The Guilty Dog Barks First
Why are the democrats so afraid of the ABC mini-serious “Path to 9/11”? Could it be they have something to hide? To most of America it is no mystery that Democrats have historically been bad on defense. I think Democrats are more afraid of Democrat voters seeing the film. There have been books and books written on how the Clinton administration left our country wide open to attack by cutting down the military and scaling back our intelligence gathering. What scares Democrats is the idea of a movie. If you write something in a book especially one without pictures the chance of getting a democrat voter to see it are slim. Movies and non-news TV is how most democrats stay up to date with current events. The only more efficient way to get a message across to Democrats would be to put it in a video game.
Where is the outcry? Elected officials are trying to silence the media. This is one of many examples where Democrats are given a double standard. If the tables were turned and Republicans were trying to cancel a TV broadcast the ACLU and every nut in a tie dye shirt would be coming out chanting the bill or rights and the constitution. Now they are all mysteriously silent.
I hope this movie explains to the public why "Sandy" Berger, United States National Security Advisor under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 pleaded guilty to stealing documents from the National Archives during the 9/11 investigation. He said it was a mis-understanding and an accident. I myself have never accidentally shoved classified documents down my pants, but then again I'm not a Democrat so I wouldn't understand. Oh yeah once again the media and government "watchdogs" were mysteriously silent.
posted by rusty shakelford at 1:19 PM
7 Comments:
What's your evidence that "Democrats have historically been bad on defense"?
When intelligence spending was increased in 1993, Porter Goss complimented the Clinton administration "for going into this and seeing our true need," that was before he said Clinton gutted intelligence assets, in 2004, while trying to redirect attention on the Bush administration's failures.
When Clinton came into office, the military budget was 290.3. When he left it was 305.4. That is an increase of $15.1 billion or 5%.
Problem with neo-cons, is they believe everything they read, in those dime-a-dozen ideological diatribes, not fit to wipe the ass of a dead monkey.
There's freedom of the press, in this country, not freedom of the media. Ever heard of the FCC? And to think, that "The Path to 9/11" is worthy of free speech protection, well, then maybe you are as silly as you sound.
ABC sold this project as a "history" project to the actors, and it has been recently discovered, was pushed by an evangelical Christian group.
Remember the "docu-drama" about Ronald Regan, which you conservatives got taken off broadcast television?
This movie won't explain anything, because its pure fiction loosely based on actual events. That's just according to people who were actually there.
Oh yea, did you hear about the assessment, by the Senate Intelligence Select Committee? It came to the same conclusion that the U.N. Terrorism Committee did way back in 2003.
The truth is out there, but you can't handle the truth.
Peace
"When Clinton came into office, the military budget was 290.3. When he left it was 305.4. That is an increase of $15.1 billion or 5%."
Reported by Al Franken on Air America and shown to be false by
http://www.optimist123.com/
optimist/2005/02/excuse_me_the_c.html
I guess you see no link between Berger stealing documents during the 9/11 commission and this movie.
While the budget numbers don't lie, they don't keep up with inflation, equaling a net loss; I admit.
But to blame budget cuts on the failings of the Bush administration's inability to heed the warnings from the intelligence community is short sided.
"Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, 42, confirmed that he had been a source for previous reports in the Times and the Norristown Times-Herald, a Philadelphia-area newspaper, about a secret data-mining operation known as Able Danger, which he said had identified Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 suicide hijackers in 2000, more than a year before the terrorist attacks.
Shaffer said that his unit had contacted the FBI repeatedly during 2000 to warn that a US-based terrorist cell was at work, but three times was forced to cancel meetings to brief the FBI at the instruction of the Strategic Operations Command (SOCOM), the Pentagon unit in charge of all counter-terrorism work."
The Clinton administration's transition team also provided the Bush administration with intelligence warning of a 9/11 scenario.
Regardless of intelligence, its foreign policy that is responsible for creating our enemies. And unless we change our foreign policy we will continue to have enemies.
And "The Path to 9/11" doesn't address this at all.
I just watched the "Kingdom of Heaven" last night, and it explained one thing to me, that the struggle over Jerusalem, is the root of all conflicts in the Middle-East. The Knights of the Templar (today's Skull and Bones) were responsible for brutal attacks on the Muslims during the crusades.
Bush is a Bonesman, which makes him a mortal enemy of Muslims.
I know it's a stretch, but the strings of history run far and wide throughout the Bush administration.
For me, there is no room for dramatizations of 9/11, it was dramatic enough, and does a disservice to the thousands that have died, when you do so.
Are you saying the "stolen" documents tell the story that is now "The Path to 9/11"? How would you know; or anyone else for that matter? If you want to push conjecture as history, you’re most assuredly to get it wrong.
all I can say sean is wow thats some deap . . . stuff
PS. I told you democrats got all their information from movies and non-news shows
Here's a great read about the Knights Templars:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm
The Kights Templars were the most militant and original Christian military order.
I would have to say the media is definitely worried about this hitting the airwaves.
Sean, why is a documentary/movie about 9-11 a disgrace to those who died? Shouldn't we be reminded of that massacre frequently and often? How come the alphabet channels and media outlets will push story after story and picture after picture of 'innocent Iraqis' killed by our servicemen but won't show the innocent bodies of our own that have been slaughtered?
Marcguyver,
When it's not a documentary, it's a disgrace. ABC chose to show a fictional-drama about 9/11, the other networks, including cable, chose to show factual documentaries, or even rebroadcast their 9/11 coverage, from 9/11, that served as a far more accurate reminder of the events of 9/11, than the politically biased tripe called "The Path to 9/11."
Post a Comment
<< Home