ABC's the path to 9-11 is full of lies and mistruths

[JSAautomotive]

And the Republitards thought they were going to get away with their lies again..... lol!!

Top Bush Counterterrorism Official: ABC’s Path to 9/11 Is ‘Shameful,’ ‘Straight Out of Disney and Fantasyland’

Last night on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, Roger Cressey
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ger_W._Cressey

— a top counterterrorism official to Bush II and Clinton — blasted ABC’s docudrama “The Path to 9/11.” Cressy said “it’s amazing…how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong” and “then they got the big stuff wrong.” He added that a scene where the Clinton administration passes on a surefire opportunity to take out bin Laden is “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.” Watch it:

Write ABC and tell them to tell the truth about 9/11.http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc

Digg it!http://digg.com/political_opinion/To...Shameful_Video

Full transcript:

SCARBOROUGH: Roger, let me begin with you. There are points of this docudrama that are more drama than fact. But talk about Bill Clinton and the central premise by ABC that he should have done more to get Bin Laden.

CRESSY: Joe, it’s amazing, based on what I’ve seen so far is how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructing Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks. Then they got the big stuff wrong, this fantasy about how we had a CIA officer and the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud looking at Bin Laden and they breathlessly call the White House to say we need to take him out and the White House said no. I mean it’s sheer fantasy. So, if they want to critique the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, based on fact, I think that’s fine. But what ABC has done here is something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.

SCARBOROUGH: But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?

CRESSY: Actually, Joe, that had nothing to do with it. If you read the 9/11 Commission report, it makes it very clear. In most of those cases, George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, said because there was single source intelligence it was his recommendation to the President not to take the shot. There was never a case where we had a clear shot at Bin Laden and the decision to take it wasn’t made.

© 2005-2006 Center for American Progress Action Fund

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/...al-blasts-abc/

[JSAautomotive]

I'll believe Richard Clarke over your 9-11 Right wing B.S. artists film anyday.

Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama
On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a “docudrama” called Path to 9/11, billed by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,” reviews the action:

So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”

Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=952272&page=1

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199 http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “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.”
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030...0026-8355r.htm

Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.

© 2005-2006 Center for American Progress Action Fund

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/

[UNGN]

are you sure it isn't "fake, but accurate"?

[Red Regal T]

Originally Posted by UNGN

are you sure it isn't "fake, but accurate"?

Those, finally EXPOSED FOR THEIR MALINGERING, will be whining hysterically all this week.

[GrnNatlFan]

[quote=JSAautomotive]And the Republitards thought they were going to get away with their lies again..... lol!!

.....from someone who thinks Fahrenheit 9/11 is a great docudrama full of truths, time to take your medicine! Your BOY was and is dirty. Clinton is the cause of 9/11!

[Red Regal T]

Why Does the Left Hate "The Path to 9/11"


On Sunday and Monday nights at 8 PM, ABC will air a five hour mini-series, "The Path to 9/11." I have watched it, and it is a riveting and in some respects horrifying recreation of the events from the hours before the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 through the awful events of 9/11. Rarely does television reach this level of drama, and director David Cunningham and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh deserve great praise from left, right and center for a masterful retelling of the crucial events leading up to the devastation of five years ago.

A five hour show that must condense eight years by necessity will not be complete, but it is very accurate. As a very accurate docudrama, "The Path to 9/11" has drawn the deep anger of the Clinton political machine. Representatives of that era have been demanding at a minimum edits and some outright cancellation of the program. Monica Lewinsky makes an appearance, you see, as does Bill Clinton's videotaped testimony about his perjury. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is portrayed as indecisive, Madeleine Albright as misdirected, George Tenet as sputtering. The film does not spare the Bush Administration its shots either, but for the left in the US the most damning thing possible is a recounting of the deep slumber concerning al Qaeda that overcame not just President Clinton but all parts of the national security apparatus throughout the '90s. The film does not damn those in charge during those years. It does however deliver a indictment of criminal negligence from which there is simply no escape.

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton walks off the stage following a panel discussion at the Sixteenth International AIDS conference in Toronto August 15, 2006. REUTERS/J.P. Moczulski (CANADA) By attempting a programming coup against the series, the Clinton forces have brought enormous attention to the film, and for that I thank them. The program is not primarily about the Clinton stewardship --or lack thereof-- of the national security. It is not even secondarily about that.

Rather the mini-series is the first attempt --very successful-- to convey to American television viewers what we are up against: The fanaticism, the maniacal evil, the energy and the genius for mayhem of the enemy.

In the self-serving complaints about this scene or that take delivered by Richard Ben-Veniste and other proxies are replayed again the deadly narcissisms of the'90s. The program's great faults are --they say-- in the inaccurate portrayal of Bill Clinton and his furrowed brow and continual efforts to track down bin Laden.

It is all about them, you see. Just as it was in the '90s. To hell with O'Neill or the victims of 9/11, and forget about the worldwide menace that continues to nurse its hatred, though now from caves and not compounds.

Not a word from these critics about the program's greatest strength, which is in the accurate rendering of the enemy, and the warning it might give about the need for continual vigilance.

Critics of the program want to argue that a five hour program has collapsed eight years too brusquely. There is, by the way, zero mention in the fve hours of the allegations that Clinton let bin Laden slip through his fingers when the terror chief was offered up by Sudan. There is no Atta meeting in Prague, no suggestion of a Saddam history of terror ties unrelated to 9/11 --in short, there is no reaching by the writer/producers/director. It is an objective show, and not one that will cheer the right. But any show that does not praise Clinton or hopelessly conflate the eight years of the Clinton tenure with the eight months of the pre-9/11 Bush Administration is to be condemned.

"The Path to 9/11" is a faithful and compelling recreation within the limits of the craft of the fatal nonchalance of the '90s, combined with a salute to the hard-working men and women who struggled against the bureaucratic insanities of that era, represented chiefly in the person of FBI Agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a supporting cast of brave and never-discouraged lower level Bureau and CIA operatives who understood the risks. In trying to deep-six the series, the Clinton forces are trying to silence their story.

The Clinton operatives are also bringing a useful attention to the program and especially any last minute edits ABC might make. The network risks outrage from center and right if it airbrushes the narrative, and even from those in Hollywood who stand by the idea that a good faith piece of work should be unmolested by the PC police.

No matter your opinions of Presidents Clinton and Bush, be sure to watch (or set your TiVo) to ABC Sunday night at 8. You be the judge. Hopefully ABC will give you that chance.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/H...hy_does_the_le ft_hate_the_path_to_911

[Clark Porter]

How can any of you comment on something you have not seen?

[STAGE 2]

Originally Posted by Clark Porter

How can any of you comment on something you have not seen?

Why don't you ask that to Clinton, Berger and company.

[Red Regal T]

Originally Posted by Clark Porter

How can any of you comment on something you have not seen?

Well, it appears we may not see it at all. It seems the DIMocrats are incredibly fearful that the truth will be exposed. So much so that Congressional DIMwits have actually sent a letter to ABC that contained a veiled threat against them if they don't radically change, to their satisfaction, or pull the show.

Democrats sent the letter to Robert Iger, the President and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, the owner of ABC. That letter contained this interesting paragraph:

"The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airways in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events."

Now what is this paragraph really saying? Can you read between the lines? Well, I know you can't, Clark.

[GN owner]

This 5 hour TV miniseries may be one of the best treatments of the development of terrorism and the US response (or lack thereof) to it.

Not a lot of advance press. (Wonder why?)

Per Rush Limbaugh and the local news, Bill Clinton called the director and asked him to consider "recutting" (aka eliminating) portions of the show.

Showing Sunday 10 September, 3 hours, and Monday 11 September 2 hours.

Subject: ABC's "9/11"

Long, but informative.

Based on this review, it seems to me that America, and the world, needs to see this mini-series, to be shown September 10 and 11. It exposes the weakness of the Democrat Clinton administration when faced with important choices, like "do we take bin Laden, now that we are physically this close to him, or are we afraid of the political ramifications if there are civilian casualties?" The film shows how Clinton's strident political correctness, his fear of what might appear in the press, caused him to choose to let bin Laden go.

This mini-series is likely to help demonstrate how a Democrat-run American government is much more likely to get us bombed by al Qaeda, because of its unwillingness to get tough in the face of this very clear danger to our nation. With elections coming up, I think all of America needs to see this.

ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'

A review by Govindini Murty

Here is Murty's review:


I recently attended an advance screening of ABC's outstanding, epic miniseries "The Path to 9/11" (airing this September 10-11), and I came away enormously impressed. Writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh ("Into the West"), director David Cunningham ("To End All Wars"), and the whole production team have done a magnificent job in presenting the complex events leading up to 9/11 with accuracy, fairness, and artistry.

The writing, acting, directing, editing, cinematography, and overall story-telling are first-rate. "The Path to 9/11" is fast-paced and thoroughly gripping the entire way. The five-hour miniseries (aired over two nights) is based on the 9/11 Commission report, and also on ABC News correspondent John Miller's book, "The Cell." ABC is going to air the first three hours on Sunday, September 10, and the final two hours (which culminate in a shattering depiction of 9/11) on Monday, September 11.

Let me start by saying that "The Path to 9/11" is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible.

This is the first Hollywood production I've seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the

CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden's house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000. The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility and incompetence.

The miniseries also has a scene in which the CIA has crucial information identifying some of the 9/11 hijackers in advance of 9/11, but refuses to share the information with the FBI because of the "wall" put up by certain Democrat officials to prevent information sharing between government agencies. The CIA is depicted as sitting in a meeting with the FBI (with John O'Neil present), and showing the FBI surveillance photos of Terrorism suspects - some of whom will later turn out to be the 9/11 hijackers. The CIA asks the FBI for help in identifying the men in the photos, but refuses to give the FBI any of the information they have on who the men are. John O'Neil protests that it's impossible for the FBI to help the CIA identify the men if they won't provide any information whatsoever on them. When O'Neil tells the FBI to keep the photos so they can at least work on them, the CIA becomes hostile to O'Neil and takes the photos back. Tragically, John O'Neil himself will later die in the 9/11 attacks, in part because agencies like the CIA refused to share crucial information like this. Scenes like these really challenge the prevailing liberal media and Hollywood mindset by showing that the Patriot Act's information-sharing and surveillance provisions are crucial to the safety of this country, and that political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiency are Islamic terrorism's greatest friend.

The acting is also excellent in "The Path to 9/11." Harvey Keitel is strong, sympathetic, and quirky as FBI agent John O'Neil, and Donnie Wahlberg is also sympathetic and believable as CIA agent "Kirk." The standouts though are the wonderful South Asian and Middle Eastern actors who play both the heroes who help the U.S. and the terrorists out to destroy it. The actor playing Ishtiak, the Pakistani informant who helps the CIA capture Ramzi Youssef, is terrific. Played by newcomer Prassana Puwanarajah, Ishtiak is a shy, unassuming figure who makes a very unexpected -- but very sympathetic -- hero. The Ishtiak character tells the CIA that he's helping them because he is a scholar, and morally and philosophically he does not believe in the destruction of innocent life. Ishtiak risks his life, and the life of his young wife and baby, to help the U.S. capture Ramzi Youssef and thwart his terrorist plans. The Ishtiak sequence is one of the most moving segments of the miniseries. The producers told me that the actor playing Ishtiak is actually a doctor living in London, who does theater on the side.

The actor playing Ahmed Shah Massoud (the heroic leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and one of America's strongest allies in that area) is also an inspired piece of casting. Actor Mido Hamada looks remarkably like Massoud, and is highly effective at playing the noble and charismatic leader. The producers informed me that Hamada, who is quite handsome, has been the particular favorite of ladies at the advance screenings. The Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban are also very well cast. The actors playing Ramzi Youssef (Nabil Elouhabi of "Eastenders"), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Michael Benyaer of "24"), and Mohammed Atta (Martin Brody) do a fine job portraying characters who are three dimensional and non-stereotypical in their villainy.

"The Path to 9/11" starts with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and covers the international terrorist conspiracy that unfolded over the next eight years and led to 9/11. The miniseries is shocking for Taking a
pro-American, anti-terrorist approach that is all too lacking in Hollywood's depictions of the War on Terror ("Syriana," "Fahrenheit 9/11," and "V for Vendetta" anyone?). At a time when the resolve of this Country in fighting the War on Terror seems to be flagging, "The Path to 9/11" - much more than Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" - will remind the nation why we're in this war. "The Path to 9/11" provides the context and the history that "World Trade Center" misses. FrontPage Magazine ran an excellent interview recently with writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh (who spoke at the 2005 Liberty Film Festival). This quote from Cyrus will make clear why I'm so excited about this miniseries:

"Nowrasteh: This miniseries is not just about the tragedy and events of 9/11, it dramatizes "how we got there" going back 8 years to the first attack on the WTC and dealing with the Al Qaeda strikes against U.S. embassies and forces in the 90s, the political lead-up, the hatching of the terrorist plots, etc. We see the heroes on the ground, like FBI agent John O'Neill and others, who after the O93 attack felt sure that the terrorists would strike the WTC again. It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks < but lacked the will to do so. We also reveal the day-by-day lead-up of clues and opportunities in 2001 right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson. I think people will be engaged and enlightened.

FP: When you refer to the failed effort to stop Bin Laden in the 1990s, this was obviously the time of Bill Clinton. How much do you think his administration made us vulnerable to 9/11?

Nowrasteh: 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 on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing."

Fortunately, Nowrasteh and the producers of this miniseries have gone out on a limb to honestly and fairly depict how Clinton-era inaction, political correctness, and bureaucratic inefficiency allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to metastasize. Let me say here though that "The Path to 9/11" is not a partisan miniseries or a "conservative" miniseries. It simply presents the facts in an honest and straightforward manner (the producers have backed up every detail of the miniseries with copious amounts of research and documentation), and the facts are that for seven years, from 1993 to 2000, the Clinton administration bungled the handling of the world-wide terrorist threat. The miniseries is equally honest in depicting the Bush administration. It shows a few points where administration officials, following in the tradition of the Clinton years, do not follow certain clues about the terrorist plot as zealously as they should have. Nonetheless, "The Path to 9/11," by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster.

"The Path to 9/11" does a tremendous job in bringing to life the complex web of international characters and organizations that lay behind the events of that tragic day. ABC has created a miniseries that is truly epic in scope - a richly textured tapestry that weaves together a fascinating array of people, places, organizations and events both here in America and around the world. I was impressed by how vivid every character was, however briefly he or she may have been on the screen - and how quickly, clearly, and economically Nowrasteh and Cunningham depicted complex events. I absolutely loved the on-location work they did, and the great character actors of every nationality that they brought together. Cyrus Nowrasteh's background as an Iranian-American seems in particular to have given him a special insight into both the Middle-Eastern and American aspects of the story. Director David Cunningham, the son of a missionary, also brings an obvious love of foreign cultures and locales to his direction. The result is an engrossing, atmospheric tale of foreign intrigue. It was fascinating to see the crowded urban slums of Pakistan where the CIA captured Ramzi Youssef, the desert fortresses of the Taliban and Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Manila nightclubs where the 9/11 hijackers planned their attacks, the Tanzanian locales where the embassies were blown up, the meetings of the terrorists in Spain, and the various locations across America where the conspiracy comes together.

Let me wrap up by saying that what I truly loved about "The Path to 9/11" was the following: the honesty with which it told the story behind 9/11 with all its political ramifications; the epic scope and sweep of the story; the vivid and interesting characters of all nationalities; the great use of international locations; the terrific use of ethnic source music in tying the segments together and giving the miniseries a musical, Propulsive pace (often reminding me of the musical quality of such 1940s Warner Brothers classics as "Casablanca" and "The Sea Hawk"); and the outstanding cinematography and editing (the miniseries has a great documentary-realist style that comes from director David Cunningham's background as a documentarian). Cyrus Nowrasteh tells me that they had five cameras shooting at all times, which accounts for the great natural moments they caught between the actors, and the swift pace of the storytelling.

Overall, I thought "The Path to 9/11" was infinitely better than Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" (granted, Stone decided to tell a narrower story), and if this is properly marketed, ABC should have a huge hit on its hands. The problem is that I don't see ABC marketing it at all, and I'm concerned that they're dropping the ball on getting the word out about this show. They've reportedly spent more than $40 million producing "The Path to 9/11," and yet I see little advertising or promotion anywhere. Conservatives need to really step in here and spread the word via talk radio and the internet. Every American, and everyone alarmed by Islamic terrorism around the world should see this miniseries. "The Path to 9/11" should get every Emmy award and Golden Globe award out there – if Hollywood is willing to be fair and open-minded.

I'm highly encouraged by the ad that 84 Hollywood filmmakers and celebrities took out on August 17 in the Los Angeles Times denouncing Hamas and Hezbollah, and I'm thrilled by this ABC miniseries. I hope this heralds
a new, saner approach on the part of Hollywood toward the world-wide problem of Islamo-fascism -- one that recognizes Islamic terrorism for what it is, and is willing to denounce it so that better things, such as
democracy, civil rights, women's rights, and free speech -- can take its place. These are issues that all conservatives and liberals can get behind, and I'm glad to see that the entertainment industry is finally, at
least in these two instances, uniting for the greater good of this country and for the noble cause of democracy around the world.

[JSAautomotive]

[quote=GrnNatlFan]

Originally Posted by JSAautomotive

And the Republitards thought they were going to get away with their lies again..... lol!!

.....from someone who thinks Fahrenheit 9/11 is a great docudrama full of truths, time to take your medicine! Your BOY was and is dirty. Clinton is the cause of 9/11!

Only someone whos ignorant to the facts would say such a thing. Please tell me what in Michael Moores film was in-accurate.

I'll be waiting like I have in the past to defend yourself.

[JSAautomotive]

Originally Posted by JSAautomotive

I'll believe Richard Clarke over your 9-11 Right wing B.S. artists film anyday.

Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama
On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a “docudrama” called Path to 9/11, billed by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,” reviews the action:

So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”

Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=952272&page=1

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199 http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “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.”
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030...0026-8355r.htm

Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.

© 2005-2006 Center for American Progress Action Fund

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/

Whatsa matter boys?? Can't dispute what Richard Clarke is saying?? You know him right?? He was THERE and you weren't

The Reicht Wing liars on are a warpath right now and are being handed their hineys as we speak right now in Congress with a stinging report on the ties between Saddam and 9-11. Talk about "bungling" something. Your boy Busch should have a perfume named after him called "dumbass". loL!!

[Red Regal T]

Originally Posted by JSAautomotive

The Reicht Wing liars on are a warpath right now and are being handed their hineys as we speak right now in Congress with a stinging report on the ties between Saddam and 9-11. Talk about "bungling" something. Your boy Busch should have a perfume named after him called "dumbass". loL!!

This story is a two year old rehash of the same thing the msm wrote and driveled about two years ago. This is not news. It's just recycled crap. No one in the Bush Administration, nor Bush himself, ever said that Sadaam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack. When you have nothing, you can only repeat drivel over and over, and that accurately describes the MSM....and you, by the way.

[JSAautomotive]

Originally Posted by Red Regal T

This story is a two year old rehash of the same thing the msm wrote and driveled about two years ago. This is not news. It's just recycled crap. No one in the Bush Administration, nor Bush himself, ever said