Right wing uses ABC docudrama to push debunked claim blaming Clinton administration for 9-11
SUMMARY: In anticipation of ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the right-wing media have resurrected a debunked claim that attempts to place blame for the 9-11 attacks on the Clinton administration. Specifically, a review of the miniseries on the right-wing website Human Events Online asserted that the Clinton administration erected a "wall" to prevent information-sharing between government agencies. In fact, the "wall" long predated Bill Clinton's presidency.
In anticipation of the September 10 premiere of the first part of the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 -- a six-hour docudrama reportedly based on the findings of the 9-11 Commission Report -- the right-wing media have resurrected an already-debunked claim that attempts to place the blame for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks at the feet of the Clinton administration. Specifically, a review of the film on the right-wing website Human Events Online recounted a scene in which the CIA withholds from the FBI "crucial information identifying some of the 9/11 hijackers" and asserted that this occurred because of "the 'wall' put up by certain Democrat [sic] officials to prevent information sharing between government agencies." While conservatives have repeatedly claimed that this "wall" was erected during former President Bill Clinton's tenure, it in fact long predated his administration, as Media Matters for America has noted.
ABC describes The Path to 9/11 as "a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources" and will air over the course of two nights -- September 10 and 11. As noted by the weblog Think Progress, the film was written and produced by conservative activist Cyrus Nowrasteh. In recent days, members of the right-wing media, including syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh (subscription required) and conservative websites FrontPageMag and Human Events Online have begun promoting The Path to 9/11 as a film that "really zeros in on the shortcomings of the Clinton administration" and "honestly and fairly depict[s] how Clinton-era inaction ... allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to metastasize." The September 1 Human Events Online review described one scene that purportedly shows how 9-11 occurred "in part" because Democrats under Clinton purportedly created a firewall between U.S. intelligence agencies and U.S. law-enforcement agencies that prohibited critical information-sharing:
The miniseries also has a scene in which the CIA has crucial information identifying some of the 9/11 hijackers in advance of 9/11, but refuses to share the information with the FBI because of the "wall" put up by certain Democrat [sic] officials to prevent information sharing between government agencies. The CIA is depicted as sitting in a meeting with the FBI (with John O'Neil [sic: O'Neill] present), and showing the FBI surveillance photos of terrorism suspects -- some of whom will later turn out to be the 9/11 hijackers. The CIA asks the FBI for help in identifying the men in the photos, but refuses to give the FBI any of the information they have on who the men are. John O'Neil protests that it's impossible for the FBI to help the CIA identify the men if they won't provide any information whatsoever on them. When O'Neil tells the FBI to keep the photos so they can at least work on them, the CIA becomes hostile to O'Neil and takes the photos back. Tragically, John O'Neil himself will later die in the 9/11 attacks, in part because agencies like the CIA refused to share crucial information like this. Scenes like these really challenge the prevailing liberal media and Hollywood mindset by showing that the Patriot Act's information-sharing and surveillance provisions are crucial to the safety of this country, and that political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiency are Islamic terrorism's greatest friend.
The suggestion that Clinton administration officials erected the so-called "wall" echoes a similar accusation popular among conservative media figures: that a 1995 policy, instituted by former deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick and former Attorney General Janet Reno, prohibited Defense Department officials from sharing with the FBI military intelligence purportedly identifying lead 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. But as Media Matters has noted, the memo and guidelines in question merely clarified long-unwritten restrictions on the sharing of information between the FBI's intelligence arm and the Justice Department's criminal division. Indeed, the 1995 documents had no bearing on the military's ability to share information with other intelligence agencies.
Former Sen. Slade Gorton [R-WA], a 9-11 Commission member, specifically addressed and debunked the theory that Gorelick's memo prevented such intelligence-sharing in an August 18, 2005, letter to the editor in The Washington Times:
The one witness who did name Atta came to our staff shortly before the commission's report went to the printer. He said he thought he had seen something showing Atta in Brooklyn early in 2000. We knew, in fact, that Atta first arrived in the United States in June 2000 with a visa. For this and other reasons, the witness simply was not credible on this subject.
Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.
Moreover, the "wall" that conservatives accuse Democrats of erecting had been built well before Gorelick -- or Clinton -- took office. The joint House and Senate intelligence committees' report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures stated: "The 'Wall' is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over sixty years as a result of legal, policy, institutional, and personal factors." Similarly, a ruling by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review -- when it met for the first time in 2002 -- traces the origin of the "wall" to "some point during the 1980s."
Nor did enforcement of the "wall" end with the Clinton administration. In his April 12, 2004, testimony before the 9-11 Commission, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft conceded that his own deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, reauthorized the "wall" in August 2001.
from the RW haters club
I was really proud of how this organization took it upon itself to take on Sinclair Broadcasting when it was planning to air an anti-Kerry hit piece - the idea of hitting a corporation at the investor level was brilliant.
Can the same type of thing be done re: Disney and what can only be called a Soviet-era propaganda film?
They just keep at it no matter what happens. When an ant's anthill is destroyed, they go right back to work making another one. These conservative idiots are just like that. No matter how many times their garbage is debunked, they still continue saying the same garbage, or they go even further and use new garbage, and even make new garbage up. The wall existed long before the Clinton Administration, and John Ashcroft put the wall back in place just weeks before the 9/11 attacks.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
" They just keep at it no matter what happens. When an ant's anthill is destroyed, they go right back to work making another one. These conservative idiots are just like that. "
Hey, I like that comparison. When work needs to be done the conservatives do it, while the liberals sit back and wait for all of the work to be done for them.
Actually, MMFA does a good job pointing out that the Clinton administration did in fact keep that "wall" in place. MMFA says the admin actually "streamlined" the process to make it easier to hide info from one dept and another. Maybe when we find out which president DID institute those "unwritten rules" blame will be better established, but Clinton certainly improved the disfunctionality of the different dept's. Thank you MMFA for bringing some more truth to light.
" But as Media Matters has noted, the memo and guidelines in question merely clarified long-unwritten restrictions on the sharing of information between the FBI's intelligence arm and the Justice Department's criminal division."
NJGuy's ants analogy was very clear, referring to a mound of BS being destroyed and the REpubs going right on with building it back up.
If you're going to sucker into the ditto-head "hard working conservatives" and "free-loading" leftys bit, at least have it make sense. People have done the work of debunking the lies of the right (the left in your mind, I'm guessing),and the liars shamelessly continue to tell the same lies.
So, the ones telling the truth and exposing lies are lazy, and the ones working the same ol' BS are picking up the slack? I appreciate good propaganda as entertainment, so could you at least try? It has to have some logic to it, to fool even the thickest.Now concentrate.
Republichater exercises his wonderful neocon logic. It truly amazes me how one can just 'not get it'...
A common trait/tactic that has reared its ugly head over the past 6 years is the complete disregard for logical discourse. It has become commonplace for any of the rightys to merely debunk any argument or criticism by just saying "No it's not!" And, that's it. No matter what evidence to the contrary.... What's worse, you have what Republichater demonstrated so beautifully above... take an obvious point, turn it 180 and claim it supports his argument. This is Orwellian madness, indeed.
My fear comes... that sick pit in my stomach... when I wonder, does Republichater REALLY not get it... is it planned deceit or willful ignorance? Either is a crime in my book. Both should have consequences.
He was on television back in the Spring of 2003, right at the beginning of the Iraq war. That's when those trailers were found which were believed to have been possible mobile biological weapons labs. Many people were warning that in fact were not mobile biological weapons labs. Of course, we now know that they werent mobile biological weapons labs. They were used to inflate hydrogen balloons, as was confirmed by the C.I.A. itself. Many conservatives and Republicans were arrogantly and ignorantly saying that they were. Jeffrey was on television, I saw this myself and I still remember it, and he was saying that the trailers were mobile biological weapons labs. Another guest on the show, or it might have been the host, said that the trailers were not labs, and he looked arrogantly at the individual, and said, "Yeah, they were." He said it in this laughing, dismissing kind of way, like he knew better than everyone else. He is truly a moron.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
I saw him on Hardball yesterday. They were discussing Keith's commentary about Rumsfeld's speech. He was livid! His face was bright red and he looked like he was going to explode. He kept going on and on about the left wing press and defended Fox, Limbaugh and others as the "alternative point of view." What a moron!
"though attorney general reno's procedures did not include such a provision, the office [of intelligence policy and review] assumed the role anyway, arguing that it's position reflected the concerns of judge royce lamberth, then chief judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court." and who is royce lamberth who had such "concerns" about intelligence sharing among agencies? he was a poppy bush appointee. i wonder if this program will note the forty mentions of al-qaeda in the presidential daily briefings from jan to sept. 10, 2001. the fact is that no matter how much info was out there and available, bush was, as he admitted, "not on point" about bin ladin. will the program note that? you can lead a bush to warnings, but you can't make him pay attention to them. the chairman and vice chairman of the commission both said the attack "could have been prevented". every evidence is that bush was focused on iraq, not on terrorism.
ABC swiftboats the former president just in time to save the incumbent GOP
They cannot lay out the facts and debate them. They lay out distortions and half truth and make their case using those false premises.
Fear, smear and distort. These pigs know no bounds...
Nevertheless, as the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick was expected to use the judgment due of a person in her position. In her official capacity at the justice department, Gorelick repeatedly rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counter-terrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995. "It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White (Clinton appointee) wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
"Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," wrote Ms. White.
But Gorelick ignored this advice and went to great lengths to exceed the intent of legal precedent. A Gorelick 1995 memorandum states that the procedures her memorandum put in place "go beyond what is legally required...[to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." (Emphasis added.) The wall intentionally exceeded the requirements of FISA and then-existing federal case law.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
it says "this article or section does not cite it's references or sources". let's talk about the number one man at the bush justice dept, john ashcroft. the 9-11 commission page 265: "he did not ask the fbi what it was doing in response to the threats and did not task it to take any specific actions. he also did not direct the ins, then still part of the dept of justice, to take any specific action. in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. they did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute." the fact is that that the bush administration came into office and deemphasized the fight on terrorism. condi rice told the commission about the counterterrorism efforts of the clinton administration: "clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." the bush administration did not, especially since the commission said of summer of 2001: "the system was blinking red". bush's response was to go on a month long vacation in which he held no meetings on the issue, as the commission noted. there was no wall needed by the bush administration. they just didn't give a damn.
Another fact too simple for the simple to understand--Bush wanted to get Saddam. In Bush's view, Saddam cost dad the election, Saddam put a hit on dad, Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. . . Nothing else mattered as much. Not tax cuts for the wealthy, not installing Jesus in every governmental function, nothing. Get Saddam.
If Bush was serious about twarting terrorist threats, he would have taken advice from the previous administration. They fought off many terrorist threats.
This administration takes responsibility for nothing. September 11th was Clinton's fault. Failure to capture BinLaden at Tora Bora--Clinton had him handed to him on a silver platter. The sinking economy, rising poverty, stagnated wages, high unemployment--All Clinton's fault.
The first attempt at terrorism against the US after Bush was appointed President was 9/11. And from the terrorist's viewpoint, it was a huge success. That says it all--PERIOD.
"In Bush's view, Saddam cost dad the election" TheRick
It was the economy stupid
TheRick posted:
"If Bush was serious about twarting terrorist threats, he would have taken advice from the previous administration. They fought off many terrorist threats." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Please enlighten us on the "many terrorist threats" beaten back by Clinton?
I will show you the ones he missed:
95-Riyadh 96-Khobar Towers 98-US Embassies, Kenya and Tanzania 00-USS Cole
If you can prove the one he got, be my guest. I doubt you will and I have his record at a paltry 0-4.
Are much harder to secure since the loval national government is in the best position to provide security i.e. arresting and monitoring terrorist cells. But considering that several of the terrorist attacks under the Clinton administration occured in SAUDI ARABIA, an exporter of radical Wahhabi Islam, can one really be surprised that the royal family did not prevent them?
...the Millineum plots, the L.A. International Airport bombing plot, the Cole-like bombing plot against the U.S.S. The Sullivans in Aden, the Boston and New Jersey cells disrupted mid-bombing plans, the Lincoln Tunnel and Holland Tunnel bomb plots in '93, and Ramsi Yousef's liquid explosives plot against eleven U.S. airliners in the Pacific circa '95?
...make that the Millennium plots.
Linus, I see you've been a busy boy. Linus posted:
"How about...
...the Millenium plots, the L.A. International Airport bombing plot, the Cole-like bombing plot against the U.S.S. The Sullivan's in Aden, the Boston and New Jersey cells disrupted mid-bombing plans, the Lincoln Tunnel and Holland Tunnel bomb plots in '93, and Ramsi Yousef's liquid explosives plot against eleven U.S. airliners in the Pacific circa '95?"
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Let's start at the top shall we. For simplicity let's put the Millennium plots in one group. That would be the LAX plot, the USS Sullivan's plot, and the Jordanian plot (not mentioned in your original post).
The LAX plot was not busted by any Clinton administration official or by any of the "agencies". It was the the simple dogged determination of a curious CUSTOMS agent. He alone saved countless lives. My count 0-5 for Slicky.
The USS Sullivan's plot was once again NOT the intervention of any agency or military unit, but the bumbling zealots who could not figure out a weight and balance problem and over grossed the bomb boat and it sank to the bottom. My count 0-6 for Der Slickmeister.
The Yousef liquid explosive plot of '95 more commonly called "The Bojinka Plot", was again NOT foiled by anything the Clinton Admin did. It was disrupted by a snitch. Ishtiakk Parker ratted out Yousef to the US Embassy in Pakistan.
Thanks for playing and helping me keep score. I had overlooked these in my original post.
Final tally: Terrorists 7....The Teflon Pres 0 (zero for you people in Palm Beach).
The tunnels plot was busted under GW Bush's watch. Nice try though.
One day you may find that legacy for Bill...
I want to essay out on your comment because I want to practice up before correcting that misinformation on Wikipedia. First I want to give you clips and a link to an interview of Mary Jo White conducted by the PBS show frontline about FBI agent John O'Neill.
You've been fed a few lines from a memo six years before 9/11 with no context and no understanding of the situation. I'll exlain that to you later. First, the interview, that covers what the Clinton administration did between the 1995 memo and 2001 when they left office. Again, the interviewee is Mary Jo White and the subject is John O'Neill.
Mary Jo White said:
"But also, by virtue of having been in headquarters for a number of years in the terrorism arena, and that's the security arena, he made lots of contacts all around the world with his fellows in law enforcement and in the intelligence agencies -- building a coalition, year after year after year, to call upon when he needed them; when a terrorist plot was afoot, or he was trying to get the evidence to prosecute a terrorist. He brought all that to New York when he came, which was something that had not been there to that degree before. Then he continued to build on that."
"He was right about how essential these worldwide contacts were. He spent a lot of time cultivating them around the world. He would bring over to my office, the U.S. Attorney's office, these countless visitors from around the world, just to make sure we all knew each other got to know each other. Then when the occasion presented itself, we could call on that person to help out an investigation."
"The East Africa embassy bombing investigation. Before he himself eventually went over to Africa, he really was the person in the United States running that investigation from New York. He and I worked very closely together on that to get through whatever walls we needed to make the right contact, to get the right foreign government to allow interviews of, not only suspects, but witnesses around the world. ..."
"Because historically, both the FBI and actually the Justice Department have been structured [such that], when an event of terrorism occurs abroad, Washington headquarters, Washington metropolitan field office and typically the U.S. Attorney's Office of the District of Columbia will be, in effect, the jurisdiction that deals with that, That changed in the 1990s by virtue of the fact of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and then all of the follow-on cases that occurred in New York. So you essentially had with John O'Neill the New York FBI office in New York, and the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's office, a switch of the locus of the counterterrorism efforts, from the point of view of law enforcement. But still the structure was, when something happened abroad like this, Washington went into gear. So I think that's why. "
YOU CAN READ THE WHOLE THING IF YOU WANT. CLINTON SOLVED THE PROBLEM. HE DIDN'T CREATE IT.
[link to www.pbs.org]
How long is this crap going to go on? "9/11" has become the equivalent of jumping out from behind a bush and yelling "Boo!" Conservatives equate liberals with terrorists, literally, and call them the "blame-America-first crowd", or "Bush-haters", yet get away with blaming Clinton, or even Carter at times for god's sake, with everything. "Media" does not mean news anymore, it's "infotainment", the Ministry of Truth. Since the movie's based on the 9/11 Commission Report, I guess I shouldn't hold out much hope that it will contain any real controversy, or debate, over what actually happened that day. Rather, we'll get a rehash of the Admin's. spiel, same as every other day, about terrorists who "hate America because of our freedom." My god, I wonder just what can we even do anymore? People say Private Interests controll the gov't. I disagree. Private Interest IS the gov't. now. Bush has made an art form out of appointing people whose ideology directly opposes the mission of the office they hold. So, we have a timber industry executive heading the park service, pharmaceutical exec's running the FDA, Enron writing energy policy...they've cut out the middleman completely. Milo Minderbinder would be so proud.
Couldn't agree with you more.
I can hardly stand it anymore. I wrote to my senators and asked them, when we take back Congress this fall, to fix the real biggest mistake that Clinton made. Namely the deregulation of the media.
the problem began in the 80's when Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine in the name of "free speech". This gave rise to the horror we now know as "Fox News", as well as right-wing talk radio. Fox News is coincidentally run by Roger Ailes who I believe was Reagan's communications director. Go figure.
Liberals only like Free Speech when it applies to them.
"the problem began in the 80's when Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine in the name of "free speech". This gave rise to the horror we now know as "Fox News", as well as right-wing talk radio." JScott
Oh the horror of having the conservative point of view out there to challenge the liberal saturation of the msm--and it became so popular too. Boo Hoo.
So the conservative point of view was absent before that?
Come on. The "liberal media" was a myth from the start. It was a Nixonian tactic.
There was no "FOX news" of the left, ever. Until Iran-Contra, Reagan himself got very lenient coverage from the media, even though he made hundreds of false claims. When Watergate was breaking news, was Bradlee chomping at the bit to get the story out there to hurt Nixon, even if the facts were questionable? I doubt it. The "liberal media" ignored Reagan's dishonesty/confusion and wouldn't run stories on Nixon's impeachable offenses unless they had merit.
Meanwhile, FOX creates "liars" where there are none and CNN goes crazy over "scandals" that have no merit and are not impeachable (hint:whitewater, monicagate). How is this "balancing" what we previously had?
The "conservative point of view" is pure fascism. Rampant militarism, nepotism, cronyism, corporate corruption, ultranationalism, imperialism, intense bigotry against minorities, a desire to end all civil liberties, etc. It's 1933 all over again.
While I'm all for freedom of speech, when it becomes pure fascist propaganda for a war criminal government, it becomes a domestic enemy of the Bill of Rights.
free speech for ALL, we only wish that it were HONEST as well. That is the PURPOSE of this web site after all.
So by your logic a liberal media bias permeated the MSMedia before the Fairness donctrine existed and because it's lifted we now have a conservative viewpoint to counter that. So is the media doing a better public service now or was it then? Is media now fairer? Are viewpoints seperated from actual facts now? Are point and counter point arguments offered on news shows? A liberal bias implies a truly free press with hard facts used, corrections made, and a variety of views to discuss the issues of the day. What we have now, press for profit and lap dogs to a political party passing for news. Conservative view points can't handle the truth or a counter argument and that is why they fear the Fairness doctrine so much. As well as civics and American history. Why they hate our freedom so much I'll never know.
I like many of you have been listening to so many points of view on the same subject my head at times feel like its going to explode.When a lot of times such as knowing that the clinton adminastration had passed many heads ups before leaving office.I wonder how the rhetoric is going to sound after the november elections when the democrats regain our just due.
the Right actually claims that to avoid the CIA and FBI from discusssing illegal contributions from China to Clinton/Gore campaign, Jamie Goerlick insisted that more than just what the existing law required must be done...she reinforced the wall causing the CIA to fail to deliver on 9/11 conspiritors to the FBI. Moreover it is clear that the Able Danger had the goods too, and Pentagon lawyers enforcing the Goerlick decree refused permission to allow intelligence officials in the Pentagon to discuss the findings with the FBI
DEBUNKED CRAP !
in a news conference, gop rep. curt weldon claimed that the fbi would not go after mohamed atta because "he had a green card". the only problem with this garbage is that none of the hijackers had permanent residency. hello? that's what a green card is. weldon also was involved with santorum in the "we found wmd" nonsense a couple months ago, the degraded 20 year old shells. they can't quit lying. but it does register with the right wingers, as you can see by these posts. they believe whatever they're told. ditto, rush, i never had a thought in my head until i listened to you. and that is no exaggeration of what his listeners say.
Make Goerlick read Gorelick...
the Right actually claims that to avoid the CIA and FBI from discusssing illegal contributions from China to Clinton/Gore campaign, Jamie Gorelick insisted that more than just what the existing law required must be done...she reinforced the wall causing the CIA to fail to deliver on 9/11 conspiritors to the FBI. Moreover it is clear that the Able Danger had the goods too, and Pentagon lawyers enforcing the Gorelick decree refused permission to allow intelligence officials in the Pentagon to discuss the findings with the FBI
“the Right actually claims that to avoid the CIA and FBI from discusssing illegal contributions from China to Clinton/Gore campaign”
Did you even read Media Matters’ debunk? The memo clarified restrictions on the sharing of information between the Justice Department and the FBI. If the CIA and the FBI wanted to share information about the thoroughly debunked Chinese contributions, nothing prohibited them.
blame to around on 9/11. If everyone wants to disagree on procedural problems, everyone will have to take the blame. Walls of silence, ignorance of threats and not really caring covers just about everyone. P.S. Able Danger was a joke. They knew everything after everything happened. So did I. If the Cons want to blame Clinton, I only ask WHO was in the White House on 9/11??? And does the buck stop there?
does it take to change a light bulb? 1000! One to screw in the bulb, and 999 to blame Clinton for letting it burn out 8 years ago.
1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness
5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner 'Bulb Changing Accomplished'
7. One administration insider to resign and in detail reveal how Bush was literally 'in the dark' the whole time
8. One to viciously smear No. 7
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along
10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.
ABC should only allow this abomination to be showed on their Sinclair affaliates. These are the only people who still belive in Bush and the right wing spinsters. Sinclair did not see fit to show Nightline when they read the dead soldiers name, a true disservice the brave men and women who serve, and their families who grieve. This "Blame Clinton" approach is really getting old, espically when none of the information supports this line of rhetoric. The GOP and their supporters are always the first to assign blame and the last to accept responsibility. They behave like a bunch of drunks.
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton! The magic word shouted from the rooftops of conservative whack-job America any time Bush makes a mistake. 9/11? It's Clinton's fault for not making SAUDI ARABIA cut a deal with the Sudan for bin Ladin, Clinton's fault for not making Bush pay attention to the 40 TIMES Al Qaeda was mentioned in a PDB, Clinton's fault for not making Bush even slightly curious that the August 8 PDB was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside United States".
My baloney has a first name, and it's G-E-O-R-G-E.
Why do you keep calling the news the media they are not the center or the middle they are just a bunch lying scum bag Republicans and they only broadcast Republican propaganda so from now on refer to them as propaganda pushers
posted this on the media matters column also. zacharias moussaoui was the subject of an investigation by an fbi agent named colleen rowley. he was one of the flight school sudents. even though he was an fbi target, the cia knew about him. no "wall" there. 9-11 report page 275: "on august 23 [2001], director of central intelligence tenet was briefed about the moussaoui case in a briefing titled 'islamic extremist learns to fly' ". bush of course was well into his third week of clearing brush and holding no meetings.
Let's go back a few years and ask a similar question, while we're playing the blame game:
Who was responsible for not sharing intel....that might have well prevented.....7 December, 1941? Remember that little intel goof? Seems a lot of our smart kids then (Colonel Rufus R Bratton, for one) just knew that "I swear to God! JAPAN IS GOING TO ATTACK US!"...
So, why didn't these "warnings" make it to those who needed to know? Scholars and historians have ripped the Pearl Harbor attack apart, listing not a few, but dozens of instances where propel intel sharing may have well prevented the attack, or, at the least, put Pearl and Hickam on alert status.
The final telegram to both Hub Kimmel and Walter Short? Warning them of the importance of the decoded last part of the The Ultimatum? Arrived an hour late. Gee, why?
It's simple. This blundering goes on, admin to admin, year to year, decade to decade. Each admin adds their own incompetence to it. And with each succession, the ugly reminders come, and again, remind of us such.
You cannot blame Clinton without blaming Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt....and on and on and on and on.
I just wish we'd keep that in mind.
so it's nobody's fault? nope. by the way, roosevelt had a commission [he didn't fight it like bush] within weeks of pearl harbor, and they did assign blame.
the producer, cyrus nowrasteh, makes up this total lie: "i also expanded my research beyond the [9-11] commission report, which only goes back to 1998, concluding that i needed to go back to the first attacks on the wtc in 93." complete falsehood. the report starts well before, in some cases decades, 1998.