Democratic Bloggers Plan to 'Google Bomb' Controversial 9/11 Docudrama

Fox News ^ | Thursday, Sept. 07, 2006 | Brit Hume

[FreeKeys]

the crimes of Clinton

“Aside from scandals and investigations, [former FBI Director Louis] Freeh says Clinton let down the American people and the families of victims of the 1996 Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia.

“After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody — the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. 

“Freeh writes in the book [My FBI], 'Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.' ” -- 60 Minutes, Oct. 6, 2005

Interview On Orange TV  7-15-2003:

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: "We didn't need to have 9-11.  9-11 happened because during the last administration Mr. Clinton didn't do his job.  I was just talking to an ambassador from Sudan who tried to give us all of the records on bin Laden.  He had all of the details of the entire terrorist network, and Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton personally turned it down -- wouldn't even let the FBI copy them!"

Rep. Tom Feeney:  "In fairness, they were busy building nuclear plants for North Korea."

Rep. Rohrabacher:  "Right.  Precisely."

"Remember, Osama Bin Laden was offered to the United States on a silver platter and the Clinton administration said no." -- Neal Boortz, 3-2-2004 HERE   and: "A former CIA official told NBC News last week that [Clinton] White House orders to spare Bin Laden's life cut the chances of getting him in half.  Once again, they viewed terrorism as a law enforcement problem, worrying about Bin Laden's rights instead of just unleashing the CIA to exterminate  him." -- Boortz, 3-25-2004 HERE

"I've been to Sudan. And I was in Khartoum and met with some of the higher- ranking people with the Sudanese government. They told me personally -- I had heard that before -- that they actually offered [him] up to the Clinton administration  -- that is, Osama bin Laden -- if they wanted him." -- Sen. Richard Shelby of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to Chris Matthews 7-22-2004

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self- preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.  To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
                   -- Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810

---

"... when you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him."-- FDR 

"At the time, 1996, [bin Laden] 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." -- W.J. Clinton as quoted by Mansoor Ijaz in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times Dec 5, 2001

Peter M. Leitner, a senior strategic trade adviser at the Defense Department ... says the previous [Clinton] administration rubber-stamped the shipment of top-end military-related telecommunications equipment to Syria, which is on the FBI's list of sensitive countries that pose a threat to U.S. security. ... 'We're giving them spread-spectrum radios, which are almost impossible to break into. We're giving them fiber optics. We're giving them a high level of encryption. We're giving them computer networks that can't be tapped,' Leitner said.  ... Leitner posits that the NSA wasn't able to detect the Islamic terrorists' plot because of the 'high quality of the communications gear that they've been acquiring over the last couple of years, thanks to the Clinton administration's decontrols on advanced telecommunications equipment.' " -- Paul Sperry, Sept. 12, 2001

"No president did more to ignore the mounting threat of Islamic terrorism than did Bill Clinton, and 3,000 people paid for his policies with their lives." 
-- Neal Boortz, 8-10-2005

-- EXCERPTED from THIS page

[A CA Guy]

What makes them think people are going to take the Internet's word for anything?

If they make a bigger stink, lots more people will watch and learn about the Clinton Administration through it.

They were burning the candle at one end and are choosing to try burning it at both ends.
Let them go for it.

[Nathan Zachary]

After reading your comment, I decided, against my better judgement, to go have a look at what the moonbats are saying.

They never stop amazing me. It's truely amazing how so many can be so out of touch with reality. They haven't even seen it yet, but it's already "shameless propaganda to help Republicans win the next election". LoL! Get this- ABC are now "They are just friends of people like Limbaugh & GWB."

They must be putting something very nasty in pot these days., when DUmmies think: "Lawyer's [should be] contesting TV license renewals if one sided broadcast proceeds w/out equal time for something like Fahrenheit 9/11 plus time to counter false assertions."

These DUmmie (most likely the comments of Pelosi, Kerry, Boxer and others under their DU nics) comments should be preserved for all time to show just how retarded democrats are, and why they should never ever have any political power.

Clinton's and his admin's "legacy" is well doccumented and can't be denied, no matter how hard DUmmies want to wish it away.

[CyberAnt]

Sorry .. I have better things to do than play thier "silly games". Actually .. they aren't "silly" they're totally stupid and ignorant .. just like the game players.

[pcottraux]

DU seems to be a breeding ground for particularly nasty people. As I mentioned, those guys specifically have a very thug-like fascist mentality. I've seen them make plenty of threats against people.

On the few occasions I've been there, I've noticed that NOTHING seems to be taboo. They make death threats, post all kinds of profanity, try to look up personal information (home address, family members) of certain Republicans, and do all sorts of things that you would NEVER see on FR.

[Nathan Zachary]

I've seen some nasty stuff there as well, even threats to go out on the street and kill Republicans. They truely are a very sick, deluded bunch.

[goresalooza]

"Told you, can’t stop the flood. Look for the “Berger Cuts” to show up on You Tube any day now."

YEEEEEEEEHAH! I've been waiting for the youtubers to get crackin'. JUSTICE AT LAST. This will be all over the net in a few days at most.

Buaaahahhahah!

[goresalooza]

It looks like "someone" shut it down...no link found. What's up? Did ABC jump on it and nail them? Hope so.

[srmorton]

I do not use Google because IMO it has a liberal bias. I use Yahoo which also has one, but it is not as blatant. What Yahoo will do is keep a negative story about the administration in their News section a lot longer than a positive one.

[Salamander]

So should we all send ABC a lot of nice emails supporting the showing of it 'unsanitized' using the Dem's dime?.....:)

[SheLion]

trying to cover the spinn on the clinton admin

lib bastards!

Yep!

[ClaireSolt]

I don't cry easily, but it looks like this will ber tough to watch, if the production trailers brought tears to my eyes.

[billhilly]

Can you spell C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y?

[MamaLucci]

Will the Berger cuts be with or without his document-filled pants?

Good question.............but this is what comes from giving
Burglar a pass on STEALING CLASSIFIED
documents from the NATIONAL ARCHIVES.
He should be in a federal pen, not issuing statements
threatening an american broadcast network over telling the truth
regarding his sorry performance in the clinton misadministration.

[tiredoflaundry]

PJ's DUFU on the subject.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1697725/posts

[Grampa Dave]

They can't block this video link. Please send it to your friends and relatives.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JuH1xwLUnbg

Were the Clintoons paid by the Opecker Thugs to protect Ben Laden?

Are the Clintoons and rats in Congress still getting paid to protect the al Qaeda serial killers, who would kill all of us if given an opportunity?

[longtermmemmory]

google will probably help.

Surprised Google allows themselves to be used so easily.

[KC_Conspirator]

This bombing will be done by the "DU Luftwaffe" I presume?

[FreeKeys]

No non-DNC approved political speech, even the FACTUAL KIND, will be allowed or tolerated by The New Nazi's, under pain of SEVERE reprisal.....

Just IMAGINE what these clowns will do to our freedoms if they ever regain power again.....

Chillingly accurate.

IT LOOKS LIKE ABC IS GOING TO CAVE

What drama!

ABC has a five-hour miniseries coming up titled "The Path to 9/11."  The first episode airs this coming Sunday night at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.  This docu-drama is causing quite a stir in Washington ...  and especially in the Clinton camp. 

                      The problem, you see, is that in this movie the Clinton Administration is portrayed as treating Islamic terrorism as nothing more than a law enforcement problem.  There is one scene in the move where Intelligence officials are discussing an attempt to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.  The Clinton administration is refusing to authorize the action.  Permission denied.  The Clinton aide says that the problem is that Clinton views terrorism as largely a law enforcement problem.  The intelligence official asks "How do you win a law and orderly war?"  The aide responds "You don't." 

                      You can sputter and spin all you want about President Bush and his handling of the war on Islamic fascism, you cannot deny that since 9/11 he has been dedicated to the cause of crushing Islamic terrorism over there before they bring it back over here.  Sounds like a good plan to me.

                      Similarly -- there is no way in hell that any reasonable man can argue that the Clinton administration was dedicated to crushing Islamic terrorism.  Clinton did indeed treat it like a law enforcement program.  After the first Islamic terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 Clinton did not even bother to visit New York City to view the damage, talk to survivors and the families of those who lost their lives, or meet with NYC officials and first responders. 

                      And what of the attack on the U.S. Cole?  This was an attack on a U.S. Navy warship.  Clinton was the Commander in Chief.  The response?  At best, lob a few cruise missiles.  That's it.  Nothing more.

                      So ... now the battle is joined.  ABC has this miniseries ready to run.  The producers say that it's largely based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission report as well as interviews with the people involved.  Apparently the miniseries shows Clinton to be relatively unconcerned about terrorism, and not dedicated to the cause of bringing in bin Laden.

                      Will  the Democrat pressure work?  My guess is that it will, at least in part.  ABC is already issuing statements to the effect that "The editing process is not yet complete."  The Los Angeles Times is reporting that changes were made in the program this week after the Clintonistas started howling.  Specifically targeted, according to the Times, was the scene where Clinton National Security Adviser  Sandy Berger declines to give an order to kill bin Laden.

                      By the way ... this really makes you wonder just what documents Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives, doesn't it? 

                     Democrats sent a letter to Robert Iger, the President and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, the owner of ABC.  That letter contained this interesting paragraph:

                      

     "The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airways in serving the public interest.  Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events." 

                      Now what is this paragraph really saying?  Can you read between the lines?   Here ... let me rewrite the paragraph by adding a few words.  Perhaps it will be clearer to you.

                           

     "The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airways in serving the public interest.  Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.  The licenses granted to the television stations you own and operate are not permanent.  They are periodically subject to renewal.  You may wish to remember this fact, and consider the probability that by the time those licenses come up for renewal the Democrats may be in control of both houses of Congress, and the wife of the man your miniseries defames may well be the President of the United States"

Get the message?

-- from THIS column.

[longtermmemmory]

WOW!!!

I think the democrats are in full blown PANIC MODE!!!!

http://www.pathto911.com is a DIRECT LINK TO democrats.org!!!

They are using web spoofing to try and stop the documentary. WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE!!

This is no longer about acuracy, this is PURE POLITICS! This is not about a few scene or artistic license, the democrats are in FULL SCHREAKING PANIC!