Michael Sheuer claims it was Richard Clarke).

So the threats had some effect, although probably not the impact they would have hoped for.

I have changed my position due to a post by Wertz- and watching a portion of it

1) This is a miniseries campaign commercial for GW- straight up propaganda piece- no different than the stuff Nazi Germany pumped out, or Stalin era Soviets-
A) No other commercials allowed EXCEPT for a speech by GW. Showing the prior admin in a light that hints that we may be unsafe under anyone's leadership but almighty GW.

2) Purposely misleading and slanted statements.

Ya- in fact, it is not only NOT censorship, it is a shot at an outright propaganda piece for GW.

And you have come to the conclusion that this is a piece of propaganda for Bush by "watching a portion of it" on the night before the Bush administration is featured. How very...open-minded. Of course, the decision to run without commercials was made by the (democratic) President of ABC before he knew Bush would be making a speech. But don't let that affect your theories!

After having seen most of it, I re-state my point that the depiction of the enemy is the most powerful and chilling thing in this series. Both administrations will rightly be portrayed as ineffective, and most americans won't differentiate that much between them. More importantly, the terrorists hate us equally, no matter who is president. That's why this series is important, not whether Sandy Berger or Richard Clarke or George Tenet or Madame Albright or Condi Rice or whomever is slightly more inept.

As always, it's good to know that we are no better than Nazis. Way to make people take you seriously dude! Ooops, gotta go - that darn Bush keeps throwing me into concentration camps, I can only post here at the 'rethuglicans only' internet kiosk back by the gas chamber.

PS - This docudrama got an 8 rating / 12 share, just about the same as the documentary that aired on CBS. Meaning that it only 'propagandized' 8% of TV viewers. Twice as many people watched Sunday night football. How many cable channels could Germans switch to when Goebbels was doing his thing?

Point taken CW- can't have very good propaganda if no one is watching LOL

That's not really the issue, though. I can't speak for anyone else here, but my objection isn't to Democratic politicians objecting to the film. It's to their implied but unmistakable accusation that ABC would be violating the law by showing the miniseries in unedited form. This just perfectly encapsulates their attitude towards the First Amendment: everything's permissible unless it's something they object to. It's especially noteworthy given the constant overblown rhetoric about how Bush and Karl Rove are supposedly trying to suppress dissent (even though dissent against them is anything but suppressed).

To me, that's a good enough reason to keep these guys as far from power as possible, at least until they get new leadership that understands their constitutional limitations.


A couple of things should be kept in mind here. First, 3 of the 5 commissioners on the FCC were Democrats at the time. Second, these rules would have impacted not just Viacom, but all the big media players. Big contrast with the administrative actions the Democrats were implying ABC should be subject to.

Last night, I had to choose between the shoot-out between the Manning brothers, Eli and Payton, as the Colts and Giants were going at it on NBC and CBS’s rebroadcast of “9/11” which graphically depicted how the events of that day unfolded in one firehouse where a documentary crew was doing a film about New York firefighters.

ABC’s “The Path to 9/11” wasn’t even a consideration.

I opted to surf back and forth between the two shows. All the Giants players and coaches were wearing hats on the sidelines that read “NYPD” or “FDNY.” Little brother Eli lost to big brother Payton though Eli had the better game.

Over on CBS, the chief of the firehouse lost his brother in the collapse of Tower Two.

By the time the kids came to kiss us good-night, a tear was slowly rolling down my cheek. The program closed with a montage of photographs of the firefighters who had died as “Oh Danny Boy” played mournfully in the background. It was a powerful and poignant moment.

I've always preferred non-fiction to fiction. I like my truths unvarnished and presented without a hidden agenda. As painful as it was to know so many brave men and women had died trying to save others, my spirits were buoyed by the fact that an act of great evil was matched by acts of great heroism and sacrifice.

I doubt "The Path to 9/11" has the power to invoke such a feeling in me.

After reading the letter I would say the title of this thread is misleading. I failed to see any threat to ABC accompanying the criticism in the letter. I think it is perfectly reasonable that when a docudrama is advertised as being substantively true that it live up to its declarations. This one apparently didn't according to those who ought to know.

Here's a more specific criticism from Richard Clarke.

Richard Clarke blasts key scene in 'Path to 9/11.'

How does the Democrats, just by simply mentioning the law, imply that ABC would be in violation of it if it proceeded to air this docudrama as intended? If that was the case, then we wouldn't be debating this issue...If ABC was breaking the law, then they legally COULD NOT show this mini-series. But they aren't in violation of the law, and the Democratic Senators have not said that they'd be violating the law. They cited the law to highlight the responsibility ABC has to the public to give us the truth, not a cooler version of what's kinda like the truth. So again, where is this threat?

This is what the Demos say: This serves as a reminder to ABC that the Communications Act of '34 gives ABC the responsibility to serve the public interest...The Dems then contend that this documdrama doesn't serve the public interest...There is absolutely no threat, implied or obvious in that letter.

CP

Well, I haven't watched it, but that's okay. I wasn't thinking about going "red" in any case for the upcoming election.

I found a little levity last night on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, where Stewart put it into perspective for me. He said that with network executives making the decisions, "Be thankful the Condoleezza character is still black."

This is part of a long pattern of unethical behavior for Bush by his NeoCon smear machine. Apparently anything short of murder or that nasty word, S-E-X, is allowed when it comes to politics.

Let the (buffalo) chips fall where they may.

I continue to find it absolutely hilarious that liberals, who hold a near monopoly over the Hollywood film studios and TV networks, and who honored the propagandist Michael Moore in their convention's "presidential box" in 2004, continue to whine about this movie like no tomorrow.

Any comparison to ANY media in the United States with Stalin and/or Nazi Germany exposes a basic and fundamental ignorance of the history of those two situations. Since the purpose of these posts cannot be to provide remedial history lessons to the A-D members who obviously need tutoring, I"ll just leave it at that.

It is a historical FACT that the Clinton administration had multiple attempts to preemptively kill Bin Laden but either failed or refused. These facts have been well documented by multiple sources and by former administration figures as well.

They were, as we know, very "sensitive" to world opinion, the UN, and our so-called friends in the EU. They exhibited a pattern of "not rocking the boat" in this conflict as in any others. If anything, the ABC mini-series downplayed this 8 year behavior, not embellished it.

At the end of the day, there is no disputing the FACT that Clinton preferred to take the risk averse path in nearly every conflict. Whether it involved cutting and running in Somalia (something that was very much underplayed in the ABC story and SHOULDN'T have been) using very limited means in the Balkans (where we still are engaged), agreeing to bogus treaties with N. Korea, firing a cruise missile into an empty building in Bagdhad in response to their presidential assassination attempt, or tipping off Pakistan that an attack on terrorist camps were forthcoming, the Clinton administration was absolutely consistent in REFUSING to take a strong stance against the enemies of this nation.

Clinton was risk averse in nearly every area except one; satisfying his own selfish and hedonistic "urges".

The difference between the responses of democrats and republicans to partisan attacks has also been educational.

On one hand, Bush has been bashed since day 1. People like Michael Moore have made dishonest feature films designed to skewer him. The network news networks, and the liberal elite have made "Bush bashing" a national past time. Yet, Bush barely even acknowledges these attacks. He stays focused on the fact that we are at war with people who wish to destroy us and does not lower himself to fight those petty fights.

And the Clinton people? They send lawyers, make loud threats, and squeal like stuck pigs when a single mini-series, which is essentially FACTUALLY CORRECT exposes the historical facts that they were very weak on national security and especially weak toward the growing terrorist threat.

The difference is telling. It's a difference of maturity and professionalism.

I, for one, plan to vote for the adults this November.

Stop The Presses,

Lord Helmet to vote GOP

Nation in state of Shock

How could this have happened cries DNC chairman, demands Congressional hearings

C'mon LH Bush doesn't have to respond at all -- he has the Conservative echo chamber to do it for him.
24/7 cable and radio coverage

All the Hatemongering you could ever desire


and this administration knows they have the guns and the money and could care less about anyone other than themselves.

Off the high horse LH.

GOP is just as pathetic as the DNC they just have different vices and faults.

The question remains whether or not the scene is factually accurate as a conflation of several such events.

According to Buzz Patterson, an eye witness, it was.


According to Clinton's political advisor Dick Morris, the Clinton administration had three chances to get bin Laden: February 1998, Aug. 20, 1998, and May 1999.


The first attempt was noted in the 9/11 Commission report: [They worried that] "the purpose . . . of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation — and probably recriminations — in the event that bin Laden, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive."

The last chance was also noted in the 9/11 Commission report. "If this intelligence was not 'actionable,' working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence could meet that standard."

The Democrats use the 9/11 Commission Report as the gold standard for what did and did not occur leading up to the 9/11 attacks. However, that Report does not even mention Operation Able Danger, the military intelligence operation tasked with finding and monitoring al Qaida.

If you hope to make a point, please do so. Demeaning LH for his stance does nothing positive for the debate.

The fact of the matter is that this docudrama stated clearly in the begining that it wasn't a documentary, however the subject matter was nearly completely accurate (albeit dramatized).

It's fact that the Clinton administration had numerous opportunities to take care of Bin Laden, to thwart Al Qaeda, and that we knew that Al Qaeda had declared holy war on us years prior to 9/11. I only watched bits and pieces of this amidst Monday Night football (of course... I knew the story!), but saw that this was a movie from the very beginning.

My point of contention with everyone anti-this show is that people keep making claims that broadcasting should be "for the betterment of the people" (paraphrased), etc. How does MTV do this? The View? Dog The Bounty Hunter? (etc, etc, etc)

At least this show was predominantly truthful and uncovered some truths about our nation's path to 9/11, and hopefully elicited debate. Is it all the Clinton administration? of course not. The FBI and CIA weren't sharing information, we willingly let Ali Mohammed live in our country, etc...

However- the very fact that Bin Laden is alive is fully the responsibility of Mr. Clinton. It's just the truth.

That's what the Democrats seemed to be arguing. Why else would they bring up the law if not to imply that it's not being followed? Your answer:


But that still just begs the question. If they cited the law to highlight ABC's "responsibility" then they could only have been referring to what they claim is its legal responsibility. In other words, they were implying that ABC was not meeting its legal responsibility, i.e., not following the law. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from this?

Trying to remember the Republican outcry that Clinton was not doing enough to stop or kill Bin Laden?
The demands by the GOP to stop him or kill him.
Yet for some reason i just cannot recall it. memory loss perhaps?
How about it Aevans?

I remember them hassling him over the pathetic assasination attempt by missile--I do remember them raising hell and saying he was doing it to distract from the lewinsky stupidity, I remember how much they spent in money and time trying to bring Clinton down. That I remember really well.

The GOP has no room to lecture anyone on anything. They couldn't think of anything else but Kill Bill.

Without getting too far off track, Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism and failed. He created the Lewinsky scandal, not the "republicans".

What's ironic is that Clinton's irresponsibility and "boldness" with women not his wife were nowhere to be found in his foreign policy when he was confronted with real threats.

It's a historical fact that Clinton had multiple attempts to get Bin Laden and passed. ABC, in their time compression and overall paraphrasing of the facts, cut that down to one scene. The reality was FAR worse than what ABC showed with respect to Clinton, Albright, and Berger.

The behavior of the Clinton lawyer attack machine, brought out of mothballs, was also illuminating. It brought back echos of their character assassination of a righteously appointed criminal justice system figure, Ken Starr, the whisper campaign that Monica was a "stalker", Livingstone and the republican FBI files, and the assorted unconstitutional attacks against private citizens to prevent "bimbo eruptions" from staining the "legacy" of the previous impeached president.

Hollywood attempts to show history are ALWAYS made more theatrical. Did anyone really believe the conversations in "Pearl Harbor" took place? How about "Patton"? Events in there were clearly paraphrased and condensed. Yet, the essential truth of that story have been well documented.

Similarly, Hollywood took liberties with the Clinton administration and their utter failure to confront Islamist terrorists in any effective way. Yet, ABC didn't talk about the "wall" that Reno assistant, Jaimie Gorelick drafted. They, as I mentioned, left out numerous other examples where Clinton ignored the reality of Bin Laden and instead chose to build up the character of Richard Clark, who's own 9/11 testimony was suspect given recorded conversations he had with the press while a member of the Bush administration.

Clinton had his chance and he blew it. He didn't want to do anything to distract from his primary priorities which were (since actions speak louder than words) engaging in partisan warfare against republicans, raising campaign funds, golfing, and chasing women.

Trying to re-write history to build up Clinton may work on a gullible public, but it won't change the facts.

Ummm... did you not read LH's post about the time that Mr. Clinton decided that watching Golf was more important than fielding a call from S. Berger? Buzz Patterson got a call from Sandy Berger one afternoon that stated that the Northern Alliance (along w/ a CIA operative) had Bin Laden in their sights, and wanted the ability to take him out. Mr. Clinton didn't even want to talk to Mr. Berger until the "photo op and/or schmoozing opportunity" was over. Fact. Just plain truth. It's even in Dick Morris's book (remember, Mr. Clinton's campaign manager?) "Because he could". (not to mention Buzz Patterson's "Deriliction of Duty").

What a surprise. A right-wing attack on The Clinton Administration brings our esteemed conservatives out to spout their usual invective against all things Bill Clinton. We hear so much about “Bush-bashing.” Apparently, there’s no statue of limitations of “Clinton-kicking.”

It is fitting that while LH praises Dubya for his intestinal fortitude and all that almost FIVE YEARS TO THE DAY since Osama bin Laden murdered nearly 3,000 Americans. Five years that Dubya said we would bring him to justice dead or alive. It’s been years since Osama slipped away at Tora Bora and now our “ally,” Pakistan says they won’t allow the U.S. to use their country as a staging area to pursue our arch-enemy.

Since we’re laying blame for sins past what about the sins of our current president? Who was it on September 11 racking up frequent flyer miles while the World Trade Center came crashing to the ground? Who was the president who let Osama bin Laden’s relatives to fly out of the country while all domestic flights were grounded? Who was the president who let bin Laden slip through his fingers at Tora Bora? Who was the president that dissolved the unit that was hunting bin Laden? Who’s been the president who has allowed the murderer of almost 3,000 Americans go unpunished for over five years?

Who was the president who shamelessly and crassly used the fifth anniversary of the worst terrorist act on American soil to weakly attempt to justify a war that has taken almost 2,700 American lives in an occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

If your answered George Bush, George Bush, George Bush, George Bush , George Bush and George Bush, you’re correct on all counts.

Blame Clinton to your heart’s content the fact that he failed to kill Osama bin Laden. But get it straight: Blame Bush for failing to kill Osama bin Laden since September 11, 2001.

The failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden AFTER he perpetrated the worst act of mass murder against the United States is the sole responsibility of George W. Bush. All the far-right criticism of President Clinton does not change that sorry fact.

There was no wall between departments. You are regurgitating talking points, such as Clinton being distracted by Lewinsky. Or, alternately, Clinton using al Qaeda as a pretext to direct attention away from the scandal. If only the obsessive-compulsive Clinton fantasizers would make up their minds:


Censorship?
No. In another one of his threads, Bikerdad reminds us that a hypothetical group of Baptists don't impugn anyone's liberties by stating that the Constitution allows their religion to direct their votes and legislation. There is a parallel between this example and the letter to ABC. Actions by both groups have the potential to affect many Americans. One, however, has to do with religion, not free speech, and is therefore considered a "benign" exercise of expression.

A few conservatives have demonstrated an eagerness to make the unlikely sound reasonable in this thread. If the same conservatives were only half as eager to consider the possibility that Bush’s illegal wiretapping, detentions, etc., are without justification or Constitutional authority we’d have fewer GWoT threads. It’s also shown me that, even though the dead horse is now a carcass, people will exhume it and repeat debunked lies to justify their hatred of the Clintons and distrust of all things liberal.

I would agree, it’s been extremely insightful. Consider Rumsfeld calling those who oppose the Iraqi occupation “morally and intellectually corrupt”. Speaks volumes how the pompous administration perceives those who disagree with them and their absurd policies for simply exercising their inalienable rights. And as long as this administration continues to divide the country with these comments they deserve every ounce of criticism leveled at them.


Maybe the former president understood this wasn’t a traditional war. Maybe the former president understood that in most wars the more you kill the smaller your enemy’s armies become, but in this one, the more you kill the bigger the enemy becomes. It’s called foresight, something this administration is seriously lacking.

The President made this statement in his speech last night:


Even if Clinton had taken out Bin Laden chances are 9/11 would have still occurred. You can continue to blame former president all you want, but it’s an easy argument that the actions taken by our current president since 9/11 have been more detrimental in the war on terror than failing to kill Bin Laden years ago.


And until 9/11 the current presidents was known for taking excessive vacations and almost killing himself with a pretzel. I’m surprised our current president didn’t drop pretzels in the Tora Bora region hoping Bin Laden would do the same.

Blah, Blah, blah... it's funny how angry liberals get when anyone criticizes Clinton.

The fact of the matter is that no one has ever absolutely and unadulteratedly handed Bin Laden over, and the Tora Bora deal had NOTHING to do with GW or this administration. We allowed an Afghani leader to secure one side of the Mountains, and obviously he could be bought and/or our alliances weren't that secure. Again, I know that most of y'all have no experience in Afghanistan, but frankly... it's IMPOSSIBLE to always know who's on your side and who isn't. Who can be bought and who can't. It's a crap shoot if you ask me.

Bin Laden has HUNDREDS of relatives, and their safety in the US was obviously not guaranteed. What should he have done? Seriously. Left them here to fend for themselves? The US has had (albeit shady) ties to Saudi for entirely too long. That's not a GW thing.. but moreover an American oil thing.

If you don't like the facts, don't attack them with unrelated facts, but moreover push for someone to make a movie about the Iraqi war not being legitimate... and see if it makes Network TV.

Again, I'm NOT a fan of George W Bush. Frankly, I believe that he's a sorry excuse for a republican, and I dislike the notion that this nation has become as/more partisan than any other time in History.

However, it doesn't negate the fact that this program was basically the truth. It should allow people to ask questions, to discuss it's merits, etc. All this thread has turned into (like many others) is a partisan rant.

It's not the fault of the Democrats that we didn't kill Bin Laden post WTC bombing #1, USS COLE bombing, Embassy Bombings, and the Barracks Bombings... but it IS the fault of Mr. Clinton. He was the only person authorized to do so. Had he allowed an "open ticket" on the head of Bin Laden... who knows whether 9/11 would've happened... maybe so, but atleast Bin Laden would've been dead.

First off, nighttimer, you mis-characterize me as "right wing".

I'm a "progressive" in the truest form of the word.

Contrary to the period of 1992-2000, Bin Laden is now the most hunted individual on the planet. He's not on CNN being interviewed like he was when Bubba was creating a "hostile work environment" for young females on the White House staff and generating a series of ever-escalating attack against our nation like he did when the Clinton, Albright, Aspin, Berger, et all were trying hard not to "offend" the Jihadists and their enablers in the UN and EU.

Bush's address Monday was shameless and crass? I guess you didn't listen to his speech while the football game was on (since that was a matter of pressing national interest, I'm sure). I guess you also missed the bipartisan authorization for the Iraq war that preceded any hostilities there and that included YES votes by the two individuals YOU voted for in 2004?? Democracy sometimes means that YOUR SIDE doesn't win. And you didn't win in 2000 and 2004. And YOUR SIDE didn't prevail when Dean and others were loudly proclaiming that people like Kerry/Edwards/Reid/Biden/Clinton should not vote to authorize the Iraq was as they DID. What the far left continues to demonstrate is an outright hostility toward democracy. Oh, it's fine when they get THEIR way, but when the votes aren't on their side, all heck breaks loose. It's a shame that people with purple fingers in Iraq respect democracy more than some on the left in THIS country.

There are several facts that your partisan spin cannot change, nighttimer:

1. Clinton had 8 years to address terrorism and chose to take the politically correct and risk averse path.

2. Clinton cut and ran from Somalia, a FACT that emboldened Bin Laden to step us his Jihad.

3. Clinton had multiple chances to "get" Bin Laden and passed. This account from the "right wing" LA Times. LA Times Clinton and Bin Laden

4. The Clinton attack machine unleashed against ABC is nothing new. It's status quo for that crowd. Remember their hatched jobs against Ken Starr? Gingrich? Dole? The GOP in general? Bimbo eruptions? The whisper campaign that Monica was a "stalker"??? You forgot those historical events?

5. Bush bashing continues to this day by yourself and other partisans who think it's more important to attack our government and our troops during wartime than stick together as Americans.

6. Bush has NOT managed to "get" Bin Laden after 911. But that's not for lack of trying. Contrary to armchair general and all around flip-flopper John Kerry, we did not "have" him in Tora Bora. Sending 100,000 troops into that God forsaken region, as advocated (after the fact of course) by Commandant Kerry would have been both logistically impossible and would likely have not yielded Bin Laden. Like I said, under Bush the majority of Al Qaeda leaders have been killed, captured, or otherwise disrupted. That network ran unabated when Bubba was busy defending himself from accountability for his immoral and illegal behavior and when the Clinton people thought terrorism to be a "law enforcement" issue that had to wait for a strike in order for us to act. Bush has FUNDAMENTALLY changed our position to offense which has raised the ire of those on the far left such as yourself. One cannot have it both ways; attack Bush for not getting Bin Laden and then simultaneously attack all realistic efforts to attack terrorism and terrorists.

We hear that Bush has not "united" this country. Well, as long as we have "citizens" who put undermining our country, our government, and our troops above patriotism when the bullets are flying in a war, such "uniting" is not possible. The only, and I repeat ONLY thing that could possibly make today's democrats support Bush would be if he publicly renounced his conservative beliefs, quit the republican party, and then resigned.

I'll support Bush since he sees the reality of this world clearly. He's not stuck in the trivia and the pettiness that currently afflicts the once-proud democrat party.

He knows that we're engaged in a war FOR civilization, as he eloquently put it on the evening of 9/11/06.

You are either for civilization, or you are against it, nighttimer.

Which will it be?

nighttimer, other than your recycling of urban myth about Bin Laden's family's flights, I agree with much of what you said here, but you seem to be glossing over the facts in your last point. Bin Laden is not "the murderer" - maybe "a murderer" but the actual planners have been rounded up.

- Abu Zubaydah - severely wounded, captured and interrogated by CIA. At Gitmo.
- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - captured with intel from Zbayadah, was waterboarded among other things by CIA, now held at Gitmo
- Ramzi bin al-Shibh - Gitmo
- 19 hijackers - obviously dead
- would-be 20th hijacker Moussawi - life sentence - supermax

We have the planners and even the mastermind. Obviously, Bin Laden is free, but the planners and attackers are dead or in custody.


Just to clarify, this was the part that I agree with. As for Clinton, he did have his chances...

The last I looked, Article One Section Eight, Clause Eleven – “Congress shall have the power…..to declare war..”

So you must place equal, if not more blame on congress. But since it's republican controlled I won't hold my breath.


Actually, the former president DID sign an executive order calling for the arrest or assassination of Bin Laden.

Keep pointing fingers, obviously it's working as a steadfast few continue to blame the former president. But don't stop there, Bin Laden was born in 1957 so you can blame JFK, LBJ and Carter.

Good job w/ the rhetoric F&D, but you're wrong.
Read This.

The truth, of which no one can refute, is that Clinton wasn't really interested in stopping Bin Laden.

(Oh- and by the way, Congress CAN declare war, but what does that have to do with assasinating a threat to the US??... nada really)

While many republicans can admit that GW has done little to fix the mess in Iraq, very few Dems can find it in themselves to admit that Clinton should've taken Bin Laden while we could've. People closest to him (i.e. Dick Morris and Col Patterson) even have stated in print (which hasn't been refuted by the Clinton camp) that Bill didn't really care about terrorism, etc.

Seriously... isn't this debate about the show? Really-I think the show was mostly spot on (as our British friends might say). Can we debate that?? Facts are facts man... some folks argue as if Mr Clinton was a long lost buddy...!!!

You mean, like when he created 'Alec Station' in 1996, the CIA unit dedicated to one thing and one thing only, hunting of Bin Laden? Its a good thing we have that organisation around, it shows that the priority is the hunt for Bin Laden and his lieutenants.

Oh wait, Bush Jr disbanded the unit in July of this year.

Fortunately the democrats forced a rider on a recent armed forces funding bill, restarting the unit. Thus, Alec Station is back on track and the hunt for Bin Laden is back on.

But I'm sure it was really Clinto, somehow, who forced Bush jr to cut the unit several months ago, right? After all, everything is Clinton's fault...

Can I see if I have your logic correct here:
- There was a special unit called "Alec Station" that looked for Bin Laden and found him at least a few times from 1996 - 2000 under Clinton.
- Bin Laden remained at large at this time, no doubt conducting early-stage planning the 9/11 attacks along with Zawahiri.
- Under George Bush, the "Alec Station" continued to look for Bin Laden for another 5 years before being disbanded. (Obviously, they never found him, as I'm sure our dear leader would have smoked him and taken full credit in a prime-time news conference.)
- Alec Station 'back on the hunt' is a key accomplishment of US Democrats, despite their apparent lack of success from 11-September, 2001 through July of 2006?

Thus, Clinton, who actually found Bin Laden (seen here on NBC News) was more "interested" in capturing Bin Laden, albeit with the same result. I seem to remember the Clintons being quite suspicious of the CIA and its secret programs, but let's say they were 'interested.' Bush, who disbanded "Alec Station" after they continued to not find Bin Laden for 5 years, is a bad executive for that decision? I'm not sure how any of this reflects well on Clinton or Bush.

Close. Clinton created said special unit with a very specific goal in mind, it didn't just 'happen to be around' at the same time as him.



Another way of saying that same sentence, by the way, is "After looking for Bin Laden with no success for 5 years, Bush decided to disband the group tasked with finding him.

This isn't hide and seek, just because he was not found in the first 5 years does not mean you deprioritise him and/or stop looking.



Hardly a 'key accomplishment', they just reversed Bush Jr's isiotic decision to deprioritise the hunt for Bin laden. As for their 'lack of success', I'm sorry, are you blaming the party that was OUT OF POWER for the failures of the party that was in Power? Care to explain that?



I don't seek to exonorate Clinton here, but the very article YOU cited to me explains that it had nothing to do with 'not wanting Bin Laden', and everything to do with not having the people/eqipment in place to deal with him when they saw a figure some analysts suspected might be Bin laden.

From YOUR cited article:
"We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst. "We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

"In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. "


Clinton wanted Bin Laden as much as anyone, where he did err badly was in insisting that he was brought in alive, rather than dead. Mind you, we should also keep in mind that this was BEFORE 9/11 after all...

There is a very simple fact here, which seems to have been ignored in this debate. There have been a variety of biased portrayals of events leading up to, and including, 9-11. Most of these were biased against the administration. Did any of those involved in the sending of this letter complain then? Absolutely not. Why? Because they're not concerned about the bias or inaccuracies at all. They're concerned that it negatively affects them. They are more concerned with how this impacts them politically than they are with any supposed inaccuracies in the movie (which, btw, says negative things concerning both parties). THAT is what should concern everyone here...the fact that our politicians will stop at nothing to promote themselves politically, and that concern for their own political interests outweighs any other matter. If they were just concerned about inaccuracies and bias, they could address those in a variety of ways. The reason they're trying to stop the airing of the show, however, is because they think it will work against them politically.

OK, so you’ve shown that Clinton didn’t actively pursue Bin Laden, I’ve never claimed otherwise and possibly for reasons we’ll never fully understand. I merely refuted your claim that he could have put a price on his head, which Clinton did.

But you raise an interesting point. Did the threat of Bin Laden disappear when Bush was elected? That’s what I though, so you must hold the same contempt for Bush’s lack of pursuit.


All I’m saying here is that congress was equally aware of the Bin Laden threat and could have taken action on their own.

Got it. He created the unit with a specific goal in mind, and they did not achieve this goal. Well, to be fair, they did find the guy, but were stimied by government inaction/bureaucracy from capturing or killing OBL. After 9/11, they apparently couldn't even find him.
Just to clarify, I was referring to Alec Station's "lack of success" not Democrats. You noted that the Dems "fortunately" restored this program. I noted that the program had a lack of success, so I'm curious why it's restoration is "fortunate." Symbolism and paper victories for Congressional democrats, perhaps?

A more partisan take would note that the "Clinton program failed to capture OBL, despite having a dedicated Clinton-created team on the case for 4 years." Similarly, Bush failed, even with such a dedicated team, from September 11, 2001 through July, 2006, when he finally disbanded the team. Plenty of blame to go around here.


I don't seek to exonerate Bush, I'm just noting that cancelling a program that didn't work is effectively the same as having a program that doesn't work. The result is identical, except for the cool video from the Clinton story. It also doesn't shock me that, under the Clinton administration-era Defense Department, "We were not prepared to take the military action necessary" to take out Bin Laden.

Richard Clarke also noted in his book that the Clinton administration vetoed his plan to bomb the crap out of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in response to the USS Cole bombing. Whether or not that would have killed Bin Laden, it seems logical that eliminating all of their camps simultaneously would have perhaps hindered the 9/11 attacks.

Yeah. Thank goodness conservatives are so calm around here when anyone criticizes Bush.



I gotcha "open ticket" right here, my man!

The agency attempted to recruit tribal leaders in Afghanistan who might be persuaded to take on bin Laden; contingency plans had been made for the CIA to fly one of its planes to a desert landing strip in Afghanistan if he was ever captured. (Clinton had signed presidential "findings" that were ambiguous on the question of whether bin Laden could be killed in such an attack.) But the tribal groups' loyalty was always in doubt. Despite the occasional abortive raid, they never seemed to get close to bin Laden. That meant that the Clinton team had to fall back on a second strategy: taking out bin Laden by cruise missile, which had been tried after the embassy bombings in 1998. For all of 2000, sources tell Time, Clinton ordered two U.S. Navy submarines to stay on station in the northern Arabian Sea, ready to attack if bin Laden's coordinates could be determined.

But the plan was twice flawed. First, the missiles could be used only if bin Laden's whereabouts were known, and the CIA never definitively delivered that information. By early 2000, Clinton was becoming infuriated by the lack of intelligence on bin Laden's movements. "We've got to do better than this," he scribbled on one memo. "This is unsatisfactory." Second, even if a target could ever be found, the missiles might take too long to hit it. The Pentagon thought it could dump a Tomahawk missile on bin Laden's camp within six hours of a decision to attack, but the experts in the White House thought that was impossibly long. Any missiles fired at Afghanistan would have to fly over Pakistan, and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) was close to the Taliban. White House aides were sure bin Laden would be tipped off as soon as the Pakistanis detected the missiles.

Link

There is this fanciful (and nonsensical) notion that Clinton was so absorbed by the Lewinsky scandal that he totally ignored terrorism. You hear it over and over, "We haven't been hit for five years." Well, nobody's unhappy about that (except for maybe Republican candidates running for reelection this fall), but just remember that after the first attempt to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993, it took eight years before the next act of terror from radical Islamic extremists occurred on American soil. But Clinton gets no credit for that from the dedicated haters.



If you spell "progressive," E-V-I-S-S-E-R-G-O-R-P, I might believe you, lordhelmet. However, the evidence of your posts indicates a strong, right-wing bias. Don't dodge it. Embrace it. You'll be happier if you face up to it. Later we can move on to addressing possible remedies. .

Which you will now reveal with your decidedly non-partisan spin, lordhelmet?



Yawn. I skipped Points Two and Four as little more than "partisan" anti-Clinton rants (Hello Pot. I'm the Kettle). Let's get to the meat and potatoes and skip the gristle.

Clinton did nothing about terrorism for his entire eight years, right? Wonder to what extent Republican obstructionism played in that?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

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

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

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.

Link 2

A Republican opposed to expanding wiretapping? Say it ain't so!

Clinton had no plan to get Osama bin Laden? Well, on the other hand...

The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive—just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000—an attack that left 17 Americans dead—he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen."

Link 3




Why is it partisans such as you lordhelmet continue to draw the erroneous conclusion that supporting the troops is ONE AND THE SAME with supporting the president? Why is not supporting Bush and his dumb war (which even HE now admits had nothing to do with 9/11) somehow "Bush bashing." Whatever happened to legitimate criticism of this or any other President. You sure don't have any reluctance at working over President Clinton whenever your heart desires, but let someone say a discouraging word about President Bush and it's "Bush-Bashing time." And he's currently the guy occupying the Oval Office. What makes him immune to scrutiny, critique and yes---complaint?

I'll answer the question for you lordhelmet. Absolutely nothing. We elect politicians to high office. We don't have the divine right of kings and royal succession. I would have thought any loyal American would grasp and even defend the right for a citizen to disagree and dissent with the policies of his government. Or did the Republicans revoke that right too with The Patriot Act?

Yeah, Bush has FUNDAMENTALLY changed our position on terrorism. He's invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, recruited thousands of new extremists into the ranks of Al Qaeda and made this nation feel profoundly paranoid and frightened of being hit again. Some change.

Why can't I have it both ways? You're trying to by praising Bush for killing and capturing Al Qaeda big-shots, but you're curiously silent about his complete failure to land the two biggest fish of Al Qaeda for going on five years now. If this were Clinton you'd be demanding his impeachment for failing to uphold his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Until Bush brings bin Laden back dead or alive, his "realistic efforts" to attack terrorism falls dismally short.



That sounds like the very definition of "a good start." Maybe you could suggest it to Dubya, seeing how y'all are so much on the same wavelength?

Oh, and that's twice now you've accused me of "undermining the troops." Got any proof of it because if you don't have any you're just talking out the side of your neck. I haven't sent any mother's son off to fight and die for the wrong war in the wrong country against the wrong enemy. That blood is on George W. Bush's hands. Not mine.



I'm for the kind of civilization that the peace symbol Victoria Silverwolf linked to