Scene from Path to 9-11 is not ‘fake but accurate’ as some suggest – VIDEO ADDED

Posted by: ST on September 7, 2006 at 9:58 pm

(**Bumped to the top – Scroll to the bottom for updates**)

The lefty outrage over ABC’s upcoming docudrama “The Path to 9-11” is still raging out of control. There has been a blog created specifically in an attempt to refute claims made by the movie. Clinton admnistration officials are assailing it. Bubbinski is beside himself with rage, demanding that the docudrama be ‘pulled’ if changes aren’t made.

Not surprising, because once details began filtering out about what the two part series portrayed, it was very obvious which side was going to feel that they had been unjustly ‘attacked’ and ‘misportrayed’: the Clinton adminstration.

This morning I read that a couple of conservative bloggers have taken issue with a particular reported scene from P2911 (I’ll refer to it in the future as such to save time). Dean Barnett, blogging at Hugh Hewitt’s blog, takes issue with the following scene (as described by him):

THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT “The Path to 9/11″ centers on one scene where CIA operatives and Northern Alliance irregulars under the leadership of the awe-inspiring Ahmed Shah Massoud have the opportunity to kill bin Laden. They phone NSA chief Sandy Berger for authorization to make the hit. Berger refuses to make the decision and in the scene actually hangs up on the operatives.

Barnett goes on to compare the scene to the faked memo CBS tried to tout in 2004 about Bush’s National Guard service:

YOU MIGHT NOTE THAT the defense of the scene offers a rationale that Dan Rather would probably be comfortable with – fake but accurate. I’m uncomfortable embracing such a rationale, and I suspect most other bloggers who have rushed to tout the film will feel the same way once they think it through.

Dale Franks at QandO echoes a similar sentiment in a post titled “Fake but accurate isn’t good enough”:

“Fake, but accurate”, however, is not a high enough standard. Obviously, some dramatic license is necessary for storytelling purposes. But a film that purports to be a docu-drama—especially about such an important event—and that purports to tell the story of that event, has to make a clear distinction between forgivable artistic license and factual inaccuracy. In at least this scene, which is the one that’s primarily causing the uproar, that distinction was blurred.

Both have understandable concerns, but the labeling of this particular scene as ‘fake but accurate’ is, in my view, faulty. First, the CBS memo was a complete fabrication. The defenders of that memo stated, essentially, that even though the memo itself was fake (or, ahem, that it was ‘unable to be authenticated’), that the contents of it were true. However, they offered no evidence of this. They couldn’t, because they didn’t have it.

The same can’t be said regarding P2911 scene. MacRanger reminds us:

Among those I personally know who have given me the low down on Clarke over the last few years, there is also a more visible figure who knows about the wasted efforts to capture Osama Bin Laden, and he’s no fan of Clarke. From a Weekly Standard article in 2004, speaking of former Bin Laden unit commander Michael Scheuer who had these thoughts on Clarke:

“Scheuer thinks Clarke is a risk-averse poseur who didn’t do enough to fight bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. At his breakfast with reporters, Scheuer said that on 10 separate occasions his unit, codename “Alec” provided key policymakers with information that could’ve lead to the killing or capture of Osama bin Laden. “In each of those 10 instances” Scheuer said, “the senior policymaker in charge, whether it was Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, or George Tenet” resisted taking action, afraid it would result in collateral damage or a backlash on the Arab street.

Which is precisely what the 9/11 Commission Report tells us. The Berger/Clarke/Albright sideshow was afraid to pull the trigger. Ops who were there – and yes they were on the ground in Afghanistan in spite of Clarke’s insistence they were not – and got their hands tied by “hand-wringing” by the Clinton Administration and especially the doofus duo of Albright and Berger, who didn’t make a move without getting “The Boss” to nod.

Noel Sheppard writing at the American Thinker provides a refresher on the 9-11 Commission Report’s findings as they relate to the Clintonistas:

Well, pages 110 through 115 of the 9/11 Commission report quite disagreed. In this section, subtitled “The CIA Develops a Capture Plan” the commissioners chronicled a 1997 – 1998 strategy to capture or kill bin Laden in Afghanistan:

A compound of about 80 concrete or mud-brick buildings surrounded by a 10-foot wall, Tarnak Farms was located in an isolated desert area on the outskirts of the Kandahar airport. CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Ladin’s wives and one where Bin Ladin himself was most likely to sleep. Working with the tribals, they drew up plans for the raid. They ran two complete rehearsals in the United States during the fall of 1997.

By early 1998, planners at the Counterterrorist Center were ready to come back to the White House to seek formal approval.

Does it sound like Nowrasteh “completely made up” this plan? As to who stopped this covert action, the Commission wasn’t sure:

Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG [Counterterrorist Security Group headed by Clarke] saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted 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.

Hmmm. So, the 9/11 Commission wasn’t really sure who was responsible for putting the kibosh on this plan. However, given Clarke’s lack of credibility, and the fact that Sandy Berger was so intent on covering up the missteps of the Clinton administration that he actually stole documents from the National Archive just prior to testifying before the Commission, their take on this matter seems easily discounted.

Doesn’t sound like that scene could be described as ‘fake but accurate’ does it? Because it’s not.

Like many others, I was disappointed that the bipartisan 9-11 Commission seemed to think that because they were a bipartisan commission, that their findings had to be bipartisan, too. Anyone with a brain in their head knows that the person who had 8 years to deal with the threat of OBL versus the person who only had 8 months should have taken a lot more heat for his failure to deal quickly and decisively with the emerging threat presented by OBL and Al Qaeda. Yet the 9-11 Commisson report decided to effectively play the whitewash game, giving ‘equal’ amounts of blame to both the Clinton adminstration and the Bush adminstration.

There is a reason Sandy Berger got caught with taking highly classified documents on the thwarted Y2K terrorist attack from the National Archives and intentionally destroying them. There are things that the Clinton administration did not do that they don’t want you to know about. The 9-11 Commission report mentioned some of them, but how many people actually read it? I believe the Clinton admin knows more people will watch this docudrama than read the 9-11 Commission report, and that’s what’s got them (and the Clinton faithful on the left) so fired up. They were content with their inaction being documented in the commission’s report because of two things 1) because the report put equal blame on both admins and 2) only diehard political junkies would read it.

It’s my understanding that this docudrama will also anger conservatives, as it supposedly portrays Condi as treating the threat from OBL and Al Qaeda with almost casual indifference early on in Bush’s first term. I don’t see any howls of outrage coming from the right over that, do you? No, because most conservatives realize that the admistration didn’t do everything it could prior to 9-11 to take care or the big problem OBL and Al Qaeda presented (note: that is not to suggest that I think Bush could have prevented 9-11 – I don’t). But most conservatives also realize that the guy who should have received the bulk of the criticism over his handling of the emerging threat from OBL and Al Qaeda was Bill Clinton himself. Clinton has even had the audacity to claim in the last several years that he was ‘obsessed’ with OBL, which is a total lie, because he had opportunities to snag him, and his adminstration did not take them. That is what it sounds like the scene in question, questioned even by some conservatives, encompasses. It’s not ‘fake’ – it is accurate.

Every time I see the below picture, my blood boils, because it’s a stark reminder of the Clinton administration’s approach to terrorism:

Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, do nothing about evil
Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, do nothing about evil

It’s about high time the Clinton adminstration finally took some significant heat for their failure to respond forcefully to the growing threat of OBL and AQ. I’m looking fwd to watching the docudrama, which, by the way airs on ABC Sunday and Monday at 8 pm Eastern Time.

Hat tip for some of these links: The Anchoress

Update I: Here’s more on the Clintonistas request to have ABC pull or revise the P2911.

This, said by yours truly yesterday, is – I think -worth repeating again today:

Usually when I see this much liberal handwringing about how ‘unfair’ or ‘inaccurate’ something is, that means whatever it is they’re flipping out over is well worth seeing/reading/hearing. So consider the panic-stricken cries of ‘unfair!’ and ‘inaccurate!’ as a ringing endorsement of “The Path to 9/11″.

Update II 12:25 PM: Brian at Iowa Voice is on the ball again, and points out that executive producer of P2911 (Marc Platt) has a history of contributing money to Democrats – including Bill Clinton himself.

Someone better inform this blog (as well as this one) about that important tidbit of info.

Update III 2:55 PM: Major update on the controversy over this scene, via Noel Sheppard’s posting at Newsbusters. It’s too long and detailed to quote here. Read it all.

Update IV 3:04 PM: Another major update, via Allah: ABC has agreed to ‘tone down’ the scene in question, thanks to a call from Bubbinski. From him, I saw this link to a ChiTrib article that essentially confirms this:

ABC toned down a scene that involved Clinton’s national security adviser, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified. “That sequence has been the focus of attention” the source said.

The network also decided that the credits would say the film is based “in part” on the 9/11 panel report, rather than “based on” the report, as the producers originally intended.

Clinton and his minions are hoping to restore the whitewashing on their miserable record on combatting terrorism. We know why.

Kim Priestap:

ABC succumbs to the pressure and bows at the altar of Clinton.

Yep.

Update V 3:39PM: John Hawkins nails it:

Having the Clinton Administration complain that they look bad in this mini-series is like a football team that lost a game 56-0 griping that the highlight reel on the news that night made them look bad.

Update VI 4:22 PM: Jason Smith blogs about the continuing attempts at a coverup of the Clinton administration record on terrorism. Lots o’ links there.

Update VII 4:29 PM: ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure

Update VIII 9:59 PM: Allah’s latest post on this at Hot Air: Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11″

B*stards.

I like Greg Tinti’s response to this threat from Democrats:

And let me just say this to all the good folks at the GOP: you’ve just been handed a huge gift by the Democrats. Turn this into a campaign ad now and let the American people know how Democrats would use their power if they were given back control of Congress.

Update 9 – 10:42 PM: *Please* watch this video clip from the 9-11 Commission hearings (it’s about two and a half minutes long):

“Fake but accurate”? I don’t think so. (Hat tip: Tammy Bruce)

Update 10 – 11:40 PM: Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters is continuing the great NB coverage of this story by noting one prominent liberal blogger’s response to the Democratic threat … and the response is not one of a condemnatory nature, if you catch my meaning. Shouldn’t be too surprising, considering that the far left are all for free speech, as long as it’s speech they approve of. If they don’t, look out.

(original posting 10:57 AM)

Prior:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Pierre Legrand's Pink Flamingo Bar trackbacked with Berger didn’t hang the phone up…? Who knew?
  • A Blog For All trackbacked with Random Musings
  • The World According To Carl trackbacked with Liberal Hypocrisy Exposed Yet Again
  • Sensible Mom trackbacked with ABC's 9/11 Miniseries
  • The Sycamore Tree trackbacked with Some final thoughts
  • 59 Responses to “Scene from Path to 9-11 is not ‘fake but accurate’ as some suggest – VIDEO ADDED”

    Comments

    1. Baklava says:

      Sis, when you wrote, “demanding that the docudrama be ‘pulled’ if changes are made“… did you mean aren’t made?

    2. Big Bang Hunter says:

      - I’m watching in bemusement as the “progressives/Slick Willy run around trying to reverse the process to “accurate but fake”, as opposed to what they tried to claim in the RatherGate scam. In other words, who gives a flying paddidle who screwed up. The news isn’t that the docudrama lacks exact facts as to “How/Who” it happened. The scandal is how many times those nitwits had their chance and demured. Thats the whole point.

      - This entire “sound and fury” clamour the Dembulbs are engaged in is ment to divert attention from Clinton and his administrations total ineptness in dealing with Bin Laden, and his terrorist network, and the 800 pound gorilla nobody in Clintons gang ever want to admit too, namely that they could have prevented 9/11 alltogether and didn’t.

      - That’s what this lashback is really all about. All along the Left has been running away from that lurking truth, and now their panicky on the eve of Congressional elections that the real truth will come out. This aversion from the ugly truth is, and always has been, one of the main goals of the whole “Bush bad/evil” campaign. It will be interesting to see how well the Liberals can stifle the flap in the media.

      - Bang **==

    3. NC Cop says:

      “demanding that the docudrama be ‘pulled’ if changes aren’t made.”

      And the constitution takes another hit at the hands of the liberals, but because it’s something THEY don’t like, it’s perfectly acceptable.

      How do you spell hypocrite?

      D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T

    4. Baklava says:

      THis movie shouldn’t and wouldn’t have had any outcome on Congressional elections this November. It is a review of past administrations and not Congress. House Democrats injected themselves into the debate calling for censorship basically and their actions will backfire.

      The Democrats politicians have gotten more and more radical leveling more and more accusations without substance and they are out of step with the majority of Americans.

      Republican politicians are also to the left of most Americans but are lucky that they are more moderate than the radical left of the Democrat party.

      This opinion comes from a centrist conservative who rates himself on the political scale as a 0 or +1 on the scale from -10 to +10.

    5. Phil says:

      Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, do nothing about evil

      This is why Frank over at IMAO calls Liberals Monkey Faced.

    6. Big Bang Hunter says:

      - Well of course the prime reaction from the Dhimmies is this video amplifies the whole WOT issue they know they take a bath on, what with the “weak on terror” yoke they have hanging around their necks. It’s the one issue they’ve handled completely wrong, and the one they’d love to minimize in any future election cycles. The problem they have is the more noise they make the longer it will remain in the public forum without any help from the reps. Everybody knows Clinton was spending so much time with his “blue skirt” problems, the Dems did viryally nothing else for the last three years of his admin. This is an area the Conservatives should just keep bulldozing the Liberals over. We don’t need any administrations that are afraid to confront, and defeat, terrorism.

      - Bang **==

    7. Baklava says:

      Bang wrote, “This is an area the Conservatives should just keep bulldozing the Liberals over.

      It’s a mindset. It used to be called the 9/10 mindset. Nobody would’ve authorized Bush pre 9/11 to invade any country including Afghanistan. Unfortunately many have that pre 9/11 mindset again.

      There are liberals in my workplace who make fun of Bush as a warmongerer and say things like, “Bush has two more years in office, he’s got at least another war in him”. They are stupid. They don’t read the strategy and speech he gave the other day. They don’t understand that he’s said from Day 1 that this will be a long war on terror that will be waged on many fronts. They don’t understand that an enemy exists.

      Liberal rank and file will happily vote for the Democrat who they think will cease all military action and restore all civil liberties. It is up to us to help inform enough Americans as to HOW dangerous that mindset of 9/10 is going forward. As more days pass it is more and more difficult but as people are disrupted in their flying habits Democrats lose percentage in the polls….

      Reality sets in.

    8. Big Bang Hunter says:

      - Bak – that’s basically where things have stood since 9/11. The real reason the Liberals have done this entire “The WOT doesn’t really exist except in Bush’s mind” thing go’s back to what I felt from the very begginning. History shows that it’s almost impossible to get the electorate to change horses in the midst of a war. That really twisted the Dems shorts when things did not settle down after Afganistan. When Bush decided to take down Hssein you could almost hear the audible moan from the star chambers of the Left. Their immediate agenda was to minimize, even deny, the entire WOT situation, and at the same time blame everything they could dream up on Bush.

      - This kind of public exposure to Clinton and his administration’s lasitude just reinforces the “weak on terror” rep the Dems have to deal with now.

      - This has Rove’s fingerprints all over it, and is exactly what he should be doing. the last thing we can afford, now that we have al Qaeda/ Hezbollah/et. al. on the ropes we need to consolidate our gains, not fall back to some 9/10 position, and thereby allow the enemy to regroup. The idiotarian Liberals would diddle until one of the extremist groups get their hands on nukes, and then they would be soooooo sorry when things got unbelievably ugly. No thanks.

      - Bang **==

    9. forest hunter says:

      Bak: “…and restore all civil liberties.” I know that you, the rest of the real world and I are aware restoration isn’t needed as none have been lost. To me, it just sounded a tad like civil liberties were seized, the way it’s written, which will encourage the morons to kick off another round of whine and mine.

      As an addendum to Bang’s last paragraph in his 17:33, I’d like to repost my comment from nearly three weeks ago at JAWA-

      Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, imitating President Johnson`s command and control, has given Israel their very own “Vietnam.” The politico/socio/military damages will not easily be mended. He led his tiny nation headon into a well-organized, armed, motivated guerilla sanctuary which was mentally prepared to: “Lose a hundred battles a week, until you are destroyed!”

      And like we did, he agreed to leave before the job was done.

      The ramifications are many and broad.
      * Israel`s morale is low.
      * Islam`s morale is high.
      * Iran will listen to no one.
      * Iraq opposition will take advantage.
      * Muslims will swell with newfound uphoric “honor”.
      * The GWOT suffered a setback.
      * Terrorism will exploit the confusion of our setback.
      * The UN will make that exploitation difficult to quash.
      * Our President and State Secretary will be endlessly hounded; more than ever.
      * Doubters will become more vocal.
      * AND most important, the WILL to perservere will start shipping seawater in every compartment!

      Israel`s hesitation to accomplish the mission they so clearly stated at the outset had laid the last plank in the road leading to a war with Iran.

      And the timing is rotten…………….because our leadership has to revisit fighting this world war on Marguis De Queensbury rules while the savage in the ring honors no rule!

      Patience and common sense are in for hardest test in history.

    10. Baklava says:

      forest wrote, “I know that you, the rest of the real world and I are aware restoration isn’t needed

      You have that right.

      I do not need to be able to speak to a terrorist during a time of war and not expect to be surveilled!

      If I start thinkin’ that way just shoot me… I’m done. Toast. Mental.

    11. Big Bang Hunter says:

      Natenyahoo, who I believe will regain his presidency the very next time the Kenneset votes, said it best on FOX this morning:

      “America is preoccupied with Iraq, and Iran/Hezbollah may see the just past conflict with Isreal as a win. I want to say to all our friends, and more inportantly to our enemies, that they should not make the mistake of believing we are any less resolved to our survival than before. Any future conflicts will be fought with overwhelming force by our army. We purposely held back because we did not think Hezbollah realized the mistake they had made, something that was confirmed recently by one of their leaders. The next time, if it happens, will be entirely different, both in the manner in which we will fight, and most assuridly in the outcome. To think otherwise would be a grave mistake by the enemies of America and Isreal” – unquote

      - Olmert is just too indicisive, and will be gone as soon as they have a vote. Isreal can not afford to ever be lead by timidity, something like we would face if we ever elected a passivist Democrat to high office.

      - Bang

      **==

    12. G Monster says:

      I don’t know how Netanyahoo and Ohlmert sit politically with each other, but I notice what Netanyahoo said, was not disruptive, nor did it undermine Prime Minister Ohlmert, which I believe is a good thing, during a time of war. I’m not bagging on you for saying Ohlmert is weak, because he might be, but I like the political dialogue of Netanyahoo.

    13. forest hunter says:

      Excellent point G. I think that since Ohlmert is an attorney (I believe), some of the *HUH!* stems from that position.

    14. Big Bang Hunter says:

      - Natenyahoo is a true statesman, as he showed when the show host attempted to get him to talk disparingly about Olmert. He said he makes it a policy never to talk badly about his fellow politicians when he is out of Isreal. Apparently he replied the same way to a Congressman, who asked him the same sort of question, to which the un-named Senator wondered if he might mention that sort of non-partisan diplomacy to some american Ofiicials, both present and ex. We all know who the Senator was referring too.

      - As you can tell I’m a big Natenyahoo supporter.

      - Back on topic. I had a Liberal tell me that we Conservatives should demand accuracy in anything that is put forward in terms of politics. I said I’d be glad to respond to his whine with some cheese, just as soon as Moore demands the barring of the “Bush assassination” garbage video in Toronto, and admits his own F9-11 was a pack of fabrications, outright lies, and revisionist history.

      - He just Hrmmphed and walked away.

      - They can dish it out but they can’t take it, and even that’s not a fair comparison, because the events dipicted in P2911 are accurate, if not all the exact means and players. The dems just do not want the 9/11,WOT brought to anyones attention for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. Squaking about the series is effectively shooting their own toesies. *chuckle*

      - Bang **==

    15. forest hunter says:

      I so wish that the Natenyahoo model were the standard for the American politician or for that matter, any of the complete thoughtless idjuts that incessantly clamor and whine about everything under the sun, ESPECIALLY while we’re at war.

      Three years olds have more going for them, even in the midst of their tantrums. They still have a hope, as they can still be trained to understand how the world works. It isn’t about the left or the right and the sooner the morons figure out that the world never revolved around them, the sooner we’ll begin being fully functional as a team and eradicate our sworn enemies.

    16. G Monster says:

      “Natenyahoo is a true statesman, as he showed when the show host attempted to get him to talk disparingly about Olmert. He said he makes it a policy never to talk badly about his fellow politicians when he is out of Isreal.”

      Some of our politicians could learn a lesson here. This statement puts patriotism before politics.

      Just because I said politicians, don’t think you’re off the hook- harry belafonte, cindy sheehan, michael moore, dixie chicks

    17. Karl says:

      this just in

      Confirmation from someone in the CIA that the Clinton Admin denied the Bin Ladin captures.

      Of course I blogged this….

    18. forest hunter says:

      Thanks Karl, velly intelesting……..

    19. Glenn M. Cassel, AMH1, (AW), USN, RET says:

      “Foxtrot-Uniform-Charlie-Kilo” Yankee-Oscar-Uniform” to Billy Clinton.
      My period of Service: 1973-1993. ‘Nuff said!

    20. Big Bang Hunter says:

      - Ahem … Sempre Fi Glenn…. and while we’re on the subject, it seems to me that if Slick willy would have payed more attention to his job, and less time chasing skirts, 5500 of our people might still be alive.

      - Bang **==

    21. forest hunter says:

      Boy ….kin’ howdy Glen!

      Thanks for your time. Squids are among my top favorites……

    22. G Monster says:

      Looks like Clinton got the changes he wanted. I want to see the original, where can I get a copy?

    23. G Monster says:

      Why doesn’t ABC just hold the movie back, let Clinton rewrite the whole script, make himself look like a hero, and then show it.

    24. G Monster says:

      I really don’t understand things. Michael Moore can show his movie and gets to sit with Jimmy Carter, but these guys can’t show thier movie unless Clinton approves.

    25. sanity says:

      If they are threatening ABC because of this movie, then I think it may hit closer to the mark than people think.

      Did you hear that sound Thursday afternoon? That was the Constitution weeping as one of the nation’s major political parties trampled all over the First Amendment. Remember what that is…that right bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers guaranteeing freedom of speech?

      Newsbusters

      Al(not so)bright, is saying it is false and defamatory. So are they thinking of bringing a lawsuit?

      Please let there be a lawsuit…

      Please!!

      Because I do believe there would have to be an INVESTIGATION into whether there was truth to it or not.

      Do you think the Clinton Administration would want an investigation to prove that these statements are defamatory?

      Public Figures

      Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with “actual malice”. In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with “actual malice” and did not award any damages.

      The concept of the “public figure” is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

      A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show’s advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”.

      And the end result of bring a case for Defamation?

      Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

      Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

      In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

      Link

    26. Baklava says:

      I just saw the Democrat leaders attempt at threatening ABC’s license..

      Bunch of fascists they are… how can anyone not convert from being a Democrat now. Even if you convert to an independant. Geez.

    27. Big Bang Hunter says:

      - One of the things that continues to drag the Dembulbs down is their rabid knee jerk reaction to every political occurance they percieve as an issue. You can see the youthful impulsiveness in almost everything they do these days, which is understandable since they are out of power, and almost totally defensive.

      - Any outright attempt to “burry the story”, or try something outlandish like floating a bill in congress to attack a national broadcasters license over something like this would just about doom them for this upcoming election cycle. I don’t think any of them have enough self-control to think this through. Any thing thats too obvious an attempt to stiffle free speech would gain them so much bad PR I don’t think they could recover from it. They not only have to worry about the Congressional elections, but the 08 pres. campaign as well. At this point, with the hard left jerking the party around so freely, I don’t think anyone can figure out what they might do next, but I have a feeling whatever they do they’ll make mistakes. They have such an idiotic obssesive fear of rove he hardly has to lift a finger to send the whole pact of them into hand-wringing panic.

      - Bang **==

    28. Night Rider says:

      I told everyone countless times that the Liberals are scum and should be treated just like the Jihadist and taken and shot. But no one would listen to me, they all thought that I was just being angry and that I was being like the Liberals and not being rational, but I was correct and I knew that the Liberals would threaten people who dared to expose their blunders, I knew it way back in the 90′s and no one listened and here we are today.

      You see I have been listening and watching everything that the left has done ever since JFK back in the 60′s and the Left has always run their party like it was a part of the Mafia.

    29. Night Rider says:

      You know what folks, I wanna know this.

      You folks who are conservative who are on the Right like myself.

      Where is all the outrage at the Left over this.
      Where is all our power from the Right?
      Why do we tollerate what the Left does?
      Why do we just let the Left walk all over us?
      Where is the fight from the Right?

      I say enough talk it’s time to fight fire with fire.

    30. stackja says:

      9/11 AQ attacked USA. If Monica’s boyfriend allowed it to happen then he should spend the rest of his life in a cell. What does Whitewater Hil think of her chances in any election?

    31. Tom TB says:

      Checkout newsmax.com and read “Dick Morris: Clinton Attack ‘Outrageous’”

    32. NC Cop says:

      I saw an interesting blog on the recent video release about Al Jazeera. The video shows Osama and some of the dirtbag hijackers speaking:

      “The video also showed two of the 19 Islamists who took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza al-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari. The men said that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.”

      So apparently it was Clinton’s action in Bosnia that “inflamed” the muslims into attacking the U.S. I wonder if any of this will find it’s way onto CNN, NBC,CBS,ABC, or the New York Times. Interesting…

    33. newton says:

      You know, I just let the Dems make a**es out of themselves on this one. All we have to do is sit down, pop a cold one, and enjoy the comedy. :)

    34. Relaxed says:

      I’m in the UK and just watched Path to 9/11, screened a few hours before than in the US, I found this site in curious research. I’m not conservative and would like to point out a flaw I noticed in this articles thought process.

      ‘Anyone with a brain in their head knows that the person who had 8 years to deal with the threat of OBL versus the person who only had 8 months should have taken a lot more heat for his failure to deal quickly and decisively with the emerging threat presented by OBL and Al Qaeda.’

      This statement implies that a politician acting years before a terroist attack or ‘crime’ has greater ability to stop the incident occuring than a politician whose term coincides with the planned attack.

      In reality the majority of police detectives, investigators and intelligence experts will actually say the most effective and perhaps the only time of catching the perpetrators of such a crime is shorty before or (if safe) during the planned crime. This ensures, a) an abundance of evidence, b) all perpetrators are caught.

      Also logically the probablity of exposing a plot such as a terroist attack increases shortly before the crime as their activity increases and begins to correlate. So perhaps more responsibility lies with Bush as there was now a more valid case and a greater wealth of information to act appropriatly.

    35. Shaun says:

      The problem with “Path to 911″ is simple. It mixes fact and fiction to push a political agenda. Are we talking on this site about real events and issues, or reviewing a dramatic story. That is the problem with politics today. People are making their political decisions based on inaccurate or misleading information. People just continue to believe the message without learning the facts. It takes effort to know the truth and most people get easily distracted by the “spin”. That is how you get into a huge mess like Iraq. The message and realities don’t match up but people will not admit they were fooled. “Path to 9/11″ is just more “spin” to steer people away from the facts. How is it good for the country that so many people are making decsions on “spin” and not the facts. Does this movie help or hurt people’s ability to get the facts? They show a disclaimer telling you that they are mixing in “spin”!

    36. Big Bang Hunter says:

      “Also logically the probablity of exposing a plot such as a terroist attack increases shortly before the crime as their activity increases and begins to correlate. So perhaps more responsibility lies with Bush as there was now a more valid case and a greater wealth of information to act appropriatly.

      - Just what we need – Some typical “Liberal logic”, and from a country that has even more problems with terrorism than we do. Good luck *Pome!

      *(Pom’ie – Prisoner of Mother England)

      - Bang **==

    37. billy says:

      I just can’t believe how much was edited out of “the path to 9-11″.

      The firefighters talking about the “cutting charges” were edited out. The faces of the fire marshalls were edited out. The sound was re-dubbed.

      I can’t believe how much the government and media can control things we see!?

    38. Bruce says:

      Controversy surrounding this movie seems to be causing us to lose sight of what is most important about 9/11: Our sense of resolve and the ineffable unity displayed on that day. United 93 was a good movie, in terms of emphasizing these aspects of 9/11, but it lacked a good soundtrack. Here’s a one-song soundtrack I came up with:

      United 93
      words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
      http://www.drblt.net/music/unitedninetythree.mp3

      Saturating the movie screens and radio airwaves with more 9/11 movies and songs may have the undesirable effect of not respecting the sacrifices of that day, or diminishing their value. I try to recapture what I believe has already been lost via this song:

      One September Mournin’
      words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
      http://www.drblt.net/music/OneSeptMourn.mp3

      Of course, there are very few songs about cowboys who witnessed 9/11. So I wrote this song:

      A Cowboy’s Prayer (5 years after)
      words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
      http://www.drblt.net/music/cowboysPrayer.mp3

      (sorry, the recording on this one’s a little rough).

      Thanks for letting me share my blog n roll with you.

    39. Severian says:

      Some interesting things in this old Neal Boortz column on Richard “I’m the hero” Clarke:

      Richard Clarke, lying then or now?

      So what did Clarke have to say in the 2002 briefing?

      Let’s start with a statement Clarke made to the 9/11 Commission yesterday. Clarke told the commissioners that early on in the Bush administration he told the president: ” … and I said, well, you know, we’ve had this strategy ready … ahh … since before you were inaugurated. I showed it to you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want.”

      So .. there’s Clarke telling the media and the commissioners yesterday that he had presented paperwork to Bush on a strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda and was ready to discuss it. But what did he say to Jim Angle in 2002? This: “I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration.”

      Lying then? Or lying now?

      And what about this “Bush did virtually nothing” claim?

      In the 2002 background briefing Clarke said: “When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that triggered the NSPD (National Security Presidential Directive) from one of roll back to one of elimination.” “NSPD” is National Security Presidential Directive. So Clark was telling reporters in August of 2002 that the directive from the president in March of 2001 was to stop swatting at flies … to eliminate Al Qaeda. This is what calls doing virtually nothing?

      In the 2002 briefing Clarke also told Angle and the rest of the reporters that Bush had ordered an increase in CIA resources by five times .. .including funding for covert actions against Al Qaeda. Again … doing virtually nothing?

      Here’s the kicker. It comes from the transcript of the 2002 Clarke briefing … near the end.

      Jim Angle: “So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you’re saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of ’98 were made in the months just after the administration came into office?

      Richard Clarke: “You got it. That’s right.

      So .. while the terrorist threat was increasing Clinton made no changes in his plan of action against terrorism during the last two years of his presidency, but Bush got on the stick immediately. That is what Clarke is now describing as “doing virtually nothing.”

      Obviously Clarke is lying. We just have to figure out which statements are the lies? Was he lying in 2002 when he was working in the Bush White House? Or is he lying now when he’s trying to sell a book?

      Figure it out.

      Honesty and honor seem to be in real short supply among Democrats and ex-Clintonistas doesn’t it?

    40. Baklava says:

      Good stuff Sev. You the man.