Friday, September 08, 2006

CENSORSHIP !

Democrats the purveyors of free speech rights and movies for informing the general population a al Fahrenheit 9/11, have absolutely gone crazed as a movie drama depicting the events leading up to the attacks on America is prepared to air on ABC.


The admitted liar in Chief Bill Clinton and the convicted liar and thief Sandy Berger have no creditability and can not tell us what is or was actual in the events leading up to 9/11.

Bill Clinton is an admitted lair and Sandy Berger was caught red handed stealing documents pertaining to 9/11 from the U.S. National Archives. Berger destroyed some of those documents.

These same people along with Senator Harry Reid, who lied about Democrat involvement with Jack Abramoff saying that no Democrat received one cent from Abramoff when Reid himself received hundreds of thousands of dollars connected with Abramoff, now want you to believe them?

Clinton and Reid are liars and Berger is a thief and a lair and if ABC changes one line in this movie to comply with the Democrats ABC will further damage its already weak reputation and confirm suspicions that ABC is a Liberal biased news organization.


ABC should resist Democratic calls for censorship
and show the unredacted version of the movie which is based on the 9/11 commission report a report that reveals the very same things that the original film would show anyway.

2 comments:

  1. RBenton1:15 PM

    Hi, Al.

    I think you better re-read the 9/11 commisions report, you might have missed something important.

    ACCORDING TO TEXT OF LETTER FROM National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States


    -- The drama leads viewers to believe that National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told the CIA that he would not authorize them to take a shot at bin Laden. This is complete fiction and the event portrayed never happened. First of all, the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear that CIA Director George Tenet had been directed by President Clinton and Mr. Berger to get bin Laden (p. 199 & 508-509). Secondly, Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001, has said, on more than one occasion, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

    In addition, ABC's own counter-terrorism consultant, Richard Clarke, has said that contrary to the movie:

    1) No US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden;

    2) The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see bin Laden; and

    3) CIA Director Tenet said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single-sourced and there would be no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

    As Clarke and others will corroborate, President Clinton did in fact approve of a standing plan to use Afghans who worked for the CIA to capture bin Laden. The CIA's Afghan operatives were never able to carry out the operation and the CIA recommended against inserting Agency personnel to do it. The Department of Defense, when asked by President Clinton to examine the use of US troops to capture bin Laden, also recommended against that option.

    -- The drama claims that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright refused to sanction a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis and notified them over the objections of the military. Again, this is false.

    -- Using newsreel footage of President Clinton, the drama insinuates that President Clinton was too pre-occupied with the impeachment and the Lewinsky matter to be engaged in pursuing bin Laden. This allegation is absurd and was directly refuted by ABC News consultant Richard Clarke in his book, Against All Enemies: "Clinton made clear that we were to give him our best national security advice without regard to his personal problems. 'Do you recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice or personal advice about the timing. That's my problem. Let me worry about that.' If we thought this was the best time to hit the Afghan camps, he would order it and take the heat."

    While these are three examples that we are aware of that are utterly baseless, they are clearly indicative of other errors in the substance and bent of the film. Indeed, the overall tone in the advertisements we've seen for this drama suggest that President Clinton was inattentive to the threat of terrorism or insufficiently intent upon eliminating the threat from bin Laden. Note that the 9/11 Commission Report says:

    -- We believe that both President Clinton and President Bush were genuinely concerned about the danger posed by al Qaeda." (p. 349)

    -- "By May 1998 … clearly, President Clinton's concern about terrorism had steadily risen." (p. 102)

    -- "President Clinton was deeply concerned about bin Laden. He and his national security advisor, Samuel 'Sandy' Berger, ensured they had a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on bin Laden's reported location." (p. 175)

    -- "President Clinton spoke of terrorism in numerous public statements. In his August 5, 1996, remarks at George Washington University, he called terrorism 'the enemy of our generation.'" (p. 500)

    We challenge anyone to read the 9/11 Commission Report and find any basis for the false allegations noted above or the tenor of the drama, which suggests that the Clinton Administration was inattentive to the threat of a terrorist strike.

    Frankly, the bias of the ABC drama is not surprising given the background and political leanings of its writer/producer, Mr. Nowrasteh, which have been well-documented on numerous conservative blogs and talk shows in his promotion of this film. Mr. Nowrasteh's bias can be seen in an interview he gave to David Horowitz's conservative magazine Frontpage, during which he said:

    "The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response – or lack of response – to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing."

    But as Sandy Berger told the 9/11 Commission: "[T]o go to war, a president needs to be able to say that his senior intelligence and law enforcement officers have concluded who is responsible." And as the 9/11 Commission report repeatedly acknowledges, the US did not have clear evidence of bin Laden's connection to the attack on the USS Cole before the end of the Clinton Administration (p. 192, 193, 195 & executive summary).

    http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/07/full_text_of_letter_from_bill_clinton_lawyer_to_abc_obtained

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank benton,
    But your post is purely spectulative until we actually see the movie we can't say that the movie is unfair to Mr. Berger.

    Remember Mr. Berger is a convicted theft and liar who stole documents from the National Archives.

    We'll see what the movie actual says Sunday night. Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete