Thursday, September 07, 2006

Ostroy Report Exclusive: Iger Alledgedly Agrees to Edit Docu-drama After Receiving Personal Call From Bill Clinton

The Ostroy Report has learned from a reliable source connected to ABC that an unnamed ABC executive said that former President Bill Clinton called Disney President and CEO Robert Iger this week to voice his anger and frustration over the network's plan to air a six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," on Sunday and Monday, and that Iger agreed to make certain changes requested by Clinton. According to this ABC source, the film is currently being edited. In seeking confirmation, our call to Iger's office went straight into voicemail. We will update our story if and when we hear from a Disney official. Disney is the parent company of ABC.

The docu-drama, an account of the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, is the subject of intense controversy over what Clinton officials claim are fictionalizations of various scenes involving who knew what about Osama bi Laden and when, and whether the Clinton administration was delinquent in capturing and/or killing the head of al Qaeda, the mastermind behind the attacks.

The film will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary," contains "fictionalized scenes," and says the movie is based on the 9/11 Commission report, although that report contradicts several key scenes involving former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and other former Clinton officials. Both Albright and Berger, and other Clinton aides fired off letters of outrage to Iger, but the company refused to make any changes to the film and planned to broadcast it as planned. If in fact Iger did get a call from Clinton, and did agree to an edit, this would be a major change in the company's policy towards dealing with the fallout.

The real irony here is that Bush was firmly against creating the 9/11 Commission in the first place, and only did so under mounting pressure from lawmakers and 9/11 families.


Unknown said...

I recently finished Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies." I would say there is a fair amount of sour grapes in the book but nevertheless it is a revealing look at the incompetence, arrogance and hubris pervasive within the Bush administration that led to the failure to detect and prevent the 9/11 attacks.
This book reinforces what others have written and testified to and it also outlines efforts during the Clinton administration to fight Al Qaeda and gives him credit and blame where due.
As with so many other events in our recent history the waters are already being muddied by crackpot conspiracy theories and far-fetched speculations and it is doubtful if the real truth of such events will ever be known definitively.

Anonymous said...

Obviously, the Clinton cronies are thugs and strong-armed ABC to change to production. There are plenty of reasons to show how the Clinton adminstration delinquence helped Al Qaeda continue to practice attacking the United States and plan 9/11.

- The 9/11 commission details 4 distinct opportunities to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. The Clinton administration blocked each of these opportunities.

- Jamie Gorelick's "wall" was dangerously excessive and unneccessary and actually prevented the CIA and FBI from communicating terrorism information.

- The "Able Danger" project pinpointed 4 of the 9/11 terrorists years before 9/11. The clinton administration took excessive measures to prevent these terrorists from being arrested, citing "civil rights protections".

- Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents from the most secure government documentation storage location in Washington. What did he steal? What is he hiding?

The clinton thugs will continue to threated retaliation against any organization that will highlight their failure to protect the American people as Al Qaeda planned the 9/11 attack on Clinton's watch, attacked the United States regularly and frequently - each with growing sophistication, and cumulating on 9/11 early into the Bush administrations first year in office.

Anonymous said...

Andy, I see the wing-nuts are here reading your blog and replying with the same lies that have become a part of their lives.

How sad these sheep will follow Bush to the every end.

Anonymous said...

what kind of crackpot theories?

I want to know who the hell you think this guy is...

Only 23 seconds long, worth the viewing.
Larry silverstein....
The third building to EVER have collapsed because of fire,(Twin towers being 1 and 2)a fire that burned for less than twelve hours!

And who is this guy
(ask yourself), that he managed to make FIVE BILLION DOLLARS on 9.11, a tragedy for ALL did not this act of terrorism make, it made at least one already rich man even richer. ($5B)

who the hell is he? how did he have the power to say "pull it", and then "watch the building fall"? THEN, make HUGE profits, from insurance.
I bet a lot of people in New Orleans could have used a fraction of that kind of insurance money, they paid premiums for fiftey years, silverstein paid for SIX MONTHS!

forgive my agitation, but the american mentality has gone to sh*t and we have become a mountain of sheep, and its...
uhhhh, whatever.....

-no one has to die tomorroW.

Anonymous said...

I knew my boy Bill would come through for the truth.

Brain dead Fox News watchers will still watch and believe all the lies the Bushies tell them.

Anonymous said...

1;31PM, you'll never convince this crowd that Clinton should be responsible for Bush's failures. Time and events are not linear as is this situation. Bush and Co refused to listen and, even worse, take action. Bush went on vacation. He didn't listen to anyone and when it was his turn to step up, he sat and stared at a bunch of school kids and then flew around in Air Force One.

No matter how much whining about Clinton you GOPheads do, the fact remains: The 9/11 failure was, and is, on Bush's watch.

Spare yourself the typing. History already has this one on the books.

Anonymous said...

The only name needed to know is Dick Cheney.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous DNC lovers

When Bill Clinton Lied Nobody Died??
yup people died under his watch

take a look here

The WTC was attacked under bill in 1993 what did he do?? NOTHING.

Instead of taking out Milosevic with a few cruise missiles!

We should have been carpet bombing Afghanistan, the Taliban and Bin Laden back into the stone age in 1998.

Anonymous said...

And the first WTC attack, and the USS Cole, and the Khobar Towers - were those failures of the Bush administration, too, in the same magical retroactive way as global warming?

Anonymous said...

All those who bombed the WTC the first time were caught and are in jail. Whenever Clinton did do something regarding terror I remember very clearly the chants from the righties: "No war for Monica".

Sorry writer above, you have drank the kool aid and have a brain dead mind to the facts. Quit your whining. You are looking very desperate.

Anonymous said...

I would like to know why Bill Clinton and anyone else maligned in the movie can't sue. I don't think you can say anything you want about another and claim it doesn't count because it's contained in a "drama." I hope CLinton sues and destroys the careers and the backers of these lies. If the film makers use the real names in the "drama" then surely what they say can be libelous. If Clinton doesn't sue them the Dems are hopelessly spineless. The disclaimer doesn't absolve responsibility.

Anonymous said...

As a public figure, Clinton can't sue for falsehoods.

Bush's lies have caused the deaths of more than 43,000 people, but that's Clinton's fault because he was using his x-ray eyes to melt George's brain and then he injected Liberal Juice through his eyehole with a cigar.

-jf said...

thank goodness that the embattled underdogs of the progressive left are able to dial up hollywood and get an eeevil movie censored.

now instead of spending a single moment considering that radical islamic terrorism continued unanswered throughout the seven years of clinton rule which followed the first wtc bombing, the popular public discourse can remain focussed appropriately on why condoleeza rice was unable to predict the events of 9-11-01 in her half-a-year of service from a pdb which described a possible hostage scenareo at either lax or dulles.

to show i'm not beholden to either party, let me note finally that the clinton administration showed great incompetence by sending sandy berger in to do a cleanup job which could've been better accomplished by an independent player like ray mcgovern.

Anonymous said...

I guess it's ok for Michael Moore to put a bunch of total garbage on film but not disney

Anonymous said...

When I first started reading the articles concerning Clinton's complaints about the docu-drama, I thought "How convenient." Clnton comes out and makes the story about him as a distraction from the government involvement and cover up of 911.

"My boy" Clinton supporters forget that he is a Skull and Bones Rhodes scholar new world order globalist too.

The left vs. right dichotomy is being used to divide the people of this country and help to distact the people long enough to implement their fascistic goals.

Clinton approved NAFTA and Bush continued the trend with the SPP. They are no different and are both just as culpable in selling out Americas rights and sovereignty.

Trusting the government is ANTI American and it's a shame that people have been misled into trusting these very dispicable human tashbags.

911 is our Reichstag fire. God given rights are being purposely demolished before our very eyes.

We are supposed to be focused right now on Clinton's legacy, when no one cares! It's a distraction from what's really going on. How useful this man still is to the "New" World Order and their promotion of one world government.

Any right-minded, fair, balanced and somewhat educated American will not trust these politicos as far as they can throw them.

I don't trust ABC to give us any balance on this issue other than the government official story. The govt. is still keeping details of the events hidden from the public. We should DEMAND full disclosure.

This is OUR country, not the globalists' who have hijacked our system of democracy and justice and are using it against US and our freedom.

Wake up, and quit being evil mens' useful tools until your time has come to be extinguished.

Clinton, Bush, they are not our friends. They do NOT have the country's best interest at heart.

Anonymous said...

Will any Democrat come forward now and say, without reservation, that if the opportunity presents itself, we should kill Osama Bin Laden?

Anonymous said...

All those who bombed the WTC the first time were caught and are in jail.

Whew! that's a relief. Oh wait, that apparently didn't stop them. But it wasn't until Bush took office. That must have been when they picked up where they left off. 911 did NOT happen while Clinton is in office so it's all Bush's fault. I guess when Clinton was president, they just wanted to damage the WTC a little bit and kill just a few people. You people don't get it. They want to kill all of us.

Anonymous said...

It began when an Arab gunman murdered Robert Kennedy. Then the Munich Murders and all the torture, mayhem and deaths that followed. We did nothing. Then the embassy in Iran. Jimmy Carter was impotent; we did nothing. Then the presidents that followed did little more. If the current Bush administration can be faulted, it's for being unfocused in their aggression and being idealistic enough to think that a culture still in the 10th Century can embrace a modern world of peace and pluralism.

Anonymous said...

these wingnuts who think they're on such safe high ground with how pissed off the left is at this show should just shut up. it was the right that put up the same struggle to get the reagan biopic canned.

Anonymous said...

The Reagan film ran and was a pancake. No one cared. How many Americans care about terrorism and what brought on 9-11? Evidently, quite a few. And the failure of presidents throughout the years, including Bill Clinton who had a dozen chances to kill Osma, should be brought to task for their failures.

Donna Pence said...

What's wrong with the truth? Everyone screwed up. While we continue to partisan hack each other to death, the terrorists will gain ground.

Anonymous said...

no one really cares about any of this, they just care about their fat cars, and what they need to pick up at the mall and where they can park their fat asses for dinner, hmmmmm chilis or tgifridays?????

We care just enough to dislike bush in private, or now that its acceptable, but not enough to actually have done anything about it as our freedoms get taken from us.

complacent americans are everywhere, five corporations own ALL the media outlets, do you think they are here to tell the truth? any of them?
NO, they are in place to push their agenda. America is a joke to the rest of the world, we spout peace and start wars, we want to impose democracy yet we cast our ballots on machines that can "steal" our votes. Support our troops but send them off to illegal wars, pay them peanuts, then if they happen to die bring them home in the middle of the night so no one can see. the news doesnt want to upset anyone, they just want to scare the piss out of ya. FEAR FEAR FEAR.....

by the way 2,665 american troops have died so far in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

The real person to blame is Al Gore. If he had not invented The Internet the terrorists would have been denied an important communications facility.

But seriously, because the 1990's were the decade in which Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others were able to develope and evolve [I'm sorry, I.D.] with no to only minimal retaliation they were aided, abbated, even encouraged, to become bold and capable.

If Richard Clarke, the DNC and leftist hero, was soooooo sure that Al-Qaeda was the severe threat he supposedly warned the Bush Administration about why was he not more vocal and passionate about stopping them.

Why did it not become 'the critical issue' until his book was published? If he had gotten the job promotion he thought he diserved would he have been so passionate?

There are too many sources of TRUE FACTS that contradict the 'Clinton Mystic' for them to be taken seriously - if a person does even cursory research.

Angier NC

Anonymous said...

If clinton spent the same amount of time trying to capture or kill osama bin laden that he spends protecting his reputation, 9/11 would have never happened.

Jamie Gorelick's intelligence wall helped the terrorists and prevented the FBI and CIA from sharing information.

Richard Clarke declared internet security to be the biggest threat to America during Clinton's second term.

Sandy Berger is a thief, who raided the National Archives and Records Administration and STOLE and DESTROYED classified documents.

Madeline Albright gave food, fuel, and nuclear technology to North Korea, not to mention the murder of 22 innocent children in Waco Texas

Anonymous said...

LOL, 10:52PM. George Bush Senior gave food, fuel and six billion dollars to feed Saddam Hussein's war machine. Put that in your pipeline and smoke it.

Anonymous said...

God! The rightwing desparation is now so comical it's tipping into tragedy! Clinton did it! Puleeezzzz!

The ABC show is smoke and mirrors for people stupid enough to watch it and take it as gospel! Oh, would those be the same ones who think Bush is the greatest president ever?

Stop! 10:52PM and the rest! The ludicrous logic being used by the rightwingers is causing our sides to ache with laughter and our contact lenses to float out of our eyes because of the tears!

Anonymous said...

The GOP is trying for a September Surprise since the October Surprise is already yesterday's news. So they grease a little money to the likes of ABC to develop show this "dramatization" of what preceded 9/11. Yawn.

The fact remains, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and Rummy, Condi, Dicky, and even Colin did NOTHING with the intelligence they were given WEEKS/MONTHS before! It's all Clinton's fault because he didn't catch mean ol' bin Laden argument is as childish as it gets.

Rightwingers! How do you like nearly 3,000 US soldier deaths and a deficit/debt of $175,000 for each person in the US because of the choices Bush Co has made?

How do you guys even sleep at night? Your choice of voting for Bush has caused far more damage than can even be measured at this point! Lose your job to overseas or to an illegal alien? Tough! Gas too expensive to put in your F350 or even your commuter Corolla? Tough! Food costing $4.00 per item on average? Tough! You rightwing idiots owe us Dems and liberals more than your feeble minds can even start to comprehend! The damage you've done to this country by your scared thinking is beyond comprehension! WE ARE MAD and we are not going to let your ignorance continue to dictate the course!

Anonymous said...

The Right Wing is so tired and ignorant too. Let's not forget how completely unwrapped they were over the Reagan mini-series and CBS caved in abd pulled it.

How can they easily forget that?

Anonymous said...

Never be amazed to see a story about Clinton used to bash Bush. It's the syndrome. If the actual scenes from actual life were actually depicted the film would be unairable. Bush doesn't get off easy either in this film but I don't hear the White House screaming to have it censored. How Madamme Mao Clinton seems to me. This is one of the great things about America; after four, sometimes eight years, we don't have to pay attention anymore to our retired executives after we've used them up. They're good for so precious little after that.

Anonymous said...

You can lead a Conservative wingnut to truth, but you can't get them to think....

Anonymous said...

The White House isn't screaming because they think it will afford them some damage control over the imploding mess called The Republican party. Also, they're hoping it will deflect national attention away from real issues, such as, the runaway deficit, illegal detainment of prisoners, illegal wiretapping, stolen elections, outing of a CIA operative, piss poor pollings of the GOP held congress, federal judges having to rule against the illegal manuvers sanctioned by Gonzales, the failure of Rice to do anything with foreign policy, the pending Halliburton and DuBai ports deal, the delirious rants of Rumsfeld, the gas and oil "crisis", the global warming, the mess with North Korea, the illegal immigration mess, the loss of jobs, the stagnant ecomony, the loss of personal income for the middle class, the Katrina mess, 9/11, the Iraq quagmire,etc, etc, etc.

The White House is probably putting a lot of born again faith that is one little docudrama can save them from extinction or incarceration.

Anonymous said...

So true....

t(h)om said...

I can understand you wish to write an unbiased post, and I do say well done in your restraint; however, why must you include caveat-esque phrases like "what Clinton officials claim are fictionalizations"?

It is not ONLY Clinton officials claiming the fictionalizations. Civilian intelligence officials whose tenure spans BOTH administrations have written and given testimony about the events depicted in the movie, and the facts directly contradict many of the "dramatizations."

It would have served your piece well to have adressed this point. As it is now, your "Clinton officials claim" hedging of the truth makes it sound like a mere political battle, and not a significant fundamental issue of fact versus fiction.

Anonymous said...

Reviewing a lotof these comments, I'm convinced more than ever that so many are willing to think and say anything rather than kill the terrorists-- who are certainly winning this war-- who have sworn to destroy America and Americans.

Go figure...

Anonymous said...

Um, 10:52 anonymous? You might want to get your lies straight. See, when you claim that "Madeline Albright gave food, fuel, and nuclear technology to North Korea, not to mention the murder of 22 innocent children in Waco Texas," the problem is that Madeline Albright was the Secretary of State during President Clinton's second term. I kind of doubt she had anything to do with the Waco incident that occurred during the President's first term in office. You know, that Waco incident of which two federal courts and former Senator John Danforth (R) all concluded that the Branch Davidians set the fire that incinerated themselves?

But please, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt your lies with facts. Carry on. Please.

-jf said...

censorship is unamerican.

Anonymous said...

Rush Limbaugh keeps trotting out the lie that Clinton knew where Bin Laden was on several occasions and did nothing. Actually, George Tenet has gone on the record saying that every time they got information about the specific location of Bin Laden, it was from a single source. And we're not talking like Deep Throat. If you bomb villages based on the word of one person, you run the risk of being wrong and creating an international incident. Remember that wedding that was bombed years ago? Even if you're right, how do you and everybody else know that it was really Bin Laden in there?

-jf said...

censorship is unamerican.

when progressives hear speech they don't like, they repress or criminalize it. see stolen honor.

slander is a progressive method.

when a masterpiece of lies and smear emerges from the left, the dnc and pfaw actively promote it. see f911, outfoxed, syriana, ad naseum.

-jf said...

annonymous 10:35 - are you referring to the george tennet who said that wmd stockpiles were a slam dunk?

i hope everyone takes note of how "flexible" progressives are with the truth when it serves them.

another anon said earlier something about the u.s. giving saddam $6bil! i have no clue how that figure is calculated unless its the dollar value of all transactions from oil for food. maybe its one of those stone cold facts one finds at "rove indightment is immanent" truthout. or maybe it's like the bold-faced lie that progressives protested against hussein's regoiem in the 80's.

Anonymous said...

jf, are you really that obtuse that you don't know what censorship is? Censorship means that the government bans speech. It has nothing to do with whether a commercial television station decides to air a particular program because private citizens complain about it?

Let me ask you this: should ABC have aired the miniseries "The Reagans" a year ago?

-jf said...

they did air it.

should thay have not aired it? should f911 not been released?

-jf said...

"...Censorship means that the government bans speech..."

and senate democrats have threatened to pull abc's broadcast license if they air this film.

are you going to call your senator to remind them that censorship is unamerican?

Anonymous said...

jf ---

You need to get your facts straight. First, CBS did not air "The Reagans" miniseries (I misspoke earlier and said "ABC"). Instead, Showtime, a paid cable channel did.

And I checked the link you cited. There's nothing in there about "threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license." You really shouldn't misrepresent things like that.

Finally, you never answered my original question: Do you think CBS should have aired the miniseries "The Reagans"?

-jf said...

"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 airwaves ...We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon." a threat to pull abc's license if they do not cede to dems' demands. its a shame you are unable to be honest about this.

its a shame you cannot be honest otherwise. are progressives' complaints about "path" a narrow objection to venue? no. their complaints are that the film constitutes "propaganda" and that dramatization of real events is wrong. progressives make this complaint from a foundation of hipocrisy. they are, after all, enthusiastic authors and supporters of ideologically conformed non-fiction when it is a smear job against reagan, a film like f911, or any number of "topical dramas" like syrianna offered as objects for serious topical debate. progressives have circled their wagons around each such offering and attacked any critisism as "censorship" or "repression". even in the abcense of critisism, progressives strike this pose of martyrdom regardless.

now, while conservatives objected to the anti-reagan smear-job, they did not do two things which progressives have in this instance: 1) they did not obfuscate by pretending to be concerned foremost about venue, and 2) congressional republicans did not threaten the security of cbs' broadcast license.

progressives have done each and further. imagine what it would be like if bush could pick up the phone and get a film edited to his liking while others of his party use thuggery and threats to get it pulled entirely!

it is progressives who are seeking to suppress yet another non-progressive film. the hipocrisy is progressives' to answer for. please do.

-jf said...

i also which you and others would find a consistent story on this.

simultaneously, progressives argue two contradictory things:

1)that their efforts to suppress "path" do not constitute censorship because they are priivate individuals appealing to a private broadcasting company.

and 2) that "path" cannot be legitimately broadcast by abc because they use public airways and a license granted by the government.

it is apparent that progressives are comfortable applying both duress of state power and mob pressure against speech they dislike, so i wish you would stop pretending that there is some kind of distinction here.

Anonymous said...

jf --

I wish you could spell the words "hypocrisy" and "wish" correctly, but oh well.

For the third time, you have not answered my very simple question. So here it is again: Do you think CBS should have aired the miniseries "The Reagans"?

It's a yes or no question. Why do you refuse to answer it?

-jf said...

well, i don't know which anon you are, so it would be hard to definatively count how many lies you've introduced into this discussion or precisely to what extent you've been deliberately non-responsive to what i've posted here. we know that you're a good speller, which really counts for something.

but my point remains, progressives have struck an anti-speech position in this matter so strident that it has come to the application of legal threats. this zeal to censor is against the first principles of our republic, and so it is your place as a progressive to answer questions pertaining to your hipocricy in the matter. to the extent you are unwilling to be open and sincere about the issue, i'm done discussing it with you. human walls are as tedious as human spell-checkers and you apparently are a breed of both.

Anonymous said...


OK, for the fourth time, I'll ask again: Do you think CBS should have aired the miniseries "The Reagans"?

Please skip the invective, and simply answer the question. By the way, I am not a progressive but a centrist and an Independent. I believe that what happened on September 11, 2001 was so important that anyone who produces any form of media on it has a responsibility to present the facts about it correctly, or at least try to do so.

The reason I have not answered all of your questions is that you never answered mine. Why do you refuse to answer?

Anonymous said...

It may be called Project for the New American Century. It a NEOCON publication that outlines the so named "pax Americana". World domination through military action for a 'secure' America. The american people would only buy this if a "new Pearl Harbor" were to happen. Does this come close to 9/11 and Bush Co's inaction on that day? One can wonder.

Meanwhile, the argument over whether ABC has a right to air a "fictionalized dramatization" stacked against Clinton rages on in JF's head. As we last remember, Clinton was, as is not, a member of the Neocon comspiracy.

Anonymous said...

jf -- There has been no call for censorship. There has been a request for a revision that is factual. If the slanderous docudrama is aired those harmed will sue. It's all very simple and easy to understand. I would look forward to such a true reality show televising the guilty being exposed for the political terrorists they are.

Anonymous said...

The FCC doesn't license networks; they license stations.

Anonymous said...

Censorship is not an exclusive right of the Government, jf. But slander and libel are still illegal.

A factual and irrefutable presentation of the Bush administration's complicity in the 9/11 attacks would be most welcomed.

But then, the truth would need to be presented for that show to be factual. OOps, there's the rub. The Bush White House doesn't want citizens to know the real truth...liberal or conservative. Because then all the lies and corruption would have to be out in the open. So, instead, the Let's Blame Clinton game is played and the sentiment over the war, the president, congress, and anything else gets more divided everyday.

The rightwingers are getting more desperate by the hour. And for what? To defend their own stupidity?

Anonymous said...

In case anyone forgot, it was Zbigniew Brezinsky and Jimmy Carter that had the idea of arming Islamic fundamentalists with sophisticated weapons in order to spring the "Afghanistan trap" on the Soviets. After Saudi Arabia set up Osama bin Laden to run Saudi terror cells in soviet-held Afghanistan, it was Reagan that sent billions of dollars through Saudi intelligence to train Osama and others in the techniques of "urban terrorism -- car bombings and so forth." Simultaneously, it was Reagan (working through his emissary Donald Rumsfeld) who sent billions of dollars in aid, including 50 shipments of botulin poisining and anthrax, to Saddam Hussein in order to assist him in his war with Iran. There are no threats facing the United States at this time that are not the direct outcome of short-term U.S. government efforts -- funding, equipment and training in the techniques of urban terrorism -- to slant the outcome of international events by using terror. Live by the sword, die by the sword. When the U.S. is prepared to control the massive parasitic economic appetite that compels it to involve itself over and over again in terror, subversion, intimidation, massive bombings, and so on, only then will this country be prepared to take the steps that will make it possible for people in other nations to live at peace with the U.S.

Anonymous said...

Americans killed/wounded by foreign terrorists/fighters under:

Clinton in 8 years: 1,300

Bush in 5.75 years: 30,000

The Bush plan of pre-emptive American death seems to be working! Way to go!

Anonymous said...

"The 9/11 commission details 4 distinct opportunities to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. The Clinton administration blocked each of these opportunities"

LIAR! Show me where that is in the report! You can't because you've NEVER read the report, you just parrot shit you hear Rush and Hannity say.
Lying sack of republican pond scum!

Anonymous said...

annonymouse sure seems to be on autopilot.

here's footage of osama bin laden monitored by the camera of a u.s. predator drone during clinton's watch. i suppose video observation is a "single source", but still, why did clinton let him go? and why is annonymous so appoplectic?

saber tooth owl said...

The usual Clintonista fumblers can whine on and on about how 9-11 happened on GWB's watch, but the fact remains that he had barely taken office (8 mos.) and had to live with a CIA whose HUMINT abilities had been nearly destroyed by Hillary's little campaign to make the CIA look more like America -- forcing the promotion of women and minorities with zip field experience into supervisory positions and causing actually qualified white males to find greener pastures.

It gets worse -- Jamie Gorelick's insane decision to erect a wall whereby intelligence agencies were prevented from sharing terrorist information hung on long after the left-wingers left town. And that was just ONE of the politically correct landmines they left when they crawled off into the sunset. No doubt the families of the 9-11 victims are grateful to Clinton and Gorelick for their large pensions and insurance settlements.

Clinton had eight long years to ruin CIA and hamstring every other intelligence function to the point that we had no chance of preventing anything, and little capability to respond properly with few useful agents left in the Mid-East.

You might be able to sell that steaming pile of crap to some Democratic toadie, or the Great Unwashed Masses -- the largely ignorant and illiterate U.S. voters -- but it won't fly with this ex-HUMINT guy ('67-86) who has actually lived among the Muslim fanatics.

Anonymous said...

Clemtoe -- What is your point???????? Bush was presidnet when 9/11 happened. He got the warning the terrorists were going to attack. It was his responsibility and his fault for not responding and preventing the attack. If he wasn't prepared for the job on the first day in office, he should not have run for President. No one is allowed a learning curve when he assumes responsibility. Imagine your doctor doing open-heart surgery before he is totally skilled.

Anonymous said...

saber tooth owl, your GWB only had eight months and hamstringed CIA comments are only excuses.

GWB just didn't do anything or was he complicit in 9/11? Was he an operative in the NPAC agenda? Is he still? Are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others involved?

Instead of arguing over the past, try finding out about relevant information that relates to 9/11 and now, five years later.

Anonymous said...

"You people don't get it. They want to kill all of us."

Unfortunately this is the only statement that is completely unbiased. The fact of the matter is that Republicans and Democrats will never agree- which is why they are different political parties. That may seem like an obvious statement but the way people on this board are calling each other idiots and moron's leads me to believe that it's not as obvious as it seems. Be sure to remember that the reason we are able to disagree and call each other names is because of the country we live in. These terrorists hate us, not just Republicans, not just Democrats, they hate all of us. They didn't fly planes only filled with Republican's into buildings only filled with Republican's. The only discriminating factor in their minds were that they killed American's. Their hatred has continued throughout both Democratic and Republican terms in the office of the Presidency. The extreme dichotomy that has become our country in recent years is not a good thing for us, but it is a good thing for them. Until this country can manage to come together, we will never defeat terrorism. This has created a weakness, a weakness that gets worse everyday and I'm afraid of where we will end up. If you believe that this wouldn't have happened if a Democrat was in office, you are sadly mistaken. And if you think this will end once Bush is gone and the next President is in office, Democrat or Republican, again you are sadly mistaken. How about we stop fighting each other and join together to fight those that are fighting us? Whatever the solution is, I certainly don't know. But we need to stop turning against each other, and join forces to protect our country and our lives.

Anonymous said...

11:51 Pa-leeze! -- You are of course a wolf in sheep's clothing. You are a Bush supporter trying to fool us. Of course they hate us and it's because of Bush and the likes of him. Had a Democrat been president the strategy would have been diplomacy not pre-emptive slaughter. The UN inspectors would have proven there were no WMD. We would have fought in Afghanastan, won and not destroyed Iraq. The whole world fears and hates us now. Not just terorrists, but the average "man on the street" all over the world. We have to come together and get back together and support the COnstitution, the American values and ideals, the precepts that have made us great and win back the respect and admiration and cooperation of the world. Your suggestion is come together and do it the Republican way.

Anonymous said...

You obviuosly missed the point of my post so I'll put it as bluntly as possible.

Let's stop attacking each other.

That's it, plain and simple. I'm not suggesting that we do anything but that. When I say we should join together to protect our country and our lives, I did not say that I thought that war was the only solution. Do not assume that you know my beliefs, because you don't, just as I do not know yours. I am a Republican and I am proud of that. But that does not mean that I am bloodthirsty and that "joining forces" means to kill people. You want things done peacefully, stop attacking me. I want things done peacefully as well, we just have different breaking points.

Stop looking at each other as the enemy, and that goes for both liberals and conservatives. Thank you for proving my point.

Anonymous said...

You must be a hybrid or educated Republican in order to add negotiation to your repretoire, 2:31PM. While I doubt any Republican propaganda will fly on this blog, presented by you or anyone else, you can try.

While I can agreee that the terrorists do not make the distinction between our political parties, the real question is rapidly becoming this: Just who are the real terrorists?

Can't agree? Your mind needs to open wider.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Genteel 2:31 Republican, I missed the point of your post because there was no point. "we've got to all agree and come together to protect ourselves." Now what is one to do with that suggestion. I filled in the blanks because you did not make yourself clear. It was clear however that you are a Republican. Bush can't make his plans clear either. And, I seriously disagreed with your telling us that we were mistaken if we assumed that we'd not be in the mess we're in had a Democrat been elected. Also, "how about we stop fighting each other and fight them" would have been more concilaitory to a Democrat if you'd said "how about we work with the UN, the world community and negotiate and give diplomacy a try." Are you ready to come over to our way of thinking. Or better still, on what agreement to solve our national problems do you suggest we come together. These vague generalities like "they hate our freedom"; like "we got to come together" are worthless.

Anonymous said...

Good job, 7:34PM. Republican's post came off as one of those whiny church lady conversations.

Anonymous said...

"Let's all negotiate ... we can talk about our problems ..."

Yup, that's a nice fairy tale for the kiddies, and there were lots of people who thought that would work with the Nazis and the Japanese before WW2.

All but the truly befuddled peaceniks finally figured out the score by Pearl Harbor, but -- amazingly enough after all the terrorist attacks against the U.S. all over the world, including a couple here, and a number of attempts we've managed to stop -- we still have a significant percentage of Americans who still think you can negotiate from a position of quivering fear and non-confrontation.

The next really big one here -- not some rinky-dink little airplane attack with a negligible body count -- might change some minds.

No doubt you'll find some limp reason why it's the conservatives' fault, though. Anything but admit that the inherent cowardice of the liberals invited an attack by 9th-century savages armed with 21st-century weapons.

It's not hard to guess that most of the weenies on this blog have never spent a single day in combat, have never lived among Third World people for any length of time, damn sure never lived in a Muslim theocracy or seen a beheading....

Add to that they have no experience in geopolitics or strategy, and probably damn little knowledge of history ....

One wonders why they think their opinion should even count?