Is ABC Blocking DVD Release of 'Path to 9/11' to Save Clintons Embarrassment?


"The Path to 9/11," ABC's five-hour miniseries from earlier this year, is still not out on DVD and now the film's screenwriter is claiming that ABC is blocking the release of the DVD to save Hillary and Bill Clinton the embarrassment they suffered when the show originally aired on TV. Why would ABC do this? Because we are at the beginning of Hillary Clinton's run for president and ABC wants to keep the Clinton's failures against radical Islam from coming to the fore says series writer Cyrus Nowrasteh.

With no date for the release, questions are being raised about whether political pressure is behind its current status as a stalled or discarded DVD project. The reasons are murky, but the miniseries' writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it's crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton's presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.

It's all about the money. Isn't what they always say about Hollywood? Doesn't the trope go that they will do anything for the cash? Let's take a quick look at sales for 2006...

According to the MPAA, ticket sales for 2006 in North America reached $9.49 billion and with $9 Billion in DVD and cable sales on top of that. Apparently, DVD sales account for nearly as much money as box-office sales. So, while employing the old trope that Hollywood cares more about the money than anything else, their footdragging on the DVD release of "The Path to 9/11" just doesn't seem to fit their standard mode of operation, does it?

It certainly isn't because they don't think it will sell. It was an award-winning and highly-rated show, after all. As the LA Times article says,the miniseries made $40-million and it "recently received seven Emmy nominations and drew a combined two-night audience of more than 25 million viewers." So, the show ranked as an extremely popular broadcast and DVD sales could only make that popularity grow. Yet, Nowrasteh is still waiting for info on the release.

Initially, Nowrasteh was told by executives at ABC Studios that the miniseries would have a DVD release in January. Then, April. Then, this summer. Currently, Nowrasteh has not been notified of a specific release date for the DVD.

Curious behavior, no?

But, maybe not. You'll remember how the Clintonistas howled with rage and even got ABC to run disclaimers during the original broadcast of "The Path to 9/11."

Even before "The Path to 9/11" aired on ABC late last summer, the docudrama ignited a political firestorm, almost entirely from high-profile Democratic leaders who viewed its account of events leading up to the terrorist attacks as a right-wing hatchet job on the Clinton administration and its efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Attempts to pressure ABC to cancel the miniseries at the time were unsuccessful, but last-minute network edits were imposed to quell the critical outcry.

So, if it isn't all for the money, why is the DVD release being squelched?

Nowrasteh, also one of the miniseries' many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that "if Hillary weren't running for president, this wouldn't be a problem."

It looks like a certain political candidate's future is more important than either the truth or artistic integrity to the execs at ABC.

"Whatever anyone may think about me or this movie, this is a bad precedent, a dangerous precedent, to allow a movie to be buried," added Nowrasteh, who received death threats even before the miniseries was broadcast last September. "Because the next time they'll go after another movie. The Bush administration may go after a movie. The next administration may go after a movie. No matter who it is, they may go after a movie. I think this town needs to stand up."

Indeed.

It sure seems like just another Clinton dirty trick to which a compliant media is happy to lend an assist.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What did Hillary know........

The truth is sometimes embarassing:

http://www.geocities...

I was making small talk

I was making small talk with a nurse in a lab who clearly was interested in Hillary for president. I just carefully mentioned that it would result in Bill Clinton living in the Whitehouse. The nurse gasped wide eyed and said " I never thought about that! ".

I think that Rove is correct, she is not electable.

Real dead pople will rise from the grave and vote against her.

ABC Learned from Vince Foster

Don't cross the Clintons.  Only Al Gore and Michael Moore films are allowed to be released during campaigns.

Am I not getting it?

First it was Islam vs. the Islamists, now this. Would someone explain to me again how the left is going to save America from totalitarianism?

ABC is probably afraid of

ABC is probably afraid of getting sue for libel considering the amount of lies in this piece of dreck.

Before commenting, read pg 199 of the 9/11 Commission Report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

No intention

blasterd, I am quite sure that few people would be interested in reading anything referred by you.

Burg(l)er Pages Please!

Now could we please have the Sandy Burg(l)er pages to read also!  And I always thought "SOCKS" was the name of the cat, well, turns out to be cat burg(l)er!!

Where are the pages Sandy took?

That your best come back!  Where are the pages Sandy took?

Libel?!

If there was anything in the film that was legally actionable, the producers, writers, and network would have been sued already. Remember that the Clintons got a preview of the final cut before it aired.

Hell, I wish they had sued. There would be nothing like shining a little light on that administrations failure to take terrorism seriously.

Also, I don't think that cherry picking 2 pages out of a 585 page report (effectively discarding all context) is going to be quite the knock-out argument you think it is.

Great point. After all,

Great point. After all, nobody had an opportunity to sue ABC for libel months ago when the movie was originally aired.

Your insight is amazing.

Nice Try

LOL, if ABC was so worried about "libel", they wouldn't have aired the movie in the first place.

Come to think of it, can you name us ANY "anti-Clinton" film or book where the Clintons sued the creators or writers for libel?

Better have Begala fax you some new talking points, Blast. But do keep up the good work, you're GREAT entertainment!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0409041pdb1.gif

Check the date on the lower left of the memo that Bush ignored.

 

 

Check the date of the first

Check the date of the first attack on the Twin Towers, princess. Did Clinton go after the planners or was he fat & happy nabbing a couple of bagmen?

Please, try harder next time, cupcake.

Your lame 'check the date', posted as if it were the discovery of some real proof of something significant, might work on those leftist conspiracy theory websites like Huff-n-Stuff or Daily Kosmonaut, but we at the NB aren't swerved some easily by weak straw men. 

Why is it that lefties believe that 'the people' noted in the 2nd are different than the 'the people' mentioned elsewhere in the Bill of Rights?

On March 4, 1993

On March 4, 1993 authorities announced the capture of Salameh. In March 1994, Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj were each convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the World Trade Center bombing.

Did Bush ever capture bin Laden?

"So I don't know where he is.  You know, I just don't spend that much time on him" -- Bush on the capture of bin Laden

Oh my, 1993 captures?

Since the FBI was in on the bombing (a sting) it should not be surprising that we should be able to get them.

Perhaps more concerning, blaster, is that when Yoseff told the FBI in the mid 90's, that next they'd have more money and would bring the towers down, we should have paid a bit more attention. Indeed, it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle, who picked up the idea and in 1996 started the planning for 9/11. Bin Laden's declaration of a holy jahid on the US should, knowing what we knew then sould have  provided our government with enough courage to at least talk about the inevitable. It's not like some in the media did not know more:

THE NEW YORK TIMES
Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1
"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"
By Ralph Blumenthal 

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building the bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting
harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,
Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court [on charges of involvement] in that attack.Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases:
the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the second bombing case, but his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast, he was feuding with th F.B.I.Supervisor `Messed It Up'After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said, "came and messed it up." "He requested to meet me in the hotel," Mr. Salem says of the supervisor."He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn't push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the Bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him, "He said, I don't think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York Office to go to Washington, D.C."Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem's account, but rather, appears to agree with it, saying of the `New York people': "Well, of course not, because they don't want to get their butts chewed."

Blaster


Did Bush ever capture bin Laden?

Blaster - Even if he had, you would be at the front of the Liberal pack bleating "This hasn't shut-down Al Quaida" and "Someone else will just take his place."

Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.

ignored memo

Did the president really ignore that memo? Or do you mean that he failed to act on it?

If it's the latter, then please explain what specific steps could have been taken to prevent the totally unprecedented attacks of 9/11. Bearing in mind, of course, that there was no information sharing between any of the agencies in the intelligence and law enforcement communities. 

From Pulitzer Prize winning

From Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Ron Suskind's "1% Doctrine":

  In August, CIA analysts flew to Crawford to personally brief the President -- to intrude on his vacation with face-to-face alerts.

The failure of imagination, blaster

The failure of imagination, blaster.

Mr. President - we know that they are up to something. If only we knew what it were?

Imagine what might have been possible if the FBI and the CIA had been communicating - sharing information and intelligence. Imagine - had the wall been torn down. Following the 1993 attack on the WTC - it was understood in congress that the wall would have to come down. Janet Reno and the Clinton administration kept it in place. Perhaps both Bush and Clinton were blind to what was in planning.

One has to have something of substance, other than a rehashed 3 or 4 year old PDB, if one can be expected to act.

blaster. 1998 PDB

Blaster. Here's an excerpt from the 9/11 Commission findings. Bush's PDB vs Clinton's PDB.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/pdbnews/Ex_B.pdf 

Was not Bush's "famous" PDB, just a rehash of old warnings which were prepared for the last occupant, when the warnings were hot?

This site is about media bias. The crime here is how the media chooses only to keep one line of investigative (agenda driven) news on the table.

Didn't the report that came

Didn't the report that came out about a week ago, put a lot of the blame on Tenet, and also said the Clinton Administration didn't have much of a plan for dealing with terrorism.  That report didn't seem to get much attention by the MSM though.  I guess maybe Clinton needs to go raise his voice at Chris Wallace again, and then he will be ok.

"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings

 From the "9/11 Commision

 From the "9/11 Commision Report" :

 "Rice’s recollection was that Berger told her she would be surprised at how much more time she was going to spend on terrorism than she expected. Clarke said that the new team, having been out of government for eight years, had a steep learning curve to understand al Qaeda and the new transnational terrorist threat."

Most non-biased people

Most non-biased people think both administrations should have some of the blame, but the Clinton fans think Bill Clinton couldn't possibly have ever done anything wrong.  The report I was referrring to wasn't the 9/11 Commission Report, but a report by the Inspector General's office.

Here is a link about their findings and a few quotes from the link.

"The report by the CIA's own inspector general, written two years ago but only released to the public this week, outlines a list of CIA missteps. It's not encouraging. Among other things, the report:

• Faults former CIA Director George Tenet for failing to come up with a comprehensive strategy to combat al-Qaida, despite having made the threat from al-Qaida one of the agency's top priorities. 

Given all this, we wonder now whether the Democrats' criticisms, reliably transmitted by the mainstream media, will be a bit more even-handed now that it's clear President Clinton did next to nothing to stop repeated terrorist attacks on the U.S. for eight years."

"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane"  Waylon Jennings

 http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=272674354317311

 

 

"President Clinton did next

"President Clinton did next to nothing to stop repeated terrorist attacks on the U.S. for eight years."

The U.S.S. Cole was attacked, 17 servicemen killed and the right chanted "NO WAR FOR MONICA".

blaster, I know what you

blaster, I know what you mean, only reports that badmouth the Bush Administration should be permissable.  Anything that doesn't say Bill Clinton is pure and noble and the greatest leader of all time should be banned.  Again, blaster most non-biased people put the blame on both administrations.  If you want to keep playing some game about the right saying "No war for Monica" I really don't care.  I think both of them could have done things better in hindsight, but that's the past.  The problem I have is that the MSM seems very biased and only wants to report something if it badmouths Bush.  Now if you are going to provide a link that Bush made mistakes, more power to you, but if you think Bill Clinton is pure and noble and never did anything wrong, I am not going to spend much time responding to your links.

"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane"  Waylon Jennings

If I post a link that

If I post a link that contains something that isn't factual, I'm sure plenty of people will let me know.  My point is that it gets wearisome when the right blames Clinton for the attacks on 9/11 when he had already been out of office for nine months.  The right has so much disdain for Clinton that they are willing to present lies and try to pass them off as truths.  We were attacked while Bush was the president, that is a fact.  He had warnings that an attack was likely going to happen--that is another fact.  He sat blank-faced in a classroom while the WTC was attacked.  He failed to send enough troops to Tora Bora to capture bin Laden, even his own party will own up to that fact.

The right has said Clinton had the chance to kill bin Laden.  Tell me when and where?  Site a credible source.  The only time, to my knowledge that they could have got him was when he was falconing with the royal family of the UAE and if they would have killed him then, they would have wiped out a prominent family of a Middle Eastern nation, which would have been disastrous.

So quit blaming Clinton. In September of 2001, he was out of power.

Never said you didn't post

Never said you didn't post anything factual, so I'm not sure where you came up with that.  Yes, Bush was president on 9/11.  Clinton was President in 1993 or 1994 during the first attack on the WTC.  Clinton was President during the attack on the USS Cole which you mentioned.  OBL back in 1997 declared war on the US and their allies.  What did Clinton do once the war was declared against the US?  FDR was President during the attack on Pearl Harbor and took it to the Japanese, and first North Africa and then Europe afterwards.  There are some people convinced that FDR knew about the attack and let it happen just so the US could be drawn into war, similar to those who think Bush let 9/11 happen so the US could be dragged into war.  I tend to give both FDR and Bush more credit than that.  Bush attacked Afghanistan after 9/11.  Let me know what Clinton did in regards to attacking once war was delcared on the US, and who he took out after 1997 once war was declared. 

I don't blame Clinton for everything, but think both administrations could have done better. Now again you seem to think that Bill Clinton could never do anything wrong.  That's fine, but I think the facts show both administrations can share the blame.

"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane"  Waylon Jennings

 

There are plenty of people

There are plenty of people hold up in caves in this country that also declare war on America and nothing is done.  Let's say that bin Laden's threat was credible as you suggest.

The threat was there 1997--What did Bush do about it when he came into office?

Bush wasn't even unpacked

Bush wasn't even unpacked yet. Transitions of power take time. Especially when a mess has to be cleaned up.

Regardless, Clinton had left an intelligence community that didn't comunicate with each other because of politics. That's the big difference (to this day) between bubba (the politician) and dubya (the leader).

Clinton never was a leader and never will be (even if he becomes president again). And if you don't believe that is what will happen if her thighness gets back into office, you are a fool.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Bush wasn't even unpacked

Bush wasn't even unpacked yet.

He still isn't.  He's carrying baggage that will follow him around the rest of his life.

 

ROFLMAO!

ROFLMAO!

"He's carrying baggage that will follow him around the rest of his life."

And bubba isn't????

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Here is a link about the

Here is a link about the declaration from OBL. It appears it was from 1996. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

 

"The threat was there 1997--What did Bush do about it when he came into office? " Wasn't the original question what Bill Clinton did? Bush finally invaded after the attack on 9/11. I think both administrations underestimated what could happen. Now all the Bill Clinton is the greatest leader of all time people seem to think that nothing is ever Bill Clinton's fault. Was the OKC attack done because Bill Clinton wasn't paying attention? Hard core determined full of hate people aren't always easy to stop, regardless of the intelligence. "I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings

Representative Paul

Representative Paul Gillmor, an Ohio Republican who represented much of the northwestern and north-central part of the state, was found dead in his apartment today.

I think Bill Clinton did it.

blaster, if you wanted to

blaster, if you wanted to make a good joke about a dead person blaming it on someone you should have said you thought Bill Clinton's butler did it.

But hey there is some good news.  The controversy about who was first to reach the Eagle's Nest first, I believe has finally been solved.  Yes, I think it was Bill Clinton the greatest person ever born that was first to reach it.

"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane"  Waylon Jennings

 

You are wasting your time

You are wasting your time trying to reason with this dumbass, Carl my friend. He is too much of a zealot to see what you are trying to say. Or just stupid.

 

 

Hey shrub- Did you even

Hey shrub-

Did you even read Carl's link to bin Laden's diatribe that described why he would attack the U.S.?  Probably not.  He wanted to drive the infidel from the Holy Land.  That was the reason he ordered attacks on the United States.  So what does Bush do? Sends occupying troops to the Middle East! Your guy is a real genius!

you're taking Bin Laden at his word?

You honestly think that Al Qaeda would be fine with the U.S. if there were no troops in the middle east? If you said "yes", you're either delusional, abysmally ignorant, or lying.

Al Qaeda doesn't need to give a reason for killing infidels. Think back to the attacks on Spain afew years ago.... remember how they justified it?

Andalusia! That's right, sports fans, modern day Spaniards were murdered because the Moors were booted out of there in the 15th century. With that kind of flimsy pre-text, they could have found a way to justify terror attacks against the U.S. whether or not there had ever been troops in the middle east.

I'm pretty sure bin Laden even mentioned global warming in one of his idiotic videotaped rants. It's so cute how you think that terrorists are rational.

 

There are plenty of people

There are plenty of people hold up in caves in this country... 

Plenty?  Sighting census data are we?  LOL 

Seriously, what planet are you from?

Carl...In the aftermath of

Carl...In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, I and every other Democrat I knew, immediately and wholeheartedly rallied behind President Bush, to stand united as Americans against the terrorists who were responsible.  I didn't think of George Bush, the Republican President, but rather as the leader of all Americans in a time of crisis and challenge.  Finger-pointing was the farthest thing from my mind as I looked on and listened with pride as President Bush stood atop a pile of rubble with a bullhorn and spoke so stirringly and defiantly.

And then I turned on the radio, and literally before the dust had settled from the collapse of the towers, the conservative talk show hosts had launched the blame game:  "It's all Clinton's fault"..." blood is on Clinton's hands"..."this happened because Clinton didn't have the balls to go after bin Laden".  The steady drumbeat continued on Fox News where over the course of the next few months, I stopped counting after 40+ segments on O'Reilly and H&C were devoted in whole or in part to the proposition that 9/11 was "all Clinton's fault".

Did Clinton make mistakes with respect to the Al Quaeda threat?  Absolutely.  Opportunities were missed.  Of course, consider the reaction the one time either Bush or Clinton attempted a military strike against bin Laden. 

There was plenty of blame to go around....Bush, Clinton, Congress, the media, and, frankly, all of 'us'. 

Cites, Please...

"I stopped counting after 40+ segments on O'Reilly and H&C were devoted in whole or in part to the proposition that 9/11 was "all Clinton's fault".

Can you give us credible cites to back up your assertion? I couldn't find any evidence doing a Google search. I would think the leftist versions of Newsbusters would have been on such a story like Clinton on an intern...

Del...My statement is not a

Del...My statement is not a recitation of talking points, or a Media Matters study; nor am I even sure that Fox transcripts are available.  All I can tell you is that I watched and I counted.

Jer

"No War for Impeachment" was the cry

"No War for Impeachment" was the cry.

Clinton attacked Iraq - Operation Dessert Fox (over all things - WMD's) on the eve of the scheduled Impeachment hearings. Operation Dessert Fox, by all practical measures, was about the same as Bush's Shock and Awe, a few years later.

December 16, 1998: In a coordinated strike, U.S. and British forces attack Iraq in retaliation for its failure to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. Because of the military action, House Republican leaders delay a planned impeachment debate and vote set to begin Thursday, December 17.

December 17, 1998: Republicans reschedule the impeachment debate for December 18.

Other interesting dates. Operation Infinate Reach (Afghanistan and the Rx plan in the Sudan was Aug. 20, 1998. Allied Force (the non-sanctioned by the UN, US led (condemned by Carter and Mandela) war in Kosovo was in March of 1999. Clinton sold us that war because of an ongoing genocide (numbers approaching 200,000). At the trials in the Hague, evidence supports less than 6,000.

Be sure to post how many

Be sure to post how many Americans died Kosovo.

Anybody?

Anybody?

Blaster... Do you think

Blaster...

Do you think ABC are blocking the DVD release of 9/11 to save the Clinton's embarrassment?

Absolutely not.  They

Absolutely not.  They aired it in the first place, lies and all didn't they?  I think if they released it, with the ensuing revisitation of the truthful order of events, Hillary would actually get a boost in her ratings.  Early on, the  republicans were hoping she'd be the nominee and contributed to her campaign, not realizing she'd become the juggernaut she's become. 

A few facts:

  • On the September 8, 2006, edition of CNN's American Morning, conservative radio host and former Reagan administration official Bill Bennett acknowledged that "the Clintons had a point" in pressuring ABC to correct the film and admonished ABC for "falsify[ing] the record," adding, "I think they should correct those inaccuracies."
  • On the September 7, 2006, edition of CNN Headline News' Showbiz Tonight, Harvey Keitel, the film's star, noted that "[i]t turned out not all the facts were correct" and claimed: "Where we have distorted something, we have made a mistake, and that should be corrected. It can be corrected."
  • On the September 7, 2006, edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz criticized ABC for "putting a movie on a serious, sensitive topic on the fifth-year anniversary of 9-11 that contains fiction."
  • On the September 7, 2006, edition of MSNBC's The Most, Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, criticized the film for treating facts "cavalierly," as well as ABC's response to critiques of the film, noting: "[T]hey [ABC] said that complaints about the film are irresponsible because they are still editing the film, yet they were very happy to send out review copies."

Wonder if you have the same

Wonder if you have the same standards for Michael Moore's "documentaries."

..and Sandy Burglar stole

..and Sandy Burglar stole info from the National Archives the Clinton's didn't want out right before the 9/11 commision testimony because why.....?

You think there was no connection do ya?

I didn't see them, so I

I didn't see them, so I can't comment.  What's your speculation?

Right here

Right here Blaster....

Says it all...

You may learn something...

Your Faux News link

Your Faux News link speculates nothing. I will speculate that seeing as this investigation wasn't persued by the Bush Administration DOJ that there's a prominent republican somewhere in the woodpile.

"After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed".  -wikipedia

Blaster... There are none

Blaster...

There are none as blind as those who will not see...

You are a waste of time IMO..

Someone else can play with you...

LOL - Dude, you just quoted

LOL - Dude, you just quoted Wikipedia.  Any did it like you were proud of it!  You're killing me!  ROTFLMAO

Hey peskers-- Thanks for

Hey peskers-- Thanks for calling me dude...actually makes me  feel young again.

Sure I quote wiki, big deal.  People around here quote rightwing rags and websites every few minutes. Are you saying the quote from prosecutor Noel Hillman was not truthful and made up by wikipedia?

Lame Excuse

HA! HA! HA! No kidding! He probably did the editing on the entry.

I would expect a better explanation from a devout Klinton apologist, however. Stuffing documents won your pants or in your socks is not a legitimate way of disposing documents in the National Archive.

blaster - you are a MORON!

See, blaster, what we have here is a case of

what you call the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. 

You call FoxNews "faux" (clever boy!  did you think of that all by yourself?)  and then you use Wkipedia, widely known as not very imparial, to "prove" something or other.  

Tell me, didn't you have even a small cautionary thought that there might be a paradox in the juxtaposition of the two?

Just one more thing, blaster: you understand that it's your Left hand that you're supposed to wipe yourself with, right?   ;^>

Nice Try #2

The fine folks at Power Line, who also blew Dan Rather out of the water, had this to say about Hillman and Berger. Sounds to me like Hillman's a sleeper:

 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/010040.php

"Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, tried to be reassuring:

Berger only had copies of documents; all of the originals remain in the government's possession, Hillman said.

The AP describes the Berger incident as "bizarre," and, to an ordinary reader, it must seem bizarre indeed. Why would anyone steal and destroy "three copies of the same document," and then lie about it?

The answer, obviously, is that all of the "copies" were different, in that they contained different handwritten notes by various Clinton administration officials, apparently including Berger. This Washington Post story is slightly more informative:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.

Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.

Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.

 

So Berger removed five copies of the Clarke report, carefully destroyed three of them "late one evening," and returned the other two to the Archives. Obviously he reviewed the notes on the five documents and destroyed the three that contained information damaging to the reputation of the Clinton administration. I do not find reassuring the Post's suggestion that these were "copies only" and that it "remains unclear whether Berger knew that." Obviously all five copies of the Clarke report were "copies." But they contained unique notes, and Berger certainly thought that they were the only "copies" of those notes in existence, or it would make no sense to destroy them. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he was wrong.

One aspect of Berger's sentence that seems almost humorous is the fact that his security clearance is suspended for three years. He wasn't going to need it during President Bush's second term, in any event, and he'll have it back in time for the new Democratic administration that, he hopes, will begin in 2009. What a penalty for attempting, apparently successfully, to destroy a portion of the historical record relating to the government's anti-terror activities in the months leading up to September 11.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

Good Stuff You're Smoking

The fact you're forced to cherry pick quotes from the two bottom feeders in cable news shows your irrelevance. As does your quoting the laughable kid's version of this website, Media Matters. They actually have a correction page, which proves how often they're wrong.

By the way, you asked about US military casualties in Kosovo. It's kind of hard to measure them when the entire war is "fought" from thousands of feet in the air. Which is exactly why Clinton had his military people "fight" it that way. He was deathly afraid that if our boots were on the ground and our soldiers started coming home in caskets, his job approval numbers would plummet.

Little did Clinton realize that by the time he left office, the majority of Americans told the pollsters that all his Presidency would be remembered for was scandals.

Just curious-why do you have your mouth so firmly attached to the Clintons' asses? Are you one of Bill's relatives?

So you consider Bill

So you consider Bill Bennett a bottom feeder?

Brilliant Satire

When a leftist is forced to quote Bill Bennett in a debate, it shows they're desperate. They're usually too busy blasting Bennett for his gambling, or his going after Bill Clinton, etc. etc.

As I said, have Begala fax you some new material. You need it.

PS, I notice you were afraid to answer my final question, namely why you support the Clintons. That says it all.

Since when do you care if

Since when do you care if American Servicemen die as long as there are enough left for you to hide behind?

Tell me peckerdane--how many

Tell me peckerdane--how many Americans died for you in Kosovo?

Excuse me?

Excuse me?

Oh well, I guess blaster's

Oh well, I guess blaster's mom came home and kicked him off her computer.  Hope he remembered to delete the cookies. 

...the right chanted "NO

...the right chanted "NO WAR FOR MONICA".

Chanted?  Typical libtard disconnect from reality.  Where did this "chanting" take place, pray tell? 

Hey wingnut--look it up

Hey wingnut--look it up yourself.  Typical lazy wingtard.  Too young to remember, read a book, if you can.

...look it up

...look it up yourself 

The usual response when you're caught.  The fact is, it never happened.  Don't be angry.  You posted something in haste and you were called on it.  It happens. 

The Usual Suspects

Just did a quick Google search. The only ones claiming the "No War for Monica" chant are a couple of irrelevant sources, namely Media Matters and Air America.

The only CREDIBLE mention of a "No War For Monica" protest I could find was this CNN story about a demonstration protesting Clinton's bombing. Unfortunately for Blasted here, said banner was carried by not a right wing American, but someone at the rally...which was in fact in SUDAN.

http://www.cnn.com/W...

Excerpt:

"Sudanese officials also continued to accuse U.S. President Clinton of ordering the attack to distract U.S. public opinion from his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

"So depending on what the United States government thinks about its own internal position vis-a-vis the American public, we do not rule out the possibility of further strikes," said Sudanese Minister of Information Ghazi Salah Eldin.

A banner at the rally also hit that theme, stating "No war for Monica."

Dol - good research. 

Dol - good research.  I simply could not imagine non-libtards taking to the streets in the United States and chanting anything.  The only rule-proving exception that I can think of is when one of the local democrat controlled election boards in Florida tried to bar the doors during one of the endless "recounts" or "hearings" against a group of locals back in 2000.   

Most of the time, normal people have these things called "jobs" which prevent them from joining the protest du jour.

Pesky, That was here in

Pesky,

That was here in Broward County.

Sheesh....this nightmare election of 2000 will never go away! 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Bwwwhahahahahaha!  OK, I'm

Bwwwhahahahahaha!  OK, I'm in a mood.  This guy reminds me of my little slave Blarsen.  I just need to keep him writing.  At some point, I'll own him too - presuming he's not the same person.

And how are you doing?  Ready for another season with the Gators?

Oh yeah, PD. You're an

Oh yeah, PD.

You're an even better troll-kicker than I am...I so enjoy your work here.  And if it's not Blars....well, you'll have another troll to add to the wall of fame.

As for my Gators....absolutely!   

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive