ABC/Disney 9-11 film also gets facts wrong about dead FBI agent, American Airlines
Despite the suggestion by prominent members of the media that falsehoods have been alleged only with respect to the portrayal of some Clinton administration officials by ABC's The Path to 9/11, the film allegedly misrepresents others -- including former FBI counterterrorism expert John O'Neill, who died on September 11, 2001, in the World Trade Center, where he was head of security, as well as American Airlines.
John O'Neill
According to a September 10 article in the New York Post, actor Harvey Keitel, who plays O'Neill in the film, had serious concerns about the script's depiction of O'Neill. The Post quoted a production designer saying that Keitel's distrust of the script was such that he hired his own researcher, resulting in Keitel's rewriting of most of his lines. Even with Keitel's reported efforts to correct the record, as Media Matters for America has noted, on the September 8 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann interviewed former FBI agent Tom Nicoletti, who said he was hired as a consultant during the film's production but resigned, objecting to numerous scenes in the film that he said reflected "improper research." Nicoletti told Olbermann that the film contains "inaccuracies in the portrayal of John O'Neill, who is not here to defend himself." Dan Coleman, another former FBI official, reportedly turned down an offer to serve as a technical consultant on the film after reading the script in the summer of 2005. Coleman also said he had concerns over O'Neill's depiction.
John Aravosis, on his AMERICAblog weblog, has flagged another scene in the film, which Aravosis characterized as "defam[ing]" American Airlines. The scene reportedly shows lead hijacker Mohammed Atta being waved through check-in by American Airlines personnel at Boston's Logan Airport despite a prominent warning on their computer screen. The problem is, as Aravosis noted, the 9-11 Commission report makes clear that the warning popped up when Atta was boarding a plane in Portland, Maine, to Logan. But, Atta did not fly American from Portland to Logan; he flew US Airways Express. So the film reportedly shows personnel from the wrong airline waving Atta through.
Why let facts get in the way of some really good propaganda?
I could only stay awake through the first half hour of this "catapulting of the propaganda," but some words spoken in a group of three people in a restaurant, a man and a woman trying to talk a skinny guy into joining them again (FBI?), while spoken quite low, jumped out at me. Sounded like the administration's propaganda that all the Rush cyborgs are repeating about would we rather have our privacy invaded or be invaded by the terrorists.
I've been wondering if they have imbedded all their other "cute" little propaganda sayings throughout this film. And Bush made a point of saying it had nothing at all to do with politics. What a crock! But then when does he ever speak the truth?
go the abcnews.com home page, scroll to the section "entertainment", click on the link "bill clinton & controversy over new 9-11 movie", and you will find this stunner of a headline, which you could just as easily find on a right wing web site: "clintonistas claim foul over abc 9-11 film ". in the article written by john cochran, it notes madeline albright's objections to the scene she is portrayed in. the next paragraph begins: "albright now says she 'she fully and unconditionally supported the strike against bin ladin' ". note the word "now". that use implies that she has said or done something different in the past. she has not. near the end of the article is this: "conventional wisdom says there's nothing like a little controversy to boost ratings." so the truth be damned, let's make money, huh mr cochran? the leadership at abc have sold their souls.
Disney tries to slip this film into educational venues, to portray the film as based on fact, to tout its historical significance, all the while ignoring FBI consultant's corrections to a poorly researched script written by a source with questionable motives. They tried to slip this past any media except for right-wing supplication and now they discount the serious charges of falsifying history by their critics. I think the "controversy" in this case does not help to promote the film as a truthful retelling of recent history; the "controversy" lies in ABC's willingness to air programming which falsely advertises fiction as truth. It infuriates me that ABC willfully ignores the protests of hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens and public figures while CBS caved to far less pressure for a far less serious issue of historical portrayal. This 9-11 film so blatantly befits the current Republican campaign strategy it is a poster child for one-sided political propaganda. ABC/Disney egregiously misuse the public trust of their broadcasting privileges. They exploit the commemorations of 9-11 with callous disregard for historical accuracy. ABC/Disney risk their entire legacies by tainting public trust, potentially jading millions of fans, for cheap tricks. No thanks!
i think this has very much to do with keeping the republican control of congress by portraying the democrats as weak on security. these media outlets are owned by giant corporations whose interest is in keeping the gravy train they have with the republicans.
Diane Sawyer Charlie Gibson (Softballs with) Chris Matthews John Stossel, ad nauseum.
And you can look for Michael Eisner to be appointed to head the World Bank or be made the Treasury Secretary at some point in the future.
I'm attaching here a list of ABC sponsors - phone numbers when they're available. I've only included the email addresses of those sponsors who don't require a log-in; why should we give them any information that can help them when they're financing this nonsense? (A sudded thought: maybe the reason the movie's being run "commerical free" is because reveal the sponsors would also reveal the movie's partisan bias? The Walkton Family or Scaife could bankroll it, I'd imagine. )
Anyway, the list: Phone numbers:
Aleve 1-800-331-4536 Benefibre For US : 1-800-452-0051 Best Buy (1-888-237-8289). Burger King - 1-800-522-1278 Chevrolet 1-800-222-1020 Conagra (Healthy Choice) Chris Kircher - VP Corp Affairs (402) 595-5392 Ford Phone: 800-392-3673 Frontline Pet Care - 1-800-660-1842 Glade Air Freshener 1-877-506-7352 IAMS 1-800-675-3849 Land Rover 1-800-FIND 4WD Lysol 1-800-228-4722 Nissan 1-800-647-7261 Quaker Oats 1-312-821-1000 Red Lobster (407) 245-4000 T-Mobile 1-877-296-1018 Wishbone Salad Dressing 1-800-343-9024
Email addresses: Aflac shareholder@aflac.com Home Depot [link to www.corporate.homedepot.com] Hyundai Motors - swpark@hyundai-motor.com Ritz Camera - contact@ritzinteractive.com Sepracor - info@sepracor.com Verizon marialina.h.dominguez@verizon.com
the NEA "funding" Mapplethorpe?
Mapplethorpe's gay erotica was meant to be controversial and offensive. He never received NEA funding for his art, but a NEA-funded museum decided to exhibit them. The Right used it as a bludgeon against the NEA for years.
This propadrama is also intended to be controversial and offensive to a great many people. Again, the production was private, but the exhibit happened in the public-sector sphere -- this time over the airwaves owned by the American people.
fresh off the AP wire - MMFA is desperate for hits other than rusty shackleford and solon, so they've begun to work on the weekends including the sabbath.
story #2: liberals hypocrital since they called everyone who complained about the reagan movie a bunch of crybabies.
ABC's film plays fast and loose with historical facts only five years after the horrible events of 911. Anybody with the least modicum of fair play should feel free to point this out. As to the Reagan film of a couple of summers ago nobody ever showed where it was less than accurate. Reagan's many fans couldn't handle a truthful portrayal of their beloved Prez and now the same people who were upset about the Reagan movie want to rewrite more recent history. Just remember who was POTUS 9/11/01 and who ignored all warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the months preceding 911.
who had 10 chances to get Bin Laden but was too busy getting a little intern lovin' in the white house.
one clear chance to get bin ladin. wait, i'm wrong. we knew exactly where he was holed up at tora bora, we had troops in the immediate area, and the bush administration ignored him, again. kind of makes you wonder.
---"Just remember who had 10 chances to get Bin Laden"---
No one had "10 chances to get bin Laden". Look it up in the 9/11 Commission Report.
There was one distracted, uninterested person, however, who was handed a memo just weeks before 9/11. It said, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." That same incurious person then blithely threw the memo aside and proceeded to more important matters: beginning his one-month-long vacation.
We've known Bin Laden was after us since 1993. What good did that memo do? It was like saying the moon will be out tonight.
Good question for W.
If the U.S. knew Bin Laden was a threat since 1993 then why didn't the conservative 'adults' who took control in 2000 do anything about him? Afterall aren't they the party of accountability? Of strong national security?
Bin Laden was militarized against the west in 1991 when the Kurds denied his Taliban fighters to oppose Saddam in favor of Bush 41's coalition. Why didn't 41 get him? Why didn't Clinton blame 41?
Instead, the big tough "dudes" in 200 couldn't be bothered with OBL, they had it bad for Saddam. Asleep at the wheel, business as usual for Bushco.
Who failed to get bin Laden at Tora Bora?
while typical of leatherhe ... is for a change worthy of some significance, but only because it serves as a perfect example of why the airing of the 9/11 piece was/remains so despicable. Here is someone who has obviously never read the books by insiders Clarke or Blumenthal or any of the articles and interviews of whistleblowers like Wilkerson from State and Drumheller and Paul Pillar and Michael Scheuer (as well as his book, Imperial Hubris) from CIA, spouting off nonsense and relying on the authenticity of the ABC trashamentary. ABC has to know people like this are swayed by their pitiful work, whether they flash "dramatization" or not three times across the screen.
Just as bad, this morning ABC news takes on self criticism. Robin Roberts now has least two pieces on ABCnews.com video reports in which she looks at the criticism of the show. In both pieces, 9/11 Repbublican commissioners are at length shown defending the "higher message" that is being brought to the public without either admitting or denying the critics of the fact that the film contains misleading, made-up crap designed to cast aspersions. Supposedly, Clinton should be embarrassed (per the Republican members) because of what he failed to accomplish, and that justifies telling lies about the what his people did and did not do? Even the caption to link to the Keane interview says that Keane "says 9/11 show is accurate," which is a lie: he never anywhere in the interview said it was inaccurate, he simply defended the propriety of being inaccurate because it draws viewers to the film, to the issue, makes them want to read the report and there learn what its noble recommendations were. So, reading his book makes lying okay? ABC can put a lie in a trashamntary and then lie in its caption below the interview?
Leatherhe.., give me a break. Read something other more challenging in length than the posts written and learn something for yourself for once. See if there is any room to open your mind to the possibility that some of the many whistleblowers abandoning this administration in record droves might actually be telling you the truth, and your dearly beloved administration might be sending you and your nation down a dangerous road.
---"MMFA is desperate for hits other than rusty shackleford and solon"---
It's actually desperate right-wingers like you who feel compelled to rush out to minimize each and every embarassing new revelation about this dishonest piece of Bush propaganda. Unfortunately, these right-wingers don't have facts or truth on their side regarding this movie, and so they resort to blurbs like yours.
Republics prefer this piece of fiction to be aired. It's not surprising that you prefer this package of lies. You have gall to label Liberals as hypocrites when your statement runs thick with hypocracy.
Let the blame fall where it may, as long as the facts are accurate and complete. Until then, we must remember that this will not happen as long as RepubliNazi's are controlling the airwaves.
i like how you assume i want this movie to be aired. i could care less what they do, michael moore and soros put out their propaganda and i ignore it. the repubs put out their propaganda and i ignore it. i just enjoy the fray and watching everyone give themselves a wedgy. it's amusing to see people call abc conservative for one movie when they partnered with disney who is a big gay supporter.
You must find it funny that those who would use propoganda to lead the ignorant over a cliff do so under the guise of free speech. I assume from your post that you don't like Disney because they are a "gay supporter." I assume you are a Republic, and perhaps a right winger. Are you against Mickey Mouse? After all, he is black.
all republicans are racist, is that right? very original. sorry i am an independent. bush and faux news have been leading the lemmings off one cliff while the liberal nazis have been leading you guys off another. both sides have done such a good job of polarizing everyone, it's amazing we still have a country. for now im just sitting back and enjoying the show.
People like you are real big on "sitting back" and letting others suffer for what YOU believe in. If you're that concerned, do us all a favor, and go serve your country.
You ask--"all republicans are racist, is that right?" No, that's not right, I'm simply speaking of you because you spewed a stereotype. I'm just probing to see if you are as simple as your statement leads me to believe.
You say--" sorry i am an independent." I answer, Your views lead me to believe you to be a Republic who is ashamed of your party affiliation therefore, you claim to be an independent. So far, you are lockstep with GWB and the Republics in general.
You say--"for now im just sitting back and enjoying the show." There's nothing on the right worthy of enjoyment unless you are filthy rich, or into self abuse.
you painted a broad brush with your wording back there, it sounded as if you were saying racism is a big trend among the republican party. id be the first to admit there is a large streak of racism in the party, moreso than in the dem party.
what views of mine are in lockstep with bush? this should be good since you know me so well.
---"for now im just sitting back and enjoying the show."
Hey that's great. Just what the country needs: another unconcerned, inactive, lazy, apathetic, non-participant sitting in a chair and laughing.
Fortunately, there are enough other people who want to be part of solutions rather than the problems.
That post was to YOU, perhaps you can point out where he said anything about all republicans or perhaps that came from your I Ching.
The movie is a lie, and I dont plan on watching i anyway .
However there are more issues in America than this stupid movie.
Dick Cheney was treated with kitgloves today by Tim Russert. Instead of MMFA working on a Sunday and Saturday to blast this movie, couldnt the resources be used to discuss this?
Makes you wonder why George Soros and David Brock are so desperate to shut off a movie that I doubt most Americans will watch anyway considering it goes up against the premier of NBCs Sunday Night Football.
Start your own website and do your own work. Nobody, NOBODY cares about your whining. MMFA owes you exactly nothing.
In the words of our Vice President when talking to Senator Leahy "Go F**K yourself"
Hows that for whining?
You and Tommy have nothing to contribute. Please stop cluttering the comment section in your pathetic attempts to lecture MMFA about what they should be doing.
Tommy is a Conservative, I am a progressive.
You are sounding like a Conservative trying to silence anyone who does not agree with you.
the people who say i am a liberal/progressive/whatever as if that adds something to their argument. if you guys have no more argument that mm posting on the weekends or telling us what stories should and should not be on here, that really means you have no arguments. just these constant attempts to get everyone off topic.
I didnt think there was an argument. I am boycotting this disgusting movie because it is a lie. If others want to promote it and give it more publicity so be it. As for labels, If someone labels me as a Conservative, I feel thats a dirty word.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
You are not a progressive.
You are a lurker troll who has been trying to hide your true colors, but in the past week, you have clearly been unfairly blaspheming Media Matters. You have done it on multiple threads.
You are not believeable.
Typical!
---"Makes you wonder why George Soros and David Brock are so desperate to shut off a movie"---
"Path to 9/11" contains numerous lies that perpetuate the false, smearing right-wing talk-show argument that President Clinton and his team --and less so Bush & Replubicans-- bear full responsibility for the tragedy.
We (with the exception of you, evidently) want these lies corrected before the movie airs. Do you understand that concept? Apparently not.
If you don't feel this is an important issue, you are in a very small minority of very apathetic people.
So---enjoy your football game, and don't worry about all this stuff. Other, more concerned folks will carry the fight.
The lies of this movie are very important.
So are todays lies and distortions by the VP and the snowball interview by Dick Cheney.
If you feel MMFA resources are better used for a movie that in the end no one will remember so be it.
I for one will boycott ABC and plan on watching football.
I also hope as much effort is placed into the lies of the VP and how he used the MSM to spout them.
and you know that mm will never address that?
No they will discuss it, but not today.
can we make you a sandwich and get you a beer?
I dont need anything from you, but thanks for asking.
---"I also hope as much effort is placed into the lies of the VP '''---
Maybe you could set an example by exerting some effort into correcting "Path to 9/11" (i.e., sign a petition, write emails, etc.) other than your totally worthless "boycott" idea of watching football.
petition is signed.
Maybe you can join the boycott?
He came here as a right wing thug last spring, spewing distortions about John Kerry's released medical records.
Since that time, he has been a lurker troll, trying to lull people into thinking he is not a right winger.
His goal here? To mock Media Matters in an unfair way.
He's done it repeatedly this week.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry you feel this way.
That's the way it is.
You lied about Kerry's military records and what they showed, and now you are disparaging Media Matters almost every chance you get.
Every once in a while you pretend you like Media Matters.
That's the very definition of a lurker troll.
That's you.
Fresh off the AP wire - MMFA is wise to begin to work on the weekends including the sabbath. Conservative hypocrisy doesn't sleep on weekends.
story #2: conservatives hypocritical since they called everyone who complains about the 9-11 movie a bunch of crybabies.
Since the days of Agnew conservatives have been in a shoot the messenger mode. I believe it was Eric Alterman who wrote that the right works the media the way a basketball coach works a referee. These days when conservatives are called to account for even the most egregious lies they are aboil with indignation that substitutes for reason.
Almost overlooked in building the case against Disney/ABC is that they have handed over their huge local radio station empire almost entirely to right wing radio hosts who are allowed to lie without challenge. Think Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Larry Elder...
This has happened while the chair of Disney has been Democratic party eminence George Mitchell. Hopefully his friend Bill Clinton will show him the error of his ways, otherwise he should be hounded out of the party in disgrace.
one of their broadcasters is harley carnes. right winger. i read a column by him, something to the effect of don't give in to your critics, mr. president.
For years I've thought that Carnes is just another Nazi with a folksy way of delivering the propaganda. Because of him, I only listen to CBS Radio for the traffic reports.
on prospect.org by a poster "cscs" 6-25-06. the poster was listening after howard dean had made his response to bush's weekly radio address, and dean had made the comment that the democrats didn't want to "cut and run", but didn't want to see 50,000 deaths like vietnam. carnes came on after and said that at the rate we are losing soldiers now it would take "72 years" to equal vietnam. a little bit of editorializing? this kind of stuff goes on constantly and there are always far more republicans whose comments are broadcast.
Boycott ABC and Disney.
Look back and ask yourself why did ESPN hire Rush Limbaugh?
Racism and Right wing lies seem to have a home at ABC.
Is this the same corporate media that refused to cover anti-war rallies and refused to air anti-war sentiments. The corporate war is enemy of the american people.
Someone who already saw Part 1 has posted some excerpts with critical comments at [link to www.youtube.com]
My guess is that it is very low. My hope is that they are VERY LOW.
Why anyone would sit down and watch a "docudrama " based on a lie is beyond me?
the right loves to hear what the right loves to hear (and watch)
...that's why. I didn't think much of those who condemned Michael Moore and his movies, yet never saw them. I want to be able to speak out about the movie's (alleged or admitted) errors with credibility. Otherwise, no I don't wouldn't want my mind polluted by propaganda. I just believe strongly in freespeech and the right to disagree. The marketplace of ideas! The more the merrier!
Good point, we should write letters to NBC thanking them for putting football opposite this crap movie. I hope they crush ABC's ratings. Anyway, how can people make 9-11 Clinton's fault? Bush had 7 whole months to do something about Al Qaeda. 8 if you count the month he went on vacation.
Bush= the buck stops before it gets to me
NBC is doing a great justice by putting football up against this lie. I as most Americans will be watching the game.
Bush was President on 9/11 and took off the summer and to cut brush.
I hope this is in this "movie" also.
with cheney is now on the board. looks like you were wrong.
I am very happy I was wrong. This was a very important interview that needed to be covered today.
The VP's lies were left unchallenged.
Great job MMFA.
instead. Manning vs. Manning. Two guys I can't stand but at least their matchup is real.
Can this mess of a movie be anymore discredited? PEOPLE IN THE MOVIE say it's a sham. Morons like Leatherhelmet: Get your popcorn and feed your feeble brain dork. Continue lying to yourself.
great. Tomorrow they will trash Bush next.
There was nothing wrong with the docudrama at all.
Alot of whining by the left for nothing.
Plus time to watch the end of the football game.
And with the coverage that ABC put on after the movie where some more people distorted evidence.
YOU have always preferred rightwing lies to reality. This movie is right down your alley.
How's the soap opera?
Remember.
We control Hollywood.
And when it comes to Bush and Cheney, we don't need to make stuff up to make them look bad.
Hmmmm. I wonder what the source is for the scene where the AQs are shooting at a large screen with Bill Clinton's image projected on it.
Maybe it was just fictionalized. Begging the question, why?
I've seen that SCENE before [ the shooting at a televised Clinton]...don't remember where I saw it though.
I'll see if I can find out more.
I wasn't going to watch it, then I was, then I wasn't, then I figured I watch a little bit BEFORE switching over to football.
I ended up watching the ENTIRE movie.
As a "movie" WITHOUT rating it as a work of fiction vs non-fiction, BUT just as a production...it was pretty good. Acting was average to really good, story was fairly easy to follow, locations/settings rang authentic in appearance. Was it a 4 Star movie? No...maybe a 2 1/2.
So WHAT if anything got edited out????
Sorry, BUT Albright, Berger, and Tenant STILL came off badly in the finished production...as did Clinton--though his role seemed, IMO, to be deemphasized as a CENTRAL figure in the wheeling & dealing behind the scene.
For a MORE revealing & honest insight into John O'Neill, I'd suggest the Frontline production called "The Man That Knew".
The after interview with Richard Clarke? He had some interesting views I had never heard attributed to him before. Seems he had a lot of blame to throw in both camps.
It angers me when I hear apologists explaining that this is "only a movie" and that the makers "have admitted that there are fictional depictions" in the movie.
If we remember our history, we will remember another movie that was heralded as a historical drama. It was "The Birth of a Nation", and it depicted the American Civil War, and the Reconstruction of the South thereafter. In this movie, however, African Americans were stereotyped and demonized, while the Ku Klux Klan was cast as heros. This movie had a profound effect in shaping racial attitudes of the day. It was instrumental in reviving the Klan as a terrorist force in America.
We really need to be wary of attempts to use traumatic historical events as propaganda.
This is my letter to ABC Feel free to copy and use it:
I cant even say how incredibly disappointed I am by your decision to run the fake 9.11 film. Its an insult to everyone who died that day. I hope that the money and deregulation you get in return is worth your souls.
September 11th, on this five year anniversary, is a sad day of rememberance for America.
To use such a national tragedy for propaganda and political pusposes by ABC/Disney is shameful, a disgrace to the memory of those innocent victims, and an indication of how deeply seated the Neo-conservative and Evanfelical movement is in our government and corporate America.
Those who rea the Blogosphere will never again trust ABC or Disney - and will remember their vicious and distorted representation of 911 to further the interests of the Republican Party. An an individual, I feel disgust, shame and revulsion at their utter disregard for the truth - and it is my hope that after all is said and done, the Mainstream News media will respond appropriately.
Unfortunately, we know that won't happen, as the MSM is heavily controlled by the Neo-conservatives, and the heart and soul of America is at risk - our democracy is under attack from within, and the majority of Americans remain unaware of this danger we all face. It's up to all of us that inhabit the Bolgoshpere to work harder than eve to awaken the rest of America so these criminals and liars can be exposes for what and who they are!
September 11th, on this five year anniversary, is a sad day of remembrance for America.
To use such a national tragedy for propaganda and political purposes by ABC/Disney is shameful, a disgrace to the memory of those innocent victims, and an indication of how deeply seated the Neo-conservative and Evangelical movement is in our government and corporate America.
Those who read the Blogoshpere will never again trust ABC or Disney - and will remember their vicious and distorted representation of 911 to further the interests of the Republican Party. As an individual, I feel disgust, shame and revulsion at their utter disregard for the truth - and it is my hope that after all is said and done, the Mainstream News media will respond appropriately.
Unfortunately, we know that won't happen, as the MSM is heavily controlled by the Neo-conservatives and the heart and soul of America is at risk - our democracy is under attack from within, and the majority of Americans remain unaware of this danger we all face. It's up to all of us that inhabit the Blogoshpere to work harder than eve to awaken the rest of America so these criminals and liars can be exposes for what and who they are!
Right-wing Evangelical Christian’s War on Democracy! [link to justanothercoverup.com]
Bush is a liar, Cheney is liar, Rumsfield is a liar, ABC are a bunch of liars, in fact everyone in the media are a bunch of liars, and so is anyone who has a different opinion a liar, conspiracy theorists, and MMFA ditto heads will begin immediately in the next thread.
Sorry. But that is what I see as I read through some of these threads. Same people spouting the same tired cliches.
Okay, maybe I tweaked a few noses by my comment above. That doesn't mean I'm a racist, or hater, or bigot, or a liar or anything else except may a "contrarian". :-) For anyone to say otherwise is to only show how far off the deep end you've gone. I'm just another American with a conservative point of view. I'm one you'll never meet, but one who is sometimes willing to express my thoughts that run contrary to the gospel here at MMFA.
BTW, I did not watch the show. I saw the hype on both sides and it turned me off. I saw no need to watch it as I've lived it. I have a low opinion of TV made movies, (except two.. Roots and Lonesome Dove.) Other than that, I'd rather watch paint dry.. (and HGTV).
I believe too many here are spending too much time fighting the past. Time to move on. I'd much rather see discussions about what people think the path our country should take than these incessant rants day after day calling everyone a liar.
Who gives a rip now about Clinton or Berger or Albright or Bush did prior to 9/11? Nothing will change what they did or did not do. Everyone bears some of the blame. Neither President Bush nor President Clinton are running for office again so why waste time arguing?
Just my two cents. Keep the change.
I have shown it over and over again. Only by denying reality itself can you even dispute this. He LIED when he made up the IAEA report that never existed he lied when he sent 12 reports to congress which had already been debunked by the scientists at the Oak Hills labratory and the IAEA BOTH saying categorically they were NOT suited for GCs which Bush continued to say they could ONLY be used for. Cheney is a liar. When he said the Atta meeting in Prague had been pretty well confirmed AFTER our own FBI said they knew where Atta was during the time period in question and he WASNT in Prague that was pretty far from a confirmation. ABC fabricated things in this docudrama, they ADMIT this. I dont see your point. They ARE liars, that is an appropriate thing to comment on. I disagree with you most of the time but I dont think YOU are a liar and doubt I have ever said you were. I dont see the logic of correlating us saying something undeniable like Bush is a liar, Cheney is a liar and turning it into accusing YOU of being a liar. If you dont like your conservative heroes being called liars, then contact them and tell them to STOP LYING. It would put a real damper on Bush's speeches, I guess they would be limited to about 10 words but thats not our fault
I remember our discussions a long time ago and I remember you pulling from a lot of sources to make your point. I commend you on that.
However, it seems to me that you insist on saying everyone at the top is a liar when it could be that the contradictory items you point out never made it to Bush or Cheney. You never include that that there is also contradictory evidence that may have been decided upon at the upper echelons when they made their case. After all, we're talking bureaucracies here.
I have no doubt that there was all sorts of conflicting information. Therefore even though you cite contradictory reports, I do not believe that makes Bush and Cheney liars.
Look, I know with some cynics the word politician is a synoym for liar. I myslef don't trust most politicians further than I can throw them. I remember Clinton being given left handed compliments for being such an accomplished liar. ;-) So I have no doubt that Bush and Co. made their best case and put the spin on it. I'm not saying they lied, but that they presented their case, much like the lawyers they are. Every President does that. You expect that.
If you're going to call Bush and Cheney liars, you might as well call Pelosi, Kerry, Reid, Kennedy, and everyone else a liar too.
As for me, a while back I commented on something and was labeled a liar right off the bat. I never said it was you, so my apologies if you felt I was directing that comment at you.
My only complaint is that so many here jump on the bandwagon, as do the Democratic leaders, of calling Bush, Cheney and company liars when it is really only a bias coming through. You have to judge a person's intent to purposefully decieve in order to call them a liar. Obviously you are too far removed to actually know what Bush was thinking.
Go ahead and call them wrong, mistaken, or any other thing you want, but to me when you start calling the President a liar, too many here slip over from reasoned argument to partisan name calling. When you do that, you lose me completely.
It is troubling to read how John O'Neill is depicted in this mini-series. Of all people, O'Neill was the leading expert on Al-Qaeda working for the FBI. He made into a passion to find out about this organization. Please read PBS's Frontline story,"The Man Who Knew".
I watched the entire Path to 9/11 "docudrama" and the only reason I can see for making this waste of airspace was to mislead the public. With so much factual information available, and with most of the people who were "dramatized" still alive, there should have been absolutely NO deviation from the truth. Unfortunately for all of us, the "not so bright right" will believe the b.s. that ABC served up.