DUmmie FUnnies 09-07-06 (Leftist Blogosphere In Uproar Over "The Path To 9/11")

The uproar in the Leftist Blogosphere to the upcoming ABC TV movie, The Path To 9/11, has reached a fevered pitch. Remember, these are the same folks who buy into what they term "MIHOP" (Bush Made It Happen On Purpose). So it is expected that anybody so delusional would be sent into a rage when a movie exposes what actually led to 9/11. Namely the Clinton Administration's insistence on the Jamie Gorelick infamous Wall of Separation keeping investigatory agencies such as the FBI and CIA from sharing informaration about the terrorists with each other. In addition, this movie highlights the fact that the Clinton administration could have killed or captured Osama Bin Laden but refused to go through with it. And what is the source for that latter bit of information? Why Bill Clinton himself who admitted this in a post-presidential speech. Another phony objection the Loony Left has to this movie is that portions of it are dramatized. What a shock! A movie that dramatizes events! Guess what? ALL movies that purport to show factual events are dramatized for the reasons of time constraints (such as using composite characters) or to keep the story flowing. I recently read the book Cinderella Man and noticed that there were numerous dramatizations in the movie (which I've seen on cable at least 20 times). For example, they show boxer Jim Braddock as having been married to his wife, Mae, back when he was successful in the 1920s. In actual fact they didn't get married until Braddock was in tough times but the filmakers wanted to contrast the differences in their life styles before and after the stock market crash. However, the dramatization of events did not change the essential truth of that movie whose theme was the comeback of a boxer from hard times. So now the leftists are nitpicking on this and other silly things in order to get this ABC TV movie pulled from the air. There are many such outraged discussions in the Leftist Blogosphere but in this edition of the DUmmie FUnnies, we shall focus on this Daily Kos KOmmie THREAD titled, "ABC now to run disclaimers - Keep up the pressure!" So let us now watch the KOmmies emit a primal scream over this movie in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, already reserving a spot on his couch for Sunday and Monday nights, is in the [brackets]:

We need to keep up the pressure. The ABC Blog has been put back up (although they are publishing only a fraction of the comments). Berger, Albright and others are starting to jump in. Now this response (recently released talking points I'm sure)I just received from an ABC affiliate stating they will be running disclaimers; shows that the pressure is working! Let's keep it up and see if we can't STOP this propaganda from airing. I will kill this diary if this information has been previously posted.

[WARNING: Frantic leftist nutcases will be futilely trying to remove this movie from the air.]

Throughout the movie, there will be a disclaimer stating that, among other things, the movie is not a documentary and that it does contain fictionalized scenes.

[Just like EVERY movie based on truth does. Cinderella Man? It had fictionalized scenes for DRAMATIC purposes and to keep the movie from running 22 hours long.]

Dramatization, Schramatization my ass. You just don't do that about this very partisan and divisive topic. I told ABC that this was tantamount to giving a free campaign commercial to Bush and Republicans, and that that was not fair and we should have equal time to present our side.

[Tell that to MSNBC which yesterday ran free campaign commercials all day for the Democrats telling viewers how they were going to win in November because of how horrible the Republicans are.]

Schmucks. This is turning into a disaster for them. Remember the 60 Minutes "scandal" (which was based on facts which have never refuted, and which occurred only because one source had some possibly forged papers)- we need people to be fired because of this, and we need a sea change in attitude at ABC.

Don't feel bad; they tried to pull a fast one and we are not going to let them get away with it. I hope President Clinton gets his attorneys involved.

[Ironically, that was the Clinton administration's fault in handling terrorism. They wanted to get the attorneys involved. Something this movie will portray despite your pathetic screeching.]

Doing a fictional account of the Kennedy assassination 30 yrs after the fact is one thing. Doing a fictional account of something that happened FIVE YEARS ago, when all the main players are still alive and screaming, is quite another.

[How about the Michael Moore "documentary" portrayal showing a bunch of happy kids pleased to be living under the Saddam Hussein regime where they could merrily fly their kites?]

Everything the administration has ever said about September 11 has been fiction.

It disingenuously and purposfully skirts FCC electioneering laws by providing free ad time to a single party, within 60 days of a scheduled election, without the opportunity for a rebuttal containing actual facts of the matter.

[You mean like the way the Michael Moore "documentary" ran shortly before the 2004 election on the tube?]

He ought to let ABC know that the Democratic Congress will take a VERY close look at their license, come renewal time.

The movie "Apollo 13" used time compression, for example, in compressing something like a dozen rocket motor burns done for course correction into one. The movie also created a composite character, the mission director whose best line was, "Failure is not an option." I believe three or so real people were rolled into that one composite character. But neither of those things done in the movie leaves the viewer with important misconceptions even about NASA's competence. It seems "The Path to 9/11" could leave many viewers with misconceptions important enough to affect how they VOTE, with an election less than two months away.

[Wrong! The Path to 9/11 leaves viewers with the correct impression that the Jamie Gorelick Wall of Separation kept agencies from sharing vital information about the terrorists and that the Clinton Administration, as admitted by Clinton himself, prevented the capture or deat of Osama Bin Ladin.]

This disclaimer is horseshit the only good thing is that it shows ABC is beginning to crack, just a bit. We need to keep hammering them. And the people involved -- Clinton, Albright, Berger, etc, who are slandered on the screen -- need to sue their f*cking asses off.

[Can we sue Sandy Bergler for stuffing National Archives papers into his socks?]

...as AmericaBlog points out, ABC received a letter from four future committee heads with subpoena power. The implicit threat is probably not lost on the ABC executives.

although I've written about 4 emails to various people, I haven't yet written my local ABC affiliate, but I am now. For those of you that haven't yet written your local channel - time to do so! It's WEDNESDAY people!

What about the Actors. Have the actors for the film been contacted for their response? How do they feel knowing now that they have been used to further Republican propaganda? Would they be willing to appear in a commercial for the Republican National Committee? If not, then why did they agree to appear in this film? If they were tricked into it, why are they not now speaking out?

[Maybe you should threaten to haul the actors before a Congressional committee IF the Democrats win in November.]

The woman who was Ray Ramano's TV wife is in the movie....name escapes me, but she does the Albertson's commercials.... She's a proud, card-carrying, single issue (abortion) Republican. She's hard core. She knew what she was getting into. I think Harvey Keitel is also Republican. and I can't remember who else is in the movie.

[I can just picture these actors being questioned before a Democrat Congressional committee: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?]

Change the names of the characters--President Will Plimpton, Secretary Adelaide Fullbright, etc.

Got an email from the Democratic PArty a couple of hours ago. They are petitioning Disney/ABC.

The latter reason for not nailing bin Laden was captured on tape by Carl Limbacher. (see below)

I, too, recall the 'prince' excuse.... (And the 'collateral damage' excuse, notwithstanding the plain fact that 'collateral damage' didn't stop the clintons from bombing from 3 miles up when it served their purposes... and their poll numbers.)

THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON ^{part one}

WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)

<

UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."

CLINTON: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+ Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY

BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE

UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."

ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE (and doesn't even know it)

MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)

WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)

'MAKE IT A RULE' -- PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR OSAMA WITH CLINTON and CO.
(HEAR HILLARY + BILL MAKE THEIR PITCH)

THE (oops!) INADVERTENT (TERRORISM) ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON (HEAR HILLARY IN SF)

HILLARY GOES NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF CLINTON

THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH) -- part1: clinton's "Brinkley" Lie

AFTERWORD: ON CLINTON SMALLNESS
(BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT)

PRESIDENTIAL FAILURE, 9/11 + KATRINA

Carpe Mañana: The (bill + hillary) clinton Terrorism Policy
('Can we kill 'em tomorrow?')

CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₅

sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)

CLINTON TREASON + THE GORELICK WALL

Reverse Gorelick

THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans

CLINTON RAPES, REVISIONISM, USEFUL IDIOTS AND ENTROPY (an update)

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)

PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON
WHY WE MUST PROSECUTE THE NEW YORK TIMES

WHY BIN LADEN WANTS HOME DELIVERY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

MORE

'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
THE ADDRESS

THE (oops!) TRUTH

"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war....

But sometimes we would have these debates where people would say, if I didn't take some military action this very day, people would look down their nose at America and think we were weak. And I always thought of Senator Fulbright.... ⁶

So anytime somebody said in my presence, 'Hey, if you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'

I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow? If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak.... ¹

I learned that as a 20-year-old kid watching Bill Fulbright. Listening."

bill clinton
Fulbright Prize address
April 12, 2006

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'

I thought that my virtual obsession ² with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live

"You know... the job which we should have done ¹... which should have been our primary focus, to find [you know] bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda."

hillary clinton
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006
Chitchat with Jane Pauley
San Francisco, CA

... I thank you for this award, even though, in general, I think former presidents and presidents should never get awards. I was delighted when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize because I thought he earned it, and I thought it was great because he got it as much for what he did after office as when he was in office. In general, I think that the fact that we got to be president is quite honor enough.
bill clinton
Fulbright Prize address
April 12, 2006

"Bill Clinton is still campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize. But for now, he'll just have to settle for "the political play of the week.": Bill Schneider
CNN
reporting on the Fulbright Prize
April 14, 2006


WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.
Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated
Friday, October 13, 2000
By Rita Cosby



There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president.
AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL



At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct.

Mia T
Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t

by Mia T, 11.11.05

This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.

Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.

According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.

Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.

If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.

READ MORE

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.