Saturday, September 09, 2006

Dems Really Scared

The Democratic party really has their panties in a wad over this "Path to 9/11" documentary. I wonder if theyre hurting their credibility more by denying it than if they just let it air and later denounced it as fiction?

Clinton's Lawyers Demand ABC Yank Film
Path to 9/11 Web Address Hijacked
Dems Threaten Disney's Broadcast License

Hilarious KOS Thread

I despise censorship.

When it comes to The Path to 9-11, the sad truth is that there will be no opportunity to create Mill's "livelier impression of truth." ABC certainly won't allocate another five hours to present a factual rebuttal. And that is why we who are the most vocal opponents of censorship now demand that ABC and Disney exercise discretion and self-censorship and edit or reconsider airing the series.

So you despise censorship...except...when it suits your ends? The hypocrisy is self evident.

Rebuttal of Sandy Berger's Self-Defense Dishonesty

"There is nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report (the purported basis of your film) to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license. In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda."
That statement is, in fact, untrue.
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed.He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision. [emphasis added]
And this (quasi-unreleated)

"On November 4, 1998, the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictmentof Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"

You know, because AQ is not in Iraq. Never was. No way.