Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Frist Nails It On Path To 9/11
Say Anything (blog) ^ | September 9, 2006 | Rob

Posted on 09/09/2006 12:32:53 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper

From Bill Frist's blog:

With all the information available about all the hateful efforts of the terrorists to strike America since the late 1980s -- easily available by one click on the Internet -- let's simmer down on the censorship calls and honor the memory of 9/11 by letting people see ABC's The Path to 9/11 and draw their own conclusions about the Islamofascist war against America.

Exactly.

Unfortunately, from what I know of liberals, they usually aren't too keen about Americans making up their own minds about things.

Anyway, as Allah notes:

...the New York Times has seen it and pronounced it evenhanded. One of Time’s TV critics saw it and said, if anything, he’d expected Bush supporters to be the ones throwing fits. Webloggin reports that one of the producers of the anti-Bush war-for-oil agitprop “Syriana” wrote today on the film’s official website that it’s “absolutely essential viewing”

None of those sources could be called "right wing shills." I also heard Rush Limbaugh say that the Bush administration isn't let off the hook in the film. I haven't seen it yet, obviously, but these claims that the film is some sort of right-wing propaganda piece seems a bit absurd given some of the people that have given it their blessing.

In fact, the only people I've heard that are really upset about this is the Democrats themselves. Which tells me that a) they're playing defense for the sake of Clinton's legacy and b) they don't want Americans thinking about 9/11 and the mistakes that led us to that attack right before the election.

Which should tell you about all you need to know about voting Democrat come November. At least when it comes to national security issues, anyway.


TOPICS: Arts/Photography; Politics; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: 109th; abc; allahpundit; democrats; frist; iger; pathto911
I also heard Rush Limbaugh say that the Bush administration isn't let off the hook in the film.

That's what I've heard as well.

1 posted on 09/09/2006 12:32:55 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Mo1; Peach; Txsleuth; onyx; nopardons

PING


2 posted on 09/09/2006 12:36:28 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

Excellent find!


3 posted on 09/09/2006 12:42:44 AM PDT by Howlin (Who in the press will stick up for ABC's right to air this miniseries? ~~NRO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

"...the New York Times has seen it and pronounced it evenhanded."

That makes me wonder...


4 posted on 09/09/2006 12:46:45 AM PDT by SeaBiscuit (God Bless America and All who protect and preserve this Great Nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeaBiscuit

My guess is the NY Times received an advanced copy, like other media outlets, including the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and the LA Times. The director granted interviews with each paper, and I wouldn't be surprised that they each got an advanced copy of the film upon completion of the interview.


5 posted on 09/09/2006 1:12:39 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

BTTT


6 posted on 09/09/2006 2:46:44 AM PDT by AmeriBrit ( What happened to 'Able Danger'? and which Clinton has all the missing FBI files?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
I think the wrangling over the content of the film is a side show.

If anyone wants to know what can be best ascertained as to what really happened, all they have to do is pick up a copy of the 9/11 Commission report. Most book stores have them and they aren't expensive at all.

It clearly illustrates the inability of those in the Clinton administration to make a collective choice to take action on Usama, and more importantly to get all the players on the the same team. Too many chiefs were making independent decisions that confounded any real efforts by those who clearly saw the threat. What it all boils down to is a serious lack of leadership among the the white house staff.

Of course, looking at it in hindsight is a lot easier. If they had a crystal ball that told them what Usama would eventually do, I'm sure they would have done things differently.

I truly am not a Clinton defender, however, his administration suffered from some of the same things even the Bush administration does, and that is fear of the consequences from rattling cages.

When you prefer the stats quo, with all it's problems out of fear of consequences for solving them, that's what everyone has to live with. The problem with that is that status quo has consequences of its own.

In short, it takes a pair to solve difficult problems. And because it's difficult to solve them, people usually do something else instead.
7 posted on 09/09/2006 3:45:21 AM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dajeeps
The 911 Commission Report?

Okay, if you're willing to accept anything from the mind of Jamie Gorelick- who was especially at fault for constructing the information wall between the FBI and the CIA.

Able Danger was IGNORED on purpose, because it pointed the finger at the power structure of DC. It wasn't just a passive lack of action that led to 911, but an active refusal to deal with known information, from the military to the intel community to Congress to the White House.
8 posted on 09/09/2006 3:58:22 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (We gotta watch out for the Hellbazoo and the Hamas...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeaBiscuit

Then it must REALLY be hard on Bush.


9 posted on 09/09/2006 4:09:49 AM PDT by bpjam (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida - The Religion of Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

Actually, it's not acceptance. It's a willingness to give the benefit of a doubt.

There are those who can twist facts to fit any purpose, just as some have done to make it look like Bush had some involvement in the plot to fly planes into crowded buildings so he could act like Mighty Mouse -- and Republicans can stay in power.

Do I think anyone in congress, Clinton or Bush administrations would purposely, knowingly, or otherwise allow the carnage that happened on 9/11 to occur? No. Do you?

Being a whittless twit is one thing, but being convinced something bad is going to happen and not doing something about it is another.

Personally, I think DC is full of whittless twits and unfortunately, we suffer the whole load of unintended consequences when the twits are making the choices.


10 posted on 09/09/2006 4:32:51 AM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
In fact, the only people I've heard that are really upset about this is the Democrats themselves. Which tells me that a) they're playing defense for the sake of Clinton's legacy and b) they don't want Americans thinking about 9/11 and the mistakes that led us to that attack right before the election.
This is exactly right. The dems don’t want anyone putting the spotlight on their roll in the failures leading up to 9/11 at a time when Pelosi and friends are pretending that they are the “security” party. This whole outrage thing by the left is a blessing. This mini-series does not necessarily put the Bush administration in a good light yet conservative reviewers and Republicans in Congress have been urging people to see it. This demonstrates that Conservatives are not afraid to discuss the truth about such an important event while libs want to whitewash the truth for the sake of fooling the nation into trusting them. The sad part about this whole liberal meltdown is that Scholastic pulled the teacher resource kit that would have been used to create class discussion about 9/11. The whole kit was a take home list of questions that students were supposed to think about while watching the movie. This would have resulted in enhanced viewership for the most impressionable segment of society along with their parents. The dems successfully shut that down. It is pretty insightful. The Dems have proved once again that they would rather forget 9/11 than have Americans think back and realize that this terrible tragedy did not have to happen. Worse, taking the focus off the event sullies the honor and respect of the heroes and victims. All of this courtesy of the American left. They should just change their party name to "no shame".
11 posted on 09/09/2006 5:43:26 AM PDT by webloggin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
I think the 911 Commission should be renamed the Deep Six Commission.
12 posted on 09/09/2006 6:25:59 AM PDT by syriacus (The 911 Commission should be renamed the DEEP SIX COMMISSION.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

lol..............


13 posted on 09/09/2006 10:45:19 AM PDT by beyond the sea ( A tree fell in woods, a conservative wasn't around, would it still kill the liberal chained to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: webloggin
This is exactly right. The dems don’t want anyone putting the spotlight on their roll in the failures leading up to 9/11 at a time when Pelosi and friends are pretending that they are the “security” party.

Yep. The Clinton admin/Dems didn't prevent 9/11. The Bush administration/Repubs didn't prevent 9/11. But look what has happened AFTER 9/11. That's what they don't want people talking / thinking about.

Even if the discussion after the movie turns to failure to implement 9/11 commission's recommendations, Americans still will be faced with the question, "Who do I trust the most with national security?". THAT is the election-winner question that Dems don't people to think about.

Therefore, it's comical to hear Pelosi state that they will pass ALL the recommendations of the commission the first week they have control of Congress. We're Democrats -- we're tough on terror -- trust us. Because we say so (but don't look at our record or how we've undercut the War on Terror at every turn).
14 posted on 09/09/2006 12:18:38 PM PDT by TheCornerOffice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
Which tells me that a) they're playing defense for the sake of Clinton's legacy...

This "Bush is a liar!" stuff all started as an attempt to establish moral equivalency and salvage Clinton's reputation - it didn't take on a life of its own until later. I'm still not sure how this one man has managed to keep the entire Democratic Party apparatus working to spin things on his behalf so long after he has left office. No Republican was worried about Richard Nixon's reputation in 1980.

15 posted on 09/09/2006 12:25:02 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bpjam

Hard on President Bush.
I was thinking the same thing.
If they are going to edit the parts that are hard on Clinton, I would suppose killing the President will be the mark of their trade.
Strange how America has changed in the past yrs.
Use to be a good person in the White House was the best thing for America but, since Clinton held the office the more sorry a person, the better Americans will support him.
America has now the, last descent man for President for decades to come and a lot of Americans can't stand him.
We as a nation have lost our way when it comes to dependence in government.
Rome didn't last very long and, I think America is on the brink of being dissolved as a freedom society.


16 posted on 09/09/2006 1:25:44 PM PDT by buck61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

This is impeachable what the dems are doing. The issue goes far beyond democrat vs republican. This is a first amendment issue.

I've been follwing this interesting thread

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/thread/5bd70545f5f98ff5/25ac5f4223ce4d9c?hl=en#25ac5f4223ce4d9c


17 posted on 09/09/2006 10:08:57 PM PDT by MaineVoter2002 (http://www.cafenetamerica.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

The Democrats are in a complete panic and their heads are exploding. Leftists only act that way when they are exposed or about to be exposed in all their corrupt glory.

If this TV event were not a threat to the Dems and Clinton's legacy, they would not be acting the way they are.

Where there's smoke there's fire.


18 posted on 09/09/2006 10:56:34 PM PDT by KosKiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KosKiller
Clinton's legacy is no longer the issue. The dems in congress are trying to stop the first amendment by trying to protect Clinton's legacy.

They're digging themselves a hole which I hope the GOP will fill in with dirt.

This censorship has LEGS! There's a BIG difference between a public boycott and the government actually censoring a movie. This is Impeachable!

If the GOP were smart they would move to impeach those in congress who threatened the first amendment.

19 posted on 09/09/2006 11:02:31 PM PDT by MaineVoter2002 (http://www.cafenetamerica.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MaineVoter2002; KosKiller
Clinton's legacy is no longer the issue. The dems in congress are trying to stop the first amendment by trying to protect Clinton's legacy.

They've been using the Constitution to destroy the Constitution for quite some time now.

20 posted on 09/09/2006 11:29:47 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MaineVoter2002
"Clinton's legacy is no longer the issue."

"The dems in congress are trying to stop the first amendment by trying to protect Clinton's legacy.<"

Yep. A whole lot of this is about Clinton's legacy as far as the TraitorCrats are concerned and that is why this reaction from the Rat party. They still think they and Billary are Marx's gift to America and somehow the "Clinton years" will sweep them back into power. The Clintons are still the titularly leaders of the Democrat party, for now. Which is why Hillary is currently polling out front and the Dumbo-Crats still collectively swoon at the sight of Der Schlick Meister. If the Rats had the power to do it, they would elect him "Dear Leader" for life.

But they are all mixed up, they have their Communist Left running half the party now threatening to suck the entire Democrat party into their filthy maw - although I don't see any "moderate" or "conservative" Democrats remaining who have not drunk the Dean/Pelosi/Reid/Waters et al Koolaid. The far Left makes noises about how they don't like Hillary but they would all rally behind her in a Slick-Willy-Minute if she emerged as the front runner. They don't care, whatever it takes to get them back into power.

Because for them, this whole power struggle is really about trying to control the SCOTUS which is how they legislate or bypass the constitution and ram their Leftist agenda down our throats - or at least up till now where we have shut them down on that despicable un-American and unconstitutional tactic since Republicans took power.

But besides all that, it's a great talking point and quite simple to just keep hammering home "Democrats are desperately trying to suppress the truth about their complicit role in 9/11" or words to that effect. That is pretty much the message at this point.

As far as impeaching anyone over this, I defer to resident impeachment experts as to the mechanics or feasibility of that. Right now it's only a veiled threat from the Dems and there is no impeachment case that could be lawfully brought before the house. In other words "who ya gonna impeach and for exactly what?" But the message is loud and clear as to what they might try to do to free speech should the Rat party get political power. I doubt they could get away with it though.

One thing for sure, this demonstrates why the Republicans need to hold on to power so that the SCOTUS can be properly locked and loaded to counter the Commie-Krats in the future. Would be so nice for a change to have the tables turned for the next 40+ years.
21 posted on 09/09/2006 11:50:47 PM PDT by KosKiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson