"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
What did Hillary know........
September 5, 2007 - 03:18 ET by BarkerThe truth is sometimes embarassing:
http://www.geocities...
I was making small talk
September 5, 2007 - 07:38 ET by NortonPeteI 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
September 5, 2007 - 08:15 ET by WoodyMDon't cross the Clintons. Only Al Gore and Michael Moore films are allowed to be released during campaigns.
Am I not getting it?
September 5, 2007 - 11:19 ET by landsharkFirst 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
September 5, 2007 - 11:37 ET byABC 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
September 5, 2007 - 11:51 ET by cvgbuckeyeblasterd, I am quite sure that few people would be interested in reading anything referred by you.
Burg(l)er Pages Please!
September 5, 2007 - 11:56 ET by PawpawNNow 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!!
http://www.9-11commission.go
September 5, 2007 - 12:08 ET byhttp://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Page 114
Where are the pages Sandy took?
September 5, 2007 - 12:13 ET by PawpawNThat your best come back! Where are the pages Sandy took?
Libel?!
September 5, 2007 - 12:52 ET by landsharkIf 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,
September 5, 2007 - 12:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberGreat 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
September 5, 2007 - 18:51 ET by Del DolemonteLOL, 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
September 5, 2007 - 13:26 ET byhttp://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
September 5, 2007 - 13:43 ET by TheDeuceCheck 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
September 5, 2007 - 14:13 ET byOn 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?
September 5, 2007 - 14:39 ET by Gary HallSince 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:
Blaster
September 5, 2007 - 20:10 ET by Free StinkerDid 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
September 5, 2007 - 15:05 ET by landsharkDid 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
September 5, 2007 - 15:32 ET byFrom 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
September 5, 2007 - 15:40 ET by Gary HallThe 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
September 5, 2007 - 15:23 ET by Gary HallBlaster. 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
September 5, 2007 - 13:51 ET by Carl KolchakDidn'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
September 5, 2007 - 15:02 ET byFrom 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
September 5, 2007 - 15:25 ET by Carl KolchakMost 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
September 5, 2007 - 15:35 ET by"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
September 5, 2007 - 15:42 ET by Carl Kolchakblaster, 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
September 5, 2007 - 16:07 ET byIf 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
September 5, 2007 - 16:57 ET by Carl KolchakNever 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
September 5, 2007 - 17:30 ET byThere 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
September 5, 2007 - 17:44 ET by MightyMouthBush 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
September 5, 2007 - 17:51 ET byBush wasn't even unpacked yet.
He still isn't. He's carrying baggage that will follow him around the rest of his life.
ROFLMAO!
September 5, 2007 - 17:56 ET by MightyMouthROFLMAO!
"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
September 5, 2007 - 17:49 ET by Carl KolchakHere 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
September 5, 2007 - 17:55 ET byRepresentative 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
September 5, 2007 - 18:25 ET by Carl Kolchakblaster, 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
September 5, 2007 - 17:52 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou 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
September 5, 2007 - 18:23 ET byHey 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?
September 5, 2007 - 18:44 ET by landsharkYou 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
September 5, 2007 - 19:14 ET by PeskyDaneThere 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
September 5, 2007 - 16:37 ET by JerCarl...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...
September 5, 2007 - 18:59 ET by Del Dolemonte"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
September 5, 2007 - 19:52 ET by JerDel...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
September 5, 2007 - 15:57 ET by Gary Hall"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.
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
September 5, 2007 - 16:09 ET byBe sure to post how many Americans died Kosovo.
Anybody?
September 5, 2007 - 18:23 ET byAnybody?
Blaster... Do you think
September 5, 2007 - 18:28 ET by bigtimerBlaster...
Do you think ABC are blocking the DVD release of 9/11 to save the Clinton's embarrassment?
Absolutely not. They
September 5, 2007 - 18:48 ET byAbsolutely 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:
Wonder if you have the same
September 5, 2007 - 18:55 ET by PeskyDaneWonder if you have the same standards for Michael Moore's "documentaries."
..and Sandy Burglar stole
September 5, 2007 - 18:56 ET by bigtimer..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
September 5, 2007 - 18:59 ET byI didn't see them, so I can't comment. What's your speculation?
Right here
September 5, 2007 - 19:07 ET by bigtimerRight here Blaster....
Says it all...
You may learn something...
Your Faux News link
September 5, 2007 - 19:30 ET byYour 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
September 5, 2007 - 19:33 ET by bigtimerBlaster...
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
September 5, 2007 - 19:35 ET by PeskyDaneLOL - Dude, you just quoted Wikipedia. Any did it like you were proud of it! You're killing me! ROTFLMAO
Hey peskers-- Thanks for
September 5, 2007 - 21:09 ET byHey 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
September 6, 2007 - 12:39 ET by Sergeant ROCKHA! 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
September 5, 2007 - 19:35 ET by RJwhat 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
September 5, 2007 - 21:40 ET by Del DolemonteThe 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:
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
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
September 5, 2007 - 19:07 ET by Del DolemonteThe 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
September 5, 2007 - 19:32 ET bySo you consider Bill Bennett a bottom feeder?
Brilliant Satire
September 5, 2007 - 20:16 ET by Del DolemonteWhen 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
September 5, 2007 - 18:37 ET by PeskyDaneSince 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
September 5, 2007 - 18:52 ET byTell me peckerdane--how many Americans died for you in Kosovo?
Excuse me?
September 5, 2007 - 19:01 ET by PeskyDaneExcuse me?
Oh well, I guess blaster's
September 5, 2007 - 19:30 ET by PeskyDaneOh 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
September 5, 2007 - 18:27 ET by PeskyDane...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
September 5, 2007 - 18:51 ET byHey wingnut--look it up yourself. Typical lazy wingtard. Too young to remember, read a book, if you can.
...look it up
September 5, 2007 - 19:05 ET by PeskyDane...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
September 5, 2007 - 19:13 ET by Del DolemonteJust 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.
September 5, 2007 - 19:27 ET by PeskyDaneDol - 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
September 5, 2007 - 19:35 ET by BlondePesky,
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
September 5, 2007 - 19:39 ET by PeskyDaneBwwwhahahahahaha! 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
September 5, 2007 - 19:54 ET by BlondeOh 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