Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The fool is you. The kids table is in the other section. Go away." LOL.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Sandy Berger was seen running out of the ABC building with film hanging out of his pants." Anybody else want to take bets that there's no way Beau is clever enough to come up with this line on his own? Disneyland passports maybe? I'm dying to know the real source - Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck maybe, Rush even? Props to the person who finds where Beau stole this quote from.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 zeroing in> Jay Neo ( who it sounded like to me) <a href="http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/comments/lenos_liners/" target="_blank">http://www.barking-moonbat.com /index.php/weblog/comments/lenos_liners/</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn The story is dramatic enough. Why put in stuff that is simply untrue? Really sad, and Disney should be ashamed of itself for behaving in this manner with regards to a national tragedy. This is the same level of disgust that I hold for Oliver Stone and his JFK movie. These people have no morals. None whatsoever.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<<And I'm saying that this -- whatever it is -- is wrong, too.>> I agree that movies and news should be accurate. << Reports say there is a scene that shows 'bin laden in our sites' and Sandy Berger calling off an easy hit. It's not based on any fact. It's made up. It never happened. It's irresponsible of ABC/Disney to run something like this.>> Actually it did happen. I was listening to a radio program last night with retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson. According to Patterson it was President Clinton NOT Berger who hung up the phone on the CIA. <a href="http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51898" target="_blank">http://wnd.com/news/article.as p?ARTICLE_ID=51898</a> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAY OF INFAMY 2001 Clinton aide says 9/11 film 'correct' Producer consulted with military attaché who saw aborted attacks on bin Laden -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: September 8, 2006 3:33 p.m. Eastern By Art Moore © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com Buzz Patterson with President Clinton 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. The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11. 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. Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson (FrontPageMagazine.com) 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." Harvey Keitel plays counter-terrorism expert John O'Neill in ABC's "The Path to 9/11 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 Amazon.com, "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.>>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Anybody else want to take bets that there's no way Beau is clever enough to come up with this line on his own?" beau ripping off other people's thoughts and presenting them as his own????? Say it ain't so!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Darkbeer, nice job. I heard Rush talking about the CIA agent named Mike who says this all happened. Nice to read the transcript.> Except that Rush, as so often before, changes the context to try to make his "point" and ends up being intentionally misleading. What Berger said was "The movie shows me calling off the hit on bin Laden. That never happened." Rush then says that the hit was called off, so "it happened." But even his source says it's unclear who called it off (though I've seen several sources claiming it was probably Tenet). Nobody AFAIK is claiming that a hit wasn't called off in general - although even there, apparently the movie makes it "more dramatic" by claiming bin Laden was pretty much in the crosshairs of someone's gun at a particular time, which many people say was never the case. So Berger was right - HIM calling off the hit never happened. But Rush fools with the context... and fools take his word as gospel.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Let's review what happened: Several people have claimed that there were several plans to take out bin Laden that were called off by the Clinton administration, some of which were fairly well advanced. Several people have claimed that at least one of these plans were called off by Sandy Berger. The producers of the 9/11 show said they conflated these events into one event. So is the movie completely accurate? Of course not. But does the scene accurate summarize a series of events in a dramatic way? Yes, and that's all one should expect of a docudrama.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy There is no way to know if Sandy Berger called the attack off or if it was Bubba or someone else. Again, I find it hillarious that people would listen to anything a proven liar like Berger of Clinton says. Yet wwe have people insisting they are telling the truth. How the hell do you know? We do have many CIA people who were there and they say they had Bin Laden in their sites but the Clinton White house called the attacks off. Why do you think these proven liars are suddenly telling the truth when they are finally being exposed for letting Bin Laden off the hook? None of this matters though. What matters is that the libs are trying to stop free speech once again when they don't like what is being said. Just another reason they suck.
Originally Posted By woody >>Rush then says that the hit was called off, so "it happened." But even his source says it's unclear who called it off (though I've seen several sources claiming it was probably Tenet).<< So how could Rush have lied when he only stated the obvious that someone in the Clinton Administration has called it off. >>So Berger was right - HIM calling off the hit never happened. But Rush fools with the context... and fools take his word as gospel.<< That's taking Berger's word a bit too far. Berger had a role and he advised against it. Maybe he even called it off. <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/24/123822.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/archive s/ic/2004/7/24/123822.shtml</a> "Documents uncovered by the 9/11 Commission suggest that disgraced former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger vetoed several attacks planned in 1999 and 2000 on Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan hideouts." "But while Berger may have advised against attacking bin Laden, remarks by President Clinton two years ago indicate that he personally quashed the plans."
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And of course, this is the Sandy Berger that destroyed documents (and might have replaced some) that could have shown what actually happened in regards to calling off the hit on Bin Laden.....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Rush then says that the hit was called off, so "it happened." But even his source says it's unclear who called it off (though I've seen several sources claiming it was probably Tenet).<< <So how could Rush have lied when he only stated the obvious that someone in the Clinton Administration has called it off.> He didn't lie. He was intentionally misleading. The quote that's going around most is Berger's "that never happened." Rush then says, "well, it happened." The "it" is what is in question. Berger is saying "it," as in him personally calling it off the way it is shown in the movie, never happened. Rush is semi-cleverly (but not cleverly enough for people who know his tricks) changing the "it" to something more generic. >>So Berger was right - HIM calling off the hit never happened. But Rush fools with the context... and fools take his word as gospel.<< <That's taking Berger's word a bit too far. Berger had a role and he advised against it. Maybe he even called it off. <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archive" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/archive</a> s/ic/2004/7/24/123822.shtml> Newsmax?? Can we have an agreement - you don't post from something as unreliable as newsmax, and I won't post from the Daily Kos. Oh wait, I never do post from the Daily Kos.
Originally Posted By woody Newsmax isn't the DailyKos. Not even comparable. Newsmax is comparable to AP, Reuters, Washington Post, etc. They present the news with the same bias (their bias) as the others in the "mainstream media." Sometime I may post something from the Washington Post. Should I ignore it? No. Neither should I ignore Newsmax.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Berger is saying "it," as in him personally calling it off the way it is shown in the movie, never happened. Rush is semi-cleverly (but not cleverly enough for people who know his tricks) changing the "it" to something more generic.> If you read the transcript Darkbeer linked to, you'll discover that the "it" that Rush is referring to is not the "it" that Sandy Berger is. There may be an intent to mislead here, but it's not on Rush's part. And why I don't believe Newsmax is the most trustworthy site, it's far above the DailyKos. The information in Woody's Newsmax link has been confirmed by more "reputable" sources, and I linked to them earlier in the thread.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Rush was reporting what a CIA agent is saying. A guy who was actully involved in the operation that was called off. How is Rush misleading again? <<And of course, this is the Sandy Berger that destroyed documents (and might have replaced some) that could have shown what actually happened in regards to calling off the hit on Bin Laden.....>> I don't like to be like the libs and puch conspiracies, but this is worth looking at. Sandy Berger gets busted stealing documents from the national archives right before the 9-11 hearings. This is a fact. What was he trying to hide? I don't see the libs even asking this. Imagine if Condi Rice got busted doing this. Would the libs just be sitting quiet? I think documents that recorded Berger or Clinton calling off strikes against Bin Laden would be very negative for them. Look at how the democrats are trying to block this movie, they will do ANYTHING to stop the truth from coming out. We all know they are weak on national defense and are terrorist friendly. No wonder they hate being exposed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Newsmax isn't the DailyKos. Not even comparable. Newsmax is comparable to AP, Reuters, Washington Post, etc. They present the news with the same bias (their bias) as the others in the "mainstream media." Sometime I may post something from the Washington Post. Should I ignore it? No. Neither should I ignore Newsmax.> Thanks for the best laugh I've had today.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If you read the transcript Darkbeer linked to, you'll discover that the "it" that Rush is referring to is not the "it" that Sandy Berger is. There may be an intent to mislead here, but it's not on Rush's part.> I did read the link, and that's actually exactly my point. Rush is trying to conflate the much more generic "it" with the "it" that Berger was objecting to, to make it seem like the "it" Berger was objecting to did in fact happen. <And why I don't believe Newsmax is the most trustworthy site, it's far above the DailyKos. The information in Woody's Newsmax link has been confirmed by more "reputable" sources, and I linked to them earlier in the thread.> Newsmax and the Daily Kos are roughly comparable, though I don't expect you to see it. The Daily Kos also often prints things that are true, and confirmed by others. So does the National Enquirer sometimes, along with the alien abductions. That doesn't mean any of them should be trusted until they are verified elsewhere, and I never do.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Rush is trying to conflate the much more generic "it" with the "it" that Berger was objecting to, to make it seem like the "it" Berger was objecting to did in fact happen.> No, he's not. <Newsmax and the Daily Kos are roughly comparable, though I don't expect you to see it.> I rarely see things that aren't there.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy The Daily Kos is the mainstream liberal ground zero. It is where the libs get together to undermine the country....errrr.. talk about the issues.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It is where the libs get together to undermine the country....errrr.. talk about the issues.>> We don't want to undermine the country. We just want to have something done about you.
