On Hannity's America, Path to 9/11 filmmaker defended scene he previously admitted was fabricated
SUMMARY: Path to 9/11 screenwriter and producer Cyrus Nowrasteh asserted that the unedited version of a scene in his film in which Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger abandons an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden is an accurate representation of history. However, the scene depicts an event that did not happen, and Nowrasteh himself has acknowledged that the edited portion was fabricated.
As advertised, the January 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America featured the unedited version of a scene from part one of ABC's deeply flawed "docudrama," The Path to 9/11, in which Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger is shown abandoning an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Discussing the scene, host Sean Hannity, Path to 9/11 screenwriter and producer Cyrus Nowrasteh, and CBS terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer all asserted that the unedited version was a more accurate representation of history, even though both versions of the scene depict an event that did not happen and Nowrasteh himself has acknowledged that the scene was fabricated.
As Media Matters for America noted, Fox News advertised that the January 28 Hannity's America would feature "the video Bill Clinton doesn't want you to see," adding that Clinton "forced ABC to cut out an entire scene" and that Fox News would "expose the clip at the center of the controversy." While Fox News did not specify which scene it would broadcast, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Berger scene was among the "outtakes" from the film that Fox News obtained "by taping a public talk" that Nowrasteh "gave to a World Affairs Council chapter."
Hannity aired both the edited and unedited versions of the scene, which depicted Berger refusing to authorize a raid on an isolated compound in Afghanistan, known as Tarnak Farms, to capture or kill bin Laden, even though CIA officers and Afghan fighters were in position just outside. The most dramatic difference between the two versions was a shot of Berger hanging up on then-CIA director George Tenet as he asks for authorization -- that shot was edited out at the last minute by ABC. Even with the edit, the scene still falsely portrayed Berger abandoning the opportunity to act against bin Laden. According to the 9-11 Commission report, Tenet stated that "he alone had decided" to abort the mission on May 29, 1998 -- weeks before the target date of June 23. The report further noted that both intelligence and military officials had serious doubts about the likelihood of its success. It also noted that the operation had been planned out and rehearsed, but gave no indication that CIA or Afghan personnel were in position and ready to conduct the operation when it was canceled.
Nowrasteh himself admitted the scene was fabricated, telling The New York Times that "Berger did not slam down the phone. That is not in the report. That was not scripted." Nevertheless, after airing both versions, Hannity hosted Nowrasteh and Scheuer, who defended the scene's accuracy. Nowrasteh claimed the pressure to edit the film "was just an attempt to sort of suppress history."
Scheuer, a former CIA analyst, was head of the CIA's bin Laden unit during the Clinton administration. Scheuer anonymously authored Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (Potomac Books, 2004), which harshly criticized the Bush administration's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the words of former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke, the book declared "that the U.S. war on terrorism is a failure." Scheuer is also quoted in the 9-11 Commission's final report -- identified only as "Mike" -- criticizing Clinton administration officials for calling off a strike against bin Laden in December 1998.
From the January 28 edition of Hannity's America:
HANNITY: And for a more in-depth look at these cut clips and the truth behind the story, we're joined by the writer and producer of ABC's Path to 9/11, Cyrus Nowrasteh. And former CIA senior intelligence analyst and current CBS News terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer is with us. All right, Cyrus, let me begin with you. First of all, you know, you based this -- you felt what you had in there originally was true. Tell us about the political pressure to edit it.
NOWRASTEH: Well, you know, I wasn't privy to a lot of that pressure. I mean, it was sort of a national hysteria at the time, and I think there was just an attempt to sort of suppress history.
HANNITY: Are you angry at what happened? Are you angry that they edited your work in this case?
NOWRASTEH: Well, of course. You know, you want it to show as you originally intended, but I think the intent and meaning of the scene remained the same. I think the scene is still very powerful, and I've talked to many people and heard from many people across the country who felt -- you know, they got the message. They understand.
Scheuer, when asked if the unedited version was "more accurate," responded: "I think so," even though he later noted that the "putting together or the drama might have been off the mark a little bit." Scheuer also claimed the scene reflected the "habit" of Clinton's National Security Council "to throw the decision back on to Mr. Tenet," even though Tenet acknowledged making this decision on his own:
HANNITY: I would argue that it's very different. Michael, let me bring you in here. You were in charge of the bin Laden unit here. Was Cyrus' original edit more accurate than what aired eventually?
SCHEUER: I think so. I think there was a habit of the National Security Council to throw the decision back on to Mr. Tenet. But I also think there's an odd situation here because the argument that they didn't have the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden is just a lie, and the film is exactly right in that context. The putting together or the drama might have been off the mark a little bit, I'm not sure. But the fact remains that bin Laden, all things being equal, should be splattered over the terrain of southern Afghanistan.
Scheuer went on to attack the 9-11 Commission, claiming that it could have released "documentary evidence" proving that the film "was correct in the sense that the opportunities existed":
HANNITY: Well, let me ask you this: Does this, maybe, explain Sandy Berger stuffing documents in his pants?
SCHEUER: Mr. Hannity, I think that the real failure here is the 9-11 Commission. They had documentary evidence that could have been made available to the American public that demonstrated that the film that we're talking about was correct, in the sense that the opportunities existed. We'll certainly never know what documents Mr. Berger destroyed, but I think his destruction of documents makes it incumbent to publish some of the documents the commission has.
The 9-11 Commission's final report described several plans, attempts, and opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden from 1996 through 1999, including the Tarnak Farms operation noted above.
Whenever I hear the term "documentary evidence" I think of Senator Joe McCarthy, and immediately discount virtually every word that comes out of the speakers mouth after that. Besides, why then doesn't the film maker release said "documentary" evidence that supports his film. Filmmaker my a---.
Why is Hannity bringing this up again is the bigger question. Is this an attempt to blame 9/11 on the Clintons, and hurt Hillary's campaign? I don't think too many are going to fall for it.
Hannity & Fox “HeadOn” Style Product :
“Apply directly to the forehead" repeated very quickly three times, becomes accepted as truth by many unknowing Fox News listeners.
Fox News Lies ....
Apply Directly to the Country.....
Apply Directly to the Country.....
Apply Directly to the Country....
Fox News, I Can’t Stand Your Product, and I Hate Your Commercials for The Republican’t Party. Fox News is The White House Situation Room. Hannity is a shamless liar.
Bush, Rice and The Rupublican’t Party love Fox News. Why not, look at all the free ads and promos and exclusive friendly interviews.
Henceforth, I believe shameless Republican shill Sean Hannity should always be identified as Sean "There are no innocent prisoners at Guantanamo" Hannity. No journalist, he.
Bush does not seem to concerned with catching Bin Laden either. So what's your point Hannity.
went to the nation and found this on nowrasteh and the "liberty film festival" last november where judith tukich, abc vice prez of special projects, received an award by this conservative group. the nation article is by max blumenthal 11-6-06. blumenthal says that when questioned about the cut scene, nowrasteh replied: "buzz patterson told me about 5 instances exactly like that". who is patterson? one of five guys who carried the "nuclear football", the launch codes. he wrote a book slamming the clintons called "dereliction of duty". nowrasteh told frontpagemag that the 9-11 report "only goes back to 1998". a total lie, it goes back decades before that. here's the interesting part. everything i found on patterson said he was with clinton from "may 1996 to may 1998" so it clearly looks like nowrasteh didn't even bother with the 9-11 report. he just went to his right wing misinformer, a guy who probably had little knowledge of decisions made. and in further reading about the abc "docudrama", [i did not see it] there is apparently a scene about the "wall" that supposedly kept government agencies from sharing info. this is another right wing talking point. an fbi agent in minnesota had developed info on zacarias moussaoui and the flight schools in the summer of 2001 [note mr. nowrasteh, bush had been president six months], and was trying to get superiors to take her seriously. but even though he was the subject of a fbi investigation, the cia knew about him. 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' ". mr, nowrasteh might do good to pick up the 9-11 report, turn to chapter 8 and read it's title about the summer of 2001: "the system was blinking red".
make that 11-16-06 on the nation article.
nowrasteh also talked in the frontpagemag interview of "the clinton administration's lack of response to al qaeda." and his assertion that there was "no response" to the cole bombing by clinton. more of nowrasteh's fabrications. here is national security adviser condi rice in testimony to the 9-11 commiision on april 8 2004: "on an operational level, we decided immediately to continue pursuing the clinton administrations covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the [al qaeda] network. clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." and as is well known, it did not become clear until clinton was leaving office that the cole was al qaeda. but what did the bush team do? they actively avoided a response. in her commission testimony, rice said: "i do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the cole..." she then went on to say that responding would only "embolden the terrorists". cyrus nowrasteh clearly had to avoid a lot of credible testimony, including rice praising the clinton team, and instead focus on right wing ax grinders. both he and abc have surrendered a huge amount of credibility in this issue.
Mefirst posted:
"about the abc "docudrama", [i did not see it] there is apparently a scene about the "wall" that supposedly kept government agencies from sharing info. this is another right wing talking point.”
I guess the FBI falls under “right wing talking point” then:Statement ofMaureen A. BaginskiExecutive Assistant Director-IntelligenceFederal Bureau of InvestigationBefore theSubcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland SecurityHouse Committee on the JudiciaryApril 19, 2005
During hearings on the 9/11 attacks, Congress heard testimony about meetings between the CIA and FBI where it was unclear what information on a hijacker could be legally shared under the widely-misunderstood set of rules and laws that was known as "the Wall." This wall extended into the FBI itself. Agents pursuing cases involving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) could not readily share information with agents or prosecutors working criminal investigations. And the wall worked both ways--without FISA-derived information agents or prosecutors involved in a criminal case might not have any way of knowing what information from the criminal investigation might be useful to an agent working on a parallel international terrorism or counterintelligence investigation. Although there was some legal capability to share information, the law was complex and as a result, agents often erred on the side of caution and refrained from sharing the information. In addition, the wall functioned to discourage criminal and intelligence investigators from talking about their cases, such that investigators on either side might have no idea what might be useful to share with those on the other side of wall.
Just in case you want some outhouse reading, here is the whole article:
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress05/baginski041905.htm
As for the system "blinking red", did you even read the link to the 9/11 report? The several missed opportunities because of hand-wringing and a hangover from Mogadishu casualties.
I've never understood why the left thinks this document gives Clinton cover. Sandy Burglar's heist of documents makes it even clearer. It is a huge indictment on him and his weak foreign policy.
While he claims he "fretted over UBL", he had neither the resolve nor the stones to pull the trigger.
Hogprint,
The Wall was a myth in that it only existed in the minds of people who did not really understand they actually could share information perfectly legally or wanted to control information and used the myth as a convenient excuse for doing so. Your article supports that idea.
Another part of the myth is that this mythological Wall originated in the Clinton Administration. There is evidence the misunderstanding/secrecy existed long before then and even persists today.
as usual hogprint deflects from what was said. i'm aware that there is a policy that is called the wall. it was put into effect to stop the cia from doing domestic spying, which is forbidden. it had little effect here because the director of the cia knew all about the flight schools, an fbi investigation. the problem is that ashcroft, rice and bush did nothing about the threat when "the system was blinking red". in fact the 9-11 report says on page 265: "the domestic agencies never mobilized in response the the threat." they also said that sandy berger took copies and there is nothing they did not have access to.
The wall was a myth? Some very erudite people disagree with you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/08/09/911-hijackers-discovered_n_5352.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/id/2093344/
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092002rolince.html
“Able Danger analysts recommended the information [about Atta and associates] be passed on to the FBI so that the cell could be rounded up. Accounts in Government Security News, the New York Times, and the Associated Press indicate that Pentagon lawyers decided that anyone holding a green card (as it was believed the cell members did) had to be granted essentially the same legal protections as any U.S. citizen. Thus, the information Able Danger had gathered could not be shared with the FBI, the lawyers concluded. This is in keeping with “the wall” philosophy and policy established in 1995 by Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, in which intelligence and law enforcement were directed to go beyond what the law requires to keep intelligence-gathering and criminal law enforcement separated”.-National Review
The Directive that created all this confusion WAS, after all, conceived in Clinton’s justice dept. I will agree there were speed bumps set up before, but Clinton/Gorelick were the culmination of the biggest firewall with disastrous results.
You state:
“There is evidence the misunderstanding/secrecy existed long before then and even persists today.”
Can you show us that evidence? I’ve seen the left try and connect dots…any dots to bolster their argument. Connecting 60’s and 70’s era language and trying to make the square peg fit into the round hole won’t cut it. Link me up Scotty.
You also state “people who did not really understand they actually could share information perfectly legally”…that is not on the level. It did happen, but in the context of convoluted rules and a spider web of bureaucracy created by the Gorelick directive.
Moreover when the left says there was no wall, what you are really saying is there was no wall between the Defense department and clandestine services, NOT between the CIA and FBI where there was most certainly a wall. That is a point that should be hammered home every time this issue is debated.
"Pentagon lawyers decided that anyone holding a green card (as it was believed the cell members did) had to be granted essentially the same legal protections as any U.S. citizen. Thus, the information Able Danger had gathered could not be shared with the FBI, the lawyers concluded." --hogprint
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes. The lawyers were wrong. They erred on the side of caution. Happens all of the time. It doesn't make the Wall any less of a myth.
You mean the Able Danger data about Atta sightings which occured BEFORE he was actually in the counry?
I agree with much of the criticism of Gorelick. She misinterpreted FISA and increased confusion by her memos. This is where many misconceptions about the Wall came from. If people have a misconception in their head that doesn't match the legal reality, that is what is called a myth.
There are strict instructions on how information is shared between the CIA and the FBI, to be sure (mostly enacted after Nixon's abuses), calling it a wall is a bit deceptive. A wall implies they cannot share any information. Can you show me where no information is allowed to be shared at all between the FBI and the CIA?
hogprint says: "there was most certainly a wall". which of course, does not address the point that i have made twice. the fbi was investigating the mideastern students attending flight schools. but the cia was aware of that. read it hogprint, the director of the cia got a briefing on it. and able danger? that whole thing was investigated and dismissed by the pentagon a couple months ago. after all the promises of all the evidence that was supposed to come pouring forth, there was nothing. allegations sure. solid proof nothing. and for national review to say that is was believed that the hijackers had "green cards", where is the hard evidence on that. because the fact is, in spite of all the right wing huffing and puffing, none of the hijackers had a green card as in permanent resident. if atta did have one, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to find out. he didn't.
from an associated press story 9-22-06: "the pentagon inspector general's office said yesterday that a review of records from the unit, known as able danger, found no evidence that it had identified ringleader mohamed atta or any other terrorist who participated in the 2001 attacks."
"I've never understood why the left thinks this document gives Clinton cover. Sandy Burglar's heist of documents makes it even clearer. It is a huge indictment on him and his weak foreign policy." --hogprint
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you have anything other than speculation that proves Berger took anything other than copies or that the 9-11 were not able to access documents due to anything Berger did? Or have you just been listening to Hannity too much?
I have more than speculation...I have what a court of law says:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050404-084700-5791r.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/45551
Is it clear now? Sandy "is that a document in your pants or are you glad to see me" Burglar is a common thief. He was caught on security cameras pilfering the National Archives. It doesn't get any clearer than that.
Reread my question. You still didn't answer it: "Do you have anything other than speculation that proves Berger took anything other than copies or that the 9-11 [commision members] were not able to access documents due to anything Berger did?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From your Washington Times Op-Ed: "On Friday Mr. Berger pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges for stealing five copies of one of the nation's most highly classified terrorism documents."
From your CNN article: "Berger's associates admit he took five copies of an after-action report detailing the 2000 millennium terror plot from the Archives."
From your WaPo article: "Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism."
From your NYSun article: "...[T]he Justice Department determined that no original information was lost as a result of Mr. Berger's actions and that he did not intend to hide any of the records."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If Berger only took copies and "no original information was lost", what on Earth could it have to do with your statement: "I've never understood why the left thinks [the 9-11 Report] gives Clinton cover. Sandy Burglar's heist of documents makes it even clearer. It is a huge indictment on him and his weak foreign policy."
Are you implying that Berger was trying to cover something up as Hannity has falsely stated on his radio show and maybe other places (above?)? Again...any proof of that?
See the real answer to your question would be NO because there is no such evidence which is why Hogguy answered a question you didnt ask
So I can only conclude that from the above statements you all condone STEALING records out of our National Archives? If any of us had done anything close to what Sandy Pants did, we'd all be making little rocks out of big rocks.
Doesn't matter whether they were copies or not. How do we know for sure that is all he took? Is a common criminal and liar to be believed? I guess if that criminal is part of the cabal known as the Clinton administration then it's all OK according to this forum.
At some point you have to be honest and ask yourself...why? Why would he risk his credentials and character over COPIES? If it was nothing, as you seem to believe, then why would he do this?
Also something other to think about. Since Sandy Burglar generated these documents and from reports had handwritten notes on them, he knew exactly where to look and what to take. I haven't seen any follow up investigation other than Sandy Pants day in court.
A $50k fine, loss of Archive privileges for two or three years...a slap on the wrist. I can't believe the they didn't hammer this guy.
"So I can only conclude that from the above statements you all condone STEALING records out of our National Archives?" --hogprint
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Strawman. Of course, I don't condone it. It was wrong of Berger and I do not find his explanation very satisfying personally. What I took exception to (which should have been clear to you) was your specious and baseless implication that it was somehow indicative of some cover-up (or whatever you were trying to imply).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Doesn't matter whether they were copies or not. How do we know for sure that is all he took?" --hogprint
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First of all, my question again started with: "Do you have anything other than speculation that proves Berger took anything other than copies...[?]" I see that was a bit much to ask considering you apparently don't have much else to work with here.
Secondly, if you actually read the articles you cited (or where I pointed it out):
From your NYSun article: "...[T]he Justice Department determined that no original information was lost as a result of Mr. Berger's actions and that he did not intend to hide any of the records."
If Sandy Pants had nothing to cover up, why pray tell did he stuff his pants sneak out and hide documents under a construction trailer then try and cut them up? If I remember right the documents were never recovered.
I stand by the cover up. If this was so innocent as you suggest, then why was he acting in such a manner?
And no I don't have anything other than speculation for that point, but consider this my first conspiracy theory. I'll fit in just fine on this forum.
because even the prosecuters assumed that he was taking them home because he did not want to take the time to sit there in the national archives and study them. he was wrong to do what he did and he paid a price. but nothing is missing. funny how you refuse to accept actual existing evidence, including quotes i provided from the 9-11 report by condi rice about what a good job the clinton team did, but everyone is just supposed to accept your suspicions. it's just like you carrying on over able danger, a lot of smoke, nothing there. and i doubt you are quite as incensed about the organized effort by the white house to out a cia operative [all before novak's column so don't give me it was one guy] and severely damage our future spying capability.
High price to pay for being lazy...
As for the blame game at CIA, don't forget Clinton gutting Defense and Intelligence spending when he came into office.
http://www.fas.org/irp/budget/index.html
I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
Ever heard of the peace dividend? Reduced Defense and Intelligence spending began as a direct result of the end of the Cold War under the first George Bush administration. It is not really fair nor accurate to blame Clinton for a trend he continued that began before he even got there.
I heard it, but show me where the US signed off on this SLOGAN, as official US policy?
Don't bother, because we didn't. The draw down you are alluding to happened not after the Cold War, but the first Gulf War (I know they were close on the time line) and it started under H.W. Clinton was the lucky recipient of the rest and he slashed spending even more. Remember, he LOATHED the military.
Bubba planted the seed...it bore fruit on Sep. 11, 2001.
"And no I don't have anything other than speculation for that point, but consider this my first conspiracy theory. I'll fit in just fine on this forum." --hogprint
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At least you will admit it. I have to give you credit for that.
This is just another glaring example of how the left relies on facts and data while the anti-American lowly right-wing nuts rely on opinion and fairy tales. Really, the right-wing is just simply despicable.
I know many of us must sound like a broken record, but how can anyone in his right mind take seriously anything that he hears on FOX? FOX has no journalistic standards and we are increasingly seeing things like this... where a story is run with absolutely no demonstrable or documented factual basis under the guise of letting the public decide what is true. In the even there are any FOX viewers reading this post what I am trying to say is that you must be (are) very, very stupid to believe anything you hear on FOX. If that sounded insulting, it was intended that way.
I believe Clinton dropped the ball in not killing bin Laden. If he had, hannity would have accused him of murder and wanted him sent to the Hague. Al Gore would have been president in 2000 and 9/11 might never have happened. We might still be negotiating stalemates with N Korea and and Iran, but I wouldn't be so worried about Russia and China.
"...hannity would have accused him of murder..."
Bill Clinton could find a cure for cancer and not make a dime on it, and yet still Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the rest would find fault. You can't win with these guys... exscept at the polls. (hahahaha...)
You can't win with these guys... exscept at the polls. (hahahaha...)
I never thought I'd be attacked by a democrat for that statement.
What is it with you people who think that all we have to do is kill somebody and our problem is solved? Do you really think there was nobody else in the world to take bin ladens place if he wasn't there? Do you suppose that after the rest of the world saw the CIA assassinate one guy, they'd abandon any plans that wouldn't meet with US approval?
Regardless of what Clinton did, there would still be a group (or many groups) around that would attack the worlds greatest super-power with terrorism. Use your brain, put yourself in the position of opposing the US, and figure out how YOU would fight. There may not have been a 9-11, but something worse. A chemical attack on a metro water supply. A germ attack on a major food supply. That doesn't mean we can't protect ourselves, but intelligence in this day and age far surpasses blind violence. Even now, killing Bin Laden would solve absolutely nothing. Watching Bin Laden, knowing what his next move was, now THAT would be invaluable in defending this country. (Not that I think that's what George is doing).
That said, Shyawn Hannity is a complete and utter fool. So dumb that he doesn't even recognize it. He is the combination of cowardice, greed, and stupidity. He is willing to spew lies about democrats just to gain fame and line his panties with cash. I hate to think there are people in the world like him, but it's either that, or he's more ignorant than I think. Granted, he IS pretty ignorant, an ignorance that stretches the bounds of my imagination. But I can't think that ignorance alone drives him to be such a worm.
NEONDESERT
You would not be refering to the recent e-coli out break on lettuce and spinach products would you? Just a conspiracy theory.
It would be great if Hannity could go live in Hannity's America and the rest of us could live in the real one. 'Cause this is just getting tiresome.
I only mentioned what I think ould have happened if we killed bin Laden. The right up in arms wanting to crucify Clinton; Gore elected in 2000; 9/11 averted?
We wouldn't be practicing international diplomacy by not talking to anyone that doesn't agree with us, or has some lever.
It has no value as to where we are now, but it is a rebuttal to hannity's crap.
Responding to Hannitys crap by validating it with rebuttal only leads to more crap, and any further argument takes place in fantasyland. You can't debate a false premise. It's like a fairy tale where the characters can make up anything to get themselves out of a jam. (Why DIDN'T the queen in snow white just use her magic to make herself prettier?)
Never cede a falsehood or an assumption. Jackasses like Shyawn graze in fields of lies and assumptions, and would starve without them. If you have the stomach, listen to him or O'Really? or Limpbaugh sometime, and count the number of times they predict "what would have happened if..." and then go on to base their whole argument or complaint on that single misguided prophecy. This article by MMFA is rife with examples.
Cmoreholt...Please expound on your "UBL not attacking us if Gore were elected theory."
Um...I think UBL was planning this attack no matter who was in office. I could be wrong...
UBL attacked President Clinton about one month into his first term. UBL attacked President Bush about 8 months into his first term.
It is possible that UBL took advantage of the disruption caused by opposing parties taking over the executive. Remember President Bush suspended many Clinton programs automatically for review (he later started the vast majority of them back up), but there was a definite disruption that UBL may have been counting on.
UBL may very well have planned the attack because the transition disruption provided a great opportunity. It is arguable that with Gore, the transition would not have been as disruptive. UBL may have been caught, programs designed to catch him may have had more continuity. The newly armed Predator drone may have flown.
Conservatives seem to think it is set in stone that Gore would have been worse when it is just as easy to speculate he would have been better. I guess it show how stupid speculation really is to begin with and how silly people are to rely on it as truthy.
OPEN MIND:
A President Gore in 2000, we can credibly speculate, would have implemented the measures listed in HIS OWN report on airport security.
A President Gore in 2000, demostrably engaged in the terrorism issue, would have given immediate attention to the Hart/Rudman report on terrorism, the one which specified a need for a Department of Homeland Security.
BUSH ignored both programs, and if he was AT ALL interested in terrorism, there is no evidence of it.
Bush DID send $43 million to the Taliban, prior to 9/11. Would a President GORE have done that? Doubtful. Bush "streamlined" the travel policies for people coming in from Arab nations, in particular Saudi Arabia (Bin Laden's home nation). Bush shut down efforts to track the banking practices of outfits which were suspected of funding terror (offshore banking, much in favor of American corporations and tycoons, deserved to be let alone, according to Bush at the time). Bush ordered the CIA to "lay off" the Bin Laden family, which his father was in business with. Would a President Gore have taken these measures, which arguably made a terrorist attack in America MORE LIKELY? Doubtful.
If we're going to speculate, the real question is, how could a GORE presidency have been WORSE than Bush's "performance"? The answer is, it could not have been worse. In all probability, it would have been much better ... and he may still have the opportunity to prove that.
I would like to see Gore run. I wasn't a big fan of his before, but when I looked back at all he has said and done, it is pretty clear that Gore is a true visionary.
He was talking about corporate accountability during the tech-boom and before Adelphia, Tyco and Enron imploded. Gore was talking about getting rid of the internal combustion engine (over a 20 year period) a decade ago. Gore was largely a lone voice in the wilderness amongst leaders in opposition to this stupid Iraq War.
Gore has wisdom. A rare commodity these days. He wasn't just flapping in the breeze like everyone else. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
Interesting theory and one I admit haven't given much thought to (attacks during change of power). Mainly because I think you're leaving out a few attacks that UBL had his paw prints all over (USS Cole, US Embassies in Africa, and the Khobar Towers) just to name a few. These attacks were opportunistic in nature and had no real pattern. Terrorist attacks in the eighty's followed a more predictable pattern, and did not coincide with a change of administration. If you remember the Iranian hostages were freed the day before Reagan's inauguration.
I give you it is pointless to ponder "what if's", and we should be focusing on the "what next".
"I think you're leaving out a few attacks that UBL had his paw prints all over (USS Cole, US Embassies in Africa, and the Khobar Towers) just to name a few." --hogprint
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I left those out because they were as you say more opportunistic attacks outside of the US mainland as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Terrorist attacks in the eighty's followed a more predictable pattern, and did not coincide with a change of administration. If you remember the Iranian hostages were freed the day before Reagan's inauguration." --hogprint
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My posts were strictly in regards to just UBL's possible MO. I don't lump all terrorists or acts of terrorism together.
I admit the theory is a little thin because it largely hinges on just 2 datapoints. It is entirely possible as well that even if UBL had taken this strategy in the past, he may change it up in the future. The most troubling aspect is that UBL is apparently willing to wait 8 years or so inbetween major attacks. That means that any security with the passage of time is hollow. He may just be waiting until we forget the last one.
Neondeseret - is your position that we should ignore hannity? Just say he doesn't have any reach? I heard some senator yesterday talking about losing the evangelical sect of the republican party? when did these guys stop being marginalized?
I don't advocate ignoring the ignorant who lead the lesser ignoramuses (ignorami?) into ignorance, but don't crawl into their cesspools and expect to argue them out of their environment. If someone makes an assertion based on a false premise, don't let the conversation go beyond that point, don't argue about something based an assumption or falsehood. Expose the false premise.
Hannitys whole shtick is the defense of dear George, based on Clinton having the chance and justification to get Osama, and assuming that if he had, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Meaning that poor George inherited a country left more dangerous because of his predecessors negligence. That's why he so desperately tries to prove it was Clintons fault. MMFA points out that he's fibbing about the facts, basically calls him on his premise. But you just skipped that part, ceded the premise to Shyawn, and opined that Clinton SHOULD have killed him.
My original reply centered around YOUR assumption that killing Osama would have prevented an attack against the US. I don't think there's any evidence on which to base that. And in fact, history shows a whole lot of dead guys, and yet terrorism, genocide, and tyranny live on.
Think maybe we need to find another method of defending ourselves against terrorism?
it's not a theory, but you have nothing to refute it. It's just I imagine diplomacy would have had a different weight ina Gore Administration.
i think the 9-11 plot would have gone on if gore was elected. there is nothing to suggest osama would have done any different. what i think would have happened is gore would have taken the threats of an attack seriously, as clinton did. i certainly think the info about the terrorists attending flight schools would have been acted on and warnings to the airlines issued. i've read when some people call the the hijackers clever. how clever was it to want to learn to fly, but not take off and land. it was that behavior that caused some flight school owners to call the fbi. unfortunately, we had an administation that was far more interested in other issues. or as bush told bob woodward, he was "not on point" about osama bin ladin before 9-11.
ok hogprint, since no ones talking, I'll flame. Do you fing it ironic that we held war game/hijacking exercises on 9/11 but not 9/10 or 9/12?
No I don't fing[sic] it ironic. These exercises take place and were scheduled. Get off the conspiracy 9/11truth site and do some research on your own. This is off Wikipedia (I hate to use it as a source, but I'm pressed for time):
The war games
The war games on September 11, 2001 included:
[edit] Vigilant Warrior
In his book Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke claims there was also a NORAD exercise ongoing called Vigilant Warrior.[8] The claim is based on a comment that Richard Myers made to Clarke via a video link on September 11, 2001. However, there is no other record of a NORAD exercise named Vigiliant Warrior. Myers was possibly referring to Vigilant Guardian (the aforementioned yearly NORAD exercise held in conjunction with Global Guardian) or Amalgam Warrior (a large-scale, live-fly, CINCNORAD sponsored exercice which is held twice annually).[9] Vigilant Warrior was also a 1994 operation by the US army in the Persian Gulf region, in response to Iraqi troop movements towards Kuwait.[10]
[edit] National Reconnaissance Office drill
Aside from military exercises, a National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11, 2001. In a simulated event, a small aircraft would crash into one of the towers of the agency's headuarter after experiencing a mechanical failure. The NRO is the branch of the Department of Defense in charge of spy satellites. According to its spokesman Art Haubold: "No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building." He further explained: "It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility, as soon as the real world events began, we cancelled the exercise." Most of the agency's personel were sent home after the attacks.[11]
Sorry for all the misspelled words in that piece. I'm not going to correct them(this is why I hate Wiki)
"No I don't fing[sic] it ironic. These exercises take place and were scheduled. Get off the conspiracy 9/11truth site and do some research on your own." --hogprint
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I absolutely agree with you on that. No sarcasm. There is no way the Bush Administration could pull that one off without someone spilling the beans.
I watched the first few minutes of "Loose Change" and couldn't watch anymore. It was just a loose collection of coincidental and circumstantial evidence without any real evidence. That kind of speculation is just silly and destructive IMO.
MMFA neglects to report that many classified documents were not released by the 9/11 commission that Scheuer says backs up the docudrama.
You mean this part:
<i>Scheuer went on to attack the 9-11 Commission, claiming that it could have released "documentary evidence" proving that the film "was correct in the sense that the opportunities existed":</i>
in the 8th paragraph?
Maybe it's time to switch from IE to Firefox, IE seems to be dropping paragraphs from the webpages it retrieves for you.
so scheuer claims that these "classified documents" the 9-11 commission won't release prove his point? scratch head? he knows this how?
HANNITY <IS> ENEMY OF AMERICA
Hannity & Fox deliver lies to the country daily. I tune in to see what the new lie for the day is going to be. After blaming the Iraq War on Bill Clinton he proceeded to name his victim of the week.
His victim is a famous war protester who turned out to be correct in fighting for peace in Vietnam. Just like Iraq, thousands died in vain in Vietnam too. This passionate war protester was trying to get the then Rupublicant President Nixon to give peace a chance. Nixon was raining cluster bombs on North Vietnam when he should have been negotiating in Paris Peace Talks.
In July of 1972 the then ambassador George H. W. Bush called Fonda a liar. Bush cancelled a press conference after Fonda released filmed evidence of her claim, with Bush saying, "I think that the best thing I can do on the subject is to shut up." In 2004, her former husband Tom Hayden renewed claims that "Fonda was right and Bush was lying".
Fonda said that war veterans she had met while on her book tour had urged her to speak out against the Iraq War. On January 27, 2007, Fonda participated in an anti-war rally held on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., declaring that "silence is no longer an option."
Jane Fonda made some dumb mistakes in her efforts to effect peace and has admitted and apologized for those mistakes. As a Vietnam Veteran myself I say thank you Jane Fonda.
And thanks again for serving Sams.
I just saw Fonda on BilldO Reilly's show. Fox's squirrelly little reporter went to a demonstration and squeaked out weak loaded questions to Fonda, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins. Robbins responded to the Fox butt-boy's pro-war question with a very reasonable "You look like young guy, why don't you enlist"
To which BilldO sniffed "Nice answer Tim, very intelligent"
Hey, I never noticed, but O'Reilly is right sometimes. when he's being completely facetious and sarcastic.
I also thank you, Sam. I have a buddy who works in psychotherapy in a VA hospital and tells me how freaked out the VietVets are about the quagmire in Iraq. You and they know, not the chickenhawks in BushieCo.