Skip to comments.Bush's War: PBS/FRONTLINE
Posted on 03/24/2008 9:40:29 AM PDT by FilmCutter
Bush's War Monday, March 24 and Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9 P.M. (check local listings) From the horror of 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq; the truth about WMD to the rise of an insurgency; the scandal of Abu Ghraib to the strategy of the surge-for six years, FRONTLINE has revealed the defining stories of the war on terror in meticulous detail, and the political dramas that played out at the highest levels of power and influence. Now, on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, the full saga unfolds in the two-part FRONTLINE special Bush's War, airing Monday, March 24, from 9 to 11:30 P.M. and Tuesday, March 25, 2008, from 9 to 11 P.M. ET on PBS (check local listings). Veteran producer Michael Kirk (The Torture Question, The Dark Side) draws on one of the richest archives in broadcast journalism--more than 40 FRONTLINE reports on the war on terror. Combined with fresh reporting and new interviews, Bush's War will be the definitive documentary analysis of one of the most challenging periods in the nation's history.
Following the broadcast,Bush's War comes alive online with free streaming video of the entire documentary and more than 100 video highlights of pivotal moments since 9/11. Watch a preview now at pbs.org/frontline/bushswar.
your humble conservative editor.
Then why was it called “Bush’s War?” That’s a rather *loaded* term that automatically implies bias.
Are you saying this is not a work that is meant to be destructive of the Bush administration?
Agreed, it is this type of bias as if this is a personal war of the President and not the country with any stakes in the matter for the latter.
And that’s certainly not the case.
Liberal BDS caused the Iraq war to last longer then it needed. How do those liberals square that one?
My first impression as well.
I’ll miss it.
It’s on PBS — Public Bullsh!t System.
Something tells me the program won’t address that....
You left the following out and it's not Bush's War. It's Saddam's War. Saddam never once honored the 1991 surrender agreement (UNSCR 687) which included the complete verification of disarmament. And you left out that it is US Law to overthrow the Saddam Regime as signed into US law by then President Clinton under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
"CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
Surely you’ve heard of Wilson’s War, Roosevelt’s War, Truman’s War, Kennedy’s War, and Clinton’s War!
Obama has called it Bush’s war too is that the kind of Bi-partisanship he is preaching? As indicated by his pastor, I think what Obama means by his healing the Bi-partisan divide in D.C. is going to go something like this. I am left of center, liberal progressive, I will frame the debate on an issue using that ideology. If you do not agree with me then you will be labled divisive, racist, bigotted, typical White, Christian Conservatives....
Thats how I shut down free speech.
PBS should have been defunded and cut loose many years ago.
You should hear the radio promos for this on Boston radio. From the audio clips they are playing in the promo, it certainly sounds extremely biased. One of the quips has some man saying that “(Bush) highjacked congress and like a hijacked airplane you can’t control where it goes...”
Sounds like “filmcutter” hit and ran...
And I'll just presume you didn't know the title would be 'Bush's War', when you agreed to work on it.
It’s hard for me to believe that they have conservative editors at PBS, but if you say so...
Good and valid point. I like your tagline....forgot about JRB but remembered Miguel Estrada.
Awesome of you to post this Clinton quote.
America and the MSM need to remember that Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, the UN, Mubarek, et.al. all said Saddam had nuclear and chemical weapons and they all said he needed to be removed.
Bush was the only one that had the political courage and the strength of conviction to act on this obvious threat to the world.
Now all of the above are carping about Bush’s War, Bush lied, people died, the war is lost, blah, blah, blah..
thanks for posting.
I appreciate your post and your efforts, but I'm skeptical.
I brought this up last week to a Moonbat who responded by saying “why do you keep bringing Bill Clinton up?” Who was George Tenent? Who said “Slam Dunk”? Who did nothing for eight years?
When the final outcome is successful as history will show, the Lame Stream Media will conveniently rename this war, the Obama/Clinton Iraq Victory.
Why not? They today claim the DemonRats deserve a share of Ronaldus Maximus’s victory over the Soviets.
Then why was it called Bushs War?
Beat me to it!
If nothing else, it will lure die hard Liberal losers into the broadcast AND it is REALLY unbiased, they will have the lesson they so badly need. I am not hopeful, though. I gave up on Frontline a long time ago. NEVER watch their stuff now.
PBS? Right. Touted all over Boston radio with the telltale words that announce the intent and aim of the programs. Bush’s war and NOT America’s war? The terror was aimed at America, not just Bush, and the LEFT resents the fact that we had a leader who lead.
Today I read and heard the “MEDIA” trumpet in triumph the sad fact of death 4000 in Iraq. After several years of war, we have matched the casualties of the first few hours of D-Day in 1944. Each passing, each casualty is a heartbreak, yet such is the long history of freedom and its cost.
The “peace now” crowd, in their hatred of the U.S. military are the very FIRST to demand those constitutional protections afforded them ONLY because of the centuries long sacrifices of others.
I refer once again to my tagline. But it applies to the general media.
“...Lame Stream Media will conveniently rename this war, the Obama/Clinton Iraq Victory.”
WE are not going to live that long!
Watch the program, then you can flame me.
Bush is commander in Chief, The Documentary starts at 9/11 and goes through the surge, ergo Bush’s War.
as for WMD, again I suggest you watch and decide, but when you hear Armatage say “oops guess we were wrong about that” and the story around that sound bite, I invite the response.
Peace (except to terrorists)
Exactly. It should be titled, “Our War.”
Consistent with the NY Times calling the brief 1990-91 recession the "Bush Recession." Combined with the daily Nightline news about econonomic calamity, it was enough to give us 8 years of Slick Willie.
This time we will have "Bush's war" and, I'll bet, some MSM calling this recession the "Bush recession." If a coment strikes earth, they'll probably name the meteor Bush.
The “war” started in 1991 with Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Saddam violated the peace repeatedly throughout the 1990s reigniting the war.
The war almost got hot in 1998 with a lot of saber rattling by Bill Clinton and even John Kerry defending the looming war.
We were hit by terrorists in 2001 and the move to topple Saddam, who had been funding international terrorists (in Israel among other places), came in 2003. Saddam was even made an offer to step down which he refused.
The war we fight today is a totally separate event, as the Cold War was to WWII and the aftermath of the Civil War was to Southern Reconstruction (with a KKK insurgency which basically lasted for 100 years). Today we fight WITH Iraq against interntational terrorists (some of whom are sponsored and trained by foreign governments).
Please explain why you think this is a balanced presentation if you can. I realize your responsibility as a part of the production crew will probably make that impossible. I agree with the other posters that are repulsed by the reference to this being “Bush’s War”. The members of the Senate and House of the United States Congress voted to approve of taking action in Iraq. Just because one party reversed it’s stance for political reasons, that doesn’t suddenly make it Bush’s war. Let’s not forget that Senators had access to the same briefings Bush did, and they thought action was necessary, WMDs present.
I am highly suspect of this presentation.
The '91 authority gave them [the current Bush Administration] authority to take military action. But they can't do it now because we're under these '98 restrictions on the inspections, which had been accepted. We need to be trying to deal with the substance, the product, which is the chemical and biological weapons and the nuclear program. But the process [is] needed to further international cooperation and do it within the context of trying to build the UN. Because if you just do the first without the second, the price would be truly extraordinary.
Now, on the occupation thing, I have a slightly different take. [From the Atlantic cover "The Fifty-first State," which he is pointing at.] My view is that we ought to be there but it really ought to be as internationalized as possible. Just like we did in Kosovo. Including the Russians and OPFOR [opposing force] and whatever. Let everybody do it. Probably they ought to guarantee the oil contracts. But, I've reached the... and, maybe, I know that.... It's a funny thing when you're not in office anymore. You don't do the security briefings. You have to understand. It requires a little humility. In some ways your vision is clearer, because you see the big things clearer. But in other ways your vision is cloudier, because you may miss the exigencies of the moment. So whenever I offer a judgment I try to show some humility, because I know that some things I see more clearly than I did when I was in, but some things I'm quite sure I don't see as clearly.
But I'm pretty sure this is the right thing to do. Press ahead with this thing, try to.... We knew when we did the bombing in '98 that we hit all the known or suspected sites based on the intelligence we had, from all the people that were doing that work there. We knew at the time that we had set his program back a couple years. But sooner or later in the millennium the new Administration, whether it was Gore's or Bush's, would have to take this matter up again.
Inherited Clinton's mess.
Senators don’t read what they vote on. They don’t do research. They are fools in fancy suits.
Did you miss the recent Pentagon reports noting the connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda? Hope not.....
Either they are capable of perceiving the big issues or not. I guess the Democrats weren't.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. BobGraham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...” - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force— if necessary— to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
Bill Clinton phone interview on Larry King Live,CNN July 22, 2003
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.”—John Edwards, “CNN Late Edition,” Feb. 24, 2002
I don’t excuse the Senate for claiming they were “misled”. I point out that they do not read the security reports. During impeachment they did not read the reports of Bill Clinton’s serial rape and harassment offenses either.
Better to vote on “feelings” than boring pages and pages and pages when there are paiges to hit on.
I know and trust Jules’ work. I’ve gotta say, it sure doesn’t sound like they are talking about the same piece here.
Bob Dole thought it was a real hoot that he hadn’t read the NAFTA legislation when he voted for it. Up until that time I had been operating under the dilusion that those guys actually gave a damn.
This is what causes me grave concern when it comes to international agreements and governances. Our guys will sign off on anything they are told to.
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.