Am I living in some alternative reality here?

Posted by: ST on September 9, 2006 at 12:16 am

What in the hell is going on?

Just when you think it couldn’t get any worse, we find out this evening through several news links provided by Allah that rather than revise ABC’s “The Path to 9-11“, the Demofascists want it pulled altogether.

Proof? First, via AP (emphasis added):

Former Clinton administration officials, historians and a Democratic petition with nearly 200,000 signatures urged the network to scrap the five-hour drama.


A group of historians, including Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Princeton University’s Sean Wilentz, wrote to ABC parent Walt Disney Co. CEO Robert Iger, urging him to scrap the series. They said that permitting inaccuracies to heighten drama is “disingenuous and dangerous.”

The Democratic National Committee said it delivered a petition with nearly 200,000 signatures to ABC’s Washington office urging the network drop its “right-wing factually inaccurate mocudrama.”

Former national security adviser Samuel R. Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, whose depictions are at the center of the controversy, asked Thomas Kean, the Republican ex-governor of New Jersey who led the commission looking into the attacks, to use his influence with filmmakers to pull it.

“You can’t fix it,” Berger said on CNN. “You gotta yank it.”

You gotta yank it.

Next up, DNC Chair Howard Dean calling for the series to be pulled and joining in the vieled threats game (again, emphasis added):

It’s deeply disappointing that ABC would put something on the air that has been proven to have factual inaccuracies about one of the most important events in our nation’s history. ABC should not air this distortion of history.

The fact that the writer/producer of the piece is a well known conservative raises additional concerns and questions. The American people deserve to know who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda. Use of the public airwaves is a privilege conferred upon broadcasters in the public interest. It comes with a responsibility to the American people and a responsibility to the truth.

Comprende? The message: Even if you do revise it, don’t air it, because it was written by a right-winger whose sole mission is to distort the Clinton legacy. If you do decide to air it, expect to be questioned and grilled about whether or not you deserve to be able to retain your broadcast license.

Apparently the Dr. of Disology hasn’t been informed that the executive producer of this docudrama is a Democrat who has a history of supporting Bill Clinton and other Democrats.

It’s disgusting that right here before 9-11, the worst terrorist attack to ever hit our nation, and the event that was the catalyst for the war on terror – a war in which we’re fighting to spread freedom and democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq – that Howard Dean and other Demofascists in his party are issuing threats over a mini-series because it portrays Bubba and Co. and their record on terrorism in an unflattering light. So much for setting a good example of what life is like in a free society!

I wrote the following a couple of days ago, and think it’s worth mentioning again:

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.

The Democrats are running scared right now – for a reason, and one we all know:

This movie, obviously, strikes at the heart of the Democrats’ weakness: their, ahem, questionable ability to fight the war on terror. National security has been an issue they’ve been especially weak on since 9-11, and the only reason they are polling higher on it now is because people are frustrated with the war in Iraq. Has nothing to do with people actually thinking Democrats could turn things around there, because if Democrats could turn things around there they would have released a more comprehensive plan to the public that went beyond a cut and run strategy, a strategy that is, sadly, winning the hearts and minds of more and more Democrats. Strange, eh? They don’t want to look weak on national security, but they put all their weight behind cut and runners like Ned Lamont. You cannot make this stuff up.

The old saying goes something like “methinks the lady doth protest too much” – in this case, the Democrats are doing just that: they’re protesting too much. In fact, they’re going further than just protesting, they’re actively pushing ABC to cancel this docudrama and are issuing veiled threats about revoking their broadcast license. Now, they don’t have the authority to do that, but the fact that they are even suggesting it sends a cold shiver up my spine.

I have seen Democrat after Democrat complain and b!tch about Bush over the years and how he supposedly likes to ‘suppress’ contrary speech at events in which he appears, but strangely enough I don’t see those same Democrats complaining now when there’s a real effort to suppress freedom of speech under threat by people in their own party. In fact, I haven’t seen a single Democrat in Congress, or anywhere else, protest this despicable move by the DNC.

The DNC’s new motto should be: Free speech for me, but not for thee!

Here is, once again, the Clinton’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

Never forget 9-11. And never forget that the Clinton administration’s gross incompetency at a time when Al Qaeda was growing stronger contributed to it much more than they want you to know. No amount of editing, revising, whitewashing, or shelving a story can change that fact, no matter how much the Clintonistas and the DNC would like it to. They can try to fight the truth in an election year, but the truth can’t be revised. It is what it is.

More: Ed Driscoll makes a great point:

“Democrats can fight long, hard, and dirty when they want to. If they actually chose to defend America itself against its enemies with as much force as they deploy during election-time, they would never have to rely on such tactics in the first place.”


RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with Open Post Weekend: The path to 911 edition
  • Iowa Voice trackbacked with Democrats And The ABC Movie
  • 16 Responses to “Am I living in some alternative reality here?”


    1. Great White Rat says:


      We only need to understand two things about the Dems:

      1. Nothing is more important that political power. Not the Constitution, not the law, not common decency. Nothing.

      2. The biggest threat and greatest enemy in the world today is not islamofascism. It is George W. Bush. If it hurts Bush, it is a good thing even if it helps islamofascism and endangers America.

      Keep those two principles in mind and you can understand, no, you can predict almost anything they do.

      Stomp on the free speech and demand a cover up of Bubba’s indifference to global terrorism? Hey, it’s an election year, so allowing free speech here might hurt our chances. See Principle # 1.

      Or, if you’re the NY Times and you can destroy a successful program concentrating on disrupting terrorist cash flow, you put it on the front page. Helps the terrorists, yes, but if you think it’ll hurt Bush, go with it. See Principle # 2.

      Name any action they take, and you’ll be able to trace it back to one or both of their guiding principles.

    2. sanity says:

      This soon before we take notice and remember the terrorist attack on America on 9-11, the Democrats decide they must initiate another terrorist attack themselves ……but this time on the Rights of Americans.

      Well played Democrats!

      I know Democrats are loathe to share the spotlight with anyone else, but to try and steal it away from the terrorist ….that takes cajones.

    3. Baklava says:

      Article on the Huffington Post where this guy really doesn’t get how facist he sounds talking about how difficult things could get for Disney with various things that Disney is lobbying for on Capitol Hill.

      Don’t you donkey’s see the problem with big government? It leads to facism, socialism and lack of freedom.

    4. Marshall Art says:

      The writer, interviewed today on Medved’s show, may be right wing, but the executive producer is decidedly not. One caller was cut off by Medved using the “dump” button because the caller said he hoped the writer, Cyrus, whose last name eludes me, would die. He says he gets that a lot.

      Another point is the I keep hearing about all these inaccuracies, but I never hear any examples. Perhaps they just don’t want to spoil the show for us.

    5. Big Bang Hunter says:

      – My fondest hope is the FascistCrats keep right on with this public display of their Gestopo tactics. Up until now a lot of American voters have not seen the sort of stuff that gos on here in the blogosphere among the oh so tolorant Left cult that pass’s itself off as a “Democratic” party. All you ever needed to do is try sometime, on any one of the Lefty blogsites, to post ANYTHING thats counter, or try to debate, and the jack boots rush in and kill your posts.

      – If the Disney Producers are smart they’ll keep everything the Dems are stupid enough to send them in writing, and then expose it all and fight for all those 1st amendment writes the Left has been beating us over the head with every day for 6+ years. This craziness needs to be exposed and expunged from our country. I’m beginning to view the Left as a menace to America, and our Republic as we know it.

      – Bring it on Libturds….bring it on!!!!

      – Bang **==

    6. david foster says:

      “the public airwaves”…and this clearly demonstrates a primary hazard in the project to turn *everything* into “the public something-or-other,” whether that something is healthcare or electricity or railroads or food stores. Along with “public” status goes political influence and attempted control.

      What if this program was being transmitted entirely over the unregulated Internet rather than over the airwaves? Would the Democrats argue that public funding of the Internet predecessor network, ARPANET, trumped the First Amendment? If the servers took their electricity from a government-operated dam, would they now be talking about “the public electrical grid?”

    7. The Game says:

      Well done on the blog, I’ll have to add it to my fav list. I am always looking for new people to read and comment at my blog. come check it out!!!

    8. Severian says:

      “the public airwaves”…and this clearly demonstrates a primary hazard in the project to turn *everything* into “the public something-or-other” whether that something is healthcare or electricity or railroads or food stores. Along with “public” status goes political influence and attempted control.

      Excellent observation. This is exactly why the liberals and socialists want to make everything “public” and start every argument trying to restrict a person’s rights and freedoms with “well, for the public good…” It’s a rationale used to justify destruction of individual rights and liberties in order to increase government power, which is exactly why fascists evolve out of socialists, control and “groupthink” are more important than individuality and such concepts as personal responsibility.

    9. Lorica says:

      I am in agreement with David Foster. What if the Dems suceed in pressuring Disney to pull this movie, they will then start to flex their muscles in other areas. Especially if they get back into power.

      I still believe that this is another event that will lead up to an “October Surprise”. These guys are simply clueless as to how this looks to the great undecided. Or to those who are waivering. I don’t understand how they don’t understand that they look like crazed facist with all this BS, or is it BDS. =))

      Someone needs to tell them to shut up and let the thing stand on it’s own merits. Let the people decide, but as for me, the more they complain the more I plan to watch. Hell now I am going to tape the thing, so I can watch it until the Director’s Cut comes out. This coming from the guy that would spit, so to speak, whenever I saw a commercial for this thing, not trusting the network that it was playing on. – Lorica

    10. Brian Abbott says:

      As a conservative I STRONLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11” before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative say this.

      John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

      James Taranto, editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.”

      Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

      Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

      Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.

      Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, “The Path to 9/11” is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

    11. Brian, I’ve already addressed what other conservatives have had to say about this movie – and I stand by what I said.

      Also, you don’t have to hit the post button but one time. Your message came up three times in the mod que.

    12. Tom TB says:

      Lorica, I agree 100%. If the Clintonians hadn’t complained and wanted the network to pull the show, I would have given it a miss. Now, I’ve programed my old VCR, and am armed with VHS tapes, and we shall see what part of history Billory Inc. wants to re-write.

    13. sanity says:

      Who, from those blathering and threatening, actually has seen “path to 9/11” or previewed it?

      I wonder how many that are raving like maniacs in the press has even previewed it before going off at the mouth.

      Shouldn’t outrage be AFTER a movie is viewed and then people can say, “Hey, that is inaccurate!” or “That was complete BS”?

      I think there are alot of people like this out there. They go on and on about how hateful, or how this is a consiracy, or it was inaccurate, or slanderous…then you ask if if they watched the movie or if they read the book, and they say…”well, no, but I HEARD from others it is…”

      Whats interesting is, I heard, and only have one link so far that discusses this, that Clinton was the one who failed not Albright and Berger….

      A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series “The Path to 9/11” came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.

      In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson’s book “Dereliction of Duty” as a source for the drama.

      Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of “The Path to 9/11” to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.

      Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it’s “100 percent factually correct,” he said.

      “I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur,” Patterson declared.

      As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the “nuclear football,” which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.

      Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.

      During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton’s image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton’s comments, but offered a general response to critics.

      “Everybody’s got to calm down and watch the movie,” Nowrasteh told WND. “This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is a clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice.”

      Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11.

      An ABC executive who requested anonymity told the Washington Post the network has made “adjustments and refinements” to the drama that are “intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness” by federal officials that left the U.S. vulnerable to attack, and “not any one individual.”

      Yesterday, the New York Post reported Clinton wrote to ABC officials, complaining the “content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely.” Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, according to the Washington Post, has described a scene, in which she is depicted, as “false and defamatory.”

      The Senate Democratic Leadership sent a letter to Robert Iger – president and CEO of ABC’s corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co. – urging him to cancel the “grossly inaccurate” drama.

      The Democratic National Committee today said it delivered a petition with nearly 200,000 signatures to ABC’s Washington office calling on the network to drop its “right-wing factually inaccurate mocudrama.”

      Democrats have been particularly critical of a scene that depicts Berger refusing to authorize a mission to capture bin Laden after CIA operatives and Afghan fighters had the al-Qaida leader in their sights.

      Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a “conflation of events,” but Berger, in a letter to Iger, said “no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it.”

      Patterson contended, however, the scene is similar to a plan the administration had with the CIA and the Afghan Northern Alliance to snatch bin Laden from a camp in Afghanistan.

      The scene in “The Path to 9/11,” as Patterson recalled from the preview version, unfolds with CIA operatives at the camp on the phone with Berger, who is expressing concern that an attack could result in innocent bystanders being killed. An agent says he sees swing sets and children’s toys in the area. The scene ends with Berger hanging up the phone.

      Patterson says his recollection is that Clinton was involved directly in several similar incidents in which Berger was pressing the president for a decision.

      “Berger was very agitated, he couldn’t get a decision from the president,” Patterson said.

      Patterson noted he wasn’t sure what Berger wanted to do – whether the national security adviser wanted the answer to be yes or no – but the frustration, at the very least, was based on the president making himself unavailable to make a decision.

      In “Dereliction of Duty,” published by Regnery in 2003, Patterson recounts an event in the situation room of the White House in which Berger was told by a military watch officer, “Sir, we’ve located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike.”

      Clinton, according to Patterson, did not return phone calls from Berger for more than an hour then said he wanted more time to study the situation.

      Patterson writes: “We ‘studied’ the issues until it was too late-the window of opportunity closed.”

      In another “missed opportunity,” Patterson writes, Clinton was watching a golf tournament when Berger placed an urgent call to the president. Clinton became irritated when Patterson approached him with the message. After the third attempt, Clinton coolly responded he would call Berger on his way back to the White House. By then, however, according to Patterson, the opportunity was lost.

      As WND reported, Berger was the focus of a Justice Department investigation for removing highly classified terrorism documents before the Sept. 11 Commission hearings that generated the report used for the television program.

      FBI agents searched Berger’s home and office after he voluntarily returned some documents to the National Archives.

      Berger and his lawyer told reporters he knowingly removed handwritten notes he made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his clothing. They said he also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

      Patterson said Berger’s response to the “The Path to 9/11” is similar to his response to the accounts in “Dereliction of Duty,” insisting the incidents attributed to him “never occurred.”

      Patterson said his book put him under intense pressure from Clinton officials – an aide even spoke of taking away his military retirement benefits – but when the title reached No. 1 on, “they shut up.”

      There are others who can corroborate his accounts, Patterson insisted, but they are still in military service and therefore legally bound not to come forward and make statements.

      Three of the four other military aides who rotated being at the president’s side were additional sources for his book, Patterson affirmed.

      If ABC ends up pulling “The Path to 9/11,” it won’t be the first time Democrats have succeeded in pressuring a network not to air a politically charged film during a major election season.

      During the 2004 presidential campaign, as WND reported, the Sinclair Broadcast Group canceled a planned showing of “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal.” The documentary featured former POWs who told how John Kerry’s 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was used as propaganda against them by their North Vietnamese captors, allegedly intensifying their persecution and prolonging the war and imprisonment.


      If this is true, and Patterson is correct, then it really is not a wonder that Clinton is screaming bloody murder and Democrats are visibly without any cover, trying to force ABC from showing this.

      Not only is this a deadly blow to Clinton’s “Legacy” (and you know how much he wanted that), but it also shows that Democrats WHILE IN POWER, just how badly they were weak on protecting this country – even when confronted with opportunities to deal with the situation.

      I think I am of similiar mind to many that have spoke about this, that it should be left to the PUBLIC to view and make that determination. This isn’t a doumentary, like Moore tried to portrait his as.

      And even to take the devils advocate and say that even if it isn’t completely correct, who says it has to be? Who says United 93 was completely correct? or any of the other multitude of movies I am sure that will be made about this terrible event in the years to come?

      Let the public decide.