It looks like movie night at Sound Politics. Eric Earling, below, recommends one of the best flicks that came out this summer, "United 93". Go ahead and watch "World Trade Center" when it comes out on DVD. Tonight, my recommendation is to watch part-two of "Path to 9/11" airing tonight on KOMO 4 without commercial interruptions.
The three films elicit a different emotional response. While "United 93" made you sad and mournful - I practically cried through half of it - and "World Trade Center" made you hopeful and proud ABC's offering will get you mad and riled up. Who you get mad and riled up at will naturally depend on your political perspective and your knowledge of current world history.
WTC and 93 were non-political movies. You had obvious heroes, villains and victims. "Path to 9/11" is the first serious movie to begin casting blame for the September 11 attacks. It is very political and makes no bones about it. Mistakes were made and director David Cunningham and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh, point fingers at the elected politicians and government officials who they feel were responsible for them.
The movie depicts the failures of eight years of the Clinton administration and its law-enforcement strategy of reining in Bin Laden as well as the first eight months of the Bush administration and the failure of governmental agencies to prevent 19 Middle Eastern hijackers from staging the worst terror attack in U.S history.
The film's producers and ABC have come under fire by Democrat party leaders over "fictionalized" events in the movie. The issue has been heated by the See 'n Say antics of liberal bloggers and columnists fanning the flames of controversy. The New York Times reported that Democrats collected 200,000 signatures protesting the movie and requesting that ABC executives have it pulled from the airwaves.
When politicians yelp this loud it generally means you're chunking rocks in the right direction. Nobody likes to see their dirty linen hung out for public viewing. So it's no surprise that former President Bill Clinton has come out to lead the charge.
For a man who spent two terms in office trying to find a legacy, it looks like history has already assigned him one. Clinton's stain on the pages of history has turned out not to be stains on a blue dress but rather as being the president who had "10 chances" to kill or capture bin Laden and failed.
Partisans can debate if this is fair or unfair. But the medium of movies makes it mighty easy to frame a debate and to influence public perception. Just ask Republicans who smart over every Michael Moore movie made.
At the heart of the controversy are a number of scenes which have been fictionalized for dramatic effect. One is conversation by Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger - who pled by the way guilty to stealing classified documents out of the National Archives - in which Berger obstructs efforts to capture bin Laden.
Movie writers have used composite scenes like this to distill the complexities of historical events. For instance, in the 1970 film Tora! Tora! Tora! which outlines the events leading up to Japan's sneak-attack at Pearl Harbor, Vice-Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto is quoted at the movie's finale as saying "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with terrible resolve".
It's a great line but historically inaccurate because Yamamoto never said those exact words. But the scene does sum up, in fifteen seconds, the admiral's reservations over waging war with the U.S.
So with CIA operatives crawling over bin Laden's compound, in "Path to 9/11" did Sandy Berger personally give the order to nix the operation? No. But it does sum up, in fifteen seconds, the number of times how close the CIA was to capturing or killing "The Sheikh" and Clinton administration's refusal to prioritize that mission.
Curiously, I haven't read much outrage over another "fictitious" scene where former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is castigated for tipping-off the Pakistani government, in August of 1998, that cruise missiles were being fired at bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan. The film alleges that Pakistani intelligence operatives warned bin Laden of the approaching attack allowing him to escape.
Current revisionist historians would like to make believe that the events of September 11 were an isolated historical anomaly. The strength of "Path to 9/11" is how it links the series of direct attacks by al-Qaeda against the United States over a nine year time span. Oft forgotten are the footprints to 9/11. The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the 1993 "Black Hawk Down" in Mogadishu; the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 US embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya and the 2000 attack against the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen.
Bin Laden and his henchmen are fairly accurately portrayed as are their reasons for waging jihad against the West. These are no Snidley Whiplash villains but capable and determined opponents.
One of my favorite character actors, Harvey Keitel leads the cast as FBI special agent John O'Neill. Donnie Wahlberg, from "Band of Brothers" and New Kids on the Block, plays a CIA operative code-named "Kirk".
So how did ABC wind up airing a television mini-series this capable and, dare I say, patriotic? Perhaps they were channeling the ghosts of Frank Capra and his Disney produced film series "Why We Fight". The seven-part Oscar winning documentary first filmed in 1942 outlined to the American people why thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen were giving their lives to not only protect liberty in the United States but to free millions of people living overseas under murderous tyrants. The series also explains the failures of Western democracies in the 1930s in appeasing the geopolitical ambitions of Nazi German, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.
The "Path to 9/11" fits the same mold is an excellent explanation why we wage war against Islamic fundamentalists who use the tactic of terror to trample our rights and freedoms.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/clinton_abc.html
As well, Path has been done quite well for a miniseries. That of course could have a lot to do with the fact it has been played "uninterrupted".
I'll be watching both, tonight.
Posted by: Editor on September 11, 2006 04:03 PM"For a man who spent two terms in office trying to find a legacy, it looks like history has already assigned him one. Clinton's stain on the pages of history has turned out not to be stains on a blue dress but rather as being the president who had 10 chances to kill or capture bin Laden and failed."
George W. Bush is the only US President to be presented with a clear opportunity to capture or kill Bin Laden, and no I don't mean the time that he visited the family in Texas. But when his location was positively identified in Tora Bora. Bush failed during the one and only time that the US was virtually assured of capturing or killing Bin Laden. No amount of revisionist history, finger pointing, or deflection of blame will erase that simple fact from history. If we should learn anything from this episode in history you need to stop worshipping at the alter of W, and ask the hard question, why did he not commit the resources necessary to surround and capture Bin Laden.
Posted by: eric on September 11, 2006 04:13 PMAnyway, the movie is well done. Riveting, excellent cinematography, and good acting. I highly recommend.
And yeah, United 93 will mike you cry. I have to admit watching the passengers make a run up the plane's aisle at one of the terrorists and take him down was one of the most satisfying moments of film that I have ever witnessed.
Those under the spell of Islamic hatred deserve the path of death that they have chosen.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 11, 2006 04:18 PMI also found the sexual undertones in the mini series interesting... for a group of so-called Islamic religious fanatics... why are they always plotting and meeting in strip clubs and the like? I believe the 9/11 killers did the same, spending the last few days before the attacks getting lap dances.
Posted by: Tucker on September 11, 2006 04:20 PMYou are right. Both Clinton and Bush falied. So what's your point?
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 11, 2006 04:22 PMI found the first part of the movie to be very well done. It was educational to see all the attacks and the "intelligence" we had on the attacks laid out in this format.
I don't think fictionalizing parts of it made any difference to me. I was looking for the links between the attacks and the terrorists. The movie does that very well.
Posted by: David on September 11, 2006 04:22 PM"George W. Bush is the only US President to be presented with a clear opportunity to capture or kill Bin Laden, and no I don't mean the time that he visited the family in Texas."
Nice revisionist history, eric. Yet another shibboleth of the lefties.
Look, I don't blame Clinton for 9/11, but there were several opportunities under his administration to take UBL out. That is in the factual record. But even if we now succeed in this, it is not going to stop terrorism.
Maybe you shouldn't worship at Clinton's altar so much.
Nice try...
Posted by: David on September 11, 2006 04:35 PM(Sorry for any inconvenience. I'm still rather new at this format)
But Eric, my original point remains about how history will remember Bill Clinton. (In my opinion). Oh, and your assertion about bin Laden's Texas visit to Bush hasn't been corroborated.
Posted by: Reporterward on September 11, 2006 05:01 PMAnd lefties wonder where we get this stuff. (Eric at #3).
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 11, 2006 05:31 PMThe liberals "mental disorder" shows up by their continual undermining of the War on terrorism (I'm not talking about Iraq). They know what they are doing, but can't help themselves - they were brought up that way, from the Vietnam war. This is a different kind of war. Americans in a recent poll believe that Bush is more to blame than Clinton by a 45-41% margin. Considering the blunders that we have made since going to war, that is to be expected. However, we have lost the PR war - so whose fault is that ? Bush is not a leader, as demonstrated. Furthermore, he is not securing the borders - which is dead wrong ! Overall, I have to say that I am most impressed with our troops performance under adverse circumstances, but the leadership at the top has been mediocre at best and wish that it would be better - but that would take an overhaul at the top...
Posted by: KS on September 11, 2006 06:53 PMSo much for your objectivity, eh, Clintonista toadie?
Posted by: ERNurse on September 11, 2006 07:14 PMYou are part of the problem of why we are not faring better in the war on terrorism. You are trying to divide us in this war and that is playing right into the hands of the Islamofascists. I agree with ERNurse with her assessment of where your head is at...
Posted by: KS on September 11, 2006 07:23 PMThe 9/11 Commission Report clearly states that Mohammed Atta boarded American Flight 11 in PORTLAND, MAINE, bound for Boston (and from there, on to Los Angeles). The Report notes that American's employees obeyed the security protocols which existed at that time. For this reason, American has issued a statement denouncing the film.
All of that information appears on PAGE ONE of the 9/11 Commission Report. How accurate could the film possibly be, when the screenwriters did not even read the very first page of the Report?
9/11 was a national tragedy. Misremembering it makes it even worse.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on September 11, 2006 07:35 PMClinton had '10 opportunities', yeah right, unbelievable how gullible the right is.
"Undercover assassins were on the phone saying 'we got him, right here', and Bill Clinton didn't give the go ahead".....do you people actually buy this garbage?
This well-timed, inaccurate, political mini series was bought and paid for just like the news every night. The movie is literally three hours of right wing propaganda bought and paid for.
From all the Bill Clinton chatter it seems like it was quite effective. Good thing there were only 13 million viewers. Bad thing is that they probably all believe it. Guaranteed, these aren't the brightest 13 million in the country.
Until you people figure it out we won't be winning any wars or resolving any problems and your hard earned money, children, and future will continue to go down the drain.
Puppets!
I think the only leftists that can truly understand the meaning of terror are the ones who were looking out the windows of the WTC buildings as the planes bore down on their floor.
The question I always ask today's leftists is: What will it take for you to acknowledge the threat? The death, due to another terrorist attack, of a distant friend? A relative? A family member? Themselves?
At least we know the latter would be an affirmative.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 11, 2006 08:30 PMWhich is a factual lie, and ignores the thirteen opportunities that were presented to the inept and indifferent klintoon...
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 11, 2006 08:32 PMDo I hear 14?
LOL
Posted by: Jim Johnson on September 11, 2006 08:34 PMI agree, there's definitely a threat. That was easy.
What's your point? That we should occupy a sovereign nation (that had nothing to do with Sep. 11) under the guise of WMD, links to 9-11, mushroom clouds, and nuclear arms sales?
You're a sucker, a puppet, a believer. They could tell you mickey mouse was kidnapped in Tehran next week and you'd believe it.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/17/90239.shtml
Doesn't matter if it was 1 time or 100 times- if Bill had been doing what he was voted into office to do instead of leaving a "stain" on the blue dress maybe 9-11 wouldn't have happened...
Posted by: David on September 11, 2006 08:56 PMThe analytical arm of the CIA was in a kind of panic mode at this point. Other intelligence services, including those from the Arab world, were sounding an alarm. The arrows were all in the red. They didn't know the place or time of an attack, but something was coming. The President needed to know . . .
George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice. He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer. "All right," he said. "You've covered your ass now."
Ron Suskind
The One Percent Doctrine
2006
Now I know where you're coming from. You're one of the miss-informed that gets their information from right wing propaganda sights and believes it as news or fact.
Newsmax only does stories on mushroom-clouds or Bill Clinton. Of course there's an article on the site that states he had OBL.
It's pretty funny how you clowns keep bringing up 'ol Bill. At this point, with the GOP self destructing, it's all that's left. Bash poor Bill.
And, just so you know, it DOES matter if it was 1 or 100...it's called credibility, and when you exaggerate to 1000%, it makes you less believable. At least for me anyway...but, on this site for sure, there are a lot of believers that will still listen to you.
So, tell us Jim - how would deal with the current situation in Iraq ?
(I'd be shocked if you have any sort of coherent answer, because your ilk talks a big line of macaca but has nothing to offer !)
1. We liberated a soverign nation that had violated UN resoulutions for 14 years. Yes liberated. That is what the Iraqi people called it when I asked them while over there in Sadr City.
2. Even Clinton (both of them) said he had WMD's
3. The Bush administration has never claimed there was a link between Saddam and 9/11.
4. What Mushroom clouds?
5. It was yellow cake uranium. Joe Wilsons claims have been proven unfounded. It looks like the sale would have gone through, except for the fact that the Nigerian government found out that Itelligence agencies around the world got a hint to what was going on.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 11, 2006 09:19 PMAs for the credibility issue- unless you KNOW specifically how many times he was offered, I would think long and hard about calling ANYONE a liar (see Jim #21). Since I doubt you are or were a part of ANY administration, I doubt you have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Just another kool-aid drinker!
Posted by: David on September 11, 2006 09:44 PMKS: you've been trained well. Change the subject whenever it gets hot. Iraq is a disaster and a complete waste, we screwed 'em good. A solution to a mess like Iraq? It'd take a lot more time than I have now. I'd start with an apology to the international community and the UN and seek their cooperation. We ain't gonna right this wrong alone, that's for sure.
TrueSoldier: I like your name (LOL). You're all over the map and have a short memory.
1) We didn't liberate anyone, it's a disaster, get your head out of the sand. Also, Israel is in violation of UN resolutions right now and has been in violation much longer than Iraq. Course you people like to pick the resolutions to enforce that suit you.
2) Of course there were WMD, we gave chemical weapons to Iraq for crying out loud. But as a reason to start the war, it's comical, and only works on suckers. The implied nuclear threat as WMD was laughable, but not to you folks, you buy it all.
3) no point in responding to number 3. That's not what I've been hearing. I've been hearing a definite link.
4) The mushroom-clouds I refer to are from Condi Rice and Newsmax. Not your fault, republicans have an extremely short memory. Mushroom clouds where one of the scare tactics used to start the war.
5) Yeah, I forgot about the aluminum tubes, yellow cake, satellite photos, and mobile labs. Good point, add those to the list for me. Thanks
Posted by: Jim Johnson on September 11, 2006 09:46 PMDavid Says: "So when Bill Clinton admits, on tape, in front of witnesses, and later admits to the 9-11 commission that he regrets saying it- that's all a lie made up by Newsmax? You are gullible!"
Regrets saying what? .. Your post doesn't even make sense.
and then the 'credibility' part. There's people on this post saying Clinton had OBL ten...then thirteen times! And you're telling ME I have a credibility issue? and that I'M the cool-aid drinker? Go figure.
What planet are you from?
If you would have said, we did it wrong; I would agree. However, your solutions do not look at the consequences - the apologies to rest of world and bringing in the UN would not do much to change anything in the long term... The big concern is Iran
I take issue with your response to #1 - it is leftwing propaganda - I consider the source. So you are a UN (terrorist) sympathizer - they are one in the same, you know or didn't you know that ? If not, get your head out of the sand !
Posted by: KS on September 11, 2006 10:16 PM1. Yes liberated. As I said before that is what the Iraqi people themselves called it not my words. By the way where you ever in Iraq or are you just using your talking points? Oh and I guess defending yourself from terroirst(which is what Israel has done) should be a UN violation.
2. So you are saying that CLinton new Saddam had WMD's, because he gave them to him?
3. Show me one time where President Bush has actually said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 (and dont give me a link to moveon or kos). You cant, because it he has never said it.
4. Who knows what would have happened if Saddam had reconstituted his Nuke Program.
5. Here is part of a Wadhington Post column (we all now how left the popst leans) that shows that Joe Wilson was wrong about the whole Niger story:
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.
or this
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
and this:
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said.
Here is a link to the "factual" story for you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 11, 2006 10:35 PMGood thing you got the 'cut and run' talking point in. But actually, I'm one of the crazy Democrats that want to correct the mistake before leaving, and the solution to that is to get international involvement. Won't happen with Bush in office though.
I find humor in the 'cut and run' reference because if Bush declared victory tomorrow and threw a few parades you people would think it was all over, and then it would be o.k. to bring the troops home. Block any Iraq stories in the media, wala. Done, we won. That wouldn't be 'cutting and running' though, that would be 'winning and coming home'. Whatever they want to call it, you people buy it.
Whatever you do don't bring up the resolutions though, we wouldn't want to enforce ALL the resolutions against all nations would we?
Yeah, you're definitely right about Iran. In invading Iraq Bush will basically wind up handing over the wealth of Iraq to the terrorists (shia, Iran). I've been saying this for years now, nice move Bush. It couldn't be any worse. Somehow that's the liberals fault though, for not wanting to invade in the first place. Again, go figure. Your logic is beyond me.
Left wing propaganda? I'm a terrorist sympathizer? And the UN is the terrorists?
Dude, you are one scared mo-foe. Quit reading Newsmax immediately!
1) We're occupying and a civil war has started, there are hundreds of bloody bodies daily. The only people who think we've liberated anything are Republican believers.
2) No, it was Reagan (and Cheney, you've undoubtedly seen the handshake) who armed Saddam. Again, Republicans arming the world to keep the military industrial complex running. That I even have to tell you this is a little embarrassing for you.
3) Bush and his accomplices have said and implied countless times. That this point even needs to be discussed is a little funny.
4) I try to avoid 'what ifs' with people of limited ability?
5) You go to Joe Wilson about the Niger story? Not following you at all. If you don't get by now that a bunch of crap was hyped to start the war, you never will.
All in all, a little funny we went from 9-11 film to Iraq over one comment. But of course Bush never said there was a link.
Posted by: Jim Johnson on September 11, 2006 11:04 PMThanks for dropping in. It is fun debating issues with a worthy opponent who is articulate but sadly mistaken on a few issues. Enough ego massaging.
I'm not going to go tit-for-tat on all the points you brought up. Just a clarification on one of your incorrect assertions.
In Post 38 point 2, you claim that Reagan "armed Saddam" apparently in order to keep the military industrial complex running. It was actually the Soviets who armed Saddam with the vast bulk of his equipment. T-54 and T-72 tanks, BMP's, AK-47 and AK-74 rifles, RPG rocket launchers, MiG jets, air defence, etc. The Iraqi army tactics were based on Soviet military doctrine. If you are a student of military history, Jim, you'd know that the defensive lines put into place by the Iraqis during Operation Desert Storm follow this model.
France was a big supplier of military hardware and expertise. In addition to small arms, France supplied Saddam with Mirage fighter planes. French scientists and technical advisors were the backbone behind Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor which was bombed by Isreal in 1981.
Germany and China have supplied weaponry. You might remember that it was a Chinese-made Silkworm missile that was shot down over Kuwait by a Patriot II missile during the opening stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Despite U.N. sanctions, Saddam was able to get ahold of that piece of weaponry.
And just for grins I'll add that Russia apparently violated those same sanctions to supply the Iraqi military with Kornet-E anti-tank missiles. If you remember the video footage of one of our M1 Abrahm tanks knocked out during Operation Iraqi freedom be advised that it was a hunter/killer team utilizing that sophisticated piece of equipment. Hezbollah used Kornet's against Isreali Merkava tanks while fighting was going on in Lebannon.
This can be demonstrated to be false, relying exclusively on left of center online resources.
This is a link to a liberal Swedish anti-arms trafficking think tank (Sweden has a large arms industry and some Swedes oppose this). It shows that the US was one of the least significant suppliers of armaments to to Iraq.
http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html/view?searchterm=iraq
Seven nations provided more arms to Iraq in the period between 1970 and 2004 than the US, in order with % of the total value of arms they are:
USSR 59.57%
France 12.43%
PRC (China) 11.05%
Czechoslovakia 6.57%
Poland 3.84%
Brazil 1.65%
Egypt 1.18%
Denmark 0.52%
USA 0.47%
This data includes the US rearmament of the current Iraqi government up to 2004. Please note this data is for 1970 through 2004 -- don't be confused by the fact that countries who appear on this list no longer exist.
The "handshake" Jim Johnson refers to was not Cheney, but Rumsfeld who was sent by President Reagan to deliver a US ultimatum to Hussein after atrocities against the Kurds. This is precisely the diplomatic effort the left claims they prefer. The US ended its very modest support for Saddam based on Rumsfelds advice.
Another serious misrepresentation that is also made on this topic is suggesting that the US supplied WMD element to Hussein. The US did sell some dual use items to the Iraqis that I'm sure we would rather have not, but nothing the US provided Iraq was actualy used in WMD development. The USSR provided Chem/Bio, China Rockets, France Nuc.
Despite the easy avaialbility of the truth to the casual researcher foolishness like Johnson's claims are difficult to eliminate.
Posted by: Alex Hays on September 11, 2006 11:46 PMI can't believe you are having difficulty following a simple train of thought. I'll try to explain it so even you can follow along.
In my post #21, I ask you to visit a site where there is a story about Clinton admiting he could have had Bin Laden. Now follow along- next step.
In your post #29, you imply that the linked site (Newsmax) is lying about what Clinton said and that I am misinformed. O.k. so far- 1 more step.
In my post #32 (that you can't seem to follow) I provide a rebutal to your claim that Newsmax lied or made it up by refering to an audio recording of Clinton saying what was reported by Newsmax. I also refer you to the 9-11 Commission report that quotes Clinton as saying he regretted saying that he had the opportunity to get Bin Laden- which is where all of this started back at post #21.
As for the credibility problems- Do you have any PROOF that anyone on this thread is lying about anything? If so, provide it. If not, then put on your tin-foil hat and go back to your kool-aid drinking.
Posted by: David on September 11, 2006 11:47 PMI'll defer to you interms of what is being found in Iraq. One response is that the SIPRI data does not account for the arms smuggled into Irage after the first Gulf War.
The authors of the study note that credible information indicates Russian, Chinese and Korean arms transfers, passing through Syria.
My guess would be post-Saddam smuggling by insurgents.
The data does show FRG and GDR together as 0.22%. The data also doesn't differentiate between tanks, planes and small arms -- it scores value in 1990 dollars.
Posted by: Alex Hays on September 12, 2006 12:03 AMThe problem is not Iraq. It's the growing spread of violent Islamic hatred. Iran is the main financier and sponsor of violent hatred, but a large portion of the Middle East continues to allow Mullahs to disseminate violent hatred and calls for Jihad on a daily basis. And the Sharia based governments fund terror, calls for hatred, terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, etc.
Complict in our appeasment and denial is every Administration since Carter. Carter being the worst of all because he failed to nip the problem in the bud and thus set off the initial emboldening of Islamic fanatics.
Until we make it hurt for a significant number of those who make it possible to dessiminate, fund and support violent hatred, it is not going to stop.
We need to clearly confront the Islamic countries of the Middle East and communicate to them that they need to take responsibility for the spread of violent hatred, or else. And then we need to follow up that message with a seige and ultimately tremendous force or whatever else it takes to show that we are serious.
Don't let fools like Jim Johnson lead the discussion off on a tangent about what's gone good or bad in Iraq. There's plenty to debate about the particulars of Iraq, but Iraq is only one small front in this war.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 12, 2006 01:37 AMOnce more, unserious people do rude and immature things and people die.
Posted by: bruce from redmond on September 12, 2006 08:16 AMHere is the link to the audio of Bill CLinton admitting he chose not to go after Bin Laden:
http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3
Here is the transcript:
"'Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.
"'They released him. At the time, 1996, 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 take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato.'""
Posted by: pbj on September 12, 2006 09:22 AMGeorge Bush kicks A $ $! Liberals are too cowardly to defend this nation.
Posted by: pbj on September 12, 2006 09:26 AMJim Johnson,
How much is the DNC paying you to "monitor" this blog? Such a classic old Soviet style tactic.
What is scary is how liberals try to suppress free speech, suing the government to threaten to remove a broadcaster if they do not spew their propaganda.
The media is unabashadley liberal. I do not recall Dan Rather forging documents to bring down Bill CLinton. And studies of journalist voting patterns have shown they overwhelmingly vote Lberal Democrat.
Frankly, I am surprised the well oiled liberal free speech suppression machine was not able to stop the movie.
Posted by: pbj on September 12, 2006 09:42 AMYou are slick at debating others here, as you have the left's talking points down well and also for putting words in others mouths.
you said -
" Somehow that's the liberals fault though, for not wanting to invade in the first place. Again, go figure. Your logic is beyond me.
Left wing propaganda? I'm a terrorist sympathizer? And the UN is the terrorists?"
As a matter of fact - there were at least several junctures that Clinton could have captured Osama and been more aggressive in actions against the terrorists, that were emboldened starting in 1979 thanks to Jimmy Carter's blunder in Iran. However, you are also comparing apples & oranges, since slick Willie was one lucky mo'fo' that 9-11 didn't happen on his watch. Bush really had no choice as to what to do after 9-11 and invading the Taliban was the right thing to do then.
You are incredibly naive, dude if you believe that the UN is capable of policing any military uprising. Name one military conflict they have prevented. Hey what happened in Rwanda in 1994? (that was also a shortcoming of our military, that Slick Willie decimated during his reign). Many of the UN's members have despot dictators in charge and/or all the countries that harbor terrorists. I stand by my comment on the UN.
Posted by: KS on September 12, 2006 12:59 PMNo, there's plenty of blame, on both sides. What we should be focusing our ire on are those problems which were correctly (?) highlighted on Path and that dealt with the bureaucratic inability to communicate and to act. These are still with us, and should concern us greatly. By all accounts, the Dept of Homeland Security, a bipartisan accomplishment, is more hindrance than strength in our war on terrorism. Bureaucratic failure was the major theme of Path and yet is ignored here in our efforts to trash one another and to blame the other side.
Not only is it not right to praise free speech and then to trash Johnson for speaking his mind. but our tirades merely distract us from discussing real problems. If you don't like what someone says, let your facts do your talking, not your emotions.
And having said all that in all civility, I can't resist adding one rebulk:
pbj, to call Path 'a truthful recount of the facts' after even its conservative creator admitted making up some scenes bespeaks an ignorance of facts that I find scary: and as for the liberal attempt to remove Path as an example of how much they hate free speech, recall the successful efforts of the right in forcing CBS to remove its depiction of the Reagans (which wasn't even that bad as the love story it was meant to be).
Posted by: MJ on September 12, 2006 02:25 PM"Not only is it not right to praise free speech and then to trash Johnson for speaking his mind."
I'm calling you on your B.S. Typical liberal cr@p. You have the right to say something idiotic. You don't have the right not to be called an idiot for saying it. Freedom goes both ways.
"and as for the liberal attempt to remove Path as an example of how much they hate free speech, recall the successful efforts of the right in forcing CBS to remove its depiction of the Reagans (which wasn't even that bad as the love story it was meant to be)."
Again, total B.S. Harry Reid and the Democratic leaders of Congress sent a veiled threat to Disney about the possibility of pulling their FCC license.
Please provide examples of Republican leaders threatening to do the same to CBS.
Posted by: Larry on September 12, 2006 03:11 PMThe right has recently prided itself as the party of ideas, but lately it's become the party of empty platitudes and personal smears. And before you jump up with the startling reminder that the Dems do it too, I don't give a rat's ass. Of course they do. So what. What bothers me is what I saw here, and that was attempts to belittle Johnson, not to challenge or refute his arguments, but to deflect attention away from them.
Oh ya, as for your "total BS:" I believe that the chairman of the RNC weighed in on the Reagan movie, and did so at a time that critical telecommunications legislation affecting CBS was under review by a Republican congress.
But before you fire off another unremarkable partisan remark, my point above was only to remind the historically challenged that neither party has a lock on free speech or censorship. Deal with it. And if that's "typical liberal crap," then you don't have a clue what liberal means, at least not outside your political fantasy world.
If Jim Johnson had expressed any cogent, logical thoughts, they would have been acknowledged as such.
His FIRST post contained the following:
"This well-timed, inaccurate, political mini series was bought and paid for just like the news every night. The movie is literally three hours of right wing propaganda bought and paid for.
From all the Bill Clinton chatter it seems like it was quite effective. Good thing there were only 13 million viewers. Bad thing is that they probably all believe it. Guaranteed, these aren't the brightest 13 million in the country."
Let's list the liberal Democratic crap typical talking points:
1. The network news is owned by the right wing;
2. The 'Path to 9/11' is all right-wing propaganda;
3. The people who watched it are stupid right-wingers.
With such a logical, well-researched comment backed up by so much evidence, why WOULDN'T we acknowledge his unparalleled intelligence?
Jim Johnson screwed his own credibility in his very first post, and from there it was all downhill. He proceeded to poke fun at other posters without offering a shred of new thought or debatable ideas.
But you find his ideas refreshing, and not all wrong. Therefore you must believe that his attempted character assasinations, crass generalizations, and argumentums ad hominem are 'refereshing'. Maybe you should ask him out to coffee before the next Micheal Moore premiere.
So go F yourself on a flagpole for all I care, MJ.
I just wish you wouldn't soil the great Michael Jordan by stealing his moniker.
Jose: love the post man, you swallowed it whole baby. Jose, why do you think the 'path to 9-11' was made and put on TV? Do you think whoever made it or paid for it had any ideas they wanted to convey, get across to the average imbecile in the country? Never mind, sounds like you got it to the 'T' your reading and retention must be off the charts.
MJ: Thanks for the kind words. One quick little post, a little venting, maybe a little rage a little anger, started this great blog battle. I did feel a little ganged up on though, one post and next thing you know I'm fending off the wolves. Awesome!
I'll come clean for you clowns: I'm average Joe blow, two kids, gorgeous new baby girl, I go to work every day (pbj: I ain't getting paid for this, I'm just sharing my thoughts) and I'm just trying to make ends meet like everyone else. But I do seem to have a knack for seeing through BS, maybe I'm a human bull sh*t detector, not sure.
I'm a bit surprised sometimes at what my fellow Americans believe and just feel compelled to share my thoughts. Thoughts usually different than the drivel, marketing, and miss-information fed to this country every day in the 'news'. (I just laugh out loud whenever I think of newsmax) I'll be honest this staunch believer I used to work with sent me a link about mushroom clouds on newsmax before Iraq was invaded. I've gone back a few times, the site is down right comical. Fox news and ABC are the next level of miss-information. My favorite about fox is the 'fair and balanced' self-proclamation. I've slammed FOX in the past about their slanted reporting and Republican acquaintances say (with a straight face, completely serious) "what do you mean, they're fair and balanced". I don't know what to do but laugh or cry. I mean come on KFC says they're "finger lickin' good", Home Depot "the place to get things done", you know, slogans. You people all believe it though. Weyerhaeuser says they're the "Tree growing company". Don't you find any humor in that? But the best is Fox news: 'fair and balanced', I'm in stitches!
Which brings me to the mainstream media. Little tip for you brilliant republicans: Everyone time one of you tells me the mainstream media is liberal. A guy like me, cut you off right away, immediately you're considered complete stupid, you're cut off, won't ever discuss politics or really anything with you again. Because you don't get it, you haven't figured it out yet. The mainstream media is owned and operated by mega conglomerate corporations. Like all most all corporations they're interested in profits and primarily profits alone. I think most liberals are interested in other things, freedom, fairness, protecting wildlife and humans. Sometimes these two worlds are united and seek the same goals and sometimes they're diabolically opposed, not sure of what percentage of each.
The only information delivered from these mega corporations on the channels, stations, or sites they own is the information that sells things, convinces you to buy things, or directs you on how to vote or spend your tax dollars. Yes there's other info: kidnappings, robberies, killings, murders, wars, but I put those in category 'b' a scared population usually votes how you tell them to. There's sports (mega corporations), want ads (sales and marketing), home and garden (sales), fashion (sales), technology (sales), the news is great. The occasional wild fire, weather (get your umbrellas), and traffic alerts and you're good to go. All the info you need.
Honest to god, this is the first time I've ever posted on a blog (that's why the Jim Johson, I certainly ain't gonna put my real name, there are to many nuts in this country). Last night reading the sheep on this site buy it all, I had to say something. Started on the HuffPo about six months ago but never wrote there. Lately wondered what the other side had to say, which brought me to redstate.org and in their blog section there was this lovely site.
I've noticed how the liberal sights usually have way more posts than the right wing ones. You ever wonder why the mainstream sites, ABC, MSNBC, GOOGLE, FOX, have 'blogs' but they're nothing like HuffPo, this one, redstate, or some of the others? You'd think they'd be leading the way, but they're not. I wonder why? We probably don't want everyone having a voice or being able to post their thoughts? I wonder if they'll shut these things down? I know it sounds crazy but jesh, what do you think the last five (or six) years have been for me or people like me, or liberals, or democrats, or (to you people) terrorists. It's been hell. Listening and reading the one sided story from the media all day and then listening to the republicans repeat it, it's nuts.
Thank you very much for having me and for following along, I'm sincerely flattered and plan to come back some time for some more show and tell.
Love all,
Jimmy
Which one posted the straightjacket pictures? Those were hilarious.
If I missed anyone I'm sorry.
Love you all,
Jim Johnson
"TrueSoldier: you've got to be a child. Your writing is atrocious and your lack of historical knowledge is astounding."
"Do you think whoever made it or paid for it had any ideas they wanted to convey, get across to the average imbecile in the country? Never mind, sounds like you got it to the 'T' your reading and retention must be off the charts."
==> These two quotes, taken together, show the complete lack of education and lack of empathy of 'Jim Jones Johnson'. He accuses others of having 'atrocious' writing - and then puts out such incomprehensible run-on fragmented bullsh!t that it's difficult to READ. Jimmy, your writing is like 8 miles of road construction - except that with construction we expect the road to be better. I don't see any improvement to your syntax, spelling, nor grammar in the future.
"But I do seem to have a knack for seeing through BS, maybe I'm a human bull sh*t detector, not sure."
==> I think you got 'detector' and 'producer' mixed up. You're definitely a bullsh!t producer - whether or not you detect bullsh!t depends on whether you can smell the stench cumming from your own mouth. (Don't bother spell-checking - that was intentional.)
"Thoughts usually different than the drivel, marketing, and miss-information fed to this country every day in the 'news'."
==> Thoughts fragments and run-ons are sentences yours. Loves you Yoda does.
"Weyerhaeuser says they're the "Tree growing company"."
==> You're don't believe that Weyerhaeuser grows trees? They grow millions of trees. Do you care to debate this? Trees are like wheat - they grow back. Don't you know this?
"Little tip for you brilliant republicans: Everyone time one of you tells me the mainstream media is liberal."
==> Taken your soul Yoda has. Do you ever complete a sentence, Jim? It's subject-verb-direct object. You were never taught that in elementary school? Everyone time? Everyone time of you?
"Which brings me to the mainstream media."
==> Which brings me back to incomplete sentence fragments.
"Honest to god, this is the first time I've ever posted on a blog (that's why the Jim Johson, I certainly ain't gonna put my real name, there are to many nuts in this country)."
==> Are you Jim Johnson or Jim Johson? And do you have 'too' many nuts, or 'too' few nuts? I'm guessing you don't have any nuts at all.
"I've noticed how the liberal sights usually have way more posts than the right wing ones."
==> How does a sight have a post? That's a rhetorical question. Rhetorical means 'asked merely for effect with no answer expected', since I knew you were going to ask, anyway.
"I know it sounds crazy but jesh, what do you think the last five (or six) years have been for me or people like me, or liberals, or democrats, or (to you people) terrorists. It's been hell."
==> Jesh? I'm glad the last 5 or 6 years have been hell for democrats and terrorists. You guys are always hanging out together, so the least we can do is make your lives uncomfortable.
Jimmy, here are a few hints for your next post:
1. If you want to be taken seriously, don't make crass bullsh!t generalizations about the readers of this blog such as those I pointed out in comment # 61; AND
2. Before you accuse someone of having atrocious writing, the LEAST you could do is use a spell-check, have your mommy check your comments for grammar and syntax, and actually put forth logical, cogent, and complete thoughts and arguments.
And I've only scraped the surface of Jimmy's reprehensible ideas, arguments, logic, spelling, grammar, syntax, and humor.
MJ: You threw yourself in with his lot - how do you feel after reading Jimmy's Manifesto? He's admitted that he's not here to posit new ideas - he only wants to get the fur to fly. I find it disheartening - the least the 'opposition' could do is to provide some good competition.
Jim Johnson and MJ: If you really want to know what's wrong with the United States of America, please consult the nearest mirror.
"Doesn't anyone use spell check anymore?"
Asked and answered, by your own comments. You don't even know your own name, Jim Johson.
You're a parody of yourself. Parody means 'a feeble or ridiculous imitation', since I knew you were going to ask anyway.
Posted by: Larry on September 12, 2006 11:46 PMAnd the reason that corporate ownership explanation doesn't fly is that all the journalists, editors and people that do the work of the corporation are rabid liberals as has been shown in studies of political views over and over. If the corporation told them to report it their way or walk, they wouldn't have anyone to do any stories. No product, no profit.
Yes, there is a liberal media bias. Am I surprised that mindless followers of the liberal socialist dogma do not see that bias anywhere? Not in the least. It is usually the kool-aid drinkers such as Jim that do not see the poison until it is too late. Perhaps Jim Jones is a better moniker for him.
Posted by: pbj on September 13, 2006 10:20 AM
C'mon liberals. Put up or shut up!
You guys really want more?
I mean, , I tore you to shreds!
You really want more?
Love you guys,
James
Posted by: Jim Johnson on September 13, 2006 07:58 PMhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/pbs-newshour-on-the-path_b_29359.html
Posted by: Jim Johnson on September 13, 2006 08:49 PMYou tore us to shreds? You haven't responded to any part of my comments - in which I point out what a total idiot you really are.
Your spell-check still doesn't work:
"I mean, , I tore you to shreds!"
It should pick up the syntax error of having two commas in a row, with no clause in between.
Of course, if you had a functioning brain, you'd find these problems before the spell check - and have the integrity and dignity not to accuse others of your own shortcomings - that's called 'projection'.
As I said, Jimmy - you're a parody of yourself.
MJ? Are you out there? How do you feel about your buddy Jimmy NOW?
Posted by: Larry on September 13, 2006 10:20 PM"pbj, your absolutely crazy!"
That should be "you're". "You're" is a contraction formed by the subject-verb combination 'you are'. "Your" is possessive. I understand that "your" current third-grade teacher might not have covered this in "your" english class. "You're" probably far behind in intellectual development.
"says it all, scroll down and watch the video:"
That's an incomplete sentence, known as a 'fragment'. Also, when you begin a sentence in the English language, "you're" supposed to capitalize the first letter of the first word.
Please let me know if you are mentally retarded or if you have a learning disability, Jim. I'd hate to be making fun of someone who is developmentally disabled - as I suspect that you may be.
You have yet to show us one instance in recent history where the GOP has threatened a broadcaster with loss of its broadcasting license if it broadcast a show they did not like. In contrast, we have seen how the socialist Democrats abuse their power in attempts to curb free speech.
The Reagan film is not such a case you can cite. The show DID air and there were no threats to remove CBS's broadcast license because the GOP did not like it.
Clearly in the case of Demcorats, they are fine to abuse their government authority whereas no such GOP abuse has ever happened.
Again, I ask you to cite the case.
We're waiting.
Posted by: pbj on September 14, 2006 10:01 AMhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/
Posted by: Jim Johnson on September 15, 2006 10:21 PMIt's either because he's too stupid to understand the questions and posit a logical response; or because answering our questions will prove that he's misunderstood the situation, and it'll bring his whole values system crashing down to reality.
Posted by: Larry on September 16, 2006 08:11 AMThanks jim, but we already suspected you were a moron - this just confirms it...
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 16, 2006 08:16 AMIt just COULDN'T be that you ask stupid questions, could it Larry? Naaaaa,,,, It's that I'm stupid,,,,, got it. I'm shedding tears right now cuz I feel soooo stupid. You on the other hand sound like a genius, you must read a lot of books? You're so articulate and your ideas and statements are so thought provoking. I'm sure it's books you're reading and not ignorant web sites. Right?
And it just couldn't be that I don't waste time answering stupid questions for people that already have everything figured out. People that wouldn't know reality if it hit 'em in the head. You live in a different world than I do Mr. Larry. People like me, avoid people like you, wouldn't give you the time of day. That's where we are in America today.
My 'value system crashing down'? WTF is that? (I can't stop laughing).
Seriously, you're not all together there dude!
Love ya anyway,
Jack
As I stated before - you're a parody of yourself.
You show all the signs of a sociopath - attacking in one post, then trying to be our best friend in another. That's typical Seattle-liberal-passive-agressive behavior.
I, however, don't play those games. I won't avoid people like you, nor will I ever like people like you. But I'll deal with you if necessary. That's the Conservative Republican Way. Your way is to avoid people unlike you - as you've so clearly stated - and that's mirrored by your eminent idiotic Democrats in Congress and throughout the land. It's your side that avoids our side, attacks us, and weakens the country for political gain.
God Bless You, Jack Jim Johson Johnson.
p.s. No, everything was not spelled okay. I don't think I'm more intelligent than you - I think I'm more polite, dignified, diplomatic, and empathetic than you. It was YOU who corrected someone else's spelling, and then put forth such linguistic garbage. You obviously live in a brick house, being that you cast so many stones.
Posted by: Larry on September 17, 2006 10:49 AMLare-ster, first of all that's 'aggressive' with two "Gs", secondly, we definitely aren't gonna be best friends, those were attempts at sarcasm. And as long as we're still free to hang with whom we choose, I'll choose to avoid the believers, they're scary people.
Sure big 'L', it's the democrats that are weakening the country, not the people running it, who started an illegal war (that's getting expensive), alienate the world, trample the constitution, want to gut the Geneva convention, defend torture and secret prisons, and use 9-11 as a political tool. Yeah, it's not them, it's the democrats, sure.
Not everything is about you Larry, but it's been a hoot chatting with you! The spelling correction comment was a joke and in response to another post that indicated how to spell 'voila'. I was kidding back, get it, ha, ha. And as for TrueSoldier, go back and read his posts. Everyone miss-spells things and is not grammatically correct, on a blog in particular. You in particular, however, brought it up eight times in one post alone and for a total of 12 times on this thread (below)! Typical when debating with people on the right because they can't win when it comes to the issues, they lose every time. That's why all the name-calling, distractions, personal attacks, and historical revisions. It's a defamation technique and a way to distract from the points and issues. If you're not in language arts, you should think about it.
Larry says (post #64): "Jimmy, your writing is like 8 miles of road construction"
Larry says (post #64): "Thoughts fragments and run-ons are sentences yours. Loves you Yoda does."
Larry says (post #64): "Taken your soul Yoda has. Do you ever complete a sentence, Jim? It's subject-verb-direct object. You were never taught that in elementary school? Everyone time? Everyone time of you?"
Larry says (post #64): "Which brings me back to incomplete sentence fragments."
Larry says (post #64): "Are you Jim Johnson or Jim Johson? And do you have 'too' many nuts, or
Larry says (post #64): "How does a sight have a post?
Larry says (post #64): "Before you accuse someone of having atrocious writing, the LEAST you
could do is use a spell-check, have your mommy check your comments for grammar and syntax,
and actually put forth logical, cogent, and complete thoughts and arguments."
Larry says (post #64): "And I've only scraped the surface of Jimmy's reprehensible ideas, arguments, logic, spelling, grammar, syntax, and humor.""
Larry says (post #65): "Asked and answered, by your own comments. You don't even know your own name, Jim Johson."
Larry says (post #70): "Your spell-check still doesn't work:"...."it should pick up the syntax error of having two commas in a row, with no clause in between."
Larry says (post #71): "That should be "you're". "You're" is a contraction formed by the subject-verb combination 'you are'."
Larry says (post #71): "That's an incomplete sentence, known as a 'fragment'. Also, when you begin a sentence in the English language, "you're" supposed to capitalize the first letter of the first word."
Larry goes on to say (post #77): "I think I'm more polite, dignified, diplomatic, and empathetic than you."
Yeah, you're a first rate humanitarian Larry, diplomacy and kindness are you. Here are some of your polite, dignified, diplomatic, and empathetic quotes:
Larry says (post #61): "So go F yourself on a flagpole for all I care, MJ."
Larry says (post #61): "Let's list the liberal Democratic crap typical talking points:"
Larry says (post #70): "did your mommy let you near the computer again?"
Larry says (post #70): "You haven't responded to any part of my comments - in which I point out what a total idiot you really are."
Larry says (post #70): "Of course, if you had a functioning brain, you'd find these problems before the spell check"
Larry says (post #71): "I understand that "your" current third-grade teacher might not have covered this in "your" english class. "You're" probably far behind in intellectual development."
Larry says (post #71): "Please let me know if you are mentally retarded or if you have a learning disability, Jim."
Larry says (post #74): "It's either because he's too stupid to understand the questions and posit a logical response;"
That's what the right does Larry. They correct spelling, point out minor flaws, distort history, defame, attack, and ridicule anyone that doesn't agree with them or play along with their skewed view of the world. There's even a new term for it: "swift-boating'.
Larry says (post #64): "Trees are like wheat - they grow back. Don't you know this?"
Answer: Yes, Weyerhaeuser does grow trees, however their primary business is harvesting them, not necessarily the same thing and it is funny (even if you don't get it) that that is their company slogan. And, I think just a little oversimplified and naïve to compare wheat which grows annually, sometimes more than once annually, to trees which can take hundreds of years.
Larry says (post #64): "Jesh? I'm glad the last 5 or 6 years have been hell for democrats and terrorists. You guys are always hanging out together, so the least we can do is make your lives uncomfortable."
The quote was: "what do you think the last five (or six) years have been for me or people like me, or liberals, or democrats, or (to you people) terrorists."
Liberals, Democrats and the UN were called terrorists in a previous post. I hope people on this site know the difference? Based on the writing, it's not apparent.
Larry says (post 61): "If Jim Johnson had expressed any cogent, logical thoughts"
Answer: The thoughts from my original post where:
A) The posts of people debating if Clinton should have had OBL are scary because the movie, Path, is fiction, as stated when the movie started.
B) It's nuts to think Clinton had OBL 10 (or 13) times.
C) The story about the assassins and Clinton not giving the 'go' is laughable.
D) Path is well-timed, inaccurate political propaganda. That you don't agree or get it, doesn't mean it ain't so.
E) From the comments, it seems like it worked.
F) There were thirteen million viewers that probably aren't the smartest in the country.
G) Until people see through the shams on TV, in the news, and from our fearless leader, things will continue to get worse.
Your favorite sociopath,
Shirly
My sociopath/passive-aggressive comment really sent you into attack mode. That's indication # 1 that I was spot-on.
Comment #77: Passive. Comment #79: Aggressive.
I rest my case.
Posted by: Larry on September 17, 2006 09:44 PMAll I did was list your kind, diplomatic statements from prior posts for all to see what a smooth cat you are.
Whatever you do, don't talk about the issues though Larry.
It's been a hoot and I'm glad you are resting your case, such an eloquent and persuasive one it was.
Your Psycho,
Jim
Posted by: Jim Johnson on September 18, 2006 02:58 PM